The Tea Party Conundrum

[hugo]

THE FACTS FROM A TRUE CONSERVATIVE, NOT A BUSH BIG SPENDING, DEBT LOVING CONSERVATIVE IN NAME ONLY.

An Unnecessary War?
11

Oct
by Patrick J. Buchanan – October 11, 1999
The Washington Post

In A Republic, Not An Empire, I take many controversial stands: Indicting Jefferson for naval disarmament, defending Polk’s war with Mexico, decrying U.S. annexation of the Philippines, and supporting Harding’s Washington naval treaty.

But all has been trampled under by the hysterical reaction to two assertions: That Britain’s war guarantee to Poland was a monumental blunder, and that after the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain in 1940, Germany posed no strategic threat to the U.S.A.

Why was Britain’s war guarantee flawed? Because Britain had neither the will nor power to honor it. In 1939, only one nation could save Poland from Hitler: Russia. “Without Russia,” declared Lloyd George, “our [Polish] guarantees are the most reckless commitment any country has ever entered into. I say more, they are demented.”

By threatening war for Poland, Britain impelled Hitler to cut his deal with Stalin. Result: Annihilation of Poland, Stalin’s serial rape of Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as Hitler swallowed Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France.

By mid-1940 Hitler controlled Western Europe, Stalin Eastern Europe; and the British had been routed at Dunkirk and ensnared in a war that would cost 400,000 dead and bring down the empire.

Yet, Poland was not saved! What, then, did the war guarantee accomplish? And why would it have been immoral for Britain to re-direct Hitler’s attack away from the West, toward Stalin’s slave empire, and let the monsters eat each other up as Harry Truman urged?

Had Britain not declared war, Hitler would have attacked an unprepared Stalin in 1940. The result might well have been the liberation of the Gulag and its 12 million souls, the eradication of Bolshevism in Russia and China, no Cold War, no Korea, and no Vietnam. Instead of six years of World War II bloodletting, we may have seen six months of a Hitler-Stalin war, ending with one dead and the other crippled.

But, comes the cry, Hitler sought “world domination.” After Russia he would have seized Western Europe, Britain, and launched his final attack on us. But, would he? According to historian A. J. P. Taylor, “Eastern expansion was the primary purpose of Hitler’s policy, if not the only one.” To Labor Party statesman Roy Denman, “The fear that after Poland Hitler would have attacked Britain was an illusion….Britain was dragged into an unnecessary war.”

On August 11, 1939, Hitler had railed to the Danzig League of Nations commissioner: “Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend that, I will be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians, to smash the West, and then after its defeat, to turn against the Soviet Union…”

This, writes Henry A. Kissinger, “was certainly an accurate statement of Hitler’s priorities: from Great Britain, he wanted non-interference in Continental affairs, and from the Soviet Union, he wanted Lebensraum, or living space. It was a measure of Stalin’s achievement that he was about to reverse Hitler’s priorities…”

Yes, and an equal measure of Britain’s blunder.

Challenging my contention that the U.S. faced no strategic threat after 1940, critics cite Nazi plans for an “Amerika-Bomber.” Berlin, they say, had “embarked on a campaign to obtain bases in Africa and the Canary Islands as part of what… foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop called a ‘huge program…of an anti-American character.’”

But this is comic-book history. Not only did the Royal Air Force achieve superiority in 1940, the Royal Navy had never lost it, as the French learned, when Churchill ordered his ships to sink the French fleet at Mers el-Kebir in mid-1940, to keep it out of Hitler’s hands.

In November, 1940, the Italian fleet was smashed at Taranto. “By this single stroke,” exulted Churchill, “the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean was decisively altered.” In early ’41 Hitler’s mighty surface raider, Bismarck, was sunk on its maiden voyage; the Graf Spee had been scuttled off Montevideo in 1939.

By Pearl Harbor, Hitler was overextended and blocked at the Channel and Atlantic by the Royal Air Force and Navy, and at Moscow and Leningrad by the Red Army. By 1942, he was finished in Africa.

The idea that Hitler, with no surface navy or fleet of transport ships, no landing craft or seamen who had even served on a carrier, could construct in Africa or the Canary Islands ships to threaten the U,S., on the other side of an ocean the U.S. and British navies had ruled since Trafalgar is a proposition too absurd to require rebuttal.

Mr. Buchanan, author of A Republic, Not an Empire, is a candidate for President

 

[jokersarewild]

As usual I didn't waste much time on your reply once you refused to admit America was needed to stop Hitler. Hitler had to expend resources and troops to Europe that could have been sent to beat Russia. The Russians barely won so without America entering WW2, Hitler wins Europe and those troops that were sent there to try and fight off the Americans would have been the deciding victory for Hitler to beat the Russians.

"I didn't bother to read your response because it doesn't jive with my beliefs, so you must be wrong."

In the spirit of debate, I read everything you post. Makes you look bad when you admit to not reading everything because I don't agree with you.

Also, Russia would've won despite our help.

You and hugo sound like Obama with his "saved jobs" claims, you can't prove it and you making up outlandish claims anyone who studied the actual wars would know better. Europe would have lost without America, and even if Russia did win on their front, there would have been no reason Hitler would not have been able to withdraw and hold his European gains.

And you've obviously studied so many wars, right?

Well, since Russia still had plenty of fight left, and Germany made many, many strategic blunders, it's quite easy to figure out. Stalin didn't need strategy. He just threw people at it until it went away.

Germany wouldn't have been able to withdraw and hold Europe anyway. He didn't have the forces to do it anyway. However, Hitler was egotistical. He wanted Russia. He wouldn't have stopped.

And he would've lost.

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

 

[hugo]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

 

[jokersarewild]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

Calm your heels there, Hugo.

I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up.

And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job.

Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was.

 

[hugo]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

Calm your heels there, Hugo.

I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up.

And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job.

Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was.

The kind of answer you would expect from a communist.

 

[jokersarewild]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

Calm your heels there, Hugo.

I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up.

And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job.

Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was.

The kind of answer you would expect from a communist.

Ride the Red Wave, baby