Comments on: Hitler, Churchill, and Reagan

By: Tim Manning, Jr.

Tim Manning, Jr. — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:54:15 +0000

I realize this discussion has ended, but if anyone is listening...
Forget those hapless Northern war dissenters. They were right by accident. Take a look at Tom Watson of GA and Ben Tillman of SC. Look at, especially, Watson's Magazine (1905-1917). It contains the best information anywhere on the roots of 20th century American war corruption. No one was better on the subject of WWI than the Southern Populist Party.
Also, check out Lyon Gardiner Tyler in the William & Mary Quarterly. He was the Populist era editor of WMQ, and wrote some of the best WWI analysis anywhere. It was so good that no one even criticized him for comparing the forces against Wilhelm II to those mounted against Jeff Davis. Oh yeah, and he was the son of the best-ever American President, John Tyler.

By: Tom Widlar

Tom Widlar — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:52:55 +0000

Dear Mr. Wilson: Your review of Buchanan's book begins with "One would almost begin to think that the Brits bear most of the blame for World War II and all its attendant horrors. (Actually there is nothing new here. The interpretations that have recently appeared were all debated vigorously in the immediate postwar period.) It is even hinted that the defunct British Empire and its last great statesman are somehow responsible for the present ownership of the United States by neocon imperialists." I would like to learn more about the "vigorous debate". Could you give details or point to some articles? Does "nothing new" mean the question can't be considered any more? Thank you.

By: pablo H

pablo H — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:34:30 +0000

32@KIrkwood,

Of course, they know. Why always this conservative reluctance to tell the truth? Or the shrinking from conflict?

Whatever the Neo-Cons are, its not ignorant or stupid. They smear Lindberg and Buchanan and attack anyone who admires them for a reason, to further their agenda.

By: R. Cort Kirkwood

R. Cort Kirkwood — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:16:36 +0000

@26, Dr. Fleming:

The neocons jumped on you about The Lone Eagle for one of two reasons: Some likely didn't know, as neocons are famous for their ignorance. The others did know and don't wish to acknowledge truth.

By: Ronald Kyser

Ronald Kyser — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:18:31 +0000

Lindbergh is not without honor in his home. One of the world's busiest air terminals is named for him, and a ticket between Minneapolis/St Paul and San Diego will take you from one Lindbergh to another. They even had a Lone Eagle Bar at MSP, unaware (or unconcered) that the man was a strict teetotaler. There is also a double statue, as man and boy, in front of the State Capitol in St Paul. It hasn't moved, but its address is no longer Constitution Avenue but "The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard". Dr Fleming once proposed "Land of Douglas" magnets for Illinois license plates, and I immediately thought of adapting that idea to the streets of Paris, two of which are named for Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Imagine Parisians waking up to "Avenue Lindbergh père" and "Boulevard Lindbergh fils".

By: Eagle

Eagle — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:30:59 +0000

Mr. Piatak, The west (meaning the US and UK) has ALWAYS betrayed its central European slavic allies. Whether it be at Yalta 60 years ago or in the Balkans 10 years ago, the result is the same. Slavs don't matter to Churchill or his successors. Poles and Serbs would be forgiven for wondering should they have just peacefully surrendered to the racist Nazis and been better off in the long run. But let's leave aside WWII for a moment... One hopes that the Polish government will listen to the will of its people and adhere to basic national interest and refuse the US its request (bullying) to house a missile "shield" on its territory. The latest news is that the US is negotiating with the Lithuanians instead to house the shield. This is great news in so far it will prove definitively (to the Germans) that the US is indeed using the shield to bully Russia and not as a defensive mechanism against the Persians. One day Germany's elite may come around and really see that Russia is their ally and then the Anglsophere will collapse. Oridnary Americans' lives - like your's and mine - will become much harder as the dollar's reserve status crumbles and superpower status shifts to continental Europe, but this will be hardship infinitely preferable to a nuclear holocaust with Russia that the New York - London set is driving us towards.

By: John Zander

John Zander — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:07:06 +0000

I agree with you Rob. The judaic myth is the same, and perhaps in spirit even identical to the prussian myth. I always thought it amusing how when departing from our real culture our western, christian culture the sparks fly MOST between each of God's two different 'chosen' mythical masters. Nonetheless we all may deep down to some degree, (it's a world of degrees to greater or lesser extent therefore) yet 'believe' that or want to believe it about our own, even (perhaps especially) I say ol'chap - the Brits? Look at the neo-cons today - they're Acting out their judaic myth (secular or religious that's that culture) - revenging themselves upon all the rest of us, right now. I'd prefer the brits myself and i suspect the prussians if xian as well. i prefer the xian to the judaic or islamic in terms of what the culture suggests and thus makes actual inevitably in terms of behaviour. Remember the repeatables - we're all concpetual creatures, and so at that [conceptual] pause - YES, culture matters.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:45:13 +0000

Well, John, you have said many good things in your last post but one must choose a side about Prussia. They have a myth about their teutonic race and its superiority over the rest of God's creatures and the inevitable necessity for them to unite and rule. One can argue the myth is true or false, but it IS the Prussian spirit and I think Dr. Wilson is correct in being suspicious of it. The Brits have many faults as well, the most obnoxious is their false humility of being once upon a time "just a little island empire dependent upon their control of the seas and their fleet so they could buy and sell, import and export, just the goods needed for their own survival." But as I say, there are cross roads in which one must make a choice and we Americans have England for our Mother whether we like it or not, and there is much to like about that fact. In correcting one exaggeration, one must be careful to not create another.

By: John Zander

John Zander — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:57:51 +0000

I do not believe that England stood best for western, christian heritage our real civilisation and culture or stood better for it than Germany, by many accounts the most cultured country in the world at the time of the famous world wars. This is Dr. Wilson's given or premise which leads to its apparently inevitable twin conclusion(quote): "My primary purpose here was to focus on the correctness of the British/French stand against German aggression in 1939, without bringing in the what and wherefore of U.S. involvement." -Dr. Wilson I agree that as Americans we ought to discuss what we do and take responsibility for it. However Pat was attempting to strike at the root/s of the demonisation of Germany initially (suggesting which party was in reality the snooty aggressor with its empire by comparison, whether there were salutary effects to that empire or not and its civilizing influences, which Hitler himself admired); and Pat's additional points such as even Hitler, only became (actually) evil under the dire circumstances of a war he wished he could end with honor but wasn't permitted to do so. So prior to changing our discussion back to ourselves as Americans which no doubt we must get around to, we have not addressed Pat's factual points, point by point. Neither has Dr. Wilson except to ostensibly reiterate his own predjudice and pre-disposition toward believing a.) england is the greater civilising influence when in comparison with germany and b.) germany was to blame for its alleged belligerence while both england and france were 'correct' in their stand. Belief is one thing, facts and thinking about them quite another. I'm open and not an expert so I could be convinced that Dr. Wilson's position may have more merit than Pat's but so far it was and is only Pat, who seems to have pointed out some facts we haven't been taught and he did some thinking about them. Dr. Wilson suggests those facts were thoroughly chewed upon and digested in the aftermath of the war, without apparently even mentioning the victors like the north with regard to the civil war, always write the history.

By: TJF

TJF — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:13:55 +0000

My father-in-law, as a boy, met Lindbergh and watched his plane for him. Later on, as low man in the Army Air Corps, he surrendered his plane to Lindbergh who almost killed himself because he refused to listen to young Bill Clark who had made a few unauthorized modifications. Lindbergh was very gracious about it. What my father-in-law also told me was that Lindbergh made many brilliant aeronautical innovations which he simply gave to the US. He really was in almost every respect a great American, but when I described him some years ago as America's most popular hero in the 1930's, the neocons jumped all over me. Although I admire Lindbergh, that was not even my point. Today you cannot even repeat a simple fact--that Lindbergh was admired--without being attacked.