patrick.net

Also read

The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II
by Thomas Fleming

"In his element: Churchill preferred war to peace. claims U.S. author Patrick Buchanan"

Obviously so did General Patton. During the 1920's, the most wonderful decade of the 20th century, when he was in his early 40's, he suffered severe bouts of depression because there was nothing going on for him to do. I'm sure September 1, 1939 was a day that he gloried in, realizing one way or another we would become involved. It's so ironic that after the biggie, he died in such an ignoble way, breaking his neck when the limo driver swerved to avoid an accident. If he thought he was depressed in the 1920's, imagine how he must have felt for those couple of weeks when he was paralyzed from the neck down before finally passing away.

Was there a choice?

It established our greatness as the dominating world power. Our mistake was empowering the losers with the UN. We should have occupied everywhere we conquered.

Yes it was very necessary. Communist, Marxists, and that kind of evil can't be left unchecked. As we will all soon find out.

Fucking losers asking a defeatist question. Must be Liberals, Commies, Marxists and Fags.

This guy is retarded because Hitler's entire worldview was written in Mein Kampf, years before he came to power.

And in it, Hitler actually revealed a sort of backhanded respect for the British, because the crown was able to manage 3rd worlders for over a century. Think about it, Lord Mountbatten, the head of the Navy in Asia & final Viceroy of British India, was half-German/half-British.

In many ways, Hitler wanted a detente with them where Britain manages its overseas colonies but Germany rules the continent allowing for Lebensraum, where German farmers settle eastern European killing off many ethnicities along the way. This is one of the primary reasons why Hitler didn't go on a killing crusade against the British Isles vs eastern European, during the early years of the war, because he actually saw a purpose for their existence.

And then, the whole stupid thing that the Soviets didn't remember D-Day "well" was because ... they were involved in the largest assault in history, kicking the Nazis out of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and everywhere else the Red Army went. Seriously, why would they think about "Saving Ryan's Privates" vs their own mega-campaigns on their own fronts? The battle for Stalingrad alone had 1M+ Soviet causalities.

And as for America, well yes, the Civil War affected the identity of the nation and two, Vietnam was a major failed decade plus long campaign during the Cold War. Of course Americans will remember that more, because only Hawaii and two Islands in Alaska were attacked throughout WWII.

One more stupid thing that this guy mentions is that the US govt had a sanguine attitude towards Stalin.

Let me remind him that the Soviets lost some 11M soldiers in all of their campaigns on the eastern front. If anything, they gave their entire country's young, just to survive. I'm sorry, but that's more than the simple adage ... "An enemy of an enemy is a friend" ... that's more like an an entire nation, taking a bullet, just to save more Americans and British from being killed.

If Germany had sent those battle hardened troops to Italy, the entire Allied campaign there would have ended in a total and complete defeat as both Anzio and the drives against Mt Cassino were only pseudo-successful because the Nazis put a subpar force down there to hold down the fort. And likewise, the Battle for Normandy would have had entire armies emerging from the middle of France to drive the Allies back into the English Channel. Forget about "Saving Ryan's Privates", it would have been more like "Let's Save Whomever We Can & Get Off this Bloody Continent"

So yes, for that, the Soviets deserve some respect for their sacrifices for the common good.

World War I was certainly pointless. It destroyed Europe and all it achieves was to lead directly to WW2.

Rin says

So yes, for that, the Soviets deserve some respect for their sacrifices for the common good.

But never forget, Stalin and the Communists were perfectly happy to be allied with the Nazis to carve up Europe in WWII. Had Hitler not double-crossed Stalin, who knows how things would have turned out?

Granted the Communists did the heavy lifting on the Eastern Front taking pressure off the West, but they were just fighting on their own land trying to win it back. The Communists weren't sending their military halfway around the world to liberate other countries invaded by the Nazis like the US did.........let alone fielding a huge Navy to fight the Japanese.

Rin says

So yes, for that, the Soviets deserve some respect for their sacrifices for the common good.

They would have starved without our food aid.

zzyzzx says

Rin says

So yes, for that, the Soviets deserve some respect for their sacrifices for the common good.

Fuck no: they were the main force behind the resurrection of the German military. Trained German pilots and tank crews in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles among other things. Whatever they sacrificed was for their own regime's survival, nothing more.

Not crushing Germany immediately after they overstepped their borders was stupid. The rest was just a logical consequence of that stupidity.

Same is happening right now in front of our eyes with Russia steadily biting off pieces of neighboring countries with impunity while markels and makrons are falling over themselves to appease the fuckers and pay them billions for their gas and oil (which can be easily bought elsewhere).

Not crushing Germany immediately after they overstepped their borders was stupid.

I would not say "stupid." Remember, England and France had the recent memories of the horrific carnage of WW1. Not really in the mood to see millions more of their young men gassed, machined gunned, or ripped apart by artillery.

HeadSet says

Not crushing Germany immediately after they overstepped their borders was stupid.

I would not say "stupid." Remember, England and France had the recent memories of the horrific carnage of WW1. Not really in the mood to see millions more of their young men gassed, machined gunned, or ripped apart by artillery.

At that point it would've been easy, nowhere near "millions gassed and machine gunned". By not crushing that shit in time they allowed it to fester into exact thing they allegedly feared with millions dying again.

Liberal_in_blackface says

Fuck no: they were the main force behind the resurrection of the German military. Trained German pilots and tank crews in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles among other things. Whatever they sacrificed was for their own regime's survival, nothing more.

Yes, a forgotten thing - the Wehrmacht practiced Mobile Warfare in secret in Ukraine, and spoke to Tukachevsky (sp?). Unfortunately for the Red Army, Stalin grew suspicious of him and purged him, and to his grave went the first attempt to turn the Red Army into a Mobile Armored Force. His successors, worried about their necks, kept things orthodox.

HeadSet says

I would not say "stupid." Remember, England and France had the recent memories of the horrific carnage of WW1. Not really in the mood to see millions more of their young men gassed, machined gunned, or ripped apart by artillery.

They waited too long and eventually woke up, but by that time they realized that, Germany was much stronger and modern. Then they decided the best bet was to point Hitler eastward by giving into him in Central Europe, which is why they did nothing when he invaded Poland. When the first reports of the Soviets entering Poland were heard, French and British Ministers opened the Champagne. Then the Red Army and Wehrmacht met and shook hands.

Chain Home (British Air Radar) survived 1930s budget cuts by a hair, even though it was one of the cheapest military programs in the budget. Without it the Battle of Britain could have gone very differently.

Liberal_in_blackface says

HeadSet says

Not crushing Germany immediately after they overstepped their borders was stupid.

I would not say "stupid." Remember, England and France had the recent memories of the horrific carnage of WW1. Not really in the mood to see millions more of their young men gassed, machined gunned, or ripped apart by artillery.

At that point it would've been easy, nowhere near "millions gassed and machine gunned". By not crushing that shit in time they allowed it to fester into exact thing they allegedly feared with millions dying again.

You have the benefit of hindsight. They had recent experience with millions dead in a war that at the beginning, did not look so terrible either.

Then they decided the best bet was to point Hitler eastward by giving into him in Central Europe, which is why they did nothing when he invaded Poland.

Check your facts. Britain and France both declared war on Germany specifically after Germany invaded Poland.

HeadSet says

Check your facts. Britain and France both declared war on Germany specifically after Germany invaded Poland.

Yep - but they didn't move a muscle. They were obligated to do SOMETHING because they had a public guarantee on Poland.

Between August 1939-May 1940, the French and Germans played a lot of soccer games with each other.

All the French had to do when 3/4 of the Wehrmacht and almost all the Panzers and Luftflottes were in Poland was to brush aside middle aged "Stomach Battalions" of Reserve 40-something Soldiers with Ulcers and Hernias lighty armed and 37mm AT Guns at best (no match for heavy French Tanks which Mk I-II-III Panzers could not take head on, either), and take over the Rheinland, which was 60% of German Industry.

Liberal_in_blackface says

Not crushing Germany immediately after they overstepped their borders was stupid.

That's easy to say that 80 yrs after the fact. "Easy you should just have done that..."
That assumes that the French or British armies were somehow more ready than the Germans, which is ridiculous. There was no reason to believe this would have easier than in 1914, when Germany was fighting France, England, and Russia at the same time and beating them.
Only the US had the luxury of 2 more years to prepare.

Heraclitusstudent says

That assumes that the French or British armies were somehow more ready than the Germans, which is ridiculous. There was no reason to believe this would have easier than in 1914, when Germany was fighting France, England, and Russia at the same time and beating them.

You are forgetting that German military was still coming from under severe restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles and was lagging behind its potential adversaries. Occupation of Chechoslovakia gave them shitload of arms and manufacturing capabilities thus leveling the playing field. Therefore giving up Chechoslovakia was a fucking failure of imagination, plain and simple.

Whatever. The allies were even less ready. To say "At that point it would've been easy" is meaningless. Easy for who?
Not to anyone that showed up later with the benefit of years of preparations.

Liberal_in_blackface says

they sacrificed was for their own regime's survival, nothing more.

Actually, their ppl as well. Read Hitler's own Mein Kampf, if you don't believe that Hitler had no qualms about eliminating entire populations from the east for his Lebensraum program.

socal2 says

Granted the Communists did the heavy lifting on the Eastern Front taking pressure off the West, but they were just fighting on their own land trying to win it back. The Communists weren't sending their military halfway around the world to liberate other countries invaded by the Nazis like the US did.........let alone fielding a huge Navy to fight the Japanese.

First of all, the fighting on the eastern front was far more intense than let's say Guadalcanal, New Guinea, or any of the other island campaigns over the Pacific.

And yes, they were fighting for their home. If the US continent (not islands) were invaded, we would have done the same & forgotten about Europe. Don't blame 'em for thinking of the home turf first.

And remember, they lost 11M men vs 300K US men. I think their heavy lifting did a lot from preventing Anzio, Cassino, Normandy, and other western battles from turning into a bloodbath for the western Allies.

And finally, don't say 'Communist fighting for', these were Slavic ppl, fighting against a monster who wanted their ppl dead. And no, that doesn't justify Stalin being a mass murderer as well towards his own ppl.

Heraclitusstudent says

World War I was certainly pointless. It destroyed Europe and all it achieves was to lead directly to WW2.

Yes General John Pershing (AEF supreme commander WWI) predicted that the armistice would simply lead to another war, one generation from his time. He was spot on.

He wanted the AEF to force unconditional surrender by capturing all the armies of Imperial Germany.

There have been 11 world wars?

By my count, we have really only had about 4 world wars. I am counting the 7 years war and the Napoleonic wars as the first two.

Heraclitusstudent says

The allies were even less ready.

This is false: they weren't forced to destroy their heavy weapons and they weren't restricted in developing their militaries after WWI. Germany was.