It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was World War II worth it?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:43 PM
Patrick J. Buchanan has opened up a decent discussion about the ramifications of WWII. Here I thought the allies won and I guess if you lived in "western" Europe you did. Now look at things, the US is despised by the Europeans (in general), and yet these nations East of the Elbe, are now free and do not despise the US even though that POS FDR pulled a Chamberlain himself.

Interesting questions raised indeed.


Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.

To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:

For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.

Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.

In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by edsinger]

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:22 PM
Wow youre absolutely right we should have allied with Hitler in his war against Communism. Because communism is so much worse then naziism
I mean whats a few million jews gypsies homosexuals dissidents and other social "undesirables" compared to guaranteeing the continued dominance of capitalism right?

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:31 PM
Internationalist Communism was a threat. Nazism was a threat. Hmm, which to destroy. The Nazis made that decision for the world. The Soviets played the game of the cold war well. Perhaps the US should've made Patton Supreme Allied Commander immediately after the war.

It would've been unpopular, but a forward thinking person just might've seen the danger. ' Soon enough', they could think, 'the soviets will have this nuclear technology, and other countries will too, there's no way to prevent that. The nazis were decades away, but what a shizersturm that'd've been. Perhaps its best to invade mother russia and destroy it, rather than risk nuclear war with some future soviet army'.

The logic'd've been sound.

But was WWII worth it? If iraq was worth it then heck yeah, who cares that the US isn't 'popular' in the countries it liberated from the nazis? It wasn't done for popularity. Hell, the US only got involved because it itself was attacked. If people had listened to FDR, then the war'd've been over years earlier, heck, in that 'timeline', perhaps FDR'd've been the one to see that peace with teh soviets wasn't worth the risk of nuke attack in the future.
Nationalism and Fascism were political movements that clashed just as much with Capitalism and the Open Society as Communism and the closed society did. The war was inevitable anyways.

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:44 PM
I would agree, I am not saying that it wasn't worth it, I just believe that Bush's remarks were correct.

The shocker is that an acting US President said it, after what Putin said.

Kudos to Bush on this one.

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 03:54 AM

"Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable"

Please excuse me but this coming from a US president (especially this one) is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:24 PM
Seems that Pat is taking shots because of this statement.


May 12, 2005

Was World War II worth it?

In the inflammatory world view of Pat Buchanan, the short answer is no. The war that stopped the Nazis' global campaign and the mechanistic extermination of European Jewry was actually not worth the effort

The commentator yesterday offered equally provocative answers to other questions: Why destroy Hitler? And why venerate FDR and Churchill?

On the radio and Internet, Buchanan framed his positions as amplification of remarks made over the weekend by President George W. Bush that the pact ending the war brought on a Stalinist domination that was "one of the greatest wrongs of history."

WWII comments blasted

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:44 AM

As a matter of interest, is Pat Buchanan seen as a serious politician in the US?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:50 PM
Buchanon used to be a presidential speech writer for Nixon. Difficult to say is he's a serious politican now tho. He bolted from the Republican party, saying its too 'neo', not enough 'conservative' (ie a conservative wouldn't support free-markets and interventionist wars or globalism). He defected to the Reform Party.

BUT, apparently he was invovled in some political skullduggery. He was stumping for the Reform Party's nomination for 2000, and had some petition that had lots of fraudulent names on it, and secured the nomination thru that. People in the Reform Party realized that, tried to oust him, and then themselves split from the party, joining the maharishi centered "Natural Law Party". So Buchannon is the 'leader' in an crippled party.

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:09 AM

I was not aware until yesterday that he was the one who originally went after Bush Senior on the whole "read my lips, no new taxes" thing. This was even before Clinton got in on the act.



new topics

top topics


log in