http://www.takimag.com/site/article/man_of_the_century/
My comments at that thread above by Pat Buchanan
As pointed in comments above, a brilliant essay. Britain had many chances to try to nudge the stream of history in a way positive to it.
Britain and France had a large portion of the earth under their control in 1939. They could have taken all the refugees from Europe and put them in their colonies. Because they didn’t do that, they lost them in a few years. If this had happened, there would have been no Holocaust. It would have been win win relative to actual history for both.
(The disorderly Europeans such as Roma i.e. gypsies should not have been inflicted on orderly German Jews but should have been sent into the worst of the worst, i.e. one of the Muslim countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Jewish Germans should have been given the chance to make a go of one of the better spots. This also would have shown Hitler’s mistake in a constructive way instead of the destructive way chosen. They could even have partly reconstituted some departments of German universities. One of the refugee physicists, I think Edward Teller, remarked that Hitler destroyed the civilization of Central Europe of the 1920’s. This was one of the peaks of human civilization. But WWII and Stalin continued the job of burying it.
The Scottish Cafe in Poland between the wars had some of the leading mathematicians who wrote results in a book kept there. This book was later recovered. Cafe physics was a term for doing theoretical physics in such an environment. This could have been partly recreated in the French and British colonies instead of being destroyed completely as happened from the combined effect of Hitler, WWII and Stalin.)
==
What countries were liberated in WWII? Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Greece, and part of occupied France. In Asia, the Philippines. Maybe a little more here or there. What was liberated was what would not have been occupied if the West had remained at peace in 1939.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_19/article2.html
Churchill, Hitler, and the Unneces-sary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Patrick J. Buchanan, Crown, 501 pages
by John Lukacs
Lukacs raises potential arguments against Buchanan’s thesis but doesn’t prove them.
My comment:
Lukacs raises some issues but doesn’t really prove an opposite conclusion. What would Germany have done after defeating Russia?
Hitler didn’t put Germany on a total war production basis until late in the war. He wanted guns and butter. Hitler was careful with his popularity. Once he had a good part of Russia, say up to the Urals, he likely would have tried to make good to the Germans for the losses they would have had.
Hitler understood a dictator needed to maintain popularity. That means he could have only so many wars. Hitler wanted to have the one war that he wanted with the USSR and then keep the German people happy with him. He knew some in the office corps wanted to kill him. Russia would have been enough sacrifice, so he would have stopped there for a long time.
Hitler would have taken some easy additional gains in Central Asia and also expanded towards the Pacific, as the Tsars did. But that likely would have been it.
(Hitler understood the profession of dictator better than the commentators against Buchanan’s book. He knew he had to maintain his popularity. That meant not war after conquering European Russia but peace. Expansion after that would be in Asia.)
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/23/john-lukacs-neocon/
My earlier post on the Buchanan book
http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/pat-buchanan-wwii-tragedy-of-errors/
WWI and WWII were not Pareto optimal. Neither was the U.S. Civil War. Nor the Napoleonic wars. Nor the 30 Years War. These wars were mistakes.
Do leaders sometimes stop such wars as they start? Do we fail to notice cases where such wars started but then were stopped? Are these minor wars of history?
If we think about a branching universe theory, or many worlds hypothesis, then it may be that wars like WWII are bad branches. Somebody has to be on them, and its us. The lesson is to make your branch as good as it can be and try to rectify the bad turns that brought your branch down. There are also worse branches. So we must make the best of our branch that we can.
The lesson of WWII is try to stop stupidity that gets out of hand. Don’t be greedy. Unconditional Surrender was greedy and stupid. What did we get at the end of the war? Soviet and Communist domination from the Pacific Ocean to the middle of Europe with inroads in most of the rest of the world.
Taki’s take on the good war:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_truth_about_the_good_war/
Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks Peter Hitchens
By PETER HITCHENS
Last updated at 21:01 19 April 2008* commentsComments (5)
* Add to My Stories Add to My StoriesIt makes me feel like a traitor to write this. The Second World War was my religion for most of my life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/books/review/Toibin-t.html
Nicholson Baker “Human Smoke” reviewed by Times.
By COLM TOIBIN
Published: March 23, 2008
Pat Buchanan ancestry
http://www.wargs.com/political/buchanan.html
Some of Buchanan’s ancestors are German especially Hesse (or Hessen in German).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
Buchanan has German, Scots Irish, and Irish ancestry.[1] He had a great-grandfather who fought in the American Civil War on the Confederate side. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans[4] and admires Robert E. Lee.[5]
As Vanishing American likes to point out, he likely has English ancestry as well. The tree given at the link further above seems to be consistent with VA’s hypothesis of a tendency to downplay English ancestry in terms of the seemingly more ethnic versions of Anglo-Celt ancestry.
Unconditional Surrender was a marketing phrase to sell the war. It never had any real meaning. It made it sound like it would be the War to end all Wars. But that too was false. Unconditional Surrender was intended to deceive. Its kept on working long after the war. Lukacs is still deceived by the phrase. He still thinks we won Unconditional Surrender and that meant something.
We had “total victory” over Iraq. That didn’t mean we actually won anything. We won a tar baby. What we got with World War II was the tar baby of the Soviet Empire and the Chicom Empire. We lost the third world and got a population bubble. That is now exterminating us. We lost all around. We are surrendering unconditionally to immigration and our extinction. The ones deceived are ourselves. We have met the unconditional surrenderers and they are us.
Search Unconditional Surrender
The first hit is the followinghttp://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/10.html
Despite its associations, the above link is interesting in its contentions and citations. The following is without the associations of the above link, but also has a critical discussion of Unconditional Surrender.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/626385.html
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp
Since the US didn’t seek to enslave Germany or Japan, Unconditional Surrender was a mistake? It helped the Soviet Union.
The ones deceived the most were the British and American governments. Franklin D. Roosevelt fooled himself with it. So did Winston Churchill.
This is the same multi-culti nonsense in another form we have today. Its a belief in millenialism. That is the heart of neconism. Its a Utopian fantasy. Just as communism and the Soviet Union were. FDR and Churchill both displayed leftist inner beliefs at many points in their life. They were in a milieu that was leftist. When Churchill lost the election in 1945, he was replaced by a radical leftist. FDR had a communist VP at the time he made the Unconditional Surrender demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace
Wallace had said that if he became President, he would appoint Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as Secretary of Treasury. Both Duggan and White were Communist sympathizers who are now known to have been Soviet spies. Their appointment could have been a major victory for Soviet intelligence.[3]
World War I was also part of this Utopianism and leftism. WWI was at a time of leftist agitation and saw multiple communist states set up at its end. The US Civil War was part of this utopianism and also failed. The West from the time of the French Revolution in 1789 to the present has been playing with its self-destruct button, which is marked Communism, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Diversity, Third World Demography, Immigration, Asylum (What a contradiction that is, its really invasion for them and the loss of our asylum.) etc.
We can see that the phrase Unconditional Surrender neutralized their brains by the fact when they got to 1945 they found they were in a war with the Soviet Union they hadn’t expected. They knew it was coming but they put their brain in the neutral position about it. Leftism is the off switch of the brain. It idles with meaningless phrases.
We can see that in the French Revolution, US Civil War, WWI, Communist Revolutions, Fascist takeovers, WWII, Cold War, Iraq, 3rd world demography, immigration, multiculturalism, Islam war, etc.
Leftist Utopianism disables the brain of the West so that it has to wake up at the last minute when occupation and real unconditional surrender stares it in the face. Soviet occupation was unconditional surrender. That’s why Stalin wanted it. Third world demography and immigration is real unconditional surrender.
Islam is unconditional and total surrender. The left keeps denying this. FDR was simply mouthing leftist denial of reality when he said Unconditional Surrender. He was just helping leftism in the USSR and China and the third world. The Soviets were already training communists from Africa in Moscow in the 1930’s. They were already engaged in outreach in the 1920’s. Just like Saudi Islam today. The West was a deactivated leftist head then and now.
Obama and McCain are variants of the same genus of leftist brain virus. That is why arguing over them is like arguing which infection is better. We need to choose another way. That is Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party for now, although that party is flawed and Baldwin seems afraid to denounce legal immigration.
(I am having trouble with paragraph breaks in WordPress today.)
May 30, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hello:) Very well said,but this time don’t will be who saves Europeans(aka west world) ,from the same fate like ancient Mayas,Egyptians,Incas,Sumerians and others,destroyed,forget civilization only because of inner…..wars!