ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Jim heartfield
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 6:40 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Buchanan: taking on Hitler was a mistake
>
>
> 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
>