PJB: Coming Home at Last?

[EVAY]

Fact: The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I was onerous and required Germany to pay reparations to the combatants.

What Buchanan interprets from this is that the Treaty was 'out-of-bounds' in its vengefulness and essentially 'caused' World War II because no country could be expected to 'accept' such mistreatment.

This is hogwash. Although it was extremely vengeful, it was along the same lines that germany had imposed on France following the War of 1870. It was in the same vein that all European wars had been resolved. What was extremely difficult for Germany was that they were trying to rebuild from WWI at the same time the Great Depression was taking its toll on them, and it was easier to blame the allies from WWI and their treaty (to say nothing of the Jews, of course) for the economic woes besetting the nation than it was to face the rebuilding effort without relying on scapegoats. (see current U.S. and the immigration issue).

[EVAY]

Fact: WWII lost Europe for Capitalism and turned it over to Russia.

This fails to account for so many contributing factors to this it is phenomenal.
1. The democratic allies (particularly the U.S.) were happy to turn over the fighting to Russians because we were unwilling to allow all of our soldiers to die in battles in the way that Stalin and Hitler were. The fact that this strategy resulted in Stalin being in the eastern European nations at the end of the war and that he didn't want to give them up just means that Stalin rather than Hitler was in charge. Both were totalitarian dictators who killed their own people by the millions.
2. WWII followed the great depression almost immediately. So many people worldwide were disillusioned with capitalism that, even in the non-Soviet dominated countries, Communism was popular after WWII. (see Italy, France, England). The war was not the cause of the West losing eastern Europe.
3. America was unwilling to continue fighting in 1945. Churchill was. That's why he was voted out of office. The Brits knew damn well that he was willing to take on Russia and they wanted no part of it, and neither did America.

[EVAY]

The worst thing about all of the Buchanan position on WWII is his implication that Hitler would EVER have stood by his word, that he DIDN'T want world domination, and that Roosevelt and Churchill were somehow as responsible for the war as Hitler.

Churchill was a lot of things that were not nice, including an unrepentant imperialist. But he was right about Hitler, right about the need for Britain to rearm, right about America's eventual need to enter the war, and right about Stalin's post-war ambitions.

Among the things he was, was the greatest visionary of geo-politics in the 20th century.

Among the things he was NOT was war-monger.

Roosevelt understood the American people far better than Churchill understood the British people. Roosevelt understood, with Churchill, that America would eventually have to enter the war. But, a point that Buchanan seems to overlook repeatedly:

GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA 4 DAYS AFTER PEARL HARBOR!!!

Roosevelt did NOT declare war on Germany.

[Winehole23]

In no way does the above mean that Buchanan and Churchill thought the war was unnecessay for the same reasons, or that, had England and France allowed Hitler to subjugate Poland without declaring war, that Hitler would have stopped there, as Buchanan strongly implies.

Interesting. Where (or how) does he strongly imply it, please?

[Winehole23]

[QUOTE=EVAY;4554419]Fact: WWII lost Europe for Capitalism and turned it over to Russia.

This fails to account for so many contributing factors to this it is phenomenal.

1. The democratic allies (particularly the U.S.) were happy to turn over the fighting to Russians because we were unwilling to allow all of our soldiers to die in battles in the way that Stalin and Hitler were. The fact that this strategy resulted in Stalin being in the eastern European nations at the end of the war and that he didn't want to give them up just means that Stalin rather than Hitler was in charge. Both were totalitarian dictators who killed their own people by the millions.

True. We were happy to let the Russians do it.

Hitler and Stalin were willing to pay a higher price. Russia was bled white. 20 million in WWII, wasn't it, wholly apart from Stalin's purges?

2. WWII followed the great depression almost immediately. So many people worldwide were disillusioned with capitalism that, even in the non-Soviet dominated countries, Communism was popular after WWII. (see Italy, France, England). The war was not the cause of the West losing eastern Europe.

Capitalism had lost its credibility. Now everybody prays to it, while immolating the public purse. Is that so much better?

3. America was unwilling to continue fighting in 1945. Churchill was. That's why he was voted out of office. The Brits knew damn well that he was willing to take on Russia and they wanted no part of it, and neither did America.

WRT the present: either we haven't reached that point yet with our current wars, or power does not respect that we already have. That could be a key difference.

WRT what you said: that we were exhausted did not preclude giving the USSR half of Europe at Yalta. On the contrary: it may have been a precondition of the gift. I don't really see how that undermines Buchanan. From my vantage it supports him.

[Winehole23]

(Granted, the USSR already occupied it.)

[Winehole23]

The worst thing about all of the Buchanan position on WWII is his implication that Hitler would EVER have stood by his word, that he DIDN'T want world domination, and that Roosevelt and Churchill were somehow as responsible for the war as Hitler.

See, I thought Buchanan was saying Churchill picked the wrong time and place for the fight, with minor concurrence from Churchill himself.

Churchill was a lot of things that were not nice, including an unrepentant imperialist. But he was right about Hitler, right about the need for Britain to rearm, right about America's eventual need to enter the war, and right about Stalin's post-war ambitions.

I doubt even PJB would disagree.

Roosevelt understood the American people far better than Churchill understood the British people. Roosevelt understood, with Churchill, that America would eventually have to enter the war. But, a point that Buchanan seems to overlook repeatedly:

GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA 4 DAYS AFTER PEARL HARBOR!!!

Roosevelt did NOT declare war on Germany.

Of course. I am well aware of it, I feel sure PJB is well aware of it too. Did he contradict it?

[Winehole23]

IMO it his characterization of Hitler as a semi-rational political agent that has gotten people's goats.

There is a faint humanization of the villain the community finds repulsive here. It is used to construing Hitler as an abstract bulwark of evil, rather than as a subject and agent of history, with certain human attributes.

[EVAY]

Interesting. Where (or how) does he strongly imply it, please?

By his position that Hitler would have stopped his territorial grabs if the allies had allowed Hitler to take Poland. There is simply no basis for this belief, and the fact that Hitler attacked Russia and declared war on America AFTER England and France had entered the war, that he went after the Caucasian oil fields and tried to go after the middle eastern oil fields after he invaded Russia, all suggests that no one knows where his territorial ambitions would end.

Buchanan suggests that Hitler was at least semi-rational, and that there were reasons for his early territorial grabs that were grounded in other causes ( Versailles treaty, etc. etc.). Therefore, according to Buchanan, the land grabs would have stopped at some point and a different 'sphere of influence' that included German interests as opposed to Russian influence in Europe would have resulted. He posits that the result of the war was Russian hegemony, which might have been avoided if the war had been avoided.

There is very little evidence that Hitler was semi rational.

The fact that he could appear rational is a testament to his psychopathy, not his reason.

[Winehole23]

By his position that Hitler would have stopped his territorial grabs if the allies had allowed Hitler to take Poland. There is simply no basis for this belief, and the fact that Hitler attacked Russia and declared war on America AFTER England and France had entered the war, that he went after the Caucasian oil fields and tried to go after the middle eastern oil fields after he invaded Russia, all suggests that no one knows where his territorial ambitions would end.

A very suggestive point. Does it irresistably suggest world domination? I wonder.

Buchanan suggests that Hitler was at least semi-rational, and that there were reasons for his early territorial grabs that were grounded in other causes ( Versailles treaty, etc. etc.). Therefore, according to Buchanan, the land grabs would have stopped at some point and a different 'sphere of influence' that included German interests as opposed to Russian influence in Europe would have resulted. He posits that the result of the war was Russian hegemony, which might have been avoided if the war had been avoided.

Mightn't this be correct? We're in the area of counterfactuals here. I don't really see what permits you to rule it out definitively, or to claim world domination as an inevitability.

There is very little evidence that Hitler was semi rational.

The fact that he could appear rational is a testament to his psychopathy, not his reason.

I was unaware psychopaths were incapable of rational calculation. That's another brand new one on me.

[EVAY]

A very suggestive point. Does it irresistably suggest world domination? I wonder.

Mightn't this be correct? We're in the area of counterfactuals here. I don't really see what permits you to rule it out definitively, or to claim world domination as an inevitability.

I was unaware psychopaths were incapable of rational calculation. That's another brand new one on me.

It is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath that they "can appear rational, even charming" all in an advancement of their psychopathic goals. That is why I wrote that Hitler's apparent rationality was more a symptom of his psychopathy than his reason.

I don't claim world domination as an inevitability. I claim the desire for world domination to be Hitler's aim. There is zero evidence that world domination was NOT his aim. There is ample evidence that he believed it to be the destiny of the 'aryan race', as personified by the German peoples, to
control the world. He made no bones about the fact that he believed that peoples 'other than Aryans' were less than human. In fact, he believed that Americans would not/could not fight his German armies because we were a "race of mongrels". Slavs were also 'subhumans', as were Russians, Africans, and many Europeans who were not Aryan.

Hitler consistently acted irrationally after France and England declared War against him, even though he "rationalized" his every action, both before and after.

WH, the man truly was evil. Buchanan trying to make Roosevelt and Churchill seem lesser men by trying to make Hitler seem semi-rational is a bias of the first order, IMHO.

More to the point, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Winehole23]

Well, we're trading more or less unvarnished opinions here.

Without any specific attributions at all, we are asked to accept a whole train of hostile inferences about PJB, based on his supposed humanization of Hitler.

[EVAY]

Well, we're trading more or less unvarnished opinions here.

Without any specific attributions at all, we are asked to accept a whole train of hostile inferences about PJB, based on his supposed humanization of Hitler.

I've always tried to make sure that my opinions are heavily varnished.