End of Patrick Buchanan

[Libsmasher]

So we should "let conservatives define who conservatives are" but "liberals are what liberals do." And I thought you hated double standards.

No, conservatives are what conservatives do, and the only person who "does" like Buchanan is Buchanan.

 

[Bunz]

VYO, and Libsmasher, lets keep this one on topic.

As for the claims for the book in question, I will not pass to much judgement until I would have the chance to read it myself. It certainly goes against what I believe the cause of the war was, but either way, Churchill was an important figure, among the top 3 most important figures on the allied side.

He is a great leader, and among my most admired historical figures, speakers and authors. But it took a heck of a lot more than Churchill to defeat the Nazis. In many ways, if it wasnt the blunders Hitler made things might have turned out different.

Also, despite the well deserved demonization of Stalin, the role of the Soviet Union is often underplayed in America when it comes to allied victory.

 

[Libsmasher]

VYO, and Libsmasher, lets keep this one on topic.

As for the claims for the book in question, I will not pass to much judgement until I would have the chance to read it myself. It certainly goes against what I believe the cause of the war was, but either way, Churchill was an important figure, among the top 3 most important figures on the allied side.

He is a great leader, and among my most admired historical figures, speakers and authors. But it took a heck of a lot more than Churchill to defeat the Nazis. In many ways, if it wasnt the blunders Hitler made things might have turned out different.

Also, despite the well deserved demonization of Stalin, the role of the Soviet Union is often underplayed in America when it comes to allied victory.

One way to decide who was MOST important, is to remove the candidates, and if you know the relevent history, a big "if" for people here, you could discern the result.

Your suggestion of Stalin shows YOU forgot the topic - Stalin certainly did NOTHING to save western civilization - in fact he was probably the biggest threat to it.

 

[Bunz]

One way to decide who was MOST important, is to remove the candidates, and if you know the relevent history, a big "if" for people here, you could discern the result.

Even if Churchill is left in place, a change in the PoTUS could very well change the dynamic of the war. Having a different military leadership and advisors would change everything. Switch McArthur and Marshall, different game. Swap Ike for Monty...who knows what would happen.
My point being in this whole exercise, is that I find it difficult to give as much credit to Churchill as you appear to be.

Your suggestion of Stalin shows YOU forgot the topic - Stalin certainly did NOTHING to save western civilization - in fact he was probably the biggest threat to it.

No, I said that the Soviet Union's role under Stalin is often overlooked by Americans for thier role in the allied victory.
And yes Stalin certainly did do plenty. While it was also in his own best self preserving interest. The idiotic notion by Hitler that Germany could bring down the USSR was the biggest help to the allies we could have ever asked for.
Change the circumstances of Operation Barbarossa and the UK eventually gets overrun and Churchill gets the historic treatment of a loser. The Soviets paid a much higher price than the western Allies could ever imagine, and it helped weaken the mutual enemy. While it was never his concern, or probably intentions, the Stalin and the Soviet Union helped western civilization in an immeasurable way during the war.
Just the same as Churchill and Roosevelt in a way helped communism spread in the post war years.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
One way to decide who was MOST important, is to remove the candidates, and if you know the relevent history, a big "if" for people here, you could discern the result.

Even if Churchill is left in place, a change in the PoTUS could very well change the dynamic of the war. Having a different military leadership and advisors would change everything. Switch McArthur and Marshall, different game. Swap Ike for Monty...who knows what would happen.
My point being in this whole exercise, is that I find it difficult to give as much credit to Churchill as you appear to be.

Not a chance. Take away Churchill, and the appeasers in the UK would have won the day. Then, the US would cross the atlantic ocean for an amphibious invasion, instead of just the english channel?? Impossible. The invasion of russia, which took place only because hitler gave up on britain (because of churchill ) would not have occurred until much later after greater consolidation of western europe and utilization of their resources, or not at all. One way or another afterwards, eastern europe would end up with the nazis or soviets. Then what would have been the position of the US? Doomed.

Quote:
Your suggestion of Stalin shows YOU forgot the topic - Stalin certainly did NOTHING to save western civilization - in fact he was probably the biggest threat to it.

No, I said that the Soviet Union's role under Stalin is often overlooked by Americans for thier role in the allied victory.

That wasn't the topic, but in any case was nothing to celebrate. The US fought for FREEDOM, not the soviet half of an "allied victory". The soviets accomplishment was to subject eastern europe to 45 years of a different tryanny - something to celebrate?? Nooooooooo. The anglo-american forces on the other hand LIBERATED western europe from tyranny.

Change the circumstances of Operation Barbarossa and the UK eventually gets overrun and Churchill gets the historic treatment of a loser. The Soviets paid a much higher price than the western Allies could ever imagine, and it helped weaken the mutual enemy. While it was never his concern, or probably intentions, the Stalin and the Soviet Union helped western civilization in an immeasurable way during the war.
Just the same as Churchill and Roosevelt in a way helped communism spread in the post war years.

All this would have been moot except for churchill. With churchill - you got the results of western europe liberated. Without churchill, all of europe under one tyranny or another.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, I didn't read the book, but read a review which covered his main arguments in NR.

Whatta great way to formulate an opinion.....relying on some elitist-critic!

Before expressing such an opinion, shouldn't you have had it vetted by Pat Robertson or James Dobson?? After all, you're not gonna get any punches (on your Pearly-Gate-"pass"), if you're not thinkin' right!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I like pat, I liked his 2nd to last book, where the right went wrong. he makes good points and makes his points in a rational way, though I don't agree with him on social issues he at least is a true conservative.....

Yeah.....we've seen plenty of examples, of that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about - let conservatives define who a conservative is.

Yeah.....after some critic tells them who's conservative....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

pat was one of those people who defined it in the first place , the Regan era conservative movement.

It doesn't hurt that he was a fellow-bigot....and, speech-writer....for Dick Nixon.

 

[Agnapostate]

I remember, yeeeaaarrrs-ago, someone mentioning how The Buchanan-Brothers (I don't know how many there are) had a reputation, in their hometown of D.C., of gettin' roaring-drunk and searching-out Blacks...to kick-the-crap-outta-them.

I do know that Pat and his brother Hank were known as thugs, but I'm also not sure how many other brothers there are.

But yes, there have been anti-Semitic implications in his commentary for years, though I still do enjoy watching him yammering on The McLaughlin Group.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That the lib media repeatedly dragged him out and put him on show...

Yeah, right....poor, camera-shy Pat Buchanan.