A brave and noble piece.  “they pose no direct military or economic threat to the U.S.” On this point, however, September 11 proves that they are capable of a direct threat, terroristic if not
military per se.  Then there were the Cole bombing, the bombing of American embassies,
the bombing of American military barracks.  So, if you mean Islamic militants, then yesc
they have proven capable of direct threats (or do I misunderstand your definition of the term?)

This site is starting to not only disappoint me, but also scare me.

I agree with most of the above, yet people perhaps need to consider that maybe the population lowering is just a natural period of decline before it rises again.  As Andrew Stuttaford said, reacting to a comment from a fellow blogger:

“David, you were talking about ‘demographic extinction’. I’m not quite sure what ‘cultural suicide’ may mean, but I do know that it is a different question. As to what I meant in my original post, I think Europe (and in particular the island from which I come) is a touch overcrowded. A little more elbow room would, over time, be a good thing.

Turning to the stats, here’s (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4208479.stm) a useful report from the BBC from 2005. As you can see, there has been a dramatic fall in the birth rates all over the world, including in regions, such as Latin America, that are not normally associated with any spiritual ‘decline’. You will also see that the European birth rate was already significantly lower than that of the rest of world by 1970, a time when abortion was still illegal in many western European countries.

It’s also worth looking at some of the history before then. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, birth rates fell dramatically between 1900 and the mid-1930s, not a time usually associated with emptying pews, before picking up in the 1940s. This isn’t just Scandinavian exceptionalism. You can see similar patterns in pre and post-war France. As for the Brits, their birth rate began turning down in the 1870s, a time when they were too busy running a global empire to contemplate ‘cultural suicide’ (I should say that the subsequent decline was not, of course, in a straight line).”

Sorry to say but I disagree with much of what you write. Particularly on this point:

“3) The conquest of Europe by either a victorious Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, with England either neutralized or defeated, was a prospect unacceptable to a nation that was mostly descended from Europe, which owed its civilization and liberties to the heritage of Europe, and the historic legacy of a Christian Faith that each of these powers was pledged to destroy.”

So then ideological wars are OK, even when they don’t directly threaten us?  Germany of course were desperate to keep us out of the war, and while Japan may have attacked anyway (due to our position in the soon-to-be-independent Philippines ) Germany, Italy, Hungary, Finland , Romania, and Bulgaria were hardly ever in a position to be threat to us - none had a blue water navy.  I know my position will be unpopular with many here, however.

“For all these reasons, I cannot help being grateful for Franklin Roosevelt’s Machiavellian policies, and glad that good men like Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh didn’t get the chance to prove how wrong they were.”

About what? That Germany posed no direct threat to the United States?  And that while you attach some sort of Crusader ‘mother land’ ideology to it, people like you would have been perfectly OK to sign up for the Commonwealth forces if you felt that strongly about it.  No sir, I am afraid they (Taft and Lucky Lindy) were right. 

See once you sign on to one ideological war, you are going to continue to fall for more.  Or is it only OK to you if ‘Christian’ countries are the ones being rescued, while you are able to maintain a neutral policy toward ‘non Christians’? 

Not to mention, your brethren in Croatia were hardly helped by the whole thing. 

Don’t get me wrong sir, I like your articles but this only reminds me more of why I will never see eye to eye with paleoconservatives.

Dr. Zmirak: As regards point 3 above, may we assume the logical conclusion that you favor a quick declaration of war against the EC?

The article makes very valid points.  I don’t know if the US was on the wrong side in WWI (it should have stayed out of it, but it’s elite is so pro-Anglo), but I would call the Versailles treaty and its associated treaties (Trianon) egregious errors, if I did not have the suspicion that they were deliberate, in which case they are crimes against humanity.  Eastern-Central Europe has never really recovered from the damage, and there does not seem to be a solution in sight.

Unfortunately how the intervention in WWII was done is also a factor.  The Allies basically destroyed an advanced and productive Christian civilization, in which, as one can surmise from what is left of Dresden, faith and reason were not considered diametric opposites.  This destruction was a many step process which began in WWI (peace treaties), WWII was just a continuation, and it did include the destruction of Austria-Hungary (or Eastern Central Europe). 

Germany and Austria-Hungary were powerhouses culturally and scientifically, I think destroying them was simply eliminating competition to Anglo/US interest.

I’m still having trouble adjusting my focus to come in line with a website where you post such an article and people like Mr. Maxwell disagree with you . . . because they are less inclined toward a neocon view than you are.

In any case I’m glad you aired this opinion and opened up the paleo-conservative-libertarian Right to some intelligent discussion of it’s characteristic viewpoints. Such exposure is rare (since the left-neocon Axis is satisfied to impugn any dissenting viewpoint as inherently Nazi), so paleo-Righties should greet such periodic gifts of intelligenct critcism like drowning people greet gasps of oxygen.

In 1917, the United States entered the First World War. The ostensible reason for embroiling U.S. armed forces in that conflict was the secret alliance that Germany proposed with Mexico in which the American Southwest would be returned to that country in the event of a victory by the Central Powers. 126,000 Americans died in that war, 234,300 were wounded. Men were sent into the trenches, through barbed wire, and died of asphyxiation from poison gas to thwart this ambition of the Kaiser.

Not that any of this matters to John Zmirak. His relatives probably fought on the other side. But, there are some of us in America whose ancestors knew George Washington and Robert E. Lee, and we have some concerns about what is happening to our nation. I don’t have any stories to recount about ethnic immigrant neighborhoods in New York City. I have never been there. My folks were the pioneers. We built this country before the Zmiraks of the world could speak English.

Which brings me to my point: who needs foreign enemies when you have conservatives? Saddam Hussein had neither the ambition or the power to slice and dice the U.S. economy and ship it off to China. I don’t think Josef Stalin was enamored with gay marriage. He probably would have frowned upon hip hop and rock n’ roll, amongst other things, as “bourgeois decadence.” There were laws against that stuff in the USSR. Radios were jammed to keep the contagion out. Milosevic didn’t care a wit about California or Arizona. Poor Hitler, he would have laughed at political correctness. The Führer was an admirer of the Confederacy. A threat to U.S. interests? Insofar as he thought about North America at all, he thought it would be a good idea to rid the United States of the forces that were tearing it down, and we must admit that history has shown he was right.

Zmirak has been reduced to recycling textbook neocon canards: we had an interest in propping up French imperialism in Indochina (nope, that reasoning led to the Vietnam War, which we lost), foreigners are immoral (channelling George W. Bush and Paul Wolfowitz here), we had a stake in the Philippines (we turned out the lights there in the 1990s), we had to save Britain from the Nazis (they were the ones who attacked Germany, and could have ended the war at any moment), we had to stop Hitler and Stalin from going to war (umm, our intevention did not stop the war on the Eastern Front), we had to stop the Bolsheviks (no, we were their allies), Stalin’s atrocities were in the past (Hitler’s lashing out at the Jews was directly caused by losing the war), we have to prop up liberal democracies (why?), we had to win the Cold War (this is what you call victory, half of American children being nonwhite?)

That is how the conservative operates. Point the finger at the demonic immoral foreigner, exaggerate the threat he poses, obsfucate your real interests in a cloud of squid ink. It is the textbook Bush/Rove/McCain strategy. DON’T pay any attention to the invariable ways in which conservatives are robbing you, the future that they are leaving behind for your children, or their cowardice, non-solutions, and lack of interest in solving America’s problems.

Too bad for them that the amount of sand they can throw in your eyes is limited. Reality has a way of breaking through to the surface. Tune into Wall Street today and you will see what I mean.

The problems with this piece begin in the title . Why call a war that caused more than 50 million deaths “The Good War”? There was nothing “good” about World War II and nothing particularly noble about our war effort. If you want to defend the view that the war was necessary for the five reasons outlined above, I think you should begin by dropping the flag waving rhetoric that we have all been indoctrinated with since grammar school.

Bottom line:  The U.S. involvement in WWI guaranteed its involvement in WWII.  The former was a terminal disaster from which this empire will never disentangle itself.

“My folks were the pioneers. We built this country before the Zmiraks of the world could speak English…

The Führer was an admirer of the Confederacy…

Tune into Wall Street today and you will see what I mean.”

Brilliant argumentation. It all makes sense now. Traffic at Prozium’s site must be off the charts!

In my humbled opinion[s], Eric von Ludendorff was probably the most “pivotal” & “seminal” man in all of human history....certainly, the most “influential” man of the 20th Cent. He dimissed the Kaiser well before the terminations, post-Versailles, of ALL the remaining Dynasties & Empires. He introduced and “sustained” both Lenin(& his entire gang) and Hitler(same) to the world stage, so to speak. Now this Ludendorff boy was up to “something”. Those volks that “unlock” Ludendorff will do themselves & others “a world of good”.

Doctor John, the strength of your “medicine” might benefit from closer attentions to German Idealism, the Congress of Berlin & a simple appreciation of the “tensions” between continental(land) powers & off-shore maritime powers....in many ways, Napolean finished off the French for good, another Latin Roman Empire bites the dust...which was quickly replaced by those Germans(Fichte & Hegel) that Nappy had “everything” to do with getting started in the first place. Finally, cut the Christendom crap(especially if you are genuinely “troubled” by the “reformation-counterreformation)....Belloc’s got too much of your tonque. Neither you or nor he could establish that any such thing ever existed, except in historical “name” or reference.(see Tomaz Mastnak’s “Crusading Peace")

Lastly, two tomes that you might find helpful for refining your deep gazes into the past & steely stares into the future:

1) “Three New Deals”, Wolfgang Shivelbusch.

2)"War & the Rise of the State”, Bruce Porter.

Well said, John. Not all wars deserve to be fought,
but some of them do, and World War II was one of
them.

World War I was not, and had the US not gleefully destroyed
the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Second Reich, there would
have been no need for World War II. As it is, we had to fix the
mess we made.

It is ironic that we were better served by the Macchiavelian FDR
than by men of principle like Taft. But then as the Spanish saying
goes “God writes straight over crooked lines” “Dios escribe derecho
sobre renglones torcidos.”

Glad to say I agree with everything you’ve written today, John.

I appreciate YOUR point of view on WWII, but I question your conclusions. All US participation in WWII did was trade Japanese Imperialism for Mao’s Communism, Hitler’s facism with Stalinist Communism, while taking over the responsibilities of Britain’s Empire.

As you say, WWII was really a continuation of WWI’s unresolved issues, and THAT is really where Ameican went wrong, in participating in that dirty little war.

Z sed: “The conquest of Europe by either a victorious Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, with England either neutralized or defeated, was a prospect unacceptable....”

Actually, Hitler sought a compromise with England, and it’s doubtful that England would have been invaded and brought into the Reich.

The war was really an extention of WWI, which was a war to strip Germany of it’s colonial possessions. As Lenin said, WWII was a war to defend Britain’s empire. As an anti-imperialist democracy, the US had no business in getting involved in that at all.

I must disagree profoundly with John Zmirak on a number of points. While his essay contaings some good and laudable points, certainly about World War I, and the terrible American mistake to enter it [point #1], and while he makes clear that he is no interventionist/globalist in the neo-conservative sense, still I dispute strongly his reasoning in points #2, 3, 4, and 5.

A strong argument can be made that American entry into World War II in Euorpe only assisted the genocidal policies of the Nazis (after all those policies only took full force when the war was going very badly in the East, and the Reds, propped up by American support, were moving westward).

The argument about China simply does not hold together. Of course, the treatment of the Chinese was “morally repugnant.” And that justifies the USA making warlike and hostile moves against the Japanese? Is this not an argument used by the neo-cons to justify their hostile moves in the world today?

Lets’ be clear about something else: that nature of nazi totalitarinism was not the same as that of the all-pervasive Soviet variety. States like Hungary (until the Szilasi Arrow Cross in late 1944) and Rumania (under Marshal Antonescu) and Bulgaria (under King Boris) maintained a great degree of autnonomy, even in alliance with the Reich. Did the advent of Soviet armies and accompanying KGB divisions “spare” Europe of additional genocie?? Good heavens, why not ask the Poles, of the Baltic peoples, or any of the millions of East Prusssian Germans who were brutally repressed, executed, and sent to gulags in 1945-1948....

No, the USA, without even considering the almost total post-war triumph of the Left, should have stayed out of that war, letting the Nazis and Communists to fight themselves into exhaustion and eventual break-up. THAT would have aided in the survival of our culture....

John, there is a consideration that most people miss,
and that you, as a Catholic surely do not.

What would the world would be like with the Vatican in the
power of the Nazi Empire? Would a victorious Hitler have
respected the Lateran treaty (given his penchant for respecting
treaties?).  Would a John Paul II have been possible in such a
Europe?

And of course, the eternal argument that “we should have left the
Nazis and Communists fight among themselves” forgetting that the
anti-war crowd prior to 1941 were asking for non-involvement at
the time when Nazis and Communists not only were not fighting, but
were actually allies.

<<What would the world would be like with the Vatican in the power of the Nazi Empire?>>

Why do people have this idea that the “Nazi Empire” would have been at all permanent?

The longest lasting mutli-ethnic state in modern Europe has been the Austria-Hungary Empire, held together by the force of personalities of the Hapsburg Family.  Adolph Hitler was no Hapsburg.  He wasn’t even a Bonaparte.  He was a wacky disillusioned Bavarian kid, who “made it big” with a lot of help from a lot of witting and unwitting people.

So much of historical review ends up being “what if?” That’s nonsense.  History is what actually happened, not what might have been.  That’s called FANTASY.

So, historically, the USofA entered The Great War, Part II on the side of the British, the French, and the Soviet Union.  The War managed to destroy Traditional Society even more than it had been already; some places in Europe have managed to “hang on” a little better than others, but, overall, Europe is now a Liberal Playground (as America has always been).

On the other hand, the Soviet Union collapsed.  One of the greatest victories for Conservatism in the history of the world; the problem is that Russia today is still a bastion of Liberalism - abortion, alcoholism, bastard children, etc.  The Russians are headed in the right direction (as opposed to the Americans and Western Europe), but have a long way to go to get back their culture.

Americans are headed, and have been since the very beginning, in the wrong direction.  Traditions are constantly thrown out the window; America today looks a lot less like America of 1930, which looked nothing like America of 1830.  Bavaria today looks a lot more like Bavaria of 1830 than America of today looks like America of even 1980.

@ RCG Dr. Zmirak: As regards point 3 above, may we assume the logical conclusion that you favor a quick declaration of war against the EC?

Finally! A war we can actually win!

Dr Cathay’s point of America’s entry in WW2 “assisting genocidal policies”....can be both enlarged and specified.

The issuance of “unconditional surrender” clearly had quite a bit to do with all atrocities that followed in its wake, both for/in Japan & Germany, particularly those that were associated with the “Final Solution”. It is an egregious indication of the complete Marxianization of “history” that Jews have never criticized Anglo-American policies rearding this matter. They have never sought out “kapos” or “commisars” for similiar reasons.

The larger concept of “total war”, fully evident in all aspects of WW2, is also largely an Anglo-American creation...whether you start with Lord Jeffrey Amherst’s coating blankets with small pox or strictly concentrate on Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler etc. treatment of the South. Needless to say, Sherman was a very well received “guest” in Bismark’s Reich.

And if you really want to complete the theme...please see Giles MacDonogh’s, “After the Reich”.

If Germany and the Soviets had been left to fight it out, I am not sure the victor would have been in any kind of shape to rule much at all.

Many here have commented on how the Allies sold out Eastern Europe.  This is true.  If, however, we had left Hitler and Stalin to themselves, the tyranny of one or the other probably would stretched to the Atlantic
seaboard.  As it is, the Soviet tyranny was checked at East Germany.  That is a net gain.
In the East, China was betrayed to the Communists—*after* the war.  That was a distinct
act of betrayal, not our stated goal.  Southeast Asia (for awhile), Indonesia, Malaysia,
Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan itself all were added to the non-totalitarian
side of the scales on account of Allied intervention.  In both theaters, the Soviets/
Communists advanced but the zone of totalitraian imperialism as a whole retreated.

<<If, however, we had left Hitler and Stalin to themselves, the tyranny of one or the other probably would stretched to the Atlantic
seaboard.>>

Poppycock.

I have a more valid argument that Nazi Germany would have pushed eastward, and Soviet Russia would have been pushed eastward.

In the west you could have had a Rhineland and Bavaria that split from Nazi Germany, but would have actively supported it’s fight against the Soviet Menace, as would have a restored France, and of course Franco’s Spain.

If by “tyranny” you mean ardent opposition to Soviet Communism, then, YES, it would have stretched all the way to the Atlantic.

“I have a more valid argument that Nazi Germany would have pushed eastward, and Soviet Russia would have been pushed eastward.

In the west you could have had a Rhineland and Bavaria that split from Nazi Germany, but would have actively supported it’s fight against the Soviet Menace, as would have a restored France, and of course Franco’s Spain. “

Are you saying, Mr. Capp, that Hitler *never* would have turned against France?  He never would have avenged Germany’s loss to France in WWI?  Hmm, interesting.  I guess I was thinking less of the
situation in 1939 than in 1941, when Hitler had already occupied the Atlantic shore.  I
don’t see him ever retreating from the Atlantic coast.  That would count as his “tyranny” strecthing to the sea. 

Under what circumstances would Rhineland and Bavaria have split from a Nazi-ruled Germany without the Nazis marching in to crush the Rhinelanders and Bavarians?  I do not see how that possibly could have happned in a Nazi-ruled Germany.  Plus, if we are talking about the situation as of 1941, I really do not
see how the Nazis would permit the defection of any part of what had been the Second Reich
when they had already expanded into France. 

Of course the Soviets would have expanded in East Asia if the Germans had occupied
European Russia.  But Stalin was planning to invade Europe from the beginning.  That
is what motivated my statement that the Soviet tyranny may have reached the Atlantic.

“Poppycock.”

Mr. Capp, as I was repeating Mr. Zmirak’s argument, where he said virtually the same thing about
tyranny from the Urals to Gibraltar, know that your derision extends to him as well.

“So much of historical review ends up being “what if?” That’s nonsense.  History is what actually happened, not what might have been.  That’s called FANTASY.

So, historically, the USofA entered The Great War, Part II on the side of the British, the French, and the Soviet Union.  The War managed to destroy Traditional Society even more than it had been already; some places in Europe have managed to “hang on” a little better than others, but, overall, Europe is now a Liberal Playground (as America has always been).”

When determining whether an action in history was worth it, you need to know what
the actors wished to prevent.  If they saw something worse or far worse resulting
from alternative courses of action, then even choices with truly regrettable consequences
may have been the best available course.  I am not saying that intervention the way the
Allies intervened was correct.  I do think that some form of intervention would have
been better than absolute non-intervention.

Hitler’s ideology was weaker, Italy , Hungary, Romania, etc did not become puppet states until they became on the verge of falling (such as after 1943 when Benito had to be rescued by Hauptsturmfuehrer Skorzeny, after which the Italian Social Republic was a puppet state). Hitler was in poor health and probably would not have lived to see 1950.  Sure, there were rabid Nazis to take his place but I really doubt it would have lasted long.  Just as the deaths of authoritarian conservatives Franco and Salizar in Spain and Portugal effective meant the death of their authoritarian states not long after.  Marshall Goering?  There is evidence he himself was not even an anti-semite, so Germany may have resembled a South American junta if he had come to power. Not that is good, but I am convinced actions such as terror bombing of German cities were NOT ‘good’. (for the record - my grandfather was involved in such actions - he was a B17 pilot who did runs over Germany)

This is all hard for some to swallow perhaps.  The regimes in Moscow and Berlin were evil to say the least, but they are gone now.

But I do worry about this site a little bit.  Suddenly William F Buckley was a great conservative (and not just a vicious war monger), and ‘purging’ the John Birch Society was a noble deed, and here we have a ‘good’ war discussion, where wonderful FDR is praised for bringing into a war not in our best interest.  Arguably, world war II sealed our fate, and meant endless growing government which will perhaps never stop growing until the empire falls.

<<Under what circumstances would Rhineland and Bavaria have split from a Nazi-ruled Germany without the Nazis marching in to crush the Rhinelanders and Bavarians?>>

For one, the assassination of Hitler, and the resolve to destroy the Soviet Union being taken up by more “reasonable” members of the Nazi regime.

If not for having to fight an American-led invasion of Western Europe, eastward looking Nazi Germany could have thrown more weight behind fighting the Soviets.  That might have also included some sort of settlement with a “fascist” controlled France.  Perhaps France would have looked more like Franco’s Spain.  There’s really no telling what might have happened, especially if not for the Revolutionary influenced United States entering the Great War, Part II.

You might have seen the great conservatives of Western Europe use Hitler and the eastern Germans (who had more to lose in a battle against the Soviets than the more insulated Rhinelanders, Bavarians, and Austrians) as their proxy in the war against the Soviets.

<<When determining whether an action in history was worth it, you need to know what the actors wished to prevent.>>

FDR & Co. wished to prevent Western Europe from looking like Spain and Portugal, that’s what they were trying to prevent.  They were quite alright with Eastern Europe looking like the Soviet Union, apparently.

Instead, we got a Sovietized Eastern Europe, and an Americanized Western Europe.

@ ACapp, You wrote, “In the west you could have had a Rhineland and Bavaria that split from Nazi Germany, but would have actively supported it’s fight against the Soviet Menace, as would have a restored France, and of course Franco’s Spain.” Right.  Where do you come up with this stuff?  Hitler would have jackbooted any attemtps at “restoration” or “splits” and continued. What makes your argument “more vaild”? Because YOU believe it?  Hilter would’ve continued his “cleansing program”.  Stalin would’ve continued his purges.  One probably would’ve won out.  If not, they would have reached some sort of compromise and turned their sights elsewhere.  I think “tyranny” is a good word to describe Nazi Germany.  It sounds like you don’t

The Führer was an admirer of the Confederacy

Is that true? In Mein Kampf he supported Lincoln’s view of the nature of the American Union - though given his plans for Germany he could hardly argue for the Southern view of the feds. Of course, it’s possible to both like the nature of the Confederacy and support centralised nationalism.

had the US not gleefully destroyed
the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Second Reich, there would
have been no need for World War II

Though I agree the US entry into WW1 was disastrous for Europe as a whole the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s death was self-inflicted. It did not need to bully Serbia and turn it into a satellite state. (Nor did it need to parade the heir to the throne in Sarejevo on Vidovdan. It’s almost like they were hoping for trouble!)

Matra,

“(Nor did it need to parade the heir to the throne in Sarejevo on Vidovdan. It’s almost like they were hoping for trouble!)”

Are you suggesting that Franz Ferdinand’s presence in a parade in Sarajevo on a Serbian national
feast day was somehow an invitation to shoot him?  Is the upshot of this claim that the alleged provocation somehow renders less egregious the assassination of the man—and his pregnant wife, who also
died?

mcbrown,

You act as if the Rhineland had been a part of Germany for a long time, and had entrenched Nazi sympathies.

You might already know this, but I will remind you that Hitler didn’t occupy and control the Rhineland until 1936.  Sure, there wasn’t a lot of resistance, but, there wasn’t ever anything to “resist”.

Had France intervened then and there, it would have been all over, and there’d be nothing to talk about here - but, for whatever reason, Lebrun allowed the Nazis to march right in and take over.

In short, Hitler’s hold on Germany wasn’t so “iron fisted and complete” as a lot of people like to believe.  Hitler had more control over eastern Germany than west.

FACT:

The south and west of Germany voted overwhelmingly for Hindenburg; Lower Bavaria voted 72% for Hindenburg, versus 23% for Hitler in 1932.  Hitler’s power base was Protestant north and east Germany.  To believe Hitler could have held onto power in the Rhineland and Bavaria is to either turn a blind eye to history, or remain ignorant.

@ AC, You wrote, “To believe Hitler could have held onto power in the Rhineland and Bavaria is to either turn a blind eye to history, or remain ignorant.”
It sure didn’t seem like Hilter was letting go of the Rhinlenad in ‘41 or ‘42 which would be the relevant time frame.  What happened in an election 10 years before isn’t relevant, except to prove my point that DESPITE their alleged opposition, the Rhinelanders were under H’s thumb and likely to remain so.  Arguing that the Rhine’s independence rested on the French (who voted with their feet) highlights their inability to stand up to their oppressor.  Or was it cowardice?

The Red-Coats were not British. They were P[russian] mercenaries from the fens & bogs of Brandenburg, financed by Mayer Rothschild on behalf of his christian “boss” & “protector”...the Elector of Hesse. The Anglo-American hatred of Germany(Churchill, Wiseman, Stephenson) was intended to forever bind the Anglo-American in the Anglo’s hour of desperate need and demise.

England is in actuality a Scandinavian country.

Neither the author nor the respondees, nor any historian that I can cite....have picked up on the fact...that in WW1, America decided to return to dreaded Europe...in fact, the bane of their existence.

Why did American Youth rush to rejoin, embrace & live with European Senility?

The concept of Nationality was unknown to the Greeks, barely known to the Romans(Paul & Peter e.g.) and completely UNKNOWN in the Middle Ages.

The loyalties of men only attended & attached themselves to clear(lucid), observable(experienced) objects the they could immediately APPREHEND. LOVE & FEAR. It was NOT conceptual or IMAGINATIVE.

The PRE-OCCUPATION with externals...NOT that which is independent of TIME & SPACE is the embarrassing & destructive handiwork of AMATEURS...solely governed by a furtive, feverish fetish for “utility”.

RE: Solzhenitsyn’s LENIN IN ZURICH, the emissary Alexander Helphand (aka Parvus) was dispatched to Lenin when the American entry into WWI was immanent. German gold then was sent with Lenin in the famous “sealed train” to the Finland Station at St. Petersburg. His mission was to overthrow the new Kerensky government and get Russia out of the war (Brest-Litovsk). German Finance Minister was Max Warburg, brother of American financier James Warburg, one of the original designers of the Federal Reserve System.The more things change........

Pat Buchanan is coming out with a book on WWII this Spring and will address most of the issues above.

@ jim, I see you’ve discovered the “Shift” key on you computer, as well as the parentheses key.  At least it’s not all ellipses.  Unfortunately, your posts are no more intelligble than before. “Time & Space” indeed.

In truth, Amerika, as displayed by WWI & WW2, was insanely attempting to make itself “civilization FOOL-proof”. Civilization can not be justified if is does not cherish man going to Hell in his own Perfected & Purified Way.(Cotton Madness)

In the “gospel” of Rabbi Carp..."do not be deceived by the YMCA or the Chautauqua lambs, masquerading as the revolutionary Lions of Judah...disguising simple[ton] moral impulses, sentiments...as emotion and faith.”

Dear Mr McBrown::: Please “text” Miss McGilacudy immediately...TIME=Hebrews....Space=Greeks.

Past that....go punctuate or excel yourself whichever would make you or your preferred partner feel “better” about you or things in general....whatever you do, don’t stink up any library with your canky breath…

McBrown, I apologize...after all, Willaim James couldn’t get past Cambridge & Massachusetts...why should you?

@ jim, You give new meaning to the word “rant”.  Do you read what you type?  How can you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously if you won’t write in a sensical manner?  C’mon, give it a try.  You might be surprised.  Or just keep spinning, in your own special “orbit”

@ jim, Apology accepted.  I apologize also.  I suspect you and I will agree to disagree about the efficacy of your posts.  However, I am sure they are heartfelt.

McBrown, you are a standardized test, relegated to a sub-terranean, neo-Puritan regime. Careful, McBrown, cowards die many, many deaths.

True health is joyous & reckless. It comes from plunging fearlessly into life, the mystery. It has no relation to your specious notions of well-being...your long life groveling before self-generated bacilli. Neo-Puritanism loves to hide its terror of natural movement behind arias of Anglo humanitarianism & benevolence.

Your land of dour marshes is a place of of fog & brutality...you can’t find joy anywhere. You are really a Prussian Mr McBrown, but you acquired your cowardly hyprocrisy twisting through London, Bristol & Liverpool.

You adulate anemia, proving, of course that you still have enough “vitality” to destroy...but none to create. You are sissified, the final destination & apotheosis of the LOWBROW.

McBrown, you are a “back-of-the barn” kinda fellah...and you feel very safe & secure, because for now...you gots lots & lots of company. For you & yours there is no ryhme, there is no color....just timid, weak, thin brittle...eggshells easily cracked...exposing a yellowish, whining, sulphuric void.

I am waiting Mr McBrown. Here’s a suggestion...go into the closet & take off your petty-coat, then take off your straight-jacket...then completely deodourize youself...cause you been skunked.

McBrown you are a disgusting Amerikan… from your toes to your tonsils to your tonsul.

Tell your ole man to sue all those schools you went to...for fraud.

@ jim, crawl back under your rock.  Don’t hit you ignorance on your psychoses.  You need help.

@ mcbrown

Mr. McBrown, I see you are the current recipient of the fruits of jim’s brilliance.

Welcome to the club! Or maybe you are already a member from prior posts; in that case you’d be a veteran and I’m the relative novice.

Jim, quit taunting “McBrown”, you have him out-matched; he’s not quit as smart, or crazy, as you.

mcbrown, quit responding to an obviously deranged genius.

Both of you, STOP!

Good God.

I agree with many of the disenters here especially Andrew Capp.Robert Higgs has a very lucid article at lewrockwell.com today March 18th ,which answers much of your arguments John.This war was a disaster for the world.It gave Stalin half of Europe and most of east Asia.50 years of cold war and how many deaths could have been avoided,Hitler couldn’t have been much worse.

@ AC, Thanks for the tip.  I agree I’m not as crazy.  I’m not sure about the “smart” part.  Same with “deranged” (agree) and “genius” (disagree) labels.  “jim” reminds me of the monkeys in the zoo who play with their own excrement and then throw it at passersby.  Whichever, I promise I’ll quit rattling “jim’s” cage.

General Friedrich von Bernhardi writing Germany and the Next War before WWI, mentioned Russian vulnerability to left-wing revolutionaries.  He regarded this weakness as a point Germany could attack.

Yet after WWI the German genius, General Max von Hoffman, came to believe the dispatch of Lenin was a huge mistake and one which would be regretted deeply.

Richard Earley

There is no doubt that the general staff made 2 terrible blunders, when it sent Lenin to Russia and declared unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917.Wilson could never led us into war without submarine attacks in spring of 1917.

Hitler was a bad man, not least for what his legacy has done to white people (i.e. European, esp. Northern European gentiles or their descedents) world-wide. Brimelow was right, our immigration policy, and the UK’s and everyone else’s in the West, is Hitler’s revenge.

Having said that, Austria-Hungary started this mess, started WWI. It had no business annexing Bosnia-Herzeegovina,

Adriana wrote: “. . . the anti-war crowd prior to 1941 were asking for non-involvement at the time when Nazis and Communists not only were not fighting, but were actually allies.”

Yes, but Hitler’s chief foreign policy aims (military expansion to the east) were formulated and expressed prior to the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union.

Caper wrote: “. . . If, however, we had left Hitler and Stalin to themselves, the tyranny of one or the other probably would stretched to the Atlantic seaboard. . . .”

What is the evidence for this? After the conquest of France (resulting from France and Britian’s declaration of war on Nazi Germany), Hitler asked the British for peace. If Britain and France stayed out of the war, the subsequent Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union might have been more successful (there would have been more German military units on the eastern front--since they would not have been tied down in the west and in North Africa). Even if the Soviets prevailed, and advanced into Germany, there is little reason to believe (as far as I know) that the Soviets would have then invaded the West.

You raise a good point about the resentment felt by Germans against France and Britain for the Versailles treaty, and hence the possibility that Nazi Germany might have invaded France anyway--but Hitler had already exploited it in his rise to power. Finally, is there explicit documentary evidence that Hitler was inclined in this direction?

Have you forgotten the Treaty of Rapallo, if so, why?

The alluring merriment of guilt. No guilt...no fate. Amerikan foreign policy is simply the transforming of “shattering experinece” (de-racination) into a familiar habit &/or custom...it’s their essence of play.

The only just war was the one waged against Japan because Japan attacked first.

Aminb, according to your argument, the war with Germany was just as well.  The Germans
declared war on us before we did on them.  They came to Japan’s defense, so according to
your standards they were aiding and abetting an aggressor.