In regards to your title, I think it is a little from column A and a little from column B.

In general, he just seems to give paleoconservatism a bad name.

buchanan is really doing nothing more than hauling out a ragged (from seeing too much action) old standard that was oft unfurled by true believer conservatives of the late 40s-late 60s or perhaps even the mid 70s.  some parts seem to be missing from it... patton's death wasn't just coincidence cuz if he woulda run for president in 1948...hell if he hadnt been reined in by ike and fdr during the war...there woulda been no soviet union by the end of the 50s.  oh and the part about macarthur being hobbled by the state department commies.

don't be so quick to dump on the paleos btw.  it may seem farfetched to their apologists but it's not difficult for me to imagine neos like perle, wolfowitz, kristol, etc.--had they been around in the 30s...demanding we do no more than keep hitler on a tight leash til after hed ground stalin down past the point of recovery.   

I don't see this as nazi sympathy. To me, he seems to be saying that if were weren't going to ensure freedom in these nations, what was the point in losing tens of millions of lives just to allow them to be oppressed by the Soviet Union.

It is a valid perspective. Patton was appauled that we would create that kind of vaccuum and walk away, and it was so obvious that some even thought it was pre-arranged. Pat has always seen Communism as a far greater threat to the US, and WW2 as either the perfect excuse to address it, or the worst distraction from addressing it.

I don't agree with him, granted. He does make some reasonable points, though. It does seem insanely hypocritical to spend millions of lives liberating Europe one decade, only to sit idly by as the Soviet Union annexed countries in the same manner the next.

I don't think he is soft on Hitler, he just hated Communism more, and frankly, to play devil's advocate, Stalin killed 5 times as many people as Hitler during the purges, and Mao killed even more than that. I'm not being "soft" on the 11 million Hitler killed, but it does seem hypocritical that we would sit back and ignore the 100 million or so murdered by the USSR and the PRC.

I have to second Baker's response.  I dont see Buchanan as being a Nazi lover, just hating Communism more.  And in that he makes some stupid statements.

When it comes to ranking evil, it is hard to equate the 11 million of Hitler with the 100+ million of Mao and Stalin.  But while they both preached (actually, Stalin preached, and Mao's mouth moved) world domination, they pretty much kept their hegemony to their own people.  That is notsaying that Russian or Chinese lives are worthless, just that the rest of the world had less to fear from them than it did from Hitler. So in tying to put the value on evil, FDR and Churchill rated the greater evil as nazism.

I do strongly disagree with Buchanan on one thing.  Churchill was the greatest man to come from england since America's forefathers.  And in that, he should be Man of the 20th Century.

"But while they both preached (actually, Stalin preached, and Mao's mouth moved) world domination, they pretty much kept their hegemony to their own people."

But I think that is kind of the point of Pat's article. They didn't create the same threat because we BEGAN with containment, whereas we basically invited Hitler to invade half of Europe before we responded. Once he did, we rushed in then like we were blitzing a quarterback, while later when the USSR started devouring nations we were satisfied to "contain", though it's aspirations were just as far-reaching..

For instance, Hiroshima, while necessary to end the war, was also a message to Stalin. Soviet troops were pouring into South East Asia, and the real fear was the foiled pre-war communist efforts in Japan would re-ignite and be supported by Soviet might. Think of how the next 30 years might have been different had the Soviet Union controlled Japan as it did, say, Poland.

Our action? A symbolic gesture. Hitler threatens Europe, we annialate him. Communism threatens both Europe and Asia, and we pose frighteningly. We had ample time between our use of nuclear weapons and the USSR's nuclear ability to dicate terms and make sure they were not a future threat. For some reason, we simply opted not to.

Maybe it was to keep a costly cold war going to prop up our military and excuse our covert activities and deployment around the world. Maybe, as Pat would probably think, it was to placate those who were soft on Socialism and who, wrongly, believed that once Stalin was replaced we'd enter into a new era.

Maybe it was to keep a costly cold war going to prop up our military and excuse our covert activities and deployment around the world. Maybe, as Pat would probably think, it was to placate those who were soft on Socialism and who, wrongly, believed that once Stalin was replaced we'd enter into a new era.

Actually, that is correct. Once Stalin was replaced, Kruschev pissed off Mao by slamming Stalin, and the US, weary of War, figured we could wait until they killed each other.  It was no longer an us vs them, but a them and them scenerio.  In the end, we did sacrafice the freedom of 2 generations of Eastern Europeans for peace.  Was it worth it?  I doubt those 2 generations of Eastern Europeans would say yes, but most of the rest of the world would.

BTW, as far as the Japanese scenerio was concerned, I again agree totally.  That was why Truman told Stalin he would have no say in Japan's post war rehabilitation.  All Russia got out of the pacific was a few islands and a rottweiler in North Korea.

I'll ask this question which was posed by the great Ali G, when should a country go ahead and nuke another country? I'm curious to see opinions considering how you guys seem to know your sh!#.

We had ample time between our use of nuclear weapons and the USSR's nuclear ability to dicate terms and make sure they were not a future threat. For some reason, we simply opted not to.

I'm not so sure that is/was true, Baker. I'm not sure America had the will, so soon after the end of the war, to turn around and take on a nation which had demonstrated its tenacity and military might while allied with us. I think the notion that we entered WWII for the purpose of liberating Eastern Europe is overly simplistic - there were so many other reasons, too numerous to list. The ultimate division of Europe was hardly something on the radar in 1942, and was a consequence of geography and Stalin's evil. Further, by the time we first dropped the bomb, we knew full well that the USSR would have its own within a short time. Nuclear weapons really did change the calculus, even before ICBM's. What options, short of continuing a land war in all of Eastern Europe, would there have realistically been? Buchanan's kind of cavalier after-action criticism is way too easy, a bit like the bravery of being out of range. Did FDR underestimate and over-trust Stalin? Absolutely. But we are having this discussion with all the cards showing, unlike FDR, HT & Ike, who had to play while Stalin's intentions were still face-down. I don't really know what Buchanan's point is, really.

Cheers,
Daiwa

There was a three year lull between the dropping of American atomic weapons, 1945, and the first Soviet nuclear detonation, 1948. However, Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Zedong were warring with each other in China, the Red Witch Hunts were beginning earnest in Wasington D.C., and HS Truman won a surprising victory over Tom Dewey in 1948. On the side, Russia exploded its first hydrogen bomb in 1951. America, as were the allies, were exhausted after World War II and were concerned about a possible China/USSR alliance which later came to be. Truman thought the dropping of the Atomic bombs had served ample warning to Stalin, but the Russian Leader had already detected the hint of exhaustion.


As far as Buchanan, he talks to be heard. He was booted out of ROTC in his junior year; worked as a speech writer for Nixon and Agnew; developed a lot of his ideological yearning during that period and flip flops with the best of them. He will sound conservative one day and almost neo-fascist on another. I would like to see him possibly marry Ann Coulter and then listen to their children.

I would like to see him possibly marry Ann Coulter and then listen to their children.

That would be the biggest argument for abortion that I can think of

You can also visit the pages on... Thanks!!!

Regarding this blog's title: this is not an "either-or" question.

Soviet massive attack on Manchuria was just PR and the direct result of our bombing to get in on some of the glory of US having singlehandly defeating Japan. There was no way the Soviets could have controlled Japan or even have such designs.


Good point.


Right, totally both.

Wow, Richard. Did you just get fired or something?