Mr. Hitchens , with all of your knowledge of the political history of europe and america, how is it that you totally missed the boat on 9/11.... the former chief of Fire Science at NIST, Alan Miller Phd, states the investigation is a flawed. Why do you believe such nosence as what was presented to the public by the "powers that be". I have a copy of the 9/12 wall street journal.... that story, is obviously propaganda,, as they present the cause of collapse before any kind of investigation. and to wit,,,, an event that has never occured preveously. The govt. or corp media has never deviated from that opinion, in fact that present it as fact. The finding of Mr. Atta's passport on a pile of ashes and the million other clues that point to a false flag attack.
A War Worth Fighting
Revisionists say that World War II was unnecessary. They're wrong.
Member Comments
-
Posted By: dsidor @ 12/20/2008 10:12:23 AM
-
Posted By: BlueSkynik @ 07/17/2008 1:14:49 AM
One more point: regarding Spain, you forget that the fascists did not invade a country in the same sense the US invaded Iraq, for example, but that it came to the aid of a friendly regime. I do recognise that you have a preference for the Republican forces of the Spanish Civil War - but you should still be able to recognise that the Fascists did little that was not common practice at the time.
It is also generally ignored that Chamberlain was, from the perspective of his time, the wiser politician than Churchill. It wasn't until the end of the war that the true madness of Hitler could be fully understood and hence it is with hindsight that we are glad that Churchill succeeded where Chamberlain failed.
Historians tend to lose sight of the fact that the actors at the time could not possibly know what we know today.
By the standards of his own time, Churchill was probably wrong. With hindsight, we know he was right. -
Posted By: BlueSkynik @ 07/17/2008 1:08:33 AM
Sir,
several points: the war of 1870-71 was started by Napoleon III. That Bismarck poked him is another matter, but the war was declared by the French. Mr. Buchanan could have easily argued that the German empire did not start a war until 1914. Incidentally, the agressive militarism of the German empire began with the reign of Emperor Wilhelm II - after the forced resignation of Bismarck who sought to avoid war at all costs. Furthermore, the two provinces annexed from the French had previously been annexed by the French. Elsace-Lorraine had changed hands frequently since 1648. To imply that the taking of these two provinces was particularly agressive by the standards of its time is somewhat silly.
Furthermore, you may want to read Edward Lutwack's discussion of the bomber campaign against German cities. The attacks were military useless, and did little - if anything - to degrade the Germany military potential until late into the war when the attacks began to target militarily relevant installations (such as the Buna works). The only useful thing the attacks accomplished during the Battle of Britain was to provoke Hitler into targetting London instead of the last remanining aerodromes, thereby failing to defeat the Royal Air Force on the ground. -
Posted By: BlueSkynik @ 07/17/2008 1:08:20 AM
Sir,
several points: the war of 1870-71 was started by Napoleon III. That Bismarck poked him is another matter, but the war was declared by the French. Mr. Buchanan could have easily argued that the German empire did not start a war until 1914. Incidentally, the agressive militarism of the German empire began with the reign of Emperor Wilhelm II - after the forced resignation of Bismarck who sought to avoid war at all costs. Furthermore, the two provinces annexed from the French had previously been annexed by the French. Elsace-Lorraine had changed hands frequently since 1648. To imply that the taking of these two provinces was particularly agressive by the standards of its time is somewhat silly.
Furthermore, you may want to read Edward Lutwack's discussion of the bomber campaign against German cities. The attacks were military useless, and did little - if anything - to degrade the Germany military potential until late into the war when the attacks began to target militarily relevant installations (such as the Buna works). The only useful thing the attacks accomplished during the Battle of Britain was to provoke Hitler into targetting London instead of the last remanining aerodromes, thereby failing to defeat the Royal Air Force on the ground. -
Posted By: david-fahey @ 07/07/2008 9:36:55 AM
the one fact that blows apart pat b.'s thesis is: it was HITLER who declared war on the U.S. hitler could have stayed neutral post - pearl harbor. how was the U.S. to avoid war pat? pat b's thesis is just another reason hitler could gain and hold power. the alpha's among us were/are not uncomfortable with the tenents of national socialism. and then blame liberals for all the woes when they realize what a monster they(C's) created. a thought to remember as facist theory enjoys a rebirth in russia, china and other lesser powers disguised as capitalism. and we give away more and more civil rights and constitutional protections to folks like the current administration. who seem to have their own S S/ S A in the ilk of Blackwater protecting them and not G I's with the same training. who are pre protected from prosecution by this prez for any war crimes they might commit as were the S S only answerable to hitler and not the law. and who are busy training local police forces around the country.
-
Posted By: richardwarner @ 07/06/2008 1:56:42 PM
During early 1991, my 31 year old nephew???a FedEx check pilot and ex-Marine F-18 pilot, died of cancer. I can look back now and identify many medical, transportation, care, and treatment mistakes, as well as much doctor, patient, family, friend foolishness, that I witnessed from the date he was diagnosed with cancer through the date of his death and funeral. Many things went wrong. Many people made mistakes. Unfortunate words and actions diminished relationships.
I could, if I wished, damn???in a public forum???many of those involved for their, mistakes, foolishness and errors of judgement, however, I think that would be very unwise. Why? Because: the situation was thrust upon us without warning, few totally understood the problem, no one AT THAT TIME could predict the exact outcome, everyone feared the worst, the vast majority of us were untrained in dealing with an event of this magnitude, we did not have time to prepare for all of the unknowns, and we all did the best we could with the knowledge, prejudices, information, fears, doubts, pressures, shortcomings, that those involved possessed AT THE MOMENT cancer entered the picture. Pat Buchannan seems to have just as unwisely tried to measure an event by assuming that all event participants had the same vantage point that Mr. Buchannan has today???50 years after the event. How convenient. How small. -
Posted By: zbingo @ 07/05/2008 3:45:15 AM
While I'm no historian and do not qualify to discuss anything with Chris Hitchens on *his level of intelletualism*... I will not purchase *Pat Buchanan's nonsense* - WWII certainly has multi-faceted reasons - but for the USA entry into WWII - does anyone remember "... a day that will live in INFAMY"?
-
Posted By: tallfred @ 07/03/2008 11:53:02 AM
War-hawks like to talk of just wars, but the American
public should instead take notice of the German people.
The Germans failed to remove from
office or hold accountable a clearly criminal
government. Many Germans prefered to hear
the state propaganda, instead offering real oversight.-
Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 08/12/2008 2:08:05 PM
Exactly!! WE are responsible, morally and in a practical sense, for whatever we permit our government to do in our names. Even if a government rules by denial or corruption of democratic representation, as in the case of authoritarian states, and therefore reduces the moral component of that popular responsibility, the practical reality remains: we WILL bear the consequences of our government's actions, for good or ill.
-
-
Posted By: mtworden@msn.com @ 07/02/2008 1:08:47 PM
Thank you Mr. Hitchens for your superb rebuttal. All Mr. Buchanan has succeded in is producing another "bible" for domestic right-wing extremists to use in their ongoing war against the a perceived New World Order and Zionism. Just take a look at some of the "reviews" posted on Amazon.com and you'll see several that are obviously from folks who either just sympathize with Hitler or are outright members of National Socialist movement.
-
Posted By: jane.simpson.wilson @ 07/01/2008 6:20:00 PM
Unnecessary...to those who subscribe to this lunacy....Ya Vol! Oh, and I have some great sea-side property for you in Utah. When a WWII vet dies, a library of WWII dies with him/her. It is strange how revisionists believe that publishing an idea that is so out there will lend them credibility. I will steal from Lewis Black who has said that twenty-four hour jounalism is a very bad think. In the box on the right we have the "so called " revisionist who has no credentials and little , if any suppot in the academic community, and then in the box next to him a great historian such as McCollough....Suddenly these two, by appearing side-by-side on a "news program" and discussing any historical topic, especially one of this magnitude, are equals and each is credible because of the power of the medium. Marshall McLuhan....did you ever see this train coming?
-
Posted By: John Bryans Fontaine @ 06/29/2008 12:42:44 PM
Regarding Christopher Hitchens, a War worth Fighting, June 23rd, it???s Orwellian, but not surprising how the political Right continues its devious attempts to distort the Truth about the Nazis, whether this involves Pat Buchanan???s apologism for and even sly defense of Adolf Hitler or Jonah Goldberg's ( Liberal Fascism ) cunning Doublethink that Hitler and the Nazis were, in any way, part of the political Left. Concerning Goldberg???s Lies: Hitler believed that Socialism was part of the far political Right, and identical to Nationalism. This is why he named the movement ???National Socialism???.
As far as Churchill versus Buchanan, the former is the model of a decent Conservative. The latter?, well, see above.
John Bryans Fontaine
Westport, CT -
Posted By: fredb001@gmail.com @ 06/27/2008 10:53:10 AM
I agree with Hitchens that World War II was a war worth fighting, that
it was not avoidable. But there was much about the conduct of the war
he avoids mentioning.
Churchill and Roosevelt did very little before the war to
save European Jews and other innocents and very little during the war
to blunt the implementation and carrying out of the Final Solution,
despite what they knew to be happening and much pleading from many
quarters.
The carpet-bombing of German cities achieved very little other than
the slaughter of civilians. When, early in the war, an internal RAF
report pointed out that it was having no effect on the German war
effort, the officer who produced the report was transferred elsewhere.
Also, Britain was the first to engage in the indiscriminate bombing of
cities in the war. The firebombing and utter destruction of Dresden by
the Allies late in the war did nothing "to end the war one microsecond
earlier," and gave us, the good guys, the dubious distinction of
killing the most humans in a single day using conventional weapons.
German war production only failed at the very end of the war.
Despite the leveling of Japan's major cities, their centers of
production, we still feared Japan enough that we unleashed two atom
bombs on showcase cities, intentionally spared from being bombed
earlier for that purpose. This gave us the further dubious distinction
of killing the most humans in a single day through the use of a
nuclear weapon.
Nothing can be done about the conduct of World War II. The important
point to be taken away from all of this should be that in present and
future wars the wholesale killing and maiming of non-combatants is
both inhuman and ineffective. -
Posted By: Advocate4Liberty @ 06/25/2008 7:24:41 AM
An excellent refutation of Trotskyite-turned-neocon Hitchens' argument, Buchanan's riposte if you will, can be found in his commentary at www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13039 Simply put, Hitchens is simply wrong, in addition to distorting timelines in a limp attempt to justify British and later American atrocities.
-
Posted By: rmnjfk1960 @ 06/20/2008 11:37:37 AM
Simply put. What if the Hitler and the Nazis were not confronted and were able to have a nuclear arsenal. Then there would of been a Holocaust on a scale that would be horrific.
-
Posted By: starwind111 @ 06/19/2008 10:39:01 PM
Note to the crazies, my reference to 9/11 is not about Arabs hating Americans, it is about American hating Arabs because a small group of Arabs attacked us. Also for all those warmongers, the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, something Bush doesn't like to point out because he has many Saudi friends (he has run a number of their oil companies into the ground) and America imports alot of Saudi oil. Also, he knows the world opinion of Saudi Arabia is good and the UN would not appreciate the US attacking another country that did not attack us (Saudi Arabian citizens attacked us but there is no evidence there gov't was involved even though Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi). I lied there though, the reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia is b/c it is a major oil exporter and the US economy in particular would crumble if an invasion interupted oil exports (for us imports). Knowing that, do you still believe the invasion of Iraq was justified or have you figured out Sadam Hussein was just an easy target who did not have nukes or oil he could legally sell (sanctions-Iran anyone?) or even any terror connections except the fact that he was concerned about Shia groups starting a revolt. (note it would have been much easier for the US to go this route but we had already bailed on a revolution which was squashed and it's members killed, reducing US credibility in that department.) Also, does it concern you that your leader lied to you and has not apologized and has no intention to. I'll make this short, Bush is a sadist, if you want to inflict harm on someone you don't even know then you are a sadist. Sadists are not good Christians but they are good at questioning good Christians faith (see Obama). He who throws the first stone and all that. If you believe a passage in the Bible trumps the teachings of Jesus (turn the other cheek and feed the poor and all that) then you are not a good Christian. My advice, find God or a new religion, for all you hateful nuts out there w/ no release, I recommend, for you, not me, Satanism, that and a hunting trip w/ Cheney (who never apologized for shooting that guy in the face, in fact, the guy apologized for being shot, what a pile of crap. Cheney=Satanist
Republican voter=retarded Democratic voter=slightly more intelligent but just slightly
Libertarian = freedom Green=enviromentalism me=anti retarded -
Posted By: starwind111 @ 06/19/2008 10:08:46 PM
I think it's obvious that while Hitler was a vile man, he never would have come to power if stiff economic sanctions and penalties had not been hoisted on Germany post WWI. On top of that w/ no army to speak of post WWI, France invaded 2 highly productive (Coal)German provinces w/ no resistance. Had Britain come to Germany's aid militarily and economically Germany may not have experienced the record inflation that left the average German flat broke or worse. Had the German citizens not been so desperate for change (different times and different circumstances) Hitler would never have been trusted by anyone but the fringe groups. As it was he offered an easy way out and the average citizen had the choice of President Hitler or starvation. I'm not saying that Germany should not have been penalized for it's aggression in WWI, just that the financial penalties enacted were never paid anyway since Germany was broke after the war. Also, the military restrictions made Germany vulnerable militarily and economically. Under such conditions bad things happen and the people in charge of the situation need to be held accountible. That said, I think carpet bombing German cities then is just as bad as carpet bombing cities in Iraq and Iran today. Innocents would die (bad) and their friends and families and countrymen would come to hate us (9/11 anyone?). Aggression does not solve a problem, domination does, and domination can be achieved w/ zero aggression if the dominator is smart, efficient, and humane (note, not all humans are humane).
-
Posted By: onepoker @ 06/22/2008 2:08:46 PM
Your arguments sound like a defense attorney pleading with the court that his client isn't guilty of Murdering 4 women because he was abused as a child by his mother.
-
-
Posted By: TakCWAL @ 06/19/2008 5:33:33 PM
While Mr. Hitchens criticized Buchanan for withholding important historical facts leading to the First World War, he was making the same mistake in his article. In criticizing the Kaiser's aggressive, if not clumsy, foreign policy, Mr. Hitehcnes failed to note the equally aggressive British and French colonial policies exercised from Asia to Africa, as well as the infamous pan-Slavic ambitions of the former Russian Empire. Yet, Mr. Hitchens made no mention of these factors, despite them being major contributions to the outbreak of the First World War, and put the blame almost too conveniently on the Kaiser and Germany. In fact, the British and French authorities were picking fights across the globe long before the Kaiser laid his hands on Germany's first overseas colony!
And what of Hitler? His rise to power was hardly surprising. The post-WWI world, Germany torn by uncertainty and chaos, while the rest of Europe sat back and watched, without lifting a single finger to assist Germany in its integration to the International Community. Adding to the injury was the occupation of German Ruhr by France and Belgium where once again, Germany was left to its own devices. Under these harsh conditions, no wonder a vast majority of German people preferred stability & security to consciousness.
Then there were the British and French colonial empires, where the indigenous peoples saw further exploitation and oppression during the immediate post-WWI era. Certainly, the ???war to make the world safer for Democracy??? did not apply to them. While Hitler???s war in Europe was terrible, it nonetheless broke the backs of major imperialist powers of Europe and indirectly contributed to the independence of former colonies around the world, where British and French colonial masters were viewed just as evil, if not surpassing the evils of National Socialism itself. Nor were the French and British authorities intended to give up their colonial holdings upon the end to the Second World War. Violence, proxy wars, racism and other forms of chaos from Vietnam to South Africa all originated from generations of forceful occupation by European colonial powers and their reluctance of giving up their holdings. But, apparently to Mr. Hitchens, everything was about the Kaiser, Hitler and German militarism. Indigenous peoples of occupied territories who suffered generations of exploitation and oppression at the hands of the British and French, people the Germans had very little to do with, certainly didn't matter to him.
And let us not forget, while Germany admitted and apologized for its war crimes committed during the Second World War, the British and French have yet to make a similar, official remark regarding their past colonial legacies.
- Tak -
Posted By: erenkoy @ 06/19/2008 1:12:00 PM
"aggressive Ottoman imperialism" ? The last Ottoman aggression was long before WW1. The Ottoman Empire had been shrinking and on defense long before the WW1. And there was nothing holy about the Ottoman's war against Britain since all muslims allied with Brits against Turks.
-
Posted By: tc125231 @ 06/18/2008 11:12:24 AM
Djacques75 obviously views himself as a big time intellect. However, his points are vague and poorly substantiated. In this he resembles Buchanan -- an intellectual lightweight who sees himself as a major thinker.
-
Posted By: djacques75 @ 06/19/2008 3:37:19 AM
However unimpressed you may be with my argument, you'll at least notice that I've actually offered one. Where's yours?
-
-
Posted By: djacques75 @ 06/17/2008 5:29:06 PM
plains5728, I doubt you'd know a Nazi sympathizer from a transit of Venus, but don't let that get in the way of your paranoia.
-
Posted By: plains5728 @ 06/17/2008 3:51:19 PM
I have often suspected that Pat Buchanan was a Nazi sympathizer. His new book on World War II removes any doubt of that. As long as MSNBC gives Patrick J Buchanan a forum to speak I will not watch MSNBC.
-
Posted By: Advocate4Liberty @ 06/25/2008 5:53:23 AM
Wow, more time for Spongebob, eh?
-
-
Posted By: plains5728 @ 06/17/2008 3:50:09 PM
I have often suspected that Pat Buchanan was a Nazi sympathizer. His new book on World War II removes any doubt of that. As long as MSNBC gives Patrick J Buchanan a forum to speak I will not watch MSNBC.
-
Posted By: bill.stull @ 06/16/2008 11:30:32 PM
Serbia was behind the assanation
-
Posted By: djacques75 @ 06/16/2008 6:53:28 PM
Nobody should be surprised that Buchanan is an embracer of contradictions: after all, at the same time he opposed the Iraq War, he gloated over such developments as the physical intimidation of Chris Hedges by pro-war hooligans at Rockford College in 2003. But I digress. Buchanan is absolutely right in his general evaluation of WW2. There is no "moral" case for American intervention that could not equally well be deployed in favor of intervening against Stalin on behalf of the Ukraine, or against Mao on behalf of Tibet, or against any cruel dictator on behalf of anyone. Obviously if one wants to live in a country that is not constantly at war, one can't adopt that kind of foreign policy consistently. (And adopting it inconsistently begs embarrassing questions like: Why is a Ukrainian or Tibetan or Chechen worth less than a Jew?) When Hitchens says, "Unless or until Nazism had been vanquished, millions of people were most certainly going to be either massacred or enslaved in any case", one wonders what he thinks actually happened in all those countries where the red flag flew, thanks to our destruction of its main competition. No: our alliance with Stalin against Hitler and the Japanese was no more attractive and no more necessary than the reverse scenario would've been, especially as they were disposed to fight each other and we were more than capable of defending ourselves against both. We won a cold war with the commies with the fascists absent; we could have won a cold war with the fascists with the commies absent. I am quite proud of the fact that America stayed out of the fray until December 1941, and wish to hell we'd stayed out longer or entirely. And, in passing: no, the atrocities of the Holocaust most certainly do NOT provide retrospective justification for burning the eyeballs out of Japanese schoolkids and wiping German cities off the map, and the suggestion to the contrary is an almost perfect paragon of immorality: a combination of reckless vengeance and twisted utilitarianism.
-
Posted By: djacques75 @ 06/16/2008 6:35:23 PM
Nobody should be surprised that Buchanan is an embracer of contradictions: after all, at the same time he opposed the Iraq War, he gloated over such developments as the physical intimidation of Chris Hedges by pro-war hooligans at Rockford College in 2003. But I digress. Buchanan is absolutely right in his general evaluation of WW2. There is no ???moral??? case for American intervention that could not equally well be deployed in favor of intervening against Stalin on behalf of the Ukraine, or against Mao on behalf of Tibet, or against any cruel dictator on behalf of anyone. Obviously if one wants to live in a country that is not constantly at war, one can???t adopt that kind of foreign policy consistently. (And adopting it inconsistently begs embarrassing questions like: Why is a Ukrainian or Tibetan or Chechen worth less than a Jew?) When Hitchens says, ???Unless or until Nazism had been vanquished, millions of people were most certainly going to be either massacred or enslaved in any case???, one wonders what he thinks actually happened in all those countries where the red flag flew, thanks to our destruction of its main competition. No: our alliance with Stalin against Hitler and the Japanese was no more attractive and no more necessary than the reverse scenario would???ve been, especially as they were disposed to fight each other and we were more than capable of defending ourselves against either. We won a cold war with the commies with the fascists absent; we could???ve won a cold war with the fascists with the commies absent. I???m quite proud of the fact that America stayed out of the fray until December ???41, and wish to hell we???d stayed out longer or entirely. And, in passing, no, the atrocities of the Holocaust most certainly do NOT provide retrospective justification for burning the eyeballs out of Japanese schoolkids and wiping German cities off the map, and the suggestion to the contrary is an almost perfect paragon of immorality: a combination of reckless retributivism and twisted utilitarianism.
-
Posted By: terrycollmann @ 06/16/2008 5:34:21 PM
Was Buchanan aware that at one time the Kaiser was looking at an <a href="http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050902a.htm"> invasion of the United States</a>?
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/16/2008 5:16:21 PM
Buchanan should have read The Arms Of Krupp, by William Manchester, an immaculate historian who spent some years researching the manufacture of German Arms by the Krupp arms factory in Germany. Especially in the years preceding WWII, one can hardly deny that Hitler had Big War in mind and domination of more non-German territory than Europe would ever be able to tolerate, if not even all of Europe. It is hard to see how he could be serious in calling our involvement in WWII a "war of choice". Weren't Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war against the U.S. just a few days after Pearl Harbor enough? How could we choose not to declare war in return? Choice? What choice?
If he writes this book in an effort to somehow excuse the administration for starting the Iraq war, then I can understand the book as some kind of political ploy for those who can barely read well enough to read his book. -
Posted By: Nins @ 06/16/2008 1:30:05 PM
Dear One, I agree with you about the horrible social conditions in Iran. I have two things to say about that. One is, Americans need to be VERY CAREFUL not to let the religious right wing take over the Supreme Court, considering that Iran shows you what it really looks like when a nation fails to separate church and state. The second point is that WE, the USA, put those nut jobs in power by placing the Shah in power then controlling his government as a puppet, which infuriated the Iranian people. The Iranian people rebelled against such imperialism, and in the middle of this secular political rebellion, the Ayatollahs seized power. Not to mention the very cogent fact that WE, the USA, gave Iran their first nuclear reactor. Oh, yeah. We forgot all about that. Now we are threatening to bomb them for possessing technology that WE gave them?
And what is all this nonsense about Iran attacking Israel? Iran has been at war with Iraq for decades, and never succeeded in even taking over a neighboring province. How are they going to fight a long distance war with Israel? Iran does NOT have significant military force to back up a nuclear strike, even if it were stupid enough to indulge in one, even if it already had the warheads, which it does not.
And ask yourself, who has strengthened the religious fanatics that control Iran? The USA. First, we give them nuclear power, then we set up conditions for the Ayatollahs to seize power, then we plunge Iraq into civil war and destroy Iraq's infrastructure, which effectively disables Iran's greatest enemy. Furthermore, Bush refuses to have diplomatic relations, only worsening the situation. And McCain threatens to bomb Iran, which is even stupider (and much more real) than Iran threatening to bomb Israel. We have no one but ourselves to blame for the horrible situation in the middle east.
VOTE FOR OBAMA to end all this needless drama. -
Posted By: ravitchn@bellsouth.net @ 06/16/2008 8:13:26 AM
Fascism resembled Communism only in its appeal to the masses. Fascism actually was a way of fighting Communism and Socialism by substituting the classless nation or race for the class struggle of the Marxists. Where the Left appealed to class, the Right appealed to the Nation in order to prevent social revolution. The Nazis did many revolutionary things -- but always in the interest of preventing real revolution, class revolution.
-
Posted By: Argonauticus @ 06/16/2008 5:14:35 AM
As we watch the West self-destruct all around us more and more every day and at some level realize that the West is now rapidly on its way out to soon be replaced by Islam, I think it is worthwhile to finally realize the historical "Truth Which Dare Not Speak its Name... that Truth which 60+ years of Propaganda has obscured. That Truth being that in the long run, Hitler's Germany may very well have been the Last Opportunity for Western Civilization to achieve global dominance.
In the aftermath of the war, however, and primarily due to the undeniable horrors of the Holocaust, any GOOD associated with Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Third Reich (and yes, there were GOOD aspects of National Socialism and Hitler as a leader of Germany, and the all-too-brief 12-year history of the Third Reich) attached to these that any open and logical mind can see... see 1936 comments of David Lloyd George) was completely effaced from the annals of history.
As a wiser man than myself once said, "One 'Aw Shucks,, takes away a thousand 'atta-boys'." And in the particular case of Hitler and the Third Reich, the Holocaust was one heckl of a "Aw Shucks" instance.
At any rate, as quoted in the 1936 observations of former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, no one can deny the greatness of Hitler as a national leader.
One can only wonder how the world would have been different had World War II never occurred, or had Hitler's Germany prevailed or survived and Hitler's own vision of what he saw as a Better World been realized.
Would it have been Better?
One can only wonder now....
And yet, as we look around ourselves and watch the West making its final swansong before it fades too into the annals of history, more than a few people are now beginning to believe that Hilter's vision of a better world absolutely would have been better than the undeniable reality that confronts the West now within a couple of generations... racial and cultural extinction.-
Posted By: amaloney @ 06/17/2008 7:47:55 AM
So you would be in support of Nazism as it would preserve a White, Western agenda and would "squash" the rise of Islam? Hitler was very much in cooperation, from both a philosophical and political perspective, with Arab leaders who supported his destruction of European Jewry. Sure, Hitler was a "good leader" in the sense that he convinced an entire nation to support him, but I'm not sure that his goals of political and genocidal world domination could ever be justified or validated in the name of preserving a Christian or Western world-view. In fact, it would have made it harder to hope for any kind of peace or Western allies in the Middle East, as Israel never would have been created. Perhaps Hitler would have eventually turned on those Arab leaders, in another war, in his ongoing desire for an Aryan earth...would that appease you? Hitler's "vision" of racial and cultural extinction of "non-Aryans" - and your support of it - makes him and you no better than the Muslim terrorists you so obviously fear/despise.
I can't think of a single "better world" in which my entire family (and myself) would have been wiped out. I can't deny your right to believe whatever you want, but it's sad that racists like you are so powerful in our society.
-
-
Posted By: mfenwick @ 06/15/2008 10:48:01 PM
Well, Mr. Hitchens, have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever seen someone bite off his tongue in pain? Have you ever seen someone's eyes roll in the back of his head? Have you ever heard a dying soldier cry out for his mother? I thought not. Then you are in no position to say that war is necessary. No war is ever necessary. Wars are started by politicians who don't give a damn one about anyone but themselves and their positions. The politicians in three-piece suits who sit on their asses eating five-course meals planning for next year's re-elections never send their sons and daughters out on the battlefield. It is the dumb, American voter who believes all this God-Country-Mom-And-Apple-Pie nonsense who does the fighting for them. And of course they sit up there in Washington laughing the whole time wondering why they didn't start a war sooner if it was going to be that easy to find all the John Waynes and Sergeant Yorks willing to throw their lives away for a little glory and perhaps a monument or two. Just what good does dying for one's country do for the dead soldier? Are you stupid enough to believe that God sits up there in heaven handing out medals to slain Americans? If you do you are no different than the ignorant terrorists who believe Allah has 72 virgins waiting for them in the afterlife. War is never necessary and never solves anything. Show me an example in history in which a war has resulted in a better life for all those involved.
-
Posted By: Hannah111 @ 06/15/2008 10:12:58 PM
Saw a link to this article at www.polijam.com The site contains many great links. It is scary that so many Americans have become so complacent with their lifestyles that they think that no war is ever necessary. It is scary because what keeps an enemy such as terrorist entities in check is the fear of retaliation. Whether one in fact does fight is often unimportant. It is the enemy's knowledge that one is ready to fight that can keep the enemy in check.
Under the theory that one can always pursue peace and avoid war at virtually any cost, one enables the enemy. Today's Western approach to war consist of following legalstic rules that the enemy does not. It amounts to fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back. The enemy knows it, and rejoices. -
Posted By: Rick0101 @ 06/15/2008 9:36:43 PM
What a great article. It's been a long time since I've read a more entertaining column in the pages of Newseek.
I wonder what Patrick and Christopher would have to say about the desirablity/possibility of living with terrorism? Is our current war "necessary" or "avoidable"?
For that matter, is ANY war "necessary" or is it "avoidable"? Our Civil War? Our Revolutionary War? Were they both really "necessar" or were they "avoidable."?
I suppose that it would be technically "possible" to live with slavery or to live with taxation sans representation, but then wouldn't we all be someone else? I mean, we wouldn't be the same country if we found it "possible" to live with these things. So those wars became "necesary."
My own guess would be that it's not possible to share the planet with people who think it a good idea to fly airplanes into our buildings or to behead us or to turn women into cattle. This suggests a "necessary" war. -
Posted By: ravitchn@bellsouth.net @ 06/15/2008 6:40:29 PM
Hitler was not a leftist. His opposition to bourgeois capitalism was quite secondary to his opposition to liberal, entlightenment politics. Hitler had leftist suporters but he got rid of them quickly with the attack on the SA in 1934. He was a rightwing, imperialistic German nationaost.
-
Posted By: redmanrt @ 06/16/2008 7:33:42 AM
Martin Bohrmann, Hitler's secretary, was the most powerful man in the Reich. He was a former communist.
-
-
Posted By: mstcrow @ 06/15/2008 4:44:41 PM
Hitchens bungles his argument when he labels Nazi Germany a "right-wing" government, and betrays his not entirely shed radical Leftist past. Nazi Germany was a left-wing, totalitarian socialist government. It was only "right" in the sense that it was a socialist movement that did not take orders from Stalin. It's difficult to take Hitchens' historical arguments seriously when he makes such sophomoric mistakes.
-
Posted By: leonard722 @ 06/15/2008 2:08:16 PM
Although I agree with Hitchens in general, he is dead wrong when he writes,
However, in point of fact Germany was governed by an ultra-rightist, homicidal, paranoid maniac who had begun by demolishing democracy in Germany"
Hitler was not an ultra-right madman. He was a homicidal left-wing Socialist.
It is an iinsult to link those of us on the right who believe in limited government to a totalitaruian dictator.-
Posted By: danasti @ 06/16/2008 1:19:28 AM
You have a entirely simplistic view of what "right" means politically. Hitler was in fact ultra right wing. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats today, so rest your angered mind. Live to be confused (or not) another day.
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." a quote from Adolf Hitler
"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism???" Adolf Hitler
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." Adolf Hitler
"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." Adolf Hitler (this quote is particularly equated with a ultra far right political stance, far from the shores of socialism!)
"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."
-
-
Posted By: redmanrt @ 06/15/2008 1:58:03 PM
Good article, except for Hitler being described as an "ultra-rightist, homicidal, paranoid maniac." He was a leftist. A couple of points not mentioned: Buchanan asserts that Hitler's claims to the Sudetenland and Danzig were justified, when in fact the claims were pretexts for grabbing more land. Buchanan is a fool.
justjustifi-
Posted By: djacques75 @ 06/16/2008 8:37:25 PM
redman: under precisely what principle were Germany's claims to the Sudetenland and Danzig not justified? Forget Hitler: any German leader would've made the same demands, at least pro forma.
-
-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 12:11:49 PM
This is one of the best articles ever to appear on the Newsweek website. Wow!
-
Posted By: ravitchn@bellsouth.net @ 06/15/2008 9:43:34 AM
Hirchins' demolition of Buchanan is wonderful and brilliant! I can only add this: Buchanan's views stem untimately from Integral Catholicism, a form of traditionalism which always targeted Jews, liberals, socialists, free masons, and humanists for every evil. Buchanan cannot really hide his inner anti-semitism. Integral Catholicism in Europe led to Integral Nationalism, which was the antechamber to Fascism. Buchanan is a Catholic Fascist with these roots. He is like Fr. Coughlin, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, and perhaps even Pius XII -- all of whom preferred a 'Christian' crusade against Bolshevism to a defense against Hitler.
-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 12:04:22 PM
You hit the nail on the head, Ravit. Great post!
-
-
Posted By: expatincebu @ 06/14/2008 10:27:25 PM
How about a little truth? The US LOST WW2! It was a war against fascism, but today fascism rules America in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
-
Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 06/14/2008 11:38:33 PM
Do explain your most wacky point.
-
Posted By: Killerdrgn @ 06/15/2008 2:13:54 AM
I think this guy means the literal definition of fascism, where corporations run the government.
And in the US the Democrats and Republicans are ruled by special interests, and no longer by the people.-
Posted By: Nins @ 06/15/2008 12:03:31 PM
YOU can change that.
Vote for Obama.-
Posted By: mstcrow @ 06/15/2008 4:46:35 PM
Your definition of fascism is in deep error. Fascism is a totalitarian, militaristic socialist form of government. If you want fascism, Obama's your man.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Divora @ 06/14/2008 4:02:07 PM
Of course YOU would think they're wrong. After Churchill bit off more than England could chew, guess who had to bail your grandfather's ass out?
-
Posted By: Divora @ 06/14/2008 4:01:46 PM
Of course YOU would think they're wrong. After Churchill bit off more than England could chew, guess who had to bail your grandfather's ass out?
Loading Menu
Discuss