Timbuktu1 wrote:
BTW, in the movies, whenever a scene depicts the attack on Pearl Harbor, everyone seems to immediately understand the seriousness of the event. My Uncle told me that when he first heard of the attack his reaction was "Where's Pearl Harbor?" Hawaii wasn't even a state then.
Someone should have told him New Jersey
I do not know Buchanan but this revisionist version of history is anti-semitic. Hitler had a choice as to whether he killed six milliion Jews, for instance! However, the severe reparations of the Versailles Treaty after WWI impoverished Germany and created the conditions which gave rise to the Nazi Party. Had Germany been treated better in this regard Hitler may not have come to power and therefore the war may not have happened. But we can all rewrite history! The fact of the matter is that by 1933 everyone in Europe knew that Hitler was persecuting, killing and imprisoning Jews, Gipsies, Homosexuals and other 'dissidents' and preparing to invade Czechoslovakia. Because Britain in particular had scarcely recovered from WWI and the Great Depression, we were very unwilling to get into another war, which is why Churchill became a voice in the wilderness and why Chamberlain pursued the 'Peace in Our Time' fiasco with Hitler. Could we have negotiated with Hitler to stop him persecuting the Jews and pursuing his dream of a third Reich which would last forever but which had only pure Aryan people in it? I think not, and I am a pacifist!
Did your father fight in the war? If so, he might have been more appreciative of the contribution of the Soviet Union to the war effort than others, who seem to forget that they were our allies. He may also have read some Russian history and realise how bad things were for the Russian people in the days of the Czar and how much they needed a change. And he may also have realised that the Cold War and the fear that was engendered in the American people about Russia was largely a post-war political (Machievellian) construct. The British people did not have this degree of fear and Russia is only 200 miles away! The War on Terror and Homeland Security etc etc is reminiscent of the Cold War tactics of government and like your father I have as little faith in our politicians over this issue as I had during the Cold War
.
. You won't get near to your father's viewpoint by reading Churchill - he was a good war leader because he thrived on war and he had an aristocratic fear of any political system, like socialism or communism, which took away power from the aristocrats. Hitler's National Socialism (= Nazism), anti-semitism apart, also gave power to the people so was Churchill fighting against anti-semitism or was he fighting National Socialism?
As for the responsibility for the war being America's, this is a misreading of history because in fact it was the Americans who protested most about the treatment of Germany after WWI (although they signed the Treaty). Several of your politicans foresaw the difficulties that would ensue vis a vis the German economy and spoke out about it (I forget their names now). Roosevelt could have denied money to Britain but that would not have stopped the war, which had already started, but it would have ensured that Britain was invaded and that was not in America's interests. And absolutely none of this revisionism would have stopped what happened to the Jews, except that much more could have been done to help those fleeing Hitler's Germany in the 30s.
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!
bentley wrote:
Timbuktu1 wrote:
BTW, in the movies, whenever a scene depicts the attack on Pearl Harbor, everyone seems to immediately understand the seriousness of the event. My Uncle told me that when he first heard of the attack his reaction was "Where's Pearl Harbor?" Hawaii wasn't even a state then.
Someone should have told him New Jersey
Same thing.
Choisya wrote:I do not know Buchanan but this revisionist version of history is anti-semitic. Hitler had a choice as to whether he killed six milliion Jews, for instance! However, the severe reparations of the Versailles Treaty after WWI impoverished Germany and created the conditions which gave rise to the Nazi Party. Had Germany been treated better in this regard Hitler may not have come to power and therefore the war may not have happened. But we can all rewrite history! The fact of the matter is that by 1933 everyone in Europe knew that Hitler was persecuting, killing and imprisoning Jews, Gipsies, Homosexuals and other 'dissidents' and preparing to invade Czechoslovakia. Because Britain in particular had scarcely recovered from WWI and the Great Depression, we were very unwilling to get into another war, which is why Churchill became a voice in the wilderness and why Chamberlain pursued the 'Peace in Our Time' fiasco with Hitler. Could we have negotiated with Hitler to stop him persecuting the Jews and pursuing his dream of a third Reich which would last forever but which had only pure Aryan people in it? I think not, and I am a pacifist!Did your father fight in the war? If so, he might have been more appreciative of the contribution of the Soviet Union to the war effort than others, who seem to forget that they were our allies. He may also have read some Russian history and realise how bad things were for the Russian people in the days of the Czar and how much they needed a change. And he may also have realised that the Cold War and the fear that was engendered in the American people about Russia was largely a post-war political (Machievellian) construct. The British people did not have this degree of fear and Russia is only 200 miles away! The War on Terror and Homeland Security etc etc is reminiscent of the Cold War tactics of government and like your father I have as little faith in our politicians over this issue as I had during the Cold WarYou won't get near to your father's viewpoint by reading Churchill - he was a good war leader because he thrived on war and he had an aristocratic fear of any political system, like socialism or communism, which took away power from the aristocrats. Hitler's National Socialism (= Nazism), anti-semitism apart, also gave power to the people so was Churchill fighting against anti-semitism or was he fighting National Socialism?As for the responsibility for the war being America's, this is a misreading of history because in fact it was the Americans who protested most about the treatment of Germany after WWI (although they signed the Treaty). Several of your politicans foresaw the difficulties that would ensue vis a vis the German economy and spoke out about it (I forget their names now). Roosevelt could have denied money to Britain but that would not have stopped the war, which had already started, but it would have ensured that Britain was invaded and that was not in America's interests. And absolutely none of this revisionism would have stopped what happened to the Jews, except that much more could have been done to help those fleeing Hitler's Germany in the 30s.
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!
Somehow we've crossed messages. You may not know Buchanan but you're very perceptive, he's a KNOWN anti-semite. Good call! And as I'm Jewish I would not approve of that! LOL! I don't think he blames America. I guess it's really wrong of me to even discuss a book I haven't read.
My grandparents lived in Russia under the czars and that why they came to America. My father had the deepest admiration for the Russians. He never feared them. He thought they were incredibly heroic and the treaty at Yalta was fair and correct.
He fought in the Pacific and his life was spared only by the atomic bomb.
This is a really lively discussion and it's hard to stay on top of it!
Choisya wrote:I do not know Buchanan but this revisionist version of history is anti-semitic. Hitler had a choice as to whether he killed six milliion Jews, for instance! However, the severe reparations of the Versailles Treaty after WWI impoverished Germany and created the conditions which gave rise to the Nazi Party. Had Germany been treated better in this regard Hitler may not have come to power and therefore the war may not have happened. But we can all rewrite history! The fact of the matter is that by 1933 everyone in Europe knew that Hitler was persecuting, killing and imprisoning Jews, Gipsies, Homosexuals and other 'dissidents' and preparing to invade Czechoslovakia. Because Britain in particular had scarcely recovered from WWI and the Great Depression, we were very unwilling to get into another war, which is why Churchill became a voice in the wilderness and why Chamberlain pursued the 'Peace in Our Time' fiasco with Hitler. Could we have negotiated with Hitler to stop him persecuting the Jews and pursuing his dream of a third Reich which would last forever but which had only pure Aryan people in it? I think not, and I am a pacifist!Did your father fight in the war? If so, he might have been more appreciative of the contribution of the Soviet Union to the war effort than others, who seem to forget that they were our allies. He may also have read some Russian history and realise how bad things were for the Russian people in the days of the Czar and how much they needed a change. And he may also have realised that the Cold War and the fear that was engendered in the American people about Russia was largely a post-war political (Machievellian) construct. The British people did not have this degree of fear and Russia is only 200 miles away! The War on Terror and Homeland Security etc etc is reminiscent of the Cold War tactics of government and like your father I have as little faith in our politicians over this issue as I had during the Cold WarYou won't get near to your father's viewpoint by reading Churchill - he was a good war leader because he thrived on war and he had an aristocratic fear of any political system, like socialism or communism, which took away power from the aristocrats. Hitler's National Socialism (= Nazism), anti-semitism apart, also gave power to the people so was Churchill fighting against anti-semitism or was he fighting National Socialism?As for the responsibility for the war being America's, this is a misreading of history because in fact it was the Americans who protested most about the treatment of Germany after WWI (although they signed the Treaty). Several of your politicans foresaw the difficulties that would ensue vis a vis the German economy and spoke out about it (I forget their names now). Roosevelt could have denied money to Britain but that would not have stopped the war, which had already started, but it would have ensured that Britain was invaded and that was not in America's interests. And absolutely none of this revisionism would have stopped what happened to the Jews, except that much more could have been done to help those fleeing Hitler's Germany in the 30s.
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!
Much truth Choisya, would like to hear what Timbuktu has to say about what you wrote; she was the one who brought up the Buchanan book as you are aware. Did you ever see the movie War Games; sometimes these men in power remind me of that movie.
I have explained elsewhere why England relinquished the Empire - we could not longer afford it and the times they were a-changin' with regard to keeping other nations subject. Even the wealthy Churchill could not replenish our national coffers after two world wars - we were as poor as church mice.
. So if we had not gone to war over Poland - what about the Jews? What about France and Holland and other countries who were occupied in Hitler's great quest for an Aryan Third Reich? What about the experiments that Hitler's doctors were doing on the mentally ill, including children? Has Buchanan read Mein Kampf I wonder?
Hitler did fight Russia, on the Eastern Front, and the result was the same as for Napoleon - he lost big time! Thank goodness the Russians came on to our side and waged an almost separate war against Hitler whilst the Allies were able to complete the Normandy Landings and push down into Europe and Italy etc.
There are those who think that the Middle East must sort itself out and that interfering in their largely religious quarrels is a disaster. Ditto Afghanistan. We have stirred up a hornet's nest there and created more putative terrorists than we have killed, especialy in Palestine and Pakistan. Were it not for the oil, we wouldn't be there. I often wish there was oil in Zimbabwe then Mugabe would be toppled like Saddam!
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.
Choisya wrote:I have explained elsewhere why England relinquished the Empire - we could not longer afford it and the times they were a-changin' with regard to keeping other nations subject. Even the wealthy Churchill could not replenish our national coffers after two world wars - we were as poor as church miceSo if we had not gone to war over Poland - what about the Jews? What about France and Holland and other countries who were occupied in Hitler's great quest for an Aryan Third Reich? What about the experiments that Hitler's doctors were doing on the mentally ill, including children? Has Buchanan read Mein Kampf I wonder?Hitler did fight Russia, on the Eastern Front, and the result was the same as for Napoleon - he lost big time! Thank goodness the Russians came on to our side and waged an almost separate war against Hitler whilst the Allies were able to complete the Normandy Landings and push down into Europe and Italy etc.There are those who think that the Middle East must sort itself out and that interfering in their largely religious quarrels is a disaster. Ditto Afghanistan. We have stirred up a hornet's nest there and created more putative terrorists than we have killed, especialy in Palestine and Pakistan. Were it not for the oil, we wouldn't be there. I often wish there was oil in Zimbabwe then Mugabe would be toppled like Saddam!
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.
Timbuktu, I will take a look at it; but I try to stay away from things that are going to make me angry and I know this will. Maybe I can sit down and spot read at B&N I would not purchase the book because I do not want Buchanan to make money from this drivel. You know I consider it sensationalism and I think he did this just as a money maker too no matter how many great men he tarnishes in the meantime or countries; there are always folks who are just going to believe him because he said whatever he wanted to say.
Choisya,
You speak the truth; there is always something that makes folks try to act moral when they are just after the natural resources; look at Britain in South Africa (gold); look at us in Iraq (oil); there is always something. Sometimes the world gets it right and sometimes individuals who are the very best and strong leaders like Churchill are able to stay in the kitchen next to the heat and give it right back as good as they are given. Buchanan is Buchanan Choisya and thank goodness he did not get the presidency when he ran. A smart man, very smart actually, but a lightning rod with a rather brittle personality; good argumentative commentator and debator though.
