The Best and Worst of the Presidency

[Augustine2004]

After being fired upon? Are you serious?

When the South seceded, Lincoln wanted to restore the Union, but he didn't want to be seen as the aggressor. He decided to manuever the South into firing the first shot.

No, I suspect that they wanted to ensure that the rest of the territories added to the US would have slavery, and Lincoln made sure that would not happen. That ticked them off, so they came out shooting.

The first sentence may be correct, but I disagree with the second sentence.

[Augustine2004]

Ordinarily I would not mention yet another review of Human Smoke, but this one is by David Gordon, who as usual wrote a masterly review afaIct. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=332 ‘One would like to think, though, that in view of the appalling massacres and destruction of the war, some better choices than the ones Churchill and Roosevelt made were possible.’

[Nonobviousness]

You think the two best presidents were republicans but you are for the worst democrat candidate in US history. Only a liberal could be so contrary. Lincoln did not take a confederacy and make a nation. Where does that come from?

[Ryokan]

Ordinarily I would not mention yet another review of Human Smoke, but this one is by David Gordon, who as usual wrote a masterly review afaIct. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=332 ‘One would like to think, though, that in view of the appalling massacres and destruction of the war, some better choices than the ones Churchill and Roosevelt made were possible.’

A better choice would have been confronting Hitler or Japan in '36 or '38.

[Augustine2004]

A better choice would have been confronting Hitler or Japan in '36 or '38.

Please explain the situation in '36-'38. Please keep in mind the saying that hindsight is easy.

[Ryokan]

Please explain the situation in '36-'38. Please keep in mind the saying that hindsight is easy.

In '36, I believe, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. A justifiable act of war under the old peace treaty for France and Britain, and he was in a much weaker place then. In '38 he gobbled up Czechloslovakia. Again, a good moment to stop him because his airforce was not up to par and the Czechs could have opened a difficult front for him. Japan continued to abuse China throughout this period, and fought a division sized battle with the Soviets.

[Augustine2004]

In '36, I believe, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. A justifiable act of war under the old peace treaty for France and Britain, and he was in a much weaker place then. In '38 he gobbled up Czechloslovakia. Again, a good moment to stop him because his airforce was not up to par and the Czechs could have opened a difficult front for him. Japan continued to abuse China throughout this period, and fought a division sized battle with the Soviets.

I think you have to go back all the way to the beginnings of World War I - the years before the start of hostilities. You appear to think the British were good guys.

[Ryokan]

I think you have to go back all the way to the beginnings of World War I - the years before the start of hostilities. You appear to think the British were good guys.

WW1 didn't have any good guys. It had a bucnh of victims of a treaty system and mobilization timetables. But, as I said, my solution is better than the one proposed. Maybe we should go all the way back and stop Bismarck from uniting Germany. It gets silly Aug.

[Augustine2004]

Oh, I'm the silly one and you're not? You agree that WWI had no good guys. So, we don't know which side to take and should have stayed out. Ditto WWII.

A guy said that going to war with Hitler actually pushed him to do the Holocaust. I'm not sure, but he did make a good case. He pointed out that until WWII broke out, nothing like the Holocaust was Nazi policy. 'Encouraging' Jewish emigration was about the worst of it then, IIRC.

[Ryokan]

Oh, I'm the silly one and you're not? You agree that WWI had no good guys. So, we don't know which side to take and should have stayed out. Ditto WWII.

The war got out of control and our strategic interest lined up with the west, so we had to sign up with them. I think an arguement could be made we should have gotten involved in 1915 or not at all. But the war was a stupid accident. That's what I meant by no good guys. WW2 had clear bad guys, and even then we got involved because WE WERE ATTACKED! And then Hitler declared war ON US! Jeez, Aug.

A guy said that going to war with Hitler actually pushed him to do the Holocaust. I'm not sure, but he did make a good case. He pointed out that until WWII broke out, nothing like the Holocaust was Nazi policy. 'Encouraging' Jewish emigration was about the worst of it then, IIRC.

Hitler started the war. He started the Holocaust as part of his grand scheme to fix Europe, which he believed he'd soon control. So in a way, yes, the war Hitler started started the holocaust. TO suggest the US caused it by trying to allow beleaguered jews to escape is rank anti-semetism and I wonder when you are going to get embarassed by the wacko ideas you give credit too.

[Augustine2004]

The war got out of control and our strategic interest lined up with the west, so we had to sign up with them. I think an arguement could be made we should have gotten involved in 1915 or not at all. But the war was a stupid accident. That's what I meant by no good guys. WW2 had clear bad guys, and even then we got involved because WE WERE ATTACKED! And then Hitler declared war ON US! Jeez, Aug.

So, you give no credence to the assertions that FDR and Churchill schemed to manuever the USA into war with Japan and Germany. Why?

Hitler started the war. He started the Holocaust as part of his grand scheme to fix Europe, which he believed he'd soon control. So in a way, yes, the war Hitler started started the holocaust.

You think of WWII as being separate from WWI and its aftermath, yes?

TO suggest the US caused it by trying to allow beleaguered jews to escape is rank anti-semetism and I wonder when you are going to get embarassed by the wacko ideas you give credit too.

Good grief, however did you come up with such a reading of my post? On the contrary, I believe FDR didn't want to help the Jews. He was anti-semetic. Look at Human Smoke for documentation.

[Ryokan]

So, you give no credence to the assertions that FDR and Churchill schemed to manuever the USA into war with Japan and Germany. Why?

The msot obvious reason would be the fact Churchill was not PM until after the war started.

You think of WWII as being separate from WWI and its aftermath, yes? Good grief, however did you come up with such a reading of my post? On the contrary, I believe FDR didn't want to help the Jews. He was anti-semetic. Look at Human Smoke for documentation.

I don't see what FDR's relationship to the Jews has to do with this or how you can see WW1 and WW2 as a continuous conflict.

[Augustine2004]

Pat Buchanan’s ‘important new’ book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How the British Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World is a book Ryokan might never read on the grounds that I mentioned it. Too bad, he’d still espouse bad history opinions. I don’t know how good the book is, but it’s said to be well documented, like Human Smoke. Stalin and Hitler were indeed bad joes, but they weren’t the only ones among the leaders of the Western World.

[Ryokan]

Pat Buchanan’s ‘important new’ book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How the British Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World is a book Ryokan might never read on the grounds that I mentioned it. Too bad, he’d still espouse bad history opinions.

I am familiar with it. I find Buchanan a liar and a bore, so your right, I won't be reading it soon.

I don’t know how good the book is, but it’s said to be well documented, like Human Smoke. Stalin and Hitler were indeed bad joes, but they weren’t the only ones among the leaders of the Western World.

Augustine, I think you should get a handle on the history before you explore the revisionist fringe.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, YOU get your history right. Start with the correct economics.