LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler's Invasion of Poland

Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:29:41 am PDT

Last week we noted the bizarre arguments of Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, who tried so hard to defend Barack Obama against President Bush’s “appeasement” speech that he actually ended up defending Hitler for annexing Austria. His exact words were: “What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable.”

If you think that’s an ahistorical pretzel of monumental proportions, though, you ain’t seen nothin’ — because here comes Pat Buchanan. According to old Pat, not only was the Anschluss not a problem, Hitler’s invasion of Poland was also perfectly understandable, given the Poles’ refusal to negotiate.

Those darned stubborn Poles were responsible for starting World War II, according to Pat: Bush Plays the Hitler Card.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

(Hat tip: James Taranto.)

Advertisement

722 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:32:18am

Wow! First we have Michael Savage. Now Buchanan. What is this? National Prove Conservatives Can be Douches Too Day?

2 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:00am

By the way, obviously I'm talking about Savage and Buchanan - NOT Charles.

3 Penfold  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:09am

What is this, revisionist history month! Does no one read books anymore and just dream up how they think history should be.

4 Alouette  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:17am

re: #1 Bill Dalasio

Wow! First we have Michael Savage. Now Buchanan. What is this? National Prove Conservatives Can be Douches Too Day?

Puke-cannon is not a "Conservative," he is a Jew-hating fascist moonbat.

5 HugoChavez  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:22am

Nice to see Pat continues to be one of my useful idiots.

And you think he was serious in threatening to assassinate me?

It's all part of the Uber-Moonbat World Domnating Socialist Plan!

6 Rogue198  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:31am

I know I should be shocked, but given that it's Buchanan...I'm not.

7 bubblehead II  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:34am

Far left meet far Right. And both are dead wrong.

8 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:37am
9 David Simon  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:42am

Buchanan unwittingly proves his own thesis statement:

A little learning is a dangerous thing

10 Freddybear  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:33:50am

Buchanan has been a douche for a long time.

11 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:34:17am
The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

So Polish stubborness was to blame for WW2 and the Holocaust. You learn something new every day!

12 bosforus  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:34:19am

No wonder the Nazis have such a bad rep, they were practically forced to be who they were by the Polish!
/

13 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:35:21am

re: #1 Bill Dalasio

Wow! First we have Michael Savage. Now Buchanan. What is this? National Prove Conservatives Can be Douches Too Day?

Are those two conservative?

14 mean Gene  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:35:47am

So, when murderous leaders make demands of us, in violation of internationally set treaty, we should immediately capitulate.....so we can have ''peace.''
Have I got that right, Pat?

15 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:35:59am

Of course, this all makes sense.

The Poles were guilty of causing WW2 just as the Jews are repsonsible for the mid east turmoil today.

By refusing to roll over for bullies, they bring it on themselves.

/This is the logic I would expect from a bullying isolationist like Buchanan.

16 Colonel Panik  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:06am

What a maroon. Next thing you know he will be defending the Blitz.

Has he been hanging around with David Irving lately?

17 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:14am

re: #7 bubblehead II

Far left meet far Right. And both are dead wrong.


nahh. He's gotten a lot crazier lately. Maybe he's the one who had the damn stroke!

18 Maximu§  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:18am

I thought Pat Buchanan was one of us......silly me.

19 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:30am

re: #4 Alouette

Whether he is or isn't, he claims to be. After all, he is publisher of American Conservative magazine. But, yeah no disagreement from me on your point.

20 Alouette  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:36am

Let's not be too hard on Pat, he lost a loved one at Auschwitz.

His uncle fell out of a guard tower.

21 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:41am

I really think there's a serious coordinated effort in some right wing circles to change the history of WWII. Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan's ideas are getting some traction. I really hope they don't take root.

22 littleben  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:36:50am

Pat buchanon never met a neo-Nazi he didnt like.
Had to correct his old logo.

23 David Simon  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:03am

The lesson to be learned - if you're not a bigoted, xenophobic douchebag like Buchanan - is that you take out dictatorial madmen before they become too poweful.

24 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:06am

re: #13 coquimbojoe

Are those two conservative?


I stopped listening to Savage. He and Buchanan are now the lunatic fringe...

25 bulwrk  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:09am

Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

So by his reckoning a Mexican invasion of the American Southwest would be justified.

26 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:10am

Geez....while he was at it,why didn't Buchanan mention that Mussolini made the trains run on time as well?

27 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:13am

re: #13 coquimbojoe

As I said, both claim to be.

28 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:48am
The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

I think it sounds better in the original German.

/badump dump

29 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:37:48am
30 Alouette  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:01am

re: #19 Bill Dalasio

Whether he is or isn't, he claims to be. After all, he is publisher of American Conservative magazine. But, yeah no disagreement from me on your point.

Yeah, so? Norman Finklestein and Noam Chomsky say they are Jews.

31 Land Shark  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:01am

What a crock! Hitler just used Danzing as an excuse. Had the Poles accepted Hitler's demands, he would have still invaded. The elimination of Poland was something Hitler considered necessary, and there were many Germans who agreed with that. Even in the early days of the Weimar Republic, the German military considered Poland's existence unacceptable.

Read the history, Pat!

32 thedopefishlives  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:09am

And people wonder why I don't like the man.

No, seriously. I have people actually ask me why I dislike Pat Buchanan. "Isn't he one of you?" They inevitably ask. And my inevitable reply is, "Not on your life."

33 P. Aaron  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:11am

If you're screwed up like Obama or Buchanan, anything that gets you through the next news cycle could be construed as "reasonable".

What absolute idiots. The end justifies the means?

It's a common liberal tactic as well.

34 Sabra412  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:25am

If you would have told me last week that I would respect Ted Kennedy more than Pat Buchanan...

35 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:38am

re: #18 Maximu§

I thought Pat Buchanan was one of us......silly me.

He never really was. Buchanan is, and was always, a populist. I find it most interesting that Jonah Goldberg devotes a chapter to Buchana in his book Liberal Fascism.

36 rabidsquirrel  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:38:50am
The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

Oh, I get it; appeasement works. Europe just didn't appease the Nazis hard enough. If only they'd ceded Danzig, then the rest of Poland, Belgium, France, England, etc., war could have been easily avoided.

Why didn't they think of that?

/Must I? Must I really?

37 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:03am

No wonder he gets along so well with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC!

38 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:09am

re: #21 Killgore Trout

...Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan's ideas are getting some traction. I really hope they don't take root.

Well, let's not confuse silly with sh*theel.

39 faraway  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:12am
Hitler had not wanted war with Poland.

Quote of the year.

No, Hitler just wanted Poland via any means at all.

40 realwest  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:36am

Hey come on y'all - Mr. Buchanan is just trying to get a little press and stay become relevant.
/do I really need this?

41 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:41am

re: #1 Bill Dalasio

Pat isn't a conservative. He's nothing more than a right wing fascist who isn't all that far apart politically from the left wing fascists. (Politics is circular.)

Let's take another look at the meme advanced by Herr Buchannan, since Poland would not appease Hitler regarding restoring access to Danzig, they were rightfully attacked and the Poles are to blame for being butchered and partitioned by the Nazi's and Soviets?

Fuck you, Pat.

42 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:54am

Peter Hitchens: Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks Peter Hitchens

This is a very dangerous line of thinking.

43 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:39:55am

re: #36 rabidsquirrel

Oh, I get it; appeasement works. Europe just didn't appease the Nazis hard enough. If only they'd ceded Danzig, then the rest of Poland, Belgium, France, England, etc., war could have been easily avoided.

Why didn't they think of that?

Kneepads weren't invented yet. The French gave it a hell of an effort though.

44 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:40:26am

Wow. What a major turd.

"Damn those uppity Jews for not dying in the gas chambers, and now-not in Israel either."

45 samson01  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:40:26am

Pat...Sit down and shut up!

46 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:40:48am

This is kinda like some muslim whackjob claiming that he tried to persuade the woman not to wear such revealing clothing but she refused so he was forced to rape her.

47 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:41:50am

re: #44 WriterMom

Howarrya?

48 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:42:18am

re: #33 P. Aaron

If you're screwed up like Obama or Buchanan, anything that gets you through the next news cycle could be construed as "reasonable".

What absolute idiots. The end justifies the means?

It's a common liberal tactic as well.


You may be more right than you know, and we never talk about this. A lot of this postering is pure face time...pure and simple. Face time get's him PAYING interviews and speaking engagements. Gotta keep that face up there ya know. Look at An Coulter's anti-semetic comments outta knowhwere..she just happen to be promoting a book. ANd I know some of you are gonna hate me for this (Like I care) but McCain was pulling some of the same stunts during his "maverick" days and it looks like it paid great dividends for him...most of these people are media whores...

49 bosforus  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:42:19am

Bill Dalasio - any particular reason why you dinged my down on my #12? Not that I'm upset or offended or anything, just wondering.

50 pat  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:42:30am

There are times when obscure historical theoretics are overwhelmed by reality.

51 David Simon  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:42:45am

re: #31 Land Shark

What a crock! Hitler just used Danzing as an excuse. Had the Poles accepted Hitler's demands, he would have still invaded. The elimination of Poland was something Hitler considered necessary, and there were many Germans who agreed with that. Even in the early days of the Weimar Republic, the German military considered Poland's existence unacceptable.

Read the history, Pat!

Or at least the part about Operation Himmler.

52 nyc redneck  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:42:54am

so any country can invade another country, if it doesn't willingly negotiate away it's land?
we are living in a time, literally when anything goes.
logic, common sense, truth, out the window.
disgusting.

53 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:43:03am

See, if we just gave in to every demand anyone ever asks of us, we can avoid all war and conflict forever! Doesnt it just make so much sense?

Hey Pat, I want to burn down your house and take all your money? Huh, you dont want to? Maybe can we negotiate where you just give me half of your money? Still no? If anything bad happens, it must be your fault.

54 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:43:27am

He totally contradicts himself just in that short passage. He first states that Hitler's real goal was to fight Stalin, which is why der Fuhrer wanted an "alliance" with Poland in the first place. So, when the Poles wouldn't cooperate in this lovely "alliance," Hitler made a deal w/ Stalin to split Poland.
WHAT? This serves the goal of confronting Communism?!

55 mfarmer1  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:43:32am

This surprises anyone? The Paulians will certainly nod in approval.

56 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:43:34am

Maybe Buchanan forgot the PIMF rule?

/nope

57 Son of the Black Dog  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:44:02am

Calling Pat Buchanan pond scum would be an insult to ponds.

58 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:44:19am

re: #49 bosforus

Only an error on writing. I apologize.

59 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:44:30am

re: #57 Son of the Black Dog

.....and to the scum thereon

60 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:44:35am

re: #47 Maine's Michael

Baruch Hashem, yom yom.

{Michael}

Did I tell you I hung out with zulubaby in Tel Aviv, on the beach. Was that ever fun.

61 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:44:42am

re: #24 paxnhymn

I stopped listening to Savage. He and Buchanan are now the lunatic fringe...

That sums it up for me. I applaud Savage's fearless attitude standing up against some bad craziness, but he lost me a long time ago as a listener. Buchanan has always given me gas...

62 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:44:58am

re: #57 Son of the Black Dog

Calling Pat Buchanan pond scum would be an insult to ponds.

And scum.

63 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:00am

re: #57 Son of the Black Dog

Calling Pat Buchanan pond scum would be an insult to ponds.

And scum.

64 OrzBorz  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:04am

"But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland"

Well looks like Mr. Chamberlain caused it to me by reading that part of if.
/


Looks like someone missed their nap time.

65 JammieWearingFool  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:05am

I read this drivel yesterday and simply shook my head.

When you have Paulians and lefties quoting you more than Republicans, you know it's time to retire.

To Argentina.

66 bosforus  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:10am

re: #58 Bill Dalasio

Only an error on writing. I apologize.

No worries. Just thought maybe I unwittingly hit a nerve or something.

67 Opinionated  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:18am

MSNBC and other media outlets give Buchanan air time so that he be negatively associated with Republicans.

Plenty of people still believe Buchanan is a mainstream Republican and speaks for the party's views.

He is among the reasons that in some places Republican is a dirty word.

68 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:37am

Are we living in a big play called "Twitus Androidicus" were all the world 'tis a stage and the players positronics are short circuiting?

69 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:42am

re: #20 Alouette

Let's not be too hard on Pat, he lost a loved one at Auschwitz.

His uncle fell out of a guard tower.

HA! That's funny... in a sick ass way.

70 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:47am

re: #63 Honorary Yooper

And scum.

GMTA

71 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:51am

re: #50 pat


overwhelmed by reality

You make an excellent point-true of most of the world. Too exhausted to deal wtih reality, postponing it, hitting the snooze button. In the end-it just bites you in the ass.

72 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:45:58am

re: #42 Killgore Trout

This is a very dangerous line of thinking.

Revisionist history in the making.

73 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:46:19am

re: #65 JammieWearingFool

I read this drivel yesterday and simply shook my head.

When you have Paulians and lefties quoting you more than Republicans, you know it's time to retire.

To Argentina.

What'd Argentina do wrong to deserve that?

74 David Simon  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:46:22am

re: #64 OrzBorz

"But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland"

Well looks like Mr. Chamberlain caused it to me by reading that part of if.
/


Looks like someone missed their nap time.

Neville Chamberlain was a warmonger. That could only come from the pen of a cretin like Buchanan.

75 Son of the Black Dog  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:46:42am

re: #18 Maximu§

I thought Pat Buchanan was one of us......silly me.

I haven't thought that Pat Buchanan was one of us for a long, long time.

76 CIA Reject  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:47:08am

"From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland."

Stuff like this worries me- it's bullshit, but it's well though out bullshit. In reality Hitler's "negotiations" with the Poles were nothing more than stalling for time for him to complete the non-aggression pact with Stalin. As soon as THAT was done Poland's goose was cooked. This subtle misrepresentation is quite believable- I think Dr. Goebbels would have given the author a B+ if it were an assignment in propaganda school.

77 vagabond trader  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:47:14am

Bitter old Jew hater. Yeah, Hitler was sooo damned reasonable that an estimated 48 million human beings died as a result of his reason.

78 Dahveed  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:47:29am

Nice revisionist history Pat. Have you read Mein Kampf? All those parts about "living space" for Germans? All that would be consider the rantings of a madman except for the fact that he actually tried and nearly succeeded in taking over all of Europe.

Pat Buchanan - History that only Ron Paul followers believe in.

79 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:47:44am

Hitler tried, tried so hard to negotiate...he didn't get anywhere in the negotiations so he HAD TO INVADE!

/insane

80 opnion  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:48:40am

And just what kind of negotiations does Bucahanon think that the Poles could have had with Hitler? A little give & take?
Not likely. Hitler didn't ask

81 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:48:52am

re: #21 Killgore Trout

Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan are on completely different tracks here
. Lumping them together in this context is intellectually irresponsible and slanderous.

82 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:48:56am

A question to some of you out there, in particular the ones who thought Buchanan was "on our side". Do you think he is an ally just because he self identifies as a Christian?

83 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:00am

re: #57 Son of the Black Dog

Calling Pat Buchanan pond scum would be an insult to ponds scum.

fixed

84 chinesearithmetic  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:02am

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig

Stalin negotiated a non-aggression pact with Hitler. Hitler aggressed. Pat Buchanan is a fool.

85 Ron(Ron)  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:12am

At least Pat acknowledges Auschwitz.

86 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:29am

re: #76 CIA Reject

Stuff like this worries me- it's bullshit, but it's well though out bullshit. In reality Hitler's "negotiations" with the Poles were nothing more than stalling for time for him to complete the non-aggression pact with Stalin. As soon as THAT was done Poland's goose was cooked. This subtle misrepresentation is quite believable- I think Dr. Goebbels would have given the author a B+ if it were an assignment in propaganda school.

yeah, over the last couple of years there's been a lot of dumbing down of the history of Nazi germany....it'll get worse as the Holocaust survivors and WWII vets die off and there's no one left to carry on the fight...scares the livin' shit outta me..

87 lawhawk  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:31am

re: #72 Athos

Revisionist history in the making.

Fixed that for tense.

88 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:45am

re: #65 JammieWearingFool

I read this drivel yesterday and simply shook my head.

When you have Paulians and lefties quoting you more than Republicans, you know it's time to retire.

To Argentina.

There is a reason he is on the tv version of Siberia - AKA MSNBC.

89 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:50am

re: #82 Dan G.

A question to some of you out there, in particular the ones who thought Buchanan was "on our side". Do you think he is an ally just because he self identifies as a Christian?

I venture to opine most here figured him out many many years ago.

90 Opinionated  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:52am

Hiter was just for "change we can believe in".

Buchanan still believes.

91 David Simon  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:49:55am

re: #73 coquimbojoe

What'd Argentina do wrong to deserve that?

[Link: www.jewishsf.com...]

92 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:02am

In this statement, is Pat giving credence to and endorsing Obama's stated desire to engage in diplomacy, engage in "talks" to solve mideast difficulties? How in the world is Buchanan considered to be a conservative?

93 see bs  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:12am

Gee Pat, My family lived through the Nazi's invading (and Stalins Russia).
I guess my family should have made way for the "lebensraum" and given all their possessions voluntarily to the jack booted thugs, instead of having the Nazi's "liberate" their property and possessions and force them into labor camps.

Maybe you should take your head out of your ass before speaking, better yet, why don't you never speak again.

94 thedopefishlives  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:18am

re: #79 WriterMom

Hitler tried, tried so hard to negotiate...he didn't get anywhere in the negotiations so he HAD TO INVADE!

/insane

That just gave me a "brilliant" inspiration. If Bush == Hitler, and Hitler was legitimate in invading Poland because he couldn't negotiate with the "stubborn" and "proud" people there, then... wouldn't the invasion of Iraq be legitimate because our modern-day Hitler couldn't negotiate for oil with the stubborn, proud Baathist regime?

/Okay, I obviously need more sleep...

95 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:30am

re: #86 paxnhymn

yeah, over the last couple of years there's been a lot of dumbing down of the history of Nazi germany....it'll get worse as the Holocaust survivors and WWII vets die off and there's no one left to carry on the fight...scares the livin' shit outta me..

We must be vigilant in keeping the truth alive and vowing NEVER AGAIN!

96 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:35am

re: #85 Ron(Ron)

At least Pat acknowledges Auschwitz.

Let us not forget that the real purpose of Auschwitz was to provide slave labor for IG Farben's advanced nuclear research

97 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:42am

re: #82 Dan G.

A question to some of you out there, in particular the ones who thought Buchanan was "on our side". Do you think he is an ally just because he self identifies as a Christian?


I never thought that. So did his pal Adolf...

98 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:53am

re: #81 wolfie

re: #89 unrealizedviewpoint

Most, maybe. But I'm curious about those who either haven't figured it out or only just recently.

99 Former SSG  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:50:56am

re: #94 thedopefishlives

I like the logic. It's the premise that stinks, there!

100 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:51:30am

This is exactly why Eisenhower forced the American's to take pictures and the German's to bury the dead.

101 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:51:51am

Oops nix the re: #81...

102 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:51:58am
103 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:52:05am

re: #81 wolfie

Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan are on completely different tracks here
. Lumping them together in this context is intellectually irresponsible and slanderous.

Not really. They both share the goal of changing the history of WWII.

104 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:52:21am

re: #79 WriterMom

Hitler tried, tried so hard to negotiate...he didn't get anywhere in the negotiations so he HAD TO INVADE!

/insane


..just wanted to see these words in cyberprint again.

105 Charles  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:52:44am

This is a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate and redefine the concept of "appeasement."

106 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:52:44am

re: #100 WrathofG-d PIMF

This is exactly why Eisenhower forced the Americans to take pictures of the Nazi atrocities, and the Germans to bury the dead.

107 littleoldlady  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:52:56am

Anybody have contact info for the Polish Embassy? I'd like to forward this and see what they think.

108 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:53:22am

re: #105 Charles

This is a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate and redefine the concept of "appeasement."

but concerning Buchanan, to what end, other that overt face time?

109 Son of the Black Dog  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:53:31am

re: #63 Honorary Yooper

And scum.

Sometimes my typing overruns my brain function.

110 Armigerous[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:53:49am
111 chinesearithmetic  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:53:55am

ANd I know some of you are gonna hate me for this (Like I care)

Well, up yours too, I guess...

112 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:53:57am

re: #91 David Simon

[Link: www.jewishsf.com...]

Yeah, I know, I lived in Chile and used to see one at the Post Office in Coquimbo all the time, but, really his brand of foolishness needs to go somewhere else, less fun, with lousy cuts of steak, ugly women, and crappy scenery.

113 CIA Reject  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:53:59am

re: #86 paxnhymn

yeah, over the last couple of years there's been a lot of dumbing down of the history of Nazi germany....it'll get worse as the Holocaust survivors and WWII vets die off and there's no one left to carry on the fight...scares the livin' shit outta me..

Yes, but if you only need $7.14 to get the real scoop on what happened.

/If you're short on cash a library card will do...

114 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:54:19am

re: #107 littleoldlady

VOILA!

115 thedopefishlives  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:54:25am

re: #105 Charles

Appeasement has been making a big comeback in recent years. This scares me. Isn't one Holocaust enough of a price to pay to realize that you cannot compromise with someone whose sole demand is your death?

116 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:54:38am

You know, now that I think about it maybe Buchanan's earlier likening of Giuliani to a Nazi was intended as an endorsement.

117 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:54:41am

re: #110 Armigerous

I see the [] hammer comin' down on that one...

118 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:54:49am

re: #105 Charles

This is a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate and redefine the concept of "appeasement."

I agree, but to what end?

119 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:54:53am

re: #105 Charles

This is a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate and redefine the concept of "appeasement."

Appeasement seems to be popular with the populists right now. Both Buchanan and Obama are gunning for it.

120 chinesearithmetic  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:55:01am

#110 Get out and don't come back.

121 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:55:15am

110

WTF?

122 SaneInMN  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:55:36am

Pat Buchanan was rightly called out by William F. Buckley over a decade ago (I believe 1991), so this latest revelation shouldn't surprise anyone who has been paying attention. Despite that, this disgrace is a regular guest on the Laura Ingraham show, and used to make regular appearances with Hannity (maybe he still does, I have not listened to Hannity in quite some time). Oh, btw, the openly anti-war, racist, xenophobic Buchanan is a favorite "conservative" of the left. See below...

From [Link: michellemalkin.com...]

A long piece by George Packer about the death of conservatism graces this week’s New Yorker. You can tell it’s hard-hitting because he interviews such movement luminaries as pro-choicer David Frum, NY Times columnist David Brooks, and paleocon dissident Pat Buchanan. Imagine my surprise to learn these fellows didn’t have much nice to say about the way the movement is going.

123 chicagodudewhotrades  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:55:46am

So i guess all that stuff in Mein kampf where Adolf talks about wanting "lebenstrum' (spelling?) Living space in the east and his writing about all Slavs being sub-human doesn't factor into Pat's thinking?

124 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:55:48am

re: #120 chinesearithmetic

Geez.....that joke is so old,the first time I heard it I kicked the slats out of my cradle...lighten up

125 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:02am

re: #100 WrathofG-d

This is exactly why everyone in lizardia has to make a point of listening to Holocaust survivors and veterans before they are all gone.

126 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:10am

re: #110 Armigerous

Not funny.

127 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:22am

re: #110 Armigerous

Not sure if you meant for that to be funny, but I find that language to be extremely offensive. If you have a problem with Jews I suggest you just admit so here and now.

128 Former SSG  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:24am

re: #110 Armigerous

That's not nice.

129 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:26am

re: #110 Armigerous

I didn't read that, did I?

130 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:35am

I sense Stinky....

131 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:56:44am

re: #117 paxnhymn

I see the [] hammer comin' down on that one...

Yeah, that was pretty horrible , and slandering the Poles....

132 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:02am

re: #111 chinesearithmetic

ANd I know some of you are gonna hate me for this (Like I care)

Well, up yours too, I guess...


"well don't just guess there son! If you're gonna be an asshole, poke out your chest and be a man about it...are ya listenin' son!?"

/chanelling Foghorn

133 WriterMom[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:13am
134 Ziggy  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:21am

What a brown shirted putz.

135 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:25am

OK...bad joke...sorry....just trying to take another approach to Buchanan's obvious lack of sympathy for what happened to the Jews during WW2...no offense intended

136 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:29am

re: #124 Armigerous

Geez.....that joke is so old,the first time I heard it I kicked the slats out of my cradle...lighten up

It wasn't funny then...

137 Maximu§[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:33am
138 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:48am

#110 - I guess you like blaming the victim too?

139 vagabond trader  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:52am

Buchanan is an anti Zionist. Perhaps he's sniffing around for a speechwriting gig with the anti Zionist candidate.

140 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:57:58am

re: #124 Armigerous

Geez.....that joke is so old,the first time I heard it I kicked the slats out of my cradle...lighten up

Still not funny.

141 Ziggy[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:09am
142 chinesearithmetic  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:12am

.that joke is so old,the first time I heard it I kicked the slats out of my cradle..

And you still shit yourself?

143 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:15am

re: #60 WriterMom

Glad you had a great time. I envy you!

My step mom was on the March of the Living (as a survivor) and just got back from Israel.

Re Zulu, how's she look in a bikini?

Send me some pics!

Email me.

144 antishock8  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:19am

Gegh. Why is this clown in the national discussion any more? What a shame he has Conservative street credentials. Hitler was vile, and making a deal with the Devil in order to avoid Communism wouldn't make the Poles moral or intelligent. They had a right to national autonomy, and they suffered enough without men like Pat Buchanan using their misfortune to pile on the Soviets.

145 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:41am

re: #141 Ziggy

......see my post #135

146 Former SSG  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:43am

Pleas edon't quote him - it makes a bigger mess if Charles decides to clean up behind him.

147 thedopefishlives  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:47am

re: #144 antishock8

He's in the "national discussion" because the liberals actually LIKE him. He makes us look bad.

148 daddycrack  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:47am

I think this is typical of Buchanan. I wonder why he isn't going to be invited to speak at the Republican Convention.

149 The Other Les  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:49am

Okay Pat, what part of "appeasing the bad guys makes them stronger" did you not understand?

I expect this nonsense from the narcissistic pacifist trash on the Left. For it to be emitted from one who claims to be a conservative is simply inexcusable.

150 Dahveed  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:58:50am

re: #105 Charles

This is a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate and redefine the concept of "appeasement."

What's worse is the redefining of the motives of the Nazis. We see it now when people are trying to understand the motives of the Islamofascists.

151 GrepSedAwk  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:59:17am

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave this speech to the House of Commons on September 1, 1939, just hours after Hitler's troops had invaded Poland.

Chamberlain and others had spent years negotiating with Hitler in order to prevent another war in Europe, two decades after the Great War in which an entire generation of young men had been wiped out.

Negotiations with Hitler had included surrendering the sovereign rights of Czechoslovakia and standing by as Hitler's troops took Austria. By 1939, Hitler desired war and any further attempts to negotiate peace were doomed to failure. The Nazis then staged a fake attack on a German radio outpost along the German-Polish border and used that as an excuse for invasion. Link: Here

152 Liechtentrager  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:59:32am

re: #78 Dahveed

Nice revisionist history Pat. Have you read Mein Kampf?

Is that a rhetorical question?

153 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:59:37am

re: #141 Ziggy

Please don't repeat the comment by using the quote buttong. Use the reply button instead. It's less work for Stinky.

154 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:59:38am

re: #143 Maine's Michael

I'll e-mail you-of course and I have nice pictures.

155 formercorpsman  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:59:39am

As Killgore alluded to earlier, I think we are seeing the left/right convergence.

While he may have some correct time lines, and other facts that are only minuscule when compared to the big picture, when people like Buchanan makes such broad assertions, it requires a divorce from reality.

He, and others like him, are rewriting history. Both sides are now doing this.

Somehow, in retrospect, by just giving in to this minor demand, the war could have been avoided. Forget the war machine, the evil motivation for the final solution, etc.

This argument is on par with the concept of fighting terrorism just creates more terrorists.

Applied in theory, the world should have let Saddam keep Kuwait.

I agree, let them speak. What righteous people of the world need to do, is refute them.

Point by point. Make them illegitimate.

156 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 10:59:40am

re: #135 Armigerous

OK...bad joke...sorry....just trying to take another approach to Buchanan's obvious lack of sympathy for what happened to the Jews during WW2...no offense intended

really bad "approach"...but most here have a lotta forgiveness if your stupid lobe in your brain doesn't accidentally engage again...

157 The Other Les  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:01am

re: #115 thedopefishlives

Appeasement has been making a big comeback in recent years. This scares me. Isn't one Holocaust enough of a price to pay to realize that you cannot compromise with someone whose sole demand is your death?

Apparently not.

158 Armigerous  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:30am

The point I was trying to make...and made it badly...was that the joke was an example of the kind of result you can expect from the kind of appeasement that Buchanan seems to think would have worked with Hitler

159 Opinionated  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:30am

re: #139 vagabond trader

Buchanan is an anti Zionist. Perhaps he's sniffing around for a speechwriting gig with the anti Zionist candidate.

Buchanan is an anti Semite. Supporting Nazi war criminals, for one example, is more then anti Zionism.

160 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:32am

re: #32 thedopefishlives

And people wonder why I don't like the man.

No, seriously. I have people actually ask me why I dislike Pat Buchanan. "Isn't he one of you?" They inevitably ask. And my inevitable reply is, "Not on your life."

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

161 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:37am

re: #137 Maximu§

Suggestion for Charles:
When moving the ding +/- apart as some have suggested, maybe you need move the quote and reply too . :)

162 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:56am

re: #155 formercorpsman

Spot on.

163 Ziggy  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:00:56am

re: #145 Armigerous

......see my post #135


Got it.

164 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:01:25am

re: #125 WriterMom

Yes we definately have to listen to their stories (which is why Speilberg's Shoah Project is so important) but even more than listening, we need to learn from them.

I'm afraid however that today everything is so "nuanced" and "gray area'd" that even knowing the history will not help us. When teachers failing a kid are "nazis", and the building of homes is "aushwitz", just knowing the history is not enough.

165 Son of the Black Dog  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:01:25am

re: #117 paxnhymn

I see the [] hammer comin' down on that one...

And quickly, I hope.

166 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:01:25am

re: #145 Armigerous

Still not funny.

Think before posting.

167 lurking faith  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:01:30am

So, does Pea Brain, er... Pat Buchanan also think that the USA should have stepped back and let the stubborn, proud Japanese take or retake all those Pacific islands? After all, Japan only attacked us because they wanted what they felt was rightfully theirs, and we wouldn't give it to them.
/

168 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:02:16am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

We, I posit, are the true liberals. Leftists aren't "freedom lovers" and therefore don't deserve the term.

169 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:02:20am

I would turf armigerous.

That joke is terrible, on so many levels.

Its all about judgment, and he has none, it seems.

170 littleoldlady  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:02:30am

re: #114 WriterMom

Sent!

Heh™

171 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:02:52am

re: #160 zombie

What are we?

Right.
As in correct.

172 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:03:24am

re: #42 Killgore Trout

Peter Hitchens: Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks Peter Hitchens

This is a very dangerous line of thinking.

Extremely dangerous. This spiel may not fly with people over fifty, but you can easily sell it to the young. (They know very little about American history and virtually nothing about Europe.)
I have already seen hints of this revisionism in academe.
I fear it.

173 Ojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:03:34am

Buchanan should read Winston Churchill's "The Gathering Storm".

Meanwhile he is an idiot, and probably after he reads that book, he will still be an idiot.

174 faraway  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:03:49am

Mein Kampf (Volumes 1 and 2)
Autobiography outlining Hitler's National Socialist political ideology

Dreams of My Father/ Audacity of Hoax
Autobiography outlining Hussein Obama's Black Liberation political Theology

Are there other similarities?

175 Vergeltung  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:04:47am

I wonder if there is any historical record for the pre-war negotiations he speaks of regarding Danzig. I had never heard of that before. If Danzig was indeed 95% German pre-war, I can certainly see that as a problem. most historians agree that the seeds of WWII were sown in the surrender "terms" of WWI.

176 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:04:52am

re: #169 Maine's Michael

I would turf armigerous.

That joke is terrible, on so many levels.

Its all about judgment, and he has none, it seems.


ahh..give it a break. It was horrible, but I think that's it's first effup. If it's a true skidmark it won't take long...

177 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:04:55am

re: #173 Ojoe

Won't do any good. Those impervious to facts won't be made less so by the application of more facts.

178 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:04:58am

re: #161 unrealizedviewpoint

Charles-I agree, a little more space between the - and + buttons would be great, or even the counter between the - and the + .

Also-the 'quote' function is still obviously an issue...have you considered disabling the ability to quote an entire post? People should have to actually quote the particular passage that they are refering to, not waste space with repeating entire posts and this would cut out the risk of people repeating offensive things that get deleted.

179 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:05:17am

re: #173 Ojoe

I agree he'll still be an idiot. He will only see what he wants to believe....and then rationalize everything else into either fitting that view or being wrong.

180 vagabond trader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:05:25am

re: #159 Opinionated

Anti Zionism is his "acceptable" public stance, just as it is with all the other PC anti semites.I know what I'm looking at here.

181 itellu3times  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:05:36am

But Krystalnacht was November 1938 (a few weeks after "Munich"), and the Jews had been persecuted openly by the government for at least five years by then, so why would anybody give the Nazis a matchstick? If Buchanan's theory was any good, wouldn't Chamberlain have also handed over Danzig?

And if Pat has a point what is it, that he's suddenly a big supporter of Wilson and self-determination?

Pat, you just soiled yourself in public, yet again.

Dang, I try really hard to like Buchanan, but he gets these fits.

182 Ojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:05:53am

re: #175 Vergeltung

Read "The Gathering Storm" Winston Churchill lays it all out in that book.

183 marjoriemoon  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:06:15am

Clean up on aisle 110.

184 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:06:34am

re: #125 WriterMom

This is exactly why everyone in lizardia has to make a point of listening to Holocaust survivors and veterans before they are all gone.

In 8th grade, Holocaust surviver Sonia Weitz came and spoke to our history class. I will never forget it.

185 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:07:20am
186 Ojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:07:25am

re: #183 marjoriemoon

Meant to hit the minus on that, ignore my plus

187 Vergeltung  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:07:32am

re: #182 Ojoe

Read "The Gathering Storm" Winston Churchill lays it all out in that book.

gotcha. thanks for the tip. my reading list is freakin' long as it is. but I can always add another! :)

188 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:07:42am
189 vagabond trader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:08:03am

re: #184 loppyd

If the left has its way we'll be having Nakba sensitivity training in schools. Sooner than later.

190 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:08:04am

re: #175 Vergeltung

That is nonsense. Are we to have no loss in losing a war? If, like the Arabs are today, one gets to go back to square one after losing a war..then why not give it a go? At best you get what you want, at worst you go back to where you started and the world pays to fix you up right.

191 Ojoe  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:08:16am

re: #187 Vergeltung

That's an important book these days.

192 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:08:27am

re: #185 buzzsawmonkey

Mein Kampftown crazies...LOLOL

Good one, buzz. HAHAHAHA

193 antishock8  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:08:28am

re: #110 Armigerous

As has been observed before, the Kos Kids are vile. Man...

194 Stinky Beaumont  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:09:01am

That was not the first offense, and I'm tired of cleaning up that guy's messes. Banned.

195 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:09:16am

re: #181 itellu3times

Don't forget about the Nuremberg laws...1935.

196 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:09:58am

First, I am in no way an apologist for the Germans and the Nazi Party for WWII.

But, if you remove the odious aspects of the Nazi and look at the demands made by Germany in the 1930's (it's hard, given the prism of history), you'll see a country trying to put itself back together after having been carved up in 1918 at Versailles. "Poland" had been party of Imperial Russia, as had the Baltic States before WWI. All of that had been territory won by Germany in its treaty with the Russians at Brest-Litovsk (yes - a treaty as harsh as Versailles--but it had been the Russians who had capitulated). Germany, in a sense, was trying to regain the territory which had been its own as well as jump-start its economy, which had been weakened by the terms of Versailles. Hitler and the Nazis played on the high level of German resentment and promised to restore German self-esteem.

I suppose there is something of a paradox here in that we learned, from the 1930's, that appeasement--in the long run-- does not work. But another lesson is that harsh treaty terms will breed resentment in a people--especially if the terms are rammed down their throat. There is always going to be a wily politician who will parlay that resentment into power.

Buchanan's analogy is not a particularly good one. He is correct in that Danzig was historically German. But, he ignores the fact that had there been "negotiation" (aka; capitulation) by the Poles, French and British, then none of the Western European powers would have had any credibility when Hitler made his next demand.

One thing people in the west lose sight of; Hitler was true to his vision in Mein Kampf. All you had to do was read it and you knew his world view and you could anticipate what he would do. Our generation has a similar bit of intelligence--and like our ancestors from the 1930's, no one seems to take it seriously. It's called the Koran.

197 Vergeltung  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:10:29am

re: #190 WrathofG-d

That is nonsense. Are we to have no loss in losing a war? If, like the Arabs are today, one gets to go back to square one after losing a war..then why not give it a go? At best you get what you want, at worst you go back to where you started and the world pays to fix you up right.

well, what you are then saying is that the consensus amongst the majority of historians is wrong. that's fine. you can take that position. however, a keen student of history understands that blaming only Germany for WWI is not supported by the available facts.

198 itellu3times  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:10:52am

And when did FDR give his speech, "We remain a neutral nation, but I cannot ask all citizens to be neutral", ...

199 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:11:11am

re: #178 WriterMom


Also-the 'quote' function is still obviously an issue...have you considered disabling the ability to quote an entire post? People should have to actually quote the particular passage that they are refering to, not waste space with repeating entire posts

Why is everybody so darned concerned with saving space? If one wants only to quote a portion of a comment, one need only highlight and delete the undesiderd portion.

...this would cut out the risk of people repeating offensive things that get deleted.

Yes but it would also slow the conversation.

200 paxnhymn  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:11:17am

re: #194 Stinky Beaumont

That was not the first offense, and I'm tired of cleaning up that guy's messes. Banned.


ok..so it IS a repeat offender! there's the verdict...and the Mighty Troll Hammer creates yet another green skidmark...


:-D

201 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:11:19am

re: #196 calcajun

Yawn. Look when you start a world war and lose, you LOSE. Not only the war but other things along with it, such as prestige, land, and money.

There are no "give backs" after taking on the world.

202 marjoriemoon  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:11:36am

re: #139 vagabond trader

Buchanan is an anti Zionist. Perhaps he's sniffing around for a speechwriting gig with the anti Zionist candidate.

He's an anti-Semite. You want to explain the difference?

203 Iron Fist  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:11:45am

One of the interesting side-effects of a long war in Iraq is that it seems that the fascists among us have become less and less afraid to take off their masks and reveal their true selves to the rest of the world. How long is it before Hitler is totally rehabilitated and even pittied for the awful allies interfering with his plans for a thousand year reich?

It is really not a far step from where we are now, especially when you look at the way the Left have treated the question of Saddam Hussein Obama and their bold antipathy to all things Israel.

204 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:11:51am

Now I understand why all the kooks say Bush is worse than Hitler - they don't think that Hitler was all that bad!

205 marjoriemoon  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:12:06am

re: #186 Ojoe

Meant to hit the minus on that, ignore my plus

I think s/he got so many minuses it probably doesn't matter at this point lol

206 IPLaw  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:09am

Wow.

Does Pat realize that, according to his logic, Mexico should send tanks into Texas, and that there would be peace in the middle east but for our support of Israel?

207 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:10am

re: #118 coquimbojoe

I agree, but to what end?

That's the real question here. I suspect that it's because WWII had so much influence on the world we live in today. I think many on the right see Western civilization in decline an by changing the history of what happened and why they hope to advance "right wing" ideology as the cure. They are making progress in changing the history. Look at how many people here believe that evolutionary science led to the holocaust. These ideas are gaining traction.

208 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:24am

OT:
Shrillary is on tv (we're missing flipper!) and it looks like she's going to sue the DNC for Florida and Michigans votes!
Woo-Hoo!
Let the day in court of the lonmg knives begin!

209 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:28am

re: #194 Stinky Beaumont

That was not the first offense, and I'm tired of cleaning up that guy's messes. Banned.

Stinky went and checked his records. :)

210 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:32am

re: #181 itellu3times

For Buchanan, the travials of the Jews prior (and during, probabaly) are mere historical curiosities that should not impact on the analysis of the 'larger' sweep of hisotry (as he sees it).

The man is an out and out venomous prick.


I cannot believe he is still on Fox as a commentator, occasionally.

211 Alouette  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:46am

re: #196 calcajun

But, if you remove the odious aspects of the Nazi and look at the demands made by Germany in the 1930's (it's hard, given the prism of history), you'll see a country trying to put itself back together after having been carved up in 1918 at Versailles. "Poland" had been party of Imperial Russia, as had the Baltic States before WWI. All of that had been territory won by Germany in its treaty with the Russians at Brest-Litovsk (yes - a treaty as harsh as Versailles--but it had been the Russians who had capitulated). Germany, in a sense, was trying to regain the territory which had been its own as well as jump-start its economy, which had been weakened by the terms of Versailles. Hitler and the Nazis played on the high level of German resentment and promised to restore German self-esteem.

So you are saying there should be no consequences to losing a war you started?

212 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:46am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

That's a jolly good question. What are we exactly? LGF has a bunch of people who can be called both conservative and liberal. People who believe in a variety of religions, and those who don't believe at all. People who seem to value human life very highly; people who are very informed about history. People who are not PC, but do not take insults (as seen in #110) very lightly either. We seem to value freedom and equal opportunity very highly as well.

What are we?

Well, the whole political spectrum is way out of date, and maybe was never really accurate to begin with. It was, after all, based on where people sat in the assembly during the French Revolution.

I would propose that there are several types of totalitarians and collectivists in the world. There are the Buchananites: DeWinter, GoV, et.al. (fascist type I). There are the Obamamaniacs: Rich Daley, et.al. (fascist type II). There are the plain socialists like Hillary Clinton (communist), and there are the Islamists and Jihadis (fascist type III).

We, my lizardoid friends, fit in a very different category. We are individualists. We recognize that the collective is not out there for any good but that of the few, and that the individual is more important than the collective.

We are Individualists fighting against the Collectivists. Neither Right nor Left, Conservative nor Liberal.

That is who we are.

213 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:13:52am

re: #206 IPLaw

Wow.

Does Pat realize that, according to his logic, Mexico should send tanks into Texas, and that there would be peace in the middle east but for our support of Israel?

I think he agrees with one of your points.

214 jaunte  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:15:06am

Any of you out there homeschooling might be interested in getting this miniseries on dvd for your kids, to give them an overview of the forces leading up to WW1:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

215 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:15:22am

re: #210 Maine's Michael

I believe he's primarily on MSNBC, but for some strange reason, Hannity keeps interviewing the guy (on radio - don't know about on Hannity & Cryptmaster) and providing him with legitimacy.

216 joncelli  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:15:26am

re: #108 paxnhymn

Buchanan is a frank isolationist. He wants America out of the international arena and he wants our friends -- particularly Israel -- to be abandoned. Mostly because Buchanan is an anti-semitic blood-and-soil cryptofascist.

217 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:15:27am

re: #208 anotherindyfilmguy

OT:
Shrillary is on tv (we're missing flipper!) and it looks like she's going to sue the DNC for Florida and Michigans votes!
Woo-Hoo!
Let the day in court of the lonmg knives begin!

Has Lanny Davis been deployed to the Sunshine State yet?

218 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:15:49am

re: #208 anotherindyfilmguy

OT:
Shrillary is on tv (we're missing flipper!) and it looks like she's going to sue the DNC for Florida and Michigans votes!
Woo-Hoo!
Let the day in court of the lonmg knives begin!

Ya know, I think FL is having a state primary election on 8/26 and MI on 8/8. Maybe they'll have a redo? ?

219 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:16:15am

This shit bothers me. It's the camel's nose in the tent. We're seeing articles saying that Hitler was justified in a few things. Then, his ideas become more acceptable. It won't be too long before we see articles saying that maybe Hitler went too far, but he was justified in taking action against the Jews.
Should I get a yellow star now and avoid the rush?

220 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:16:32am

re: #218 unrealizedviewpoint

Something is coming out of this speech if she ever gets to the point...

221 itellu3times  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:16:34am

re: #196 calcajun

Yes but something else we have trouble understanding today is the nationalism of the time. Today, the idea is to trade across boundaries, the multinational corporations are our new models. Plenty of problems with that, but table that for now. Nationalism back then meant getting more land and power for a nation. This still has the Euros traumatized today, nationalism as tribalism (why the Islamic micro-tribalism does not scare them, is another question). Who really cared what nation Danzig was a part of? Maybe not even Hitler, and Pat's theory is even more bogus the more you look at it, but insofar as Hitler cared, it was as part of an aggressive nationalism, much more than any reconciliation and repair after Versailles - which you might say was nationalist in punishing a nation. We're just so much more Kumbaya today, even (especially!?) the multinational right wing capitalists.

222 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:17:09am

re: #219 Kosh's Shadow

Forget the star. Lock and load. Never again.

223 Dan G.  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:17:30am

re: #222 Athos

Echo.

224 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:17:46am

re: #201 WrathofG-d

They did not lose WWI - they failed to win. Seriously - that's their view to this day. No Allied soldier set foot on German soil in WWI. To have the country carved up, their navy taken and interned, being forced to take the blame for the whole war (when it was the disastrous bungling of the diplomats on all sides) and territory surrendered without conquest was the seedbed of the resentment later nurtured by the Nazi Party.

225 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:18:13am

re: #204 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Now I understand why all the kooks say Bush is worse than Hitler - they don't think that Hitler was all that bad!

I believe there's much truth in this statement. They really don't know history. Anything before 1980 is ancient and unnecessary filler.

226 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:18:15am

Had to switch to commie news network 'cause fox cut out on her...

227 jaunte  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:18:26am

re: #212 Honorary Yooper

One added thought: most of the categories you cite can be explained in economic terms. The jihadis are in a different category. they don't want to adjust the world that exists to suit their economic sense, they want to destroy it and rebuild it to suit their religion.

228 opnion  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:18:33am

re: #155 formercorpsman

As Killgore alluded to earlier, I think we are seeing the left/right convergence.

While he may have some correct time lines, and other facts that are only minuscule when compared to the big picture, when people like Buchanan makes such broad assertions, it requires a divorce from reality.

He, and others like him, are rewriting history. Both sides are now doing this.

Somehow, in retrospect, by just giving in to this minor demand, the war could have been avoided. Forget the war machine, the evil motivation for the final solution, etc.

This argument is on par with the concept of fighting terrorism just creates more terrorists.

Applied in theory, the world should have let Saddam keep Kuwait.

I agree, let them speak. What righteous people of the world need to do, is refute them.

Point by point. Make them illegitimate.


In spite of the risk of being boring, I would point out that on the Hegelian curve the far right & far left ultimately converge & become indistinguishable That is why so many on the left sound like Nazis

229 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:18:46am

re: #5 HugoChavez

Nice to see Pat continues to be one of my useful idiots.

And you think he was serious in threatening to assassinate me?

Jefe, those arepas with the "extra special" ingredient are going to your head. That was a different Pat. (Robertson, not Buchanan.)

230 madisonsfriend  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:19:00am

re: #48 paxnhymn

231 Vergeltung  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:19:04am

re: #224 calcajun

They did not lose WWI - they failed to win. Seriously - that's their view to this day. No Allied soldier set foot on German soil in WWI. To have the country carved up, their navy taken and interned, being forced to take the blame for the whole war (when it was the disastrous bungling of the diplomats on all sides) and territory surrendered without conquest was the seedbed of the resentment later nurtured by the Nazi Party.

very well said, I think quite a few posters need to read a bit more before asserting some things here. :)

232 Red Ruffansore  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:19:06am

As moronic as Pat can be for defending der Fueher don't think Pat can't be outdone. Here in Redstate Nebraska we have our very own Chuck Bagel capitulating to our enemies in the name of peace and rubbing up against Obama's leg like a horny cat since he has used up all of his carbon credits here. He is a political dead man walking in our state, dog catcher would be a reach and require a serious cash outlay to pull that high office deal off. The Bagel squared off against his former pen mate "THE MAVERICK" and jibbered this nonsense : Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.
"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...." WTF? Well apparently the seat Neville Chamberlain occupies in hell is a love seat. Hurry Chuckie before someone takes your spot. Unfortunately we are a one newspaper town and they lick Chuckies shoes so clean that he hasn't bought a new pair in years so nothing critical of the BAGEL ever reaches print. Don't doubt for a minute that Barry isn't thinking of using this media tool/whore for his advancement and Chuck is just the boy to do it. He sold us out every time he had a chance.

233 itellu3times  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:19:06am

re: #216 joncelli

Buchanan is a frank isolationist. He wants America out of the international arena and he wants our friends -- particularly Israel -- to be abandoned. Mostly because Buchanan is an anti-semitic blood-and-soil cryptofascist.

I think in large part he's an isolationist because of his twisted anti-semitism.

I like Buchanan's intelligence, and wit, and populism - except it seems not to include Jews or blacks, among others. He sometimes tries to be more inclusive, but then backslides. Needs a good twelve-step program, I think.

234 vagabond trader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:19:07am

re: #202 marjoriemoon

see 189. Educated anti semites, especially well known ones, almost universally trumpet anti Zionism in their public dialogue, since coming out of the Jew hating closet still remains publically unacceptable.Some folks need to settle down a wee bit.

235 CIA Reject  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:19:15am

re: #219 Kosh's Shadow

This shit bothers me. It's the camel's nose in the tent. We're seeing articles saying that Hitler was justified in a few things. Then, his ideas become more acceptable. It won't be too long before we see articles saying that maybe Hitler went too far, but he was justified in taking action against the Jews...

Yeah, and he was a vegetarian, a tea-totler, and he loved dogs!

/*SPIT*

236 Charles  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:20:04am

re: #216 joncelli

Buchanan is a frank isolationist. He wants America out of the international arena and he wants our friends -- particularly Israel -- to be abandoned. Mostly because Buchanan is an anti-semitic blood-and-soil cryptofascist.

He's also an associate of the Eurofascists -- the British National Party and the Vlaams Belang, and probably the French National Front too.

237 lawhawk  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:20:06am

re: #228 opnion

It also helps when you remember that the Nazi party is an acronym for the National Socialist Workers Party.

238 madisonsfriend  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:20:39am

re: #230 madisonsfriend

My message disappeared! I agreed with the media whore statement- I said left or right, TV or radio- it is all about the money

239 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:21:00am

Crap... she's not suing... yet... just a big pander to get people to sign a petition for their votes to be counted... twiticus... she should be suing them right now...

240 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:22:05am

re: #227 jaunte

One added thought: most of the categories you cite can be explained in economic terms. The jihadis are in a different category. they don't want to adjust the world that exists to suit their economic sense, they want to destroy it and rebuild it to suit their religion.

True, but all of these collectivists want to remake the world in their image and make, for themselves, a paradise on Earth. Many are economic, yes, but the jihadis are collectivist as well.

Everything In Islam
Nothing Outside of Islam
Nothing Against Islam

241 cicero05  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:22:21am

So let me get this straight. The Poles had a choice in dealing with Hitler. Permit the dismemberment of their state voluntarily (or as Buchanan prettily puts it, "negotiate Danzig") or give it up through blitzkrieg. Why, if only those stupid Poles would have capitulated through negotiation, they could have avoided a war!

Applied to Middle East, this means that Israel too should try to appease its enemies by negotiating away its territory to avoid a war. But somehow, it seems like a bad idea for Israel to take the advice of a guy who is so ready to find justification in Nazi aggression. Buchanan just may not have the best interests of the Jewish state at heart.

242 rabidsquirrel  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:22:23am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

We are Lizards.

243 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:22:28am

I think there is a bit of confusion regarding Danzig and Buchanan muddies the water on its status, giving the impression that it was under the control of Poland. Not so, it was a so-called free city, but already under Nazi influence. The Nazis wanted a corridor of Polish land to connect it with Germany and that was just the first bite of Poland the Nazi alligator wanted.

When Poland regained its independence after World War I with access to the sea as promised by the Allies on the basis of Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points", the Poles hoped the city's harbour would also become part of Poland. However, since a 1919 census determined that the city's population was 98% German,[13] it was not placed under Polish sovereignty, but, according to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, became the Free City of Danzig, an independent quasi-state under the auspices of the League of Nations with its external affairs largely under Polish control. This led to a large degree of tension between the city and the surrounding Republic of Poland. The Free City had its own constitution, national anthem, parliament (Volkstag), and government (Senat). It issued its own stamps as well as currency.

The majority of the Free City of Danzig's population favored reincorporation into Germany. In the early 1930s the local Nazi Party capitalized on these pro-German sentiments and in 1933 garnered 38% of vote in the parliament. Thereafter, the Nazis under Gauleiter Albert Forster achieved dominance in the city government, which was still nominally overseen by the League of Nations' High Commissioner. The Nazis demanded the return of Danzig to Germany along with an exterritorial highway for land-based access to the Third Reich through the area of the Polish Corridor.[14] However, when the German Nazi Government secured Soviet approval for aggression against Poland, a decision was made to launch a full-out offensive regardless of any Polish willingness to negotiate successions.[15] On September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany attacked Poland, triggering the outbreak of World War II.

Danzig-Gdansk Wiki article

244 loppyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:23:56am

re: #239 anotherindyfilmguy

Crap... she's not suing... yet... just a big pander to get people to sign a petition for their votes to be counted... twiticus... she should be suing them right now...

The Complaints have been drafted and ready to be filed if the rules committee
does not work something out with FL and MI on 5/31.

245 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:24:26am

Ironically, the appeasers are using the same Chamberlainesque arguments regarding the invasion of Islam in Europe... "they" really just want to live in peace, after all.


(after all, Spain really did belong to the Muslims before the wicked infidels wrested it back during the Crusades, which were really all about whitey Christians oppressing people who didn't look or think like them.)/

246 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:24:42am

re: #21 Killgore Trout

I really think there's a serious coordinated effort in some right wing circles to change the history of WWII. Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan's ideas are getting some traction. I really hope they don't take root.

I really don't think Stein and buchanan have the same ideas here, and I really don't think they have any coordination.
Stein was trying to explain Hitler's ideology, agree or disagree.
Pat Buchanan seems to be trying to justify Hitler's actions, in order to attack Bush. What corelation is there?

247 JohnnyReb  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:24:59am

There is a reason that this stuff is starting to trickle out now. I don't think we can pin it just on the MSM's love for Obama either.

Someone said something about the 50+ crowd above that started me thinking. We of the age 50 crowd have a reasonable chance of living another 30 years. We vote in huge numbers, but our numbers dwindle each and every year and we are not going to get replacements in the numbers we need to even attempt to keep anything in check by voting.

Some people/groups are trying to re-write history and they are aiming it at the younger generation. I am not sure of their motive or goals, but this stuff is not aimed at conservatives or the over 50 crowd because we know it is nonsense.

I suspect next that someone will blame Pearl Harbor on the US for cutting off Japan from scrap metal and oil, if we had only kept giving it to them while they raped China and the rest of Asia, everything would have been OK.

And I am truly frightened by this.

248 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:25:07am

re: #235 CIA Reject

Yeah, and he was a vegetarian, a tea-totler, and he loved dogs!

/*SPIT*


Don't forget, he only had one ball. (or is that an urban legend?)

249 marjoriemoon  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:25:17am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

The problem: You all make distinctions between your outsiders, those on the far right and the rest of you, but you make no distinctions between the far left and the rest us. All liberals suck, we can't think for ourselves, we all hate Israel, we're all hypocrites, yada yada. We are all One thing, but only you share many complicated thoughts.

So some wacka-do like Buchanan spews his anti-Semitism all over the place and you're quick to disassociate yourself from him, but let me try to do that? Forgettaboutit.

Let me give you some advice. You are conservatives. Embrace it. It's who you are. I'm a liberal. I'll always be a liberal, but that doesn't mean I buy the Far Left view anymore than you buy the Far Right view. We are all complicated people.

250 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:25:34am

Next, Buchanan is going to explain the "self-defense measures" Hitler took against the Joos.

251 Spiny Norman  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:25:36am

re: #211 Alouette

So you are saying there should be no consequences to losing a war you started?

Except that Germany didn't start WWI, the Austrian Emperor did. Kaiser Bill was happy to join in though, convinced that it would be a lark and Over By Christmas™.

252 lurking faith  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:25:40am

re: #175 Vergeltung

Danzig, and some other parts of then-Poland, had a significant Germanic population. So what? Country borders had been fluctuating all around Europe for centuries, and people migrated to safer or more fertile locations, and the borders never 100 percent matched the ethnicity of the population.

Plus, Danzig was not a border city, AND was an important port, so expecting Poland to just give it up was ridiculous. Hitler knew that, and so did the English.

253 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:26:13am

re: #239 anotherindyfilmguy

Crap... she's not suing... yet... just a big pander to get people to sign a petition for their votes to be counted... twiticus... she should be suing them right now...

She's like luggage....hard to get rid of.

254 offendi  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:26:25am

Every time I see old Patty on the TV I change the channel immediately. His brand of "conservatism" is like mother's milk to intellectually challenged leftists who employ all his frothings as examples of "real" conservative thought

At this point Patty should go on the road with Jeremiah Wright and debate each other at different colleges. " The two loonies" tour. Except I believe these two will be in complete agreement about Israel and the Jews.

255 sparrowlake  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:26:37am

How dare Buchanan blame England and Poland for starting WWII?
He is obviously just covering for the Jews.

256 indythinker  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:27:15am

I haven't paid close attention to Pat Buchanan's career.

If he hadn't jumped the shark before, he has now hurdled the shark, whale, and giant squid all in one leap.

257 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:27:34am

re: #211 Alouette

Again, look at the history. The Germans did not start WWI. It was wrong for the Great Powers to have forced Germany to acknowledge blame for it, when everyone had a hand in creating the environment--the powder keg-- that blew up when Franz-Ferdinand was assassinated.

Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914, and all the alliances pulled Europe into the fray. Germany declared war on France and Serbia on August 3 - in honor of its agreements. France declared war the same day. The UK declared war the next day.

Also, keep in mind the early 20th century of MAD. The country which was able to mobilize its military first or fastest had the advantage. Once the mobilization orders were give (like launching ICBM's) they could not call it off. It was a disaster waiting to happen and no one had thought of a way to create a "fail safe". The fault for WWI was not Germany's alone and it should not have been made to take the rap at Versailles.

258 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:27:37am

re: #256 indythinker

I haven't paid close attention to Pat Buchanan's career.

If he hadn't jumped the shark before, he has now hurdled the shark, whale, and giant squid all in one leap.


More like pogo sticked over Moby Dick.

259 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:27:45am

Buchanan's now an inside the Beltway captive & attention-starved wannabe who's presidential aspirations in 1996 enlarge his ego.

His divisive bitter speech at the 1992 Republican convention was a major turn-off.

That's why I hate when lizards froth at the mouth on Charles' website--frothing rage is never flattering, and it stays forever on people's minds.

Buchanan's so tone-deaf he or his wife drove up in a big Mercedes Benz to speak to United Auto Workers in Michigan during a primary!

He's just padding his pockets playing the frothing clown on leftist media

260 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:28:00am

re: #215 Athos

Yes, MSNBC. Of course.

261 WrathofG-d  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:28:24am

re: #224 calcajun


Oy. that first statement is a doozy! "they didn't lose, they failed to win". No, that is called losing! Furthermore, when other countries can come in and "carve up your country, dismantle your navy..." those are also signs that you have LOST.

personally, I believe you are excusing the Nazis. At best your are correctly pointing out excuses for why the Nazis would start ww2, but in the end that is all they are..EXCUSES!

Germany started WW1 lost, and suffered the consequences.

262 joncelli  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:28:42am

re: #160 zombie

What are we?

The true anti-fascist coalition -- opposed to right fascism, left fascism, and islamofascism.

263 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:29:46am

re: #257 calcajun

Very true. There was no red telephone in those days with a direct line to the other side to stop the disaster.

However, IIRC, the UK did not commit troops until Germany entered Belgium.

264 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:30:07am

re: #251 Spiny Norman

Except that Germany didn't start WWI, the Austrian Emperor did. Kaiser Bill was happy to join in though, convinced that it would be a lark and Over By Christmas™.

That was actually the prevailing sentiment of the day. Many on both sides were convinced the war would be over in a matter of weeks.

265 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:30:29am

re: #219 Kosh's Shadow

Hold out a little longer.

See if McCain comes in.

Though it's not looking good.

We've got a perfect storm if historically illiterate young people, guilty elites, and a republican President who has torpedoed his own base and party.

You may want to pick one up now, now that I think it thru.

266 Dad O' Blondes  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:30:33am

re: #160 zombie

What are we?

Devo?

.

267 Alouette  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:31:18am

re: #257 calcajun

Again, look at the history. The Germans did not start WWI. It was wrong for the Great Powers to have forced Germany to acknowledge blame for it, when everyone had a hand in creating the environment--the powder keg-- that blew up when Franz-Ferdinand was assassinated.

There is a school of thought which considers WWI and WWII one long war with a lull in the middle.

268 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:31:38am

re: #257 calcajun

that blew up when Franz-Ferdinand was assassinated

Which was little more than a pretext. If Austria had not picked that excuse to make its grab for Serbia, it would have picked something else.

269 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:31:46am

re: #219 Kosh's Shadow

This shit bothers me. It's the camel's nose in the tent. We're seeing articles saying that Hitler was justified in a few things. Then, his ideas become more acceptable. It won't be too long before we see articles saying that maybe Hitler went too far, but he was justified in taking action against the Jews.
Should I get a yellow star now and avoid the rush?

One of the key elements in leftist WWII revisionism is that the war caused the Holocaust. It is interesting, though predictable IMO, to see Buchanan pick up the cry.
This is the camel's nose....no, the head....in the tent. Sure, Hitler was anti-semitic and would have been rather naughty to the Jews no matter what. But the extermination camps were merely a response to wartime conditions.
If we had understood him & Germany better, if we had negotiated, if we had accepted Nazi Germany as a full partner in world affairs, Hitler wouldn't have gone off the deep end. He would have had to maintain public respect and would stayed semi-civilized. By isolating him and, worst of all, attacking him, we set loose the whackos. The Holocaust is our fault.

Saddam gassing the Kurds was also our fault. The Killing Fields of Cambodia were our faulkt. It's all our fault.
And our fault is that we do not negotiate. We act like cowboys.

This is already standard fare on the left. With the help of slime like Buchanan, expect academia to work WWII into the scheme.
It's already starting.

270 DeafDog  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:31:49am

In his defense, at least Bucannan didn't blame:

1. George Bush
2. Halliburton
3. Tax Cuts for the rich

271 The Other Les  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:31:56am

re: #222 Athos

Ditto.

272 bolivar  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:32:07am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?


Zombie, we are American Citizens who actually give a shit. They are getting fewer and fewer. The more WWII Veterans that leave us the more we are distanced from the truth. I hate the leftists for trying to rewrite history.

273 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:32:08am

re: #232 Red Ruffansore

* * *
True dat, Chuck Hagel held parties at his McLean, Virginia house for JOhn McCain, and was up in New Hampshire in 2000 when "Maverick" beat Mr. Bush by 19 points.

Then Hagel flipped to Pres. Bush's side & urged McCain to be a team player.

Then Hagel flopped to Cindy Sheehan's position.

274 godfrey  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:33:17am

re: #262 joncelli

That is to say, something like classical liberalism, nineteenth-century liberalism.

275 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:33:19am

re: #233 itellu3times

He also has a phenomenally high pitched voice. It's actually quite funny, till you realize what it is he's saying.

276 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:33:23am
277 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:33:37am

re: #247 JohnnyReb

* * *
Don't lets give in to fear & trembling please.

We are made of stronger stuff and the times demand strength, not trembling. Trembling comes before appeasement!

278 Endangered in Mass  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:34:04am

re: #250 Occasional Reader

They had to. The Germans were peacable baking bread for the peasant volk when the pesky devils flung themselves in the ovens.

279 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:35:05am

Well, I'm inclined to wonder, would Buchanan support the "right" of MSFT or GE stockholders to mug him? After all, the have about as much right to money he gets paid as Germany had to Danzig/Gdansk. And well, if Pat, refuses to negotiate paying them back his salary, well, it's only because he's proud and defiant. And at that point, well, whatever they opt to do to old "Pitchfork Pat" to get their money back is on him.

280 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:35:05am

I don't know where to go with this. Like one of the commenter's said, does anyone read history more or do they make it up?

OK, back to the beginning. Hitler was always going to attack Poland because it was always part of his plan to push through and attack Russia. The main attack corridor is through Poland. Austria, Checkslovakia, Poland were all destined to be subjugated by Germany as Hitler pushed west to grab more territory. The excuse that was always used was that there were Germans in each area that desired their connection with their German heritage. Brownshirts were sent in to stirr insurrection, they would shout for help from Germany, and Germany would be "justified" in their action to invade to "protect" the rights of the Germanic citizens in the invaded country.

Read Mien Kamph and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer (the definitive book on Germany in World War II) and find out for yourselves.

281 jaunte  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:35:24am

Two other good WW1 background books, focused on the international arms race.
"The Arms of Krupp"
[Link: www.amazon.com...]
and "Dreadnought"
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

282 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:35:50am

re: #176 paxnhymn

This isn't life. Its a blog.

The guy just insulted 25% of the posters here in the cruellest way possible, and offended many more.

283 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:36:06am

re: #247 JohnnyReb

I am over fifty and have been teaching history in college for over 20 years.
You have every reason to be frightened.

284 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:36:15am

re: #4 Alouette

Puke-cannon is not a "Conservative," he is a Jew-hating fascist moonbat.

Actually, he's a reactionary.

A reactionary is a nutcase who wants to restore a perhaps mythical past. Franco was a reactionary, not a true fascist. He wanted to restore an absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism as a state religion. He was generally uninterested in fascist governing principles.

As Bill Buckley wrote, a conservative is someone who simply wants to stand on railroad tracks and order the train of history to stop.

A liberal is simply an idiot.

But all ideologies tend to fall apart when examined closely. The real world rarely responds to ideas taken from an old book.

285 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:36:19am

re: #207 Killgore Trout

That's the real question here. I suspect that it's because WWII had so much influence on the world we live in today. I think many on the right see Western civilization in decline an by changing the history of what happened and why they hope to advance "right wing" ideology as the cure. They are making progress in changing the history. Look at how many people here believe that evolutionary science led to the holocaust. These ideas are gaining traction.

I don't think anyone here believes that. However, I think there are those that would agree to "Evolutionary science, misapplied to social theory, contributed to Hitler's ideas."

286 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:37:00am

re: #160 zombie

We are violently neutral.

Right down the middle, ready and willing to fight for our right to stay right here. By any means necessary...

===

Charles: Do we still have access to the photos of the Buchanan sit down meeting with DeWinter and Van Hecke from last year? They seem to have disappeared from the web...

===

TRAILING
OFF,
R

287 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:37:01am
288 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:37:08am

re: #264 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They were looking at the Franco-Prussian War and fighting the last war as opposed to learning some lessons from the Japanese-Russian War or changing their thinking and tactics to match the greater lethality of the weapons of the day.

289 JohnnyReb  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:37:23am

re: #277 alegrias

* * *
Don't lets give in to fear & trembling please.

We are made of stronger stuff and the times demand strength, not trembling. Trembling comes before appeasement!

Oh not afraid for me, its my son I am truly worried about. I will be long gone and can't help him when I suspect this stuff is going to come to a boil.

290 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:37:32am

re: #246 nikis-knight

Stein was trying to explain Hitler's ideology, agree or disagree.
Pat Buchanan seems to be trying to justify Hitler's actions, in order to attack Bush. What corelation is there?


ben stein interview

I don't have the exact time (I think it's about 18-20 minutes in) but Ben claims in this interview that if Darwinian evolution is true then Hitler was justified in the Holocaust. Also Ben is just the spokesman. The movie was put together by the Discovery Institute (a right wing Christian think tank). Notice this historical revisionism of WWII is only coming from the far right. I really think it's because their world view doesn't work and they need to change history until it does. The Lefties (and assorted paleocons) are trying the same thing with 9-11.

291 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:37:40am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

Ben Stein is a white supremacist who is trying to redefine WWII? He's a nutjob isolationist who wants to move us back to the gold standard? He's a Jew hater? He's a former member of the Klan?

What the fuck is going on here?

292 godfrey  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:38:06am

re: #287 taxfreekiller

That's seeing the twisted thing straight, that is.

293 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:38:44am

re: #261 WrathofG-d

(Sigh) Read the plain meaning of my words. First, I'm not an apologist for the Nazis. Second, "failing to win" is their view, not mine. Understanding someone's perspective does not mean you agree with it.

294 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:39:17am

Ollie North's "War Stories" on Fox News Cable are wonderful for those who don't want to or can't read long books about wars the US has fought.

295 Charles  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:39:28am

re: #286 Render

Charles: Do we still have access to the photos of the Buchanan sit down meeting with DeWinter and Van Hecke from last year? They seem to have disappeared from the web...

Right here:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

296 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:39:49am

re: #249 marjoriemoon

Let me give you some advice. You are conservatives. Embrace it. It's who you are.

See? You just did it. Slapped the "conservative" label on me. Whether I like it or not.

I'm a vegetarian environmentalist agnostic in favor of gay rights, I'm "pro-choice," I loathe creationism and school prayers or any religion in public education, I'm anti-racism, anti-fascism, I embrace "world cultures," I've never fired or even touched a gun, I refuse to shop in chain stores or eat in fast food restaurants and I try to never watch TV. The vast majority of conservatives in this country would take one look at that list and deem me a commie pinko hippie. And yet according to you I am a "conservative"? Hell in the 2000 election, I voted for Nader. If I'm a conservative, the term has no meaning.

297 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:39:51am

re: #268 Occasional Reader

Remember, there had been a Balkans War only a few years earlier and the Austrians had been looking for a chance to spank Serbia.

298 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:39:56am
299 DoesNotMatter  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:40:11am

What a load of bullshit.

Words fail to describe my loathing for this maggot properly.

This is one of those special person for whom I hope the fundies are right and hell exists.
May he spend an eternity showering. Knowing that he will wake up and shower again.

Whatever deity willing to touch these vermin with human masks: Damn them for their apologizing the most hideous crimes commited* earth yet.

*While there are probably contenders for that title, I'm german.

300 autoexec  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:40:31am

Pat has definitively lost his marbles and common sence he should be institutionalized - but instead he gets to make "commentary" on MSNBC. I can't believe he had an orthodox Jewish campaign manager.

301 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:41:19am

Both Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan were speechwriters in Nixon's White House. Since then they've both cashed in on their notoriety.

Just because one has served an administration does not make one forever knowledgeable or expert.

302 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:41:44am

re: #296 zombie

AAAACK zombie DATA DUMP.

TMI

/just kidding

303 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:42:33am

re: #296 zombie


I embrace "world cultures,"

Out of curiosity: Please define (as you're using the term).

I've never fired or even touched a gun

Try it, you might like it. Really.

I refuse to shop in chain stores

Then where do you buy your chains?

Anyway, to answer your question, I'd say the center of political gravity at LGF is that we're most of us liberals... in the classic sense of the word.

304 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:42:44am

re: #201 WrathofG-d

Yawn. Look when you start a world war and lose, you LOSE. Not only the war but other things along with it, such as prestige, land, and money.

There are no "give backs" after taking on the world.

That's perfectly true of WWII. Note how long Germany was occupied afterwards.

However, it's difficult to lay all the blame for WWI at the feet of the Germans. All the great powers of Europe were culpable.

Irrespective of this semantics argument, Buchanan is an idiot. The Poles were clearly not to blame for starting WWII.

305 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:42:51am

re: #296 zombie

We're gonna have to fix that gun thing one of these days.

If you can't shoot, learn to load.

FASTLY,
R

306 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:43:27am

re: #297 calcajun

Remember, there had been a Balkans War only a few years earlier and the Austrians had been looking for a chance to spank Serbia.

Yes, exactly. It just irks me when people say that the assassination of the Archduke "caused" WWI; balderdash.

307 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:43:29am

re: #267 Alouette

True. Back in the 17th century, no called it the "Thirty-Years War" either until about a century later.

I am beginning to understand a principle in historical studies; you cannot put an event into accurate historical context until the passage of about 100 years.

308 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:43:34am

re: #244 loppyd

The Complaints have been drafted and ready to be filed if the rules committee
does not work something out with FL and MI on 5/31.

She should split from the Democratic Party and run as an independent.
Think McCain would approve of the "extra" competition?

309 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:44:04am

re: #257 calcajun

You are right. Germany did NOT start WWI.

The Kaiser was on vacation in Norway, sailing the fjords, when the war broke out. (Perhaps he was pining for Norwegian blue parrots.)

The war broke out because the Austrian foreign minister demanded that Serbia pay for murdering his best friend, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was one heck of a great guy.

Germany wasn't in on the decision. Russia was behind the Serbian Black Hand assassins, most likely with French support.

The one part of that whole cascade of disaster that was Germany's fault, for real, was its stupid desire to build a high seas fleet, which it didn't need, simply to show up Britain. It badly antagonized the British.

310 autoexec  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:44:14am

re: #301 alegrias

Both Ben Stein and Pat Buchanan were speechwriters in Nixon's White House. Since then they've both cashed in on their notoriety.

Just because one has served an administration does not make one forever knowledgeable or expert.

That is one of the most stupid analogies i've ever heard.

311 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:44:27am

Some commenters have mentioned the responsibility for WW1. This book places the responsibility squarely on Germany, long planning and looking for an excuse for war long before the assassination at Sarajevo.
Europe's Last Summer

Fromkin's answer to the question posed in his subtitle is succinct: Helmuth von Moltke, imperial Germany's army chief in 1914. In his clearly delineated argument, Fromkin addresses alternative theories about the cause of World War I, but he returns to the decision chain of a small number of officials in Berlin and Vienna. Their destruction of key evidence hampers the precise reconstruction of their actions as does, Fromkin maintains, historians' confusion about what the Germans were licensing in agreeing to whatever chastisement Vienna decided to deliver upon Serbia, on the pretext of avenging the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In contrast to theorists of rigid alliances, to whom the notorious "blank check" initiated events almost beyond human control, Fromkin arraigns the actions of Moltke and his colleagues, especially in late July 1914, when the procrastinating Austrians had yet to crush Serbia in war, as Moltke expected. Hijacking the bollixed-up situation, he overrode Kaiser Wilhelm II's resistance, Fromkin concludes, to a deliberate instigation of a second war against Russia and France. The boldness of Fromkin's argument is enough to warrant attention, but his fluidity of expression guarantees a large audience for this book
312 blueboy  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:45:07am

For a man who 'did not want war', Hitler got really fkin good at it didn't he?
Will this gentleman now explain how Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway came to be invaded and occupied in spring 1940? What was the beef with Yugoslavia?

313 Czarny_Smok  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:46:49am

re: #93 see bs

Gee Pat, My family lived through the Nazi's invading (and Stalins Russia).
I guess my family should have made way for the "lebensraum" and given all their possessions voluntarily to the jack booted thugs, instead of having the Nazi's "liberate" their property and possessions and force them into labor camps.

Maybe you should take your head out of your ass before speaking, better yet, why don't you never speak again.

Yes, Pat, the Poles failed to negotiate away the land that Germany wanted back, which the Germans had originally taken from the Poles - my, this makes a modicum of sense - if you're tilted heavily towards the left. My family barely survived Hitler’s invasion, my Mother and brother survived the Soviet concentration camps in Arkangelsk, Dad was a Polish officer that managed to escape the Soviets just prior to Katyn, and learned many years later how many of his friends and compatriots were murdered – and he then went back to continue the fight against both the Germans and the Russians. Yes us Poles are a proud and defiant people, we are also compassionate in the extreme, and love freedom – what do you love Pat?

314 JohnnyReb  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:47:02am

re: #312 blueboy

For a man who 'did not want war', Hitler got really fkin good at it didn't he?
Will this gentleman now explain how Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway came to be invaded and occupied in spring 1940? What was the beef with Yugoslavia?

How about Greece? Oh wait, he had to invade their cause Mussolini was getting his butt kicked when he tried to conquer them.

315 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:47:04am

re: #306 Occasional Reader

It really was the spark that lit the fuse, though. John Keegan wrote a good book on WWI which went into detail over the diplomatic fumbling that followed in the days after the murder. Ironically, Keegan concluded that the telephone, which was meant to have avoided mis-communications, actually exacerbated the situation - people spoke without thinking things through as they would normally do in formal diplomatic communiques.

316 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:47:34am

re: #309 Mardukhai

The war broke out because the Austrian foreign minister demanded that Serbia pay for murdering his best friend

Uh, no.

First of all, Serbia didn't murder him.

Secondly, it was just the pretext Austria had been waiting for.

An analogy; imagine if, while on a state visit to Canada, the VP of the US were gunned down by a crazed Canadian moonbat.

The US then demands that the Canadian government take full responsibility for the murder; apologize for it; and... oh yeah, hand over Alberta to us as compensation.

317 littleben  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:47:35am

When Pat worked as a speechwriter for Nixon in the White House together with Safire, he was actually a staunch supporter of Israel and had no record (at least a public record) of anti- Jewish bias.

Then something happened that unleashed this base and vile hatred of Jews. Safire was once interviewed and acknowledged this change in Buchanan's views, but refused to speculate as to the reason, although he gave the impression that he knew of something.

My guess is that he had a personal conflict with someone who was Jewish in the Nixon White House, and he has been looking for revenge since.

On Msnbc, he tries to tie in the "Jewish vote" to every story, most recently with the Bush/Obama appeasement clash. He was foaming
at the mouth about the Jews in West Palm Beach, Miami, Boca etc.
How Msnbc rehabilitated him is a reflection on their alleged "liberalism".

318 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:47:59am

re: #160 zombie

The Whig Party is open I think, what did they stand for again?

319 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:48:06am

re: #261 WrathofG-d

Germany started WW1 lost, and suffered the consequences.

I'm sorry, but that statement does not stand.

320 offendi  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:48:18am

Wondering if Pat is going to be on next season's "Dancing With The Stars"? There is precedent since they already had Jerry Springer on as a contestant.

Agree with posters here on Buchanan's insatiable thirst for attention. The Jimmy Carter of the Extreme Right.

321 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:48:59am

re: #309 Mardukhai

Gee, doesn't that sound like (wait for it) state-sponsored terrorism? There really is nothing new under the sun.

322 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:49:33am

re: #304 incanus

The Poles were clearly not to blame for starting WWII.

You are right.

And Buchanan is a liar. The Poles did NOT occupy Danzig. It was a Free City, the way it was for centuries. The real argument was over the Polish Corridor between Pomerania and East Prussia. It was largely populated by Germans and was German territory before WWI.

The Polish Corridor was just an excuse. Hitler wanted Poland for two reasons. To acquire land for Greater Germany, and to kill more Jews.

323 godfrey  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:50:50am

re: #321 calcajun

There really is nothing new under the sun

You say it like it's a bad thing.

324 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:50:53am

re: #290 Killgore Trout

ben stein interview

I don't have the exact time (I think it's about 18-20 minutes in) but Ben claims in this interview that if Darwinian evolution is true then Hitler was justified in the Holocaust. Also Ben is just the spokesman. The movie was put together by the Discovery Institute (a right wing Christian think tank). Notice this historical revisionism of WWII is only coming from the far right. I really think it's because their world view doesn't work and they need to change history until it does. The Lefties (and assorted paleocons) are trying the same thing with 9-11.

So now Christians are re-writing WWII history to serve their plans (what are they?) That's not blood libel?

What the fuck is going on here?

325 BuddyG  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:51:00am

One Nut

"...In 1955 the Russians released several German prisoners who had been present during Hitler's last days, one of whom told of burying Hitler's remains in a bomb crater. Trevor-Roper interviewed the men, and on the basis of their comments deduced that the Russians had exhumed the bodies and examined them in May, 1945. This was confirmed to his satisfaction in the 1960s, when Russian journalists published accounts of the search for Hitler.

One such book published in 1968 was particularly interesting, and it's here we get back to the question of Hitler's missing organs. The book included the report of the autopsy performed on Hitler's bod by Russian pathologists. This contained the startling news that Hitler's "left testicle could not be found either in the scrotum or on the spermatic cord inside the inguinal canal, or in the small pelvis. . . ."

This revelation struck many as suspicious. None of Hitler's doctors or attendants had ever mentioned anything about a missing testicle, and his medical records were silent on the subject. A woman who claimed to have been his lover said he was normally equipped. Moreover, the autopsy report said Hitler's body showed no external wounds, even though all the German witnesses mentioned a shot through the head.

Hitler's World War I company commander, however, offered some support for the Russian finding. He said he'd discovered Hitler's missing testicle as a result of a wartime VD exam.

Questions about the authenticity of the Russian autopsy records were more or less resolved in 1972. Dr. Reidar Sognnaes, a dental expert at the University of California at Los Angeles, compared the Russky data with previous X-rays of Hitler's skull and pronounced the former genuine. (Sognnaes used similar methods to confirm that a body dug up in Berlin was that of Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann.) So I guess we have to conclude that in some departments, at least, Hitler really wasn't all there..."

326 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:51:19am
327 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:51:57am
#303 Occasional Reader
re: #296 zombie
I embrace "world cultures,"


Out of curiosity: Please define (as you're using the term).

I just mean that most of the music I listen to and food that I eat and decorations that I fill my home with and places that I visit and books that i read are from or by or about "other countries and cultures" that are not the USA. (E.g. I listen to African music, eat Thai food, etc.) Not as a conscious choice -- things just turned out that way.

I've never fired or even touched a gun


Try it, you might like it. Really.

Doubtful.


I refuse to shop in chain stores


Then where do you buy your chains?

At the Zombie Discount Outlet, of course!

328 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:52:08am

re: #296 zombie

The true classification goes beyond a simple attempt to fit into a political label. I really think that it comes down to a fundamental level of morality and ethics. We do not all have to agree in all of our moral judgments, but there is a fundamental embracing of individuality, freedom, and liberty around those morals and ethics. We can accept a degree of individual relativism as long as the core comes to the ethics of individuality, freedom, and liberty.

I believe most of us, in our core and despite differences in opinions on some issues, embrace the root and core values of the United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We see the values of this country as fundamentally good because they are based on individuality, freedom, and liberty.

329 vagabond trader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:52:09am

re: #290 Killgore Trout

ummm, the left uses their own brand of revising WWII. "Bush is a Nazi," our military are no different than Nazi's,Israel has morphed into Nazi Germany, and all the other idiotic parallels they invent.

330 jamsler  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:53:00am

I sure wish Pat would STFU.

331 Yankee Division Son  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:53:34am

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but help me out. Since when did Pat Buchanan start smoking crack?

332 Bill Dalasio  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:53:42am

re: #309 Mardukhai

If I'm remembering my history correctly, wasn't there an unconditional guarantee of support from Germany to Austria for any demands they opted to place on Serbia? From what I remember learning (granted this was years ago), it was highly unlikely Austria would have issued the July Ultimatum to Serbia had it not had that blank check for Germany.

333 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:54:07am

re: #247 JohnnyReb

Johnny Reb, I'm with you. Part of me feels, and I've heard this garbage before by BHO in the campaign, is that the MSM feels there is no justification for going to war with your neighbor. What the historican rewriters have been trying to do, and I've seen another book come out by a British writer, is that the Allies were morally equivilant to the Axis, that our motives were no better than theirs.

This revision in history has been going on for 40 years, from the invasion of bombing of Dresden to the bombing of Hiroshima.

Stripped away from all the rhetoric is one salient question; is there a moral defense for a moral defense? Is it moral for one man to kill another who is bent on the distruction of your life?

While the pointy heads are debating this however, those with no compunctions are strapping bombs to their childrens and scattering lives in their blast.

Make no mistake; all of humanity was at risk in World War II. Not only the right for nations to exist, but people's as well. After the Jews would have been the French, the English, and all the other Allied peoples. Our parents went away and saved the world, and their ungrateful grandchildren are talking moral nonsense.

Thank God for the WWII generation. Thank you FDR, Truman, Patton, McArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Churchill, Halsey, Bradley and all the brave people who died in places far away. We will never repay you for the freedom you secured for us.

334 arier_tzvi  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:54:15am

with the above being said. thankfully the poles didnt give up that area. If they did the shoah could have been much much worse.

335 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:55:28am

Captain B.H. Liddell Hart explained the "causes" of WW1 in the first 33 pages (aka the first chapter) of his book...

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

...The Real War 1914-1918 (c) 1930

Also on the most read before commenting about list for WW1 is Barbara Tuchmans Guns of August.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

===

JUST
SAYIN,
R

336 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:55:45am

re: #301 alegrias
Nixon was many things but above all he was a Patriot. Listening to his former speechwriters slinging this hash must have him spinning in his grave.

337 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:55:55am

re: #327 zombie

Try it, you might like it. Really.

Doubtful.

Ha. We'll see about that.

I heard a story from a Green Beret once. He and his buddies were somewhere in Central America, training the local troops. They had a live fire range near a beach that was popular with "rich hippie"-type tourists from the US and Europe. The rich hippies started to raise a stink about those horrible guns marring their idyllic paradise. The Green Berets, being think-outside-the-box types, came up with a brilliant idea; they invited the rich hippies over to let them do some shooting. After that, their biggest problem was keeping the rich hippies AWAY from the shooting range!

338 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:58:07am

Buchanan is a vicious jowly Jew hating turd.

339 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:58:27am

re: #316 Occasional Reader

First of all, Serbia didn't murder him.

Wrong, the Servian (or Serbian) secret service under the control of the notorious "Col. Apis" did the deed, although neither the Serbian prime minister nor the Serbian king were involved.

Three years later, in Salonika, the Serbs got around to punishing Apis, but he was officially executed on trumped up charges of treason. The Serbian government never admitted his role in the war -- it wanted a free hand to conquer Croatia and Montenegro and re-occupy Macedonia.

340 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:59:02am

re: #313 Czarny_Smok

Thank God for the Poles, and thank God they are liberated now.

341 sparrowlake  Wed, May 21, 2008 11:59:47am

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.
I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.
What are we?

I have seen here an essentially anti-Islamofascist coalition of virtually the entire political spectrum save and except for the far-ultra-right and the far-ultra-left. That is what I love about this place.

342 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:00:18pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

There is nothing the least bit "revisionist" about the argument that evolutionary theories influenced Hitler. That is standard and it is undeniable. If you want to pretend that there is no connection, you are the revisionist....and the ignoramus. The fact is that all ideologies of the 19th century sought to call themselves "scientific" and incorporated pop versions of current scientiufic thinking.

Nevertheless:
Influence is NOT causation.
Evolutionary science influenced evolutionary, "progressive" philosophies, and the latter influenced Hitler. (The influence was indirect.)
There is no evidence that Hitler ever read Charles Darwin himself.
The chief guru of racialist "social Darwinism" was Joseph Gobineau, whose theories ante-date The Origin of the Species. Other forms of "social Darwinism" also ante-date Darwin.

You may detest Ben Stein all you like and fight him tooth and nail. That's fine.
You may even decide he is more evil than all the Buchanan and David Dukes in the world. That's fine.
But when you lump him in with the neo-fascists and Hitler apologists you are making a categorical intellectual error.
Not all of your enemies are alike. Not all of them are coming from the same place or even heading in the same direction.

343 godfrey  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:00:33pm

Keep your eye on the ball, not your navel.

344 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:02:53pm

re: #333 itsspideyman

We will never repay you for the freedom you secured for us.

Perhaps. But by abandoning that freedom and surrendering it away to modern fascists sure is not a way to thank them either. The best we can do to repay them is to fight the same fight today so that we can pass onto our grandchildren the freedom our fathers and grandfathers passed to us.

345 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:03:56pm

re: #327 zombie

I've never fired or even touched a gun

I'm baffled as to why this is a left/right liberal/conservative issue. Do you believe that guns cause crime?

346 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:04:07pm

re: #344 Athos

Well said!

347 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:04:11pm

By the way, my area of expertise is the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, now largely forgotten, that were really the opening battles of WWI.

If you want to talk about the Races to Salonika and Monastir, and the reasons for the Ottomans' collapse, I'm your man.

(And the lizards are scratching their heads, "Huh?")

348 godfrey  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:04:25pm

re: #344 Athos

It's good to acknowledge the debt, but I think they're not looking for repayment. They're looking for vigilance.

349 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:04:28pm

The Sudetenland was never a part of Germany either.

350 KSK  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:05:02pm

We may not know a lot of things.

But what Hitler wanted we DO know.
I'm not recommending the read bit it's all there in Mein Kampf.
Everything.

Some people may argue that there's another book which details everything some other people want but you may not shoot the book since that's a... umm crime

351 godfrey  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:05:19pm

re: #347 Mardukhai

Ah, the Ottomans. Have you read anything by Orhan Pamuk?

352 Spiny Norman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:08:05pm

re: #316 Occasional Reader

Uh, no.

First of all, Serbia didn't murder him.

Secondly, it was just the pretext Austria had been waiting for.

An analogy; imagine if, while on a state visit to Canada, the VP of the US were gunned down by a crazed Canadian moonbat.

The US then demands that the Canadian government take full responsibility for the murder; apologize for it; and... oh yeah, hand over Alberta to us as compensation.

Québécois separatists! I knew it!

Actually, the Serbian Military Intelligence chief and Serbian army officers directly organized the assassination plot, with the backing of Imperial Russia, but did so without the Serbian goverment's approval or knowledge. They felt the Serbian government was weak and subservient puppets of the Austrians. Bosnian Serb separatists carried it out. "Plausible Deniability", you see?

353 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:08:26pm

re: #339 Mardukhai

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

DON'T
FORGET,
R

354 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:08:40pm

re: #319 incanus

I'm sorry, but that statement does not stand.

yes it does. Germany's rapacious appetite to dominate Europe was the main cause of World War I. Germany;s brutal peace terms to France in 1871, Romania in 1916 and Russia in 1918 showed how vicious Hohenzollern Germany as. I feel Germany got what it deserved at Versailles. Germany was also responsible for importing Lenin into Russia.

355 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:08:41pm

re: #296 zombie

See? You just did it. Slapped the "conservative" label on me. Whether I like it or not.

I'm a vegetarian environmentalist agnostic in favor of gay rights, I'm "pro-choice," I loathe creationism and school prayers or any religion in public education, I'm anti-racism, anti-fascism, I embrace "world cultures," I've never fired or even touched a gun, I refuse to shop in chain stores or eat in fast food restaurants and I try to never watch TV. The vast majority of conservatives in this country would take one look at that list and deem me a commie pinko hippie. And yet according to you I am a "conservative"? Hell in the 2000 election, I voted for Nader. If I'm a conservative, the term has no meaning.


True you probably aren't. You're a Liberman, a slightly socialist (though not communist) who is deeply patriotic and realizes that the principles of freedom that America was founded on are the best ever devised.
These days, the Democrat party and progressive movement has sacrificed those ideas that are the most important to you (defending America & freedom, standing up to tyrants) in order to gain power to enact some of the other policies that you might prefer.
But only the Republicans, and only some, and conservatives (NOT populists or isolationists) are standing up for those things that are most important. You can ally with the conservatives, and engage in heated debate about those things you listed, and save the country, or join the progressives and rush over the cliff.

I'd agree that Buchannon is not a great example of a conservative (despite often being make a spokesperson of it by the media). But then again, you can never define your label in such a way as to exclude all the nuts.
Because many will take a label, and twist it around their own biases that otherwise don't fit under it, and try to sell that. Like Buchannon and his anti-semitism, or Ron Paul's radical isolationism.
Still, we have to condemn him from his flank (who is to the right or left is a bit silly to try to discern when dealing with non-political lunacy like this stuff) in order to prevent them from attracted like minds and truly changing what the words mean.
Like what has sadly happened to Liberal, Democrat, etc.

356 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:09:07pm

re: #303 Occasional Reader

Then where do you buy your chains?

Anyway, to answer your question, I'd say the center of political gravity at LGF is that we're most of us liberals... in the classic sense of the word.

Unfortunately that name has been hijacked, and now it's substitute, "libertarian," has been hijacked by the Libertarian Party.
Many would say that we are conservatives, because the traditional, founding philosophy of this country was liberalism. (To be an American conservative and to be a European one are rather different things.)
We could be reactionaries because we react negatively to leftist "progressivism," but that term has been hijacked to mean "extreme rightist."
I like "traditionalist," particularly when I'm fighting moonbats in education, and "constitutionalist" otherwise. But then no knows what the hell I mean.
At some point I decided that labels are too tricky.

If we are hard to label, it may be because we resist being shoved into an ideological strait jacket.

357 jamsler  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:10:02pm

re: #296 zombie

Zombie, I think that the label that you're looking for is "sane".

That is, it appears to me you don't subscribe blindly to group think. Rationality is your friend. There used to be many like you but not so many now, it seems. A multi-faceted person in a bipolar world. A person who realizes that this is an analog world where digital rules never fully work.

358 Spiny Norman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:11:04pm

re: #349 Joel

The Sudetenland was never a part of Germany either.

In reality, before Bismarck, there was never any "Germany" as such, but a varied collection of German-speaking Duchies, Principalities and little Kingdoms under the control of various other powers (minor and major).

359 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:11:20pm

re: #338 Joel

Hey Joel. How goes.

360 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:11:34pm

Zombie I am ready to follow you in the new Zombieist party. Or maybe Zombiecrats.

361 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:11:48pm

No. But I've read a lot of contemporary journalism -- some of the best was by Trotsky, oddly.

I feel kinda sorry for them during this war. Although they should have been kicked out of Europe, the results of the war were far worse than their continued misrule.

The Greeks and the Serbs behaved terribly.

My personal villain was the Greek Prime Minister Venizelos, a brutal murderous fascist with a neat goatee -- and a Liberal!

In 1916, under his rule, the Jewish city of Salonika was burned to the ground. I don't buy his protestations of innocence for a second.

It was an utterly marvelous place, and now the Greeks prefer that it never existed. Few citizens of of contemporary "Thessaloniki" have ever heard of Salonika, and those who have, explode in rage when it is mentioned.

May that city rest in peace.

362 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:11:54pm

re: #347 Mardukhai

Let er fly! Perhaps the Lizard King himself will set up a different thread? :)

363 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:12:06pm

re: #342 wolfie

That is standard and it is undeniable.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. These ideas have become accepted by many on the right to the point that others with traditional concepts of WWII are now considered revisionist. You've proven my point.

364 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:12:19pm

re: #358 Spiny Norman

It used to be called the Holy Roman Empire. Not very Holy, Not very Roman, and not much of an empire.

365 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:12:47pm

re: #352 Spiny Norman

Precisely.

366 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:13:37pm

re: #224 calcajun

They did not lose WWI - they failed to win. Seriously - that's their view to this day. No Allied soldier set foot on German soil in WWI. To have the country carved up, their navy taken and interned, being forced to take the blame for the whole war (when it was the disastrous bungling of the diplomats on all sides) and territory surrendered without conquest was the seedbed of the resentment later nurtured by the Nazi Party.

Really? So I Guess it was Britain, the United States, and France that signed the armistice hat in hand at Compiegne on Nov. 11, 1918. By the way what did you think of the French taking back Alsace-Lorrain from Germany? The Allies were preparing a campaing against Germany in 1919 based on 100 American divisions. Germany saw the writign on the wall, got rid of the oafish Ludendorff and the clownish Kaiser and signed the armistice to prevent total collapse and the Bolshevisation of the Fatherland.

367 markx  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:13:37pm

re: #296 zombie

Cool, to each their own.

But...

...I've never fired or even touched a gun...

?

It won't kill you to fire a gun, in fact, it might save your life someday. Free advice -get a gun.

/constitutional right

368 Former SSG  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:14:19pm

I don't know much about Ottomans... footstools, yes; Ottomans, no.

369 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:14:21pm

re: #345 incanus

I'm baffled as to why this is a left/right liberal/conservative issue. Do you believe that guns cause crime?

No, I don't believe that guns cause crime. I just never came from a gun-owning family, or lived in a gun culture, and never saw a need for guns in my life, and never felt the slightest attraction to them. I've never had a need for one, so I never got one. Simple as that.

But yes, it is perceived as a liberal/conservative issue. Most moonbats/liberals do think guns are inherently evil, and would like to ban guns entirely, if possible. And this is not for the reason that most NRA-members assume -- to disarm the populace so the government can institute a socialist police state without any opposition -- but rather because most moonbats live in urban environments and in the Big City and the only time one sees guns being used is by criminals robbing or killing victims. So it seems logical to the big-city moonbat that to cut down on the number of guns would cut down on the amount of crime.

I'm not defendeing this belief -- just describing it. Quite common.

370 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:14:37pm
371 markx  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:14:42pm

re: #305 Render

We're gonna have to fix that gun thing one of these days.

If you can't shoot, learn to load.

FASTLY,
R


LOL.

I like your thinking.

372 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:15:03pm

re: #359 WriterMom

Hey Joel. How goes.

I am well. How are you? When is Olmert going to jail? I hope your Dad is well.

373 sparrowlake  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:15:39pm

re: #345 incanus

I'm baffled as to why this is a left/right liberal/conservative issue. Do you believe that guns cause crime?

Gun control legislation, and the constitutionality thereof, is certainly a left/right liberal/conservative issue. Asking whether guns cause crime is IMO a way of avoiding the real issue.

374 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:16:27pm

re: #369 zombie

Actually, I kinda agree with you.

375 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:16:55pm

re: #368 Former SSG

I don't know much about Ottomans... footstools, yes; Ottomans, no.

Jerry Seinfeld
"What's with the Ottoman Empire - an Empire base on putting your feet up on a stool?"

376 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:17:04pm

re: #361 Mardukhai

Trotsky did one of the definitive books on the Russian Revolution, sprinkled with Communist dogma and plots and subplots of all kinds. Herman Wouk the book mentioned it in
War and Rememberance which is a great novel about WWII.

"Salonika". Where was it located? Just so there will be one more person who will not forget it.

377 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:17:54pm

re: #336 itsspideyman

Nixon was many things but above all he was a Patriot. Listening to his former speechwriters slinging this hash must have him spinning in his grave.

* * *
Thank you, yes, Nixon supported Israel in the 1973 war, and the Shah of Iran against Axis of evil aggresors.

Buchanan should retire from public life, he's pathetic now.

378 Former SSG  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:18:04pm

re: #375 Joel

I forgot that one! Thanks for the smile.

379 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:18:44pm

re: #347 Mardukhai

By the way, my area of expertise is the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, now largely forgotten, that were really the opening battles of WWI.

If you want to talk about the Races to Salonika and Monastir, and the reasons for the Ottomans' collapse, I'm your man.

(And the lizards are scratching their heads, "Huh?")

Did you ever see the film Pascali's Island? GREAT film about that period of time. Ben Kingsley is unforgettable at an Ottoman spy in Greece just prior to WWI. He keeps sending in his reports to the Sultanate -- and nobody reads them! Highly recommend for pre-WWI Balkans scholars.

380 RickZ  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:19:07pm

And this guy gets face time on tv. Sheesh.

381 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:19:27pm

re: #355 nikis-knight

Actually, though, I don't know if "slightly socialist" applies in your case, perhaps you prefer "strongly libertarian or such." No offense meant.

382 hazzyday  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:19:58pm

I used to like him on Crossfire. But if there was ever a person who had his head up his behind it would be Pat Buchanan. He has no relevance. I think he is acutally hiding what he really thinks. The crazy stuff he says is just a smoke screen for the crazier stuff he thinks.

383 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:19:58pm

re: #358 Spiny Norman

In reality, before Bismarck, there was never any "Germany" as such, but a varied collection of German-speaking Duchies, Principalities and little Kingdoms under the control of various other powers (minor and major).

The Czechs after WWII did what the Israelis should have done - they expelled all the Sudeten Germans (unless they could prove anti Fascist sympathies). The Israelis should have doen the same to the Muslim Palestinians.

The Czechs had a terrific army of 35 well trained divisions, they had the Skoda aramemnts factories, they had mountain passes for defense, and they were motivated to fight.

384 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:20:21pm

re: #354 Joel

yes it does. Germany's rapacious appetite to dominate Europe was the main cause of World War I. Germany;s brutal peace terms to France in 1871, Romania in 1916 and Russia in 1918 showed how vicious Hohenzollern Germany as. I feel Germany got what it deserved at Versailles. Germany was also responsible for importing Lenin into Russia.

I never said the Germans weren't world class pricks; they were. It's disingenuous to lay the blame for THE ENTIRE WAR at their feet as you are doing, however. The Treaty of Versailles was a joke. ALL the powers of Europe deserve blame. Germany "getting what it deserved" started a larger, more terrible war.

Why did Romania sue for terms? They jumped in wanting a piece of the Austria-Hungarian empire (another tottering relic) and got spanked.

The treaty of Brest-Litovsk occurred after the abdication of the Tsar (at least that's my recollection, please correct me if I am mistaken). Russia was another tottering relic that was going down in flames long before WWI started; the Tsar viewed war with Austria as a way to prop up his regime.

We haven't evened mentioned that pinnacle of civilization, the Ottoman Empire.

It's not useful to oversimplify historical events. Nothing good came from WWI and the events preceding it. There's nothing wrong with beating the living piss out of your enemy until he has no will to fight; there is something inhumane about placing your foot on his neck and keeping him there. That is what the Treaty of Versailles did.

385 RickZ  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:21:15pm

re: #105 Charles

This is a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate and redefine the concept of "appeasement."

Carrying water for Obama is hard work.

386 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:21:16pm

re: #372 Joel

Joel, inshallah-it will be soon. That creep is dirty, dirty, dirty. Such a sickening family-such a revolting leader. My Dad is doing great...whachoo reading lately?

387 Biff  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:21:22pm

Regarding Hitler’s demand for the Poles to relinquish Danzig, Buchanan is using what has become the Palestinian definition of “negotiate”, i.e. “give me what I want, or else.”

388 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:22:52pm

re: #382 hazzyday

Buchanan is following in the footsteps of his father who was an isolationist, anti British, probably anti Semitic, and pro German man. A "Lindberghian".

389 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:22:58pm

re: #369 zombie

And yet in those areas where it is legal to carry weapons they have the lowest violent rates.

Works worldwide to. In Mexico City where it's a national offense to have a weapon there is the highest gun violence in the world, yet the lowest is in Switzerland, where you are required by law to own a gun (because everyone is required to do some service). I know, different cultures and unfair to compare. Yet here they are as examples.

390 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:23:15pm

re: #360 The_Vig

Zombie I am ready to follow you in the new Zombieist party. Or maybe Zombiecrats.

The revolution has begun! I have a follower!

391 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:24:36pm

re: #382 hazzyday

I used to like him on Crossfire. But if there was ever a person who had his head up his behind it would be Pat Buchanan. He has no relevance. I think he is acutally hiding what he really thinks. The crazy stuff he says is just a smoke screen for the crazier stuff he thinks.

* * *
Georgetown University's got folks like Buchanan teaching & taking money from the middle east to set up chairs & departments & lectures to spout this kind of stuff.

They we wonder why our State Department which is full of Georgetown Foreign Service school people, is so rotten and anti-US and anti-our allies.

Pope Benedict should cut off their funds for fraternizing with the enemy.

392 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:24:50pm

re: #369 zombie

No, I don't believe that guns cause crime. I just never came from a gun-owning family, or lived in a gun culture, and never saw a need for guns in my life, and never felt the slightest attraction to them. I've never had a need for one, so I never got one. Simple as that.

But yes, it is perceived as a liberal/conservative issue. Most moonbats/liberals do think guns are inherently evil, and would like to ban guns entirely, if possible. And this is not for the reason that most NRA-members assume -- to disarm the populace so the government can institute a socialist police state without any opposition -- but rather because most moonbats live in urban environments and in the Big City and the only time one sees guns being used is by criminals robbing or killing victims. So it seems logical to the big-city moonbat that to cut down on the number of guns would cut down on the amount of crime.

I'm not defendeing this belief -- just describing it. Quite common.

For what it's worth, I fully support your decision to not own a gun, just as I support the decisions of others to own them. I don't own guns; wish I did but there are more important things to spend money on at the moment.

Thanks for replying; it's always interesting to get some insight into why things are said.

Not going to comment on your bolded statement other than to say, it's not logical to assume that gun laws prevent crime because criminals tend to not obey laws.

393 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:25:04pm

re: #386 WriterMom

Joel, inshallah-it will be soon. That creep is dirty, dirty, dirty. Such a sickening family-such a revolting leader. My Dad is doing great...whachoo reading lately?

Reading a ffew books
"Retribution" - the final year of the War against Japan by Max Hastings, and I started reading Kafka since I might go to Prague in November so I picked up the Metamorphosis and The Trial. I hope things are well with you and that the creep Olmerde spends time in prison with his lunatic family. I hope that Haim Ramon also goes away forever.

394 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:25:24pm

re: #384 incanus

there is something inhumane about placing your foot on his neck and keeping him there. That is what the Treaty of Versailles did

That's a strange way of looking at it.

395 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:25:24pm

re: #366 Joel

As I said --it's theirview; not mine. You're right in that the bean counters in Berlin saw that there was no hope of winning (as they defined it). Their economy was in the crapper; the people were starving (remember, the UK blockaded them, too) social unrest was growing. The smartest move was to seek and armistice (which is not synonymous with surrender) and try for the best deal at the peace conference. After all, they counted on Wilson and his Fourteen Points in insuring they would get a fair deal. Little did they know how screwed they would be (face it--they were).

This is a fact that people ignore in WWII studies. The Germans knew the war was lost as early as 1943, yet they fought on, primarily because Hitler was at the helm. But, a lesser known fact is that what happened at Versailles acted as something of a disincentive in WWII among the German General Staff. Even if the July 20th plot worked, there is some question as to whether the war would have ended at that point.

396 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:26:51pm

re: #383 Joel

The Czechs after WWII did what the Israelis should have done - they expelled all the Sudeten Germans (unless they could prove anti Fascist sympathies). The Israelis should have doen the same to the Muslim Palestinians.

The Czechs had a terrific army of 35 well trained divisions, they had the Skoda aramemnts factories, they had mountain passes for defense, and they were motivated to fight.

* * *
Ok, but where were these great divisions when the Soviets rolled in in 1968? So much for Dubcek's Prague Spring. Was Dubcek talking hope & change? Cause Czechs sure rolled over for the USSR.

397 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:27:01pm

re: #296 zombie

See? You just did it. Slapped the "conservative" label on me. Whether I like it or not.

I'm a vegetarian environmentalist agnostic in favor of gay rights, I'm "pro-choice," I loathe creationism and school prayers or any religion in public education, I'm anti-racism, anti-fascism, I embrace "world cultures," I've never fired or even touched a gun, I refuse to shop in chain stores or eat in fast food restaurants and I try to never watch TV. The vast majority of conservatives in this country would take one look at that list and deem me a commie pinko hippie. And yet according to you I am a "conservative"? Hell in the 2000 election, I voted for Nader. If I'm a conservative, the term has no meaning.

Well, maybe it does....in the specifically American tradition!
Last July 4th my family just happened to be in Ephrata, PA, the site of a weird anabaptist commune. (An interesting place for music lovers, BTW, because the first music published in America was from there!) After touring the cloister, we went to a noon mass and had a fancy lunch.....something my Bolivian mother does every year to celebrate her naturalization. Next door to the restaurant on one side was a clingy gun and hunting store; on the other side there was the Dancing Crane Oriental Medicine office.
Only in America! It was perhaps the most moving July 4th I've ever experienced.
If you want a label, try classical or "old-fashioned" liberal...or just use liberal and then point out the word has been stolen by leftists.

And BTW, one of things that makes you a liberal (I think) is that you don't own a gun, but don't spit on people who do; you don't shop in chain stores, but you don't sneer at the riff raff who do or must; you are a vegetarian, but I'll bet you won't even think of throwing blood on me if I eat a Big Mac.

398 Charles  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:27:36pm

News about Pat's European associates:

[Link: lancasteruaf.blogspot.com...]

399 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:27:40pm

re: #393 Joel

Prague is lovely. I was there a couple of years ago. However, be prepared to see ghosts. I mean it. It freaked me out actually...the Jewish cemetary and quarter a tourist attraction, and a concentration camp a hop skip and a jump away from downtown...the city is beautiful. We paid a taxi driver to drive us around for the day to all the hot spots, it was not very expensive.

400 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:28:10pm

zombie, I am certainly not demanding you own a gun if you don't want to; but I offer my friendly suggestion that you learn the basics of safely firing one. Think of it as a "life skill". You'll probably never need to know it; but it you ever do, BOY will you be glad you learned.

(BTW, I did not come from a gun-owning family or "gun culture", either... you might be surprised how fun it is once you try it.)

401 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:28:41pm

re: #373 sparrowlake

Gun control legislation, and the constitutionality thereof, is certainly a left/right liberal/conservative issue. Asking whether guns cause crime is IMO a way of avoiding the real issue.

I'm trying to discover why zombie has the views she does, and discuss them. I'm certainly not attacking zombie (please see my reply).

What is the real issue for you? What's your position on gun control?

402 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:28:45pm

re: #347 Mardukhai

By the way, my area of expertise is the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars, now largely forgotten, that were really the opening battles of WWI.

If you want to talk about the Races to Salonika and Monastir, and the reasons for the Ottomans' collapse, I'm your man.

(And the lizards are scratching their heads, "Huh?")

COOL !

403 kansas  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:29:16pm

Hitler’s invasion of Poland was also perfectly understandable, predictable given the Poles’ refusal to negotiate. surrender.

404 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:30:20pm

re: #394 WriterMom

That's a strange way of looking at it.

It is? We should have kept Germany and Japan rubble-strewn cesspools after WWII?

405 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:30:57pm

re: #399 WriterMom

Prague is lovely.

Indeed. Reasonably-priced, too (although my info might be a little outdated on that). The city's like a living museum. And of course, I found the US$18/hour Thai massage place (not hard to do, they had flyers up all over)... fantastic! I hasten to add, this was perfectly respectable massage therapy, not "massage" [wink-wink].

406 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:31:00pm

re: #403 kansas

Hitler’s invasion of Poland was also perfectly understandable, predictable given the Poles’ refusal to negotiate. surrender.

In the same way that Hitler never wanted war. He just wanted people to surrender to him. When they didn't, he happy to send in the tanks though.

407 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:31:09pm

re: #384 incanus

I
It's not useful to oversimplify historical events. Nothing good came from WWI and the events preceding it. There's nothing wrong with beating the living piss out of your enemy until he has no will to fight; there is something inhumane about placing your foot on his neck and keeping him there. That is what the Treaty of Versailles did.


I would like to ask the French in 1871 (Germany took Alscae-Lorraine) and the Danes in 1864 (Germany took Schleswig-Hosltein from them) about that. Germany was a war like nation ever since the defeat of Napoleon. The biggest mistake the Allies made was not making the General Staff sign the armistice terms at Compiegne- they made a civilian government do that thus leading to the "stabbed in the back" nonsense that the Nazis used. Notice that in 1945 they made Field Marshals Keitel and Jodl sign the capitulation.

"The Hun is always at your throat or at your feet"

Winston Churchill

408 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:31:30pm

re: #404 incanus

How does rebuilding Germany and Japan equal rubbing their noses in it and stomping them on the neck? I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the way Germany was treated at Versaille was keeping a foot stomped on their neck.

409 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:31:38pm

re: #396 alegrias

* * *
Ok, but where were these great divisions when the Soviets rolled in in 1968? So much for Dubcek's Prague Spring. Was Dubcek talking hope & change? Cause Czechs sure rolled over for the USSR.

1937 != 1968

410 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:32:39pm

re: #311 JHW

Two thigns to add to this;
* it was Nicholas, tsar of all Russia, who mobilised his troups first, not Kaiser Willy;
* the British were thoroughly engaged with the - perennial - 'Irish question' and had taken their eyes thoroughly off the ball in regard to what happened in Europe. The murder of archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife hardly impinged on the minds of the FOreign Office.

Oh - and lets not forget that France and Russia had a secret treaty, for years, for mutual support against the German Empire. This was worked out after Bismarck was booted out by young Kaiser Willy ... who at the start of the war was, for all his bluster and posing, firmly under the control of the Generalstab, our good friends, Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff.
The one became president of the Weiamr Republic, right at the end - his death gave Hitler the final push to grab all remaining power, and Ludendorff was involved in the right-wing power struggle in the 1920, also on the side of the then small Nazi party ...

Aint history fascinating ...

411 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:33:01pm

re: #405 Occasional Reader

I also felt the remnants of communism everywhere. Dark, block like buildings. The people in the suburbs were a bit dour-in the city, quite nice.

412 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:33:15pm

re: #404 incanus

The reason why we did not (there were calls to completely dismantle all German industries and make it an agrarian nation) was we knew what lurked in the east and we needed to make Germany and Japan into what the west always wanted them to be --bulwarks against the communists.

413 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:34:23pm

This is the history slut thread!

414 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:34:34pm

I mean that in a good way obviously.

415 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:34:34pm

re: #406 nikis-knight

In the same way that Hitler never wanted war. He just wanted people to surrender to him.

And then march peacefully into the gas chambers... don't forget that part. The man was all about peaceful conflict resolution.

/

416 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:34:35pm

re: #376 itsspideyman

Greece.

[Link: www.ushmm.org...]

[Link: www.edwardvictor.com...]

[Link: memorabilia.homestead.com...]

[Link: www.britannica.com...]

FAMOUS
UNKNOWNS,
R

417 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:35:33pm

re: #342 wolfie
Ah, here's the link I was looking for...
Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939


6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism


The Nazis banned Darwin's books and burned them. Stein's Holocaust theory is popular in some circles but it's still nonsense.

418 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:35:51pm

re: #408 WriterMom

How does rebuilding Germany and Japan equal rubbing their noses in it and stomping them on the neck? I may have misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the way Germany was treated at Versaille was keeping a foot stomped on their neck.

The Treaty of Versailles demanded reparations of Germany for starting WWI.. This kept the country poor and in a state of turmoil, which led to the uprise of Communist cells and later, the Nazi party. The treaty most certainly was a foot on Germany's neck, held there in contempt.

Contrast this with the end of WWII. Germany and Japan were devastated. We helped them rebuild and took steps to ensure that these places would grow strong again, without bitterness. You can argue how successful that was but neither country has tried to start a world conflict again.

419 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:36:01pm

re: #416 Render

Thank you, I'm grateful.

420 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:36:22pm

re: #411 WriterMom

I also felt the remnants of communism everywhere. Dark, block like buildings. The people in the suburbs were a bit dour-in the city, quite nice.

But the beer was wonderful, and amazingly hangover-free; and the food was surprisingly good (I had never really thought of "Czech cuisine", but there it was). And did I mention the fantastically cheap Thai massage? Oh, I did.

421 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:37:01pm

re: #397 wolfie

And BTW, one of things that makes you a liberal (I think) is that you don't own a gun, but don't spit on people who do; you don't shop in chain stores, but you don't sneer at the riff raff who do or must; you are a vegetarian, but I'll bet you won't even think of throwing blood on me if I eat a Big Mac.

You've described me exactly.

I don't own a gun -- but I support the Second Amendment and the right for Americans to own guns if they want to. I simply choose not to have one myself.

I'm a vegetarian -- but I don't lecture others on their diets. Want to eat meat? Your choice. Fine by me.

I'm an agnostic -- but support the right of everyone else to either believe it God or to be an atheist -- as they see fit. Total freedom of belief.

I don't shop in chain stores because I want to preserve local mom-and-pop businesses wherever possible and honor old-fashioned small-town and small-neighborhood America -- but I fully understand if some people need to shop in chain stores for bargains or because they have no choice.

...etc.

That's one of my core principles: I have my beliefs, yet I don't force them on other people. And conversely, I don't want them to force their beliefs on me!

422 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:37:03pm

re: #396 alegrias

* * *
Ok, but where were these great divisions when the Soviets rolled in in 1968? So much for Dubcek's Prague Spring. Was Dubcek talking hope & change? Cause Czechs sure rolled over for the USSR.

Yeah like they would have stood a chance against the Red Army and the other Warsaw Pact troops. Prague would have been totally destoroyed. Remember Budapest 1956? Besides the Czechs in 1938 were expecting Anglo-French and Soviet help.

423 itsspideyman  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:37:07pm

re: #398 Charles

btw, Charles, great thread. Good to talk about something else. Lots of different ranges of discussion in this one.

424 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:37:30pm

re: #407 Joel

I would like to ask the French in 1871 (Germany took Alscae-Lorraine) and the Danes in 1864 (Germany took Schleswig-Hosltein from them) about that. Germany was a war like nation ever since the defeat of Napoleon. The biggest mistake the Allies made was not making the General Staff sign the armistice terms at Compiegne- they made a civilian government do that thus leading to the "stabbed in the back" nonsense that the Nazis used. Notice that in 1945 they made Field Marshals Keitel and Jodl sign the capitulation.

"The Hun is always at your throat or at your feet"

Winston Churchill

I don't have a lot of sympathy for France in the Franco-Prussian war, sorry. Both states were idiotic.

I think it's more accurate to say the Prussians were warlike, but now we're quibbling :-)

Your last point is a very good one.

425 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:37:59pm
426 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:38:26pm

re: #411 WriterMom

I also felt the remnants of communism everywhere. Dark, block like buildings. The people in the suburbs were a bit dour-in the city, quite nice.

Friends have told me that despite is beauty, there is an oppressive air of sadness in Prague largely due to the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

427 OLDPUPPYMAX  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:39:01pm

Pat is not defending the invasion, he is stating the reasons for it. Cmon now. It's a standard procedure of the LEFT to make phony accusations against those who simply state facts. Don't get into that 3 ring circus!

428 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:39:23pm

re: #412 calcajun

The reason why we did not (there were calls to completely dismantle all German industries and make it an agrarian nation) was we knew what lurked in the east and we needed to make Germany and Japan into what the west always wanted them to be --bulwarks against the communists.

Let's not forget that we rebuilt significant portions of Europe, not just Germany.

429 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:39:27pm

re: #417 Killgore Trout
How does that refute this:

Influence is NOT causation.
Evolutionary science influenced evolutionary, "progressive" philosophies, and the latter influenced Hitler. (The influence was indirect.)
There is no evidence that Hitler ever read Charles Darwin himself.


The Nazis saw themselves as a superior race, and Christian/Jewish ethics as keeping them from dominating Europe/the world. (He couldn't out right destroy Christianity like he could try to do to Judaism, but he could subvert it gradually; read Liberal Fascism]
Hitler praised the American Eugenics movement, was that not influenced by [misapplied and not neccesarily wrong] evolutionary ideas?
You think this has nothing to do with Hitler killing the mentally ill?

430 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:40:12pm

re: #426 Joel

Friends have told me that despite is beauty, there is an oppressive air of sadness in Prague largely due to the Nazi and Stalinist regimes.

I'd say there maybe *is* a reason you rarely hear the phrase "as carefree as a Czech"... nevertheless, I had a good time there, and found the people friendly, if not exactly effusive.

431 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:40:26pm

re: #421 zombie
Oh... then, yep, your're a conservative, at least as I see it today.

432 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:40:58pm

re: #354 Joel

ahem - they gave him free passage after the February Revolution in Russia - but please, Lenin was a Russian home-grown Bolshewik, and there were quite a few already in Russia trying to get the Bolshewik revolution going - Stalin, Trotzky, Sinoviev, just to name a few ...
So while arguably the Soviet Union rose on the ashes of WWI Russia - the conditions which led to that revolution were Russia's own, as was the Tsar who did nothing to alleviate these conditions, and all that had been going on for decades before WWI.

433 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:41:28pm

re: #418 incanus

It took a nuclear bomb to convince Imperial Japan to surrender. And it wasn't just economic stress that drove people to the Nazi party in Germany, festering, frothing antisemitism also helped.

434 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:42:35pm

re: #426 Joel

Yes, absolutely. You can really feel it there. Also, just being in that area geographically...well for a history freak...it's really neat.

435 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:42:51pm

re: #430 Occasional Reader

Have you ever been to Israel?

436 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:43:09pm

re: #421 zombie

I simply choose not to have one myself.

zombie... pick... up.. the gun! Wait, I mean... put... on... the glasses!

437 lostlakehiker  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:43:50pm

Unreal. Buchanan asserts that the guarantee to Poland was "insane".

It's the same rhetorical trick that Bruce Ramsey used. Hitler demands (Austria, the Sudetenland, Danzig.). If only he gets just this one little thing, war can be avoided.

And he gets Austria. And war is avoided, for the moment.

And he gets the Sudetenland, which makes Czechoslovakia indefensible. And war is avoided, for the moment. But then he demands the rest of that country, and since no argument is possible, he takes it.

And he demands Danzig.

Who can possibly imagine after that track record that war will be averted, not just for the day, but for good, if only Hitler gets Danzig?

The guarantee offered Poland was one last effort to avert war. It was the ONLY sane thing Chamberlain did, diplomatically. Perhaps, just maybe, Germany will flinch from war with serious powers including Britain, if it is crystal clear that war must come, should he invade Poland.

The war came not of the refusal to negotiate Danzig. War was inevitable from the day Hitler took office. Whether it would be a comparatively small war, with Hitler boxed in and thwarted, or a big war, or perhaps, a war without any real prospect of survival, would hinge on when the powers ranged against Hitler saw through his method.

If Hitler had been given Danzig, next would have come complaints about how the Poles were encouraging dock worker strikes in Danzig, or something or other. More demands. More threats. An Anschluss of the rest of Poland, partitioned between Germany and the Soviet Union.

The British and French don't even get the chance to mobilize, in this scenario. They just get flattened in May 1940. And then it is the turn of the Soviets, who will be very much all alone. Without Murmansk convoys and so on, and without the Germans having to sustain the Afrika Korps and keep dozens of divisions in France and Norway to guard against the British, the Soviets may go under. Who's next?

For Mr. Buchanan, as for Mr. Ramsey, there are words, but none consistent with the requirements of civility and decorum.

438 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:44:03pm

re: #433 WriterMom

It took a nuclear bomb to convince Imperial Japan to surrender. And it wasn't just economic stress that drove people to the Nazi party in Germany, festering, frothing antisemitism also helped.

I don't argue with any of this. What's your point? I was arguing that the Treaty of Versailles was not the Germans "getting what they deserved" as others have stated here.

439 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:44:07pm

re: #363 Killgore Trout

That's exactly what I'm talking about. These ideas have become accepted by many on the right to the point that others with traditional concepts of WWII are now considered revisionist. You've proven my point.

What I said has been standard and traditional in historiography since World War II.
Pick up any standard biography of Hitler. Any. Pick up any traditional history of the Third Reich. Read it.
Have you never heard of Gobineau or his late 19th century disciple,Houston Chamberlain? (No relation to Neville. He was the son-in-law of Richard Wagner.)

I have been teaching history at the college level for over 20 years. I don't need to be told about politically-driven revisionism.

I am beginning to suspect that you know about as much about intellectual history as I do about music. (That is Not good.)

Incidentally, Stein error as a historian (I use the word loosely) is reductionism, not revisionism. He reduces multiple causes to a single, horribly over-simplified cause.


I

440 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:44:10pm

re: #435 WriterMom

Have you ever been to Israel?

Nope. Nor anywhere in the Middle East, Africa, Asia or Oceania. Lots of big wide world out there to explore.

441 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:44:17pm

re: #427 OLDPUPPYMAX

Pat is not defending the invasion, he is stating the reasons for it. Cmon now. It's a standard procedure of the LEFT to make phony accusations against those who simply state facts. Don't get into that 3 ring circus!

He is excusing it. He is playing the blame the victim game. He is an odious, bitter man.

Recall Pat Buchenwald's statement that the diesel gas at Treblinka could not have killed anyone. Recall "Holocaust syndrome featuring group fantasies about martyrdom". There is a reason he is a treasured commentator on PMSNBC

442 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:45:02pm

Is re: #427 OLDPUPPYMAX

Pat is not defending the invasion, he is stating the reasons for it. Cmon now. It's a standard procedure of the LEFT to make phony accusations against those who simply state facts. Don't get into that 3 ring circus!

He is making justifications for it. He is attempting to blunt the true evil that the Nazis where. He is also attempting to justify appeasing an aggressor. That kind of logic is foolish in the gets other people killed way.

443 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:45:25pm

re: #428 incanus

True. The Marshall Plan covered a lot of ground.

444 sparrowlake  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:46:07pm

re: #401 incanus

I'm trying to discover why zombie has the views she does, and discuss them. I'm certainly not attacking zombie (please see my reply).
What is the real issue for you? What's your position on gun control?

The real issue for me is whether the government can make laws which limit the number and types of weapons which individuals may own i.e. the limit, if any, on the right of the individual to own firearms.
Here is my position:
Every law-abiding adult citizen should have the right to own single-action non-repeating hunting rifles/shotguns and one big fully automatic kick-ass handgun for basic self-defence.
Criminals who use a firearm should get life imprisonment without parole and they should receive the death penalty for killing with a firearm.

445 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:46:21pm

re: #434 WriterMom

Yes, absolutely. You can really feel it there. Also, just being in that area geographically...well for a history freak...it's really neat.

I want to see the spot where Heydrich was assasinated (actually mortally wounded) in 1942.

446 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:46:34pm

re: #433 WriterMom

It took a nuclear bomb to convince Imperial Japan to surrender. And it wasn't just economic stress that drove people to the Nazi party in Germany, festering, frothing antisemitism also helped.

Also, just to be pedantic (sorry) it was an atomic (fission) bomb. "Nuclear" is usually more accurately associated with hydrogen (fusion) bombs, though I notice that distinction has faded over the past 20 years.

447 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:47:00pm

re: #410 yma o hyd

All true. The book I referenced though, was an argument that Germany (specifically certain factions in the army and general staff) argued for a long time that war was inevitable, and the window of opportunity for them to successfully defeat their enemies was rapidly narrowing before 1914, and the events of that year gave them an opportunity, one of the last they felt they would get, to wage war on their own terms. I find the argument and scholarship in Fromkin's book convincing, and even those who might not agree would probably find a lot of food for thought in it. I pretty much agree with Joel in comment 407 on the aggressiveness of Germany at that time and the decades preceding. Germany made no bones about wanting their "Place in the Sun".

448 St. Pisentius  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:47:18pm

Remember Mel Brooks in "To Be Or Not To Be"? As Hitler, he sings...

"All I want is peace.
A little piece of Poland,
A little piece of France..."

449 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:47:22pm

re: #438 incanus

My point is that post-war plans for the losing countries are never a voluntary activity. Countries don't get to opt into, or out of clauses or programs that they disagree with.

450 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:47:48pm

re: #414 WriterMom

I mean that in a good way obviously.

hehheh.

451 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:48:35pm

re: #446 incanus

This is a pedant-friendly thread...

LOL.

OR! I'M TALKING TO YOU.

452 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:48:40pm

re: #449 WriterMom

My point is that post-war plans for the losing countries are never a voluntary activity. Countries don't get to opt into, or out of clauses or programs that they disagree with.

That's true. However, I think you can agree that the victors have a responsibility to provide a post-war atmosphere which does not foster further conflict?

453 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:49:58pm

re: #452 incanus

No. I think it's tough shit for the losers actually. Unless by providing a post-war atmosphere which 'does not foster further conflict', you mean that the loser was so hopeless and absolutely crushed that they would have no way to challenge the victor. THEN, I'm with you all the way.

454 ballantrae  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:50:45pm

re: #427 OLDPUPPYMAX

It's a silly argument. If the bastard had actually only wanted Danzig, he would have stopped at Danzig. If he wanted a strong Poland to resist the communists, he wouldn't have agreed to give half of it over to the Soviets.

It's obvious to anyone even remotely honest that the lunatic wanted an excuse for war. He wasn't some benevolent dictator who was only interested in restoring Germany to it's rightful land, he was interested in creating an Empire that would dominate the world.

This is exactly why people on the right have no tolerance for Pat Buchanan. This is a very intelligent man who should know better, and does. Only he prefers to close his eyes to the obvious because when you get right down to it, the man is a son of a bitch.

-ron

455 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:51:25pm

re: #445 Joel

I want to see the spot where Heydrich was assasinated (actually mortally wounded) in 1942.

What would be really eerie would be to visit the site that Lidice stood on.

456 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:51:34pm

re: #439 wolfie

There was a reason "Social Darwinism" became an epitat, after all.

457 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:52:26pm

re: #453 WriterMom

No. I think it's tough shit for the losers actually. Unless by providing a post-war atmosphere which 'does not foster further conflict', you mean that the loser was so hopeless and absolutely crushed that they would have no way to challenge the victor. THEN, I'm with you all the way.

Hmm. What I mean is this:

Assuming rational actors (so IOW several current combatants are disqualified), wars that end in "We win, you lose, here are terms that result in you not attacking us in the future but you are allowed to live and prosper otherwise" are preferable to "We win, you lose, we're taking all your stuff, GTFO."

I think we're close in our views.

458 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:52:35pm

re: #451 WriterMom

This is a pedant-friendly thread...

LOL.

OR! I'M TALKING TO YOU.

Which begs the question: Do you just expect me to tow the line?

/

459 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:53:06pm

re: #458 Occasional Reader

Which begs the question: Do you just expect me to tow the line?

/

Only if we're water-skiing. Otherwise you ought to toe the line.

460 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:53:33pm

re: #429 nikis-knight

You think this has nothing to do with Hitler killing the mentally ill?

Nothing. Eugenics, the killing of deformed and retarded children, racial superiority, antisemitism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc all existed long before Darwin and evolutionary theory. If they loved Darwin so much then why were his books banned? Listen, this is historical revisionism meant to deflect from the guilt of churches who spent almost 2,000 years preaching antisemitism in Europe. It's a very attractive theory to people who want to blame someone else for their own religions contribution. Buchanan is doing the same thing but he wants to promote nationalism racialism (clearly an influence on nazi germany) so he's going to blame the "unfair" treatment of the Germans instead of the real causes.

461 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:54:07pm

re: #422 Joel

Yeah like they would have stood a chance against the Red Army and the other Warsaw Pact troops. Prague would have been totally destoroyed. Remember Budapest 1956? Besides the Czechs in 1938 were expecting Anglo-French and Soviet help.

* * *
Hey, I was a military dependent in West Germany whose Dad was on alert when the Soviets came marching in.

To my shame, President Johnson didn't lift a finger to stop the Soviets as far as I can tell. So why were our US troops stationed there if not to defend little Czechoslovakia, and stop the Red menace?

JOhnson appeased the Soviets by letting them crush Czechs, that's what I think he did.

462 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:54:37pm

re: #458 Occasional Reader

Of course-irregardless of the thread!

/hehehehheheh

463 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:54:48pm

re: #461 alegrias

* * *
Hey, I was a military dependent in West Germany whose Dad was on alert when the Soviets came marching in.

To my shame, President Johnson didn't lift a finger to stop the Soviets as far as I can tell. So why were our US troops stationed there if not to defend little Czechoslovakia, and stop the Red menace?

JOhnson appeased the Soviets by letting them crush Czechs, that's what I think he did.

He had a Great Society to build, and was busy freeing the slaves.

/Sura109

464 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:54:55pm

re: #459 incanus

Only if we're water-skiing. Otherwise you ought to toe the line.

Irregardless of that...

(see, the topic was pedantry, hence "tow the line")

465 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:55:04pm

re: #439 wolfie

What I said has been standard and traditional in historiography since World War II.


Yes, I know you're very convinced of that despite the historical reality.

466 Maine's Michael  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:55:14pm

Hitler was a dumb shit.

Too busy playing with Runes and jiggling his testicle to think things out properly.

He would have won the war had he not tried to create an 'Aryan Physics' by expunging 'Jewish physics' from his research centers. That cost him the Bomb, and gave it to the USA.

And I don't mean Jewish physicists. He actually felt that Jewish theories and scientific works were 'inferior', tainted by the same inferiority of spirit he ascribed to the Jews.

467 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:56:02pm

re: #461 alegrias

To my shame, President Johnson didn't lift a finger to stop the Soviets

Let's face it, that was a tough call. The whole "risk of nuclear armageddon" thing.

468 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:56:12pm

re: #464 Occasional Reader

Irregardless of that...

(see, the topic was pedantry, hence "tow the line")

Yeah I was like "ZOMG he said tow LOL"

469 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:56:20pm

re: #464 Occasional Reader

GMTA lololol

470 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:56:59pm

re: #467 Occasional Reader

Armageddon, shmarmagedon...

471 Hard Right  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:57:12pm

It's no surprise an anti-Semite like Pukecannon would side with Nazis.

472 incanus  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:57:20pm

re: #470 WriterMom

Armageddon, shmarmagedon...

Sharmutageddon?

473 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:58:52pm

re: #455 Occasional Reader

What would be really eerie would be to visit the site that Lidice stood on.

You can visit it by bus. There is also the Church on Resslova Street where the 7 paratroopers involved in the assassination fought the SS until they committed suicide.

474 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 12:58:54pm

re: #460 Killgore Trout

Eh. God damn those who incited Jew hatred thoughout the middle ages. There were plenty who were Christian (or so they said, God will judge and hopefully harshly).
But calling Hitler Christian is just as wrong as calling him a Darwinist, and has been done far more often (which sort of debunks your earlier assertation that the left doesn't rewrite WWII, they just make unfounded asertions.)

Eugenics all existed long before Darwin and evolutionary theory.

Ah, are you sure? Evolutionary theory predated Darwin, by a long long time. He simply gave it a believable mechanism, and so it took his name.

Besides, I'd wager they burned Darwin for the same reasons they chased out Communists--eliminating a competing, if not opposing, theory.

475 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:00:06pm

re: #433 WriterMom

It took a nuclear bomb to convince Imperial Japan to surrender. And it wasn't just economic stress that drove people to the Nazi party in Germany, festering, frothing antisemitism also helped.

Well - as other European countries also had quite a lot of festering antisemitism (Austria, to name but one, which is where Hitler 'learned' about it in the first place) - the economic 'stress' should not be udnervalued.
Tehre was first the raging inflation, the likes today can only be found in Zimbabwe, with the accompanying war reparations and the occupation of the Rhineland - and when, after harsh measures, inflation was under control - there was a certain Black Friday in 1929, which had not just consequences for people in the USA.
In 1933, there were over 10% of people without work in Germany, there was no welfare system as we know it today in various European states - salaries were and incomes were decreased for those lucky enough to have work, and then there comes this man, promising change, hope, a 'Place in the Sun' ... promises to rectify past mistakes, to make Germany great again - and all this with the most modern propaganda of that time: radio - aeorplanes - films ...
I'm not being aplogetic for the Germans: those who wanted to know could (and should!) have known as early as 1930, but the full belly always wins over pure morality, doesn't it ...

476 Norm Chumpsky  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:00:44pm

So it was unreasonable for Poland to have refused Hitlers demands and 'insane' for Chamberlin to have told Poland that Britain would stand with them against Nazi aggression....
I don't know if Pat was always nuts or not, but he clearly is now. Sad.

477 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:00:54pm

re: #467 Occasional Reader

Let's face it, that was a tough call. The whole "risk of nuclear armageddon" thing.

Czechoslovakia was not a part of NATO and we were already involved in Vietnam. Johnson (as Nixon would be in 1973 and as Bush is now - alas) was politically impotent by August 1968 - a lame duck unpopular President.

478 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:01:09pm

re: #467 Occasional Reader

Let's face it, that was a tough call. The whole "risk of nuclear armageddon" thing.

* * *
The Soviets used low tech tanks to roll into Czechoslovakia.
The Soviets used pre-cast cement to build the Berlin Wall.

HARDLY high tech nukes! WE did apparently nothing, or maybe sent a strongly worded letter.

479 Ayatollah Ghilmeini  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:01:47pm

Buchanan's Baggage

When you read Pitchfork Pat Buchanan you will so very often see him say his favorite magic code words: America First.

Buchanan and his family were big in the America first movement. You would think that AFTER Hitler declared war on this country, that Buchanan would somehow find the intellectual and moral stature (were are talking about a tiny leap here) to blame Hitler and the Nazis for being the murdering totalitarian scum that they were. But the America First movement were far more than just isolationists. When you see the picture (upper left in the bunch) of a AF rally with Lindberg, Senator Wheeler and others giving the Hitler salute, well let's just say that Pat's repeated cries of America First take on a new and sinister meeting.

Buchanan's article ignores the fact Hitler was no more entitled to Danzig than I am entitled to Borneo. He ignores the murderous and evil nature of the regime even prior to 1939 and his willingness to take the side of the worst regime in human history bespeaks of Buchanan's innate antisemitism. What would you be willing to wager that Pat used to listen to Father Coughlin's radio broadcasts with complete agreement. His article is of a piece with all the other fascist baggage in his career. The only reason he is on MSNBC is so the lefties can say the Republican position is being presented by a fascist.

Finally Buchanan argues that appeasement would have worked. But everything shows that Hitler would not stop, he had plans for conquest from the beginning and the only good thing about the war starting in 1939 is, if he had waited, he could have gone to war years later with atomic weapons. Lastly, Hitler always had the change to stop the war. He could have sued for peace in late 1939, instead he attacked France and Norway. From the moment German troops marched into Poland in 39, Jews began dying in large numbers, Hitler had established the agencies to put into effect his murderous will. Finally, Hitler's vile alliance with Stalin was designed to prepare for the Russian war. There was no need to invade Poland, if there was a shred of desire to avoid war, Hitler could have given diplomacy time. But the General Staff invasion plans for the rest of Europe were begun from the moment he seized power and the plan for Poland was ordered right after the Austrian Anschluss.

480 Hard Right  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:01:50pm

re: #476 Norm Chumpsky

So it was unreasonable for Poland to have refused Hitlers demands and 'insane' for Chamberlin to have told Poland that Britain would stand with them against Nazi aggression....
I don't know if Pat was always nuts or not, but he clearly is now. Sad.

Maybe he has sympathy for Hitler since they have the same affliction...STD wise.

481 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:01:56pm

re: #476 Norm Chumpsky

So it was unreasonable for Poland to have refused Hitlers demands and 'insane' for Chamberlin to have told Poland that Britain would stand with them against Nazi aggression....
I don't know if Pat was always nuts or not, but he clearly is now. Sad.

Pat Buchenwald fails to realzie that Britain did not go to war to protect Poland's freedom - she went to war to protect Britain's freedom.

482 ballantrae  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:02:41pm

re: #466 Maine's Michael

I think you're wrong on that score. It was a lack of resources and biting off more than he could chew that killed him. Remember that the German weaponry was the best in the field even by the end of the war.

As for an atom bomb, I think I read somewhere that they simply didn't have the materials necessary to even research it properly.

483 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:03:31pm

re: #475 yma o hyd

* * *
My starving German relatives left the country in the early 1920s because there was no work, no hope, no change.

Plus the French kept my grandfather whom they captured at Verdun, in a POW camp for 3 years after the war ended.

484 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:04:00pm

re: #460 Killgore Trout

Although the practice is as old as mankind itself, the term "Eugenics" was coined in 1883. A year after Darwin died.

Don't make me get all Wiki on ya.

WINK WINK
NUDGE
NUDGE,
R

485 troyriser  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:04:32pm

I once wrote a comment to a Buchanan article on townhall dot com, asking them to disavow the man and help to disassociate him from any connection to the Republican Party in particular and conservativism in general, knowing he does inestimable harm by hiding his rabid extremism behind a mainstream veneer, yet here he is, still on television, still in magazines, still on websites, identified as 'conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan'. Buchanan is emphatically not a conservative. No conservative worthy of the name would be apologist for Hitler, defender of concentration camp guards, and not-so-thinly veiled antisemite.

486 sparrowlake  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:04:40pm

re: #453 WriterMom

No. I think it's tough shit for the losers actually. Unless by providing a post-war atmosphere which 'does not foster further conflict', you mean that the loser was so hopeless and absolutely crushed that they would have no way to challenge the victor. THEN, I'm with you all the way.

That's the way it was in the good old pre-UN days.
Since WWII western nations are not allowed to win wars anymore, and in fact the losers are allowed to re-fight and to win the wars by non-military means. Of course Israel is not even allowed to defend itself.

487 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:05:32pm

re: #474 nikis-knight

But calling Hitler Christian is just as wrong as calling him a Darwinist,

Not really. I can find dozens of references to religion in Mien Kampf but not a single mention of Darwin or evolution. Darwin's book were banned in Nazi Germany. Hitler almost surely would have turned on the churches in Europe eventually and replaced them with some sort of state worship mysticism but that doesn't mean the he didn't use religious antisemitism to his advantage.

488 Spiny Norman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:05:37pm

re: #461 alegrias

* * *
Hey, I was a military dependent in West Germany whose Dad was on alert when the Soviets came marching in.

To my shame, President Johnson didn't lift a finger to stop the Soviets as far as I can tell. So why were our US troops stationed there if not to defend little Czechoslovakia, and stop the Red menace?

Johnson appeased the Soviets by letting them crush Czechs, that's what I think he did.

We consigned the Czechs to their fate at Yalta.

The same for the Hungarians, fwiw.

489 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:07:01pm

re: #478 alegrias

The Soviets used low tech tanks to roll into Czechoslovakia.
The Soviets used pre-cast cement to build the Berlin Wall.

HARDLY high tech nukes!

Well... right, but they HAD "high-tech nukes" (in 1968, anyway), that's the point.

490 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:07:25pm

re: #447 JHW

Indeed - the point about the General staff and the Admiralty in Germany has surprisingly often been overlooked, in my opinion because Kaiser Willy was the perfect villain - and all the German members of the General staff of course put the blame exclusively on him, so that they could keep their standing in the German public opinion, and further their careers.
Willy, after all, had abdicated ...
He was more foolish than evil, and at that time the personalities of the crowned heads of states still played a great role in politics: King Edward VIII loathed him, especially as he was Queen Victoria's favourite grandson. She died in his arms - another thing his British cousins never forgave him for.

491 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:07:55pm

re: #482 ballantrae

I think you're wrong on that score. It was a lack of resources and biting off more than he could chew that killed him. Remember that the German weaponry was the best in the field even by the end of the war.


Germany weaponry tended to be over engineered and subject to breakdowns in the field - Tiger tanks, Panthers, etc. Because they were so sophisticated they took a long time to manufacture. Germany needed good dimple, reliable weapons that could be mass produced. Instead late in the war Germany came up with the monster King Tiger tank of 70 tons which broke down a lot and was a voracious fuel guzzler, also the parts were not interchangeable with other tanks - all this while the USSR was producing T34/85 tanks en mass. It took 300,000 labor hours to make one Tiger I tank.
Also the American P-51D wsa better then the German planes. The ME262 was never produced in enough quantitites and Hitler wanted to make a bomber out of it.

492 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:08:00pm

re: #483 alegrias

My starving German relatives left the country in the early 1920s because there was no work, no hope, no change.

Sounds like Germany needed... You Know Who!

Ich bin ein Waffler!

493 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:08:39pm

PIMF- "simple" not "dimple"!

494 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:10:18pm

re: #487 Killgore Trout

Not really. I can find dozens of references to religion in Mien Kampf but not a single mention of Darwin or evolution. Darwin's book were banned in Nazi Germany. Hitler almost surely would have turned on the churches in Europe eventually and replaced them with some sort of state worship mysticism but that doesn't mean the he didn't use religious antisemitism to his advantage.

So are you arguing or not? Christians don't eventually turn on the church, so he was not a christian. (Many Germans he needed to convince were, of course. That's why I said he tried to gradually get rid of it. Like having Hitler youth sing songs about him, or mythical, perfect pre-christian Aryans).
No one said he didn't use religious anti-semitism to his advantage. That doesn't make him a Christian. He also used progressive theories based on athiestic natural philosophy (ie, eugenics) to his advantage, although he didn't employ the language, or at least the names--conquering of the perfect race sounds quite similar to survival of the fittest, because that was not the language familiar to the common man.

495 Ayatollah Ghilmeini  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:10:41pm

re: #160 zombie

Homo Pajamicus? Rastapublicans?
Johnsonites
Footballim
The Hard Center
Clearists (in a no so Tom Cruise way)

496 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:11:32pm

re: #474 nikis-knight

Eugenics all existed long before Darwin and evolutionary theory.


Ah, are you sure? Evolutionary theory predated Darwin, by a long long time. He simply gave it a believable mechanism, and so it took his name.

Besides, I'd wager they burned Darwin for the same reasons they chased out Communists--eliminating a competing, if not opposing, theory.

Eugenics has been practiced since the dawn of time. Many, many cultures -- including the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese, and some Native American tribes -- killed deformed or "substandard" infants, killed newborn girls when the parents wanted a boy heir, "exposed" children to the elements when they felt there was overpopulation, etc. The caste system in India, which has been around for many thousand years, was partly based on eugnenics as a concept -- to keep the pure Brahmin blood separated from the corrupted Untouchable blood. Etc., around the world.

Modern "scientific eugenics" is anti-evolutionary -- mankind meddling in who lives or dies. It's extensively documented that Darwin himself hated eugenics, and hated that someone else coined the term "Social Darwinism" and applied it to a political ideology he disagreed with.

The number of steps leading from Darwinian theory to Hitlerian genocide are numerous, and tenuous. There is a much closer connection between Christian anti-semitism and Hitler's policies, and a much closer connection between ancient Teutonic tribal xenophobia and Hitler's policies, than there is between Darwinian evolutionary theory ("descent with modication," aka "evolution through natural selection") and Hitler's policies.

497 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:12:09pm

re: #482 ballantrae

"Remember that the German weaponry was the best in the field even by the end of the war."

Not really.

PICK
ONE,
R

498 EE  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:12:12pm

Pat Buchanan assigns blame for Hitler's invasion of Poland. He doesn't assign blame to Hitler. Pat Buchanan uses the tired old trick of blaming the victim. Since Hitler invaded Poland, the fault was Poland's.

The basic assumption of Pat Buchanan is that all of the war could have been avoided if only the victims and threatened victims had given in to Hitler's demands. What Pat Buchanan slides over is that Hitler had very ambitious dreams of conquering the world. So war was inevitable -- it was not possible to give in to every whim of Hitler, because his ambitions were of a gigantic scale. Buchanan, the supporter of appeasement of Hitler, is as wrong as the rest of the appeasers who don't understand that some enemies -- like Hitler and the Nazis -- are just unappeasable. Their appetite is just too great to be appeased. With enemies like that, war is unavoidable. The only question is whether the line is drawn early, before the unappeasable enemies are very strong, or late, after they have acquired much strength and when the costs in blood and treasure are magnified enormously.

499 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:13:14pm

re: #490 yma o hyd

Thanks for the reply, I agree completely. In the book I mention,I think (been a while since I read it) there's quite a bit about the general staff misrepresenting the situation and purposely keeping Wilhelm uninformed and out of touch. Certain of them, von Moltke in particular, felt that the situation gave them their last chance to have war on Germany's terms and they didn't want Wilhelm to bugger up the deal, they felt he'd lose his nerve at the last minute.

500 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:15:34pm

re: #497 Render

I'd say that on a one-to-one basis, the statement is defensible (although as Joel points out, the problem for Germany was that many of their weapons were too complex/expensive and could not be produced in the quantities they ultimately needed).

I don't think the Allies had, on a one-to-one basis, weapons comparable or superior to:

-Tiger tank
-MP 43/44 rifle
-MG34 light machinegun
-Me-262
-Panzerfaust
-"Eighty-eight"

501 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:15:39pm

re: #461 alegrias

Erm - Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet 'empire' - it was taken over by communists in 1948, it was a member of the Warsaw Pact.
Johnson could in no way have gone in and helped Dubcek - the Soviets, who had huge numbers of soldiers stationed in Eastern Germany, would have waltzed into west germany straight away. Result: Hot war in the middle of Europe ...

Mind - I understand your feelings. I felt the same way when the Hungarians rose in 1956. I sat crying in front of the radio, I didn't understand why nobody came to help - and I even emptied my piggie bank to give all my money for the Hungarian refugees - all 2 DM of it (I was in primary school then ...).
Those were bad times - and one thing was forever clear to me in August 1968: that Communism stinks, that left ideologies are a sham, and there was no way that I would ever have anything to do with people who defended that ideology.

502 sparrowlake  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:15:47pm

re: #492 Occasional Reader

Sounds like Germany needed... You Know Who!
Ich bin ein Waffler!

LOL.
If post-WWI Germany had Barak von Waffler leading it instead of Hitler there would have been no WWII.
The big mistake after WWI was not the severity of the terms of Versailles but rather that Germany was not broken up into several small independent countries.

503 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:17:51pm

re: #427 OLDPUPPYMAX

Pat Buchanan writes: "But the Poles refused to negotiate." In other words -- it is Buchanan revisionist "history" which is placing the blame on the Poles for the invasion of Poland! That's an offensive, outrageous lie.

It's as if to suggest that Hitler was a "negotiator" interested in "peace." Nothing can be further from the truth. "Intuition and force rather than reason and compromise should rule Germany. Hitler's power rested ultimately on the willingness of most Germans to surrender their right to question and analyze..." (from The Making of the Modern World, p. 119). It was "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil). Hitler despised the Slavs, and he intended to conqueror them. And, when Stalin entered into the pact with Hitler, it was "to the astonishment and confusion of Western ideologues who had believed fervently either that Hitler's Germany was a bastion of anti-communism or that Russia could have no truck with evil" (Columbia History of the World, p 1057.)

504 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:18:21pm

re: #491 Joel

JS-3 Pike.

[Link: www.peachmountain.com...]

TIGER
KILLER,
R

505 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:18:58pm

Appeasement is the biggest crock. You can take the nicest person in the world and give them everything that they want.

Don't be amazed when they want more.

506 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:19:10pm

re: #489 Occasional Reader

Well... right, but they HAD "high-tech nukes" (in 1968, anyway), that's the point.


* * *
So did we, probablemente. Just not the will or nerve to threaten a foe credibly.

507 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:19:49pm

re: #496 zombieah, yes, forgot about those Spartans, et al.

Modern "scientific eugenics" is anti-evolutionary -- mankind meddling in who lives or dies. It's extensively documented that Darwin himself hated eugenics, and hated that someone else coined the term "Social Darwinism" and applied it to a political ideology he disagreed with.

Well, I said "evolutionary science misapplied to social theory" way up thread. I don't think anyone is blaming Darwin specifically, perhaps Stein is, but I'm not.
But eugenics is not anti-evolutionary, it is [wrongly] applied evolution, just as flight is applied fluid dynamics--science is first discovering natural principles, then using them for our own ends.

The number of steps leading from Darwinian theory to Hitlerian genocide are numerous, and tenuous.

SO I guess it would be wrong to look to single celled organisms to learn anything about humans? Because number of steps are numerous, and tenuous? ;) /

I agree that anti-semitism, stoked by some in the catholic and protestant churches in the middle ages left a vile residue in Germany, and also agree with wolfie that Stein saying Darwin caused the Holocaust is reductionist.
But Stein and Buchannon share very little in common here, which was my original point. Kilgore brought in his favorite whipping boy on a non-sequitor and I guess I took that bait.

508 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:19:56pm

re: #504 Render

Too bad our guys did not have a good tank killing tank.

509 Ayatollah Ghilmeini  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:20:37pm

WWI

The assassination of the Archduke did precipitate the war. The moment the nice peaceful cultured austrians decided to attack Serbia, Germany was forced to act.

German war plans were based on rapid mobilization to strike at France before they were ready. The plan was to avoid the exact war they got. The Germans were 20 miles short and a few days late to Paris. Germany knew that modern weapons made pitched battles blood baths, the minute war might break out, they had to strike or stand down.

510 bj1126  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:22:08pm

This is why I stopped visiting Human Events. We need to toss this antisemitic dirt bag out on his ear and stop giving him press or money.

511 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:23:05pm

re: #506 alegrias

So did we, probablemente

So did we, seguramente. But as others have pointed out, Czechoslvakia had already been "ceded" (sad, but true) to the Soviets at Yalta. It would have been, to put it mildly, a very tall order to threaten war.

512 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:23:39pm

re: #510 bj1126

This is why I stopped visiting Human Events. We need to toss this antisemitic dirt bag out on his ear and stop giving him press or money.

It kills me whenever any of those paleocons are called "conservatives."

513 000G  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:23:53pm
Anchluss

It's "Anschluss".

514 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:25:22pm

re: #497 Render

V-2 rockets? The Panther (PKfW V) series tanks. The Tiger I was good, but too much a Porsche - prone to breakdowns. The King Tiger was way too slow. They made the first modern assault rifle. ME 262.

Their Achilles heel was in air development. The Luftwaffe R&D department was run by Ernst Udet- a good flier but incompetent administrator. No four-engine strategic bombers. No real blue-water navy and no fleet-air arm (Goering wanted the Luftwaffe to operate of off DKM carriers).

When I look at Germany in WWII, I am amazed they did as much as they did with what they had.

515 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:25:32pm

re: #417 Killgore Trout

re: #342 wolfie
Ah, here's the link I was looking for...
Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939

The Nazis banned Darwin's books and burned them. Stein's Holocaust theory is popular in some circles but it's still nonsense.


The notion that popular evolutionary philosophy influenced Hitler is not in dispute by any historian this side of psychosis.
That is not "Ben Stein's Holocaust theory," BTW, at least not as I understand his views. It seems to me that Stein is trying to show a direct link between scientists like Darwin and the Nazis. That, indeed, is a missing link! It doesn't exist. He is furthermore emphasizing one line of influence to the point of ignoring all the others. That is crude simplification.

Your form of extreme revisionism, on the other hand, is that evolutionary ideas (both pre- and post- Darwin) played no role in Hitler's intellectual development. You are wrong.

I am reminded here of Martin Luther's famous quip about the drunk who falls off the left side of his horse, gets back on, and promptly falls off the right side in compensation.

PS-&BTW- I nearly brought up the subject of Nazi book-burning myself in a different argument. There are a couple of good monographs on the subject.
If I had had the time and cyber-competence I would have mentioned them in the anti-Stein threads.
IIRC......and my memory for history texts (not car keys) is pretty good.....the national govt under the Nazis never banned Darwin's OofS. However, volumes including the Descent of Man were expurgated, because Darwin himself denied the extreme racialism of the Gobineau and others.
The list of books burned by all sorts of Nazi and pan-Germanic groups during the 30's is too long and eclectic to help much, BTW.

516 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:26:40pm

re: #501 yma o hyd

Erm - Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet 'empire' - it was taken over by communists in 1948, it was a member of the Warsaw Pact.
Johnson could in no way have gone in and helped Dubcek - the Soviets, who had huge numbers of soldiers stationed in Eastern Germany, would have waltzed into west germany straight away. Result: Hot war in the middle of Europe ...

Mind - I understand your feelings. I felt the same way when the Hungarians rose in 1956. I sat crying in front of the radio, I didn't understand why nobody came to help - and I even emptied my piggie bank to give all my money for the Hungarian refugees - all 2 DM of it (I was in primary school then ...).
Those were bad times - and one thing was forever clear to me in August 1968: that Communism stinks, that left ideologies are a sham, and there was no way that I would ever have anything to do with people who defended that ideology.

* * *
Thank you for being a precocious child and generous too.
To think George Soros learned nothing from Hungary's defeat, except to side with the totalitarians who take peoples' freedom.

517 centralvalleyguy  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:27:59pm

(Here's my feedback left on the human events site...)
Time to hang it up, Pat. Mr. Buchanan, you've gone too far this time. Your point has been disproved by history - Hitler did attack Poland, and slaughtered millions of people. Gaining Danzing would have not prevented this. What right did Hitler have to demand back the Sudetenland and Danzig, anyway? GERMANY LOST WW1, Mr. Buchanan. They then do not have the right to violently take back land they lost in a war. They certainly could've made peaceful overtures and tried this. And not for a few months, but for decades or centuries. The sins of starting a war are rightly not soon forgotten. Carving up Poland was not necessary. And why, Mr. Buchanan, did Germany go on to invade Russia? Just a little more land? They went all the way to the outskirts of Moscow. I suppose that was Russia's fault, too.

No, Mr. Buchanan, you've revealed some strange, dark psychology going on under the surface of your veneer. You have some strange problem with white supremacy or something of that nature, and I would never make that charge lightly.

To suggest that starting WW2 was England's and Poland's fault is beyond the pale. You're making a dishonest argument to try to make us believe Hitler was backed into a corner and had to invade? Where is your reasoning, sir?

It's long been time for us on the right to tell you to shut up and go find another audience who agrees with your isolationism and WASP-ism. BE GONE, MR. BUCHANAN! And good riddance.

518 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:28:36pm

re: #502 sparrowlake

Bit unrealistic, that - seeing that the Soviet Union was already looming in the not too far distance.
Also - easy to overlook, but a fact envertheless: the small statelets wouild not have been viable, feeding themselves, never mind paying all the reparations.
The whole of Europe was stricken by hunger at that time (what UNO folks today would proclaim to be a 'humanitarianc risis'0 - and they were going through the flu pandemic, which killed people all voer Europe in the hundreds of thousands.
Take this together with the huge loss of life in all countries, the lives of the best young men, everywhere, lost forever - and a break-up of Gemrany simply was not feasible.
Austria, that other Empire, always overlooked but so much bigger than Germany, and of similar militaristic and autocratic bend, was broken up, and the results, long-term, were seen on the Balkans after Tito's death.
Btw - that experience, and the looming influence of the Soviet Union was also the reason that Morgenthau's plan of a broke-up, pastoralised Germany was not acted upon after WWII.

519 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:30:16pm

re: #514 calcajun

V-2 rockets?

Forgot that one. Good example. Nobody else came close to them in guided rocketry.

I agree that their bomber development was slow (although strictly speaking, they had an operational jet bomber by the end of the war IIRC... but way too little, way too late). Surface fleet was underdeveloped (but punched far above its weight); their subs were significantly ahead of anyone else's. No carriers, as you note.

520 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:30:35pm

re: #510 bj1126

Is that web site known for peddling this kind of crud?

521 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:30:42pm

Well...consider the following little intellectual exercise: imagine the US lost a world war and we were forced to acquiesce in giving the southwest and California to Mexico, Florida to Cuba, Washington, Oregan, Minnesota, and Maine to Canada, and Louisiana to France. What would be our moral obligation not to take them back if we later could? A treaty forced on us at bayonet point? Nope; any treaty can be repudiated or renounced...and that kind without a second thought.

Old and out of shape as I am now, I'd gladly and eagerly join in the war to take back what was ours. Who would not? Kos? Code Pink? DU? CPUSA?

Not to say that Poland (you remember Poland? the folks who tacitly joined Hitler in helping to carve up Czechoslovakia?) could have or should have negotiated. Danzig/Gdansk was, if memory serves, their only useful outlet to the sea. Giving it up might have just been trading a quick death for a slow one.

Now one can counter, "Well, but we're not Hitler," and that's true but also meaningless. A legitimate act doesn't become illegitimate merely for the man responsible for that act. You can and should condemn Hitler for his almost complete lack of Jus in Bello (right in the conduct of war, covering an infinity of war crimes in Germany's case), the Shoah, the destruction of democracy in Germany, etc. There's no lack of grounds to condemn and that's all fair. But to say that Germany didn't have the right to take back what was hers, even at the cost of war, is hard to justify.

522 alegrias  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:31:03pm

re: #511 Occasional Reader

So did we, seguramente. But as others have pointed out, Czechoslvakia had already been "ceded" (sad, but true) to the Soviets at Yalta. It would have been, to put it mildly, a very tall order to threaten war.

* * *
OK, but when we station American troops and their families on the border of enemies such as the then-USSR or today's North Korea, or Pakistan, my belief is we put our selves on the line to be more than a "tripwire"--why weren't we there to be deterrents & actually DO something!

523 ploome hineni[deleted]  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:31:41pm
524 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:32:38pm

re: #519 Occasional Reader

Actually one--DKM Graf Zepplin--but it was never operational. The Soviets took it as a war prize and sunk it as a target. Gee, why would they want to know how much punishment a carrier could take? Hmmm.

525 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:34:51pm

re: #456 nikis-knight

There was a reason "Social Darwinism" became an epitat, after all.

Yes, indeed. The ideologues wanted to claim the imprimatur of science.
Darwin himself cannot be blamed for this, however, and many of the popular theories loosely based on evolution made him wheeze.

526 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:34:57pm

re: #521 Tom Kratman

The problem is that at one time or another many other countries have laid claim to many different regions in Europe. France controlled Germany for a while. Italy, well Rome, controlled it all. That sort of argument never ends. Longing for the old days is always reserved for getting your own way.

527 Joel  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:35:29pm

re: #514 calcajun

V-2 rockets? The Panther (PKfW V) series tanks. The Tiger I was good, but too much a Porsche - prone to breakdowns. The King Tiger was way too slow. They made the first modern assault rifle. ME 262.

Their Achilles heel was in air development. The Luftwaffe R&D department was run by Ernst Udet- a good flier but incompetent administrator. No four-engine strategic bombers. No real blue-water navy and no fleet-air arm (Goering wanted the Luftwaffe to operate of off DKM carriers).

When I look at Germany in WWII, I am amazed they did as much as they did with what they had.

Germany did not commit to total war footing production until after the surrender of Stalingrad in Feb. 1943! IN 1943 the USSR produced 20,000 T34 tanks.

528 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:36:11pm

re: #421 zombie

You've described me exactly.

I don't own a gun -- but I support the Second Amendment and the right for Americans to own guns if they want to. I simply choose not to have one myself.

I'm a vegetarian -- but I don't lecture others on their diets. Want to eat meat? Your choice. Fine by me.

I'm an agnostic -- but support the right of everyone else to either believe it God or to be an atheist -- as they see fit. Total freedom of belief.

I don't shop in chain stores because I want to preserve local mom-and-pop businesses wherever possible and honor old-fashioned small-town and small-neighborhood America -- but I fully understand if some people need to shop in chain stores for bargains or because they have no choice.

...etc.

That's one of my core principles: I have my beliefs, yet I don't force them on other people. And conversely, I don't want them to force their beliefs on me!

Sounds like you favor strictly negative rights. The political system consistent with extending such rights/freedoms universally to a populace is a Classically Liberal government. the Night Watchman state... I told you, Liberalism is very probably the word you are looking for.

529 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:37:00pm

re: #521 Tom Kratman

As I said in an earlier post, if you can disengage the more heinous aspects of Nazi Germany, you could easily see its justification in restoring its territorial integrity after Versailles--which by the 1930's, everyone agreed was an onerous treaty whose terms set the stage for the world-wide depression on the early 30's.

It's hard for people to see this as everyone knows what is at the end of the road.

530 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:37:13pm

re: #514 calcajun

Yep - and that was due, in the end, to one man, Hitler's architect, Albert Speer.
Once he became head honcho of the whole armament set-up, they produced more war material from 1943 (a time when allied bombing was really taking effect, and the war in Russia was lost) than in the years from 1939.
Mind - it was mostly done by slave labout, not just the POWs, but Jews taken from the extermination camps and worked to death in the munitions factories instead - the German workers were all busy being killed at the various theatres of war.

How anybody can even have the faintest sympathy with the people who did and caused all this, and with the ideology which enabled them to do as they did - that is something I cannot understand. There simply cannot be any excuse for it, can there!

531 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:39:34pm

re: #527 Joel

They were still making cars and washing machines in 1942. They started moving to a war footing in 42. But they fact that they achieved a war economy in 43 is impressive--and horrible since it was done with slave labor. They biggest year of war production was 44 -- which was also the heaviest year of strategic bombardment by the USAAF and the RAF.

532 Spiny Norman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:40:00pm

re: #528 medaura18586

I always figured zombie to be a Libertarian, but not a Libertarian Party member because the joint is overrun but anti-government nutjobs and potheads.I always figured zombie to be a Libertarian, but not a Libertarian Party member because the joint is overrun by anti-government nutjobs and potheads.

533 yochanan  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:40:32pm

what else would you expect from a neo fascist like pat buchanan
is he selling the protocols of the elders of Zion?

would not surprise me at all.

534 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:40:47pm

re: #497 Render

"Remember that the German weaponry was the best in the field even by the end of the war."

Not really.

PICK
ONE,
R

Best in the field is a hard thing to say. Certainly they had some successes, weaponry-wise. Even so, those successes were often too little, too late, and _way_ too expensive. Panther v. T-34/85? Fine; Panther's a better tank. But it isn't better than three or four T-34/85s, backed up by an IS-2 And, going way, way back, they were never able, so far as I can recall, to come up with a medium and heavy artillery obturation system to allow them to dispense with brass casing for the propellant. This is a problem, when you're largely cut off from outside sources of raw materials for such things as brass...to say nothing of rubber and oil.

535 sultan_knish  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:41:06pm

re: #530 yma o hyd


How anybody can even have the faintest sympathy with the people who did and caused all this, and with the ideology which enabled them to do as they did - that is something I cannot understand. There simply cannot be any excuse for it, can there!

because they fantasize about being able to do it themselves

536 RickZ  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:41:08pm

re: #514 calcajun

Their Achilles heel was in air development. The Luftwaffe R&D department was run by Ernst Udet- a good flier but incompetent administrator. No four-engine strategic bombers. No real blue-water navy and no fleet-air arm (Goering wanted the Luftwaffe to operate of off DKM carriers).

Udet died in 1941, a motorcyce 'accident', I believe. Also, Hitler was the incompetent Luftwaffe administrator who did not want those clunky bombers, but rather opted for sexy fighters, like the Stuka. And what Hitler wanted, Hitler got.

As for the Kreigsmarine, a blue-water Navy was a losing proposition, as the loss of their capital ships showed. The strategy of using U-boats, cheaper to build than battleships/cruisers/destroyers, was their best option, and it almost worked.

And let's not underestimate the role of Enigma in hampering the activities of the Kriegsmarine.

537 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:41:55pm

re: #522 alegrias

my belief is we put our selves on the line to be more than a "tripwire"-

That might be your belief, but that's not been actual practice. We did not invade North Korea at any time for brutalizing its citizens, for instance. We would truly have "endless war" if we tried to fight every thug in the world. And in 1968, the USSR was a particularly dangerous thug. Containment and pressure were quite likely the best that could reasonably be done.

538 sultan_knish  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:42:30pm

re: #516 alegrias

* * *
To think George Soros learned nothing from Hungary's defeat, except to side with the totalitarians who take peoples' freedom.

he was a Nazi collaborator long before then too

539 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:43:52pm

re: #521 Tom Kratman

You're making the same mistake that Buchanan does; assuming that if you can make a colorable claim for Germany going to war, that must have been the actual reason Hitler went to war.

Hitler's intentions were perfectly clear. They were not merely "getting back what is ours". Change your analogy to, we take back Maine... then overrun Canada and slaughter a third of the populatoin... and you'd be a little more on target.

540 donna quixote  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:44:49pm

Buchanan was probably the original member of the list of senile Republicans. Unfortunately there are quite a few others and they are all exhibiting their right to freedom of speech.

541 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:45:04pm

re: #536 RickZ

The Stuka (JU 87) was a dive-bomber (ground support)--not a fighter, and it was obsolete by 1940.

True, the better fighters (FW-190) were not produced in numbers as much as other older ones (ME 109). But the plants were there to produce them; new factories would have taken too long to build and too much money.

Speaking of which, I need not tell you how the good ol' Reich financed its war. Germany's GDP in the 30's was not enough. The answer is part of the tragedy of WWII

542 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:45:28pm

re: #532 Spiny Norman

I always figured zombie to be a Libertarian, but not a Libertarian Party member because the joint is overrun but anti-government nutjobs and potheads.I always figured zombie to be a Libertarian, but not a Libertarian Party member because the joint is overrun by anti-government nutjobs and potheads.

Tell me about it. I've stopped calling myself a Libertarians because of the vivid associations with anarchist douche-bags, and I can't call myself a Liberal (though I always itch to) anywhere outside of politically educated company, because the moonbat/communist associations are even stronger.

So I call myself a Skeptical Empiricist and leave it at that. Let's see how long it will take for even such an obscure label to be subverted.

I have to laugh at people who dismiss the Gold Standard and quack-ery along with Ron Paul's other insanities though. Complete political freedom requires open full-reserve banking.

543 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:45:49pm

re: #536 RickZ

As for the Kreigsmarine, a blue-water Navy was a losing proposition, as the loss of their capital ships showed. The strategy of using U-boats, cheaper to build than battleships/cruisers/destroyers, was their best option,

I agree. Trying to quickly build a surface fleet capable of taking on the US Navy and Royal Navy would have been foolish. Subs were a better invesment for them.

544 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:46:25pm

re: #539 Occasional Reader

I, for one, would welcome our new American overlords.

545 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:47:00pm

re: #526 The_Vig

The problem is that at one time or another many other countries have laid claim to many different regions in Europe. France controlled Germany for a while. Italy, well Rome, controlled it all. That sort of argument never ends. Longing for the old days is always reserved for getting your own way.

The struggle for freedom never ends, either. So? You keep fighting anyway.

As for control, one can ask, "Who's living there now and to which country do they want to belong?" In the case of Danzig, the Sudetenland, and - maybe, because the post Anschluss plebiscite might well have been fixed - Austria, they were German and wanted to be German.

546 Spiny Norman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:48:04pm

re: #542 medaura18586

Umm... I really don't know how I made my comment twice. I just now noticed that. Weirod.

547 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:48:25pm

re: #544 WriterMom

I, for one, would welcome our new American overlords.

Hey, aren't you guys lonely anyway, with all the wide-open empty space?

548 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:49:05pm

re: #528 medaura18586

Sounds like you favor strictly negative rights. The political system consistent with extending such rights/freedoms universally to a populace is a Classically Liberal government. the Night Watchman state... I told you, Liberalism is very probably the word you are looking for.

Yeah, but nowadays, the term closest to that in common parlance IS conservative, or maybe Libertarian, but they tend to be wimps as far as foreign policy is concerned.

549 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:49:44pm

re: #531 calcajun

Lets please not forget, when there is some faint praise given to German armaments, that all this was achieved in a totalitarian state.
A state organised to street-level, where food, clothes, everything was rationed even more strictly than in Great Britain.
This was a state where telling jokes against Hitler got you into a Concentration Camp. This was a state where listening to the BBC could get you shot (and did). This was a state were all women under the age of 60 were conscripted to labour - children or not! Children had to be in the various Nazi organisations, they were told to spy on their parents and tell if they were against Hitler.
Everybody else was under they eyes of the Gestapo.
There was a group of students in Munich who tried to call for resistance. They called themselves 'Die weisse Rose'. They were all killed. Their crime? Distributing leaflets against Hitler.
Tell that to the moonbats who think its fun to shout at seving personell!

That is the way Germany was able to produce war material until the bitter end: under a dictatorship, at war, just enough food to survive - and death at the smallest sign of resistance.

550 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:49:47pm

re: #545 Tom Kratman

Just because Hitler made it his excuse that these people wanted him to invade does not mean that all of the people wanted him to invade. Just like the idiots in Vermont that want to succeed from the union don't speak for everyone in Vermont.

551 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:50:23pm

re: #529 calcajun

As I said in an earlier post, if you can disengage the more heinous aspects of Nazi Germany, you could easily see its justification in restoring its territorial integrity after Versailles--which by the 1930's, everyone agreed was an onerous treaty whose terms set the stage for the world-wide depression on the early 30's.

It's hard for people to see this as everyone knows what is at the end of the road.

Yeah, it is. And hindsight is always 20:20. I'm more concerned with people insisting on binding moral precedents that make little sense and which might someday be used to constrain us from what may then be our moral duty.

552 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:51:07pm

I don't have any idea of the accuracy of this author's claims, I might order a copy of this book from Germany. Nazi "dirty bomb" tests.
Hitler's A-Bomb

ccording to the author of this new German-language book entitled "Hitler's Bombe," several nuclear devices were exploded by the Nazis in 1944-45, and hundreds of POWs and internees died as part of the tests. The book also states there was a working nuclear reactor near Berlin in that same time period, and that Nazi physicists had drafted a patent for a plutonium bomb as early as 1941. The bombs which were produced and tested were reportedly "dirty bombs," which are made of up conventional explosives which are packed with nuclear material to add nuclear fallout to the bomb's destructive power.

Hitler's Bombe; die Geheime Geschicte

Unter Aufsicht der SS testeten deutsche Wissenschaftler 1944/45 auf Rügen und in Thüringen nukleare Bomben. Dabei kamen mehrere hundert Kriegsgefangene und Häftlinge ums Leben. Nach jahrelanger Recherche entschlüsselte der Berliner Historiker Rainer Karlsch eines der größten Rätsel des Dritten Reiches. Neben Belegen für die Kernwaffenversuche fand er auch einen Entwurf für ein Plutoniumbombenpatent aus dem Jahr 1941 und entdeckte im Umland Berlins den ersten funktionierenden deutschen Atomreaktor.
553 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:51:19pm

re: #465 Killgore Trout

Yes, I know you're very convinced of that despite the historical reality.

I am also convinced that the French Revolution happened after the American one, regardless of your precious beliefs.
Just call me stubborn.

554 DoesNotMatter  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:51:43pm

re: #312 blueboy


The beef with Yugoslavia, as with Africa ?

Simple, really, El Duce Mussolini was an gloryhound and could not stand seeing Hitler having all the sucesses. So he invaded *. And failed badly **.
The only conquest Italy "managed" was Ethiopia and that took far longer than it should have on paper. And Ethiopia was before WW2.

*Insert: Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, France (After Hitler zerged their asses and they still routed the Italians beyond their side of the border)

**This was all Italy did really: Bungle an uncalled for invasion, drag german resources into it to avoid an embarrassing defeat.

555 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:52:00pm

re: #536 RickZ

Since you're mentioning the U-boats - anybody seen the film 'Das Boot'?
Pretty good film about life on a German U-boat in WWII ...

556 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:52:23pm

re: #500 Occasional Reader

-Tiger tank
-MP 43/44 rifle
-MG34 light machine gun
-Me-262
-Panzerfaust
-"Eighty-eight"

Tiger - The aforementioned JS-3 Pike as well as it's earlier model JS-2, and the US M-26 Pershing. Both of which were faster and far more reliable than either the Tiger 1 or the King Tiger. The JS-3's armor was also equal to that of the King Tiger and it had a much larger gun. The British Churchill was equal to the Tiger 1 in every category except for the gun itself, although much much slower.

MP-43/44 (StG-44) - The only argument here lies with the mass production that never happened. Although Patton (and my Dad) would have argued that the Garand was a better battle rifle.

Mg-34 - The MG-34, in spite of its typical Prussian over-engineering, was plagued by reliability issues for its entire existence. Did you mean the MG-42 perhaps? Wonderful light and medium machine gun well noted for the need to change barrels on a very frequent basis and still in common use today. No argument on the -42.

ME-262 - As you mentioned, great idea, ruined by _itlers insistence that it be used as a bomber.

Panzerfaust - Highly useful but was also a one shot disposable. The larger caliber and reloadable Panzershreck was much preferred by German field commanders. The PzF was equaled in performance by the British PIAT and US 2.36inch Bazooka. The US 3.5inch Super Bazooka surpassed all of the above.

The famed 88 - The US 90mm AA and Soviet 100mm Naval guns were both better in the tank/anti-tank role, once they were used that way. The Soviet 122mm tank gun surpassed all but the rarely seen German 128mm tank gun in all relative performance categories. Less than 100 of the 128mm guns were mounted on huge Hunting Tiger (total of 77 produced) turretless tank destroyers.

WITHOUT
REFERENCE,
R

557 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:53:16pm

re: #552 JHW

several nuclear devices were exploded

By the author's own description, what were exploded weren't "nuclear devices".

558 WriterMom  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:53:37pm

re: #547 Occasional Reader

So lonely...sniff sniff.

559 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:53:37pm

What the nazis intended for Eastern Europe can be found here (wiki article on Generalplan Ost)...

560 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:54:11pm

re: #528 medaura18586

Sounds like you favor strictly negative rights. The political system consistent with extending such rights/freedoms universally to a populace is a Classically Liberal government. the Night Watchman state... I told you, Liberalism is very probably the word you are looking for.

re: #532 Spiny Norman

I always figured zombie to be a Libertarian, but not a Libertarian Party member because the joint is overrun but anti-government nutjobs and potheads.

The problem with using the words "Liberal" and "Libertarian" to describe my political beliefs is that the words have been so contaminated in the public mind that I would have to spend all my energy saying, "No no no, not that kind of liberal/libertarian, I mean something else..." So, though those terms may be somewhat accurate, I still feel I ought not to use them.

As for "negative rights" -- yes, that does seem to be an accurate description. But the phrase is just so -- well, so negative sounding. It would turn people off, just from the name.

Thanks for the contributions, but...I'm still searching for a name!

561 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:54:32pm

re: #547 Occasional Reader

Hey, aren't you guys lonely anyway, with all the wide-open empty space?

Naw - they got all them bears and stuff, and the polar bears will surely come inland now, intelligent beasts that they are.
Albore said so ...

562 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:57:04pm

re: #557 Occasional Reader

Yes, exactly, that's the impression I have. A dirty bomb is what he's describing, and claims those were tested on a small scale on prisoners. Skeptical, but I might order a copy to see what the exact claims are. Supposedly there's a link to MSNBC but it's expired.

563 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:57:21pm

re: #551 Tom Kratman

You touch on the paradox of the 1930's. The west knew Hitler was a monster, but it also recognized that Germany had legitimate territorial issues. They were on the horns of a dilemma, which had been of their own making. Besides, they saw Stalin as a bigger threat and wanted Germany as a strong counterweight to the USSR.

Anyone care to draw parallels with the Saudis, be my guest.

564 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:57:52pm

re: #542 medaura18586

I think it's high time we tried to take back the word "liberal."
If sometime asks, you can say you're a liberal and then quickly add that you mean it in the original sense. Then explain how socialists in this country have stolen the word. Can't hurt!

565 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:58:01pm

re: #542 medaura18586

I have to laugh at people who dismiss the Gold Standard and quack-ery along with Ron Paul's other insanities though. Complete political freedom requires open full-reserve banking.

Otherwise, stuff like this happens:

Zimbabwe inflation now over 1 million percent

Weary Zimbabweans are facing a new wave of price increases that will put many basic goods even further out of their reach: A loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago. Independent finance houses said in an assessment Tuesday that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs. Economic analysts say unless the rate of inflation is slowed, annual inflation will likely reach about 5 million percent by October. As stores opened for business Wednesday, a small pack of locally produced coffee beans cost just short of 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars. A decade ago, that sum would have bought 60 new cars.

That's what looms if you just start printing paper money with nothing to back it up -- eventually, it runs the risk of becoming valueless.

566 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:58:51pm

re: #539 Occasional Reader

You know, OR, I wish I could give you multiple ding-ups for some of your posts...(sigh...it's that on-going problem with binary systems....and the lack of -- dare I say -- nuance...)

567 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 1:59:45pm

re: #552 JHW

Interesting!
I haen't heard of that book til now, and can't say how much truth is in it, but there is at least one recent book which ssuggests that the Soviets wanted to be in Berlin before the Allies because they wanted to get their hands on the German atom bomb research.
That book is Anthony Beevor's 'Berlin'.

568 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:00:04pm

re: #548 nikis-knight

Yeah, but nowadays, the term closest to that in common parlance IS conservative, or maybe Libertarian, but they tend to be wimps as far as foreign policy is concerned.

I am very well aware of that, but Conservative is a horrible label because it becomes very easy to forget what one is conserving, and the term ends up being a melting crack pot for multi denominational reactionaries. Ehem, it's really what has happened already to various extents to the Right.

Plus, how far back does the intellectual heritage of conservatives extend? What are we conserving? The status quo before the Civil War, before abolition, before the New Deal, before the Great Society projects of Ford and Nixon? Every time the foundations of the US are altered in any way, that becomes the status quo. Or are you just conserving for the sake of conserving the past? That doesn't fly that well.

There have been many imperfections in the various implementations of our Republic, many scandalous Supreme Court decisions too. You can't just conserve it all for the sake of conservation. You need to articulate the core principles and re-apply them to the challenges of every decade, every era, freshly from scratch.

That's Liberalism for you.

569 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:01:14pm

re: #556 Render

I'll cede the point on the tanks; although there, we were the ones who had quantity problems (but no so much the Soviets).

MP44, I'd be interested to know the argument that the M1 was superior.

I should have said MG42, thank you.

My understanding is that Hitler's push for the bomber variant was not a big crimp in the Me-262 fighter development; although it's true that overall, he did not use his jet resources wisely. Anyway, the point stands, that *qualitatively* it was superior to any fighter the Allies had.

"The PzF was equaled in performance by the British PIAT and US 2.36inch Bazooka" -- you sure about that? My understanding was that the US bazooka was fairly ineffective, and the PIAT suicidally so. Didn't know about the Super Bazooka, thanks.

On the 88, I cede the point, although again we found ourselves in the quantitative inferiority role there, rather than qualitative.

570 RickZ  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:02:56pm

re: #555 yma o hyd

Since you're mentioning the U-boats - anybody seen the film 'Das Boot'?
Pretty good film about life on a German U-boat in WWII ...

An excellent movie, best seen in German, with English subtitles. It's based upon Herbert Werner's book, Iron Coffins. A little historical irony is that when the book was published in the late '60's, Werner had already become a US citizen.

571 EE  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:03:32pm

re: #521 Tom Kratman

Well...consider the following little intellectual exercise: imagine the US lost a world war and we were forced to acquiesce in giving the southwest and California to Mexico, Florida to Cuba, Washington, Oregan, Minnesota, and Maine to Canada, and Louisiana to France. What would be our moral obligation not to take them back if we later could? A treaty forced on us at bayonet point? Nope; any treaty can be repudiated or renounced...and that kind without a second thought.

Old and out of shape as I am now, I'd gladly and eagerly join in the war to take back what was ours. Who would not? Kos? Code Pink? DU? CPUSA?

Not to say that Poland (you remember Poland? the folks who tacitly joined Hitler in helping to carve up Czechoslovakia?) could have or should have negotiated. Danzig/Gdansk was, if memory serves, their only useful outlet to the sea. Giving it up might have just been trading a quick death for a slow one.

Now one can counter, "Well, but we're not Hitler," and that's true but also meaningless. A legitimate act doesn't become illegitimate merely for the man responsible for that act. You can and should condemn Hitler for his almost complete lack of Jus in Bello (right in the conduct of war, covering an infinity of war crimes in Germany's case), the Shoah, the destruction of democracy in Germany, etc. There's no lack of grounds to condemn and that's all fair. But to say that Germany didn't have the right to take back what was hers, even at the cost of war, is hard to justify.

You lose a war, you pay a price.

Are you suggesting that all wars should be re-fought?
Should Britain attack us in order to get back the Colonies?

Or are you suggesting that not all wars should be refought, but only some? And if that is the case, then what is the rule for which wars should be refought?

Suppose, for some reason that I don't yet understand, you are right, and all wars should be refought. A policy of irredentism takes hold among all countries, and all of the wars since history began to be recorded are refought. There would be quite a bloody mess, don't you think?

Actually, this is the very position of the Islamists -- not concerning all wars, but concerning the wars in which Muslims were involved. All wars that Muslims won were won for all time, according to the Islamists. And all wars that Muslims lost were lost against the wishes of Allah, and therefore have to be refought until Muslims win.

If this rule makes sense, then it makes sense for all wars to be refought. I don't grant that Muslims have rights of war that don't belong to everybody else. So the conclusion, if you go along with that kind of thinking, is that all wars need to be refought. If this is nonsensical and harmful, then maybe it's because the notion that wars lost must be refought is full of nonsense.

572 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:04:40pm

re: #562 JHW

Didn't Oppenheimer and Fermi suggest that if they could not get the "gadget" to work, that they could drop Strontium 90 over the German farmland and poison Germany's breadbasket for a decade or two?

573 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:05:23pm

re: #570 RickZ

Ah - that might be the translator - the book on which the film was abse was titled 'Das Boot' (yep, indeedy!), and was by Lothar Buchheim - who was a German war correspondent, the book is based on his diaries.

574 Mich-again  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:06:28pm

re: #565 zombie

That's what looms if you just start printing paper money with nothing to back it up -- eventually, it runs the risk of becoming valueless.

Exactly. So then investors take what they have in that currency and try to buy commodities or anything of real value, like a barrel of oil for example that will at least hold its value as opposed to watching their currency notes continue to diminish.

575 yma o hyd  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:07:24pm

Thank you, Lizards, for a fascinating and brilliant and stimulating conversation!
I gotta leave you to it as its bedtime for me here in the Welsh Capital - seeya tomorrow, all being well!
Good night!

576 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:07:27pm

re: #559 J.S.

Germany's war aims in WWI were frighteningly similar to WWII (except for the Holocaust) There were lots of forced re-locations planned for western Europe.

577 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:07:45pm

re: #575 yma o hyd

Bye.

578 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:08:45pm

re: #565 zombie

That's what looms if you just start printing paper money with nothing to back it up -- eventually, it runs the risk of becoming valueless.

Well paper money is "legal tender". The only thing that backs it up is government's trustworthiness/reputation, or merely government authority. But that's precisely why the fiat system is in place, so that the government can invisibly steal from its people.

Zimbabwe's case is too obvious. Other not so obvious but equally disastrous meltdowns can happen, even in 1st world countries: ahem, our housing crisis for one. Greenspan slammed on the gas pedal of the paper-printing machines in 2000 to "stimulate" us out of the dot-com boil burst, thus artificially lowering interest rates, making borrowing unnaturally easy, and making long-term projects (house mortgages) and risky ones seem profitable (after a low discount rate).

And here we are...

Gold is an objective store of value, and allows a macro-system like a big country's (USA) financial apparatus to function through the precise signaling of prices. Infusing cash flow is like a neuro-transmitter mimicking drug. It gets the system high, and then there is eventually a low because government fiat cannot defy the gravity of reality.

579 johnnyreb  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:11:44pm

re: #431 nikis-knight

Oh... then, yep, your're a conservative, at least as I see it today.


More like a Libertarian I would think. Let me do what I want to do, and don't make me do what you do. I leave you alone and you leave me alone. IMO thats the true definition of a Libertarian.

580 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:11:58pm

re: #564 wolfie

I think it's high time we tried to take back the word "liberal."
If sometime asks, you can say you're a liberal and then quickly add that you mean it in the original sense. Then explain how socialists in this country have stolen the word. Can't hurt!

You say it! Yes, I love the idea. It's subversive and it puts the Left on the defensive. It would be a good thing to attract Leftists' attention by default through labeling yourself as a liberal; they will pay attention to you assuming you are one of their own. Then you'll be conveniently urged to explain what kind of Liberal then, are you talking about.

Breed disharmony and inconsistency in the Left's ideological core.

581 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:13:57pm

re: #572 calcajun

I don't know the answer on that one, I'll have to check it out. There's a few interesting comments on the first link I gave above by people who seem to be fairly knowledgeable about a lot of Germany's nuclear program, how accurate they are ....I have no idea. I found this quote fairly interesting.

In 1944 contracts were let for the mass production of uranium centrifuges in Germany. This project was given ten times the funding of Heisenberg's team. Germany had an endless supply of Uranium from mines in western Czechoslovakia at Jac-y-more (then Joachimsthal). So much that it was exported to Japan following a request to the Germans in July 1943 from General Kawashima in Korea where the Japanese had their own nuclear project.
582 DoesNotMatter  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:16:07pm

re: #514 calcajun

They had plans for two 4 engine bombers comparable to the b-17 well before the war. Luckily Hitler and his helpful morons (Goering) insisted on tactical bombers only. Luftwaffe roles were to be CAS, medium range attacks (supply dumps etc.) and CAP. And air supply.

Their fleet building was geared and planned for onset of hostilities at earliest of 1945. So when Hitler started early the admirals just vastly expanded their sub marine production.

583 Mich-again  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:16:11pm

Add the Treaty of Versailles to the impressive list of failures from America's worst President ever. Woodrow Wilson. His administration also saw through the creation of the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amendment empowering Congress to collect income taxes, and the 17th Amendment, which made the election of US Senators a popular vote, dealing Federalism a lethal blow. I won't go so far to blame him for the Spanish Influenza epidemic..

He doesn't get nearly enough scorn for having such a disastrous effect on the future of the Republic.

584 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:16:17pm

re: #568 medaura18586

Yes, but speaking as the terms are used in America, to be close to the founder's vision is conservative.
No label is perfect even if you it fits due to varying connotations. But if you believe in classical liberalsim (what our country was founded on) you are conservative.
What are we conserving? The constitution, the declaration of independance, and all actions that brought our country closer to those ideals.
Yes, we want to slavery and discrimination to end, even though they had it in the founder's day--it is in line with the vision they laid out. Yes, we want modern conviences, if ethical, scientific progress doesn't conflict with conserving liberty.
No, we don't want to conserve New Deal type redistribution, even though it is quite old by now--it takes us away from the founder's vision.

I mean, you are right that classical liberalism is more descriptive, but as the terms are used today, that is pretty close to conservatism, and more readily understood--though of course not too much better, given the way conservatives are portrayed, or the people who sometimes speak for it.

585 Honorary Yooper  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:17:27pm

re: #560 zombie

Zombie, that's why I'm starting to prefer the terms Individualist and Collectivist. Basically summed up a I vs. We. All the totalitarian regimes of the past and present seem to present themselves as collectivist. Whether it's the Communists of the USSR, the Fascists of Italy, the Nazis of Germany, or even the Ummah, they are/were all collectivist. Everything is for the so-called greater good, and human lives are fairly cheap.

Contrast this with the individualist nature of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is mentioned and enshrined. And one is set free to become all he/she wants to be.

586 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:18:04pm

re: #571 EE

You lose a war, you pay a price.

Are you suggesting that all wars should be re-fought?
Should Britain attack us in order to get back the Colonies?

Or are you suggesting that not all wars should be refought, but only some? And if that is the case, then what is the rule for which wars should be refought?

Suppose, for some reason that I don't yet understand, you are right, and all wars should be refought. A policy of irredentism takes hold among all countries, and all of the wars since history began to be recorded are refought. There would be quite a bloody mess, don't you think?

Actually, this is the very position of the Islamists -- not concerning all wars, but concerning the wars in which Muslims were involved. All wars that Muslims won were won for all time, according to the Islamists. And all wars that Muslims lost were lost against the wishes of Allah, and therefore have to be refought until Muslims win.

If this rule makes sense, then it makes sense for all wars to be refought. I don't grant that Muslims have rights of war that don't belong to everybody else. So the conclusion, if you go along with that kind of thinking, is that all wars need to be refought. If this is nonsensical and harmful, then maybe it's because the notion that wars lost must be refought is full of nonsense.

I'm sure if I'd have written that I'd have felt my fingers moving across the keyboard and forming those words. Please point out to me where I said "all wars should be refought." Then please turn in your mind reading license; you're unqualified for the job.

Alternatively, are you suggesting that NO wars should be refought? That oppression, once established, must be permitted to thrive? So...let's see...the Greeks were wrong to rebel against the Turks in the 19th century, yes? After all, they lost once and should have just acquiesced, right? Poland, once divided by Frederick the Great and Company, in the face of force majeur should have said, "Perish the thought of being a nation again," right? France, once overrun by Prussians, Russians, Swedes, etc., should never have reformed as a country, yes?

587 RickZ  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:18:14pm

re: #573 yma o hyd

Ah - that might be the translator - the book on which the film was abse was titled 'Das Boot' (yep, indeedy!), and was by Lothar Buchheim - who was a German war correspondent, the book is based on his diaries.

Lothar Buchheim's book was a novel. Also, the book came out the same year as the movie, so I think the book was really a movie script. I watched the movie recently and seem to remember some sort of credit being given to Werner and his book.

588 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:19:49pm

re: #569 Occasional Reader

One can't makke the argument for M1 v MP44; they were both good but for wildly different tactical concepts.

589 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:20:32pm

re: #560 zombie

The problem with using the words "Liberal" and "Libertarian" to describe my political beliefs is that the words have been so contaminated in the public mind that I would have to spend all my energy saying, "No no no, not that kind of liberal/libertarian, I mean something else..." So, though those terms may be somewhat accurate, I still feel I ought not to use them.

As for "negative rights" -- yes, that does seem to be an accurate description. But the phrase is just so -- well, so negative sounding. It would turn people off, just from the name.

Thanks for the contributions, but...I'm still searching for a name!

Perhaps though, it would be a good thing to spend the energy of saying "no no no, not that kind of Liberal!" People learn better (or at least are prompted to think critically) in the face of cognitive dissonance. How did the Leftists take over the word "Liberal" in the first place? It was surely "contaminated" by its own traditional meaning, yet they managed to subvert it.

The gay community was able to annex the word "gay" for Christ's sake! as well as the effing RAINBOW as a symbol. How does one get away with stealing the rainbow!

Simple, they just tried it and did it.

The left must be countered in its attempts to subvert notions because words are important. Upton Sinclair, that commie propaganda hound lost every time he ran as a Socialist, but had success when he ran as a Democrat.

All the good terms are taken. I think it's worth fighting to reclaim what is duly yours than spend your energy trying to explain a brand-new concept to the masses, like Zombieism, or anti-idiotarian, or whatnot.

Negative rights have another less, well, negative, name: liberty rights, as opposed to welfare (positive) rights.

I for myself am all for bringing everything down to Earth as much as possible in terms of political philosophy for mass consumption. But never try to dumb it down too much. If you have to sanitize your lexicon so much that it's unrecognizable just so as to make it accessible to your crowd, then they may not be worth your time trying to convert/enlighten them

590 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:20:54pm

re: #550 The_Vig

Just because Hitler made it his excuse that these people wanted him to invade does not mean that all of the people wanted him to invade. Just like the idiots in Vermont that want to succeed from the union don't speak for everyone in Vermont.

Have you some evidence to suggest that a majority of Sudentens and Danzigers didn't prefer to be part of Germany?

591 DoesNotMatter  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:22:43pm

re: #536 RickZ

Enigma: While the Kriegsmarine cipher was broken eventually it happend far later than for the other germans services.
But to kill an sub you really do not need to know it's orders. Just catching the "message beam" is enough to give you an excellent idea of where to start searching.

592 johnnyreb  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:23:56pm

re: #569 Occasional Reader

I'll cede the point on the tanks; although there, we were the ones who had quantity problems (but no so much the Soviets).

"The PzF was equaled in performance by the British PIAT and US 2.36inch Bazooka" -- you sure about that? My understanding was that the US bazooka was fairly ineffective, and the PIAT suicidally so. Didn't know about the Super Bazooka, thanks.


Actaully the Panzerfaust was a reloadable weapon made in various marks from about late 1943. it's initial design was made to be reloaded, but they usually never were as it was more cost effective to just make one weapon and warhead due to logistics.

They were constantly improved upon and the Soviets captured tons of them and stole the design to make the RPG which still serves in many armies today.

It was comparable to the US Bazooka and slightly better than the British PIAT due to range isues.

593 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:24:36pm

re: #563 calcajun

You touch on the paradox of the 1930's. The west knew Hitler was a monster, but it also recognized that Germany had legitimate territorial issues. They were on the horns of a dilemma, which had been of their own making. Besides, they saw Stalin as a bigger threat and wanted Germany as a strong counterweight to the USSR.

Anyone care to draw parallels with the Saudis, be my guest.

I am often quite amazed and appalled at the frequency with which just a _little_ bloody generosity in international affairs could have headed off untold misery and loss. One little example: the original Panama Canal Treaty was so grossly unfair to Panama that _our_own_ senate was inclined to reject it. Unfortunately, nobody ever suggested a better treaty...

And we never felt comfortable with the original, thus - feeling morally in the wrong - we renegotiated it several times to be more fair...until we found ourselves out of Panama.

Versailles, of course, was a much worse failure.

594 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:25:58pm

re: #589 medaura18586

The gay community was able to annex the word "gay" for Christ's sake! as well as the effing RAINBOW as a symbol. How does one get away with stealing the rainbow!

It's like taking symbols from a baby...

595 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:27:38pm

re: #576 calcajun

Germany's war aims in WWI were frighteningly similar to WWII (except for the Holocaust) There were lots of forced re-locations planned for western Europe.

Do you mean war aims prior to the declaration of mobilization or war aims as they developed as the insanity took greater and greater hold in the course of the war?

I think you've a hard case to make for either but I'd be reallly surprised at any evidence of the former.

596 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:29:23pm

re: #590 Tom Kratman

Have you some evidence to suggest that a majority of Sudentens and Danzigers didn't prefer to be part of Germany?

I am sure that one or 2 didn't. Is that good enough for a guess.

597 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:29:34pm

re: #578 medaura18586

Gold is an objective store of value

Well, that's arguable. Gold has no "inherent value" any more than dirt or sand. It's just a naturally-occurring element -- it only has "worth" because we humans say it does. To a monkey or a fish, gold is completely worthless. A chimpanzee would happily exchange a 50-pound ingot of gold for one rotten banana. Yes, gold is comparatively rare, and it has industrial uses, but a lot of things are rare and a lot of things have industrial uses -- why not use them as the basis for our currency?

Marx would tell you that "labor" is the only thing of value. That people exchange one hour of labor for a receipt (paper money) indicating they have one labor-hour of credit to their account. Marx was wrong, but he had at least a new way of looking at things.

To me, the only thing of value is time. So when Marx saw humans exchanging labor-hours for money, he was focusing on the wrong half of the phrase: it's not the "labor" that you're exchanging for the money, but rather the "hours."

Say you lived in a stable economy in which an average job pad $10 per hour worked. In that system, every $10 you have gets you one hour's worth of free time, basically. If you found $80 lying on the sidewalk, you could skip an 8-hour workday and go to the beach instead. Find a million dollars, and you can retire for life -- because the money buys you enough free time to never have to spend an hour working again.

Problem is, you can't fill Fort Knox with time ingots.

598 DoesNotMatter  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:30:00pm

re: #543 Occasional Reader

It's ironic then, that they tried to exactly do that.
Hitler just promised his admirals that he would not start shit with britain (The US did not figure much in strategic planning either by Admirality or Hitler*) till 1945 at the earliest.

*When Britain refused peace offers after Dunkirk, Hitler thought that Stalin was responsible for giving Churchill strenght, not Roosevelt. Another, tiny, contribution, to his starting his eastern adventures.

599 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:31:37pm

re: #594 nikis-knight

It's like taking symbols from a baby...

I am fully pro gay rights, but I despise the way that movement has taken away simple innocent childhood symbols like the rainbow, and a word like gay. It goes to show you that it's quite possible to subvert notions, and people shouldn't be afraid to claim back their original labels (in this case Liberal) just because they are tainted. The Left managed to take them over even when they were rightfully "tainted" by their true opposite meaning.

600 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:31:56pm
To me, the only thing of value is time. So when Marx saw humans exchanging labor-hours for money, he was focusing on the wrong half of the phrase: it's not the "labor" that you're exchanging for the money, but rather the "hours."

well, that is a bit simplistic. There are jobs I'd do for less money than others.

601 JohnnyReb  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:33:13pm

re: #598 DoesNotMatter

It's ironic then, that they tried to exactly do that.
Hitler just promised his admirals that he would not start shit with britain (The US did not figure much in strategic planning either by Admirality or Hitler*) till 1945 at the earliest.

*When Britain refused peace offers after Dunkirk, Hitler thought that Stalin was responsible for giving Churchill strenght, not Roosevelt. Another, tiny, contribution, to his starting his eastern adventures.

Hitler knew deep down in his soul that the US would never ever get into another scrap in Europe. He was almost right until Pearl Harbor. If not for that little Japanese mess up, the US would have sat the war in Europe out.

602 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:34:09pm

re: #596 The_Vig

Nope.

603 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:35:03pm

re: #602 Tom Kratman

Does it matter how many did or did not want to join Germany, its not like they got a vote.

604 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:36:49pm

re: #600 nikis-knight

well, that is a bit simplistic. There are jobs I'd do for less money than others.

Of course. And some jobs require 12 years of training (doctors) whereas other you can learn to do in five minutes (ditch-digging). The value of time is malleable, to be sure, but it's still the only thing I can think of with any value at all. (Excluding human life itself, but that goes with saying. Each human life is of infinite value, so it's impossible to calculate.)

605 zombie  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:37:35pm

Well, I gotta stop commenting on this thread to get other stuff done! Thanks for the enlightening chat, everyone!

606 markie  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:38:13pm

In a simplistic way, Buchanan is correct about Danzig. The only problem is, the Russians negotiated and found out what that was really worth the hard way. Danzig was an excuse to invade and nothing more. European domination was the only goal on Hitler's mind, domination by his figmental Aryan race at the expense of all others.

607 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:38:35pm

re: #592 johnnyreb

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

As the Panzerfausts (models 30, 60, and 100) initial launching charge was a small amount of black powder contained within the launch tube itself, field reloading would have been similar to reloading a large musket and not something to be undertaken while dealing with waves of T-34's.

The PzF 150 was intended to be reloadable but didn't go into production until just two months before VE day.

SINGLE
RESOLUTE
MAN,
R

608 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:40:09pm

re: #595 Tom Kratman

Nope - their post-war aims in WWI was to carve France up even more than after 1870, deport thousands in forced labor and absorb Belgium.

Check it out:

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

I read this about 15 years ago and was pretty surprised by it. Of course, the author has been attacked but I do not think anyone has debunked the book's conclusions.

609 JohnnyReb  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:40:27pm

re: #607 Render

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

As the Panzerfausts (models 30, 60, and 100) initial launching charge was a small amount of black powder contained within the launch tube itself, field reloading would have been similar to reloading a large musket and not something to be undertaken while dealing with waves of T-34's.

The PzF 150 was intended to be reloadable but didn't go into production until just two months before VE day.

SINGLE
RESOLUTE
MAN,
R

I agree, but it was reloadable, barring the wave of 200 T34/85's zooming in on you.

610 JohnnyReb  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:41:46pm

re: #607 Render


Oh and they were shipped with reload kits, but most units simply dumped them and got their hands on more of the panzerfausts.

611 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:41:53pm

re: #515 wolfie


The notion that popular evolutionary philosophy influenced Hitler is not in dispute by any historian this side of psychosis.

Then what are the crazy Jews at the ADL complaining about?


The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Are they psychotic To complain about this "mainstream" theory of yours? If it's so common and accepted then why would they be offended?

612 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:42:05pm

re: #603 The_Vig

Does it matter how many did or did not want to join Germany, its not like they got a vote.

Is a vote the only way to measure something?

I recall that there were some plebescites for some of Hitler's more or less peaceable acquisitions. The question remaining is 'were they fairly conducted,' a problematic issue whenever totalitarians are in charge. Even so, it would take a certain leap of faith to assume that, say, Germans in the Sudetenland or Danzig generally preferred discrimination (of which there was some) under Czech or Polish rule. Some might have; Poland was, after all, not precisely a liberal democracy but still better than Nazi Germany. A majority? More than a small minority? One is inclined to doubt.

613 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:45:07pm

re: #604 zombie

Of course. And some jobs require 12 years of training (doctors) whereas other you can learn to do in five minutes (ditch-digging). The value of time is malleable, to be sure, but it's still the only thing I can think of with any value at all. (Excluding human life itself, but that goes with saying. Each human life is of infinite value, so it's impossible to calculate.)

I think you are over or under thinking. Food, homes, comfort, all have value and always will (until consumed, if applicable). Of course, the value people asign to each of these in their various forms varies greatly, which is why central planning doesn't work.
But then, the value people put on their time varies just as much. Some people kill it, some save it. Actually, everyone does both at different times, so I'd say the value of time isn't fixed, even for the same person.

614 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:45:53pm

re: #608 calcajun

Yeah...I'm skeptical. Check out The German Wars by one D. J. Goodspeed, a retired (almost certainly dead by now) Canadian military officer, for an opposing view.

615 DoesNotMatter  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:47:25pm

re: #601 JohnnyReb

No, the US was quite simply a non-factor in his mind.
With Britain he wanted to avoid a war at nearly all costs (and was most distressed when Chrchill refused to be cowed). The US on the other hand, intelectually he was probably aware that he should not poke that bear. But in his heart he had US under "Also Competing, pay no heed, from lands afar and wondrous: The US"

What he thought was "I'm competing with Britain in the Olympics. The US start in the Paralympics and my buddy Hirohito will beat them up"

616 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:47:41pm

re: #612 Tom Kratman

I am sorry, I forgot to take into account their pure German bloodlines. Of course they would all want to be under the rule of their own people. How about the non Germans that live there and will now be subjected to German rule? In a couple of years Poland can start another war to liberate those people. It never ends.

617 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:48:01pm

re: #611 Killgore Trout

Because, as he said, it's reductionist.
And the ADL tends to complain pretty quick about some things. Dennis Prager, a thoughtful Jew, agreed that there was merit to Ben Steins point about the Holocaust, although how much I can't say.

618 Norm Chumpsky  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:48:06pm

#481

619 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:48:25pm

re: #606 markie

In a simplistic way, Buchanan is correct about Danzig. The only problem is, the Russians negotiated and found out what that was really worth the hard way. Danzig was an excuse to invade and nothing more. European domination was the only goal on Hitler's mind, domination by his figmental Aryan race at the expense of all others.

I think that's fundamentally correct and it adds a point we've not touched on here, yet. Sometimes your enemy can appear to be morally and legally in the right, and you still must fight him because appearances are not the sum total of reality.

620 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:48:32pm

re: #597 zombie

Well, that's arguable. Gold has no "inherent value" any more than dirt or sand. It's just a naturally-occurring element -- it only has "worth" because we humans say it does. To a monkey or a fish, gold is completely worthless. A chimpanzee would happily exchange a 50-pound ingot of gold for one rotten banana. Yes, gold is comparatively rare, and it has industrial uses, but a lot of things are rare and a lot of things have industrial uses -- why not use them as the basis for our currency?

Say you lived in a stable economy in which an average job pad $10 per hour worked. In that system, every $10 you have gets you one hour's worth of free time, basically. If you found $80 lying on the sidewalk, you could skip an 8-hour workday and go to the beach instead. Find a million dollars, and you can retire for life -- because the money buys you enough free time to never have to spend an hour working again.

Problem is, you can't fill Fort Knox with time ingots.

Gold is an objective store of value, not intrinsic. It obviously has no other value than the one humans assign to it, but it is a commodity of certain verifiable/standardizable physical qualities.

No one says Gold SHOULD be the standard, platinum very well could be, or silver, or some other relatively rare and universally-considered as valuable commodity. No one decreed Gold as the standard, it had become the standard be default throughout centuries as a material that humans have found to be precious in various time periods.

Good standards don't need government decree to be established. Think for example of the US dollar. It is the vehicle currency across the world, although there is no World Government last time I checked making it such.

Most people prefer the dollar because of the virtues and size of the US economy, and because of an implicit assumption that everyone else will be negotiated with in dollars.

A currency/commodity would gain a standard status in an open free economy due to scale-free network effects (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer; I have linked to two different articles above).

The existence of one or two common standards does not preclude individuals or economies from diversifying their assets' holdings in other commodities anyway. Thing is, there shouldn't even be a standard, Gold or otherwise, the economy decides by itself (my bet is, supported by millennia of history, that humanity would settle for Gold).

Any advantage in government involvement in the establishment/maintenance of a God/Silver/Platinum/whatever standard is that the government could control and standardize the purity of gold coins in circulation, and be accountable to the populace so smart-asses don't corrupt/counterfeit gold coins. Historically though, in the kingdoms of Europe it's been the government to actually corrupt the purity of coins for seiniorage sake.

As for time, I agree philosophically: it's the most intrinsically valuable thing, but it's not a commodity, and it's not objective. Time is not standardizable, it's deffinitely perishable, and it's not practically divisible in any interval (9 to 5 jobs and such). Plus you can't get a quotable price for it, because someone's time is more expensive than others' (opportunity cost of time, everyone has different wages, different value they assign to time, different money they'd be willing to pay to save time).

Indians' time and the time of the Chinese is also usually much cheaper than Americans' time. Whereas Gold has the same commodity price everywhere. We need a commodity, that's why time has much going against it.

621 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:49:24pm

re: #615 DoesNotMatter

Hitler also thought that America would in the long run support him. At that time there was a large German American movement in the states. Hitler wanted them to keep quiet and keep out of the war.

622 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:49:36pm

re: #617 nikis-knight

And the ADL tends to complain pretty quick about some things.


Yes, historical revisionism of the Holocaust tends to upset some people.

623 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:52:39pm

re: #616 The_Vig

I am sorry, I forgot to take into account their pure German bloodlines. Of course they would all want to be under the rule of their own people. How about the non Germans that live there and will now be subjected to German rule? In a couple of years Poland can start another war to liberate those people. It never ends.

In other words, you really haven't an argumentative leg to stand on.

Query: should the 95% of Danzig's population that was German have been forced to remain under Polish rule for the benefit of the 5% that was Polish?

Who ever said it would end? (Though the idea of Poland starting a war with Nazi Germany is...beyond laughable.)

624 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:53:17pm

Somewhat off the beaten track...

[Link: www.ssd-weapon.com...]

STILL
AVAILABLE,
R

625 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:55:42pm

re: #604 zombie

Of course. And some jobs require 12 years of training (doctors) whereas other you can learn to do in five minutes (ditch-digging). The value of time is malleable, to be sure, but it's still the only thing I can think of with any value at all. (Excluding human life itself, but that goes with saying. Each human life is of infinite value, so it's impossible to calculate.)

I think you may be confusing (or using interchangeably) the notion of objective value vs that of intrinsic value.

Human life is of the greatest intrinsic value, you may think, yet sociopaths and collectivist murderers would disagree. It is our own ethical core that dictates the value even of human life, but that ethical core is so essential to us that we often (and for good reason) take it for granted.

Have you by any chance read Ludwig Von Mises on his theory of value? it's fascinating stuff. It pretty much solves (I think, very successfully) the diamonds vs water paradox in Economics.

Anyway, for the purposes of a monetary standard, objective and intrinsic are not the same thing. Gold is not intrinsically valuable, cave men had no industrial purpose for it, it was worthless back then. Now it is valuable; if we were able to come up with technologies that produce gold out of thin air, it would become pretty cheap. Its value depends on the scale of usefulness it is to us in our societal/technological development, but that value is objective.

It depends on what a buyer/seller of gold thinks s/he can make out of a certain amount/purity of gold. And there is a rather fixed ratio of gold to basket of goods which would freely exchange in an open unregulated economy (such ratio would go down as the economy grows: deflation under the gold standard signals economic growth).

626 The_Vig  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:56:00pm

re: #623 Tom Kratman

What I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter if the people in Danzig wanted to be under German rule or not. It was Hitler's Excuse. Your just justifying it after the fact.

627 abolitionist  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:56:54pm

re: #517 centralvalleyguy

[snip]
To suggest that starting WW2 was England's and Poland's fault is beyond the pale. You're making a dishonest argument to try to make us believe Hitler was backed into a corner and had to invade? Where is your reasoning, sir?
[snip]

I too was tempted to say Pat Buchanan's statements are beyond the pale, but that would be wrong. I shall not be using that phrase much, now that I understand it's origin.

The Pale of Settlement - by Alden Oreck

The Pale of Settlement - Crash Course in Jewish History #56 - by Rabbi Ken Spiro

Pale of Settlement (Wikipedia)

628 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:57:12pm

re: #624 Render

Somewhat off the beaten track...

[Link: www.ssd-weapon.com...]

STILL
AVAILABLE,
R

You _bastard_! Now that's half a dozen _more_ guns I'm going to have to buy! ;)

Query: I've seen some of those offered for sale but (surprisingly) in Canada, not the US.. Are those available in the US?

629 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:57:50pm

re: #610 JohnnyReb

Could you direct me to a link or book showing these reload kits for the PzF 30/60/100 models?

NEWS,
R

630 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:59:20pm

re: #626 The_Vig

What I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter if the people in Danzig wanted to be under German rule or not. It was Hitler's Excuse. Your just justifying it after the fact.

No, I'm laying out the legal and moral case for it, which was strong. The tougher, but necessary part, is to know that despite any legal and moral case, it was still necessary to go to war with Hitler over it. As I said to someone, above, sometimes your enemy can have the elegal and moral case and you must still fight him.

631 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 2:59:34pm

re: #628 Tom Kratman

It's my understanding that those can be ordered through any reputable US firearms dealer.

If you get the FG-42, can I test fire it?

PRETTY
PLEASE?,
R

632 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:00:07pm

re: #622 Killgore Trout

Yes, historical revisionism of the Holocaust tends to upset some people.


You are kind of equating Stein with Achmadinajad (don't care if spelled right) and like nutjobs.
Is Stein arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen or didn't uniquely affect Jews?
No.
He is arguing a position about the cause, which as Zombie implicitly agreed, has numerous influences. Discussing what motivated Hitler is a tender subject, but not the sort of "historical revisionism of the Holocaust" that should upset people.

633 winston06  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:00:08pm

I always thought this anti-semite Buchanan was a member of nazi party or something. He is among a few right wingers that defame the "Conservatism". I never liked the likes of him!

634 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:00:21pm

re: #614 Tom Kratman

As I said, the book has been a little controversial since it was published. Many have rebutted its premise, but it has not been really refuted. If you look at the terms of Brest Litovsk, you can see where the central premise has some validity.

635 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:00:59pm

re: #628 Tom Kratman

sry for the double reply...

[Link: www.ssd-weapon.com...]

Scroll to the bottom of the page.

HOMELAND
SECURITY,
R

636 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:01:23pm

re: #632 nikis-knight

Again, the point has been made; Stein is committing reduction, not revision. The two are not the same.

637 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:01:42pm

re: #625 medaura18586

I think you are mixing up objective and subjective in the last two posts.

638 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:02:18pm

re: #632 nikis-knight

Yes, I agree with the ADL...

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
639 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:04:07pm

re: #636 calcajun

Again, the point has been made; Stein is committing reduction, not revision. The two are not the same.

sounds remarkably similar to what I said in the post kilgore was replying to, #617

640 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:04:36pm

re: #634 calcajun

As I said, the book has been a little controversial since it was published. Many have rebutted its premise, but it has not been really refuted. If you look at the terms of Brest Litovsk, you can see where the central premise has some validity.

Sure, but, again, that was something that arose as war aims after the start of hostilities and after the sheer lunacy brought on by the war had flowered in full. It's a very different thing.

One of these days, I might do an alternate history (my publisher doesn't like AH's though) wherein 1914 Germany stands pat in the west and fights an aggressive campaign initially in the east. Oh, and where France dusts off the plans they had to invade Belgium (up until mmm...late 1913, IIRC) and does so.

641 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:05:55pm

re: #629 Render

You might try here Render;
Aberdeen Bookstore

Scroll down a bit and you'll see books on the panzerfaust. They also carry a huge selection of books on the Eastern Front.

642 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:07:10pm

re: #635 Render

sry for the double reply...

[Link: www.ssd-weapon.com...]

Scroll to the bottom of the page.

HOMELAND
SECURITY,
R

They're not far....hmmmm...

643 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:07:52pm

re: #631 Render

It's my understanding that those can be ordered through any reputable US firearms dealer.

If you get the FG-42, can I test fire it?

PRETTY
PLEASE?,
R

Sure. Be a while.

644 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:09:11pm

re: #637 nikis-knight

I think you are mixing up objective and subjective in the last two posts.

Well I am trying to clear up the distinction between intrinsic and objective, but then subjective would have to come in the midst.

I categorically reject the notion of intrinsic value. I believe in only subjective value, but this last can be of a kind that is objectively supported by reality or the kind that it isn't. Human life is the measure and denominator and source of all morality and of value. Anything we value that doesn't support/enhance our life, is stupid and cannot circulate much in the long run.

Someone may be a necrophiliac or an incestuous freak, or a "cutter". Someone may value death and kill oneself. Exactly, subjective values that run counter to the objective mechanisms that allow for human flourishing tend to kill the person holding such values, and thus eliminate these values from circulation.

Gold is just a metal, it is valuable for subjective reasons based on the workings of objective reality. It's the objective characteristics of gold that make it useful in certain industrial applications. Those industrial applications make our life easier, and it is most people's value to have a good life, which makes gold valuable by induction.

I love theory of value...

645 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:10:16pm

re: #638 Killgore Trout

By 'yes' you mean you agree that Stein is essentially the same as Achmadinajad? hmm.. okay... I don't think that that was what the ADL said in the quote you gave, which I'd also agree with, as written. Not that I know if it is applyed correctly, I haven't seen the movie. It does sound like Stein may have been implying some relationship by the juxtaposition, but it is also possible that he was making two seperate points in one movie a) that the ideas of Darwins theory are dangerous, and b) that scientists that disagree with Darwin are ostracized.
I would say a is potentially true, and I have no comment about b. But making the two points back to back is not necessarily trying to tie modern day evolutionary biologists as nazis; it may be (depending on the tone, and it sounds likely) minimizing other important causes, though.

646 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:12:42pm

re: #630 Tom Kratman

You haven't answered any of the questions that posters such as EE have posed. And, now you're claiming that moral and legal principles be damned -- if some nation state figures "we're a-goin' to war -- so be it! Amen!" that's perfectly ok? "despite any legal and moral case, it was still necessary to go to war" as I laugh. so it's to hell with rationality? Is that it?

You know, the whole agenda of "Let's Pretend that ol' Adolf wasn't a racist! Ja! and he was just about liberatin' the Sudetenland" is revisionist bulls--t. You can't examine history with a "What if X instead of Y had taken place.." and then speculate.That's acceptable (perhaps) for novelists. But it's not history -- it's to adopt an ahistorical approach... As the authors of "The Genius of America" write: "..we do not get to re-run history. All we have is the testimony of the participants themselves." that's the reality of what took place -- not "what ifs".

647 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:15:21pm

re: #645 nikis-knight

Well I think that if you pay attention to what Stein actually said, it becomes pretty clear what he meant:

Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.

Crouch: That’s right.

Stein: ...Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch: Good word, good word.

On the one hand he is the champion of unorthodox "scientists" who are allegedly ostracized for supporting ID, on the other hand he labels all scientists are killers.

Sounds to me like he has a beef with science per se, and those "scientists" he comes in the defense of are not scientists at all, not even according to Stein's own understanding.

648 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:17:12pm

re: #644 medaura18586

Someone may be a necrophiliac or an incestuous freak, or a "cutter". Someone may value death and kill oneself. Exactly, subjective values that run counter to the objective mechanisms that allow for human flourishing tend to kill the person holding such values, and thus eliminate these values from circulation.

Hmm, that'd be nice, but it seems that evil [or very poor value systems re: stable human societies] never really dies, just lies dormant for awhile.

649 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:18:31pm

re: #641 JHW

:)

Aberdeen isn't very far from me. I've managed to buy at least one book every time I've been there, to support the museum.

I have Book #22 on that list, GERMAN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS: PANZERBUCSHE, PANZERFAUST AND PANZERSCHRECK sitting on the shelf two feet above my monitor. No reload kits for the PzF 30, 60, and 100 models.

As a technicality, the M72 LAWS is also reloadable, but not in the field, while under fire.

BLUNDERBUSS,
R

650 Arthur McGowan  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:19:41pm

I am reminded of Bill Buckley's comment, referring to the impossibility of qualifying ANY positive remark about Hitler, no matter how glancing or minimal, after Buchanan had written that Hitler had "courage" (having served honorably in WWI). "The only way anyone in public life should use the word 'Hitler' is in the sentence 'I hate Adolf Hitler.'"

651 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:22:04pm

re: #640 Tom Kratman

An AH of Germany winning WWI and there being something of a Cold War with the British Empire and the US over oil...and the Ottomans still being a force in the Middle East sounds intriguing. Hell, Sidney Reilly and Basil Zaharov could be characters in that story.

652 wanumba  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:22:16pm

Always was under the impression that negotiating was a simple war tactic to keep Hitler's intended targets busy until he was ready to invade them. Therefore, whether one agreed or not, the result would be the same, invasion and conquest.

The revisionist explanations are not really accurate analysis of the times, but rhetorical devices to argue about current events in the trendy Leftie mindset of "dialogue."

What's this nonsense about Buchanan being a "conservative?" He's giving Hitler a Nationalist SOCIALIST, ie Hard Left, the benefit of the doubt. Huh?
Look to families to understand the essence of conservative. They have children to raise and protect. They want peace, food and shelter. Next, they want their children to learn good behavior and have good examples to emulate around them of people with virtues - selfless, hard-working, generous. Because they could lose the weakest members of society, dependent children, infants, toddlers, adolescents, families are wary of unknowns, and they are skeptical of change until they perceive a real and tangible improvement.
Hitler shattered and crushed families of all nationalities and religions across two continents, the backbone of society. He was the anti-conservative.

653 JHW  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:23:05pm

re: #649 Render

I think the store in the link I gave is in Colorado IIRC, they just use the Aberdeen name as a business moniker.

654 right_on_target  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:23:09pm

re: #175 Vergeltung

After WWI the Germans in the former German lands that became Poland were given the opportunity to stay in Poland IF they swore allegiance to Poland (or become citizens). Many nations up to then had done the same, like the "Le Grand Dérangement" (Acadian expulsion from Nova Scotia). Most didn't want to give up their German citizenship so they emigrated from Poland.
That left a small percentage of Germans in the former German territories. The NAZIs used all kinds of excuses, real and fabricated, to stir up crap between the Poles and those Germans.

655 Independent Voter123  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:23:16pm

I cannot stand Buchanan's ideas!

656 dak  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:23:17pm

Let's say we buy that.

Then why did the Soviets invade from the other side?

657 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:24:47pm

re: #640 Tom Kratman

BTW, Fisher's premise was that Germany had an expansionist outlook from the start and was spoiling for a fight. The point which has drawn a lot of fire is that the war was Germany's fault alone--with which I disagree for reasons stated earlier.

658 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:26:10pm

re: #656 dak

Because they could. It was a secret protocol of the August 39 Non-Aggression pact. Remember, Russia owned Poland before WWI amd they wanted it back.

659 nikis-knight  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:27:27pm

re: #647 medaura18586

I saw that thread, and commented on the absurdity of it there.

I tend to argue narrow points, and try to press only what I know as clearly as possible. Stein may be bad, wrong, dangerous. I'm not arguing that. But there are degrees of good and bad.
He isn't conspiring with Pat Buchannon, he isn't justifying Hitler, he isn't trying to wipe out all Jews or Israel. He is using the Holocaust to illustrate a point, which is crass, though not illogical if you grant his premises.
Nor is it absurd to suggest that applying "there is a constant struggle and only the fit survive" to human affairs is more dangerous than "love your neighbor as yourself". But this isn't science, and it isn't right to say we should not find out how the world works, including evolution.
What Stein should have said, as Dennis Prager, again, says, "Don't get your morality from nature. Nature is ammoral."

660 dak  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:28:35pm

#650

"The only way anyone in public life should use the word 'Hitler' is in the sentence 'I hate Adolf Hitler.'"

No, there is another sentence that absolutely should be used as often as possible when talking about Hitler:

"Remember, Hitler was a Socialist, and he now stands in good company with other Socialists".

661 Slumbering Behemoth  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:29:28pm

re: #421 zombie

That's one of my core principles: I have my beliefs, yet I don't force them on other people. And conversely, I don't want them to force their beliefs on me!

Would that everyone shared such a philosophy this country, the entire world, would be a better place.

662 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:31:02pm

re: #646 J.S.

You haven't answered any of the questions that posters such as EE have posed. And, now you're claiming that moral and legal principles be damned -- if some nation state figures "we're a-goin' to war -- so be it! Amen!" that's perfectly ok? "despite any legal and moral case, it was still necessary to go to war" as I laugh. so it's to hell with rationality? Is that it?

You know, the whole agenda of "Let's Pretend that ol' Adolf wasn't a racist! Ja! and he was just about liberatin' the Sudetenland" is revisionist bulls--t. You can't examine history with a "What if X instead of Y had taken place.." and then speculate.That's acceptable (perhaps) for novelists. But it's not history -- it's to adopt an ahistorical approach... As the authors of "The Genius of America" write: "..we do not get to re-run history. All we have is the testimony of the participants themselves." that's the reality of what took place -- not "what ifs".

It's not clear to me that EE had any real questions to answer. He had a soapbox he wanted to stand on and some bad analogies he wanted to make. But real questions? As opposed to rhetorical soapbox stomping? I saw none. I think what he and you may want is someone to assure you that the world is both logical and nice, and would always be so if only people _wouldn't_ ask the hard questions and _wouldn't_ do any thoughtful analysis.

Moreover, when someone spouts bullshit it strikes me as fair to spout right back: "All wars should be refought" v. "are you saying no wars should be refought?"

The simple truth is that we live in an anarchic world of sovereign states, able to do as they please and as they have the power for, bounded only by counter power and whatever sense of self-restraint they may feel. Moreover, we live in a world where there not only is no legitimate supranational authority to control such things, but where those who purport to be that authority are unutterably corrupt and completely untrustworthy to exercise any such authority. Live with it; it's not going to get better. It's probably going to get a lot worse as the nation state continues to break down.

By the way, I write and speak with pretty fair precision. You can claim, if that's what you're claiming, that I said "Ol' Adolf wasn't a racist" the day I write "Ol Adolf wasn't a racist." Since that day will never happen...(I will say he was even more cynical and dishonest on the subject than most suspect. See: Rathenau's Conversations with Hitler.)

663 dak  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:31:32pm

#658

Yes, I know, that's the point.

The Soviets alway bust our balls how much the "Great Patriotic war" cost them. And lefties always blame the start of WW2 on Germany.

Well, the Germans & the Soviets started WW2. Let's not forget that.

And in the end, they both got what they deserved. Sad about Poland though.

664 Mardukhai  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:33:11pm

re: #376 itsspideyman

"Salonika". Where was it located? Just so there will be one more person who will not forget it.

Salonika was the "second city of the Byzantine Empire," at the northern edge of the Aegean sea. It was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and depopulated. Soon, the Turks found that there was no one to do the work. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, the Sultan decided that the Spanish were nuts and decided to encourage Spanish Jews to rebuild Salonika.

They did, and it became a largely Sephardic city, everyone else -- Greek, Turk, and Bulgarian -- understood this and took Saturday, Shabbat, as a day off. The daily papers were in Ladino, the Jewish-Spanish language.

This, of course, infuriated Greek nationalists, and when they conquered the city in 1912, they determined to Hellenize it.

The city was largely burned to the ground in 1916 in a fire of suspicious origins (probably set by the greatest Greek national hero, Prime Minister Venizelos) and rebuilt as a Greek city, "Thessaloniki," now the second city of Greece.

Half the Jews were deported, the rest were killed by the Germans -- the Greeks stole the survivors' property, including a vast cemetery, now the site of the "Aristotilian University of Thessaloniki."

The Jews are forgotten, and their memory erased. A few symbols remain, such as the Monastirli Synagogue (founded by Jews from Monastir, a city the Serbs wiped from history).

Frankly, I'm not too fond of Greek nationalists.

665 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:33:19pm

re: #651 calcajun

An AH of Germany winning WWI and there being something of a Cold War with the British Empire and the US over oil...and the Ottomans still being a force in the Middle East sounds intriguing. Hell, Sidney Reilly and Basil Zaharov could be characters in that story.

I agree it could be fun. Now try to convince my publisher.

666 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:34:56pm

re: #657 calcajun

BTW, Fisher's premise was that Germany had an expansionist outlook from the start and was spoiling for a fight. The point which has drawn a lot of fire is that the war was Germany's fault alone--with which I disagree for reasons stated earlier.

Goodspeed pretty much refutes that Germany was particularly expansionist, except mostly unofficially and more prestige than power driven, or that she wanted a war. He blames France and Serbia for the most part.

667 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:35:26pm

re: #665 Tom Kratman

If I come up with an outline, I'll shoot it to you.

668 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:36:45pm

re: #649 Render

:)

Aberdeen isn't very far from me. I've managed to buy at least one book every time I've been there, to support the museum.

I have Book #22 on that list, GERMAN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS: PANZERBUCSHE, PANZERFAUST AND PANZERSCHRECK sitting on the shelf two feet above my monitor. No reload kits for the PzF 30, 60, and 100 models.

As a technicality, the M72 LAWS is also reloadable, but not in the field, while under fire.

BLUNDERBUSS,
R

I would be surprised if a single one that hadn't been modified for the sub-caliber training round has ever been reloaded.

669 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:40:16pm

re: #656 dak

Let's say we buy that.

Then why did the Soviets invade from the other side?

Poland itself had grabbed a huge chunk from the USSR, corresponding roughly to what the Russians grabbed back in 1939.

670 medaura18586  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:41:21pm

re: #659 nikis-knight

Agreed.

671 Quintus_Arius  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:41:41pm

Buchanan, you are wrong. You forgot Hitler's inaugural speech, "Today Germany, tomorrow the world!" Poland wouldn't negotiate? Huh? Stalin did and look what it got him. Pat you really are a Nazi apologist.

672 right_on_target  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:43:57pm

re: #196 calcajun

"One thing people in the west lose sight of; Hitler was true to his vision in Mein Kampf. All you had to do was read it and you knew his world view and you could anticipate what he would do. Our generation has a similar bit of intelligence--and like our ancestors from the 1930's, no one seems to take it seriously. It's called the Koran."

NAZISM is a religion with Mein Kampf as its Koran.

Why didn't I say Bible in the above? Read them both and feel the hatred hitting you in the face. IMO, the Koran translated into German should be Meine Kämpfe

In short:
Mein Kampf = Meine Kämpfe

673 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:44:54pm

re: #667 calcajun

If I come up with an outline, I'll shoot it to you.

I've already got a pretty good idea of how it goes, beginning with two German officers spying on Liege, pre-1914, and coming to a conclusion opposite the one they did, followed by a re-evaluation of the Schlieffen Plan on logistic grounds and a change in emphasis from west to east. The problem therein is that people, and perhaps especially Germans, tend toward a great deal of wishful thinking when it comes to how long a war will take. This goes back at least to the Peloponnesian war and continues unabated to our day. It is possible that they simply _couldn't_ make themselves plan for a long war.

674 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:49:47pm

re: #669 Tom Kratman

Poland itself had grabbed a huge chunk from the USSR,

Huh? There was no Polish state before 1918. Poland as we know it came into being after Versailles and was made up of parts of Imperial Germany and Russia. I guess in that sense, the Poles did get part of the USSR, but it was given to them by the Allied Powers.

675 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 3:56:30pm

re: #673 Tom Kratman

It's a bit like one of Turtledove's--where the Union finds Lee's battle plans before Antietam and disregards it and the CSA wins. Then fast forward a few (about 20) years to a world that has some familiar elements but is becoming unrecognizable

676 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:01:57pm

re: #674 calcajun

Huh? There was no Polish state before 1918. Poland as we know it came into being after Versailles and was made up of parts of Imperial Germany and Russia. I guess in that sense, the Poles did get part of the USSR, but it was given to them by the Allied Powers.

They fought a not particularly minor war with the Soviets in...(insert Jeopardy theme here)...1919-1921. Wiki Polish-Soviet War.

677 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:03:21pm

re: #675 calcajun

It's a bit like one of Turtledove's--where the Union finds Lee's battle plans before Antietam and disregards it and the CSA wins. Then fast forward a few (about 20) years to a world that has some familiar elements but is becoming unrecognizable

Yes, but I'm a perverse bastard and just might have Wilhelmine Germany do everything right and still lose. I won't know until I finish writing.

678 right_on_target  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:04:28pm

re: #669 Tom Kratman

Poland defended itself in 1920 to KEEP its territories from being overrun by the SOVIETS (communism) If it weren't for the Poles in 1920 where General Józef Pi%u0142sudski stopped the Soviet army, ALL of Europe could have been included in the USSR

679 Render  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:06:16pm

re: #674 calcajun

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

WW1 never really ended. It just changed fronts.

PILSUDSKI,
R

680 Athos  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:06:34pm

re: #674 calcajun

The Polish state was reformed after the Treaty of Versailles which in effect reversed the dismemberment of Poland in the late 18th century.

Poland and the Soviet Union fought a war in 1919-21 regarding disputed territory where the Soviet's requested peace after losing the decisive battle of Warsaw. This peace, signed at Riga, set the border until WW2. After WW2, the USSR gained all of the territory they sought in 1919-21.

681 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:08:26pm

re: #671 Quintus_Arius

Buchanan, you are wrong. You forgot Hitler's inaugural speech, "Today Germany, tomorrow the world!" Poland wouldn't negotiate? Huh? Stalin did and look what it got him. Pat you really are a Nazi apologist.

Just for historical completeness' sake, it got Stalin quite a bit: A free hand with the Baltics, Petsamo (after a war), the return of the western Ukraine, and another two years to prepare for war with Germany at the western Allies expense. If it wasn't perfect for Stalin, it was far from a bad deal.

His mistake, of course, was in believing Hitler would stay bought a little longer than turned out to be the case.

682 calcajun  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:08:29pm

re: #676 Tom Kratman

I am a victim (gad...I did NOT say that) of the western mind-set. All the wars of that era tend to get lumped into the Russian Civil War. Helps to keep things neater, I suppose.

683 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:10:07pm

re: #678 right_on_target

Poland defended itself in 1920 to KEEP its territories from being overrun by the SOVIETS (communism) If it weren't for the Poles in 1920 where General Józef Pi%u0142sudski stopped the Soviet army, ALL of Europe could have been included in the USSR

Might have been. Doesn't change that they gained quite a lot of the western Ukraine out of it.

684 WOHBuckeye  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:14:01pm

re: #160 zombie

This is why I resist the label "conservative." I am the polar opposite of Pat Buchanan, and yet he and I (and all of us) are lumped together in the same political category. Whether we like it or not.

Charles is doing a brilliant job of distancing himself (and us his readers) from the Pat Buchanans and the Ben Steins and the Filip DeWinters and the David Dukes and the Ron Pauls -- but the problem is there's still no name for what our political orientation actually is. I'm tired of using "neo-con." And "anti-idiotarian" just hasn't caught on in the mainstream.

What are we?

Classical liberals.

685 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:30:43pm

re: #662 Tom Kratman

In your post (number 521) you proposed a "What if" scenario. The scenario suggested that if the United States lost a world war, then had foreign nations (the winners) dividing up the States, wouldn't Americans seek to have those lost states returned and fight/go to war for their return? That was your "What if" -- a rhetorical maneuver so that readers would then become sympathetic to "the plight" of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. Thus going from an imaginary, ficititious scenario to an actual historical event (and suggesting that the two are somehow analogous.) (I recall once having a "prof" -- a Harvard grad -- engage in a similar rhetorical maneuver -- it was to get the class to agree that eugenics and sperm banks were wonderful and accpetable -- he began with an imaginary "what if" scenario, then came the conclusion -- the "Ta Da!" -- or "Horray for Eugenics!" -- but, that's all quite a different matter and a different argument...it's just that I do make these associations...) Anywho, anyone can play "What if" games. But, again, it's not "hsitory." It's a "What if" game. Here's a column written by Robert Fulford which in part reads: "In her major book, 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, published three years ago, she [Margaret MacMillan] unpacked, dissected and pretty well discarded one of the central beliefs of modern geopolitics: The Treaty of Versailles so badly swindled the Germans that it drove them to despair, Hitler, war, even the death camps. Until MacMillan came on the scene, it was widely accepted (though there were some doubters) that the most ambitious peace conference of modern times pointed Europe straight toward war" (from Robert Fulford's "Rewriting history (literally)", published 2005, National Post.) And, if you're not fighting wars based on moral or legal grounds, then on what grounds should wars be fought?

686 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 4:59:07pm

re: #685 J.S.

In your post (number 521) you proposed a "What if" scenario. The scenario suggested that if the United States lost a world war, then had foreign nations (the winners) dividing up the States, wouldn't Americans seek to have those lost states returned and fight/go to war for their return? That was your "What if" -- a rhetorical maneuver so that readers would then become sympathetic to "the plight" of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. Thus going from an imaginary, ficititious scenario to an actual historical event (and suggesting that the two are somehow analogous.) (I recall once having a "prof" -- a Harvard grad -- engage in a similar rhetorical maneuver -- it was to get the class to agree that eugenics and sperm banks were wonderful and accpetable -- he began with an imaginary "what if" scenario, then came the conclusion -- the "Ta Da!" -- or "Horray for Eugenics!" -- but, that's all quite a different matter and a different argument...it's just that I do make these associations...) Anywho, anyone can play "What if" games. But, again, it's not "hsitory." It's a "What if" game. Here's a column written by Robert Fulford which in part reads: "In her major book, 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, published three years ago, she [Margaret MacMillan] unpacked, dissected and pretty well discarded one of the central beliefs of modern geopolitics: The Treaty of Versailles so badly swindled the Germans that it drove them to despair, Hitler, war, even the death camps. Until MacMillan came on the scene, it was widely accepted (though there were some doubters) that the most ambitious peace conference of modern times pointed Europe straight toward war" (from Robert Fulford's "Rewriting history (literally)", published 2005, National Post.) And, if you're not fighting wars based on moral or legal grounds, then on what grounds should wars be fought?

Again, you are joining the ranks of unlicensed mindreaders. Sympathy is not my concern, for the Germans or for much of anyone else. It was claimed there were no ethical, moral, or legal grounds to attack Poland. This I think I refuted. Sympathy is for those moved by it which, when discussing geopolitics, I generally do not allow myself to be.

Why should I prefer McMillan's thesis to that of Niall Ferguson?

687 wolfie  Wed, May 21, 2008 5:14:22pm

re: #611 Killgore Trout

Are they psychotic To complain about this "mainstream" theory of yours? If it's so common and accepted then why would they be offended?

I happen to agree with the ADL's statement. It is almost identical to my own criticism of Ben Stein's opinions.

I am sorry if you cannot read my English.

The mainstream, accepted view, which can be easily documented, is not "my" theory. If you want to pretend that pop evolutionary theories, such as those of Gobineau and Houston Chamberlain, played no part whatsoever in the development of Nazi ideology, fine. You may also pretend that the French Revolution influenced the American Revolution, if you like. Whatever makes your life easier.

688 Ceemack  Wed, May 21, 2008 5:22:02pm

re: #11 Maine's Michael

So Polish stubborness was to blame for WW2 and the Holocaust. You learn something new every day!


Polish stubbornness is to blame for WWII, and Jewish stubbornness is to blame for all the ills in the Middle East.

If only the Poles had given up huge sections of territory (you don't actually believe Hitler would have been satisfied just with Danzig, do you?), the world would have known nothing but pease in the 1940s.

And if the Jews would just have the decency to march into the Mediterranean, all would be quiet in the Middle East.

And if you believe a word of that, you're as crazy as Buchanan.

689 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 5:35:40pm

re: #688 Ceemack

Polish stubbornness is to blame for WWII, and Jewish stubbornness is to blame for all the ills in the Middle East.

If only the Poles had given up huge sections of territory (you don't actually believe Hitler would have been satisfied just with Danzig, do you?), the world would have known nothing but pease in the 1940s.

And if the Jews would just have the decency to march into the Mediterranean, all would be quiet in the Middle East.

And if you believe a word of that, you're as crazy as Buchanan.

And that leads to an interesting observation. See, Hitler had already demonstrated that he simply couldn't be trusted by his casting aside of Munich and occupying most of the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Poles would have had to have been fools to trust him or any agreement he might enter into after that, no matter that they, too, had taken a bite from the Czechs.

And that's really where Buchanan goes logically astray. Negotiations only make sense if one can have some faith in the good faith of the other side. There were _no_ grounds for faith in Hitler's good faith by the time of the Danzig crisis.

Any similarity to negotiations with either North Korea or Iran are not coincidental.

690 Ceemack  Wed, May 21, 2008 5:36:22pm

re: #160 zombie
There are Paleocons, like Pat Buchanan and his ilk, whose conservatism consists of wanting to take us back to a much earlier time--a time when there wasn't an Israel, when those pesky Jews were kept in their place, and Hitler was making the trains run on time. "Reactionaries" is another good name.

There are the Neocons, who like low taxes and strong defense but can't imagine burdening anybody with personal responsibility. They've come to the party a little late, and like the hors d'ouvres and the drinks but don't really know what the occasion is.

In the middle are the Cognicons, the thinking conservatives, who are conservatives because they've thought things through very carefully and realize that conservativism--true conservatism, where government does only what it has to and individuals behave responsibly so that no man is a burden on another man, or on society--yields the best quality of life, and the best chance for lasting liberty and prosperity.

We've looked at history without blinders, so we know what works and what doesn't. We're at least as likely to have read Ayn Rand as we are to have read Karl Marx, so we know both sides of the collectivism coin--and which side is heads. We understand that the Constitution is there for everybody's protection, not just our own convenience.

691 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 5:59:31pm

re: #686 Tom Kratman

So you're suggesting that the nazis had "ethical, moral, or legal grounds to attack Poland." Is that what you are claiming? If so, how do your views differ from Pat Buchanan's? (just curious). And you didn't answer my other question -- the one about grounds for going to war. What do you think would be a justification for declaring war -- if not legal or moral? (On second thought -- maybe I really don't want to know -- these sorts of blog "discussions" just too frequently lead to multiple misunderstandings, nasty (perhaps unnecessary?) disagreements, silly attacks, etc.)

692 funkyfantom  Wed, May 21, 2008 6:15:07pm

Mr. Buchanan must be counting on massive general ignorance of history.

It would be hard to believe that Buchanan, one of Der Fuehrer's biggest fans, would be unaware of Hitler's many writings and speeches in which he laid out his plans for the 'Lebensraum' expansion of the Master Race to the East.

( Poland is to the east of Germany).

As an aside, Gauleiter Buchanan has spent much time and energy defending servants of the Reich, including German soldiers who slaughtered American POWs at the Battle of the Bulge, as well as numerous extermination camp guards.

693 kynna  Wed, May 21, 2008 6:50:32pm

re: #692 funkyfantom

Mr. Buchanan must be counting on massive general ignorance of history.

Yeah, Buch doesn't have to be too wily a gambler to bet on that one.

694 rorschach  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:03:37pm

Hitler negotiated for Danzig the same way he neg. for the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia...

...my way or and the highway.

695 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:10:20pm

re: #692 funkyfantom

I provided a Wiki link (comment number 559) above -- What the nazis intended for Eastern Europe (wiki article on Generalplan Ost)...("Ost" is German for East).

696 sbrowning  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:13:13pm
The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead...

Absolutely - since we know for sure Danzig was going to be the last of Hitlers' demands. Has this idiot ever cracked a book regarding WW2?

697 Alibaba  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:25:36pm

Is there no Nazi that Buchanan won't defend?re: #8 buzzsawmonkey

698 Alibaba  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:26:33pm

re: #692 funkyfantom
Pat is sad because his friend, Demjanjuk, lost his last appeal.

699 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:30:40pm

re: #691 J.S.

So you're suggesting that the nazis had "ethical, moral, or legal grounds to attack Poland." Is that what you are claiming? If so, how do your views differ from Pat Buchanan's? (just curious). And you didn't answer my other question -- the one about grounds for going to war. What do you think would be a justification for declaring war -- if not legal or moral? (On second thought -- maybe I really don't want to know -- these sorts of blog "discussions" just too frequently lead to multiple misunderstandings, nasty (perhaps unnecessary?) disagreements, silly attacks, etc.)

You've phrased your question in an interesting but, I think, not entirely legitimate way. Let me rephrase it this way, and in two parts: a) "Did _Germany_ have ethical, moral, and legal grounds for attacking Poland?" and b) "Did Germany lose this by falling under the sway of the Nazis?"

For the reasons I've given, yes, I think Germany, qua Germany, did have those grounds, Jus ad Bellum, without reference to their later nearly complete failings with regard to Jus in Bello. For b), I'll have to think about it. I can sense, dimly to be sure, grounds for arguments on both sides. I can also see some inherent dangers to the claim that having a given form of government necessarily robs a nation of the main attribute of nationhood, sovereignty.

As for Buchanan's argument, it strikes me as specious in many ways. For one thing, it forgets completely about Hitler's having squandered any expectation of good faith, such that there was no longer anything that could be negotiated with him, nor any reason to negotiate. It also neglects to note that, in an anarchic world system, right can exist for different reasons on _both_ sides. If Germany had the right to attack, surely Poland had just as much right to defend itself and its interests. (The short version of this is that absolute international "right" is largely a nonsense concept.)

If you don't really want to know, no reason for me to answer. I will invite your attention to Grotius for a discussion of laws of war.

700 EE  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:36:51pm

Photos show that Patrick Buchanan associates with the Eurofascists. So I am not absolutely shocked that he might share some of their good opinions about Hitler and the Nazis.

701 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:37:00pm

re: #692 funkyfantom

Mr. Buchanan must be counting on massive general ignorance of history.

It would be hard to believe that Buchanan, one of Der Fuehrer's biggest fans, would be unaware of Hitler's many writings and speeches in which he laid out his plans for the 'Lebensraum' expansion of the Master Race to the East.

( Poland is to the east of Germany).

As an aside, Gauleiter Buchanan has spent much time and energy defending servants of the Reich, including German soldiers who slaughtered American POWs at the Battle of the Bulge, as well as numerous extermination camp guards.

Just out of curiosity, have you a site for Buchanan defending the SS types at Malmedy? (I assume you mean Malmedy; that's the only large scale massacre of _ours_ I can think of.)

702 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:39:35pm

re: #700 EE

Photos show that Patrick Buchanan associates with the Eurofascists. So I am not absolutely shocked that he might share some of their good opinions about Hitler and the Nazis.

I actually _am_ shocked. But then I was a little shocked when, in an earlier thread, I was shown the evidence of _rampant_ Nazism in the Euro right.

703 EE  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:50:49pm

re: #702 Tom Kratman

I actually _am_ shocked. But then I was a little shocked when, in an earlier thread, I was shown the evidence of _rampant_ Nazism in the Euro right.

I am not -- repeat, NOT -- calling Patrick Buchanan a Nazi.

But I am not absolutely shocked that he feels obliged to play the role of an apologist for some things concerning Hitler and the Nazis. The fact that he associates with the Eurofascists is enough to remove the shock from what Pat Buchanan says in support of Hitler and the Nazis.

The Europeans have their Eurofascists, and we Americans have Pat Buchanan. And they confer. That there could be some points of agreement between them does not absolutely shock me.

704 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 7:59:53pm

re: #703 EE

I am not -- repeat, NOT -- calling Patrick Buchanan a Nazi.

But I am not absolutely shocked that he feels obliged to play the role of an apologist for some things concerning Hitler and the Nazis. The fact that he associates with the Eurofascists is enough to remove the shock from what Pat Buchanan says in support of Hitler and the Nazis.

The Europeans have their Eurofascists, and we Americans have Pat Buchanan. And they confer. That there could be some points of agreement between them does not absolutely shock me.

Some points of agreement, i suppose. A few days ago, when we were discussing Vlaams Belang, I looked at BNP and their platform. Most of it was fairly unobjectionable...and then you got to the "And the eastern Europeans can stay until we have no more use for them," parts.

Well...there were reasons why "Pat Buckman" was who he was and did what he did in my last book.

705 EE  Wed, May 21, 2008 8:01:07pm

re: #698 Alibaba

Pat is sad because his friend, Demjanjuk, lost his last appeal.

That is probably a true statement, because Pat Buchanan has played the role of advocate for Demjanjuk.

Pat's advocacy for Demjanjuk does not absolutely shock me either, by the way.

706 profitsbeard  Wed, May 21, 2008 8:42:59pm

Please Pat, support Obama!

Cranks of a feather roost together.

(There's probably even room in Rev. Wright's pulpit for one more loon.)

707 J.S.  Wed, May 21, 2008 8:49:38pm

re: #699 Tom Kratman

I don't bother reading 17th century Christian apologists...(such as Grotius) -- I don't have the time. I did, however, take the time to look you up on Amazon -- so, you write novels? As I figured. Parsing out the concepts of "Jus ad Bellum" vs "Jus in Bello" and claiming that the nazis' war of aggression (staging an incident so as to overrun Poland) and then claiming that there's something "moral" there? Yeah, tell me another one. (And, I'm not going to go over all what you've posted to discover whatever it is you claim gave the nazis a "moral/legal" justification for attacking and invading Poland. The multiple crimes committed in Poland have no excuse, have no legitimization, have no means whatsoever of being whitewashed by claims that the nazis had some "moral" justification for starting their enunciated genocidal campaign for "Lebensraum" in the first place. Also, the concepts of "Jus ad Bellum" and "Jus in Bello" arose AFTER WWII -- hence to even bring them up -- in terms of speaking of the history of the era is an anachronism -- and has no place in any historical discussion. (that's called "presentism.")

708 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 9:02:54pm

Wherever did you get the notion they arose after WW II. Oh yes, the terms are a modern rephrasing but the concept of justum bellum is quite ancient. Is there a time machine that put Augustine in Europe in 1946 and then sent him back to the Roman times? Please tell me where I can buy a ticket for that trip.

If you won't read the sources of the law of war and of nations, frankly you've no business commenting on the law of war and of nations. It's not just ignorance; it's willful ignorance.

709 gromster  Wed, May 21, 2008 9:26:46pm

Since someone above mentioned that names Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart. I did a google on them.
Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism
Excerpt:

In short, Darwin is the father of modern racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such "official" founders of modern race theory as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and this racist ideology that emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists.

James Joll, who spent many years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:

Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose books On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, and The Descent of Man, which followed in 1871, launched controversies which affected many branches of European thought... The ideas of Darwin, and of some of his contemporaries such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, ...were rapidly applied to questions far removed from the immediate scientific ones... The element of Darwinism which appeared most applicable to the development of society was the belief that the excess of population over the means of support necessitated a constant struggle for survival in which it was the strongest or the 'fittest' who won. From this it was easy for some social thinkers to give a moral content to the notion of the fittest, so that the species or races which did survive were those morally entitled to do so.

The doctrine of natural selection could, therefore, very easily become associated with another train of thought developed by the French writer, Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau, who published an Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853.

Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in development was race; and that those races which remained superior were those which kept their racial purity intact.

Of these, according to Gobineau, it was the Aryan race which had survived best... It was... Houston Stewart Chamberlain who contributed to carrying some of these ideas a stage further... Hitler himself admired the author [Chamberlain] sufficiently to visit him on his deathbed in 1927.(80)

Hitler's idea of a hierarchy and conflict between the races was inspired by Darwinism.

Earlier chapters of this book described how the evolutionist German biologist Ernst Haeckel was one of the most important of Nazism's spiritual fathers. Haeckel brought Darwin's theory to Germany, and formulated it as a program ready for the Nazis.

From racists such as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Hitler adopted a politically-oriented racism, and a biological approach from Haeckel. Careful examination will reveal that these racists all derived their inspiration from Darwinism.

710 Charles  Wed, May 21, 2008 9:43:51pm

Please, not this revisionist garbage about Darwin being responsible for Nazism again. This is really getting tiresome.

711 Tom Kratman  Wed, May 21, 2008 9:56:55pm

re: #710 Charles

Please, not this revisionist garbage about Darwin being responsible for Nazism again. This is really getting tiresome.

I think you can call a man responsible only for what he intends or what is reasonably predictable. I can't see how Darwin could have predicted the Nazis. Really.

We can probably hold Hindenburg responsible for Hitler. We can hold Lenin responsible for Stalin (Trotsky _warned_ him). But Darwin for the Nazis? Shall we then hold Christ and the Sermon on the Mount responsible for the Shoah? That would be _absurd_.

712 Aylios  Thu, May 22, 2008 2:29:50am

re: #20 Alouette

Let's not be too hard on Pat, he lost a loved one at Auschwitz.

His uncle fell out of a guard tower.

lmao xD. Thats great!

713 Aylios  Thu, May 22, 2008 2:55:14am

re: #660 dak

#650


No, there is another sentence that absolutely should be used as often as possible when talking about Hitler:

"Remember, Hitler was a Socialist, and he now stands in good company with other Socialists".

Yup, that's what I like to tell people too, but many prefer to live in denial. They like to remember the 'NAtionalist' part of Nazi, but they suppress the soZIalist bit for some strange reason that only a true liberal can really understand.

714 NR Pax  Thu, May 22, 2008 4:14:51am

re: #160 zombie

What are we?

Free men and women. That's all I need.

715 Checker77  Thu, May 22, 2008 10:35:19am

Can't these two just shut the hell up, please?

716 cptham  Thu, May 22, 2008 12:55:11pm

I always like to thank Pat for 8 years of Bill Clinton. Way to go JACKASS!

717 MrC_5150  Thu, May 22, 2008 4:35:49pm

re: #1 Bill Dalasio

Wow! First we have Michael Savage. Now Buchanan. What is this? National Prove Conservatives Can be Douches Too Day?

Are you calling Michael Savage a Hitler apologist? You're out of your mind. What you do need to know is that Michael Savage, who has had Pat as a guest numerous times on his show, just ended his friendship with him because of this article.

718 Ian_The_Terrible  Thu, May 22, 2008 7:04:55pm

Does this argument strike anyone as parallel to the Palestinian reclamation argument? A people (Israel or Jews) took (or were "awarded") territory in which they constituted an extreme ethnic minority, and thus all attempts by the people that were taken from (Arabs in general) to regain the land are legitimate. Pat Buchanan and Palestinian supporters are strange bedfellows, but this is not unheard of.

719 EE  Fri, May 23, 2008 11:38:42am

Irredentism is a part of the radical Islamist ideology. Wars that Muslims won were won by Allah, and so they are irreversible; but wars lost by Muslims were lost by Allah, and so they have to be reversed (or so the logic of radical Islamist ideology goes).

But the logic of irredentism can be applied by others also. What if every war known since history began to be recorded were attempted to be refought? What a bloody mess there would be.

720 Tom Kratman  Fri, May 23, 2008 1:08:30pm

re: #719 EE

Irredentism is a part of the radical Islamist ideology. Wars that Muslims won were won by Allah, and so they are irreversible; but wars lost by Muslims were lost by Allah, and so they have to be reversed (or so the logic of radical Islamist ideology goes).

But the logic of irredentism can be applied by others also. What if every war known since history began to be recorded were attempted to be refought? What a bloody mess there would be.

But that's not something really in the offing. Indeed, many sides to past conflicts have completely disappeared. Where are the Trojans now to sack Mycenae in revenge...and would it even be worth sacking? Who would care?

Entirely different is a war fought perhaps 20 years prior, with a result that seems neither morally nor practically to have been inevitable or deserved, or one in which the result must be reversed simply for long term continued survival.

I sense somewhere in your thoughts the idea that we should just freeze everything in place and stop fighting altogether. This may be noble or it may be ignoble. It is doesn't matter which, however, because it just isn't going to happen.

Hint: Fukuyama was wrong; history is not about to end.

721 Tom Kratman  Fri, May 23, 2008 1:10:48pm

I'll also direct your attention to the following article by Edward Luttwak, which - at least tangetially - addresses that philosophy:

[Link: www.ciaonet.org...]

722 Tom Kratman  Fri, May 23, 2008 1:36:29pm

re: #718 Ian_The_Terrible

Does this argument strike anyone as parallel to the Palestinian reclamation argument? A people (Israel or Jews) took (or were "awarded") territory in which they constituted an extreme ethnic minority, and thus all attempts by the people that were taken from (Arabs in general) to regain the land are legitimate. Pat Buchanan and Palestinian supporters are strange bedfellows, but this is not unheard of.

It's quite similar and, as far as it goes, the Palestinians have some arguments in their favor. After all, what's their obligation to recognize a deed in an old religious testament? What's their obligation to pay for a horror inflicted on Jews by Europeans?

Yes, yes...just about every step they've taken since WW II has been a wrong turn. Yes, they make war in an illegal and illegitimate manner. Yes, there's absolutely no reason to believe they'd make anything of the Holy Land one bit better than it was before the founding of Israel, which is to say, a dump. Yes, they're beneath contempt as soldiers. None of those arguments, though true, really challenge their _underlying_ arguments, though.

On the other hand, for Israel this is existential; the Palestinians want them more or less extinct. Whatever legitimacy Palestinian claims may have, they pale before that overriding concern. Nor would it make the slightest difference, now, were the Palestinians to back off from that. No reason for Israel to trust them, after all, is there? No more than the Poles had for trusting Hitler, in any case, and quite possibly even less.

Nor can nor should Israel really back off and give back areas that were genuinely Arab majority prior to the various wars. The Palestinians have forfeited the priviledge of having their word, "We won't attack you from them," taken seriously.

So what we have is a claim, one that can honestly be said to have some right behind it, overridden by the intentions of the claimants should they ever prevail.

Life's not fair, is it?


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Totalitarian underpinnings optional.