* Login   * Register
It is currently Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:32 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:56 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:33 pm
Posts: 6282
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/09/01 ... -good-war/

Looking Back at “The Good War”
Patrick J. Buchanan
September 1st, 2011


In the early morning hours of Sept. 1, 1939, 72 years ago, the German army crossed the Polish frontier.

On Sept. 3, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, having received no reply to his ultimatum demanding a German withdrawal, declared that a state of war now existed between Great Britain and Germany.

The empire followed the mother country in. The second world war was on. It would last six years, carry off scores of millions and end with Germany in ruins, half of Europe under Josef Stalin’s rule and the British Empire on the way to collapse.

Though it may prove to be the mortal wound that brings about the death of the West, most today accept World War II as inevitable, indeed as “the good war.”

For it is said and believed that Adolf Hitler was not only the incarnation of evil but also out to conquer, first Poland and then Europe and then the world.

To stop such a monster, one must risk everything.

Which makes these two sentences in the final chapter of British historian Richard Overy’s new book, “1939: Countdown to War,” riveting:

Quote:
Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest. … (R)ecent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire … had to be improvised almost from scratch.


But if Hitler had no “plan or blueprint for world conquest,” this raises perhaps the great question of the 20th century.

What was Britain’s stake in a Polish-German territorial quarrel to justify a war from which the British nation and empire might never recover?

How the war came about is the subject of Overy’s book.

By August 1939, Hitler had come to believe that Polish intransigence over the city of Danzig meant Germany would have to resolve the issue by force. But he desperately did not want a war with Britain like the one in which he had fought from 1914-18.

To prevent a German-Polish clash from bringing on a European war, however, Hitler had to sever the British-Polish alliance formed the previous spring.

To split that alliance, Hitler negotiated his own pact with Stalin, a coup that meant any British declaration of war to save Poland would be an utterly futile gesture. But when the Hitler-Stalin pact was announced, spelling Poland’s doom, Britain publicly reaffirmed her commitment to Poland.

Hitler instantly called off an invasion set for Aug. 26.

In the last analysis, says Overy, British “honour,” Chamberlain’s honoring of his war guarantee to the Poles, caused Britain to go to war.

When and why was this commitment given?

On March 31, 1939, Chamberlain, humiliated by the collapse of his Munich agreement and Hitler’s occupation of Prague, handed, unsolicited, a war guarantee to a Poland then led by a junta of colonels.

To understand the rashness, the sheer irrationality of this decision, one must understand the issue involved and Britain’s situation in 1939.

First, the issue: The Polish-German quarrel was over a city, Danzig, most British leaders believed had been unjustly taken from Germany at the end of World War I and ought to be returned.

The German claim to Danzig was regarded as among the most just claims Germany had from what most agreed by then had been an unjust and vindictive Treaty of Versailles.
What did the people of Danzig themselves want? Writes Overy:

Quote:
In May 1933, shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, Danzig’s National Socialist Party won 38 out of the city’s 72 assembly seats and formed the city government. … By 1936 there was a virtual one-party system. … The strongly nationalist German population agitated in 1939 to come … back home to Germany.


In short, the Germans wanted their city back, and the Danzigers wanted to go home to Germany. And most British had no objection.

Yet Britain backed up Poland’s refusal even to negotiate, and when that led to war, Britain declared war on Poland’s behalf.

Why did Britain do it?

After all, the war guarantee was given in response to the destruction of Czechoslovakia, but the Polish colonels had themselves participated in that destruction and seized a slice of Czechoslovakia.

Second, despite the guarantee, Britain had no plans to come to Poland’s aid. Third, Britain lacked the means to stop Germany. When Hitler bombed Warsaw, British bombers dropped leaflets on Germany.

If Britain had no ability to save Poland and no plans to save Poland, why encourage the Poles to fight by offering what the British knew was a worthless war guarantee? Why declare a European and world war for a country Britain could not save and a cause, Danzig, in which Britain did not believe, in an Eastern Europe where Britain had no vital interest?

Said British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, “(We must) throw all we can into the scales on the side of law as opposed to lawlessness in Europe.”

And throw it all in they did. And what became of Poland?

At Tehran and Yalta, another prime minister, Winston Churchill, ceded Poland to Stalin’s empire, in whose captivity she remained for a half-century.

_________________
Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:34 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 7311
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Perfidious Albion. :shakinghead:

_________________
*yip*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:22 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:55 pm
Posts: 4943


Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens pretty much annihilate his arguments.

Buchanan assumes Hitler was some sort of rational actor who would stop if Europe just gave him everything he wanted.

Moreover. People tend to forget/not notice that Buchanan has a certain sympathy for Nixonian/old school catholic fascism and ultra-nationalism. I mean, the man still defends Nixon and Co. to this very day.

_________________
Oh, the humanity...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:44 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:33 pm
Posts: 6282
Quote:
Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens


...are two utterly bonkers neocons* of the "Everything is exactly like 1938" historical school.

Quote:
Buchanan assumes Hitler was some sort of rational actor who would stop if Europe just gave him everything he wanted.


Hitler definitely wanted a lot - but was it anything that Britain had to be concerned about, much less America? There's no reason to believe that Hitler really wanted war with Britain. And why would I assume that the same Nazi Germany that couldn't or wouldn't cross the 21 miles of the English Channel to invade Britain was willing or able to cross the 2100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean to invade America?

Quote:
I mean, the man still defends Nixon and Co. to this very day.


He's right to. When rationally considered in terms of his record (as opposed to being considered in terms of emotion or conspiracy theories), Nixon was one of the better Presidents of the century, and was hounded from office for a relative trifle.

(*I respect Hanson as an ancient historian, but don't trust his views on anything that happened after Haghia Sophia was built).

_________________
Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:00 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 7311
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
I don't agree with the British, French and Canadian decision to declare war on Germany for invading Poland. The US was right to stay out of the European theater until Germany declared war on them after Pearl Harbor. It's kind of hard to imagine you Yanks having a superior foreign policy to us Canadians considering present circumstances, but it truly was the case back in the day.

_________________
*yip*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:51 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:22 am
Posts: 457
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Makes for an interesting "What If" scenario if the British and French don't declare war on the Germans.

Chances are, Hitler would've still back-stabbed the Soviet Union. And it's certain the allies would've been indifferent or even secretly supportive of Hitler in that venture.

Would a fully concentrated European Axis War machine, unhindered by Allied Aerial bombing and advances be able to conquer a Soviet Union which was without foreign aid?

Does Hitler instead opt for the Madagascar plan on Jews instead of the 'final solution'?

And what of the Japanese in all this? Would the Japanese attack the Anglo-french colonies? Perhaps they only attack the Dutch East Indies because Britain and France are untouched by the Nazis on the home front? Or maybe they opt for an attack on the Soviet Union instead and make the Soviets fight on two fronts? Would they still attack Pearl Harbor?

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill

Every nation has the government it deserves


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:40 pm 
Offline
New Member

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:59 pm
Posts: 1
Profiling Hitler’s psyche and subjective motivations is a colossal waste of time. Any discussion of what Hitler was and why has to start with the fact that France, Britain, Germany and the US (not to mention The Vatican and Mussolini) all lost their shirts when the Tsar was deposed and Russia fell to the Bolsheviks. For example, Herbert Hoover was a geologist, a dual citizen of America and Britain, and had overseen 1 billion dollars of investment in the Nobel oil fields in Russia c. 1912- His career from the point where that investment was lost in 1917 is a prime example of the motivating forces behind WWII. He helped Germany re-arm and refinance at the behest of western industrialists so Germany could act as a spear point to the eventual invasion and reclamation of Russia. Hitler was a sock puppet, a showman- there was never a moment where he was anything but a servant to these industrial combines. What the German people, and the Slavs and Jews in the way of these aims suffered was of little consequence to these powers. For comparison, consider Saddam Hussien: A well documented asset of the CIA, he visited repression on his people like any other long serving tyrant- but once he began swapping his US petrol dollars for Euros (there’s that oil investment again) he became a pariah, was thoroughly demonized- actually compared to Hitler on a number of occasions to whip up a fearful frenzy in the naïve masses- and was eventually deposed. A study of Hitler’s evolution in the press from the most progressive and popular leader in Europe to a blood drinking ghoul is very instructive in understanding how malleable history (as opposed to facts) can be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:25 pm 
Offline
Nomarch

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 7:25 am
Posts: 1518
Hitler as Hoover's stooge? Well, that's a take on history I've never considered before. I'll have to think on that one... but it might help explain US non-intervention in German affairs until the outcome of Hitler's war with the Soviets was a foregone conclusion.

_________________
"A generation which ignores history has no past – and no future." — Robert A. Heinlein


Last edited by audadvnc on Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:44 pm 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:55 pm
Posts: 4943
Quote:
Hitler definitely wanted a lot - but was it anything that Britain had to be concerned about, much less America? There's no reason to believe that Hitler really wanted war with Britain. And why would I assume that the same Nazi Germany that couldn't or wouldn't cross the 21 miles of the English Channel to invade Britain was willing or able to cross the 2100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean to invade America?


Yeah. Fuck these people.
Image
Sorry, but this low blow is justified. If you are fine letting Hitler, who has a specific plan of mass murder of entire populations, conquer any part of Europe. Then you have left the rational discussion and would be better suited for a KKK chatroom. Sorry.


Quote:
He's right to. When rationally considered in terms of his record (as opposed to being considered in terms of emotion or conspiracy theories), Nixon was one of the better Presidents of the century, and was hounded from office for a relative trifle.


The president that intentionally derailed the Paris talks and let 20,000 servicemen and countless Asian peasants die for nothing? WHILE KNOWING SOUTH VIETNAM WOULD FALL ANYWAY? Yeah. Great. But he opened up China for our eventual enslavement economically to them. He was also with his buddy Kissinger downright fascist in support of vile right-wing coups and revolutions.

_________________
Oh, the humanity...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:01 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 7311
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
The Mad Zeppelineer wrote:
Yeah. Fuck these people.
Image
Sorry, but this low blow is justified. If you are fine letting Hitler, who has a specific plan of mass murder of entire populations, conquer any part of Europe. Then you have left the rational discussion and would be better suited for a KKK chatroom. Sorry.
No one is fine with letting Hitler mass murder entire populations and conquer parts of Europe but that doesn't mean you declare war on him because of it. If he declares war on your country first then that is different story and intervention is completely justified. Plus it has the added bonus of helping prevent a genocide that otherwise would not have their business to stop had they not been declared war on first.

Russia and America played the Poland situation correctly and were the big winners of WWII, the countries who declared war on Germany like France and Britain lost their empires soon after the end of the war and much of France was occupied by the Nazi's for a large portion of the war. Seems like history says that one kind of foreign policy for dealing with Nazi Germany was better than the other and it isn't the interventionist position that had better results during WWII. Yet even though interventionism failed in WWII apparently it is the new foreign policy du jour since then despite that failure. But people fall for the emotional rather than the logical argument if you sprinkle on the humanitarian pixie dust of a genocide.

Throwing history's foreign policy lessons out the window because a humanitarian tragedy in a foreign country tugs at your heart strings seems like a foolish idea to me, as it did to many of the founding fathers of your nation. I feel for victims of any genocide but that doesn't mean that the military should be used to defend a nation other than nation it serves. Military force should be used for self defense only and not for playing policeman of the world even if you feel their heart is in the right place by playing world policeman in the event of a foreign genocide.

_________________
*yip*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:29 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:11 pm
Posts: 5337
Location: "Appalacha" Apparently
You are aware that around twenty years earlier, Germany did just up and declare war on France and brutally savaged their countryside... correct?

I'll always feel like WWI was our grand fuck up, and I'll always disagree with Dan on WWII. However, even with the observers knowing that the "peace" of WWI probably caused WWII, I don't see how you rationally look at what Britain and France did and say, "They should have stayed out of it, fools, that's why they lost their empire." Yes, because keeping people willing to die to have their country back... where they live... is a triviality.

Hitler was a monster and everyone knew about it before the fact, the biggest problem being that we were monsters too for turning people away. We sent the ships back, the West told the Jews, "can't take you, sorry, no more room."

I agree with Dan that if we got into the war to stop the monstrosity, we failed in most respects. But if I were Britain, I would have declared war when they invaded Poland. Nergol IMO, is right that in one respect Monarchs at least knew you needed balance on the continent to maintain some sort of stability. Hitler wasn't in for that, he wanted to be Napoleon (without the epic failure). You could look at Napoleon and say, "He was mad with ambition, he should have been stopped, and he was when he attacked Russia." However, no one could have predicted that Hitler would not prevail against Russia, perhaps he would have if Britain and France had not intervened. I think it doubtful, but only because you can only do a policy of extermination for so long until the populace is wiped out or they decide suicide bombing is a better alternative to dying from a single bullet to the head or a gas chamber.

But there is no karmic law that countries fair better because they have war declared on them as opposed to declaring war. By that logic, Britain and France should never have had their imperial colonies to begin with.

_________________
“Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known.”

~Terry Pratchett, Going Postal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:53 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 7311
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Cid wrote:
But there is no karmic law that countries fair better because they have war declared on them as opposed to declaring war. By that logic, Britain and France should never have had their imperial colonies to begin with.
Exactly they should not have have had their imperial colonies they should have just been friends and traded with locals as well as letting them run their own governments. Imperial colonies hurt the European powers in the long run which is a reason why they have been overtaken by other powers. Defenders fair better than invaders on average and anyone who knows military history is aware of this edge, so one can make an argument that this "karmic" force does indeed exist. If America is overtaken by another power one big reason will be because their interventionist foreign policy has gotten them into troubles that allow a power less burden by foreign entanglements to surpass them.

Examine history if you don't believe me, the founding fathers did and advised your country against foreign entanglements because of that karmic force eventually making you pay for it even more in the long run even if you are able to get a short term gain out of using the military for non-self defense purposes. I can't think of any glaring historical examples that back the interventionist position as gaining better long term results even in genocidal situations. So if you know of some bring them up, but WWII is not an example of interventionist success that it is painted as.

If there is a historical example of a non-self defense based foreign military intervention preventing genocide with little to no blow back then I will admit that on some occasions preemptive humanitarian intervention can be justified. But I'm not seeing it dude.

_________________
*yip*


Last edited by StCapps on Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:22 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:11 pm
Posts: 5337
Location: "Appalacha" Apparently
StCapps wrote:
Cid wrote:
But there is no karmic law that countries fair better because they have war declared on them as opposed to declaring war. By that logic, Britain and France should never have had their imperial colonies to begin with.
Exactly they should not have have had their imperial colonies they should have traded with locals and let them run their own governments. Imperial colonies hurt the European powers in the long run which is why they have been overtaken by other powers, that karmic force does indeed exist. If America is overtaken by another power one big reason will be because their interventionist foreign policy has gotten them into troubles that allow a power less burden by foreign entanglements to surpass them.

Examine history if you don't believe me, the founding fathers did and advised your country against foreign entanglements because of that karmic force eventually making you pay for it even more in the long run even if you are able to get a short term gain out of using the military for non-self defense purposes. I can't think of any glaring historical examples that back the interventionist position as gaining better long term results even in genocidal situations. So if you know of some bring them up, but WWII is not an example of interventionist success that it is painted as.


Not even close. They advised us to stay out of European conflicts because Europe could fuck us up (at the time). It had jack all to do with colonies or invasion, and to prove my point, they were just fine after all of their "foreign entanglements" with the native American tribes.

If there's karmic justice, the natives here are long over due, but I'm not particularly worried about the second coming of Geronimo. Those colonies allowed Europe to dominate in an obscene way for over a hundred years, China's occupation of Tibet will not bite them in the ass, ever.

There is no law that the underdog has to win, or get their country back. Hell that only happens when the person occupying you has any moral center at all.

You can intervene all you want, as Dan said in one of his podcasts (I believe), what's killing us isn't even the intervening, it's the fact we have (as RP says) endless wars. This is not new, Sun Tsu knew this, the Romans knew this (they always fared better in separate brief wars as opposed to long drawn out ones). It's a problem of logistics and a return on the venture. Except for private contracts, we never get any return on the venture, so it does make intervention on most levels a bit counter intuitive, or at the very least non-profitable, but saying "interventionist wars will doom you" is smoking a special kind of crack that makes history seem far more righteous than it ever was. It's up there with the 4th year senior I met in a college course freshman year that said, "We wouldn't have war were it not for religion." Yeah, yeah we would.

Rome persisted how long? Ming China? The Ottoman Empire? Hell any of the early caliphates. The Norman Invasion? The European invasion of the Americas? Spanish Phillipines? The British Empire sans India (and even then!) I mean, are you honestly taking such a broad view of history that because any of these powers ended they saw no positive benefit from their conquering actions? Fucking mountains would be seen as failures as mountains given a long enough run on the geologic timeline.

_________________
“Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known.”

~Terry Pratchett, Going Postal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:31 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Posts: 7311
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Cid wrote:
Not even close. They advised us to stay out of European conflicts because Europe could fuck us up (at the time). It had jack all to do with colonies or invasion, and to prove my point, they were just fine after all of their "foreign entanglements" with the native American tribes.

If there's karmic justice, the natives here are long over due, but I'm not particularly worried about the second coming of Geronimo. Those colonies allowed Europe to dominate in an obscene way for over a hundred years, China's occupation of Tibet will not bite them in the ass, ever.

There is no law that the underdog has to win, or get their country back. Hell that only happens when the person occupying you has any moral center at all.
I never said that those defending themselves from invasion have to win the war or that they must ultimately beat the invaders sometime down the road in history. What I meant is that the US' foreign entanglements cause them more harm than good and if they keep it up it will create a drag on themselves that will help other countries to surpass them in the future. This is one reason why you should keep foreign entanglements to a minimum, hence for self defense only.

The conflicts with the Natives was a contradiction in early American non-intervention foreign policy that I do not share with them and I am more than happy to point out that hypocrisy.

_________________
*yip*


Last edited by StCapps on Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buchanan: The Good War?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:47 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:11 pm
Posts: 5337
Location: "Appalacha" Apparently
Ok, hypocrisy, yes, glad you realize it, BUT WHY DIDN'T IT DRAG US DOWN?!

Because they were over in no time, we took a ton of resources and populated the areas with immigrants beholden to our nation? Yes? Yes. I mean Machiavelli needs to be amended, you don't need to colonize a country with your own people, you just have to do it with people who want to be your own people.

Saying, "Oh, it will...eventually," is like what, some kind of Nostradamus vague bullshit? How? How? Is it going to indirectly cause something that could legitimately be considered ::gasp:: a completely separate fault? "The US gained power through manifest destiny and remaining unified through the Civil War so their success would eventually cause their downfall over a century later by blowing their wad on mellifluous terrorist forces,"?!

You know, we could be actually evil, and be soo much stronger and better off as a country. We could intervene where ever we'd like, so long as we didn't break the bank on it. We could assassinate, steal, commit genocide, depose leaders, do all kinds of nasty terrible things, and still come out smelling like a rose. We don't, because we never do those things intentionally. Some people will say we do do them intentionally, but we don't. There isn't a cohesive strategy, and there never has been.

The reason we would fail, has nothing to do with our actions, so much as we don't really want what we're doing. If we did, we could do it better, easily, and if anyone knew, they'd be labeled as crazy.

_________________
“Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known.”

~Terry Pratchett, Going Postal


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us