Buchanan: taking on Hitler was a mistake

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 16 18:39:34 PDT 1999


What if history is always pretty problematic, but if you take Buchanan's 'what if' as an historical description, it is surprisingly close to what happened.

There was no war between Germany and America until such a time as Germany and the Soviet Union had exhausted each other. Britain, too, while defending its interests in Africa, stayed out of the European theatre until such time as the Soviet Army started to push westwards.

The truth is that the allies were the inheritors and beneficiaries of Hitler's war against the left in Europe. They sat back and waited for the axis to militarily defeat the partisans in Europe before opening the 'second front'. The spur to that action was the reversals in the Eastern campaign.

It's surely time to shake all of that Good War crap out of our heads. There were several wars taking place between 1939 and 1945. The most important was the war between European reaction and the left. The other war was America's war for racial supremacy over the Japanese following the collapse of the British and French empires in East Asia. The last was the subordination of Europe to American hegemony.

The allies never did make the mistake of taking on Hitler - on the contrary they left that to the partisan movements and the Soviet Union. In fact, they left Hitler to do the job they wanted him to do: inflict a massive human defeat on the European working classes. And when he had finished his work, they ditched him and cleaned up.

In message <1.5.4.32.19990916235048.006d825c at pop-gw.africanet.com.br>, Alexandre Fenelon <sfenelon at africanet.com.br> writes


>Patrick Buchanan is pathetic. Is he so naive to think that Hitler would stop
>after defeating the USSR (hypotesis 1)? If (hypotesis 2) the USSR was able to
>defeat the German invasion (They could had done it faster if they were not
>caught by surprise and lost 50% of their industry in the first month of war?)
>, Would Stalin stop in Berlin? In case of stalemate (hypotesis 3) in an even-
>tual German vs. USSR war, maybe the west could gain something, but they must
>deal with instability in Eastern Europe and both USSR and German could had
>time to recover from the war. Both of them would had atomic bombs and the
>resulting scenario would be much more dangerous.
>In fact Buchanan's positions are the same that led Chamberlain to betray
>Czechoeslovakia, giving him a proeminent place among the idiots from 20th
>Century (Hitler, Gorbatchev and Stalin must appear in this list too, Hitler
>for trying to wage war against USSR ans USA at the same time, Gorbatchev for
>following policies dictated by the West and Stalin for believing in Hitler).
>Churchill, on the other side had the right feeling about German ambitious
>and decided to challenge him correctly. We also must remember that the Ger-
>man recovery during the 30's was based in military spent. If they simply
>gained some territory and stopped, they could go to bankrupt, they need
>a continuous war to gain more territory and resources to exploit. The own
>NAZI ideology was militaristic and needed war to keep the hysterical climate
>favorable to NAZI domination.
>
> Alexandre
>

-- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list