Interesting symposium at the American Conservative on World War II, in light of Pat Buchanan’s recent revisionist book:
G
Have you read this book yet? Was thinking about ordering it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
G
Have you read this book yet? Was thinking about ordering it.[/quote]
Pat has gone off the deep end.
Buchanan has lost all sense of reality. Hitler declared war on the US, so that is one flaw in his premise.
Worse still is the idea that we could have made deals with the Nazis. There was more to the nazis than just Hitler. It is not like Hitler was a lone kook and the rest were really nice guys.
Militarily Hitler was a liability. If instead of a war they had a couple of more years of peace to build their war machine till Hitler died of Parkinsons, we would have been facing a much more dangerous foe.
Stalin made a deal with Hitler we all know how that went. How Buchanan can ignore that is ridiculous.
Munich is seen as a big sell out and to some extent that is true. But at the time the British were in no position to fight.
The most advanced fighter plane the British had operational was the Hawker Hurricane which was no match for the ME 109. The Hurricane exterior was covered in canvas. At the time of Munich the Spitfire was only just starting to be put into production and the early models had wooden two bladed propellers.
Fighting their way uphill against the fortified positions the Czechs had built into the mountains would have taught the Germans some valuable lessons that would have made them more dangerous.
Funny that the actual historians at that site treat Buchanan’s book with much more respect than you do.
Especially the story of Munich is so incredibly wrong it is often laughable, and so is this remember Munich BS.
Do you remember Woodrow Wilson the guy that lead the US into WWI to make the world safe for democracy?
Well, part of his involvement in WWI was that the Germans in CS had the RIGHT to vote whether they wanted to join Germany or not.
There was no question how they would vote.
Not only that, noone had the military capacity to stop Germany.
So what should they have done?
Ignore the narrative that had lead to the US joining WWI? Suddenly declare that people had the right to choose their own fate unless they did not like the outcome?
Munich was sensible diplomacy and the only one who did not like the result was Hitler.
I would not like to know who would have won the war when it had started 1-2 years earlier and all of Germany up and in arms because they were denied to vote whether or not the German Sudetes were to join Germany.
[quote]hedo wrote:
G
Have you read this book yet? Was thinking about ordering it.[/quote]
Not yet, got four or five books to get through first (Blood Meridian and some military history), but am hoping to get to it sometime this fall. Buchanan has his warts, but he’s a bright guy who’s doing a service by questioning the overwhelming orthodoxy on free trade and WWII history.
I think the more convincing case is on American involvement in World War I, I’ve yet to see a good reason we intervened then, and World War I, not WWII, abolished the old order and set the stage for fascism, communism, and everything that followed.
[quote]orion wrote:
Funny that the actual historians at that site treat Buchanan’s book with much more respect than you do. [/quote]
One thing I learned when I lived in Germany is you Germans put a lot of value on titles. Just because I am not an “actual historian” does not mean that I can’t use the knowledge I have gained from studying history to formulate my own opinions and reach my own conclusions.
There is a real problem with trying to second guess history like Buchanan is doing. There were bad things that happened in WW2 but there is some good that came out of it also. ie It is bad that millions of people died, but it really gave us something to think about during the cold war.
What would have been the result of the war not being fought then? How would Roosevelt have been able to finance and develop the Mahattan project in secrecy without the war going on? The peace that Buchanan suggests we would have enjoyed might have seen Germany become armed with atomic weapons and rockets to deliver them with and the US with nothing to match them with.
[quote]
Especially the story of Munich is so incredibly wrong it is often laughable, and so is this remember Munich BS.
Do you remember Woodrow Wilson the guy that lead the US into WWI to make the world safe for democracy?
Well, part of his involvement in WWI was that the Germans in CS had the RIGHT to vote whether they wanted to join Germany or not. [/quote]
I thought Czechoslovakia was a new country that was carved out of Austria Hungary at the end of World War 1. The Sudetenland was never a part of Germany. So you aren’t making much sense here.
It would have gone badly for the Germans. The Czech had fortresses built into the mountains that the Germans would have had to fight uphill against. They would have made the Germans pay dearly for vitory. If the British and French had gotten in on it while the Germans were slugging it out with the Czechs it would have been bad for the Germans.
The actual scarier prospect would have been how things would have gone if the was had started a year later. That one year would have meant that the Germans would have had jets operational sooner in the war. The benefits to the navy of an extra year or two of peace would have been significant also. The Bismark and Tirpitz would have been operational sooner along with one or two sister ships and the follow on class of ships that was bigger and more advanced would have been building. More importantly they would have had at least one aircraft carrier which would have been a gamechanger.
The logical conclusion is there are way too many variables to second guess the war with any accuracy. To be as adamant as Buchanan is that it would have worked out wonderfully if we had stayed out of the war is illogical.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I think the more convincing case is on American involvement in World War I, I’ve yet to see a good reason we intervened then, and World War I, not WWII, abolished the old order and set the stage for fascism, communism, and everything that followed.[/quote]
Here’s a couple.
Wilson was in love with the brits and was looking for an excuse to join in long before we got in.
Wilson wanted a seat at the table in versailis(sp?). He was convinced he could engineer world peace. He got completely railroaded and conceeded everything on his list. He eventually became a complete nut job. He was probably have a nut job at this time. The guy was in fantasy land. Frued wrote an interesting analysis of him.
WW2 was very avoidable for the US. Would the world be a better place if we didn’t get involved?
Should we have sold fuel to the Japanese war machine?
I tend to think not.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WW2 was very avoidable for the US. Would the world be a better place if we didn’t get involved?
Should we have sold fuel to the Japanese war machine?
I tend to think not.[/quote]
100% agreed. Opting out of WW2 would have been disasterous. WW1 may have been the one to stay out of. Probably no WW2(as we know it) if WW1 ended differently.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
WW2 was very avoidable for the US. Would the world be a better place if we didn’t get involved?
Should we have sold fuel to the Japanese war machine?
I tend to think not.
100% agreed. Opting out of WW2 would have been disasterous. WW1 may have been the one to stay out of. Probably no WW2(as we know it) if WW1 ended differently.[/quote]
I agree. If we would have stayed out of WW1 then I think WW2 would still have happened but it could have been pretty different. So many possible scenarios.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I think the more convincing case is on American involvement in World War I, I’ve yet to see a good reason we intervened then, and World War I, not WWII, abolished the old order and set the stage for fascism, communism, and everything that followed.
Here’s a couple.
Wilson was in love with the brits and was looking for an excuse to join in long before we got in.
Wilson wanted a seat at the table in versailis(sp?). He was convinced he could engineer world peace. He got completely railroaded and conceeded everything on his list. He eventually became a complete nut job. He was probably have a nut job at this time. The guy was in fantasy land. Frued wrote an interesting analysis of him.[/quote]
Yup, but I said GOOD reason.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I think the more convincing case is on American involvement in World War I, I’ve yet to see a good reason we intervened then, and World War I, not WWII, abolished the old order and set the stage for fascism, communism, and everything that followed.
Here’s a couple.
Wilson was in love with the brits and was looking for an excuse to join in long before we got in.
Wilson wanted a seat at the table in versailis(sp?). He was convinced he could engineer world peace. He got completely railroaded and conceeded everything on his list. He eventually became a complete nut job. He was probably have a nut job at this time. The guy was in fantasy land. Frued wrote an interesting analysis of him.
Yup, but I said GOOD reason.[/quote]
You don’t like those?
sarcasm of course.
We got into WWI to save rich bond holders who’d put millions into British and French war bonds.
We got into WWII because the Japanese siezed American assets (oil fields) from Shell Oil. Our government retaliated, one thing led to another, and here we go.
Let’s face it: did any regular person give a rat’s ass about Europeans killing each other at the Somme? Or the Japanese taking over some shithole islands? LOL!
Its all about POWER, baby!!
For those interested, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens take on Pat Buchanan’s revisionist thesis:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NWQyMWM3M2RmYTUwYmQ1ZTgzOTYxNWI2NWU0YWJlZWM=
P.S. - Gdollars, Blood Meridian is a great book, especially if you are fan of McCarthy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For those interested, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens take on Pat Buchanan’s revisionist thesis:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NWQyMWM3M2RmYTUwYmQ1ZTgzOTYxNWI2NWU0YWJlZWM=
P.S. - Gdollars, Blood Meridian is a great book, especially if you are fan of McCarthy.[/quote]
Thanks, I’ll take a peek at Blood Meridian.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We got into WWI to save rich bond holders who’d put millions into British and French war bonds.
We got into WWII because the Japanese siezed American assets (oil fields) from Shell Oil. Our government retaliated, one thing led to another, and here we go.
Let’s face it: did any regular person give a rat’s ass about Europeans killing each other at the Somme? Or the Japanese taking over some shithole islands? LOL!
Its all about POWER, baby!![/quote]
True. I think you can make a case that part of the gov’ts responsibilities is to protect american interests abroad. I would say anyone that puts $ in a war bond is on their own. Just like the americans that knowingly tried to dodge German subs.
The Kaiser was a totalitarian dictator. France and Britain were democracies who had a lot more in common with the US than the Kaiser.
The US would not have been in a good position with the whole of Europe under a German dictatorship and all of the colonial possessions of the Europeans owned by the Kaiser.
America would not have been in a good position with the Kaisers army and navy stationed in Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, etc…
America would have had no export markets and been facing a worldwide hegemony that could crush it.
Suggesting America could have survived staying out of world war one is ridiculous.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The Kaiser was a totalitarian dictator. France and Britain were democracies who had a lot more in common with the US than the Kaiser.
The US would not have been in a good position with the whole of Europe under a German dictatorship and all of the colonial possessions of the Europeans owned by the Kaiser.
America would not have been in a good position with the Kaisers army and navy stationed in Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Belize, Guyana, etc…
America would have had no export markets and been facing a worldwide hegemony that could crush it.
Suggesting America could have survived staying out of world war one is ridiculous.[/quote]
What makes you think the Kaiser’s army would have conquered all of Europe? I was under the impression it was pretty much a stale mate at the time we entered the war. My guess (all we can do) is that there still would have been a peace treaty, it would have just been more even handed. The entire country of Germany was literally starving.
Does anyone have any suggestions on good books on WW1. I haven’t found anything that gives conclusive evidence on what actually started WW1. From what I’ve read it appears to be a bit of a mystery and that seems bizzar to me.
Wait people actually take Pat Buchanan seriously?