Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler

[Winehole23]

In other words, Stalin had no real intentions of attacking Germany.

Sure. This is on topic too. I agree with you.

As it turned out, Stalin didn't need to attack Germany. We gave half of Europe to him after the war.

[Winehole23]

It's not like WWII ended when hostilities ceased and Hitler was defeated. A lot of bad things came out of it too, and people are butthurt that Buchanan emphasizes bad historical consequences instead of working in the well worn and officially approved rut of the noble fight to stop Hitler and the Holocaust.

Hitler and the Holocaust aren't the whole story.

[z0sa]

Sure. This is on topic too. I agree with you.

As it turned out, Stalin didn't need to attack Germany. We gave half of Europe to him after the war.

So if Stalin was planning on sticking to their non-aggression pact, why did Hitler find it necessary to invade?

You aren't seeing the big picture. Some of what buchanan says isn't wrong, per se, its just way ing off-base. There are reasons Hitler didn't find it necessary to have a huge or dominant navy, for example. It would have been impossible to allocate the natural resources necessary, for starters. Additionally, you really think England or France or even America would have let him rule the seas? That was the most important power to have before Hitler shattered all those rules and focused instead on creating a huge air force.

Or how about why only two-engine bombers that had short flight distances? Do you forget what blitzkrieg is exactly? The plan was never to fight a war of attrition, it was to move so quickly while cutting off supply lines that no one knew what hit them. And it was in 1936 that rearmament went into full swing - and Nazi scientists did not have the necessary technology for efficient 4 engine bombers at this time, but had already designed some of the best fighters and bombers of the war with 1/2 engines.

[Winehole23]

You tell me, z0sa. I'm guessing it has something to do with a Nordic madman and his insatiable lust for bloody war and territory.

[Winehole23]

So if Stalin was planning on sticking to their non-aggression pact, why did Hitler find it necessary to invade?

You aren't seeing the big picture. Some of what buchanan says isn't wrong, per se, its just way ing off-base. There are reasons Hitler didn't find it necessary to have a huge or dominant navy, for example. It would have been impossible to allocate the natural resources necessary, for starters. Additionally, you really think England or France or even America would have let him rule the seas? That was the most important power to have before Hitler shattered all those rules and focused instead on creating a huge air force.

Or how about why only two-engine bombers that had short flight distances? Do you forget what blitzkrieg is exactly? The plan was never to fight a war of attrition, it was to move so quickly while cutting off supply lines that no one knew what hit them. And it was in 1936 that rearmament went into full swing - and Nazi scientists did not have the necessary technology for efficient 4 engine bombers at this time, but had already designed some of the best fighters and bombers of the war with 1/2 engines.

You make sense, z0sa. It's nice to see a restrained, topical gloss. This is the sort of thing I was asking for pages ago.