Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe (Educational Opportunities in the UK - now Camp in the US)

[ Edited ]
Don't want to go too far astray on our threads for My Early Life, but came across this URL which was interesting regarding the viewpoint that the UK was thinking that sending young Brits to US summer camps helps increase diversity. I am putting this in the Off Topic cafe to help keep the threads on topic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3911015.stm

Message Edited by bentley on 07-02-2008 02:38 AM
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

[ Edited ]
Timbuktu1 wrote:
I don't know where to post this and this probably isn't the place but I wanted to share a thought I just had about "war".

A few weeks ago I was reading The Rape of Troy. It's thesis is that there was a shortage of women at the time of the Trojan War, in part because of female infanticide, and that's part of the reason men were at war... for women. Just now I was watching a wonderful DVD called The Spartans. If anyone has any interest in the subject, this is the MOST thorough explanation of the people and place. It was explained that the society began to decline when the population began to fall. They became less willing to put men into battle.

The thought occurred to me that in America there is tremendous anti-war feeling. Our population is not growing. My grandmother had 3 sons in WWII. Roosevelt had, was it 5? I have one son. The population of the mid-east is booming. Do you think that our willingness or unwillingness to fight is really a function of population growth? I'd never thought of this before but it seems to make some sense. I'm sure there are other factors as well, after all Kennedy didn't want to send his sons into battle any more than anyone else and for good reason!

I just wanted to throw this idea out as I think it's an interesting take on the mood of a country. Churchill says, when speaking of his father, that he was a genius but the mood and need of the country is what determines whether or not a leader is heard and followed.

________________________________________________________________________________________

BENTLEY RESPONDED:

It is true Timbuktu that we do not have thirteen children any longer for the most part (maybe one or two) and those few children are very precious to us. But in the larger families the entire family was precious to them so I don't think that if you asked anybody from a large family whether it was easier to lose a son or daughter in war than somebody who only has one or two sons if you would find any differences in the answers.

I think it a matter of glory for one's country which spurred people on and to be considered a brave man who has faced battle and walked away victoriously and better for it. It was really almost a sport then; (for some battles) and for others they were expanding the British Empire and bringing more prestige and glory to their land. When the World Wars came it was a matter of necessity and survival; everyone had to do their part and fight Hitler or Japan. We did not have a lot of choices.

I do not think anybody wants to send their sons to battle or their daughters; all of us would prefer I think deep down for them to stay at home safe with us and away from harm's way. But I think the common denominator now is that nobody wants their sons/daughters to die in vain and for not a noble cause which really does not protect our homeland. Nobody wants a war where the reasons you are there are fuzzy and not noble; but for other reasons not quite understood. Either it should be a question of national security (truly) or we should have been attacked before we go where we are not wanted to impose our will on others.

With nuclear power it makes some of these decisions even more of a throw of the dice. I think frankly that the United States is in a bad mood right now; as far as leadership..if you had a proven leader why go with an unknown quantity and throw the baby out with the bath water.

The Spartans sounds fascinating; and I will look into it. I think these kinds of digressions probably should go into the Off Topic Cafe unless they deal with the chapter specifically; but war does play a hefty part as a backdrop of Churchill at this time in his life so what the heck.

I will post your comments and my response in the Off Topic Cafe too so we can continue this terrific digression there.

This is however great thinking Timbuktu.

Bentley

Message Edited by bentley on 07-12-2008 12:06 PM
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

I think the issue of THE BOMB makes a lot of sense. It changed our thinking about war.

I didn't mean to imply that on a conscious level parents decide their children are expendible. Although that is going on in the mideast today. Yasser Arafat used to tell Palestinian women to have l2 sons so that they can sacrifice most of them for the cause. What I was getting at was a root cause for an ethos. But demographics were the cause India and China would be the most warlike nations, so obviously there's more at work here.

I think in retrospect getting into WWII seems easier than it was. After all, we were never attacked by Germany and until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor Roosevelt could not gather sympathy for war. I know there were rallies of America Firsters and generally Americans are not pro-war.
I hear that Pat Buccanan has just come out with a book saying that it was our fault that Hitler did what he did.

Churchill was certainly the right man at the right time!

Can I ask you a question? You have so much information on Churchill and I have almost none. I remember asking my father if Churchill was a great man. His reply "He was great for England". Do you understand that answer? It implies that somehow he wasn't that great for the US. I have no idea what he meant but he was generally very astute about politics and history so I'm still wondering...
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Timbuktu1 wrote:
I think the issue of THE BOMB makes a lot of sense. It changed our thinking about war.

I didn't mean to imply that on a conscious level parents decide their children are expendible. Although that is going on in the mideast today. Yasser Arafat used to tell Palestinian women to have l2 sons so that they can sacrifice most of them for the cause. What I was getting at was a root cause for an ethos. But demographics were the cause India and China would be the most warlike nations, so obviously there's more at work here.

I think in retrospect getting into WWII seems easier than it was. After all, we were never attacked by Germany and until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor Roosevelt could not gather sympathy for war. I know there were rallies of America Firsters and generally Americans are not pro-war.
I hear that Pat Buccanan has just come out with a book saying that it was our fault that Hitler did what he did.

Churchill was certainly the right man at the right time!

Can I ask you a question? You have so much information on Churchill and I have almost none. I remember asking my father if Churchill was a great man. His reply "He was great for England". Do you understand that answer? It implies that somehow he wasn't that great for the US. I have no idea what he meant but he was generally very astute about politics and history so I'm still wondering...




Yes, these long range missiles change a lot; and nuclear power could mean the end of the world for extremists who believe that the hereafter is more glorious than the here and now and more fulfilling for them and everyone else.

Yes, it is going on in the Middle East today; one sacrifices their life so the remainder get martyr perks. That is the kind of thinking which is the most dangerous to counter. Countries and enemies without structured armies; now just cells out there ready to go off.

Because of Japan, we were then ready for war; the decision had been made for us.

Does Buchanan mean that we should have done something sooner; I think that is true the world over; a lot of people knew what was going on at least to a small extent and what they are all saying now is that it was all a secret; when whole communities disappear where does everyone think they are going. I would certainly expect the worst if all of the neighbors on the even side of the street were taken off into the night as hostages. I wouldn't be able to imply that I never suspected that these folks were in trouble and go on with my life as if nothing happened. Many did help out and at great peril to themselves on an individual level; but I often wonder what countries were thinking; was it well we shouldn't nose around in somebody's business or they aren't trying anything over here.

I really think it was a God sent that Europe had Churchill; he had all of the right contacts, the right pedigree; the right personality and beliefs and also maybe to a small extent because his mother was American, maybe that persuaded Roosevelt slightly more to help him and Europe. Who knows.

China and places like India/Pakistan are scary in a way; because they do not value life or each other and see people as expendable. Conducting a war and losing many would not affect them as much due to this philosophy on life's worth and humanity.

Churchill was great for England; he was also a great man period; maybe some of Churchill's party politics may have not been in agreement with your Dad; maybe he thought that the English people much as they queue up to take a bus were more apt to respond to the temperament and dynamics of a Churchill where maybe here in America we need things to be more expedient and more self gratifying; I am not sure not knowing your Dad or what he felt he wanted to gain from his government. My father revered Churchill and thought he was a dynamo; which he was.

I think it would be great to have someone so imperturbable sitting handling the daily affairs and steadily checking them off and getting them done. It could have been that Churchill came off as a Sir Winston to your Dad and maybe he felt that he might be unapproachable. When folks really got to know him on a personal level they really felt that they had made a loyal friend for life.

Well I love the guy; so I am not the best person to ask I guess.

Bentley
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

I just checked out Buchanan's book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary War. My son told me he saw an interview about it and now he detests Buchanan. He's re-writing history and giving responsiblity for the war to us, in the sense that Hitler had no choice but to do what he did. At least that's what my son says, so I'm getting it third hand. But I wouldn't be surprised as it seems everyone blames America for everything and we seem to accept the blame. I'd better not get started on that!

I may be reading more into my father's comment than was there, too late now. He tended to look at both sides of every issue. All throughout the cold war he was for the Russians, for example! I never knew how serious he was but as time has passed I've seen the truth in a lot of what he said. I'll just have to keep studying Churchill till I get it! :smileywink:
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Timbuktu1 wrote:
I just checked out Buchanan's book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary War. My son told me he saw an interview about it and now he detests Buchanan. He's re-writing history and giving responsiblity for the war to us, in the sense that Hitler had no choice but to do what he did. At least that's what my son says, so I'm getting it third hand. But I wouldn't be surprised as it seems everyone blames America for everything and we seem to accept the blame. I'd better not get started on that!

I may be reading more into my father's comment than was there, too late now. He tended to look at both sides of every issue. All throughout the cold war he was for the Russians, for example! I never knew how serious he was but as time has passed I've seen the truth in a lot of what he said. I'll just have to keep studying Churchill till I get it! :smileywink:




This is bizarre. Really, the Russians? Churchill had an interesting way of getting to the core of things quickly; I fail to see how the World War was an unnecessary war considering what was happening to innocent people everywhere and how Hitler was just rolling into one nation after another. Maybe Buchanan needs money and is trying sensationalism. This seems even far out for him.

I think this is not good for Buchanan either; how could it be. Hitler brought finality to many people's lives, families parents; it is just too sensitive. The only one who could make fun of Hitler and get away with it was Mel Brooks in The Producers; it is usually a subject that just incites pain and hysteria.

I won't be reading the book. That is for sure. Sorry to hear that this Buchanan announcement has caused you so much anguish.

Bentley
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
I just checked out Buchanan's book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary War. My son told me he saw an interview about it and now he detests Buchanan. He's re-writing history and giving responsiblity for the war to us, in the sense that Hitler had no choice but to do what he did. At least that's what my son says, so I'm getting it third hand. But I wouldn't be surprised as it seems everyone blames America for everything and we seem to accept the blame. I'd better not get started on that!

I may be reading more into my father's comment than was there, too late now. He tended to look at both sides of every issue. All throughout the cold war he was for the Russians, for example! I never knew how serious he was but as time has passed I've seen the truth in a lot of what he said. I'll just have to keep studying Churchill till I get it! :smileywink:




This is bizarre. Really, the Russians? Churchill had an interesting way of getting to the core of things quickly; I fail to see how the World War was an unnecessary war considering what was happening to innocent people everywhere and how Hitler was just rolling into one nation after another. Maybe Buchanan needs money and is trying sensationalism. This seems even far out for him.

I think this is not good for Buchanan either; how could it be. Hitler brought finality to many people's lives, families parents; it is just too sensitive. The only one who could make fun of Hitler and get away with it was Mel Brooks in The Producers; it is usually a subject that just incites pain and hysteria.

I won't be reading the book. That is for sure. Sorry to hear that this Buchanan announcement


has caused you so much anguish.

Bentley







I'm not worried about Bucchanan, I think you're right that he's being sensationalistic. He's equating it with Iraq. Saddaam caused a lot of misery and so do Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO. But people make excuses and it's easier to blame ourselves sometimes than to fight evil. I don't think that Hitler was much different in mind set than these people but I'm not sure that the country wants to know that. If we think that it's somehow something we've done wrong, then we can just fix it by being "better". But that doesn't explain why Bali, India, Chechniya, Israel, etc. are being bombed. I see a lot of parallels.

BTW, I was amazed to see that Bucchanan's website is actually called "America First". As I understand it that was code for Nazi sympathizer before the war.


About the Russians.... talk about hero worship! He felt the Russians were the true heroes of the war. They'd suffered much more than anyone else and fought with great courage and resolve. He felt that they were entitled to control Eastern Europe as a buffer zone, after all they'd sacrificed. And he had no fear that they would be invading us anytime soon...they had a big country and just wanted to be left alone in peace, that was his take on it. It did sound bizarre in the 50's, but not so much now.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



Timbuktu1 wrote:


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
I just checked out Buchanan's book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary War. My son told me he saw an interview about it and now he detests Buchanan. He's re-writing history and giving responsiblity for the war to us, in the sense that Hitler had no choice but to do what he did. At least that's what my son says, so I'm getting it third hand. But I wouldn't be surprised as it seems everyone blames America for everything and we seem to accept the blame. I'd better not get started on that!

I may be reading more into my father's comment than was there, too late now. He tended to look at both sides of every issue. All throughout the cold war he was for the Russians, for example! I never knew how serious he was but as time has passed I've seen the truth in a lot of what he said. I'll just have to keep studying Churchill till I get it! :smileywink:




This is bizarre. Really, the Russians? Churchill had an interesting way of getting to the core of things quickly; I fail to see how the World War was an unnecessary war considering what was happening to innocent people everywhere and how Hitler was just rolling into one nation after another. Maybe Buchanan needs money and is trying sensationalism. This seems even far out for him.

I think this is not good for Buchanan either; how could it be. Hitler brought finality to many people's lives, families parents; it is just too sensitive. The only one who could make fun of Hitler and get away with it was Mel Brooks in The Producers; it is usually a subject that just incites pain and hysteria.

I won't be reading the book. That is for sure. Sorry to hear that this Buchanan announcement


has caused you so much anguish.

Bentley







I'm not worried about Bucchanan, I think you're right that he's being sensationalistic. He's equating it with Iraq. Saddaam caused a lot of misery and so do Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO. But people make excuses and it's easier to blame ourselves sometimes than to fight evil. I don't think that Hitler was much different in mind set than these people but I'm not sure that the country wants to know that. If we think that it's somehow something we've done wrong, then we can just fix it by being "better". But that doesn't explain why Bali, India, Chechniya, Israel, etc. are being bombed. I see a lot of parallels.

BTW, I was amazed to see that Bucchanan's website is actually called "America First". As I understand it that was code for Nazi sympathizer before the war.


About the Russians.... talk about hero worship! He felt the Russians were the true heroes of the war. They'd suffered much more than anyone else and fought with great courage and resolve. He felt that they were entitled to control Eastern Europe as a buffer zone, after all they'd sacrificed. And he had no fear that they would be invading us anytime soon...they had a big country and just wanted to be left alone in peace, that was his take on it. It did sound bizarre in the 50's, but not so much now.




So funny; your father would have been interesting to invite to a dinner party (lol); maybe he knew things we didn't. As far as Buchanan's book, this is just too bizarre; I am so tired of America being blamed for this or that; can't we just feel good about ourselves; we give more money and goods to help more people on this globe than anybody else. I am not talking about the country; but Americans as individuals; we are a charitable people; I think we get a bum rap because of our politicians and because of people like Buchanan. We are having it hard enough without any piling on.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

Amen!
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

Bentley, I've been reading more about Bucchanan's book. If you get a chance, you might be interested. He says something that I've been thinking, in the back of my mind, while I've been reading. If England won the war and Churchill was so capable, then why did England lose the Empire and everything else? Bucchanan says that England should not have gone to war for Poland but let Hitler fight Russia. I don't know enough about all of this to have any kind of valid opinion. I think he might be implying that our best course is to allow the mideast to have a civil war. He is knowledgible and is an independent thinker.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Timbuktu1 wrote:
Bentley, I've been reading more about Bucchanan's book. If you get a chance, you might be interested. He says something that I've been thinking, in the back of my mind, while I've been reading. If England won the war and Churchill was so capable, then why did England lose the Empire and everything else? Bucchanan says that England should not have gone to war for Poland but let Hitler fight Russia. I don't know enough about all of this to have any kind of valid opinion. I think he might be implying that our best course is to allow the mideast to have a civil war. He is knowledgible and is an independent thinker.




Yes he is; I guess he is saying that they would have diminished themselves; I would almost buy this argument about the middle east if we did not have Israel which will stop at nothing to protect itself (I understand this of course) and Iran (with nuclear power which will stop at nothing in destroying Israel and others who may disagree). It could end up being messier without containment and the point where the problems could have been diffused would have passed. It is always interesting to hear back seat drivers expound on what they would have done if. Nobody has elected Buchanan for president and the reason he has not gotten further in my opinion is that his ideas and speech have the ability to offend many and spark controversy. He is a better television commentator because he is such a lightning rod.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
Bentley, I've been reading more about Bucchanan's book. If you get a chance, you might be interested. He says something that I've been thinking, in the back of my mind, while I've been reading. If England won the war and Churchill was so capable, then why did England lose the Empire and everything else? Bucchanan says that England should not have gone to war for Poland but let Hitler fight Russia. I don't know enough about all of this to have any kind of valid opinion. I think he might be implying that our best course is to allow the mideast to have a civil war. He is knowledgible and is an independent thinker.




Yes he is; I guess he is saying that they would have diminished themselves; I would almost buy this argument about the middle east if we did not have Israel which will stop at nothing to protect itself (I understand this of course) and Iran (with nuclear power which will stop at nothing in destroying Israel and others who may disagree). It could end up being messier without containment and the point where the problems could have been diffused would have passed. It is always interesting to hear back seat drivers expound on what they would have done if. Nobody has elected Buchanan for president and the reason he has not gotten further in my opinion is that his ideas and speech have the ability to offend many and spark controversy. He is a better television commentator because he is such a lightning rod.





Yes, I agree with everything you've said.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Timbuktu1 wrote:


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
Bentley, I've been reading more about Bucchanan's book. If you get a chance, you might be interested. He says something that I've been thinking, in the back of my mind, while I've been reading. If England won the war and Churchill was so capable, then why did England lose the Empire and everything else? Bucchanan says that England should not have gone to war for Poland but let Hitler fight Russia. I don't know enough about all of this to have any kind of valid opinion. I think he might be implying that our best course is to allow the mideast to have a civil war. He is knowledgible and is an independent thinker.




Yes he is; I guess he is saying that they would have diminished themselves; I would almost buy this argument about the middle east if we did not have Israel which will stop at nothing to protect itself (I understand this of course) and Iran (with nuclear power which will stop at nothing in destroying Israel and others who may disagree). It could end up being messier without containment and the point where the problems could have been diffused would have passed. It is always interesting to hear back seat drivers expound on what they would have done if. Nobody has elected Buchanan for president and the reason he has not gotten further in my opinion is that his ideas and speech have the ability to offend many and spark controversy. He is a better television commentator because he is such a lightning rod.





Yes, I agree with everything you've said.




Another point that troubles me is that Buchanan's thesis is flawed if in fact the reason that any country gets involved in any conflict is not simply for its own purposes or to save its own people but in fact to save another countries' populace who might be brutalized and killed (one reason we need to support UN global forces). With Buchanan's thesis, you just sit back and let them extinguish themselves, each other , or in the case of Poland, the Polish people or the Kuwaiti people or the Muslims in the Serb/Coatian conflict (goodness knows there have been and are so many examples). Troubling thesis on so many different levels but of course I have not read it and don't think I plan to so that is MHO from my arm chair (lol)
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - CHICAGO CHURCHILLIANS

TIMBUKTU:

This might be interesting for you:

November 2008 Back to Top

Chicago Friends of Churchill - Martin Levy

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Intercontinental Hotel, Chicago
Marvin Levy, former General Manager and Vice President of Football Operations for the Buffalo Bills, will speak to the Chicago Friends of Churchill on Thursday, November 20 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Chicago. Coach Levy is an avid Churchillian. He will relate his professional experiences to his enthusiasm about the Churchillian way. Following a dinner, Coach Levy will address the gathering and then take questions.

Contact: Phil Larson
parker-fox@msn.com
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - CHICAGO CHURCHILLIANS



bentley wrote:
TIMBUKTU:

This might be interesting for you:

November 2008 Back to Top

Chicago Friends of Churchill - Martin Levy

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Intercontinental Hotel, Chicago
Marvin Levy, former General Manager and Vice President of Football Operations for the Buffalo Bills, will speak to the Chicago Friends of Churchill on Thursday, November 20 at the Intercontinental Hotel in Chicago. Coach Levy is an avid Churchillian. He will relate his professional experiences to his enthusiasm about the Churchillian way. Following a dinner, Coach Levy will address the gathering and then take questions.

Contact: Phil Larson
parker-fox@msn.com




Thanks Bentley! Does sound great. BTW, we know a Marvin Levy, I wonder if it could be the same one? You can't sleep either, huh?
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - CHICAGO CHURCHILLIANS

Nope, different Marv. This one born in England, l925.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - CHICAGO CHURCHILLIANS


Timbuktu1 wrote:
Nope, different Marv. This one born in England, l925.




I wanted to get the syllabus updated; but now I an in earnest going to bed. :smileyhappy:
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



Timbuktu1 wrote:


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
I just checked out Buchanan's book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary War. My son told me he saw an interview about it and now he detests Buchanan. He's re-writing history and giving responsiblity for the war to us, in the sense that Hitler had no choice but to do what he did. At least that's what my son says, so I'm getting it third hand. But I wouldn't be surprised as it seems everyone blames America for everything and we seem to accept the blame. I'd better not get started on that!

I may be reading more into my father's comment than was there, too late now. He tended to look at both sides of every issue. All throughout the cold war he was for the Russians, for example! I never knew how serious he was but as time has passed I've seen the truth in a lot of what he said. I'll just have to keep studying Churchill till I get it! :smileywink:




This is bizarre. Really, the Russians? Churchill had an interesting way of getting to the core of things quickly; I fail to see how the World War was an unnecessary war considering what was happening to innocent people everywhere and how Hitler was just rolling into one nation after another. Maybe Buchanan needs money and is trying sensationalism. This seems even far out for him.

I think this is not good for Buchanan either; how could it be. Hitler brought finality to many people's lives, families parents; it is just too sensitive. The only one who could make fun of Hitler and get away with it was Mel Brooks in The Producers; it is usually a subject that just incites pain and hysteria.

I won't be reading the book. That is for sure. Sorry to hear that this Buchanan announcement


has caused you so much anguish.

Bentley







I'm not worried about Bucchanan, I think you're right that he's being sensationalistic. He's equating it with Iraq. Saddaam caused a lot of misery and so do Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO. But people make excuses and it's easier to blame ourselves sometimes than to fight evil. I don't think that Hitler was much different in mind set than these people but I'm not sure that the country wants to know that. If we think that it's somehow something we've done wrong, then we can just fix it by being "better". But that doesn't explain why Bali, India, Chechniya, Israel, etc. are being bombed. I see a lot of parallels.

BTW, I was amazed to see that Bucchanan's website is actually called "America First". As I understand it that was code for Nazi sympathizer before the war.


About the Russians.... talk about hero worship! He felt the Russians were the true heroes of the war. They'd suffered much more than anyone else and fought with great courage and resolve. He felt that they were entitled to control Eastern Europe as a buffer zone, after all they'd sacrificed. And he had no fear that they would be invading us anytime soon...they had a big country and just wanted to be left alone in peace, that was his take on it. It did sound bizarre in the 50's, but not so much now.


America First?  Wasn't that the party that Charles Lindberg started? He was considered a Nazi sympathizer at one time.
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR



debbook wrote:


Timbuktu1 wrote:


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:
I just checked out Buchanan's book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unecessary War. My son told me he saw an interview about it and now he detests Buchanan. He's re-writing history and giving responsiblity for the war to us, in the sense that Hitler had no choice but to do what he did. At least that's what my son says, so I'm getting it third hand. But I wouldn't be surprised as it seems everyone blames America for everything and we seem to accept the blame. I'd better not get started on that!

I may be reading more into my father's comment than was there, too late now. He tended to look at both sides of every issue. All throughout the cold war he was for the Russians, for example! I never knew how serious he was but as time has passed I've seen the truth in a lot of what he said. I'll just have to keep studying Churchill till I get it! :smileywink:




This is bizarre. Really, the Russians? Churchill had an interesting way of getting to the core of things quickly; I fail to see how the World War was an unnecessary war considering what was happening to innocent people everywhere and how Hitler was just rolling into one nation after another. Maybe Buchanan needs money and is trying sensationalism. This seems even far out for him.

I think this is not good for Buchanan either; how could it be. Hitler brought finality to many people's lives, families parents; it is just too sensitive. The only one who could make fun of Hitler and get away with it was Mel Brooks in The Producers; it is usually a subject that just incites pain and hysteria.

I won't be reading the book. That is for sure. Sorry to hear that this Buchanan announcement


has caused you so much anguish.

Bentley







I'm not worried about Bucchanan, I think you're right that he's being sensationalistic. He's equating it with Iraq. Saddaam caused a lot of misery and so do Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO. But people make excuses and it's easier to blame ourselves sometimes than to fight evil. I don't think that Hitler was much different in mind set than these people but I'm not sure that the country wants to know that. If we think that it's somehow something we've done wrong, then we can just fix it by being "better". But that doesn't explain why Bali, India, Chechniya, Israel, etc. are being bombed. I see a lot of parallels.

BTW, I was amazed to see that Bucchanan's website is actually called "America First". As I understand it that was code for Nazi sympathizer before the war.


About the Russians.... talk about hero worship! He felt the Russians were the true heroes of the war. They'd suffered much more than anyone else and fought with great courage and resolve. He felt that they were entitled to control Eastern Europe as a buffer zone, after all they'd sacrificed. And he had no fear that they would be invading us anytime soon...they had a big country and just wanted to be left alone in peace, that was his take on it. It did sound bizarre in the 50's, but not so much now.


America First?  Wasn't that the party that Charles Lindberg started? He was considered a Nazi sympathizer at one time.





Yes Deb, in terms of the slogan; of course we have discovered in this primary season that slogans can be reused to mean different things; but you are right Lindbergh did use this terminology.

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp
Frequent Contributor
jplatzer
Posts: 43
Registered: ‎09-13-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe

Hello all -
 
I had mentioned to Bentley that if the current lack of participation by the moderators continues here that we might be better off forming our own history book club outside of B&N. I suggest using Gmail. For those that don't have it, it keeps all of your emails to someone as a conversation (i.e. so you can see all your previous discussions). This works much like the bulletin board that we have here. Or, we could create a blog or some other basic webpage for this purpose. In this way we could organize it better (i.e. the way we want). Additionally, we could elicit input from everyone as to which books people want to read (rather than being told what to read). I suggest we discuss this as we finish up My Early Life. I also think we should establish what the next book should be before finishing this one so we all have time to get it before we start. I'd appreciate your thoughts.