Reply With Quote
pretty much the unspoken argument here. Hitler pushed the envelope as far as he could.
Strawman. Japan was seeking terms of surrender through Swiss channels at the time we dropped the bombs. Only Truman's muleheaded insistence on unconditional surrender prevented it from happening. I don't buy that the invasion of the Japanese mainland was a foregone conclusion, and the official mortality estimates for US forces are not in line with the "millions" commonly cited.
pretty much the unspoken argument here. Hitler pushed the envelope as far as he could.
Yeah, Hitler had broken a lot of promises by the time he invaded Poland..
it's more nearly true to say that history itself supports the argument, but we are veering close to tautology here.
Nobody denies it. Not Pat Buchanan, not me. Will you guys cut it out with the strawmen?
I didn't say millions of our guys would be dead. I'd reckon some 200,000 Americans may have died (still a grotesque, horrible number, especially considering both of my grandfathers served). There'd be exponential amounts of Japanese civis dead, though, and at the hands of many of our soldiers.
We'll see how well it works out when we have to cut a deal with the Taliban.
Wars are avoided and concluded by diplomacy. It's not a dirty word, and it isn't equivalent to appeasement. You should know better, Dan. there's always a deal. It's only a dirty word when it doesn't work out. But that's no reason not to try, even with a Hitler.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-05-2009 at 01:36 AM.
...but Hitler wanted war, he spelled it out in Mein Kampf that he wanted a war of conquest in the East, a war for Lebensraum that would destroy Bolshevism and enslave what remained of the Slavic race to serve good ethnic Aryans.
So I've heard. Hitler's autobiography didn't make anything inevitable. He needed a lot of help. That was never a given.
Versailles, and the insane demonization of Germany during and after WWI, didn't help much.
Oh, he wanted a war with Russia. No doubt. Russia was his natural ideological enemy, occupier of the lands he coveted in the East and also a rapidly industrializing economy that was threatening to overtake Germany...
Sure. But worldwide domination was never feasible, and even in Europe, he was content to leave other countries in the hands of trusted toadies, rather than ruling them directly.
All Buchanan was saying, and I agree with it, is that the world domination meme is overblown. Hitler was mostly interested in places with ethnic Germans, or in territorial adjacencies thereto. Lebensraum and all that. Subduing the territorial US was never in the cards. All that is a lot of hooey.
Every-time anyone drew a line in the sand, Hitler crossed it..Poland was the last draw. Hitler was building up his forces and secret SS army, he had intelligence operatives in every country, and while he might have admired Britain, he also feared a two-front war preferring to deal with Russia first....
Your first attempt to show Buchanan defended Hitler failed.
Do you have any others Dan, or just more distractions?
Well, call it what you want but it seems to me that your defending Buchanan who is defending Hitler...
Except you never showed that Buchanan defended Hitler. You just assert that by fiat.
All he does is criticize England for the way they went to war, in a manner that follows Winston Churchill's own post war ruminations. This whole so-called controversy is bogus.
No, he defends him...Hitler proved to be a murderous zealot and Buchanan wants us to believe that Hitler was just driven by unfortunate cir stances...it's ridiculous...
...also, I'm betting that Churchill would not have considered the war such a waste if Britain would have lost....
Find support in the text for this conclusion, then maybe I'll start to take you seriously. I found nothing.Buchanan wants us to believe that Hitler was just driven by unfortunate cir stances
This is more fiat and circularity, Dan. Defend your dishonest and misleading banner. Please try to be textually specific. What particular words in the article support or defend Hitler?
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-07-2009 at 02:52 AM.
I would say you resort to fallacies and lame ad hominems because you're all out of arguments, but it's truer to say that you have put forth no argument at all yet. You just keep saying Buchanan defends Hitler, without any evidence whatever.
Buchanan's letter bears witness to itself...but me thinks your gonna have a hard time convincing people that Buchanan isn't inferring that Hitler 'wouldn't have been such as bad guy' if he was not dragged into WW2...
Show me where he does, if it's so plain. There must be something Buchanan says that supports this, if it's so self evident. Give us the quote. So far we only have threadbare assertions from you.Buchanan's letter bears witness to itself...but me thinks your gonna have a hard time convincing people that Buchanan isn't inferring that Hitler 'wouldn't have been such as bad guy' if he was not dragged into WW2...
If it bears witness to itself, give us the relevant testimony.
the fact he touches the idea with anything less than a ten foot pole indicates a lot.
In essence, it's only another brainless, off the rack reductio ad Hitlerum, a crass smear. Nothing more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions