Was WWII Worth It?

[Kutscher]

Here are some thoughts to stir up a hornets' nest:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=44210

Excerpt:

"If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?"

[Pirx]

Mr. Buchanan is thinking that UK and France declared war to keep Poland free . I think that both countries declared war becouse they won't let Germany be too strong.
Anyway that article is inetresting poin of view very influential person in USA

[Casarez]

I am trying to figure out why he put Castro in the list he made.

[Ernest Penfold]

Not only am I puzzled by the Castro reference, I'm trying to figure out why he thinks the Soviets liberated Finland! I've considered Pat Buchanan to be a useless tosser and this article doesn't do anything to change my opinion of him.

[Tom Houlihan]

The point I got was that the war as we know it didn't need to be fought. If certain negotiations had gone a different way, or nations stood up to Hitler, a lot of the death and destruction would never have happened.

I wonder though, if Churchill and Roosevelt actually knew what they were consigning those nations to when they let "Uncle Joe" have them. Did they really believe that they were to be liberated from oppression? Could they possibly have known or anticipated what ended up happening?

Bottom line, thousands of lives were lost freeing nations from one oppressor, only to hand those nations over to a worse one!

[Ron Klages]

Guys,

I question how "influential" Pat Robertson is. From my point of view he is a representative and spokesperson for people in my country that live in an era of isolationism and condemn all that is contemporary and international. A group of rather ignorant people. A loser three times for the position does not make him a representative of any influence or significance of my country.

Now to the question he posed.

Why is that with the passage of time the responsibility for historical events has to be shifted to those other than the responsible.

World War II was the result of the aspirations of a single individual in charge of a country that was willing to follow him in all regards. The invasion of Poland was the final straw for Britian and France to ignore where Hitler was going. After all they had overlooked the occupation of the Rhineland, the Sudentenland and Austria. If they had overlooked Poland which country would have been next. Diplomacy did not work with Hitler.

Hitler was responsible for the aftermath of World War II and the occupation of eastern European nations not the agreements made by the "Big Three". He invaded these countries under the cause of "Lebansraum".

Stalin used the German invasion of the Soviet realm as an excuse to "liberate and reeducate" the eastern European nations once he had stopped the Germans and reversed the advance. Stalin ignored most all of the agreements made with the Anglo-American leaders.

There was no way in the spring of 1945 the the United States would have fought the Soviets to insure freedom of choice for the eastern European countries. After all we still were fighting a war in the Pacific and the possible expensive invasion of the Japanease homeland. Also one must remember that the US did not declare war on Germany. We were not interested in that European war, after all we had sent our troops over in 1917 and that accomplished nothing since a little over two decades later that war resumed. So why would the US go to war to insure the freedom of Eastern Europe from Communist rule. Diplomacy was the US way at that point. I also have no doubts that Stalin would have fought us in 1945.

If Hitler would not have been on the scene, what would Stalin have eventually done. His character was, in my opinoin, worse that Hitler. I believe that Communism and Democracy had to face each other eventually.

Historical events are products of their times and conditions and one must always look at these past events from the perspective of the participants and not with the perspective of researcher , reviewer or analyst. Conditions in Europe in 1939-1945 and different from the conditions of 1999-2005.

Pat Robertson and his followers believe that Russia liberated the Finns from Hitler because they read that Finland was a member of the Axis side. They do not look into the reason why or the conflicts that existed between Finland and Russia that had nothing to do with Germany and the Nazis.

I believe that with the passage of time we turn villians into heros and heros into villains. We look assess and judge all past actions by standards of today. I saw we need to spend more effort on why did Hitler come to power, how was he able to revise the entire structure of a civilized, intelligent, democratic country into an EVIL society willing to follow him to the very end and to accomplish this metamorphosis in a very short period of time. That is what all people in all locations should understand since that is what we must not let occurr ever again.

Believe me, Pat Robertson and his followers do not have the answer.

Best regards,

Ron Klages

[Enrico Cernuschi]

Hy Guys,

as i told and tried to explain many times in this Forum with the support of British sources, mainly PRO documents, World War I and II were simply the endeavour by Britain to remove, by force, the German problem in Europe. The Jerry were the brainchild of the classsroom and the wily Briton, enfante gate of a prevous, rich past, did'n t like the spots oriented towards that diligent, clever an boring roommate whi was going to grew stronger and stronger.
These attempt were, in the long run, like any other initiative of this kind innth elong adventure of humanity, quite pointless, as you can see today, with Germany confirmed as the first engine of the continent train.
Both World Wars are, so, in an historical prospective, unuseful and, by consequence, criminal acts.

I was able to collect many protest before and I'm quite sure some other ones will follow, but not a single evidence against this reconstruction, only cantancherous declarations of faith in the old war time propaganda, in a word entimentalism, not science or simply common sense.

Bye

EC

[Ron Klages]

Guys,

Big error, I meant Pat Buchanan not Pat Robertson.

An early morning post with my mind not awake.

Kutscher, thank you for pointing out my error,

Best regards,

Ron Klages

[derGespenst]

No problem Ron - they are two of a kind.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Kutscher,

As has been pointed out, the question posed is entirely spurious.

Britain declared war because Germany was perceived as a threat to British interests. Poland was merely Britain's "line in the sand".

Furthermore, Britain never undertook any obligations to Poland regarding the USSR. Britain's treaty of guarantee to Poland specified Germany, and only Germany. Thus, in the narrow legalistic sense, Britain fulfilled its obligations to Poland fully by staying in the war until Germany was out of Poland. Indeed, by agreeing to Polish annexation of German territory after the war, it may be argued that Britain went well beyond its 1939 defensive obligations to Poland.

Britain did not win the war, but she was undoubtedly a major player on the winning side. However, in achieving this and seeing the destruction of its most powerful European rival, Britain had to concede it position in the world to the USA - something that was probably inevitable, but which WWII accelerated.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Kutscher]

I wonder though, if Churchill and Roosevelt actually knew what they were consigning those nations to when they let "Uncle Joe" have them. Did they really believe that they were to be liberated from oppression? Could they possibly have known or anticipated what ended up happening?

Tom,
I believe Churchill knew, and was very concerned about it.
"The prime minister recognized Stalin's determination to impose hegemony upon every state liberated by his armies" (Hastings, Armageddon, p. 114).

Roosevelt was an enigma.
"Several leading members of the U.S. administration were by now (winter 44-45) thoroughly alarmed by Soviet behavior. Their views counted for little, however, while the ailing Roosevelt nursed his delusions that he could forge an equable relationship with Stalin." (Ibid, p. 121).

[Reb]

derGespenst

Two of a kind? Pat Robertson is to me a big fat joke. (and I speak as a practicing Christian). I want no part of his nonsense. Somehow - to him, being a Christian means agreeing with him. Not bloody likely!

But Buchanan is a horse of a different color. He is a paleo-libertarian and says things that others wouldn't dare say. For instance - that we made a dreadful mistake getting involved in WWI. I can only agree. His comments about World War II, while controversial, were all true. My own opinion is ambiguous - I fear Hitler just marginally more than Stalin - not because he was more evil - but because the Germans were more efficient!
But if we go by body count- then Stalin was the very devil.

Buchanan has often been indicted for anti-semitism which I find ridiculous - his sin is that he thinks the American govt should do what is best for America rather than what is best for Israel. See Paul Gottlieb (a Jewish writer) for some rather interesting insights into that! Goittlieb and I have corresponded on occassion and I find he knows more about Christianity than most Christians - and does not adhere to some Zionist party line that forbids critiscism of Israel. (yet remains a practicing Jew and most certainly does support Israel in the long run - as do I)

No my friend - you may not agree with Buchanan but he is no windbag - Robertson is. I've voted for Buchanan twice now simply because he says things the other politicians are afraid to say.

And like Buchanan - I don't care if folks don't agree with me - I'd be more worried if everybody did! But we are very much in danger of losing our ability to debate real issues thanks to political correctness - which is very much like the marxist party line. As long as we can disagree publically, and one hopes, amicably, there is hope.

cheers
Reb

[sid guttridge]

Hi derG and Reb,

From this side of the pond, it is difficult to believe that an educated society can put any electoral faith in figures like Buchanon OR Robertson. They seem like something out of the late Middle Ages. Our nearest equivalent is the self-ordained Rev. Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Laurent Daniel]

Hi derG and Reb,
From this side of the pond, it is difficult to believe that an educated society can put any electoral faith in figures like Buchanon OR Robertson. They seem like something out of the late Middle Ages. Our nearest equivalent is the self-ordained Rev. Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland.

Hi Sid,
You may add Jean-Marie Le Pen to the list of available Middle Ages figures "this side of the pond"

[Reb]

Sid

I'm utterly indefferent, even hostile to Robertson.

But Buchanan? Right on. Don't care how he is percieved on the other side of the pond - the people in this country who put foriegn opinions on the same plane as our own when it comes to policiy or judicial process are exactly the ones Buchanan (and I) speak out against.

I wish Europe well, apparently in vain, but I'll keep wishin'. However, I in no way want America to follow the example of Socialism, politcal correctness and what I feel is moral corruption.

cheers
Reb