-
The Mexican Kleptocracy: July 1989
April 19, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Mexican Kleptocracy
April 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Black Plight: In Conflict With Unions
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
An Assist from the Press
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Capitol Ideas
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
Capitol Ideas
The Good War? Maybe Not
Could World War II have been prevented?
(Page 3 of 3)
Well, we don’t know that. That particular alternative history is no more reliable than any other. The difference is that the “good war” proponents got in first with their “even-worse-without-it” argument, and they have stuck to their guns.
Perhaps, in the end, we can all agree on one thing: that the war in and of itself was a terrible thing, maybe the worst in history. Let’s try to stop anything like it from happening again.
On one point I disagree with Buchanan. His book is subtitled, in part, “How Britain Lost Its Empire.” But surely it was doomed anyway? The unmitigated disaster of World War I already saw to that. As Buchanan asks, at the end of his account of Versailles: “How could British and Europeans, who had just concluded four years of butchering one another with abandon, assert a moral superiority that gave them the right to rule other people?”
They couldn’t. It was over for the British and the other empires. Even the short-lived Soviet version fell. And notice that that evil empire was a product of World War II—the not-so-good war.
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator.
About the Author
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Tom Bethell
More Articles From Capitol Ideas
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/30/the-good-war-maybe-not
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 12.10.08 @ 8:10PM
makes you think.
Think I'll buy a German-American dictionary and vote for Pat Buchanan.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.08 @ 9:39PM
we should have let the russkies and nazis kill each other off-- though Pat would probably would have liked the nazis to win..
But he wont exactly come out and say so.
Alan Brooks| 12.10.08 @ 10:40PM
just one more comment on the subject, a question: there is a case for the Axis in that as we here know, they were threatened by Communism;
but why does it have to be someone like PAT BUCHANAN writing a book about it?
[no answer]
fred gill| 12.12.08 @ 7:23PM
Buchanan's not the first to question the "Good War" model. AJP Taylor did it long before him, and more entertainingly. It's always tempting, and often wise, to be suspicious of the consensus judgement of any great historical event. But sometimes there's consensus for a reason. And I still have a hard time seeing how Hitler could have been "managed" short of massive, lethal force. As for the UK losing it's empire, that was perhaps inevitable, in the sense that nothing lasts forever. As the British-spawned Industrial Revolution and it's sequelae spread to other more populous nations (Germany and the USA) she had already begun to suffer marked relative decline - much as the US is beginning to now. But without WWI she may have maintained her empire for a long time. Even without WWII it would have lasted longer. What she lost in the Great War was not only "moral authority" but, more importantly, financial primacy. She entered it the creditor of the world and exited it a debtor nation. Takes money to run an empire.
Maverick| 12.17.08 @ 3:21PM
I've got to give credit for Buchanan for consistency .He opposed the Iraq war for similar
reasons . I supported the war for the reason that
even though it wasn't specifically vital for U.K.
or western interests ,why should a thug who has attacked two of his neighbours(Iran and Kuwait)
still be in power.That was the arguement for the
war against Hitler ,even though no direct agression against the U.K. or the U,S.A.
either militarily or politically was made.
It was probably more emotion than logic in Saddams case similarily the war against Hitler.
The argument about the legality of the war in
Iraq was often made but to my eyes the guarentee to protect Polands borders and then allowing the
Red army to occupy Eastern Poland was a classic
piece of political chicanery,that Hitler would have proud of.
Alan Brooks| 12.20.08 @ 7:56PM
and even though Germans were, and IMO still are, pigheads, the Russians were and are worse. Today Russia is far worse place to live than Germany-- unless youre a "mafiya".
but Russia never bombed England, Germany did. Russia didnt invade France in 1940, Germany did.
And we finally did put an end to Communism without invading Russia.
If it were a great scholar defending Germany's actions, say 1941, that would be worthwhile; but Pat Buchanan? Thats like Yeltsin defending Russia's actions in Chechnya..
J L AuPage| 12.30.08 @ 9:25AM
Buchanan's book is part of a recent spate of the World War II and Holocaust were Churchill's fault genre. These books are like science fiction. They aren't about the past or the future, they are about now. Like Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke", this genre presents the Second World War as parable of today. Allowing Hitler to execute his plans without opposition was to assign Europe's Jew to extinction. Buchanan, Baker et. al, have no problem with this especially if it meant that pre-ear Europe remained intact. The lesson that Buchanan wishes to teach is that we should let the Muslim world exterminate the Jews and perhaps we should even help if it means that the Long War of Jihad could be contained. Lacking the courage to say this directly, Buchanan uses history to teach his lesson.
I am disappointed that Tom Bethell has been seduced by an historically inaccurate and deceptive narrative. When Churchill called World War II the unnecessary war he meant that prior to 1939 Europe listened to its Buchanans when Hitler could have been stopped on the cheap.
Appleby| 12.30.08 @ 9:38AM
J L AuPage has hit it on the nose. Buchanan's agenda is to allow the Muslims and Jews to exterminate each other while we stand idly by, wringing our hands and whining that everybody ought to play nice.
Once he has achieved this desirable end, I am sure Mr. Buchanan's next crusade (you should pardon the expression) would be for us to stand idly by while the next group of fanatics exterminates the Christians.
There's a name for people like Patrick Buchanan. It probably sounds better in French....
VinceP1974| 12.30.08 @ 10:36AM
If anyone is interested there's a 5-part video series by Peter Robinson with Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hanson discussing Buchanan's book.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/
You'll have to scroll down a bit to find it. Here is the description for the first segment.:
In Defense of WWII: Chapter 1 of 5
Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens take on the WWII revisionists, centering on Patrick J. Buchanan, the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. In terms of the origins of the conflict, Buchanan says essentially that Britain’s guarantee to protect Poland in the event of a German invasion made the war inevitable. Hanson counters that Germany’s invasion of Poland was not an isolated act. Hitchens says Buchanan is “consciously trying to deceive us.”
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 11:13AM
Tom Bethell's review of Patrick Buchanan's contentious revisionist history of the origins of the Second World War is more noteworthy for what it omits than what it includes. What it omits is any serious discussion of the phenomenon of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi movement and the ideals for which they stood. Also omitted is any objective discussion of the Versailles settlement, its actual effect on Germany, and, of course, the response of the British and French governments to the rise of Hitler. Bethell, like Buchanan, must omit these matters in order to (a) create a justification for the German embrace of Hitler; and (b) create a sense of Hitler's inevitability, which in turn, justifies a continuation of the West's appeasement of Hitler.
Buchanan pretty much whitewashes the brutality and shear evil of the Nazi movement and its government. He soft-peddles its vicious anti-semitism, it eugenic policies, its euthenaization of the sick and mentally defective, and its outright militarism. According to Buchanan, the worst atrocities of the Final Solution came only after 1942, which is true. Omitted from this are the foundations for the Final Solution laid during the early years of Naziism. Do Buchanan and Bethell believe that Hitler--who very consistently maintained his ideology of blood purity and the global Jewish conspiracy--would have been content to leave the Jews of Germany (and any other territories that Buchanan thinks Hitler should have been ceded) in peace? There is no evidence of that, just as there is no evidence that Hitler would leave Gypsies, homosexuals, pacifists and any of the dozens of other untermenschen who attracted his wrath. Reading Buchanan, I got the feeling that he was utterly indifferent to their fate, taking a line that could have come directly from Brezhnev's politburo of the 1970s, or the Chinese Ministry of Information today: these are internal matters, and no concern for the international community. What happens in Berlin stays in Berlin.
Concerning the Treaty of Versailles, Buchanan and Bethell parrot the old caricatures of Versailles as draconian punishment of Germany, but taken in comparison with the treaty Germany forced on Russia at Brest-Litovsk, to say nothing of the peace Germany wanted to impose on France, Versailles is remarkable for its leniency. Germany paid off its reparations and was making significant economic and political progress when it got caught up in the Great Depression. Aside from a few nationalistic hotheads, Versailles was not a significant issue for most Germans until the advent of Hitler, who made it an issue through his propaganda apparatus.
Regarding the title of the book, The Unnecessary War, I could not agree more with Buchanan: World War II need not have happened. I differ with him over how it could have been avoided. Buchanan, ignoring everything from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor through the Munich Crisis, presents us with a Hitler secure in his power, a fait accompli with whom Britain and France would have to do business. By so doing, he ignores the myriad opportunities to stop Hitler dead (quite literally) in his tracks.
Understand that when Hitler took power in 1933, Germany was not a significant military power. Its army, limited by treaty to 100,000 men, had no tanks, no heavy artillery, only a limited number of machineguns. Germany had no air force, and no navy worth noting. In short, as compared to its neighbors--including France, Austria and Czechoslovakia, Germany was utterly defenseless. Thus, had the Allies opposed any of Hitler's violations of the Treaty of Versailles, from the reestablishment of universal military service and the enlargement of the military, to the reoccupation and remilitarization of the Saar and the Rheinland, and even down to the Sudeten Crisis, there was really nothing Germany could have done to prevent the allies from imposing their will. German politicians and the General Staff recognized this explicitly, and were prepared, in every one of these instances, to depose Hitler and install a moderate government.
Instead, the Allies folded at every turn, which had the dual effect of emboldening Hitler to further adventures on the one hand, and undermining his opponents on the other. Buchanan seems not to realize that without the manpower, production capacity and weapons stockpiles of Austria and Czechoslovakia, there could never have been a Blitzkrieg against Poland, let alone France. Even as late as 1938, the balance of forces lay with the Allies, so that the rationale for Chamberlain's sellout of the Czechs is revealed as the lie that it was--the "year of respite" between Munich and the invasion of Poland worked much more to Germany's advantage than to that of Britain or France.
Regarding the guarantee extended by France and Britain to Poland, perhaps it was imprudent, but it was honorable. Does Buchanan honestly think that Hitler would be content with the reoccupation of the Polish Corridor and Silesia, given his explicit writings about Lebensraum in Mein Kampf and numerous Party documents? Faced with Hitler's provocations, just what exactly do Buchanan and Bethell think the Poles, the British and the French should have done at that point?
All this is ignored in light of a counterfactual expectation of a war between Germany and the USSR, from which, of course, the British and French should have remained aloof. Here the total incoherence of Buchanan's thinking is revealed. For Germany to attack the USSR, it would have to go through Poland. Little love lost between Poland and the Soviet Union, of course, but even less between the racist, xenophobe regime of Nazi Germany and the Slavic untermenschen of Poland. Poland, one way or the other, would become either a German puppet or an occupied territory. War between Germany and the USSR would have taken on the same pitiless character it did in reality, and stuck in the middle of it all would be the Jews of Poland and Ukraine--whom Hitler would leave in peace, being spurred to genocidal extremities only by the pig-headed opposition of the Western Powers to his entirely justified desire to bring Germany to its place in the sun. Right.
On the end of the European empires, perhaps Bethell is correct, and they were doomed. However, their demise would have been more gradual and less traumatic than it was, mainly because of U.S. policies towards its World War II allies (particularly Britain) that aimed explicitly at bankrupting them while allowing the U.S. to fight its war largely with Other People's Money. Brilliantly machiavellian on Roosevelt's part, but perhaps not so wise in the long term, when we witness the instability that resulted from the rapid disintegration of those Empires. However, that is utterly unrelated to the necessity of fighting Hitler--if not sooner, than later. In my opinion, the fatal error was waiting until later.
Bethell makes things worse by extrapolating from the situation in Europe in the 1930s to the recent conflict in Georgia--which Bethell would no doubt characterize as "A country far away about which we know little". There are parallels, but they aren't with September 1939, but more akin to 1935. In that instance, a weak Germany in the midst of a nascent military and economic recovery decided to flex its muscles by reoccupying territory it felt had been taken from it unjustly. In 2008, a weak Russia with a nascent (hopefully abortive) economic and military recovery decided to flex its muscles by occupying territory it feels have been unjustly taken from it.
Of course, in 1919, the Saar, the Rheinland, Czechoslovakia and the Danzig Corridor had been taken from Germany as the penalty for instigating and losing a war of aggression, while in 1991, Georgia had declared its independence from Russia through a free and open vote. Bethell seems to be saying that a large power like Russia has the right to do what it wants with the countries on its border, regardless of the wish of the people of those countries, and their democratically elected governments. Is there not something a little perverse here?
In any case, Bethell questions whether World War II was a "good war", while Buchanan questions whether it was necessary. As an Orthodox Christian, I do not believe that any wars are good, but I do believe that some wars are necessary, and if ever there was a war that was necessary, it was the war against the festering evil of Nazi Germany, an evil that Buchanan at best plays down, and at worst overlooks. He seems bent that the War did not end with the Parousia, that the United States was forced to assume the mantle of world leadership in the Cold War against Soviet hegemony (another necessary war, won by our persistence), and that evil still abides in the world today.
One would think that a Roman Catholic such as Pat Buchanan would try to avoid such Pelagian thoughts, but that seems to be the thrust of his animus against the true villain of his piece, Winston Churchill--the one man who could have prevented this war in the first place. Perverse reasoning, indeed. Or just unresolved Irish-American Anglophobia--perhaps Pat and Lyndon LaRouche could have some interesting discussions over cocktails.
Besides, isn't it a bit naive to think that any war, any human activity of any kind, can rid the world of evil? J.R.R. Tolkien did not think so, and he expressed well the limits of man's ability when he wrote, in Lord of the Rings (Book V, Chapter IX):
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule".
Stuart Koehl
Falls Church, VA
Pat| 12.30.08 @ 12:24PM
Britains pledge to protect Poland, America's pledge to defend the Philippines - both were foolish, both were unattainable. It takes death on a massive scale to bring people to their senses and the European leaders had seen enough death in WWI to fire their vengeance against the Germans, but they hadn't seen enough bodies among their citizens to search for those pragmatic solutions that bring about a lasting peace.
No other war in history has approached the loss of life that was WWII - mere numbers can't express the horror and chaos of that war. It's estimated the Russians suffered over 10 million deaths among its armed forces, a number larger than America's standing army at the height of the war - imagine if every American serviceman had died in WWII. Killing on such a scale is almost inconceivable.
America, now the Western superpower, and Britain happily sold out the Poles after WWII. The two major allies had no stomach to defend the Poles from the Russians, who easily gobbled up Poland as an appetizer before the main course. The Poles, both in Poland and in exile, foolishly believed their Western allies would protect them from the Bear - but they didn't count on the sobering teaching ability of bloodshed. With Poland subdued, Stalin knew he could take the remainder of Eastern Europe for the USSR. Truman talked "tough" but the lessons of blood kept his actions in check - America, Britain, Canada, Australia, France, and their lesser allies had had enough, it was time to go home.
The paradox here is that only bloodshed on a monumental scale brings sanity among nations, but foolishness among national leaders creates the necessary conditions for wars capable of generating monumental slaughters. Over 60 years later, we still retain the psychological benefits of WWII's death toll because we haven't, as yet, forgotten the lessons of blood.
Troy Riser | 12.30.08 @ 12:45PM
It was a Good War, and this was a disgraceful article. The author of this piece--for all of his speculation--fails to speculate why Pat Buchanan wrote his damned book in the first place. It was Buchanan, after all, who referred to Hitler as a great man. It was Buchanan who defended former concentration camp guards. It was and is Buchanan who writes articles condemning what he perceives to be the undue influence of AIPAC on our legislative and executive branches, who uses terms like the 'Zionist Lobby' when making those accusations. It was and is Buchanan who remains our own Cynthia McKinney, a cartoon of the fringe, yet who still somehow wears the 'conservative' label whenever he appears on news shows although his beliefs and prejudices demonstrate he is no conservative Republican by an measure I know--unless, that is, the GOP is embracing antisemitism as a platform. To the point: Hitler would've eventually have tried to eat the free world without the excuse of a Danzig. Whether Stalin was planning his own offensive against Germany is irrelevant. Whether the Polish minister was a buffoon is irrelevant. Any attempts to rationalize or justify German aggression are attempts to rehabilitate Hitler. How can I write this with assurance? Because every book written taking that approach has been written by a man like Pat Buchanan and David Irving. Damn them both.
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 1:41PM
Trpy Riser makes an excellent point. Let us speculate as to the outcome of Buchanan's hypothetical war between Hitler and Stalin. We know, for a fact, that absent the diversion of resources to the war against Britain--the aircraft losses in the Battle of Britain, the garrison of France, the sideshow in the Balkans and North Africa--that Hitler most likely would have taken Moscow in the autumn of 1941. The collapse of the USSR would likely have followed. Germany would have annexed Ukraine, Byelrussia, the Crimea and other territories, or at least created puppet regimes to govern them at Hitler's whim.
Consider, then, the difficulties of containing a Nazi regime flush with victory over the Bolshevik Menace, no longer constrained by natural resource limitation (particularly oil), and able to mobilize the manpower of half the continent of Europe.
Does anyone suppose that Hitler would not seek some sort of revanche against France? Does anyone suppose that, with its centuries-old strategy of maintaining the balance of power on the Continent, that Britain could afford to allow Germany to become the hegemon of Europe?
No, supposing that Britain and France had stood aside in 1939, Poland would have been absorbed into the Reich (with the Poles reduced to the status of helots, and Jews in Poland exterminated). War with the USSR would have followed in 1940, instead of 1941, and a materially stronger Wehrmacht would rapidly have defeated a Red Army still reeling from Stalin's purges, still lacking modern tanks and aircraft with which to oppose the Germans.
With the Soviet Union disposed of by 1942, Hitler would have turned his sights West, and the victorious and immeasurably stronger Wehrmacht, supported by a larger and more mature German navy, would rapidly have overrun France, blockaded Britain, and brought the UK to the verge of surrender.
At this point, does anyone suppose that the United States would have been able to maintain its neutrality? Unlikely, to say the least.
What, then, is the endgame? Instead of a half century of Cold War against a USSR occupying half of Europe, we would have had a hot war against a Germany occupying all of it. No doubt, our scientific and technological ingenuity would have turned to the matter of defending the United States and eventually defeating Germany, something that probably would have been accomplished in 1945-46, when a rain of atomic bombs delivered by B-29 Superfortresses (or the even larger B-36 Dominator, on the drawing boards at the end of the war) on Berlin and the cities of Germany, as well as other major cities within the expanded German Reich.
Two can play the "alternative history" game, and in my book, the past preferred by Buchanan looks a lot more grim than the one we got in reality.
David Govett| 12.30.08 @ 1:47PM
For one militarily important reason, it would have been unwise to let the Nazis prevail over the Soviets: The Nazis could have developed the A-bomb and missiles and jets to deliver them by the late 1940s. Imagine that eventuality.
eghe| 12.30.08 @ 2:56PM
stuart absolutely nailed the analysis of the polish question
to add my own two cents there is no way hitler doesnt attack france before invading russia even if poland is given up to him without a fight. he absolutely did not want to leave the militarily stronger foe in his rear. the order of attack is always france first to eliminate the threat and his contempt of the soviet union is such that he thinks he can pick it up anytime. as a sidenote to the thread that someone else made about the use of the anschlussed nations' military stock as armament for hitler, many of the tanks used in the invasion of russia were french, including all the best ones as the superior german tiger tank did not arrive until late 1942
sure the uk could have avoided war but the price would have been ceding europe to hitler and letting mussolini have the mediterranean. in all probability hitler would then have also asked for the old german colonies in africa too
Bob Miller| 12.30.08 @ 3:39PM
Buchanan's main problem with WW1 and WW2 was the Germans' defeat.
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 4:07PM
"Buchanan's main problem with WW1 and WW2 was the Germans' defeat."
Actually, I think it is more a question of Britain's victory that rankles out unreconstructed Fenian friend.
Ray| 12.30.08 @ 4:09PM
Stuart Koehl, it's the B-36 "Peacemaker" not "Dominator."
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 4:15PM
>>>many of the tanks used in the invasion of russia were french, including all the best ones as the superior german tiger tank did not arrive until late 1942
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 4:17PM
Ray is correct. The Consolidated B-32 was the Dominator, a backup in case the B-29 failed. Consolidated then went on to build the B-38 Peacemaker, also known as "the Magnesium Overcast" because of its gargantuan size. It formed the basis of SAC's nuclear deterrent force in the early 1950s.
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 4:25PM
>>>many of the tanks used in the invasion of russia were french, including all the best ones as the superior german tiger tank did not arrive until late 1942
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 4:28PM
So much for trying to post a lengthy response. I'll just summarized what I tried to write twice before:
The Germans did not use many French tanks in Russia. Most of the French tanks taken into German service remained in France as part of the garrison force.
The Germans did use a lot of Czech tanks, most notably the PzKw.38(t), which equipped Rommel's 7th Panzerdivsion in 1940, and parts of several other panzerdivisionen through the opening phases of Operation Barbarossa. But they were by that time obsolescent and were withdrawn from service.
The chassis remained in production, however, as the basis for several self-propelled anti-tank guns and tank destroyers, including the excellent Panzerjaeger Hetzer, which remained in production in Switzerland after the War, and remained in service through the 1970s.
Alan Brooks| 12.30.08 @ 4:35PM
bottom line of all lines is Germany could have gotten WMDs eventually, say by 1950, and would have used them.
Now there is a case for revisionism-- Stalin was much worse than Hitler as a person and that was the reason Hitler had so much support from Europeans. But Hitler, again, would have used atom bombs or some other WMDs later. He would have turned on England and even Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, ...all his allies.
What I dislike is most of all out here in the backwater is redneck 'Aryans' talking about themselves as if they dont go to the bathroom. As if they really are supermen. some of them still think blond hair makes a difference! They think their blond kids dont go poo poo and pee pee.
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 4:44PM
"bottom line of all lines is Germany could have gotten WMDs eventually, say by 1950, and would have used them."
Maybe. I tend to doubt it--though I note that Germany was the world leader in chemical weapons, having developed the nerve agents Sarin and Soman by 1942. As for an atomic bomb, I am dubious because Germany proved singularly incapable of mastering the intricacies of managing such an enormous undertaking. By its very nature, the Third Reich encouraged the creation of private fiefdoms and competition for resources and prestige among the different power centers within Nazi Germany. Hitler encouraged this, and also had a tendency to promote incompetent syncophants into positions of authority. Note that it wasn't until 1943 that Hitler put Speer in charge of industrial production and moved to a fully mobilized war footing. Considering what it took for the United States to bring the Manhattan Project to fruition, it seems unlikely that Germany would be able to muster the resources.
Then there is the whole "Jewish physics" thing--the Nazis were just a little crack-brained when it came to science, and (like the Soviets) tended to back theories that dovetailed with their ideology. By the time we overran Germany in 1945, our nuclear detection teams (Project Alsos) were amazed at how little progress the Germans had made--they had not even managed to build a working atomic pile, and were pursuing several avenues that we had dropped as dead ends long before.
Alan Brooks| 12.30.08 @ 5:10PM
the soviets got the bomb, the krauts could have done likewise.
Alan Brooks| 12.30.08 @ 5:46PM
.. say by the mid fifties.
anyhow if you read Hitler's table conversations, he says he might have to invade Italy AFTER Germany won the war. He would have turned on everybody.
My original point was if a serious scholar discusses the Hitler Stalin dilemma, thats fine. But PAT BUCHANAN?? hes no more of a scholar than i am-- and i went to publik skools.
gives you the dry heaves; its like reading pop darwinism or something.
John G. Hubbell| 12.30.08 @ 6:11PM
A lot of "iffy" stuff here -- if Chamberlain hadn't done this or had done that, if the Poles had gone along with the proposal for a German corridor to Danzig, what if the Germans had confined their attack to the east and had not turned west? What if they had developed WMD (they did: the nerve gases; they didn't use them because they were persuaded, by us, that we also had such, and would retaliate. But we would not have retaliated because we didn't have such. And surely Germany had the scientitific talent eventually to produce atomic weapons. ) In any case, the war happened, because much of the world was being managed by arrogant, irresponsible egomaniacs. Japan for years had been rampaging through the Far East. The German people, after years of hyperinflation and misery, results of the vengeance inflicted at Versailles, had given themselves over to the mesmerizing Hitler. The architects of mayhem in the Orient and in Central Europe were emboldened by the diplomatic incompetence and military laxity of the West. The "unnecessary" war had to happen. In the United States, references to the "good war" surely refer to the fact that the country was really unified, that the overwhelming majority strongly supported the war effort, men and women both hurried to enlist, the population accepted all sorts of rationing. There wasn't the divisivness we suffered during Vietnam, and again in the Middle East.
DaveS| 12.30.08 @ 6:18PM
Provocative article. Poland indefensible? Hardly. A concerted effort to enter the Rhineland by a single corps of determined troops would have stayed the whole thing or rolled it back. The secret pact (not mentioned here at all) doomed Poland if the Germans could not be dissuaded. Britons LOVED Chamberlain - for a few weeks anyway. But guarantees should be arranged and not just declared. Munich was the precipitating agent.
Vern Crisler| 12.30.08 @ 6:22PM
What Stuart Koehl said! Stuart, do you have any good books you can recommend on the subject?
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 7:09PM
"the soviets got the bomb, the krauts could have done likewise."
The Soviets "stole" the bomb. The Nazis did not have very many spies among the American intelligentsia.
".. say by the mid fifties."
About ten years too late, which is why the Germans would eventually have lost, albeit at the cost of devastating Europe under a nuclear bombardment.
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 7:12PM
"The "unnecessary" war had to happen. In the United States, references to the "good war" surely refer to the fact that the country was really unified, that the overwhelming majority strongly supported the war effort, men and women both hurried to enlist, the population accepted all sorts of rationing. "
Actually, one reason it was the "good war" for us was that people had never had it so good. There was employment for people who wanted it, usually at wages higher than they had ever seen before. Rationing, as compared, e.g., with that in Britain was an inconvenience rather than a hardship. Casualties, as compared to the other combatants, were relatively low until late 1944. On the homefront, it was an exciting time, and people now look back on it through the lens of nostalgia. But, unless you were one of the unlucky few to be in a combat slot (about one in ten of all men in uniform), it was not just a good war, it was a great war.
Stuart Koehl| 12.30.08 @ 9:05PM
To Vern Crisler;
As the thread has covered several subjects, could you be more specific as to what you want to know?
Dai Alanye | 12.31.08 @ 1:17AM
It is good to know history, which Buchanan certainly does. It is better to understand history, which he fails at. He should consider going into speculative historical fiction, like those who posit the South having won the Civil War, or an alternative WW II such as depicted in Len Deighton's SSGB.
Hitler could easily have been stopped at the Rhineland, or at the Sudetenland. Lacking the willpower for those, Poland it had to be. Had Hitler and Stalin been allowed to fight it out, the result might have been stalemate, with Eurasia dominated by the two isms, and Britain a client state of North America. Yes, I'm saying that Orwell was more prescient than Buchanan.
Hesitation on the part of the West has led to many problems. Had Truman been willing to use the threat of nuclear weapons over the Berlin blockade, likely the Korean War would never have occurred, and the subsequent course of history altered—presumably for the better. Had Johnson been bold enough to fight all-out in Vietnam, likely Southeast Asia would be a more pleasant area today.
Along those lines, consider what would have happened had Dubya followed up with the other members of his Axis of Evil. I suspect Obama would be inheriting a safer world.
george| 12.31.08 @ 1:39AM
The American people would have had nothing to do with the "good war" if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl harbor.
My mother and father both said the people considered it European foolishness and they had had their fill of fighting England's battles in the first world war.
One of my mother's brothers was killed in Normandy, another was a POW in Germany. My father was wounded in Italy and discharged in Nov. ,1944.
However they were both of the opinion that Hitler would have to be stopped eventually.
Perhaps divine providence caused him to invade Russia. At any rate Truman said he hoped those Nazi sobs and those communist sobs kill just as many of each other as they can. Thank God neither regime ever achieved world hegemony.
Karsten Duncan| 12.31.08 @ 6:00AM
Of course you can prove the Second World War was unnecessary. All you have to do is lie enough, distort enough, and be sufficiently crazy and ignorant.
Thomas| 12.31.08 @ 11:07AM
I have refrained from entering this discussion because the premise is horribly flawed. The supposition that the United States did not have any reason to enter WWII, because it was largely a European War was exactly the rational for American Neutrality prior to December 07, 1941.
It was proven false then and it is still false today, irregardless of any attempt to revise the history of the period.
Stuart Koehl| 12.31.08 @ 3:17PM
Of course, the United States was hardly neutral in the war prior to December 7. In Asia, the U.S. was unabashedly on the side of China, providing aid through a variety of sources. It was only through the connivance of FDR that Claire Chennault was able to divert 100 Curtis P-40Bs from British Lend-Lease orders to the Chinese government, where they formed the basis of the First American Volunteer Group. It was only with Roosevelt's consent that Chennault was able to recruit for the AVG among American military pilots, over the strenuous objections of the services which needed all the pilots it had.
This leaves out the "Second American Volunteer Group", to be formed in early 1942, consisting of three squadrons of B-17 Flying Fortress bombers (at a time when the U.S. had fewer than 100 of these in squadron service), which would be manned by American volunteer aircrew (the New York Times would today brand them as "mercenaries") and, flying from Chinese basis, firebomb the major cities of Japan. But remember, the U.S. was neutral.
On the other side of the world, we not only have the Lend-Lease Act, but the declaration of a 200 n.mi. exclusion zone off the American coast--which somehow only excluded German ships. It is little known, but in May 1941, an American "observer" on an RAF PBY Catalina flying boat was responsible for spotting the German battleship Bismarck, which led eventually to its sinking. By autumn of 1941, the U.S. Navy was actively assisting the Royal Navy in the fight against German U-boats, culminating in FDR's order for U.S. ships to sink all German naval vessels on sight. Around the same time, FDR met with Churchill to plan strategy for when--not if--the U.S. entered the war. It was at these meetings that the U.S. and Britain decided on a "Germany First" strategy. Also at this time, two U.S. destroyers were torpedoed by U-boats: the Kearney (damaged) and the Reuben James (sunk).
The attack on Pearl Harbor only formalized a situation that had existed for nearly a year. It is difficult to imagine the press today allowing Bush to get away with the actions FDR used to position the U.S. for its entry into World War II. Bush may have stretched or bent some laws, but FDR shattered many. In the light of hindsight, however, we can see that this was the right thing to do, even if the American people did not approve or were not ready to confront the necessity of war. I think it is called "demonstrating leadership".
Alan Brooks| 12.31.08 @ 5:01PM
Steve Koehl,
nobody knows how many spies the krauts COULD have infiltrated.
were all playing a could-have, what-if game. A silly game, but Pat Buchanan and David Irving are silly people.
A realist| 1.1.09 @ 12:45AM
NO, WWII was not a "good war."
Like many wars, all the realistic options available to the UK and USA were horrible.
Let's not forget that Stalin exterminated about 30 million people; more than the 10 million exterminated in Hitler's gas chambers , and more than the 10 million Russians killed by the Nazis.
Let's not forget that Stalin invaded and/or took over, eastern Poland (Sept. 1939), Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland; and that the Hitler-Stalin pact gave the green light for Hitler to invade Poland and for Stalin to move with impunity.
By any and all measures, Stalin was far worse than Hitler. Unfortunately, as an ally of the USA and UK, Russia received much needed aid and war materiel from the USA. But this had to be, because every Nazi soldier on the eastern front was one less Nazi soldier on the western front. The allies had no choice but to aid this murderous regime. Recall that in Dec 1941, the worst mass murderer in the history of the world was Stalin; Stalin held the world record for mass murder until surpassed by Mao in the 1970s.
So, the allies were compelled to aid a Russian speaking Hitler, to help defeat the German speaking Hitler. Talk about lousy options.
Ideally, the US and the UK would have let the Bolsheviks and Nazis kill each other while the allies - without declaring war - watched from the sidelines. This would have been the preferable option; but would likely have ended in the US and UK going to war against the (hopefully) exhausted victor.
Of course, Hitler would have proceeded in gassing 10 million people - a horrible situation; but the world had no sympathy for the 30 million exterminated by Stalin; indeed, western elites and intellectuals praised Stalin and the "heaven on earth" in Bolshvik Russia, while ignoring - or lying - about the mass murder and repression in that fascist/stalinist death camp of Bolshvik Russia.
WWII did not end for eastern Europe until 1990. WWII liberated western europe at the expense of eastern europe. That was the trade off.
The US and UK had to decide who to save and who to sacrifice. That was the choice. Regardless, millions would have died. There were NO good options.
The lesson for the US is to once again follow the wise advice of Washington and Hamilton and avoid foreign conflicts. However, unlike the post WWI period in which the USA disarmed totally, the USA should have a very powerful military and be prepared to use it - with deadly and overwhelming force - when provoked. A policy of heavily armed neutrality and TRs advice - speak softly and carry a big stick - should be our strategy.
Stuart Koehl| 1.1.09 @ 8:10PM
"The US and UK had to decide who to save and who to sacrifice. That was the choice. Regardless, millions would have died. There were NO good options."
Actually, as several of us have shown, there were good options, but they expired in 1938.
As for the rest of your post, it is the most callous and cynical piece of work I have seen in a long time. And constant reference to what Washington said in 1791, when the United States was a weak and struggling nation clinging to the Eastern Seaboard without taking cognizance of the change of circumstance after 208 years, is an example of the kind of dogmatic obstinance one associates with ideologues rather than with a truly conservative outlook.
vincep1974| 1.4.09 @ 12:01PM
>The lesson for the US is to once again follow the wise advice of Washington and Hamilton and avoid foreign conflicts.
Oh that's brilliant! We should avoid rain too and snow. And lets avoid murder. And..
Alan Brooks| 1.6.09 @ 8:31PM
what happened, happened. Stalin WAS worse than Hitler, Stalin had no human feeling. And so on and so forth, all the rest of the how many commies and nazis can dance on the head of a pin.
It wasnt a good war.
Look, rednecks can have all the aryan babies they want; just wish they wouldnt take it out on me if theyd rather be rich and enslaved than poor and free. thats they i see it. i dont think you can have it all.
Want peace of mind? they can turn to God; go to church if they want. just stay away from me. I didnt invade Prussia from the east in '45
Alan Brooks| 1.6.09 @ 8:35PM
And yes yes, i KNOW the Russkies stole the bomb rom us. I just thought maybe maybe eventually Hitler might have gotten the bomb-- andif he got it he would have dropped it on London and Moscow. But maybe im wrong; and naturally someone will disagree.
Alan Brooks| 1.8.09 @ 9:04PM
alrighty, this is long comment, alot of axes to grind, tying all the incomplete strands into a gnarl.
Stalin created Hitler,
by '33 it was known Stalin had frightfully messed up in the Ukraine, and the news continued to filter in. Nazism was also an imitation of not only Mussolini's but also Stalin's regime-- same basic system but with different ideology.
Whereas Mussolini was an amateur lined up next to Dzugashvili and Shickelgruber.
Stalin interfered in the Spanish Civil War. Stalin invaded Finland 1939- 40. The rest Everyone knows.
The war could have been prevented, but only by 1937.
By 1938 it was too late, Hitler was determined to attack Czechoslovakia regardless of the outcome which was why the General Staff opposition began at that time and also slightly because of the firings of Blomberg and Fritsch.
Sure WWII could have been avoided. In 1936 the French could have sent three-- or even less possibly-- divisions into the Rhineland and that would have been it.
The war it seems was to prevent the Nazis from getting WMDs, no one knew until much later what German scientists were capable of. Stalin's regime was worse than Hitlers, but Hitlers regime was more dangerous, it was riskier to take a chance of Hitler's getting the atomic bomb at some unknowable date than to somehow find a way for the Commies and Nazis to kill each other off... very confusing ramifications.. how to have prevented Stalin's armies from going all the way West to Spain if the the Nazis and Commies didnt exhaust each other.
It was known Hitler was more desperate as he lacked Stalin's resources.
Probably Hitler would never have gotten the bomb because he wasnt very interested, but this fact wasnt known at the time. Einstein sent a letter to FDR in 1939 because he, naturally, didnt know what German scientists would be able to do in the '40s.
Was it a Good War, The Good War? no.
But it happened, and were stuck with the legacy: Russia became a superpower, israel was created; Afghanistan was invaded by the Russkies 1979- 88 and now WE'RE in Afghanistan.
There.
said i wouldnt post too much but im a liar, all intellectuals are liars.
now you take FDR for instance...
G| 1.28.09 @ 7:48PM
Watch FREE full length Movies, TV Shows, Music (over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, and FREE College Educations @ InternetSurfShack.com
Scott A Joseph, MD| 1.30.09 @ 8:10PM
One major problem for Pat the Nazi lover---name one agreement the Nazis ever kept. Chamberlain went to war because the Nazis demonstrated untrustwothiness. NO agrreement with them was EVER worth the paper it was printed on.
That being said, WWII WAS an unnecessary war. Had either England or France had the cojones G-d gave a squirrel, the Nazis would have been destroyed in 1936, during the reoccupation of the Rhineland---a titanic bluff.
But by 1938, it was too late.
Trackback| 5.19.09 @ 1:10AM
Model Speed Boats, on Model Speed Boats, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: