Conservative Pat Buchanan: is he also a loser?

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Here we have a Conservative who argues that WW2 was not worth fighting for because we (the West) failed to protect the Eastern European countries from being sucked up by Stalin's Iron Curtain.   I'd appreciate some comments on his writing:


Was World War II worth it?

By Patrick J. Buchanan
? 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.

[pekstein]

before anyone starts bashing conservatives, i think you should read this article by conservative author Victor Davis Hansen. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200505130808.asp

buchanen is a bit of an extremist, and most conservatives do not share his views.

[Axls Locomotive]

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.

"they were free" hahaha... since germany had just invaded poland and britain declared war on germany first it makes him look like a dumbass

much of this article is the same vein, false logic

Was that worth fighting a world war ? with 50 million dead?

Would he rather have watched on as Germany gassed the entire population of jews and inferiors?

did Germany stop at Poland?...they were hell bent on taking over Europe and beyond...to think they would have stopped at Poland is just ludicrous and shows lack of judgment on historical facts

[Doc Emmett Brown]

buchanen is a bit of an extremist, and most conservatives do not share his views.

I found this silly article of his on a well known, popular right wing site:  WorldNetDaily.com

At the bottom of his piece, they schill for him: 

SPECIAL OFFER: Pat Buchanan's book, "The Death of the West," an eye-opening expos? of how immigration invasions are endangering America, is now available at HALF-PRICE from WorldNetDaily's online store! Autographed edition also available!

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party?s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.


For someone who's supposedly so extremist, he sure has gotten around, hasnt he?

Would he rather have watched on as Germany gassed the entire population of jews and inferiors?

did Germany stop at Poland?...they were hell bent on taking over Europe and beyond...to think they would have stopped at Poland is just ludicrous and shows lack of judgment on historical facts

yes, it's quite horrifying how he fails to mention this.   But I have a feeling as to why it was picked up by the Christian WorldNetDaily...notice how he praises Dubya throughout the article.

[journey]

Here we have a Conservative who argues that WW2 was not worth fighting for because we (the West) failed to protect the Eastern European countries from being sucked up by Stalin's Iron Curtain.? ?I'd appreciate some comments on his writing:


Was World War II worth it?

By Patrick J. Buchanan
? 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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"?

"I am never going to have anything more to do with politics or politicians. When this war is over, I shall confine myself entirely to writing and painting."

 - Winston Churchill

Poor Winston. I think he was just in with the wrong crowd, and using that new drug, marijuana, at the time.


"Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"

I wonder if that's where the Molotov cocktail originated from?

[pekstein]

Was that worth fighting a world war ? with 50 million dead?

Would he rather have watched on as Germany gassed the entire population of jews and inferiors?

did Germany stop at Poland?...they were hell bent on taking over Europe and beyond...to think they would have stopped at Poland is just ludicrous and shows lack of judgment on historical facts

IQ i think you are missing his point.  if Britain was so concerned with Poland's freedom after it was invaded by Germany, then why did Britain and the rest of the Allies have no problem handing Poland over to another totalitarian government (the Soviet Union) after the war?  if Britain joined the war for Poland's freedom, and at the end of the war, Poland was not free, what was the point of the war?  why is one totalitarian government better than another?

i actually odnt agree with buchanen here.  i think WW2 was completely just, and defeating Nazi Germany, clearly an evil power,  was very worth it.  but perhaps Poland and the rest of eastern Europe got the shaft at Yalta, when their fates were handed over to Stalin, who was perhaps more murderous than Hitler. 

[pekstein]

buchanen is a bit of an extremist, and most conservatives do not share his views.

I found this silly article of his on a well known, popular right wing site:  WorldNetDaily.com

At the bottom of his piece, they schill for him: 

SPECIAL OFFER: Pat Buchanan's book, "The Death of the West," an eye-opening expos? of how immigration invasions are endangering America, is now available at HALF-PRICE from WorldNetDaily's online store! Autographed edition also available!

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party?s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.


For someone who's supposedly so extremist, he sure has gotten around, hasnt he?

first of all, worldnetdaily is not "popular" nor is it  "well known."  compared to National Review and the Weekly Standard, which are the premier conservative publications in America today, worldnetdaily is in the underground.  second, i dont care how many books, magazines, talkshows, or whatever buchanen has done, he is not mainstream conservative.  the fact that he was the Reform Party's candidate in 2000 proves this.   the reason he is so popular among the media is that he gets people riled up (both liberals and conservatives) and he brings in an extremist viewpoint that is not often heard, or seriously considered for that matter. 

if you want to learn more about the american conservative movement as a whole, i would highly recommend reading The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America by British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge.   it is a history of conservatism in america in the last 50 years.  you will learn about buchanen and other prominent conservatives and see where they all fit in.

here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200203/103-8351185-9096655?v=glance

[SLCPUNK]

before anyone starts bashing conservatives, i think you should read this article by conservative author Victor Davis Hansen. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200505130808.asp

buchanen is a bit of an extremist, and most conservatives do not share his views.

Sorry, but that is the way of the neo-con, ie EXTREME.

This bigot is on every right wing talking head show there is. Almost as much as Ann Coulter (the devil herself).

[Doc Emmett Brown]

if Britain was so concerned with Poland's freedom after it was invaded by Germany, then why did Britain and the rest of the Allies have no problem handing Poland over to another totalitarian government (the Soviet Union) after the war?  if Britain joined the war for Poland's freedom, and at the end of the war, Poland was not free, what was the point of the war?  why is one totalitarian government better than another?

I feel that this argument, as written by Buchanan, is more of an argument against the Cold War rather than WW2.  The latter war was to fight Nazism, and the former was to fight Stalinism/communism.  If, as Buchanan writes, we sold out to Stalin after defeating Hitler, it doesnt un-justify defeating Hitler.  If anything, it makes me ask why we allowed an arms race in the aftermath.  That's how I see it.

but perhaps Poland and the rest of eastern Europe got the shaft at Yalta, when their fates were handed over to Stalin, who was perhaps more murderous than Hitler. 

Being handed over to Stalin sounds like getting the shaft to me - no "perhaps".  But the NRO link you gave said that we couldnt fight Stalin as we did Hitler because of humanity's latest & greatest invention: nuclear bombs which came at the tail end of WW2.  The art of warfare had changed.

So, a more appropriate question for Buchanan's argument, to me, is:  Would an all-out nuclear war (as opposed to a Cold War) have been worth it to save Poland et al. from the tyranny of Stalinism?   But if he had written it like that, he would be criticizing Eisenhower instead of FDR, and that's a no-no, isnt it?

he brings in an extremist viewpoint that is not often heard, or seriously considered for that matter.

This particular viewpoint of his, reverberated through the internet because it raised the ire of Jews, unsurprisingly, and because of Bush's recent meeting with the Russians.  I found the link to the WorldNetDaily article at a site that is neither right wing nor Christian.  If you say WND is 'underground', I have no reason to doubt you.  But I hope you're correct, because it's quite ridiculous.  Who is mainstream, then?  Someone like Hannity?

[Walk]

WWII was not wrong in itself, but we carried it out wrong. It would have been better to ally with Hitler to stop Communism first, then worry about him. Communism was clearly the greater threat at that time, and there would always be a chance to stab him in the back. While we still had a large standing army after WWII, we should have taken out the USSR (they were very weak after fighting Germany for years).

I think we allowed to Cold War to happen to justify stupidly high military spending. We wasted so much on our military because we couldn't kill Communism when it was possible. By Vietnam, it was too late.

There's nothing wrong with his position on immigration, either. It's absolutely pointless letting more people in if unemployment is a problem. Why let people in if there is no work for them? That's just asking for trouble.

[Axls Locomotive]

WWII was not wrong in itself, but we carried it out wrong. It would have been better to ally with Hitler to stop Communism first, then worry about him.

walk finally loses his mind

[SLCPUNK]

WWII was not wrong in itself, but we carried it out wrong. It would have been better to ally with Hitler to stop Communism first, then worry about him.

walk finally loses his mind

LOL, maybe the nuttiest thing I have read all week!

WOW! 

[GnRNightrain]

WWII was not wrong in itself, but we carried it out wrong. It would have been better to ally with Hitler to stop Communism first, then worry about him.

walk finally loses his mind

LOL, maybe the nuttiest thing I have read all week!

WOW!?

Strategically it might be nutty, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler.  We were in bed with evil during WWII on one side, is it that out there to say that we should have been in bed with the devil on the other side?  It may be wrong, but it is not nutty.

They were both evil.  War makes strange bedfellows.

[SLCPUNK]

WWII was not wrong in itself, but we carried it out wrong. It would have been better to ally with Hitler to stop Communism first, then worry about him.

walk finally loses his mind

LOL, maybe the nuttiest thing I have read all week!

WOW!?

Strategically it might be nutty, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler.? We were in bed with evil during WWII on one side, is it that out there to say that we should have been in bed with the devil on the other side?? It may be wrong, but it is not nutty.

They were both evil.? War makes strange bedfellows.

You'd defend the existence of the tooth fairy.....

[Walk]

Exactly. Practically, Stalin and the USSR killed more. Just from looking at the numbers, Communism is more lethal. However, its effects on the economy were also horrible, yet National Socialism picked Germany up out of a depression.

Idealogically, the concept of Communism has killed more than National Socialism. Communism espouses worldwide revolution, which explains how Korea, Vietnam, and many Latin American Communists got aid from the USSR. This led to suffering, war, and death over the many, many decades known as the Cold War. Between the two, Communism is clearly worse.

National Socialism is not inherently evil, like Communism is. The success of many other National Socialist governments is proof of this. It can work, Germany's system just didn't, for various reasons. It relied too much on a charismatic leader instead of an appeal to cultural heritage, even though that was touched on some. As a result, Hitler's delusions about the Jews resulted in 6,000,000 deaths, and Germany lost the war.

WWII had to happen because Germany was treated like trash by the Versailles treaty after  WWI. It just didn't have to happen the way it did.

[Axls Locomotive]

Was that worth fighting a world war ? with 50 million dead?

Would he rather have watched on as Germany gassed the entire population of jews and inferiors?

did Germany stop at Poland?...they were hell bent on taking over Europe and beyond...to think they would have stopped at Poland is just ludicrous and shows lack of judgment on historical facts

IQ i think you are missing his point.  if Britain was so concerned with Poland's freedom after it was invaded by Germany, then why did Britain and the rest of the Allies have no problem handing Poland over to another totalitarian government (the Soviet Union) after the war?  if Britain joined the war for Poland's freedom, and at the end of the war, Poland was not free, what was the point of the war?  why is one totalitarian government better than another?

i actually odnt agree with buchanen here.  i think WW2 was completely just, and defeating Nazi Germany, clearly an evil power,  was very worth it.  but perhaps Poland and the rest of eastern Europe got the shaft at Yalta, when their fates were handed over to Stalin, who was perhaps more murderous than Hitler. 

i think the question should be, did anyone know the extent of stalins policies in the 1940's? i would say a categorical no...

and as the whole continent had suffered for so many years there was only so much certain nations could have achieved to help them out in the post war period...i dont know the reasons for the handover but for me that seems the most plausible reason for handing control of poland to the USSR...to share the responsibility of rebuilding...its easy to criticise in retrospect

im not trying to decrease the significance of stalin evilness but many of the deaths in his hands were from WW2 labour camps and from famine and from the policies he changed over his period in charge...as far as i can tell a figure of between 12-20 million is attributable to stalin (noone seems to know for sure) including those reasons above. thats is far different from the 50-60 million killed in WW2

[Walk]

No one knew about the concentration camps either, that or it was underreported. Also, although WWII cost more than the USSR camps, it's different to die in war than be starved or worked to death. Completely different.

[GnRNightrain]

WWII was not wrong in itself, but we carried it out wrong. It would have been better to ally with Hitler to stop Communism first, then worry about him.

walk finally loses his mind

Nice response!? This is about as substantive as all of your replies have been to my posts as of late.? As of right now you have failed to respond to at least 2 threads.
LOL, maybe the nuttiest thing I have read all week!

WOW!?

Strategically it might be nutty, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler.? We were in bed with evil during WWII on one side, is it that out there to say that we should have been in bed with the devil on the other side?? It may be wrong, but it is not nutty.

They were both evil.? War makes strange bedfellows.

You'd defend the existence of the tooth fairy.....

Nice response!  This is as substantive as any of your recent posts.  But it doesnt suprise me, when your stupid responses are pointed out you either come back with another stupid response or you run from the thread.