Stupidity From Buchanan...
Pat Buchanan--a man I dislike as much for his continued idiocy as well as his political ideas--wrote a column recently for World Net Daily. Below are links not only to that piece, but also to three very excellent bloggers that handed Buchanan his head. (Hat-Tip to Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit for bringing this fool to our attention.)
http://www.instapundit.com/
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchive.php3?a=499 (By the way, the pic on the site is hilarious.)
http://www.vodkapundit.com/ (A devastating piece by Stephen Green)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210
Now, I'm not going to fisk this fool completely; it's not worth it to me. And there's little I could add that these three great minds haven't already said. There's no need to parrot their thoughts because they speak for themselves. However, I will put my two cents worth in on a couple of paragraphs.
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.
The Yalta Conference, and what occurred there was reprehensible. Buchanan is right in the fact that FDR and Churchill did hand over Eastern Europe to Stalin. But to be fair, one must remember that there was no way we were going to attack an ally as valuable as Russia had been in World War II. FDR was dying, and the British Empire was too; neither nation was in a position to take on Stalin. Besides, our troops were still stationed in Germany and Japan stabilizing those nations, and dealing with "native insurgents" that weren't happy their side had been the losers. We lost many a soldier in Germany due to SS officers and soldiers in hiding attacking our forces. But the primary reason that neither should be compared to Chamberlain is this: They stood up to the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, and the fascist Italians whereas Chamberlain rolled over for Hitler. I guess Buchanan forgot Chamberlain's famous last words regarding "peace in our time". Hitler treated the agreement as ink on a page, and nothing more.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
Here's a what if that I doubt Buchanan has considered. Let's say no one did anything save fighting a holding action against Hitler, and he was contained. Stalin still rose to power in Russia. Hirohito, and later Tojo, in Japan managed to finish the conquering of Asia. Stalin butchered over 30 million of his own people. Hitler was working on the Final Solution, and had wiped out over 6 million jews, and killed approximately 9-10 million more "undesireables" like Christians and social agitators. Tojo would have escalated the total body county, in the name of imperialism, to astronomical numbers in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mongolia, and among the Pacific Islands. If these tyrants had been allowed to continue, the death toll would have been a lot larger. Yes it is regrettable that Eastern Europe ended up in the hands of Stalin, however when you add Hitler and Tojo to the mix--continuing to exist--Europe and Asia might have become virtual nightmares. And Buchanan would be wise to note that when it came to the Final Solution, the numbers projected by the Nazis present at the Wannsee conference showed they were prepared to exterminate 21 million Jews, and thank God they weren't able to accomplish that.
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.
Why destroy Hitler? That's one of the most idiotic questions I've ever read. Buchanan must have missed the 16+ million people murdered by Hitler in something called "the Holocaust". Yes, the German people voted Hitler in, but it was after Hitler had his people in place in the Reichstag. The propaganda machine executed by the national socialists in Germany was perfect, and the nation was primed for it. Hitler arose like a savior to the German people. At the time the German people were still smarting over World War I, and Hitler's speeches about rebuilding the nation inspired them. And something that Buchanan refuses to acknowledge is that many in Germany disliked Hitler. Once World War II was launched with Hitler's invasion of Poland, those same people were vindicated in their warnings.
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.
War was declared on Hitler because he broke his word. He invaded Poland. Hitlaer launched the war. Britain was beholden to protect Poland. If I swear to protect a friend, and someone punches him--using Buchanan's logic--I shouldn't respond. On the contrary, I'm going to do to that thug what the allies did to Germany and Japan. I'm going to kick his @$$.
Buchanan has what he believes is a valid argument. But he doesn't have one. We had no idea what Stalin was going to do. At Yalta, Stalin didn't announce to everyone there that he was going to murder 30+ million people. Had he done so, I doubt that the results of Yalta would have been the same.
What Stalin did, and what the allies agreed to, was a disaster; there is no debate about that. However, to look back on what happened, and question whether or not World War II was worth it, is not just foolish, it's unforgivable. This nation sent it's sons off to war to stop a madman in Europe, and to face an enemy that was so cowardly, they used a sneak attack on us. (Which I might add, history records show that Hitler warned Japan not to drag us into the war.) But Buchanan, in his innane, droning rant does little to set the record straight, and does more to simply slam the two great nations--Great Britain and the US--for their actions after the war.
I'm sure that if FDR and Churchill could have borrowed Buchanan's crystal ball, post-World War II Europe would have probably been different.
Publius II
Pat Buchanan--a man I dislike as much for his continued idiocy as well as his political ideas--wrote a column recently for World Net Daily. Below are links not only to that piece, but also to three very excellent bloggers that handed Buchanan his head. (Hat-Tip to Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit for bringing this fool to our attention.)
http://www.instapundit.com/
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchive.php3?a=499 (By the way, the pic on the site is hilarious.)
http://www.vodkapundit.com/ (A devastating piece by Stephen Green)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210
Now, I'm not going to fisk this fool completely; it's not worth it to me. And there's little I could add that these three great minds haven't already said. There's no need to parrot their thoughts because they speak for themselves. However, I will put my two cents worth in on a couple of paragraphs.
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.
The Yalta Conference, and what occurred there was reprehensible. Buchanan is right in the fact that FDR and Churchill did hand over Eastern Europe to Stalin. But to be fair, one must remember that there was no way we were going to attack an ally as valuable as Russia had been in World War II. FDR was dying, and the British Empire was too; neither nation was in a position to take on Stalin. Besides, our troops were still stationed in Germany and Japan stabilizing those nations, and dealing with "native insurgents" that weren't happy their side had been the losers. We lost many a soldier in Germany due to SS officers and soldiers in hiding attacking our forces. But the primary reason that neither should be compared to Chamberlain is this: They stood up to the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, and the fascist Italians whereas Chamberlain rolled over for Hitler. I guess Buchanan forgot Chamberlain's famous last words regarding "peace in our time". Hitler treated the agreement as ink on a page, and nothing more.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
Here's a what if that I doubt Buchanan has considered. Let's say no one did anything save fighting a holding action against Hitler, and he was contained. Stalin still rose to power in Russia. Hirohito, and later Tojo, in Japan managed to finish the conquering of Asia. Stalin butchered over 30 million of his own people. Hitler was working on the Final Solution, and had wiped out over 6 million jews, and killed approximately 9-10 million more "undesireables" like Christians and social agitators. Tojo would have escalated the total body county, in the name of imperialism, to astronomical numbers in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mongolia, and among the Pacific Islands. If these tyrants had been allowed to continue, the death toll would have been a lot larger. Yes it is regrettable that Eastern Europe ended up in the hands of Stalin, however when you add Hitler and Tojo to the mix--continuing to exist--Europe and Asia might have become virtual nightmares. And Buchanan would be wise to note that when it came to the Final Solution, the numbers projected by the Nazis present at the Wannsee conference showed they were prepared to exterminate 21 million Jews, and thank God they weren't able to accomplish that.
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.
Why destroy Hitler? That's one of the most idiotic questions I've ever read. Buchanan must have missed the 16+ million people murdered by Hitler in something called "the Holocaust". Yes, the German people voted Hitler in, but it was after Hitler had his people in place in the Reichstag. The propaganda machine executed by the national socialists in Germany was perfect, and the nation was primed for it. Hitler arose like a savior to the German people. At the time the German people were still smarting over World War I, and Hitler's speeches about rebuilding the nation inspired them. And something that Buchanan refuses to acknowledge is that many in Germany disliked Hitler. Once World War II was launched with Hitler's invasion of Poland, those same people were vindicated in their warnings.
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.
War was declared on Hitler because he broke his word. He invaded Poland. Hitlaer launched the war. Britain was beholden to protect Poland. If I swear to protect a friend, and someone punches him--using Buchanan's logic--I shouldn't respond. On the contrary, I'm going to do to that thug what the allies did to Germany and Japan. I'm going to kick his @$$.
Buchanan has what he believes is a valid argument. But he doesn't have one. We had no idea what Stalin was going to do. At Yalta, Stalin didn't announce to everyone there that he was going to murder 30+ million people. Had he done so, I doubt that the results of Yalta would have been the same.
What Stalin did, and what the allies agreed to, was a disaster; there is no debate about that. However, to look back on what happened, and question whether or not World War II was worth it, is not just foolish, it's unforgivable. This nation sent it's sons off to war to stop a madman in Europe, and to face an enemy that was so cowardly, they used a sneak attack on us. (Which I might add, history records show that Hitler warned Japan not to drag us into the war.) But Buchanan, in his innane, droning rant does little to set the record straight, and does more to simply slam the two great nations--Great Britain and the US--for their actions after the war.
I'm sure that if FDR and Churchill could have borrowed Buchanan's crystal ball, post-World War II Europe would have probably been different.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home