Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (113696)	5/14/2005 9:54:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

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. This paragraph is the reason Buchanan caught hell. He completely ignores the extermination procedures of Hitler. Buchanan's figure in the next paragraph of "50 million dead," includes 10 million in camps. You would think from reading the article that the Jews and Slavs weren't even there. Pat is an unreconstructed anti-semite. Revisionist history is fun. I can make a good case for the idea that if we had stayed out of WWI there would never have been a WWII.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (113696)	5/14/2005 11:05:46 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Boy, Buchanan is a nut job. Slippery as a basket of eels, too. He "conveniently" forgets that Churchill wanted to try to liberate Eastern Europe, but was not allowed to do so. The rest of the Allies were tired of fighting, and not mentally equipped to turn on the Soviets after working together to get rid of Hitler. The very phrase, "Iron Curtain," was Churchill's. Nobody in the West, least of all Churchill, was satisfied with losing Eastern Europe to the Communists. But what was the alternative? Sit around and hope Hitler didn't attack them next? The suggestion that Hitler would have been satisfied with Czechoslovakia and Poland is risible. Churchill rightly condemned that as wishful thinking. It's easy to argue in retrospect who was worse, Hitler or Stalin -- they were both terrible men, who did terrible things. But blaming Churchill because he wasn't able to stop either of them before they killed millions is just nutz. The Allies beat the Nazis, and held back the Soviets. We won WWII and WWIII, and were inspired by Churchill all the way. Why anybody listens to Buchanan astonishes me.