Thread: The Unnecessary War

I just finished reading Pat Buchanan's latest work: Curchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. This book is likely to stir some passionate debate, as its thesis is that WWII did not, in fact, need to be fought. It resulted in the obliteration of Europe, 50 million dead, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and the fall of the British Empire. Was it worth it? The official othradoxy says, "yes." That Hiter was on a rampage to control all of Europe and perhaps the entire world, that only heros like Winston Churchill and FDR averted with their war. But, is this the case?

Buchanan argues that these events actually got their start with WWI. A war that started over a British/German rivalry for supremecy in Europe. The nations bungled into war in 1914 in no small part due to a British war garantee given to the French, unbeknownst to the British Parliament and the Germans. Behind this secret war guarantee was none other than British parliament member Winston Churchill. The war brought massive loss of human life to the powers of Europe, even when it began, all of the British parliament was solumn.....except for a grinning and gitty Winston Churchill. During the bloodshed, Churchill said to a friend about the devastation, "I can't help it, I am loving every minute of it." After Germany was defeated, a Britsh blockade of Germany that led to 750,000 German civilians starved to death..........four months after the German had laid down their arms. Churchill spoke glowingly of the blockade's "success" that he himself initiated in the British government.

The war ended with the signing of the treaty of Versailles. On terms vastly unfair to Germany. It was to be torn apart at its fronteirs, stripped of its military, and made to pay enormous reparations. All of this led to the rise of Adolf Hitler. I was surprised to read that most of Hitler's early conquests were actually recapturing German lands with German populations, that had been stripped from Germany by the Versialles Treaty. First was the militarization of the Rhineland (German land). Then was the annexation of Austria, which had a Germanic population that welcomed the anexation. Then the occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia (80% German population, stripped from Germany by Versailles). The breaking point was when Hitler made plans for Poland. Once again, German land lost to the Versailles treaty was the main objective -- Danzig, which was given to Poland and split East Prussia from Germany proper. Hitler offered Poland port rights, trade agreements, and alliance against the USSR in exchange for Danzig. The British government, burned by Hitler's betrayal at Munich (Hitler took Prague in violation of the agreement) decided to step in and give Poland a war guarantee if Hitler were to invade. This stiffined Polish resistance, and thereafter they refused to negotiate on Danzig. Hitler then struck a deal with the USSR, and each invaded Poland, Hitler from the West and Russia from the east. Britain declared war (only on Germany) and WWII had begun.

That Britain would make a war guarantee for Poland is a major question in Pat's book....Britain had not the means to back up their "guarantee." And they did nothing. it was pointless. And what was Poland, other than a poor nation with a totalitarian government, carved out of the Treaty of Versailles? Had Britain not decaired war, Hitler probably would not have turned west after that, His asperation laid in the east -- mainly the USSR. England would have been wiser to object, build its military, and let Hitler and Stalin destroy each other. Instead, they plunged head first into the bloodiest conflict in the history of civilization. And through it, made allies with the biggest mass-murderer ever known to man -- Joseph Stalin.

Churchill sought out the alliance, and had glowing praises for the Russian dictator. By war's end he colluded with Stalin to tear up the Atlantic Charter, and allow a redrawing of the borders of Europe. Ethnically cleansing 9 million Germans from "Poland," 2 million dying in the process. Churchill was also the first to defile a centuries old rule of war in Europe -- the intention destruction of civilian populations. Up to 250,000 German civilians were intentionally slaughtered in British and American bombing raids in Dresden alone. Churchill also presided over the loss of the British Empire. From the global power of the world, to an island in the Atlantic purely dependent on America, all under Winston's leadership.

Eleven nation were taken over by Stalin by war's end -- including Poland, who's sovereignty the entire conflict had started over. Communism was strengthened, setting the stage for Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Mihn.

Seeing that Hitler's aim was to take land to the east......50 million lives later, and the destruction of the British and French Empires, all for STALIN to take that land -- who murdered far more people, and invaded as many nations as Hitler in 1939.......

Was it worth it?

Thankyou, and Mr Buchanan for bringing to light some of the real atrocities that were committed in the name of freedom and democracy by people that for all intents and purposes were saviours of their respective populations, or that is what they and main stream media would like us to believe.
Keep your eyes open, it's happened, and is happening again.
We need to close our borders, boot out the UN, and tariff all imports as the countries of origin tariff our goods.
JBG

The CFR was running the show then and it is running it now. Nothing is as it seems to be. Its all a charade. And to think we thought it was all real. None of it was real. It was all for nothing .....but the CFR. They toy with the world like a cat toys with a mouse.

Good comments. You folks touched on something that I had forgotten to mention -- that it is happening again. In Pat's last chapter, he likens the modern USA to that of the British Empire on the verge of collapse. That we have inherited the British Empire, and we are overstretched throughout the world. Making guarantees of protection to nations that we can not cover with the size of our military. Bush insisting that the world can only be safe so long as it is democtratized. And Bush has a bust in the Oval office of who????????



Winston Churchill

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler- ... 577&sr=1-1

Bump

Doesn't anyone else find this fascinating? Or, are most people just disgusted that Pat and myself consider WWII an unnecessary war?

The only "necessary" war was the Revolutionary war, all others including the war between the states were driven by greed, and if you dig deep enough you will see.
JBG

Originally Posted by ANGELLOVER7777

The only "necessary" war was the Revolutionary war, all others including the war between the states were driven by greed, and if you dig deep enough you will see.
JBG

I'll look into that. I have not studied American wars in too much depth, outside of WWI, WWII, and perhaps Vietnam. What I always found incredible, was that the MSM, Hollywood, and elite academia have always painted certain wars as "good wars" and other wars as "bad wars." WWII is the perfect example of what the elites have tried to sell as the "good war." Vietnam is the classic example of what they have sold as the "bad war." I always have found it hard to believe that the government was pure and noble in 1945, but amazingly, turned evil 20 years later, or less. I laways thought it was more consistent and logical, to think that the government was self-interested, and pragmatic across the board -- WWII, Vietnam, you name it.

When do you think a movie will be made about the atrocities at Dresden? We are all familiar with Oliver Stone's Kengis Khan-like portrayal of American GI's executing civilians in Vietnamese villages. We are all inundated with stories like Mi Lai. But when civilian are killed on a MUCH, MUCH larger scale in WWII, not a peep, no movie, nothing. I always thought the MSM and Hollywood were using a lot of moral particularism. Fighting an extreme right wing government is exceptable by any means necessary. But fighting communism is always up to the highest sctrutiny.

Anyway, Pat adressed many questions I have had about WWII for many years. Questions that people fail to contemplate or adress, swallowing whole what the elites want us to believe. Regardless of how inconsistent the WWII rhetoric is, especially in light of criticisms of other wars.

The only reason we were sucked into the vietnam war was because the 3 time war losers, the french asked us to help them "police" ie: beef up the numbers of personnel in the region, as they were losing control of their colonies. The locals had, had enough of being used, and looted by those losers.
Once one US personnel was injured or killed, the justification was there to "revenge" their deaths.

An interesting war was the korean war. The US was asked by the hierarchy of korea at the time to help fight the chinese communist attempt at invasion, but were politely told to suck wind by the rockefellers (the un) until it was was shown to be financally advantagious to keep a toe hold on that continent, then we, (the rockefellas) divided their country. The chinese only wanted the korean slave labor, and what resources were there, (not much), but they settled for the slave labor.

I wonder why Korea is all but forgotten

I always assumed that the left just threw all of their weight behind how unjust Vietnam was, and decided they didn't need 2 wars against communism to make their point.