E-Mail 'The Survivalist's Odds 'n Sods:' To A Friend

3 Comments

1. Regarding the article about VDH’s book. His writing is always excellent IMO. I believe the WW2 narrative has always been skewed. I am heavily influenced by Buchanan’s book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. It outlines the significant failures of British statecraft that lead to WW1 which then made WW2 almost inevitable. It also outlines the fact that Hitler had some reasonable grievances and was not in fact looking to take over the world. He was looking to take the Rhineland back and the turn east and misjudged the West’s response. Buchanan got in hot water for his views because he was accused of being a Nazi/Hitler sympathizer. He made it crystal clear that viewed Hitler as absolutely evil. However so was the Polish leadership of the time.

   To put a little nugget out of what I am speaking of think of this. The French gave up the Rhineland prior to the war without a shot. There own land although historically disputed with Germany. BTW Hitler’s troops had been ordered to turn back at any French resistance. He was surprised his Gambit worked. Then England declares war against Germany over Poland, a police state that it had no reasonable means to defend. This is the beginning of the European side of the war. Flash forward to the end, and Poland is given up to another police state for decades. Does this make sense? In the mean time 60m die.

   I also share Buchanan’s view that you have to divide your evaluation of the war into numerous parts. The statecraft that lead to it was borderline criminal and at the least incompetent. The prosecution of the war was heroic. The citizens response was heroic. The end result was a weakening of Western Civilization that we may or may not ever recover from. The weakening being largely political, spiritual, economic and not necessarily military. Buchanan views WW1 and WW2 as a single Western Civilization War which weakened the West as a whole and is allowing the East to rise up now in a manner that may not end up good for the West.

2. IMHO, WW1 never actually ended. It has been on a few “time-outs”, but never really ended. If you look, in our current conflicts we have the same cast of characters. There is the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Persia (Iran), the Middle East Arab states, even Afghanistan, Russia, and of course, the good old USA. The middle east problems today relate directly the the Sykes-Picot treaty and, of course our intervention in the war in Europe in 1917. Without our intervention, the European war would have ended in a stalemate (the war was almost over when we stepped in), no treaty of Versailles, and oh by the way, no Hitler. He would have been left as another failed whiny socialist with no audience. No Nazi support for the Muslim Brotherhood, because, oops, no Nazi Party to extend the growth of National Socialism to the new nations in the middle east.

   Shame on Wilson and his neo-conservative and neo-liberal supporters, progressives all. That would be the same neo-conservative and neo-liberal that support our perpetual warfare that continues to this day. Just think, I’m 66 years old and the USA has been at war, somewhere in the world, every single day of my life, non-stop. That is why we need, desperately, to bring our global interventionism to an abrupt end. Too bad Trump has succumbed to the neocons in his administration, and both political parties.

   Thank you for allowing my rant.

   1. I think you are correct.

Comments are closed.