Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   National Review asks the question no one is dumb enough to ask: "Was World War II worth it?"   ( article.nationalreview.com) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

10578 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2009 at 7:14 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



351 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-09-04 09:18:34 AM  

nytmare: And it wasn't just about Jews, that group gets all the attention since they were the worst hit. The Nazis were already targetting multiple other groups during the Holocaust, so yes, it's scary to think what would have happened if the good guys had lost.


Should have started with gypos first.
 
2009-09-04 09:19:11 AM  
googleads.g.doubleclick.net
Most reliable thing on NRO.
 
2009-09-04 09:21:23 AM  
We were a LOT smarter back then and had to be goaded into war. We should never have joined in WWI and did not seem too anxious to join the 'whose dick is bigger' contest in Europe the second time. As far as I am concerned we joined the war because we were attacked by Japan, which is one of the few legitimate reasons to fight a war.

As far as 'THE' holocaust, I don't see that as reason to go to war unless you do it for ALL genocide (which means you would be at war all the time). No special treatment for special groups.
 
2009-09-04 09:21:59 AM  
The only war that's worth it is the one fought in defense of liberty. Use that metric and you won't go wrong.
 
2009-09-04 09:23:51 AM  

Persnickety: Little.Alex: Persnickety: Little.Alex: Aside from the marginally literate, almost public school educated fry cook and ...

Stalin killed about 14 million Ukrainians in 2 years; so your argument about the speed of mass execution is meaningless.


Except that it actually happened, whereas you are playing the "what if" game.

Loads of money and lives spend doesn't make you stronger.

Yes it does. The money was spent building up and improving the military. You can't really be a superpower without the military might to back it up. The lives spent taught lessons on strategy and tactics. Neither would have happened without US involvement in the war.


If we had stayed out (which we could have done by sellng Japan oil) we would have been even stronger with 400,000 more working men and more money. And Hitler and Stalin would have diminished each other, or left a balance of power.

And how many Nankings would there have been had the Japanese continued their conquest of the East and Australia? And it's not clear at all that a Hitler vs. Stalin war would mean the diminishment of both. Without US assistance to the Soviets, Hitler may well have overrun the USSR, esepcially with the threat of Japan on their eastern front, meaning the entire Eurasian contintent would end up being dominated by two tyrannical evil powers.

Or perhaps Stalin would have gained the upper hand and overrun all of Europe. Stalin certainly did not consider high casualities a mitigating factor in WWII and it seems pretty clear to me that the only thing that stopped Stalin's westward march in Europe was his "allies" eastward advance. So then we still have Japan in the east and replace Hitler with Stalin. That's my take and neither was a good option, IMHO.


And the fact that we are having a conversation about this proves that it is not such a stupid question. There are points and counter points, therefor highlighting the profound retardation of the submitter.

Agreed. All history should be subject to analysis. No sacred cows.


We could have developed all those weapons, and economic development without the combat.

We disrupted the regional balance of power in 2 hemispheres, and that replaced Japan with China, and the 3rd Reich with the USSR.

"How many Nankings?" China killed between 80 and 120 million people in 1959-1961 'reorganizing agriculture'. Still think we made the World a safe place?

The only reason people have this idea of a wonderful peaceful post WWII World; is that our media doesn't criticize socialism. After WWII, China-Russia-Cuba killed hundreds of millions of people. But most Americans don't know that because we don't make movies about Red China ( 'cause you'll be called racist) or Soviet Russia (because they successfully subverted Hollywood).


Except that it actually happened, whereas you are playing the "what if" game.
And your suppositions about Hitler and future Nankings are fact?

meaning the entire Eurasian contintent would end up being dominated by two tyrannical evil powers. Which proves my point; because that's exactly what did happen. China and Russia.
 
2009-09-04 09:28:04 AM  

syrynxx: The Soviets got screwed. 25 million dead. Can you imagine a Vietnam War Memorial wall for 25 million KIAs? It would be a mile long.


Yeah, but how many of those 25 million were killed by Germans, vs. just Stalin being Stalin?
 
2009-09-04 09:30:07 AM  

Pxtl: syrynxx: The Soviets got screwed. 25 million dead. Can you imagine a Vietnam War Memorial wall for 25 million KIAs? It would be a mile long.

Yeah, but how many of those 25 million were killed by Germans, vs. just Stalin being Stalin?


Actually, the number of people killed by Stalin is probably much higher; I've heard figures like 75 million. We'll never know.
 
2009-09-04 09:30:22 AM  

hitlersbrain: As far as 'THE' holocaust, I don't see that as reason to go to war unless you do it for ALL genocide (which means you would be at war all the time). No special treatment for special groups.


Well, we didn't even know about the holocaust until after we entered the war, so that argument is kinda moot.

Bottom line was that the US government seemed willing at the time to tolerate the possibility of a fascist victory until they directly threatened Britain and maritime commerce. That and invading Russia was where the Nazis really Farked. Up.

This, along with Japan's actions, woke the "sleeping giant".
 
2009-09-04 09:30:58 AM  

Little.Alex: After WWII, China-Russia-Cuba killed hundreds of millions of people. But most Americans don't know that because we don't make movies about Red China ( 'cause you'll be called racist) or Soviet Russia (because they successfully subverted Hollywood).


You know how I know you're an idiot? You list Cuba alongside China and Russia. Castro was a nasty, nasty man, but to name his crimes in the same breath as Stalin and Mao is going full retard.
 
2009-09-04 09:31:00 AM  

EZ Writer: Wow, Subby... That is some world-class douchebaggery...

FTA: The Holocaust was finally stopped before every Jew in Europe was killed as Hitler had planned. Germany, Italy, and Japan were transformed from monstrous regimes into liberal states whose democracies have done much for humanity in the ensuing years. And Western civilization survived its own heretical cannibals - to foster in the ensuing decades the greatest growth in freedom and prosperity in the history of the planet.

Yes, NRO asked the question... but they also answered it. Better question though is, who greenlit this WHARRGARBL headline?


THIS. Great shame upon both should be heaped.
 
2009-09-04 09:31:18 AM  

RedArny: Nazi Germany without the armed forces buildup


1) hurrr
2) If Germany hadn't built up its army & invaded Poland, WWII would never have started.
 
2009-09-04 09:32:56 AM  

Prospero424: Bottom line was that the US government seemed willing at the time to tolerate the possibility of a fascist victory until they directly threatened Britain and maritime commerce. That and invading Russia was where the Nazis really Farked. Up.


iirc, Hitler didn't want to go after Britain. He thought the Brits were a "good enough" race. Britain got involved because of alliances. Correct me if I'm wrong, though - I'm not an obsessive WW2 buff.
 
2009-09-04 09:34:29 AM  
Sorry, gotta go. Be back tonight.
 
2009-09-04 09:36:10 AM  

basho: Yes, NRO asked the question... but they also answered it. Better question though is, who greenlit this WHARRGARBL headline?

THIS. Great shame upon both should be heaped.


It's a clever trick - have you noticed? The page is flagged "commie". Basically, Fark's current approach seems to be non-stop greenlighting of right-wing horseshiat, with headlines of alternating political persuasions. Thus, we can keep the WSJ editorial page, the NRO, and the rest of the unhinged WHARRGARBL world permanently in the spotlight to the absolute death of rational discourse.

Then again, fark goes for laughs and clicks and not rationality. The fact that the rightwingoverse is the side that provides all the utter batshiat crazy says something.

Of course, some idiot is going to pronounce that HuffPo and Kos are every bit as crazy as NRO and the Moonie Times, and Jon Stewart is as bad as Glenn Beck.
 
2009-09-04 09:36:48 AM  

canyoneer: Let's see...stopped the senseless slaughter of Jews and other in Europe (and Asia), vanquished the two great emerging powers and took away their economic empires, and established the American global military/economic empire that has made us top dog for the last 60 years and enabled Americans to live lives of unprecedented wealth and freedom for three generations. As a bonus, it enabled America to outlast the communists and preside over the spread of democratic governance right across the planet.

It was certainly well worth it for America and the Americans, and the rest of the world made out OK, too. Stupid question, indeed.


Pretty much. Also, don't forget the great movies.
 
2009-09-04 09:38:56 AM  
I don't want to overstate my case here: I think US participation in WWII was a necessary evil. I think diplomatically we ended up almost exactly where we started, but the alternative scenario might have been even worse. I just recoil when I hear these ignorant, over simplified world views. It screams of people who get all their historical education from movies.

Out here in the Real World; WWII did not usher in decades of peace and stability. China turned commie and started slaughtering it's own, the USSR started proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. Cuba, Angola, Afghanistan, Hungary, Laos, Cambodia. Moa's famine, followed by the cultural revolution, Stalin's ethnic cleansing. American's just remember the homecoming parade because that's how the movie ends.

The decades after the war are just about as messy as the 1930s. Hell; thousands of vets were called back to active duty, given back their same M1s and sent to Korea.
 
2009-09-04 09:38:57 AM  

NewportBarGuy: "I approve of this message!" -Obergruppenführer Pat Buchanan


Isn't Pat a MSNBC employee now?
 
2009-09-04 09:39:03 AM  
img0.fark.net: You know, in retrospect, that Hitler chap wasn't so bad!
 
2009-09-04 09:39:42 AM  
Of course it was worth fighting. Just ask the Harriman Brothers, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, DuPont, IBM, US Steel, Remmington.......

War is Racket.

Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain
P1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho6VNvGsEsQ&feature=related

P2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTQRrwhKtwI&feature=related

P3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqX29-WTsEk
 
2009-09-04 09:40:09 AM  

Pxtl: Little.Alex: After WWII, China-Russia-Cuba killed hundreds of millions of people. But most Americans don't know that because we don't make movies about Red China ( 'cause you'll be called racist) or Soviet Russia (because they successfully subverted Hollywood).

You know how I know you're an idiot? You list Cuba alongside China and Russia. Castro was a nasty, nasty man, but to name his crimes in the same breath as Stalin and Mao is going full retard.


You'd have a hard time making that argument in Angola, retard.
 
2009-09-04 09:40:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: Ramming bills through against American's wishes, appointing communists, 9/11 truthers as his personal advisers, Pelosi, Rangle, outright liars and criminals and you libtards scream and cheer his praises.


Dude, you'd better bow to the new Messiah, or one of his supporters will try and eat you.
 
2009-09-04 09:41:24 AM  
If China ever gets a free shot at Japan, for what happened there back in WWII, the Japanese might as well kiss their mf-ing arses goodbye. China despises Japan, and there is an unpaid debt China will collect from Japan that only bombs, bullets and blood can satisfy. The irony is that China actually has good ties with USA that go back to our WWII involvement there. I'm not saying we are warm and fuzzy, but we didn't rape and murder 35 million Chinese either, and we actually fought well in defense of China, and even today the Chinese government acknowledges that. We don't hear much about this part of WWII in the USA, but in China, its shown on TV fairly often. To be sure, as long as we can, we won't let China get that free shot, but if it ever is available, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Japan.
 
2009-09-04 09:42:08 AM  

Moray: My mother is French so It was worth it for me. My father was a US Air Force vet.


How long after the war were you born? If it was before 1946, your father may have been German.
 
2009-09-04 09:42:50 AM  

Little.Alex: Out here in the Real World; WWII did not usher in decades of peace and stability. China turned commie and started slaughtering it's own, the USSR started proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. Cuba, Angola, Afghanistan, Hungary, Laos, Cambodia. Moa's famine, followed by the cultural revolution, Stalin's ethnic cleansing. American's just remember the homecoming parade because that's how the movie ends.


I don't think an Imperialist Japanese China would have been any better than Mao China. Enslaving every living person in a country tends to kill a lot of people, and it's not like Japan was any less ambitious for conquest than Mao's China.

As for Germany, I don't think they could have held Europe, even after conquering it. They broke their backs in Russia.
 
2009-09-04 09:43:16 AM  

Pxtl: iirc, Hitler didn't want to go after Britain. He thought the Brits were a "good enough" race. Britain got involved because of alliances. Correct me if I'm wrong, though - I'm not an obsessive WW2 buff.


he couldn't, not with British navy around :)

also, definitely not with soviets breathing down on his neck.
 
2009-09-04 09:44:19 AM  

GoldSpider: Occam's Chainsaw: I want to see a FPS set in WW1. Run out of the trench, die, respawn, run out of the trench, die, respawn...

LOL


Ah, but when you finaly get promoted to general it consists of playing tennis, eating steak, drinking port and moving your drinks cabinet a foot closer to Berlin every so often.
 
2009-09-04 09:44:28 AM  

Uncle Tractor: AFAIK the UK single-handedly defeated the Luftwaffe. If it hadn't been the the UK, the US wouldn't even have been able to enter the european theatre.


Um, not so much. The Luftwaffe lost far more planes on the Eastern front than over England.
 
2009-09-04 09:45:36 AM  

doyner: Was the fall of Rome worth it?


No.

Had they not set fire to the damned library on the way out and left the keys with the desert death cultists*, it might have been. As it was, no.

*Christians, since you're generally uneducated in the history of your own religion, that means you.

//"Was it worth it?" is a stupid question about any successfully executed war (i.e. one with a clear victor). They're destructive but are often the only way to rapidly reorder society. Since they tend to change value systems, making value judgements on 'em is... well, kinda retarded.
 
2009-09-04 09:46:22 AM  

Diogenes: : You know, in retrospect, that Hitler chap wasn't so bad!


GWB's grandfather agreed. Link
 
2009-09-04 09:46:25 AM  

Pxtl:

You know how I know you're an idiot? You list Cuba alongside China and Russia. Castro was a nasty, nasty man, but to name his crimes in the same breath as Stalin and Mao is going full retard.


He appears to be a very hard core ideologue with a mean resentment streak.


Not making movies about Red China because Hollywood is afraid of racism? Tin foil hat is too tight. Has a lot more to do with no open hostilities -- and general ambivalence about eastern Asia.

We've made plenty of movies about the Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese that are anything but flattering.

What it really looks like is "Hollywood Communist Jews" is being purposely omitted from the argument.
 
2009-09-04 09:46:42 AM  

Mugato: Thunderpipes: Any of you pussy liberals going to actually deny Obama appointed a 9/11 truther and a communist as one of his top advisors? I would like to see this. Oh ya, that's right, you are stupid kids and suck Obama's taint all day, he can do no wrong.

Get a job.


I love how conservatives call liberals pussies yet they're the ones who are first to volunteer to slap their civil liberties on the table and shred the Constitution so their leader can "keep them safe".


I love how they use 'pussy' as some ultimate insult. As the owner of a pussy, I'd like to let Republicans know that there is no reason to hate or be scared of the pussy. It doesn't have teeth and it's only stinky if you don't wash it. Just because they came out of a pussy weak and terrified is no reason to despise the pussy of today if they remain weak and terrified.
 
2009-09-04 09:47:31 AM  
Fringe sites don't get my clicks.
 
2009-09-04 09:47:46 AM  
"Was World War II worth it?"

We'll see. We bombed fascism and socialism in Europe and Asia only to vote for it in America a generation later.
 
2009-09-04 09:47:59 AM  

Little.Alex: You'd have a hard time making that argument in Angola, retard.


Yes, because the invasion of Angola is exactly the same as the deaths of millions upon millions under Stalin and Mao.

Totally the same.
 
2009-09-04 09:48:22 AM  

Chak: Uncle Tractor
The change of tactics of switching from crushing the RAF airfields to bombing the cities single-handedly defeated the Luftwaffe, not the RAF.


I'm not so sure those German planes actually shot themselves down in the end. But _that_ would have been healthy German efficiency.
 
2009-09-04 09:49:03 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Uncle Tractor: AFAIK the UK single-handedly defeated the Luftwaffe. If it hadn't been the the UK, the US wouldn't even have been able to enter the european theatre.

Um, not so much. The Luftwaffe lost far more planes on the Eastern front than over England.


but they lost more planes over Germany than they did over England or the eastern front.
 
2009-09-04 09:49:38 AM  

caballocoa:
As for heroism, 'continuing to fight, despite knowing that you'll probably be killed' is a pretty standard definition of the word.

I'll concede the first point and agree with the definition, but ordering millions of your troops to attack without regard for casualties is stupidity and manslaughter on the part of the leaders. The grunt soldiers were the heroes, but above that was just lack of sense.


I agree with that. Only front-line troops can really be described as heroic with any certainty.

I think it was a bit more complicated for the Russian war leaders than lack of sense though. They simply didn't have enough time to equip their troops anywhere near the same standard as the Germans so they understood that the only advantage available to them was sheer weight of numbers. That was believed to be the only way they could triumph. Also there were many times more German soldiers on the Eastern Front fighting a deliberately more brutal war than was seen in the West.
 
2009-09-04 09:52:22 AM  

Pxtl: Little.Alex: Out here in the Real World; WWII did not usher in decades of peace and stability. China turned commie and started slaughtering it's own, the USSR started proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. Cuba, Angola, Afghanistan, Hungary, Laos, Cambodia. Moa's famine, followed by the cultural revolution, Stalin's ethnic cleansing. American's just remember the homecoming parade because that's how the movie ends.

I don't think an Imperialist Japanese China would have been any better than Mao China. Enslaving every living person in a country tends to kill a lot of people, and it's not like Japan was any less ambitious for conquest than Mao's China.

As for Germany, I don't think they could have held Europe, even after conquering it. They broke their backs in Russia.


I agree with most of that. And I don't think Japan could have completed their conquest of China, or held it once they did. The Japs were being bled white just holding the coast and Manchuria. They bit off more sushi than they could chew. And they never got the Philippines quiet either.
 
2009-09-04 09:52:26 AM  

nicksteel: but they lost more planes over Germany than they did over England or the eastern front.


The Brits, the Americans, and the Soviets all flew over Germany. You can't count all planes shot down over Germany as being British kills.
 
2009-09-04 09:54:58 AM  

Davey Croquette: "We'll see. We bombed fascism and socialism in Europe and Asia only to vote for it in America a generation later.


One point: In 1944, we heavily bombed France. We shelled France with naval gunfire. We invaded France, and made a great many of their occupied spaces into battlefields. They loved us for it. Afterwards, when we were nice to them, they grew to loathe us. I'd like to see the US make the French love us again. We have the firepower to accomplish this.
 
2009-09-04 09:55:06 AM  
This would also be worth stopping, then again if you are a bleeding heart liberal panty waist, probably not.

i.cdn.turner.com
 
2009-09-04 09:56:19 AM  

SherKhan: Fringe sites don't get my clicks.


Damn, you must get tired of reading the Christian Science Monitor.
 
2009-09-04 09:56:58 AM  
Yes. It was worth it.

It stopped the Holocaust, showed us what evil looks like, and that it should never happen again (not that we're good about actually stopping it).
It stopped the spread of Fascism, German-based or otherwise (of course it's been growing here for a while, and it's rather anti-Obama).
It set us up to stop the spread of Soviet-style Communism (party by forcing us to stand up to the bad parts while adopting the better parts).

The Soviets great shining moment was holding off the Nazi war machine using some of the crappiest equipment, most unforgiving terrain/weather, while facing off against one of the best trained, equipped forces yet seen. Hate the politburo, but don't disrespect the Russians who did the impossible.
 
2009-09-04 09:57:07 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Um, not so much. The Luftwaffe lost far more planes on the Eastern front than over England.


As far as I was aware the Luftwaffe's losses in the Western theatre outstripped their Eastern front losses significantly. Have you got a link to prove me wrong with? Or a good book maybe?
 
2009-09-04 09:59:04 AM  
I'm sure they did. But I'm still not gonna click on their link.
 
2009-09-04 09:59:07 AM  

DancingJester: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Um, not so much. The Luftwaffe lost far more planes on the Eastern front than over England.

As far as I was aware the Luftwaffe's losses in the Western theatre outstripped their Eastern front losses significantly. Have you got a link to prove me wrong with? Or a good book maybe?


Opps never mind. I see now your issue was with the 'over England' part. Fair play, my bad.
 
2009-09-04 09:59:27 AM  

Little.Alex: You'd have a hard time making that argument in Angola, retard.


Heh indeed, while it didn't kill exactly millions, it led to a conflict lasting from 1966 to 1989, also soviets sent a lot of equipment there for their cuban allies to use, ranking probably third right after arabic countries and afghanistan. At least 400 000 cuban soldiers were rotated through Angola in that time period.
 
2009-09-04 10:00:22 AM  
I just... I don't get it anymore.

"OBAMA IS HITLER... [weeks later] Actually Hitler wasn't all that bad"
 
2009-09-04 10:01:16 AM  

Abagadro: There isn't a facepalm big enough to deal with NRO these days.


The answer to the question posed was "yes." It was basically a biatchslap to Pat Buchanan.

I don't agree with NRO's politics and I find them increasingly shrill and douchey lately, but the article hardly says that defeating Germany and Japan was a waste of time.
 
2009-09-04 10:02:55 AM  

Pxtl: Little.Alex: You'd have a hard time making that argument in Angola, retard.

Yes, because the invasion of Angola is exactly the same as the deaths of millions upon millions under Stalin and Mao.

Totally the same.


But a half million dead in a smaller population is ok? Why? Because they're black, or because it invalidates your argument?

Cuba is still executing and starving it's people TODAY. It amazes me how Liberals defend mass murder, so long as it's done by a fashionable socialist. The New York media treated Stalin exactly the same way. And Mussolini was a hero to American lefties in the 1930s.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report