Friday, May 13, 2005


After all who cares about Western Civilization?

Perhaps apocryphally, Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western Civilization. He allegedly replied, "It would be a good idea".

Evidently Our Beloved Leader and Patrick J. Buchanan have a similar dim view of the value of Western Civilization. World War II and the Allied agreements during the war helped to insure the death of Nazism and Fascism, probably the greatest threats to Western Civilization since Atilla the Hun. These guys think it was a bad idea.

First, Our Beloved Leader opined that, due to the "sell-out" at Yalta, World War II (The Big One) was evidently fought in vain:

"As we mark a victory of six days ago -- six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. 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 oppression. The agreement at 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. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history."

Second, Republican/Isolationist/Notable Loon, Patrick J. Buchanan in has in two recent columns questioned the value of even taking on Herr Hitler: Bush, Putin and the Hitler-Stalin pact:

"As a result of this war, Hitler's 1,000-Year Reich lasted 12 years and Germany was destroyed as no other nation save Japan. Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and Berlin were reduced to rubble. Between 13 million and 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from the Baltic region, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Two million, mostly women and children, perished in an orgy of murder, rape and massacre that attended that greatest forced exodus in European history.
As a result of the Great Patriotic War, Finland had its Karelian Peninsula torn away by Stalin and 10 Christian countries – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Yugoslavia – endured Stalinist persecution and tyranny for half a century.
Again, what, exactly, is Bush celebrating in Moscow?"

WorldNetDaily: Was World War II worth it?:
"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."

I think both these notable intellectuals have forgotten just a couple of points:

First, Pat, Hitler declared war on the U. S. of A. After his buddies, (our traditional friends and lovers of baseball), the Japanese managed to pull off a little stunt called the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. FDR with the almost unanimous consent of Congress (damn that Jeanette Rankin declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. On December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the U. S. of A. We responded that same day.
We didn't go to war to liberate Western Europe. We went to war out of self-defense. And guess what? The evil Stalin was also attacked by the Hitler who was according to Pat "voted in".

Second, Pat, Hitler was not "voted in" by the Germans (or the French or the Poles, for that matter). In the March 1932 election for president of Germany, Hitler got 30.1% of the vote, Hindenburg got 49.6%, Thaelamann 13.2%, and Duesterberg 6.8%. Since Hindenburg didn't get an absolute majority a run-off election was held in April 1932. Hindenburg got 53%, Hitler got 36.8%, and Thaelmann got 10.2% of the vote. At no time did Hitler ever get a majority of the German vote (kind of like Our Beloved Leader). Though the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag in the July 1932 election, it was never elected as the majority party. Hitler never was "voted in" by anyone. He was appointed Chancellor through a backroom deal (No, he wasn't appointed by the Supreme Court). He eventually seized power through a series of "emergency decrees". If you want to learn more check out:

Third, Beloved Leader, the Yalta Agreement didn't decide that the freedom of small nations was expendable.

In fact, it specifically stated that:

"The establishment of order in Europe and the rebuilding of national economic life must be achieved by processes which will enable the liberated peoples to destroy the last vestiges of Nazism and fascism and to create democratic institutions of their own choice. This is a principle of the Atlantic Charter - the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live - the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those peoples who have been forcibly deprived to them by the aggressor nations.
To foster the conditions in which the liberated people may exercise these rights, the three governments will jointly assist the people in any European liberated state or former Axis state in Europe where, in their judgment conditions require,
(a) to establish conditions of internal peace;
(b) to carry out emergency relief measures for the relief of distressed peoples;
(c) to form interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population and pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of Governments responsive to the will of the people; and
(d) to facilitate where necessary the holding of such elections."

This was part of the agreement entitled "The Declaration of Liberated Europe". Our Beloved Leader is correct in that the agreement didn't specifically mention Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. It also didn't mention India, Ghana, Puerto Rico, Alaska, or Hawaii, all areas containing peoples governed, at that time, without the consent of the governed. There were bigger fish to fry at Yalta: the creation of the United Nations, the re-creation of Poland, the declaration of war by the Soviet Union against Japan, and the trial of the German war criminals. This was not "one of greatest wrongs in history", but an attempt to deal with the endgame of one of the most successful crusades in history.

Ever since Joe McCarthy and the red scare of the '50's there has been a persistent strain of thought among Republicans that a tired, sick FDR was bamboozled at Yalta by a conniving Joseph Stalin. There is an even older strain of isolationist thought currently embodied by Pat Buchanan that World War II was a tragic mistake, and that a wily FDR influenced by the wilier Winston Churchill tricked (or allowed) Japan into attacking us (somehow knowing that Germany would then stupidly declare war on us) in order to either (pick one) fight a war to save the Christ-killing Jews or shield the evil communists of Russia from that staunch anti-communist and closet Republican Herr Hitler. This is garbage. Both of these arguments are ridiculous and should not be allowed to be uttered without challenge. World War II was the "last (and maybe the only) good war".

I can't wait to hear these two revisionist historians, Bush and Buchanan, give their views on the Civil War. Perhaps, that Idiot/Machiavellian (choose one) Lincoln tricked the South into seceding in order to push "Negro" equality and "affirmative action" down our throats.

In Western lore, romantic love is completely irrational and cannot be tamed. It follows its own whims and is proper justification for all manner of devotional behavior. On the other hand, belief is chosen, but may also be irrational. True convictions are viewed as intransigence in resisting reason. To the Hebrew mind, things are just the opposite. Love is a conscious choice, and romantic attachment is the natural result of marrying appropriately
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Website Counter