This is a private web site. Free Speech and other Constitutional Rights do not apply here as they are intended only for the government and public space. The following are rules of conduct.
You will be blocked if you:
- Swear, use offensive language, mock or attack any writers or participants personally.
- Call anyone a racist or a hater, even if it’s disguised. (”I like you and I hope God will open your eyes so that you can stop hating and end your racism”). A racist is a person who just won a fight against a liberal. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. But since liberals have no way to respond to indisputable facts and rational logic, they must attack others with words like “racist” in order to somehow feel superior to someone who actually won the argument.
- Use words like “nigger”. Either make a point or don’t. Calling people names makes you look ridiculous. Stating that you are afraid to send your kids to a black school because of the high crime and the targeting of whites may persuade someone. Saying, “I hate them niggers” will only make you look like a fool.
- Issue statements in support of Hitler or any openly Nazi web site (that includes Stormfront and other Klan pages and forums). Nazis are an embarrassment to anyone trying to counter the views of the far-left. The Left purposely tries to create the impression that any non-leftist must be a Nazi. The reason this tactic is successful is that most neo-Nazis embrace this ideology only because they like being the object of other people’s disgust. I reject the idea that opposing affirmative action and hundreds of billions annually in government spending on blacks is somehow Nazi. In any event, this is not a Nazi web site. If you are looking for Nazis, go some place else and never come back here.
- Suggest that slavery, lynching, Holocaust or other such events were positive and should happen again. Any civilized society must support the rule of law. One of the sources of our pride is (or should be) the fact that whites eliminated slavery and then forced everyone else to do the same. If you think Sudanese Arabs are right to enslave Sudanese blacks, you probably do not belong in the Western civilization that rejected slavery. I don’t suggest that we go and fight other people’s wars, but we should never say that slavery, mob justice (lynching) or genocide is a positive event. It makes us look barbaric. Almost like we are a Third World people.
- Rather than argue your point, you cite your education as proof of your superiority. I don’t care about your education. Many people, myself included, are probably better educated than you are. Go crawl back to your liberal hole where you can make believe that only liberals are educated and those who disagree must be rednecks. And in any event, your education is irrelevant. Either you can make a good point to defend your point of view or you can’t. Let everyone decide the quality of your reasoning based on what you write. Even if you have a higher degree, it does not make you right. Hiding behind your degree makes it clear that you are wrong and merely trying to intimidate others.
Here, here. With your subject matter, it was inevitable. Keep fighting the good fight.
One note, I am of the Austerian persuasion that there isn’t an animal (at least not noteworthy) as the "far left," but rather endorse his radical mainstream.
Cheers
I am curious about your position on something. As you probably know, Pat Buchanan just wrote a book recently apparently claiming that England (never mind the U.S., I am guessing) shouldn’t have entered WWII. Do you agree with that this was one of those “other people’s wars,” as you call it, or do you think that Nazi aggression affected and was the responsibility of the West?
Btw, if I am in any way misrepresenting Buchanan’s position, I haven’t read it yet, and am not doing so intentionally. I am basing it on the essay I read on VDARE: http://vdare.com/roberts/080512_wars.htm
DK,
That’s actually fairly tough. Sitting here in 2008, it’s easy to say that the US should’ve gotten involved. But if I were a 20 year old in 1941, I’m not so sure I’d want to go and fight the world’s most advanced force.
For Britain, however, this was not “other people’s war”. Hitler conquered their major ally on the continent (France) and unsuccessfully tried to invade Britain in 1940.
He gave up temporarily, but had Hitler defeated Russia, Britain would’ve been next. I have no doubt about it. Britain could’ve accepted as subservient alliance like Vichy France, but few Brits would want to be in such position.
Britain also could’ve joined Nazi Germany in assaulting the world, which would be clearly an unacceptable position for any decent human being. Hitler is the epitome of evil. Anyone who doesn’t understand that cannot claim to be a decent human being. Don’t take my word for it, ask someone who lived under Nazi occupation.
So if Britain didn’t want to turn Nazi or become subservient, it really didn’t have much of a choice but to fight.
Once Britain got involved, it was only a matter of time before the US joined in.
By the way, I do not believe that the Holocaust was a major issue for Allies because Western Air Forces flew over the roads and train tracks to concentration camps without bombing them. A few bombs could’ve either significantly slowed Hitler’s Final Solution. It was not done because the Holocaust did not register as a major issue either during the war or for about 15 years after that. It was really with the arrest of Eichmann that this become a big issue taught to students in class, etc.
UK got involved because it was their war. The US got involved because UK is it’s “brother”.
But if I lived at the time, I’m not sure I’d want to fight for our English cousins.
For the record, I think that Paul Craig Roberts is an idiot. He’s essentially a far-left liberal who dislikes immigrants. Other than his support for ending immigration, he agrees with the loony-left of the Socialist Workers Party on pretty much everything.
But Buchanan has a lot of good points, including the fact that Hitler had already been defeated by D-Day. The US/UK invaded at Normandy to keep Russians from marching all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. The German army, including the SS, was a shell of it’s earlier fighting glory. By the summer of 1944, Germany would’ve had trouble defeating Turkey. Russians had them badly on the run for about a year at this point.
On the other hand, the US and the UK did pump thousands of tanks and airplanes, and billions of dollars of other equipment to Russia to keep it afloat during the hard days of 1941 and 1942. They also did some fighting in North Africa and the Middle East, such as overturning a pro-German revolution in Iraq.
Ultimately, the US and the UK did what Buchanan suggests they should’ve done – they mostly stayed out, but helped with arms and marginally helped militarily.
When Russia began marching through Europe beginning in 1943, Britain really had no choice but to jump into the fray because otherwise they’d be forced to learn Russian just as the Poles were.
I am also curious what you think about it: should the US have helped fight Nazi Germany or leave it alone?
Well, as an American Jew (all my ancestors came here pre-War II, most but not all 19th century), it’s obviously a tremendous source of national pride that the U.S. helped defeat the Nazis, , so I’m admittedly biased. But I would argue like this:
Once England was in this war, essentially the U.S.’s parent country — no longer an estranged parent by this point either — she needed help. England is different than all other nations, as the U.S. descends from her. To sit back while England was fighting for her life and against tyranny, would have been disloyal.
I agree the Holocaust was not the issue for the U.S., but do think that once we were in the war, the U.S. should have bombed the tracks, because once you are at war, the depravity of the enemy is your issue and concern. I read that Churchill had requested as much, as he wasn’t positioned to have England do so by this point, but would need to find the source for that.
But in terms of your point that you would prefer not to have to fight something that doesn’t affect you (necessarily) directly, well, I don’t have a convincing retort to that. I think that’s a reasonable perspective. Obviously, though, if you had survived WWI intact, I think it is reasonable to say you would feel proud to have fought, something not always the case in recent wars.
The war the US should have kept out of was the great mistake: World War I
Guy White wrote:
“For Britain, however, this was not “other people’s war”. Hitler conquered their major ally on the continent (France) and unsuccessfully tried to invade Britain in 1940.”
Well, I imagine what Buchanan is arguing is that Britain and France shouldn’t have offered a security guarantee to Poland in 1939, which meant declaring war on Germany for attacking Poland. Isn’t the assumption that if Britain and France had not committed themselves to defend Poland, they would have stayed out of the war, and France would not have fallen in 1940? Instead, Hitler would have insisted on conquering all of Eastern Europe and most if not all of the USSR before he ever would have threatened Britain or France.
You seem to be assuming that Hitler’s conquest of France is a given. I don’t think Buchanan is assuming that. If he’s wrong that Britain had no stake in the war (humanitarian motives aside), then his error is one of two things. First, it could be the case that Germany would have easily conquered Eastern Europe and Russia, and then France and Britain could not have been in a position to put up any resistance. Second, it could be the case that even if Britain and France had not come to the defense of Poland, Hitler would have declared war on them anyway and attacked them, rather than confining all his efforts to the Eastern Front until he had dealt with all his enemies there. But judging from Buchanan’s prior work, I don’t think Buchanan is asserting that Britain’s interests were substantially separate from those of France. He is asserting that British and French interests were separate from those of all the Eastern European countries including the USSR.
I tend to agree with the first objection. If the Allies had not made an effort to contain Hitler in 1939, they would have been in a worse position later. But I would be interested to see what argument Buchanan makes against this position.
In the Amazon.com review of Buchanan’s book, it says that the book argues:
“Among the British and Churchillian blunders were … The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War.”
That would lend support to the idea that Buchanan is not arguing against British support for France, but is arguing against British and French support for Poland. Without which, Buchanan believes Britain and France would have stayed out of war. The war would have been confined to Germany and Italy against Poland and the other smaller East-European nations, plus Russia.
Again, I don’t think Britain and France would have managed to stay out of war forever, but I would be interested to see what argument Buchanan makes in favor of his position that Hitler was only interested in expansion to the east. Part of it would be that Hitler wanted to defeat communism, and attacking Britain and France would have been irrelevant to that goal if Britain and France refused to ally themselves with communist countries.
“Instead, Hitler would have insisted on conquering all of Eastern Europe and most if not all of the USSR before he ever would have threatened Britain or France.” – John Savage
I think that’s the key phrase here. Hitler was a madman and after taking over the East, he’d have found a reason to attack the West.
“Isn’t the assumption that if Britain and France had not committed themselves to defend Poland, they would have stayed out of the war, and France would not have fallen in 1940?”
After the Great War, Europe wanted peace. The part of Europe that actually won. Germany wanted its respect back. Russia wanted to spread its ideology.
So France and Britain offered guarantees to Poland to keep peace. Hindsight is 20-20, but it wasn’t much of a controversial move at the time.
It was originally driven as much by Russia’s desires on Poland (which was part of the Tsarist Russia) as anything else.
The rationale for Germany was much the same as for Russia actually. It wanted to become a global empire. A world where Nazi Germany and not the United States is the new Roman Empire would not be a good place.
I think a lot of the anti-PC people make the mistake of thinking, “if the Left hates Hitler, we should embrace him.” There’s nobody we should embrace last more than Hitler, for both tactical, moral and ideological reasons.
I get why some Americans wanted to stay out of the war at the time when it happened. Nobody wants to die when there’s an Ocean guarding you against a potential invader. But to suggest that Hitler was not a threat to Western Europe is foolish. Maybe France would not have fallen in 1940, but it would’ve eventually.
In fact, it would probably fall in 1940 regardless.
Hitler realized that he had the upper hand on Russia, France and Britain militarily, but they would eventually rebuild. Had he waited until 1943-44, it would’ve been impossible to conquer them as they were furiously building up their armies (especially Stalin) to match up against the German military expansion. By 1943-44, Germany would’ve been stuck fighting 2-3 year wars against each major power, and would lose to all of them if they joined forces.
Hitler needed to take out major European powers immediately. One of his mistakes was not defeating Britain before invading Russia.
“One of his mistakes was not defeating Britain before invading Russia.”
I have often wondered about this…what exactly was he thinking?