Patrick Buchanan Comments on World War II

[J. J.]

I'd love to see a test that measures to that many decimal places.  Most of the ones I have administered only give the percentile to the nearest one, not to any decimal places.  Apparently I give the wrong tests.

It sounds like bullsh**t to me. 0.0001%? Hahaha.

For once, at least, you are correct.  I generally don't sit around with a ruler measuring things.   As was pointed out in another thread, extreme size can create problems.

[Gabu]

I'd love to see a test that measures to that many decimal places.  Most of the ones I have administered only give the percentile to the nearest one, not to any decimal places.  Apparently I give the wrong tests.

It sounds like bullsh**t to me. 0.0001%? Hahaha.

For once, at least, you are correct.  I generally don't sit around with a ruler measuring things.   As was pointed out in another thread, extreme size can create problems.

One of AuH2O's heads is too big for his own good, and it's not the one that the women care about.

[Ebowed]

I'd love to see a test that measures to that many decimal places.  Most of the ones I have administered only give the percentile to the nearest one, not to any decimal places.  Apparently I give the wrong tests.

It sounds like bullsh**t to me. 0.0001%? Hahaha.

For once, at least, you are correct.  I generally don't sit around with a ruler measuring things.   As was pointed out in another thread, extreme size can create problems.

One of AuH2O's heads is too big for his own good, and it's not the one that the women care about.

Yeah, just spout cries of "Racism!" everytime you lose an argument.  Go back to Canada you communist. 

[Gabu]

I'd love to see a test that measures to that many decimal places.  Most of the ones I have administered only give the percentile to the nearest one, not to any decimal places.  Apparently I give the wrong tests.

It sounds like bullsh**t to me. 0.0001%? Hahaha.

For once, at least, you are correct.  I generally don't sit around with a ruler measuring things.   As was pointed out in another thread, extreme size can create problems.

One of AuH2O's heads is too big for his own good, and it's not the one that the women care about.

Yeah, just spout cries of "Racism!" everytime you lose an argument.  Go back to Canada you communist. 

You clearly do not have a grasp of the situation or any of its related facts.  This is, of course, not an option for me, for I have available all of the knowledge of this subject as well as an obviously superior intellect while you are struggling to comprehend English.

[Ebowed]

This is so typical of Gabu.  Riddle me this, Percy: how am I struggling to comprehend English when I am from Virginia, and you are from a foreign place like Canada?  Communists speak Russian, or Danish, or African, and those are languages spoken commonly in Canada.  It's like a math equation.  Two plus two equals three.  Are you getting my metaphor?  No, of course not, because you're too stupid.

[J. J.]

I'd love to see a test that measures to that many decimal places.  Most of the ones I have administered only give the percentile to the nearest one, not to any decimal places.  Apparently I give the wrong tests.

It sounds like bullsh**t to me. 0.0001%? Hahaha.

For once, at least, you are correct.  I generally don't sit around with a ruler measuring things.   As was pointed out in another thread, extreme size can create problems.

One of AuH2O's heads is too big for his own good, and it's not the one that the women care about.

Yeah, just spout cries of "Racism!" everytime you lose an argument.  Go back to Canada you communist. 

The frst person to use play the "racism" card on this thread was John D. Ford.

[Gabu]

Ebowed, you need to change back to a D-SC avatar; I keep wondering why StatesRights is posting such reasonable stuff.

[J. J.]

You did get my PM, Gabu?

[Gabu]

You did get my PM, Gabu?

Yes, I did.

[Ebowed]

Ebowed, you need to change back to a D-SC avatar; I keep wondering why StatesRights is posting such reasonable stuff.

Can't; I have to have an orange avatar for the next 24 hours.  See the Atlas Survivor thread.

[AuH2O]

I'm not providing opinions here, only facts.

As tends to happen, posters reject "facts" by finding a few irrelevant internet links, and then claim they "won" the "argument."

If the question is, "do countries sometimes start wars they know they are likely to lose?" there is a factual answer to that question. Every single expert in the field will tell you 'yes.' Feel free to email international relations profs at major universities and ask them the question.

The problem with me providing evidence is that scholarly sources are not found on wikipedia. While I can easily acquire articles online, many are in PDF form and thus unpasteable, and others would take a while to post for no apparent gain.

However, for those with library access, relevant articles include "On the Theoretical Basis of a Measure of Risk Attitudes" by James Morrow (U Michigan 1987, International Studies Quarterly). On Germany's strategic need and desire to keep the US out of the war, at least until the Soviets were defeated: H.L. Trefousse, "Germany and Pearl Harbor," Far East Quarterly, 1952.

On the Japanese attacking Pearl knowing they were likely to lose the war: "The Origins of the Pacific War" by Scott Sagan, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1988. Further examination on that topic but also more general analysis of why states enter in wars they have little hope of winning: "Pearl Harbor: Deterrence Theory and Decision Making," by Yale's Bruce Russett, Journal of Peace Research 1967.

Now, this is somewhat tangential to the original question, was whether specifically Hitler realized he was losing by late 1941 and the extent of anti-Jewish actions in that timeframe.

On that front, there are several sources of note. "Incident at Baranivka: German Reprisals and the Soviet Partisan Movement in Ukraine October-December 1941," by Truman Anderson, The Journal of Modern History (1999) looks at anti-civilian activity undertaken by the Germans in that timeframe and contradicts JJ's claims, though Norman Naimark lends them support in 2002 (61.3) article in the Slavic Review (but his is much lesser in original research).

Importantly, Richard Breitman, in his 1991 article in the Journal of Contemporary History entitled "Himmler and the Terrible Secret Among the Executioners" argues persuasively that most anti-Jewish actions in 1941 were actually perpetrated by members of non-German nationalist groups, which were led by local elites trying to keep their hold on power. Christian Gerlach, writing on Wannsee exclusively, holds some middle ground by positing Hitler decided to liquidate European Jews in December of 1941 (Journal of Modern History, Vol 70 n.4, pp 759-812).

Note that would be following Pearl Harbor, which as noted above ruined his hope of keeping the US neutral long enough to defeat the Soviets.

These sources (and many others) could of course form a strong basis for a debate on the topic, but since I doubt anyone (JJ included) would ever make any sort of effort to procure them for their own analysis, there is little I can do. Posters are right to criticize me for noting I am more intelligent than JJ... while clearly accurate it does not contribute to the discourse, such as it is.

At the very least, the above articles demonstrate, if read, that nations can start wars as the 'least-bad' option at their disposal (when defeat is likely), and of course when they miscalculate or act programatically rather than opportunistically (as some historians feel Hitler did). It also shows JJ simplified and exaggerated his claims with regard to Nazi atrocities in the 1941 timeframe when it is ambiguous how Hitler perceived the likely outcome of the war.

Thus, at a minimum, I was only mostly correct. Further examination could substantiate my claims further but that requires the first steps be taken. Note I originally didn't bother with a brief literature review because I have posted sources before and never, ever seen a poster pursue them. I do so here not because anyone will read them-- and they are peer-reviewed, scholarly works-- but so that the record exists showing I was correct, and it can be verified at any time.

[J. J.]

I'm not providing opinions here, only facts.

As tends to happen, posters reject "facts" by finding a few irrelevant internet links, and then claim they "won" the "argument."

If the question is, "do countries sometimes start wars they know they are likely to lose?" there is a factual answer to that question. Every single expert in the field will tell you 'yes.' Feel free to email international relations profs at major universities and ask them the question.

Well, site one example from the modern period (I'll be generous, since the French Revoultion), where a country launched an aggressive war against another nation, believing it would lose.

As for the Japanese, you have the quote from Yamamoto, q.v., indicating the plan and the belief that the war would be short.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I have quoted from sourses that are not online. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, you have a problem with most of these sources.  The problem is chronology.  I'm discussing Einsatzgruppen actions (Special Action Groups actions?) in the summer of 1941.  There was no American entrance at that point; excepting Gibraltar, there was no organized Allied forces on the European continent.  That was a losing situation for the Nazis. 

For you be correct, you have to assume that Hilter thought:

1.  If I invade the Soviet Union, I will lose.

2.  I will increase my chances of losing by diverting some of my SS to execute people for being Jewish.

I question if Hitler was rational, but he hadn't shown himself to be stupid.

Interestingly, I said that there were actions where there were "hundred and thousands," of Jews killed by the Einsatzgruppen, I then cited an example of 33,000 at Babi Yar.  That is not  "exaggerated," but an understatement.  I have also noted, q.v., that in some cases, locals did the killing, but these were in areas controlled by the Nazis and with the consent and encouragement of the SS.  Babi Yar was not one of those.

Perhaps the reason for "The Final Solution" had more to do with the Nazis more personal concerns:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/auschwitz-birkenau.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.free-times.com/archive/coverstorarch/Litsupp_092502/masters_of_death.html


We can now a plausable alternative to why the Nazis decided in 1941 to use the "camp" system; it made it easier on the Nazis doing the killing. 

Tell me, are you denying that the Einsatzgruppen carried out these killings, mass killing of hundreds and thousands (and tens of thousands), prior to the US entry into the war?

[AuH2O]

The problem is that many issues are addressed in the literature which I only summarized briefly.

Breitman looks at killings in the 1941 timeframe and finds that, no, the Einsatzgruppen did not kill "hundreds of thousands" in that period. If you want more detail, feel free to read his article.

Further, Anderson notes that while the Germans did commit reprisals in response to partisan activity, Jews were not targetted especially in those cases (so there were massacres ongoing, but the victims were not primarily Jews).

Various researchers also question the extent to which Hitler himself even directed policy in the newly occupied areas, because Jews were most definitely not being executed in Germany or Austria at this time.

The Wannsee conference, which has no definitive historical explanation for even taking place, is presumed by Gerlach as intended to resolve differences in the treatment of Jews across German-controlled territory.

In brief conclusion:

1) There was no general Nazi program to exterminate European Jews at any time prior to, at the earliest, December 1941. That is probably the entire reason Wannsee occured at all. Jews were indeed killed both in reprisals against partisan activity and by non-German nationalist groups, though the number is unlikely to be nearly as high as "hundreds of thousands," particularly in light of the number deported from these very countries later (if they were all dead, how could they go to camps?)

2) There is likewise no definitive explanation of how Hitler saw the war at any point in time, let alone a specific date. However, other sources I did not cite but have available discuss whether Hitler viewed the war opportunistically or programatically, which is to say, whether he acted to strengthen Germany or out of an ideological motivation outside a rational strategic analysis.

In the latter case, Hitler could well have figured in 1939 he would lose the war militarily, because he had hoped to begin some time later. More likely he was motivated by both opportunity and program, with programatic motivations predominating by the end of 1941.

3) Efforts directed against Jews were, at the very least, a recognition of the possibility Germany would lose, and they increased in scope with the likelihood of Germany losing (i.e. as the war progressed). This explains limited actions early in the war, escalating into more serious ones later-- even when the ideology vs. labor issue had completely reversed such that Germany needed labor very badly (there are additional sources specific to this that I can cite if anyone would like to examine them).



note: so far as starting an "aggressive" war, debate on that topic is impossible until such time as we could even agree on what constitutes "aggressive" and "starting." Those are related issues but certainly can be addressed separately.

It is clear that countries can miscalculate, but the question is when they calculate correctly and still decide on a probably losing war. The Japanese did do precisely that, though naturally they hoped (perhaps irrationally as a means of bolstering morale) for a miracle.

[J. J.]

The problem is that many issues are addressed in the literature which I only summarized briefly.

Breitman looks at killings in the 1941 timeframe and finds that, no, the Einsatzgruppen did not kill "hundreds of thousands" in that period. If you want more detail, feel free to read his article.

Nobody is claiming "hundreds of thousand."  That is your term, not mine.  Here is what was said:

You have the wrong chronology.  Fairly large genocidic actions occured in the summer of 1941.  These were not isolated incidents but were carried out by the SS.  Not, at that point, there was not an overall plan to eliminate the Jewish population, but there were genocidic actions, especially in the Baltic.  You basically had the SS, rounding up Jews and shooting them en masse by the hundreds and thousands.  Now Hitler would have to believe that, within a month of invading the Soviet Union, he had lost.  At that time, the German Army was racing toward Moscow.

Since you seem to have a problem comprehending it, here is the statement.  "You basically had the SS, rounding up Jews and shooting them en masse by the hundreds and thousands. "  I can amend this and say, "hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands." Jews, non-combants, were being killed by the SS and there proxies (actually considered "auxiliary troops") in the summer of 1941. 

You attempt to create a strawman has failed.

Are you denying that these actions by the einsatzgruppen took place and that the killings were Jews, who were not combatants?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question is when did the Nazis begin genocide, killing Jews in large numbers for the reason that they were Jews?  The answer is July 1941.  Now, this was not happening in the Reich proper, in the General Government region (occupied unannexed Poland of 1939), or the western countries that were occupied.  I'm not suggesting that it did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again were looking at the start of the genocide, not its full flowering.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is nothing in Hitler's writings or comments to support the claim that the goal of Germany was to commit national suicide.  We would have t make the assumpting that Hitler's goal in attacking the Soviet Union was to commit national suicide.  There was no tactical reason, in the summer of 1941, that the invasion would be anything but a success.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Truly bizarre and not based on historical fact; keep in mind that when the genocide started, Hitler was winning (big)!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It the mass killings started in 1944 or even 1943, you might have a point.  The thing was, the Nazis genocide started in the summer of 1941.  At that point, the UK was incapable of launching any land assault in Europe (and had major problems with shipping).  France was defeated.  The rest of continental western, nothern and southern Europe, excepting Malta and Gibraltar, was either occupied, allied with the Nazis, or neutral.

That is not losing.

The killings continued as the Germans advanced and continued winning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope that you NOT are suggesting that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with the plan that they would lose.

In summation, for you to be correct, you will have to claim that there was no genocide in 1941 and that the Nazis believed within 6 weeks after invading the Soviet Union, they thought that they were losing, in spite of the tactical situation where they were defeating the Soviets and advancing at an exceptionally rapid rate.

[Governor PiT]

Was World War II worth it?

Posted: May 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.


In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. 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 ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.

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.

The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.