I'm not a history buff. I don't know all the specifics about the two World Wars because that's just not the type of information that sticks with me. However, I do know when someone is using misinformation to attempt to prove a point, and in one of its latest opinion pieces, Jim Powell at Fox News seems to be doing just that.
Anyone who has studied societies and/or economics knows exactly how Hitler came to power. He played himself up as a moderate to rise up through the ranks to the highest position he could attain. And the whole time he did it, he gave the people exactly what they were asking for. He built industry and created jobs, and he instilled national pride in the German population. The author of the piece above makes it sound as though the Germans were mad at everyone else and simply elected Hitler specifically to start the next World War. That, by itself is complete lunacy. He then goes on to talk about other nations as well.
And how exactly is that the cause of the US fighting WWII? Is it just because we didn't go in and set up democracies in all the countries that were ravaged by the war? Or should we have created US colonies out of them? I'm sure the rest of the world wouldn't have minded. Heck, they already see us as nation builders and we haven't even done anything of the sort.
Of course one could also take away from that statement that we shouldn't have fought Hitler in the first place. Especially given the title of the piece. And if that is the suggestion he is making, then he REALLY needs to go back to school. Not college, but middle school. Because that's where I learned what kind of man Hitler was. Certainly not the type you wanted to leave in charge in Europe. And make no mistake, without our help, Hitler would have been in charge of all of Europe.
If Johnson had been so confident of our superior firepower, he would have allowed our soldiers to use it. If you really think that our soldiers lost simply because of guerrilla tactics and strange jungles, then you must have gotten your education at Berkeley.
The author then proceeds to wrap up with this gem.
In addition, the U.S. invasion of nuke-free Iraq and its restraint with nuke-armed North Korea send a signal that other nations should secretly accelerate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons since they deter U.S. intervention. U.S. actions encourage the nuclear proliferation it is intended to prevent.
First off, I don't see us having a policy of perpetual war. Nor do I see what gives the author that idea unless it's just another fancy way of saying "Bush doesn't have an exit stragegy". I think that particular dog has been beaten enough.
Secondly, who said anything about Iraq having nuclear weapons? We thought they might have the fuel, but we never said they had nuclear weapons. Nor was that the reason for an invasion there. I'm not going to go into they whole "why Bush invaded Iraq" argument again, but comparing it to North Korea is comparing apples and oranges. What works with one won't necessarily work with the other. And when we can confirm that a country does have nuclear missles, don't you think a little more caution in dealing with them might be called for?
I have to assume, in allowing this article to run, that Fox is trying to uphold their "fair and balanced" mantra, but it would certainly be nice if they could get someone to get their facts straight before running off making accusations about how the US doesn't ever fight the right war. I'm guessing that there are millions of liberated people, not just in Iraq, but all across Europe who would say that we did fight the right wars.
1
Wow, he doesn't include the American Revolution with "wrong wars"?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 01, 2005 08:05 AM (x+5JB)
2
Wow... It's like they're reading my mind... Fox News rulz! Long live Jim Powell!
And the American Revolution was a good war because it showed an example on how to tell people, that think they're superior to you, to f*** themselves. Soon after came the French revolution, Europe was in turmoil because of the sudden power vacuum and Napoleon began forcing the revolutionary ideas all over.
So... That's a way to say your country was the reason for Napoleons rise as well. Hmmm... I always end up with this kind of stuff.
Posted by: A fatwad Finn at June 01, 2005 08:23 AM (lGolT)
3
"Napoleon began forcing the revolutionary ideas all over."
Sounds like we're responsible for Leftist revolutions, then.
Hmmm.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 01, 2005 08:31 AM (x+5JB)
4
I see the historical ignorance is spreading
Posted by: SPQR at June 01, 2005 08:34 AM (xauGB)
5
"I have to assume, in allowing this article to run, that Fox is trying to uphold their "fair and balanced" mantra,..."
But see, that's what the uber-left call "fair and balanced"; if someone, anyone, states facts, their only counter is to state non-facts and
pretend they're "facts". That's what
we're here for. To call them on it. And you're doing a fine job of it, Rusty.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 08:50 AM (fl6E1)
6
"And you're doing a fine job of it, Rusty."
Do I look like Rusty? Because if I do, I'm bumping up that date with the plastic surgeon. Personally, I always thought I looked more like Hank. Except I've got an ass.
Posted by: Drew at June 01, 2005 08:54 AM (Ml8z/)
7
I loooooooooooooooooooooooooooove Rusty, but since s/he's gay and old, I don't loooooooooooooooooooooooooove him/her, I can live with the fact that s/he exists.
Posted by: A fatwad Finn at June 01, 2005 09:08 AM (lGolT)
8
TV news is crap. Including Fox's masquerade as a "conservative" alternative. However it is not as big a load of crap as ABC's entertainment, err I mean news.
Posted by: Howie at June 01, 2005 09:18 AM (D3+20)
9
Drew, my deepest apologies. I should have paid more attention. I have an ass too. Sometimes I find my head up there.
Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 09:52 AM (fl6E1)
10
"Drew, my deepest apologies. I should have paid more attention. I have an ass too. Sometimes I find my head up there."
HaHa! If you're anything like me, more often than not. Or at least that's what my wife tells me.
Posted by: Drew at June 01, 2005 09:55 AM (Ml8z/)
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 01, 2005 10:16 AM (JQjhA)
12
Thanks. I only try to emulate the master.
Posted by: Drew at June 01, 2005 10:19 AM (Ml8z/)
13
Sorry guys, but he's right. Wilson didn't get us into the war for the sake of liberty or any such abstract notion, he did it for three reasons. The first was to show the world that the US was no longer a colonial backwater, the second was to spread US influence abroad, and the third was to maintain a balance of power in Europe. The reason he waited so long to enter the war was to see who was winning, and then come in on the other side. If the Germans had been losing, we would have backed them, because at the time the nations of Europe were all pretty much neutral toward the US, except for Spain, which didn't really matter anymore.
The reason Wilson backed the ruinous, rapacious Treaty of Versailles was because he thought that by letting the French and British bankrupt Germany with reparations he could achieve both the undying support of our "allies", and further discourage any other nation from going to war based on the consequences. He also used the occasion to put forward his plan for a one-world socio-capitalist government; the League of Nations. Yes, Wilson, like many well-bred, wealthy, miseducated, guilt-ridden white folks of his day, was a big, flaming liberal.
As with all meddling, his plans have caused undending grief for the world throughout the last century, and will continue to do so for a long time. The facts are that if the US hadn't joined the war, which most Americans opposed, but were eventually won over to support by propaganda derived from the sinking of the Lusitania, and other events, the European powers would have eventually made a truce, because they were at a standstill until the US joined in, and they would have gone about their business as they always had, and WW2 might never have happened. In fact, the horrors of the first Great War had been such that most Europeans, from Britain to Russia, wanted nothing more to do with war, but the Germans, economically ruined by Versailles, thought of nothing but their misery, and as we all know, a nation in misery is fertile ground for war. Enter Adolph Hitler, savior of Germany.
As a sidenote, not only did Versailles give all of Germany's wealth to Britain and France, it totally ignored Russia, then freshly torn from the revolution of 1917, and still mostly starving. If Wilson had been such a do-gooder as he wanted people to think he was, he would have seen that Russia became our friend through aid, not our enemy through neglect. The Russians never forgot who reaped the rewards of the war, and they never forgave us for betraying them after they had shed so much blood in their alliance with Britain, France, and America. Wilson was a typical liberal; meddling in affairs far over his head, going blissfully about in his top-hate and fine coat, posing for the cameras, pretending to be the Great Man come to save the world, when all he really did was make things much, much worse. Yes, a typical liberal, and as usual, innocent people paid the price of his meddling.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 01, 2005 10:50 AM (0yYS2)
14
The effects of WWI would have to be debated by people who know a lot more about history than I do. I do grant that Germany being in horrible financial shape made it easier for Hitler to come to power, but I think that solely blaming US involvement for Hitler's rise to power AND Lenin's power grab in Russia is about as tenuous as linking the 9/11 attacks solely to a result of US foreign policy toward muslum countries. Both ideas may have a modicum of merit, but there were numerous mitigating circumstances, all of which had to be right for either event to happen.
And that also doesn't negate the rest of the article where we are blamed for most of the world's ills due to our "meddling".
Posted by: Drew at June 01, 2005 10:57 AM (Ml8z/)
15
Not "our" meddling, but the meddling of a liberal. The American people were never behind the war until enough propaganda could be contrived to sucker them in. Remember, in those days, people trusted the governemnt and newspapers explicitly.
And yes, if the US had not entered the war, a reasonable truce would have been reached, because nobody was winning, and the populations of all nations involved were sick of it. Without Wilson, there would have been no treaty of Versailles, and Hitler would probably have gone on to be a housepainter or something.
History is full of examples of well intended plans leading to disaster for later generations, in fact, few schemes which are expedient in the near-term work out over the long-term, and I think, I hope, that many people are starting to see this, which is why it's taking so long to get our troops out of Iraq, we can't afford to leave the job half-finished.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 01, 2005 11:05 AM (0yYS2)
16
Not to mention all those nice monarchies destroyed...
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 01, 2005 11:46 AM (x+5JB)
17
Yeah, Wilson stinks. If the war wouldn't have come to a sudden miserable end, Finland would have a king and queen, Friedrich Karl, Prince of Hessen, and Kaiser Wilhelms sister Margarethe. He was voted king, and 67 days later Wilhelm gave up the crown and there were no German royals anymore.
Posted by: A fatwad Finn at June 01, 2005 11:51 AM (lGolT)
18
IM, I'm afraid you've got the broad strokes of WWI ok, but you've got the details all wrong. You really don't understand Wilson nor his motivations. I suggest Thomas Fleming's "Illusion of Victory" for you to read.
Posted by: SPQR at June 01, 2005 12:18 PM (xauGB)
19
IM,
SPQR is right, if you are a history buff, then WWI is definitely not your area of expertise. First off, although we were techniquely neutral, we were leaning towards the big T.A. With the cash and carry rules, there was no way the Central Powers had a chance of buying supplies from us with EnglandÂ’s fleet out there. Second, the reason
Wilson waited so long, was because the American populace did not want to go to war. It was not until the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Note, that American changed their minds.
Secondly, the T.A. were not winning the war. In fact they were down for the count and if it was not for U.S. (that worked out great, us /U.S. he he.) they would of lost the war. Germany just defeated Russia, mainly because of the Communist revolution. So all the Eastern Front Troops were being hauled over to the Western Front. With the new input of troops and new inventions (tanks and Stossenstubbems (spelling?)) the west would of crumbled. Even with our troops there, it was a close call. The only cease fire that would have been barter would have been the surrender of the English and French. Now I do agree that do to the Treaty of Versailles, which really ruined the German economy, did lead to HitlerÂ’s rise. I donÂ’t believe Wilson really had that much of an input on the Treaty. I believe France and England were looking for blood and since they won (because of us), they were determine to write the Treaty the way they
wanted to. As for Russia, the powers at be there were no more. They were all in the grave, unless you truly believe the one woman claiming to be lost princess. The communist party was now in power, mainly because of the Czar having to fight the C.P. and internally. As far as Wilson himself, the only thing I really know about him is
what domination he was one and how many there were. I truly would love to have all 4 of the $100,000 dollar bills that he did grace.
What I have always wonder is how bad off would the world have been, if the Germans of WWI had won that war. Well, I guess we will never know.
Posted by: Butch at June 01, 2005 03:01 PM (Gqhi9)
20
Indeed, the Versailles Treaty contradicted Wilson's proposed
Fourteen Points regarding the terms of ending the war.
Posted by: SPQR at June 01, 2005 03:31 PM (xauGB)
21
That should be what domination he was on (not one.)
Posted by: Butch at June 01, 2005 04:18 PM (Gqhi9)
22
It all just kind of shows the American ignorance to what's going on in the rest of the world.
"The United States defeated Hitler in World War II" Yeah, I think I saw that movie. Tom Hanks was good in it.
"A policy of perpetual war". I'd say 'opportunistic' is a better word than perpetual.
"I'm guessing that there are millions of liberated people, not just in Iraq, but all across Europe who would say that we did fight the right wars." There were some in Iraq who thought they'd been liberated. And then, this. And, I've met one European who supported the American invasion of Iraq. And I've met a lot of Europeans. I don't know anybody who supports the British part in that debacle.
Posted by: Simon at June 08, 2005 05:54 AM (siFAl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
