S
Sean Sannity
Guest
This fascinating article really begs the question. Would we have had
a Cold War with the Soviets? Would Mao have ever emerged in China?
JUST HOW DIFFERENT WOULD THE WORLD BE TODAY IF WE HAD NOT FOUGHT?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25859
Was It 'The Good War'?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: 04/04/2008
"Yes, it was a good war," writes Richard Cohen in his column
challenging the thesis of pacifist Nicholson Baker in his new book,
"Human Smoke," that World War II produced more evil than good.
Baker's compelling work, which uses press clips and quotes of Axis and
Allied leaders as they plunged into the great cataclysm, is a virtual
diary of the days leading up to World War II.
Riveting to this writer was that Baker uses some of the same episodes,
sources and quotes as this author in my own book out in May,
"Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War.'"
On some points, Cohen is on sold ground. There are things worth
fighting for: God and country, family and freedom. Martyrs have ever
inspired men. And to some evils pacifism is no answer. Resistance,
even unto death, may be required of a man.
But when one declares a war that produced Hiroshima and the Holocaust
a "Good War," it raises a question: good for whom?
Britain declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, to preserve Poland. For six
years, Poland was occupied by Nazi and Soviet armies and SS and NKVD
killers. At war's end, the Polish dead were estimated at 6 million. A
third of Poland had been torn away by Stalin, and Nazis had used the
country for the infamous camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz.
Fifteen thousand Polish officers had been massacred at places like
Katyn. The Home Army that rose in Warsaw at the urging of the Red Army
in 1944 had been annihilated, as the Red Army watched from the other
side of the Vistula. When the British celebrated V-E day in May 1945,
Poland began 44 years of tyranny under the satraps of Stalin,
Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
Was World War II "a good war" for the Poles?
Was it a good war for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, overrun by
Stalin's army in June 1940, whose people saw their leaders murdered or
deported to the Gulag never to return? Was it a good war for the Finns
who lost Karelia and thousands of brave men dead in the Winter War?
Was it a good war for Hungarians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Rumanians and
Albanians who ended up behind the Iron Curtain? In Hungary, it was
hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the
"liberators" of the Red Army. Was it a good war for the 13 million
German civilians ethnically cleansed from Central Europe and the 2
million who died in the exodus?
Was it a good war for the French, who surrendered after six weeks of
fighting in 1940 and had to be liberated by the Americans and British
after four years of Vichy collaboration?
And how good a war was it for the British?
They went to war for Poland, but Winston Churchill abandoned Poland to
Stalin. Defeated in Norway, France, Greece, Crete and the western
desert, they endured until America came in and joined in the
liberation of Western Europe.
Yet, at war's end in 1945, Britain was bled and bankrupt, and the
great cause of Churchill's life, preserving his beloved empire, was
lost. Because of the "Good War" Britain would never be great again.
And were the means used by the Allies, the terror bombing of Japanese
and German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of women and
children, perhaps millions, the marks of a "good war"?
Cohen contends that the evil of the Holocaust makes it a "good war."
But the destruction of the Jews of Europe was a consequence of this
war, not a cause. As for the Japanese atrocities like the Rape of
Nanking, they were indeed horrific.
But America's smashing of Japan led not to freedom for China, but four
years of civil war followed by 30 years of Maoist madness in which 30
million Chinese perished.
For America, the war was Pearl Harbor and Midway, Anzio and Iwo Jima,
Normandy and Bastogne, days of glory leading to triumph and the
American Century.
But for Joseph Stalin, it was also a good war. From his pact with
Adolf Hitler he annexed parts of Finland and Rumania, and three Baltic
republics. His armies stood in Berlin, Prague and Vienna; his agents
were vying for power in Rome and Paris; his ally was installed in
North Korea; his protege, Mao, was about to bring China into his
empire. But it was not so good a war for the inmates of Kolyma or the
Russian POWs returned to Stalin in Truman's Operation Keelhaul.
Is a war that replaces Hitler's domination of Europe with Stalin's and
Japan's rule in China with Mao's a "good war"? We had to stop the
killers, says Cohen. But who were the greater killers: Hitler or
Stalin, Tojo or Mao Zedong?
Can a war in which 50 million perished and the Christian continent was
destroyed, half of it enslaved, a war that has advanced the death of
Western civilization, be truly celebrated as a "good war"?
a Cold War with the Soviets? Would Mao have ever emerged in China?
JUST HOW DIFFERENT WOULD THE WORLD BE TODAY IF WE HAD NOT FOUGHT?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25859
Was It 'The Good War'?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: 04/04/2008
"Yes, it was a good war," writes Richard Cohen in his column
challenging the thesis of pacifist Nicholson Baker in his new book,
"Human Smoke," that World War II produced more evil than good.
Baker's compelling work, which uses press clips and quotes of Axis and
Allied leaders as they plunged into the great cataclysm, is a virtual
diary of the days leading up to World War II.
Riveting to this writer was that Baker uses some of the same episodes,
sources and quotes as this author in my own book out in May,
"Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War.'"
On some points, Cohen is on sold ground. There are things worth
fighting for: God and country, family and freedom. Martyrs have ever
inspired men. And to some evils pacifism is no answer. Resistance,
even unto death, may be required of a man.
But when one declares a war that produced Hiroshima and the Holocaust
a "Good War," it raises a question: good for whom?
Britain declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, to preserve Poland. For six
years, Poland was occupied by Nazi and Soviet armies and SS and NKVD
killers. At war's end, the Polish dead were estimated at 6 million. A
third of Poland had been torn away by Stalin, and Nazis had used the
country for the infamous camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz.
Fifteen thousand Polish officers had been massacred at places like
Katyn. The Home Army that rose in Warsaw at the urging of the Red Army
in 1944 had been annihilated, as the Red Army watched from the other
side of the Vistula. When the British celebrated V-E day in May 1945,
Poland began 44 years of tyranny under the satraps of Stalin,
Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
Was World War II "a good war" for the Poles?
Was it a good war for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, overrun by
Stalin's army in June 1940, whose people saw their leaders murdered or
deported to the Gulag never to return? Was it a good war for the Finns
who lost Karelia and thousands of brave men dead in the Winter War?
Was it a good war for Hungarians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Rumanians and
Albanians who ended up behind the Iron Curtain? In Hungary, it was
hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the
"liberators" of the Red Army. Was it a good war for the 13 million
German civilians ethnically cleansed from Central Europe and the 2
million who died in the exodus?
Was it a good war for the French, who surrendered after six weeks of
fighting in 1940 and had to be liberated by the Americans and British
after four years of Vichy collaboration?
And how good a war was it for the British?
They went to war for Poland, but Winston Churchill abandoned Poland to
Stalin. Defeated in Norway, France, Greece, Crete and the western
desert, they endured until America came in and joined in the
liberation of Western Europe.
Yet, at war's end in 1945, Britain was bled and bankrupt, and the
great cause of Churchill's life, preserving his beloved empire, was
lost. Because of the "Good War" Britain would never be great again.
And were the means used by the Allies, the terror bombing of Japanese
and German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of women and
children, perhaps millions, the marks of a "good war"?
Cohen contends that the evil of the Holocaust makes it a "good war."
But the destruction of the Jews of Europe was a consequence of this
war, not a cause. As for the Japanese atrocities like the Rape of
Nanking, they were indeed horrific.
But America's smashing of Japan led not to freedom for China, but four
years of civil war followed by 30 years of Maoist madness in which 30
million Chinese perished.
For America, the war was Pearl Harbor and Midway, Anzio and Iwo Jima,
Normandy and Bastogne, days of glory leading to triumph and the
American Century.
But for Joseph Stalin, it was also a good war. From his pact with
Adolf Hitler he annexed parts of Finland and Rumania, and three Baltic
republics. His armies stood in Berlin, Prague and Vienna; his agents
were vying for power in Rome and Paris; his ally was installed in
North Korea; his protege, Mao, was about to bring China into his
empire. But it was not so good a war for the inmates of Kolyma or the
Russian POWs returned to Stalin in Truman's Operation Keelhaul.
Is a war that replaces Hitler's domination of Europe with Stalin's and
Japan's rule in China with Mao's a "good war"? We had to stop the
killers, says Cohen. But who were the greater killers: Hitler or
Stalin, Tojo or Mao Zedong?
Can a war in which 50 million perished and the Christian continent was
destroyed, half of it enslaved, a war that has advanced the death of
Western civilization, be truly celebrated as a "good war"?