Did Hitler Want War???
http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
QuoteOn Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.
Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.
By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.
What cause could justify such sacrifices?
The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.
Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland's rescue.
But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?
Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn't want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.
Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative "to stop Hitler" after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.
If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?
After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.
The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary's ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.
Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?
Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland's turn, then Russia's, then France's, then Britain's, then the United States.
We would all be speaking German now.
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can't get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Miklos Horthy's Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso's Slovakia.
Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.
As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Winston Churchill was right when he called it "The Unnecessary War" — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.
:facepalm:
Yeah, Hitler was just misunderstood. That whole attacking Poland thing was just an accident.
Pat Buchanon has been apologizing for Hitler for YEARS.
:lulz:
Amazing that this monkey can type his words in...as idiotic as they are.
Quote from: Jenne on September 03, 2009, 06:24:35 PM
Amazing that this monkey can type his words in...as idiotic as they are.
Never assume that Pat Buchanon is stupid. Evil, yes. Stupid, no.
The best part about this, except Buchanan outing himself as a Nazi apologist (yet again) is this line:
QuoteAs of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Its called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. You may find you alluded to its results in, oh the FIRST LINE of your article.
I dunno, he sounds way st00pid to me. Always does. He opens his fat fucking mouth and all I hear is, "Buh-duh buh duh buh duh."
Okay, so maybe a little stupid. :lulz:
Quote from: Jenne on September 03, 2009, 06:27:44 PM
I dunno, he sounds way st00pid to me. Always does. He opens his fat fucking mouth and all I hear is, "Buh-duh buh duh buh duh."
The last times he really opened his mouth, you weren't there to hear it.
Nixon and Reagan were, though.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 03, 2009, 06:27:44 PM
I dunno, he sounds way st00pid to me. Always does. He opens his fat fucking mouth and all I hear is, "Buh-duh buh duh buh duh."
The last times he really opened his mouth, you weren't there to hear it.
Nixon and Reagan were, though.
He goes on those talking bobblehead shows and pundits his own spayshul brand of Idiot Punditry. Him and his lameass sister. Fucking harkening-back-to-the-50's asshole bigots.
But in March 1939, Britain didn't even have a border with Germany? How could they then invade it?
Quote from: Cain on September 03, 2009, 06:50:10 PM
But in March 1939, Britain didn't even have a border with Germany? How could they then invade it?
On a related note, America does not share a border with Iraq.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 03, 2009, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 03, 2009, 06:50:10 PM
But in March 1939, Britain didn't even have a border with Germany? How could they then invade it?
On a related note, America does not share a border with Iraq.
Oh, fucking :potd:
I never thought of it before, but it is pretty damn ironic that the current leader of the Know Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing) branch of the Republican Party is an Irish Catholic considering that the original Know Nothings were formed to keep those damn dirty Papists out of America.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 03, 2009, 08:21:59 PM
I never thought of it before, but it is pretty damn ironic that the current leader of the Know Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing) branch of the Republican Party is an Irish Catholic considering that the original Know Nothings were formed to keep those damn dirty Papists out of America.
My irony broke. :(
BTW, Orac did a great job of debunking all of Buchannan's shit:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/pat_buchanan_hitler_apologist.php
QuoteYou know, I'm dreading 2011. We'll be hitting the 70th anniversary of so many other key events of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union (June 22) and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (December 7). I just can't wait to see an article by Pat on June 22, 2011 proclaiming how Hitler really had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union to save Europe from Bolshevism or an article on December 7, 2011 stating that Hitler wasn't really our enemy and that we shouldn't have declared war on Germany after its ally launched a sneak attack and Hitler declared war on the U.S. himself on December 8. After all, I seem to recall he's already argued that Roosevelt shouldn't have concentrated on Germany first more than Japan.
Next, poor ol' Pat will be saying the Holocaust was America's fault for not teaming up with Hitler to fight the Soviet Union. Poor misunderstood Hitler! Those nasty Jews, with the help of the Allies, forced him to kill six million of them! But Pat understands. He's the only one who understands that Hitler really had no choice.
Also, Buchanan fails to mention that Germany orchestrated the border incident which ignited the war. SD personnel dressed in Polish uniforms crossed the border then returned to stage attacks on a German outpost, giving them the pretext for an invasion.
Quote from: Cain on September 03, 2009, 09:25:22 PM
Also, Buchanan fails to mention that Germany orchestrated the border incident which ignited the war.
Of course he did.
I also love the implication that Hitler followed some kind of strategic rationale. As anyone who has dabbled in history, or reading primary sources from the German High Command knows, Hitler relied on irrationality and what he considered his intuitive genius to bring him to victory - often ignoring conventional military wisdom, logic or common sense in the process. Sometimes, this worked, through sheer audacity. But all it indicates is someone averse to conventional planning and who has some irrational beliefs (like that Aryans are inherently better and more manly troops than non-Aryans, and so should win in any war).
Quote from: Cain on September 03, 2009, 09:35:19 PM
I also love the implication that Hitler followed some kind of strategic rationale. As anyone who has dabbled in history, or reading primary sources from the German High Command knows, Hitler relied on irrationality and what he considered his intuitive genius to bring him to victory - often ignoring conventional military wisdom, logic or common sense in the process. Sometimes, this worked, through sheer audacity. But all it indicates is someone averse to conventional planning and who has some irrational beliefs (like that Aryans are inherently better and more manly troops than non-Aryans, and so should win in any war).
Yeah, it didn't do him any good during Operation Bagration, that's for damn sure.
Did Hitler have much of a say in that? The symbolic choice of date for the start of the campaign reeks of him, but from the little I know of it, the OKH were the ones who dropped the ball on their analysis of the Soviet disposition and intentions. Though, now I think of it, I know Hitler was especially vulnerable to such trickery as well.
Hitler was not "crazy like a fox"... I think that's where we're going with this...
Quote from: Cain on September 03, 2009, 10:21:37 PM
Did Hitler have much of a say in that? The symbolic choice of date for the start of the campaign reeks of him, but from the little I know of it, the OKH were the ones who dropped the ball on their analysis of the Soviet disposition and intentions. Though, now I think of it, I know Hitler was especially vulnerable to such trickery as well.
I was thinking more of his insistence on running the war personally.
As a general rule he did, yeah. I suppose allowing yourself to get in a position where your capital can be beseiged by the Soviets is also an indication of bad planning.