so what do you think?

[gmc]

Stumbled across this, what do you think?

YouTube - Pat Buchanan: Hitler wasn't a threat to U.S.

[Snowfire]

So WWII wasn't Hitlers fault it was the Allies fault.

Pat Buchanan, by all accounts is never too far away from controversy

Another "batsh!t crazy" ?

[Clodhopper]

The epitome of Isolationism.

Dangerously deluded.

(And that's without the sound)

[gmc]

Snowfire;1315569 wrote: So WWII wasn't Hitlers fault it was the Allies fault.

Pat Buchanan, by all accounts is never too far away from controversy

Another "batsh!t crazy" ?


Actually I've seem similar arguments put by british politicians, most notably Alan clarke, that the UK didn't need to go to war and we would not have lost the empire and it was not in our long term interests etc. etc. It's a kind of amoral way of looking at the world and history.

[Clodhopper]

Churchill may have been a romantic alcoholic Imperialist, but he was more right and a better human than Alan Clark could ever even conceive of. A little, little man.

[gmc]

Clodhopper;1315589 wrote: Churchill may have been a romantic alcoholic Imperialist, but he was more right and a better human than Alan Clark could ever even conceive of. A little, little man.


He was an early advocate of using mustard gas on the Kurds and wanted to let ghandi starve himself to death in prison he was also the man who ordered tanks on to the streets of glasgow to prevent a socialist uprising and thought the irish were traitors for staying neutral during ww2. He was a man of his times but I think you are right. Alan clark doesn't have that excuse - or does he? the right wing never goes away does it..

[Accountable]

Snowfire;1315569 wrote: So WWII wasn't Hitlers fault it was the Allies fault.
You can't deny that the victors of WWI set the stage for Hitler to come to power. We took their colonies, destroyed most of their industrial base, and still expected them to pay restitution. It's arguably the reason we helped rebuild Germany & Japan after WII. Had we done that with 1918 Germany we might have avoided WWII altogether.

[CARLA]

ACC so good to see you. !! Sorry I took the thread off topics but a HOWDY was in order. :-6

[Accountable]

:-6

[Odie]

CARLA;1315775 wrote: ACC so good to see you. !! Sorry I took the thread off topics but a HOWDY was in order. :-6


it is indeed in order, welcome back Acc!:-6

sorry gmc;)

[mrsK]

Accountable;1315776 wrote: :-6




Great to see you here:-6

[gmc]

Accountable;1315774 wrote: You can't deny that the victors of WWI set the stage for Hitler to come to power. We took their colonies, destroyed most of their industrial base, and still expected them to pay restitution. It's arguably the reason we helped rebuild Germany & Japan after WII. Had we done that with 1918 Germany we might have avoided WWII altogether.


What so now you are blaming the states for not rationalising the treaty of versailles and failing to join the league of nations?:sneaky: It's not that simple, there was massive social and political change throughout the world in the 20th century, left and right struggling for dominance. The conditions imposed on germany after ww1 played a part and the lesson was learned post ww2 and no you can't deny that the victors of ww1 helped set the stage for hitler to come to power but only helped they weren't the reason. Fear of bolshevism played a big part in it as well, hilter managed to conflate fear of bolshevism and anti-semitism in to a potent mix that appealed throughout the world including the states where the ruling elite were just as terrified of social unrest as everywhere else. The battles between the germans and russians dwarf those in the west with the allies. Fascism had quite a following in the states, haven't done much reading on the subject bit I came across some discussion on whether Roosevelt's new deal was socialist or fascist - he was emulating some of the policies adopted by hitkler to get the economy going, hitler had the autobahn you have the hoover damn and the like.

Japan was on our side in ww1, what turned them in to an aggressive militaristic empire squaring up to china and the states had nothing to do with the treaty of Versailles and hitler and more to do with japan and the states taking a hand in the great game.

People like pat buchanan always ignore the massive social changes and political activism that was going on as if it was irrelevant to the larger picture and put a case for what should have done that is essentially imperialist in nature that should have been followed for the good of the nation regardless of what the people thought about it. You see it in things like project for the new american century, realpolitik for the 21st century that just isn't going to work. WW1 was the last time people went to war for blind patriotism ww2 finished that altogether. We will still have wars but it's going to take some doing to get nations to get involved in a total war again. I would like to think so anyway.

[Clodhopper]

By the end of WW1 France was prostrate and exhausted. They had suffered terrible, terrible casualties and only just avoided losing the war - in which they had defended themselves from German attack for the second time in forty years. They were determined that Germany not be in a position to attack them ever again. They also owed Britain a great deal of money, which they didn't have. One can understand them thinking that Germany should pay, not them. The terms they asked for were very harsh indeed.

Britain had been horrified by the casualties they had sustained in a war they entered in support of Belgium, whose neutrality we guaranteed by treaty and whose unoccupied territory by the end of 1914 consisted of a few square miles of marsh and beach east of Dunkirk. There was an election looming and politicians competing as to who could be nastier to Germany since our ordinary folk wanted to punish them for the loss of fathers, brothers and sons. We had lent France, Russia and Italy a lot of money, which we weren't going to see back for a long time, and in the case of Russia, never. We'd borrowed money from America and America was not prepared to write off the debt (why should they?). We had to get the money somewhere.

America fought for a year and had not had time to become as embittered as the British and French. Wilson was genuinely idealistic, but the mood in America was Isolationist and that removed their bargaining power. (chuckle. In case we think the Americans were merciful angels, we should recall that public meetings in America called for the Kaiser to be boiled alive in oil. We are told that at this decision the audience stood on the chairs and screamed hysterical approval.) At any rate, a major difference between the end of WW1 and WW2 is that the USA kept a military, political and financial presence in devastated Europe, and the Marshall Plan ensured that Europe was able to build back and NOT become a breeding ground for another Hitler.

Versailles ensured that German grievances, self-delusion and bitterness lasted. It gave Hitler easy material to work with. But WW2 was not inevitable as a result. Had France and Britain been more aggressive in response to Hitler's early aggression for example in his reoccupation of the Ruhr or the takeover of Austria it is now reckoned Hitler would have backed down and WW2 not happened. At least not in 1939.

Arguing what might have been is always dfficult - there is rarely much evidence to gor on! :wah: But I would suggest that the failure to oppose Hitler earlier was at least as much a contributory factor as Versailles itself.

And then, of course there's the moral aspect of accommodation with a regime like the Nazis...

[mikeinie]

What nonsense it this guy talking on WW2.

Do you think that if Britain staying out of WW2 Hitler would have stopped?

Between Sept 1939 & June 1940 Germany had taken Poland, Denmark & Norway and was already in France, Holland & Belgium.

There was a treaty between Hitler and Russia and that did not stop him from attacking Russia even though Hitler had not even secured the Western front yet.

Russia was already expanding it empire and had taken Poland & the Baltics with a failed attempt at taking Finland. WW2 was unavoidable.

I do agree however with his opinion on the Iraq war.

[mikeinie]

I replied before hearing his bit about Europe. He is full of it. (I am writing this as I am listening…)

Do you not think that the countries in Europe, who have fought a lot more wars than the US has to gain our freedom and independence would sit back an easily hand over our freedom? Is that what some Americans think of Europe or just this thick idiot? Do you think that the Eastern Europeans who just gained their freedom from the crushing weight of the Soviet empire would just hand over their freedom? The US fought one war for their freedom, we have fought many, empire and empire has tried to rule Europe and we continued to fight time and time again for freedom. And this gut talks like only Americans hold freedom dearly. What an @ss.

(in relation to the EU evolving): “Against the will of many of their people” ?? what the f.. is that? We are free democratic countries and we voted for the EU in treaty after treaty. There are things that we do not like about it, such as the speed in which it has grown, and some questions about the entry of questionable countries into the union, but overall people are proud to be part of the EU. Yes some if not many oppose it, but vote after vote, treaty after treaty the majority rules. In a democracy, the majority rules, not the vocal minority.

“not being allowed to vote, as in Britain” another BS statement. Britain is a free and democratic country. Did they note vote not to join the single currency and keep the British pound?

Canadians fought and died for their independence as well you know, they fought the war of 1812 when the USA invaded Canada and tried to take it over. Canada is a free and democratic country and is regularly listed by the UN as one of the best countries in the world to live in.

“Killing of Jews was a war crime”? “if no war no killing”? is this guy nuts? What about all the Jewish people that were rounded up in Germany and Austria even prior to the Poland invasion?

This guy does not deserve the airtime he just got to promote his book, it is not even news, and it is nonsense.

[Snowfire]

Accountable;1315774 wrote: You can't deny that the victors of WWI set the stage for Hitler to come to power. We took their colonies, destroyed most of their industrial base, and still expected them to pay restitution. It's arguably the reason we helped rebuild Germany & Japan after WII. Had we done that with 1918 Germany we might have avoided WWII altogether.


My response was rather simplistic but it was in context of Mr Batsh!t's views. I'm not sure if anyone thinks he should be taken seriously as an historian. His historical facts are slanted heavily toward an extreme right wing bias. To paraphrase "50,000,000 christians and jews killed in the war", clearly aimed at masking the anihalation of 6 million jews in the concentration camps

Welcome back by the way Acc

[Lon]

gmc;1315556 wrote: Stumbled across this, what do you think?

YouTube - Pat Buchanan: Hitler wasn't a threat to U.S.


I disagree with Buchanan. Hitler was in a conquering and expansionist mode and though he really did not want war with the U.S. or GB, how could we let that idiot run amok. And to say that 6 million Jews would have been saved is ludicrous. OK, if we hadn't gone to war with Germany only 2 million might have been slaughtered, point is, the extermination of the Jews was in place one way or another and Germany had to be stopped.

[gmc]

I agree with him on the gulf war and perhaps the imperial hubris but the rest suggests he was completely unaware of what else was going on in europe at the time. The jews had nowhere to run as other nations were refusing to take them. He seems to be mainstream though. If he is that's quite frightening. I believe he stood as a presidential candidate at one point.

I find it interesting as it so flies in the face of the accepted view. I think you need to keep looking at history in case we forget and it all happens again.

[Lon]

gmc;1315843 wrote: I agree with him on the gulf war but the rest is unbelievable codswallop. He seems to be mainstream though. If he is that's quite frightening. I believe he stood as a presidential candidate at one point.


Buchanan is hardly mainstream and appeals to a very small majority. He didn't muster that much excitement when he tried running for Pres.

[gmc]

Lon;1315845 wrote: Buchanan is hardly mainstream and appeals to a very small majority. He didn't muster that much excitement when he tried running for Pres.


He seems to get a lot of attention but it's actually hard to get a sense of what is mainstream in the US. it's the extremes that attract attention I suppose. I thought CNN was relatively middle of the road in reporting. i occasionally watch it to get a different take from the bbc, itv etc.

[Lon]

gmc;1315869 wrote: He seems to get a lot of attention but it's actually hard to get a sense of what is mainstream in the US. it's the extremes that attract attention I suppose. I thought CNN was relatively middle of the road in reporting. i occasionally watch it to get a different take from the bbc, itv etc.


What is mainstream in America is constantly in motion. Look at the last Presidential election. Would you have thought Obama would win? I happened to vote for him and like many others that did likewise, love his rhetoric, but have become uncomfortable with his follow through and approach. Back when Nelson Rockefeller was a presidential candidate, they coined a phrase "Rockefeller Republican". Many conservatives considered him to be too liberal, my god, almost a Socialist if you will. Today? Nelson R. would be considered middle road. Times they are a changein.

[gmc]

Lon;1315969 wrote: What is mainstream in America is constantly in motion. Look at the last Presidential election. Would you have thought Obama would win? I happened to vote for him and like many others that did likewise, love his rhetoric, but have become uncomfortable with his follow through and approach. Back when Nelson Rockefeller was a presidential candidate, they coined a phrase "Rockefeller Republican". Many conservatives considered him to be too liberal, my god, almost a Socialist if you will. Today? Nelson R. would be considered middle road. Times they are a changein.


No it looked like the states was going to take a massive lurch to the right which would have been sad to see. My understanding is that it was proportional representation in the democrat primaries that made the difference. We're like you in a way in that we have had elected dictatorships rather than democratic government. People are fed up.

[Accountable]

Snowfire;1315813 wrote: My response was rather simplistic but it was in context of Mr Batsh!t's views. I'm not sure if anyone thinks he should be taken seriously as an historian. His historical facts are slanted heavily toward an extreme right wing bias. To paraphrase "50,000,000 christians and jews killed in the war", clearly aimed at masking the anihalation of 6 million jews in the concentration camps
Lon;1315845 wrote: Buchanan is hardly mainstream and appeals to a very small majority. He didn't muster that much excitement when he tried running for Pres.Buchanan is hardly mainstream, and he's hardly a historian. Wasn't he originally a political commentator?



Snowfire wrote: Welcome back by the way Acc ;)Thanks. :-6

[larrygn]

gmc;1315556 wrote: Stumbled across this, what do you think?

YouTube - Pat Buchanan: Hitler wasn't a threat to U.S.


Of course in 1941, Hitler was not a threat to ther U. S. Once he had conquered and destroyed England the the British interests, and consdolidated his power in Europe and Africa, maybe he would ahve then considere3d an attack on the U. S. What we did is make sure that we were NOT the only nation left when he decided to attack us. Of course, the fact that the founding fathers understood our manifest destiny given us by the Eternal God to bring freddom's Holy Light to all the world might have been a consderation as well.