Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Was WWII Worth It?

  1. Jun 4, 2005 #1
    Interesting article:

    Was WWII Worth It?
    For Stalin, yes

    by Patrick J. Buchanan

    In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

    Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Finland.

    [ . . . ]

    Complete article at http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=5899
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 4, 2005 #2
    Russia did not "liberate" Finland. We did have to give up most of Karelia to the SU but Finland was never occupied, was never ruled by communists and never lost it's independence.
  4. Jun 4, 2005 #3
    Pat Buchanan implied in that article that if it hand't been for England and France declaring war on Hitler, that Hitler would've never tried to expand into Western Europe. :rolleyes:

    Furthermore, he says we shouldn't have even bothered liberating the German people, because, "After all, the Germans voted Hitler in," which is simply false. Hitler actually ran for president and lost in 2 sucessive rounds of voting. He was able to be appointed to the chancellorship because of his effective uses of propaganda to insence the public and political bullying.

    Of course, that's not to say Buchanan doesn't have a totally valid point in saying that WWII merely traded Hitler's tyranny for Stalin's tyranny, which in many cases was just as bad or worse. He had a legitimate case without lying and distorting facts.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2005
  5. Jun 4, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The main thesis of the article - that the "victory" in WWII was, for many countries, a hollow one due to the oppression of the USSR in Eastern Europe is pretty much correct. The secondary thesis, that that means the war was not worth it for the allies, is not correct. It is based on a number of flawed premises:
    The implication there - that Germany would not have invaded western Europe had the allies not declared war - is absurd. Germany was moving west (the Rheinland) before the start of the war and his goal was total domination of Europe.
    This is a common claim - that Hitler was democratically elected. Its a distortion of the truth and, in any case, irrelevant. The Hitler that led WWII was a dictator.

    Pat Buchannan always has been a nut, but here he comes off as a Nazi apologist.
  6. Jun 4, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    some of us have parents that fought in WW11 or endured the hardships it
    caused, they are sickened by this sort of trash
    Its not long ago that the brits were asked to apologize for the bombing
    of dresden.
  7. Jun 4, 2005 #6
    Is that any surprise though? Hasn't he always been one of the big proponents of harsh dictatorships throughout the world (Latin America specificially) just to make sure no Socialist/Communist governments take place? It's one thing to advocate Democracy in place of Communism, but it seems that Pat's always been an "anything but Communism" kinda guy, and that apparently extends to Nazism (Naziism?).
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2005
  8. Jun 4, 2005 #7
    How do you know that this is not true?

    By what mechanism did Hitler become President if he was not voted in? The current Pakistani president was never voted in, rather, the military overthrew the previous president and used force to support Musharif as king of Pakistan. Are you saying the same thing happened with Hitler?

    How do you know he is lying, instead of your sources being based on lies or faulty research?
  9. Jun 4, 2005 #8
    What is your proof of this?

    If you say he was not voted in, how did he become President? The only way would be for him to have used military force to overthrow the previous President.

    Are not all governments, including the U.S.A., dictatorships, in that the government dictates laws that the citizens must follow, and enforce them with government men with guns? Second, are you saying you believe that any government that has political system that you disagree with should be invaded? Do you not believe in the concept of national sovereignity? And hypothetically speaking, what if some other country did not like America's political system and decided to invade us for it, calling it "Operation American Freedom"?

    Buchanan is not a plant seed, he is a homo sapien. So you will have to use a different argument here.

    How does name-calling invalidate his claims?
  10. Jun 4, 2005 #9
    How does parents enduring hardships invalidate Buchanan's claim?

    Hows does parents being morally offended invalidate Buchanan's claim?

    What do you mean by "trash"?

    How does this invalidate Buchanan's claim?
  11. Jun 4, 2005 #10
    Actually, Buchanan simply believes in the concept of national sovereignty. He does not believe Americans have the right to invade another country just because we don't like their political system, anymore more than other countries' right to invade America because they dislike our system.
  12. Jun 4, 2005 #11
    I know that Hitler would have invaded Western Europe with or without France and England declaring war on Germany, because he had written 2 manifestos about his plans to conquer nearly all of Europe. France was one of Hitler's chief concerns, and he had planned to crush France early once his grab for power began. Read up on Mein Kampf or Hitler's Second Book to get a feel for what Hitler's big plans wer.

    You can read about Hitlers' rise to power here if you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#The_road_to_power

    There was no coup, and he was never legitimately elected to a position of National leadership, rather the Nazi party had a majority in the German "Reichstag" (Legistlature), and he seized total power for himself and his loyalists. Hitler certainly had some measure of support, but not enough to be elected President.

    I suppose one can never know any historical fact for sure, being that it's possible that it was distorted. However, since you thought Hitler was actually elected President of Germany, I would say that you probabally don't know a great deal about the subject and are merely being influenced by Buchanan's writings.

    Incase you don't trust the wikipedia article, you can look to any sort of historical literature and find that Hitler never was elected President, merely used political tactics to seize power for himself once appointed Chancellor.
  13. Jun 4, 2005 #12


    User Avatar

    The Western Allies entered the war with a 2-fold object. The immediate purpose was to preserve the independance of Poland and their ultimate purpose was to remove a potential menace to themselves. In the outcome they failed in both purposes. Not only did they fail to prevent Poland from being overcome in the first place, and partitioned between Germany and Russia but after 6 years of war which ended in apparent victory they were so devastated and weakened they were forced to acquiesce in Russia's domination of the eastern european countries including Poland who they had pledged to protect whilst American influence in western europe increased exponentially. So as to the question whether WW2 was worth it. In terms of the outcome the answer would be no. Was it inevitable? Would Hitler have eventually looked westward anyway. German archives captured after the war suggest not. Hitler's ambitions were, with the exception of reclaiming land taken from Germany after WW1, all eastward. He saw the lowly populated rich agricultural lands to the east as perfect lebensraum (living room) as he expounded in Nov 1937 in the so-called Hossbach Memorandum. Papers from the archives also show he was actively encouraged by Britain's Lord Halifax (second to the British prime minister at that time) during a visit in Nov 1937 who told him Britain would allow him a free hand in eastern europe. Hitler took this as a green light and proceeded eastward. Hitler was actually inclined not to move against Poland at this time even though she retained the largest stretch of territory carved out of Germany after WW1 and he was even happy to accept Poland as a junior partner (Poland had already shared with Germany in the carve up of Czech territory) on condition that she handed back the German port of Danzig and granted Germany a free route to East Prussia through the Polish 'corridor. Poland refused but as late as March 25th 1939 Hitler told his army CIC that 'he did not want to solve the Danzig problem through the use of force'. If Poland had negotiated successfully with Germany Hitler would have continued his drive eastward but emboldened by Britain and France's pledge of military support (due to an abrupt policy change by the British PM Chamberlain) Poland refused to budge and the rest as they say is history..
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2005
  14. Jun 4, 2005 #13
    A small correction, probably irrelavant to the discussion:

    Yugoslavia liberated itself, for the most part. It was due to this that we were able to remain outside the iron curtain.
  15. Jun 4, 2005 #14
    And this is why he invaded Russia? He wanted some frozen lebensraum? If all Hitler wanted was extra room to grow crops for the aryan race, where's the justification for invading Russia?

    In Hitler's Second Book, he explains his theory of racial competition. He believes that history is just the competition of races amongst one another, and that once a race stops expanding, it begins to undergo a downfall in superiority. He certainly wanted the agricultural lands to the east, as in his book he lamented that the land currently held by the Aryan race (German people) was insufficient to fully accomodate for them. Since it would be unacceptable to import food grown by other races, he clearly saw that Germany must expand it's boundaries to include more agricultural lands. So perhaps his immediate goals, had England and France not declared war on him, were simply to take over these other lands so as to have a greater agricultural base with which to aid the spread of the Aryan race. However, while he may have stopped here temporarily while he amassed his strength, Hitler's ultimate goal was world domination by the Aryan race. Anything short of that would have shown Hitler that the Aryan race wasn't superior, because it would've been stopped in its expansion. As early as the 1920's he had planned on waging a final war for world supremecy with America. He had concluded that he must take over almost all of Europe before he could match America, since America has such vast cropland and such huge manufacturing ability.
  16. Jun 4, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Hitler may well have harboured personal dreams of world domination but he did not at that time have any plans or even the seeds of a plan for such a move. In 1938 when he disclosed his intention of putting the screw on Czecho-Slovakia for the return of the Sudetenland the Chief of the General Staff, General Beck drafted a memo saying Hitler's expansionist plans would produce a worldwide catastrophe and Germany's ruin. This was read out to Hitler's generals and approved by them to be forwarded to Hitler himself. Hitler refused to change course assuring the other generals Britain and France would not fight to protect Czecko-Slovakia so General Becks resigned. The other generals were so unvonvinced by Hitler they planned a military revolt, to avert the risk of war by arresting Hitler and the other Nazi leaders. The bottom was knocked out of their counter-plan when Chamberlain agreed to Hitler's demands upon Czecho-Slovakia and in concert with the French agreed to allow Germany to strip that country of both territories and defences. This was the "Peace in our time" Munich agreement. Another indication of Hitler's unpreparedness for a major war was that he put no effort in to building up his fleet to challenge the British navy. Not even to the level allowed in the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935. After the Munich agreement he told his admirals they could discount any fear of war with Britain for the next 6 years at least.
    Hitler was in fact an Anglophile and was on extremely good terms with many British establishment figures. It was always his hope that Britain would ally with Germany in a european war.
  17. Jun 4, 2005 #16
    Before the USA even entered the war, Hitler was already planning for war with America. Hitler actually had comissioned plans for planes dubbed the "Amerika Bomber". If I recall correctly, there were also huge warships comissioned before America entered the war being built to challenge America's naval ability.

    Maybe Hitler planned to go East right until he hit the California coast?

    So the fact that Hitler's generals told him that expansion was a bad idea, and that he rejected their advice shows that he WASN'T intent on large scale expansion? If anything it shows that he was already determined to take over as much land as possible, regardless of what the feasability of it suceeding was.

    Yes, it's true that Hitler wanted an alliance with England, because he viewed the English as being part of the Aryan race, which he wanted to control the world. He expected that because they were part of the Aryan race, they would help him in his goals. Since he presumed he would be allied with England, there was no immediate need to build capacity for specifically attacking England, when he would spend most of his time in the near future conquering mainland Europe. The French were definately NOT part of the Aryan race as Hitler saw it.

    You also haven't answered why in the world Hitler would invade Russia if all he wanted was some extra land on which to grow crops.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2005
  18. Jun 4, 2005 #17
    I can still see the reasons why WW wars were fought right here in this thread. Look at the topic of this forum and look at U , U all are trying to blame eachother.

    WW's taught us that Inflating Ego in the name of Patriotism leads to nothing but deaths and destruction and of peace. Many countries learned this , it seem now we have forgot all that and its time to learn all that again. USA specially needs to learn.
  19. Jun 5, 2005 #18
    Well it was worth for India since Britain became weak and had to give up ruling india
  20. Jun 5, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    The Indian troops who fought for the allies performed heroically during WW2. It was them in fact who provided the allies first victory of the war, in N Africa.
  21. Jun 5, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Hitler could have all the ambitions he wanted but without his military backing him he wouldn't have gotten very far. In 1939 Germany was totally unprepared for a major war. Even his most conservative generals never dreamed that Britain (and therefore France) would go to war over Poland without the help of Russia. Unfortunately an offer by Russia to Britain for an alliance to prevent German expansion eastward was snubbed by Chamberlain in 1938 for both idealogical and religious reasons. Hitler then courted Stalin for the reason stated above and an entende was reached whereby in return for Russia staying out of any conflict Germany would afford Russia a free hand in the Baltic States. Hitler and his generals were shocked when Britain and then 6 hrs later France declared war on him on the Sunday following his Friday invasion of Poland. He had always considered the British to be very level headed and rational and it was obvious to everybody that Poland could not be protected by Britain and France without Russian help.
    Hitler invaded Russia on June 22nd 1941 not just because of his anti-Bolshevism views which he undoubtedly held but for several very important strategic reasons highest amongst which was Russia's invasion of Rumania without any prior discussion with it's partner. This worried Hitler immensely as Rumania's oilfields were the source of the vast majority of his oil. Without this oil the German military machine would grind to a halt and leave Germany vulnerable to a Russian attack. Mutual fear and distrust can be ascribed as the main reasons behind the German - Russian conflict.

    To answer your last point. From the beginning of the war America was supplying Germany's enemies with weapons and other provisions (a program which was controversial in America at that time) and so Hitler wanted to develop a deterrant to solidify the 'isolationist' viewpoint in the USA and so to prevent what he saw as American meddling in european affairs.
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?