I have always agreed with Buchanan’s policies on immigration and economics, but his strict isolationism, like that of Raimondo’s antiwar.com site, are absurd, unrealistic, and at times deeply anti-American. The very idea that we could have simply ignored Hitler, or for that matter the Islamic Jihad now, is utterly wrong. He would not have ignored us once Europe was conquered, and neither will Muslim militants.

I have recently been rereading “Blood,Sweat and Tears”, a collection of Churchill’s speeches from 1938 to 1941. During those years Churchill went from backbench critic of the Chamberlain government to prime minister/allied war leader. No one had a more clearly articulated view of what was at stake in the West’s confrontation with Hitler. And much of his thought is on the money today.

This is an interesting article by Robert Locke. Hitler also took nihilism and his brand of racialism as far as it could be taken. He brutally oppressed white and Christian people and made allies out of nonwhite and non-Christian people.

Hitler had little interest in the fascist-style parties in Western Europe. He refused to make any attempt to conciliate the conquered in Europe. He and Himmler gave more consideration to the Balkan Muslims. They both said at times that Islam might be a better religion for their people to have.

Locke pointed out that Hitler ardered Germany burned to the ground at the end, as they “proved to be the weaker.” This was Hitler’s brand of racialism.

First, Auster perpetuates the (ig)noble lie of “America the Savior of the World from Hitler.” The war in Europe was won almost entirely by Soviet ground forces. The division of labor wasn’t even close. I’d be very gernerous to credit America with shortening the war by 9 months. If America saved Europe from the clutches of Hitler, why did we then deliver 2/3rds of it to the likes of Stalin? I’ve never really heard a good explaination.

Secondly, cf. Generalfeldmarschal Brauchitsch’s order with U.S. Sec. of Treasury Morganthau’s plan for the castration of every male German. I will grant, Stalin was using Morganthau like a marionette through Soviet Intellegience operatives.

Locke is partially correct - Hitler wasn’t a white supremacist but that observation misses the point. The Nazis, in fact, had no coherent ideology other than the personal whim of Hitler. All the trappings of racial darwinism, neopaganism, etc. developed by Hitler’s associates were an attempt to rationalize Hitler’s delusional rantings. Locke does point out Hitler’s seemingly one consistent desire - Götterdämmerung in every sphere of human endeavor.

“If America saved Europe from the clutches of Hitler, why did we then deliver 2/3rds of it to the likes of Stalin? I’ve never really heard a good explanation.” — Jason Eubanks

Alger Hiss (and all his ilk). There’s your explanation.

Assuming that cooperation with the Soviet Union was necessary to defeat Hitler, would Mr. Eubanks please tell us what he would have done if he was president of the United States during World War II.

Shawn writes:

“I have always agreed with Buchanan’s policies on immigration and economics, but his strict isolationism, like that of Raimondo’s antiwar.com site, are absurd, unrealistic, and at times deeply anti-American. The very idea that we could have simply ignored Hitler, or for that matter the Islamic Jihad now, is utterly wrong. He would not have ignored us once Europe was conquered, and neither will Muslim militants.”

Speaking as deep admirer of Buchanan, I have to agree with Shawn’s statement. Speaking of Shirer, I also highly recommend one of his other books: The Collapse of the Third Republic,” which outlines the fall of France.

One thing in the book I found striking: The hard right’s blind hatred of the left seriously undermined France’s ability to marshal resistance to Germany, which represented a far greater immediate threat.

This is true. And there are still rightists today (Buchanan being one of them), who would rather have let the continent of Europe be subjected to Hitler’s New Order (which, apart from its treatment of Jews, treated the entire Slavic peoples as subhuman slave workers and would have done the same to the British, and also completely stripped and destroyed the heritage of the nations that fell into its grip) rather than cooperate with the left against Hitler.

“First, Auster perpetuates the (ig)noble lie of “America the Savior of the World from Hitler.” The war in Europe was won almost entirely by Soviet ground forces. The division of labor wasn’t even close. I’d be very gernerous to credit America with shortening the war by 9 months.” — Jason Eubanks

Wrong. Just because you lose (or use) more guys, doesn’t mean you did the bulk of the work. That’s a fallacy. For instance, same war, who contributed more to defeating Japan, the US or China? By your logic, China’s losses entitle them to adulation. However, the fact is that the damages the Chinese inflicted on the Japanese are negligible in comparison the damages Americans inflicted. Or outside of the military context, ask yourself, who would you want performing your next surgery, a dozen 8th graders, or one actual qualified surgeon?

Your comment misuses an otherwise laudible knowledge of the horrific losses on the eastern front.

Nonetheless, though no one can tell for sure, it seems highly probable to me at least, that if the US did not enter and lead the allies to victory, the world would have only been saved from Hitler by old age. Britain would have been cut off, starved and enslaved. Rommel would have driven from Cadiz to Kuwait. And on and on. Sure, maybe the US would have been spared, for a time, but we, along with the world, would have suffered.

Mr. Collins is correct. Eurasia would have been one vast slave labor camp, and America, at best, pathetically surviving in a world dominated by the Nazi New Order. It’s worthwhile remembering this when we remember that Buchanan wrote in “A Republic Not an Empire” that it would have been fine with him if Hitler had been master of Europe, America mistress of the West.

In any case, Mr. Eubanks still hasn’t answered my question: Assuming that cooperation with the Soviet Union was necessary to defeat Hitler, what would he have done if he was president of the United States during World War II? Perhaps he shares Buchanan’s preference.

First let’s dispatch Mr. Collins’ comments:

I didn’t even mention Soviet military casualities (which were about 10,000,000) because of Soviet military doctrinal emphasis on the “human wave” offensive. Casualties were essentially meaningless to the Red Army.

The Wehrmacht lost the war because they simply couldn’t replace the horrific losses of material and men that occured on the Eastern Front in late 1942 to early 1943 (that’s well before the Anglo-American air forces began bombing German industry en masse). This is especially true given thier extensive military commitments in other theatres. In that time frame the Soviets annhilated, en todem, 3 entire Axis field armies, which were armies than the Anglo-Americans were fighting at the time. This time period destroyed the tactical mobility on which the German Army rested and thus the German Army itself.

In a more general sense, far more German forces were engaged on the Eastern front than the other theatres combined. The Soviets also inflicted far more German casualties than the western front. The Soviet Army had reached the outskirts of Warsaw before the Western Allies had even set foot in France (June, 1944). The Anglo-Americans had trouble fighting divisions staffed by men considered too young or old to fight in the east, despite enormous Allied air supremacy in the theatre and much reduced German tactical mobility. If you don’t realize that truth then you’re dealing in hagiography not history.

Mr. Auster,
I can envisage no scenario in which Germany wins the war with Hitler at the helm regardless of US intervention. Hitler was an incompetent and Germany did not have sufficient resources or manpower to conqueor Russia. Only incredibly advanced German military tactics, organization and doctrine made it a fight.

Hitler should have been presented with an award for services rendered to the Allied Cause. The battles of Dunkirk, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kharkov; Operations Blau, Uranus, Watch on the Rhine, the murder or internal exile of his most brilliant generals. Hitler was THE prime mover in disaster after disaster after disaster for the Wehrmacht.

In any case, I would not be critical of the U.S. decision to enter war with Germany if our own leadership was more than marginally better compared with Germany’s. That is to say that I do not object to intervention during WWII in principle. Due to time constraints, I will lodge these grievences and finally answer Auster’s excellent question in a later post.

“I can envisage no scenario in which Germany wins the war with Hitler at the helm regardless of US intervention. Hitler was an incompetent …”

We’re all familiar with Hitler’s spectacularly wrong choices, most importantly the invasion of Soviet Union and declaration of war against U.S., plus many other incredible mistakes he made, that lost him the war. But he didn’t have to make those mistakes; no one could have predicted that he would make them. For example, (1) if he had not called off the air war in September 1940 and started bombing British cities instead, he may well have defeated the RAF and been able to invade England. (2) If he had not invaded Russia, or even if he had invaded Russia but not delayed in the Balkans or stopped his army that was headed toward Moscow, he might have either avoided the defeat at Russia’s hands or defeated Russia. And (3) if he had not declared war on the U.S., well, you know the rest. The point is, absent those (from his point of view) irrational and disastrous decisions, Hitler might well have conquered Britain, conquered Russia, and become the unassailable master of Europe. (Which, by the way, as Buchanan told us in his book, he, Buchanan, would have had no problem with.)

Since I was a kid, I’ve always felt that after 1940 God or fate led Hitler into madness so that, while he did unprecedented destruction, he was stopped from destroying civilization altogether.

But the point is, none of that could be known at the time. Mr. Eubanks pretends it could and should have been known, because, as I suspect, he wants to say that the U.S. didn’t need to fight Hitler. It’s sort of like leftists saying, after Soviet Communism died its spectacular and unpredicted death, that we never needed to contain Soviet Communism after all.

If WWII was about the defeat of Germany - it was successful by any account. If it was about the salvation of civilization from totalitarian barbarism - it must be judged a complete failure.

“[Hitler’s New Order] treated the entire Slavic peoples as subhuman slave workers” - L. Auster

Being Russian Orthodox myself, my sympathies are with the Slavs entirely. But how are Hitler’s plans really any different than the actual fate of the Slavdom under the dominion of Stalin? You act as if you believe in the “Good Ol’ Democratic Uncle Joe” disinformation perpetrated by the Roosevelt Administration. Stalin had slaughtered and enslaved 2 million Poles, countless Balts and God only knows how many Russians and Ukrainians from 1939-1941. He continued this program of wanton slaughter and outright enslavement dboth uring and after WWII (in some cases with Anglo-American complicity and even cooperation). These facts are well known to all.

Despite Hitler’s gross barbarity toward the Slavs, millions of Russians and Ukrainians cast their lot with Germany in the hopes of overthrowing Stalin. That fact alone should give anyone pause before they advance the trite “lesser of two evils” argument. They experienced both and chose Germany for better or worse. I’m not yet willing to consign the German invasion of the Soviet Union into a bin labeled “no moral good ever came of this.”

In the end, the Anglo-Americans recognizing Stalin in any capacity other than an ally of convience that most sickens me about Allied conduct. The simple fact of the matter is that Roosevelt was either derelict in the performance of his duties or acting in wanton disregard for human life. By mid-1943, it was obvious to everyone, execept Hitler and his cronies, that Germany was doomed. Yet, Roosevelt seems not to have even prepared for the eventuality of an Allied victory. Worse, he kowtowed at every corner to whatever Soviet geopolitical interests happened to be under discussion. Whatever Stalin wanted Roosevelt and to a lesser extent, Churchill, gave freely. This betrayal of a large swath of humanity is incomprehensible.

(I will continue later - I must now check a client’s soybean field)

Jason writes: “Yet, Roosevelt seems not to have even prepared for the eventuality of an Allied victory. Worse, he kowtowed at every corner to whatever Soviet geopolitical interests happened to be under discussion. Whatever Stalin wanted Roosevelt and to a lesser extent, Churchill, gave freely. This betrayal of a large swath of humanity is incomprehensible.”

Nothing incomprehensible about it. The Roosevelt administration was shot through with Communist sympathizers and Communist moles. Even if we assume FDR himself was lily-white and innocent (which I don’t), he was receiving advice and guidance from traitorous turds.

LA writes: “But the point is, none of that could be known at the time. Mr. Eubanks pretends it could and should have been known, because, as I suspect, he wants to say that the U.S. didn’t need to fight Hitler. It’s sort of like leftists saying, after Soviet Communism died its spectacular and unpredicted death, that we never needed to contain Soviet Communism after all.”

Not really, because Hitler only had designs on Europe, whereas Soviet communism had explicitly worldwide aims. Yes, I know you’ll say it would be very naive to imagine Hitler would actually stop at Europe, and yet the vast majority of Americans apparently did believe that, since their druthers up until Pearl Harbor clearly were to stay out of the war. It’s hard to imagine they would have felt that way had they thought Hitler would be marching into Sioux City tomorrow.

world war two was won over all through U.S and the Soviet Union. Whether which country actually contributed more is irrelavnt.

world war two was won over all through U.S and the Soviet Union. Whether which country actually contributed more is irrelavnt.

Jason Eubanks writes:

“The war in Europe was won almost entirely by Soviet ground forces. The division of labor wasn’t even close. I’d be very gernerous to credit America with shortening the war by 9 months.”

It might help you to look up definition of the term LandLease.

It will help much more if you would talk to a Soviet veteran of WWII, hopefully the one who was not a brainwashed Stalinist at the time. You might ask him what food did he eat from 1942 forward. Then lookup definition of “tushenka”, how it came into being, who was producing it. You may ask him what trucks did he see around from 1942 on.

If not for Landlease, Stalin army was running out of food arms and ammunitions and has ran out of vehicles. Soviets worked feverishly on rebuilding arm plants in Urals and Siberia, but if not for LandLease they may or may not have made it. For sure Soviets would not have stopped Hitler advance till 1943, probably way east of Volga.

In the end Stalin would likely have won anyway, at additional cost of 5-10 million dead and another 1-3 years of war.

A cynic might say that there was a division of labor, Stalin supplied bodies, Americans supplied arms. A rational choice on the president Roosevelt part. Unfortunate downside of that bargain is a communist enslavement of Eastern Europe for 45 years.

Sadly, Mr. Eubanks hasn’t been around here for quite sometime. Mik makes some very excellent points about the American lend-lease program. It’s very debatable if the Siviet Union could have turned the Wehrmacht back without all of the aid, despite the Russian soldiers’ great bravery and sacrifice for their homeland.

Mr. Eubanks had a point too. The Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Empire were the only places in the world (apart from Germanic Austria) invaded by Germany where the Wehrmacht were actually greeted as liberators. The enormity of the evil perpetrated by the Soviet regime and its minions remains a largely untold story. There are over 100,000 known mass graves in the former Soviet Union. To this very day, leftists gloss over this crime and otherwise rationalize its evil. The Roosevelt and Truman administrations, along with the large cadre of Western apologists, are all stained with the blood of innocents for their all-too-willing accomodation of a monstrous regime.