Was World War II Really Won?
Patrick Buchanan, known conservative and co-host on MSNBC, had the following to say about the 60th Anniversary of WWII:
Was World War II worth it?
Posted: May 11, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."
Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.
To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.
To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:
For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ...
The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.
Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.
Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.
The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.
If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.
As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.
Other questions arise. 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?
If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?
In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.
How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?
True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?
The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.
Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.
OK, was World War II Worth it? Absolutely. Could we have faught it better to ensure freedom for all of the victims of WWII and the Nazi Aggression? Of course.
Pat Buchanan offers an interesting premise. Nowhere does he endorse the Nazis or letting them continue to slaughter the Russians. However, he does condemn the Soviets for their wave of mass murder after the "liberation" of Eastern Europe.
The column refers to everyone's mistakes and makes an interesting point. Could we have done more? Could FDR have shown more backbown to the Soviets? Could Churchill have done more. We say yes, now. At the time of war, who knows.
All I know is that Poland, became what Mel Brooks called in TO BE OR NOT TO BE, The Door Mat of Europe. Poland does not bare too much ill-will, while ironically, many former allies of us do. Hmmmm. Could we not have landed in Poland or Yugoslavia first, rather than France? Not at all, said Stalin. Stalin wanted the Balkans and Eastern Europe to rebuild an empire to rival the long dead czars' empire.
There are a few things that are unsettling. Pat acts like Churchill and FDR should have been infallible. No man in infallible. God was it.
Second, where was there any reference to the Holocaust. Sure, there was still some anti-Semitism in Poland and elsewhere after the war, even days after, BUT the Nazis were WORSE than anyone in mass exterminations. Pat, you missed the ball on that one and it will cost you. The Nazis had to go, and yes even the Red Army the vets of Stalingrad and Kursk were horrified at Auchwitz and Madjanek, like we and the Brits were horrified with Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen. In the end, WWII freed these surviving Jews. Going to have to break ranks with ya Pat.
Third, the USSR did not work alone in suppressing Poland and others. If you read Norman Davis book 44 Rising: The Warsaw Revolt you will see it was missteps and mismanagement on our part, but also the wrath and craftiness by Stalin and the Lublin Communists. Stalin had his armies wait at the Vistula and let the Polish Free Resistance be shredded by the SS and there was no excuse for that. However, give FDR and Churchill credit for sending Allied Air drops to supply these fighters. Yes, some Russians wanted to help, but the commissar had loaded pistols that said otherwise.
Pat offers some interesting perspective, however in hindsight, offers no perspective on then, as opposed to what we think now.
Sadly Europe traded fear of one tyrant for fear of another.
Was World War II worth it?
Posted: May 11, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
By Patrick J. Buchanan
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."
Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.
To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.
To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:
For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ...
The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.
Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.
Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.
The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.
If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.
As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.
Other questions arise. 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?
If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?
In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.
How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?
True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?
The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.
Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.
OK, was World War II Worth it? Absolutely. Could we have faught it better to ensure freedom for all of the victims of WWII and the Nazi Aggression? Of course.
Pat Buchanan offers an interesting premise. Nowhere does he endorse the Nazis or letting them continue to slaughter the Russians. However, he does condemn the Soviets for their wave of mass murder after the "liberation" of Eastern Europe.
The column refers to everyone's mistakes and makes an interesting point. Could we have done more? Could FDR have shown more backbown to the Soviets? Could Churchill have done more. We say yes, now. At the time of war, who knows.
All I know is that Poland, became what Mel Brooks called in TO BE OR NOT TO BE, The Door Mat of Europe. Poland does not bare too much ill-will, while ironically, many former allies of us do. Hmmmm. Could we not have landed in Poland or Yugoslavia first, rather than France? Not at all, said Stalin. Stalin wanted the Balkans and Eastern Europe to rebuild an empire to rival the long dead czars' empire.
There are a few things that are unsettling. Pat acts like Churchill and FDR should have been infallible. No man in infallible. God was it.
Second, where was there any reference to the Holocaust. Sure, there was still some anti-Semitism in Poland and elsewhere after the war, even days after, BUT the Nazis were WORSE than anyone in mass exterminations. Pat, you missed the ball on that one and it will cost you. The Nazis had to go, and yes even the Red Army the vets of Stalingrad and Kursk were horrified at Auchwitz and Madjanek, like we and the Brits were horrified with Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen. In the end, WWII freed these surviving Jews. Going to have to break ranks with ya Pat.
Third, the USSR did not work alone in suppressing Poland and others. If you read Norman Davis book 44 Rising: The Warsaw Revolt you will see it was missteps and mismanagement on our part, but also the wrath and craftiness by Stalin and the Lublin Communists. Stalin had his armies wait at the Vistula and let the Polish Free Resistance be shredded by the SS and there was no excuse for that. However, give FDR and Churchill credit for sending Allied Air drops to supply these fighters. Yes, some Russians wanted to help, but the commissar had loaded pistols that said otherwise.
Pat offers some interesting perspective, however in hindsight, offers no perspective on then, as opposed to what we think now.
Sadly Europe traded fear of one tyrant for fear of another.
posted by NDwalters @ 11:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home