The Books/Reading Thread

[Dak]

Buchanan even cites it himself, "the Judeo-Bolsheviks" to the East. I do not feel like watching all 7 parts or reading his book, but I doubt he mentions whether or not a superior Nazi Germany or a superior Stalinist Russia is better for the World. Then Buchanan attributes the invasion of Greece on the West, which is also out there. Mussolini went first, failed, and then Nazi's went in and took all the Jews out.

His contention is that Germany and Russia would have bled each other out absent any interference, and that Soviet Russia was a much greater danger to the rest of the world in any case. Those both appear to be legitimate positions to me.

Hitler was a mad man

Depends on what you mean by "mad". It's generally assumed he did go insane as the war turned against Germany, but you can't just point to an atrocity and assume those responsible are irrational in all areas.

 

[rms]

That premise is almost entirely wrong. Nazi Germany almost blitzkrieg'd Russia as fast as France, and they certainly would have, if they were not already invested in a North African and Western European campaign. How can you, or Buchanan, contend that Russia was at all an equal in 1940?

And even if he argues/believes that they were equal powers in 1940, the bleeding out would have certainly included the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe, as well as other minorities, and I still think that a policy of no intervention is wrong. And this is all of course if you believe that Hitler had no intention of world domination


His Jewish policy did or at least equaled his belief in conquering Europe/regaining German superiority. I think it's quite clear he was an irrational man in which his flaws became more apparent when Germany started to falter.

 

[Einherjar86]

Imperial Germany was, from what I can tell, certainly more admirable than Britain or France or Russia of the era.

 

[Dak]

That premise is almost entirely wrong. Nazi Germany almost blitzkrieg'd Russia as fast as France, and they certainly would have, if they were not already invested in a North African and Western European campaign. How can you, or Buchanan, contend that Russia was at all an equal in 1940?

Sheer size and manpower reserves. Once at war, Russia tooled up incredibly fast. The German blitz faltered as it went east due to supply issues created not in small part by the increasing distance. France was much more easily overrun because they were smaller and next door. And it's the French.

And even if he argues/believes that they were equal powers in 1940, the bleeding out would have certainly included the extermination of Jews in Eastern Europe, as well as other minorities, and I still think that a policy of no intervention is wrong. And this is all of course if you believe that Hitler had no intention of world domination

His Jewish policy did or at least equaled his belief in conquering Europe/regaining German superiority. I think it's quite clear he was an irrational man in which his flaws became more apparent when Germany started to falter.

All of the peoples in eastern Europe suffered greatly regardless during the war, and even moreso after once put behind the Iron Curtain. It's hardly an argument against Hitler for Stalin.

Hitler had three clear aims:
1. Create a Germany that included all German speaking peoples.
2. Become one of the "Great Powers"/self sufficient (hence the need for North Africa).
3. Rid new/greater Germany of Jews.

If you sank your whole life into something just to watch it go up in flames and knew dire personal (and national) consequences were coming, going insane isn't exactly an abnormal human response.

Least not admirable?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know...

I sympathize with the effort to recontextualize how we assess the superpowers of pre-WWII Europe, but... I just think that any developed nation that exercises its force through the systematic targeting and execution of specific groups of people is less admirable than nations that don't. Obviously Stalin's Russia still falls into this category, but early-twentieth-century France and England don't.

In what I think is a moment of accurate cultural diagnosis, Zizek suggests that the German targeting, exclusion, and execution of Jews betrays a symptomatic glitch in the nationalistic hardware. It may be that the country was operating efficiently and productively, but it rationalized its productivity and unity on a selective expropriation of Jews - of their property and identity. In my opinion that negates any admirability points.

 

[Dak]

I said Imperial Germany, not Nazi Germany, nor the Weimar Republic.

 

[Einherjar86]

Apologies, I read the conversation backward and you both were talking about Nazi Germany and Hitler. I quoted too soon when I saw the "admirable" comment.

 

[Dak]

Apologies, I read the conversation backward and you both were talking about Nazi Germany and Hitler. I quoted too soon when I saw the "admirable" comment.

It's understandable. I'm used to poor reactions when I say "too bad Germany didn't win WWI". Everyone seems to think Germans were Nazis forever.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I agree with Dak about WWI. I think that the possibility of the United States intervening prolonged the war and the war would have ended in a stalemate had the US not intervened. The terms of peace, then, would have been much less harmful to Germany and would likely have averted the rise of fascism, at least temporarily. I disagree about WWII. It was the right choice for the US to enter and it would have been better if they had intervened sooner. As for the US's role in the war and the repercussions that resulted in the Cold War, the US made one big mistake. Instead of taking the stronger geopolitical strategy of invading the continent from the Balkans and thus establishing a military presence across Eastern Europe as Churchill had wanted, the US went with the stronger military strategy and invaded through France, which left the whole east open to Soviet domination.

 

[Dak]

I concur with BO here more or less. I probably wasn't clear enough, and the label of Buchanan's book isn't clear, but a significant portion of Bunchanan's book and of Tragedy & Hope shows that it was one bad decision on another, both politicially and militarily surrounding WWI, that made the situation the disaster waiting to happen that was WWII. At that point, you then had Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, (essentially Nazi) Italy, and Imperial Japan to deal with. 3 of the 4 were dealt with, and the one that wasn't was responsible for either direct oppression or bankrolling the oppression of much of the globe for the next 45 years.

 

[rms]

Sheer size and manpower reserves. Once at war, Russia tooled up incredibly fast. The German blitz faltered as it went east due to supply issues created not in small part by the increasing distance. France was much more easily overrun because they were smaller and next door. And it's the French.

I don't know what you're arguing here. Why couldn't the Nazis send more resources east? Oh ya, campaigns in North Africa and Western Europe..not sure you're making an argument or defending it but rather stating what happened.

All of the peoples in eastern Europe suffered greatly regardless during the war, and even moreso after once put behind the Iron Curtain. It's hardly an argument against Hitler for Stalin.

Hitler had three clear aims:
1. Create a Germany that included all German speaking peoples.
2. Become one of the "Great Powers"/self sufficient (hence the need for North Africa).
3. Rid new/greater Germany of Jews.

Again this means nothing. Buchanan suggests that Poland should have been a doormat to Nazi Germany, and western powers lose all credibility in establishing a policing mentality of the world. How obnoxious to not address this point but even counter it.

I am not saying that Hitler did not do amazing things, but he was not clearly a rational man.

As for the US's role in the war and the repercussions that resulted in the Cold War, the US made one big mistake. Instead of taking the stronger geopolitical strategy of invading the continent from the Balkans and thus establishing a military presence across Eastern Europe as Churchill had wanted, the US went with the stronger military strategy and invaded through France, which left the whole east open to Soviet domination.

Are you suggesting an even longer war to combat Soviet influence in a continent incredibly far away from the homeland? This seem like a ridiculous point as well.

 

[EspaDa]

 

[Dak]

Oh ya, campaigns in North Africa and Western Europe..not sure you're making an argument or defending it but rather stating what happened.

The point is that there is considerable evidence that Hitler did not want war with France, Germany, and the US, but the "Allied" leadership (especially France) by and large did not want a resurgent Germany, and so they "wanted" war.

Again this means nothing. Buchanan suggests that Poland should have been a doormat to Nazi Germany, and western powers lose all credibility in establishing a policing mentality of the world. How obnoxious to not address this point but even counter it.

So instead they were a doormat for Soviet Russia, which at best was just as bad. You aren't seeing the big picture.

As far as how "mad" Hitler was:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/17/science/insane-or-just-evil-a-psychiatrist-takes-a-new-look-at-hitler.html?pagewanted=all

The publication this week of the first comprehensive medical and psychological biography of the Nazi leader, ''Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet'' (Oxford University Press, $35), is likely to intensify the debate. In it, Dr. Fritz Redlich, a neurologist and psychiatrist, concludes that though Hitler exhibited many psychiatric symptoms, including extreme paranoia and defenses that ''could fill a psychiatry textbook,'' he most likely was not truly mentally ill. Hitler's paranoid delusions, Dr. Redlich writes, ''could be viewed as a symptom of mental disorder, but most of the personality functioned more than adequately.'' Hitler, he added, ''knew what he was doing and he chose to do it with pride and enthusiasm.''

 

[rms]

The point is that there is considerable evidence that Hitler did not want war with France, Germany, and the US, but the "Allied" leadership (especially France) by and large did not want a resurgent Germany, and so they "wanted" war.

How can you say Hitler's aggression in central Europe (and the Rhineland) did not force the hand of Western powers? Because you take Hitler at his...words? I don't understand how actions are now weaker than words in this historical context. And of course, Hitler was the aggressor against the Western powers as well, but we'll attribute that to the Brits and French..when neither were military powers at the end of 39/beginning of 40. Nazi Germany was by far the strongest military power in Europe.

So instead they were a doormat for Soviet Russia, which at best was just as bad. You aren't seeing the big picture.

There is no big picture, because there is no argument. Are you suggesting that if Nazi Germany stopped at Danzig and instead the Russians went West the allies would not have intervened? With a decimated Western Europe and of course the even more intense isolationist mindset, this environment allowed Russia to extend its influence West.

This perspective only makes sense if you truly believe the Nazis would have somehow lost on the Eastern Front (without having N. Africa/Western Front), and I haven't seen an argument to make me doubt that the Russians could have.

 

[Dak]

How can you say Hitler's aggression in central Europe (and the Rhineland) did not force the hand of Western powers? Because you take Hitler at his...words? I don't understand how actions are now weaker than words in this historical context. And of course, Hitler was the aggressor against the Western powers as well, but we'll attribute that to the Brits and French..when neither were military powers at the end of 39/beginning of 40. Nazi Germany was by far the strongest military power in Europe.

There is no big picture, because there is no argument. Are you suggesting that if Nazi Germany stopped at Danzig and instead the Russians went West the allies would not have intervened? With a decimated Western Europe and of course the even more intense isolationist mindset, this environment allowed Russia to extend its influence West.

This perspective only makes sense if you truly believe the Nazis would have somehow lost on the Eastern Front (without having N. Africa/Western Front), and I haven't seen an argument to make me doubt that the Russians could have.

Your position is a regurgitation of some History channel memes. I don't own Buchanon's book so I can't just quote from it, and you're minimalization of European Allied power shows a lack of knowledge and/or understanding about the state of Europe in the leadup to the war on even basic things like manpower and organization which can be very easily looked up. I'm not going to argue about it (especially in this thread) anymore when you are just basically going "germany was uber evil and uber powerful end of discussion".

 

[Anom@nder Rake]

Robert E. Howard's horror is fantastic! It should appeal to people into weird fiction that don't get butthurt because he uses the word 'my pals' in some of his stories.

 

[unknown]

yeah that wouldn't bother 99.9% of the board.

As a side note, the Penguin edition of Ligotti's Grimscribe and Noctuary should be shipping soon. I'll finally have a copy of his books I won't feel guilty writing in (and the first books of his I haven't had to spend over $30-50 for either)

 

[Einherjar86]

Just ordered a copy of Thomas Pynchon's Bleeding Edge. First thing I'm doing after my exams.

 

[The Ozzman]

I wasn't sold on this, but I read it as an introduction to their mythology and intend to explore more thoroughly. Finished at lunch today:

The Prose Edda (since it's blurry on the photo)

 

[CiG]

Love it immensely!