Re: Sucicide bomber solution


"Howard Beale" <howardbeal1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZJRJe.98$WW1.22440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From Wilhelm Kuhlmann:
>
> > Should we have let chairman Mao alone ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Hitler ?
>
> Who knows?
> - - - - - - -
>
> Wilhelm: Are you that competitive that you won't admit
> an opinion on Hitler? I admire your passion and you
> are obviously well read and can state your case. I'd
> prefer less in the way of pejoratives, as they distract
> from the argument, imo, but this last, a "Who knows?"
> about Hitler just makes you ridiculous.

Well, we are talking about alternative history here. I made a post sometime
ago regarding something Pat Buchanan wrote -- "OT: Was World War II worth
it?"

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/9a44afd71e380259?hl=en

OMFG! I think I need to check myself into a psychiatric facility
immediately. I agree with Pat Buchanan about something! In a column on
WorldNetDaily (!), Buchanan argues that World War II was actually a massive
failure. He is getting slammed hard on the liberal blogs for this column.
I have read the column several times, and I cannot see any flaws in his
facts or logic.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210


Was World War II worth it?
------------------------------­------------------------------­--------------
--
----
Posted: May 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.


In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more
difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic
War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their
homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."


Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East
Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.


To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the
sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army
that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at
Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the
national and Christian character of their countries.


To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six
decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:


For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of
another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the
oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of
Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful
governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable.
.... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be
remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.


Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east
of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant
of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh,
Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.


Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.


The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that
too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.


If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta,
this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical
"Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.


As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a
monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old
Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain,
who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to
Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No
Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist
quislings.


Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of
thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish
freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?


If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central
Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more
odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?


In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain
refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain
agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and
Poland were in Stalin's empire.


How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?


True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from
Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland
and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only
invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany - on
behalf of Poland.


When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France - hundreds of
thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires - was World
War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of
the Elbe were lost anyway?


If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a
"smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was
not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.


If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and
draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and
Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern
Europe.


Was that worth fighting a world war - with 50 million dead?


The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making
Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the
festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center,
smiling - not British and French. Understandably.


Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.


Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where were you 5 years ago?
    ... Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war. ... Germany, which had not yet attacked us. ... Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. ... America was certainly not prepared for war. ...
    (rec.roller-coaster)
  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... >happy to engage in with Germany, ... the reality is the more Hitler tries to defeat Britain the more ... were over estimated pre war, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Leave your troubles at the door.
    ... Germany, which in most cases, brings out the worst in people. ... "World War II was inevitable because of the Treaty of Versailles." ... prevent Hitler from annexing Austria. ... Europe in the XXth century. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Interesting, we declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but Not Russia
    ... was a nasty man called Adolf Hitler. ... He kept on demanding that Germany ... convincing argument that it was worth risking war to stop him. ... "We will guarantee the terriorial integrity of Roumania....and Poland, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The Sun about the RMT guy sat in First Class
    ... but it is not an issue that Hitler was a bourgeois ... in damaging the British empire or even to want a redivision of the ... Britain for the war against England. ... several times from Hitler's filthy book: he proclaimed that Germany ...
    (uk.railway)