Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Three on WWII
  • Eric Margolis on ridiculous analogies.
    All you have to do is to tell them (the people) they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
    — Hermann Goering
    Iran has no long-ranged missiles, nuclear weapons, or bombers. Its decrepit air force barely flies. Iran’s so-called navy is a lightly armed coast guard. Its ground forces are immobile and lack all forms of modern weapons. Tehran’s defense budget is the size of Poland’s or Norway’s, and 100 times smaller than US military spending.

    Should the US talk to enemies? Of course. Diplomacy is one of three primary tools of statecraft long with military and economic power.

    Refusing to talk to one’s foes is stupid, childish and counterproductive. World War I was sparked by the breakdown of diplomacy. It could have ended with a fair peace in 1917, and spared the world Stalin and Hitler, if the US had not foolishly entered the war, thus allowing Britain and France to reject negotiations with Germany.
    A fair peace like the one the Pope and the beatified Austrian emperor wanted. Woodrow Wilson, his liberal Protestant fans and the British establishment told them to go to hell.

  • Inconvenient facts. Which side pioneered starvation and air-terror campaigns? I don’t see a main premise Pat Buchanan and I repeat (dismissed by John Lukacs who seems to look down upon the Russians; Peter Hitchens reviewing Buchanan mentions it in the next linked story): Hitler did not want to bring down the British Empire and had no plans to invade America; he hated the Russians and the Soviet government. The answer then would have been humanitarian aid to the Jews like simply dropping immigration quotas and opening borders (which the Allies didn’t do, as mentioned here) — non-intervention is not ‘isolation’ and even real conservative Robert Taft supported non-military aid to the British — sit back and let the Nazis and the Communists destroy each other (and trade with imperial Japan just like relations with China today) and then accept a conditional surrender when the Germans got rid of Hitler.

  • As pointless and self-defeating as Iraq. The Soviets were the worse evil.
    What if the Men of Glory didn’t need to die or risk their lives? What if the whole thing was a miscalculated waste of life and wealth that destroyed Britain as a major power and turned her into a bankrupt pensioner of the USA?

    Who really won the war, since Britain is now subject to a German-run European Union?

    The USA did very well out of a war in which Britain and Russia did most of the fighting, while Washington pocketed (and still keeps) most of the benefits.

    The country most interested in dismantling our Empire was the USA. Hitler never built a surface navy truly capable of challenging ours and, luckily for us, he left it too late to build enough submarines to starve us out.
From LRC.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment