Considering The Good War Concept

Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan

Iet's talk World War II. The terrible and terrific war of the greatest generation, a generation that is almost gone from the face of the earth. The war that made America proud. Yes, THAT war. Two-time conservative presidential candidate and full-time political pundit Pat Buchanan has written an article discussing the nature of the so-called good or "Just War" as theorized by Thomas Aquinas. Buchanan wants to know how and to whom the war was good. The article is not Buchanan at his best. His point is vague. But basically, what he seems to be arguing is that war always brings unintended consequences, and war is never good for everybody, or even most people, were we to be honest with the mathematics and social conditions from which that particular mathematics is calculated.

Some have noted that the great errors of the 17th and 18th century made the the two world wars inevitable. The Tyranny of Communism, Nazism and Facism all came from the same root—the burgeoning liberalism and Enlightenment that swept Europe in the 1700's. The Frensh Revolution merely was a foreshadowing of what was awaiting Europe and the world.

The ultimate thrust (not to be confused with the cause) for World War II, good or not, was the cowardice and appeasement that preceded it. Everyone knew that Hitler was a lunatic, not to be trusted, and that he had declared that he wanted to establish a whacky Germanic superman state. Social Darwinism was in vogue at it's worst! The Jews were the first to feel the insanity, but Hitler was an equal opportunity master of his own greed, and also felt that the Slavic peoples were inferior and good only for slavery.

The fact of the matter is, if the war had NOT been fought against Hitler and his minions, the world would now be a far worse place than it is presently is. This argument is not usually contested, but Buchanan puts a different spin of this adage, by suggesting that merely the names and the identity of the oppressors shifted. Japan cooled down, Mao's China heated up. Expansionist Germany was defeated, Communist Russia demanded a seat at the table of superpowers. Now, the Islamic states, drunk with oil revenues, are demanding not only a place at the table, but have been quite expressive in declaring that there is only one place for them, and that is at the head of the table.

It stuns and disappoints me how many North Americans and Western Europeans don't even care, or worse, are actively pursuing the corruption of national strengths in the immediate sense by embracing the dark and ugly global totalitarianism agenda that will replace nationalism with an oppression far greater than the society of the spectacle illustrated by vigorous capitalism, and the lures of the commodity culture.

Nor was it Hitler alone, historically, who was responsible for starting WWII; Neville Chamberlain and his "peace in our time" politics of appeasement was music to the ears of the aggressors-in-waiting. Peace in our time actually meant WE don't want to fight, we'll just leave it to our progeny and with any luck, by the time THEY have to fight we'll be gone anyway so we will have avoided the suffering. We can argue that it was precisely the pacifists, the predecessors of the flower children of the sixties, and the present day pacifists, for example, the Code Pinkers who represent the same pacifist thinking today, that was responsible for the outbreak of a war that could, and should, have been avoided.

Immediately prior to WWII, Joseph Kennedy, Sr., patriarch of the JFK generation, was the American ambassador to Great Britain. He was approached by the Jewish leaders who already knew (as did Kennedy) what was happening in Europe to the Jews. When they asked him to intervene, his terse response was that "they're getting what they deserve".

Another great "hero" Lindbergh, was strongly pro-Hitler, as was the lauded ex-king, who married an "inappropriate" woman, Wallis Simpson, and gave up the throne "for love", and who then went to Germany and gave the Nazi salute. Now, with the threats against the West today, not the least which is the Islamic threat, we have am enire culture of appeasement by the Hollywood Left and the leadership at large. And then, there is Prince Charles, who may suspect may have a secret plan to convert to Islam if he ever succeeds his Mother to the throne, if he has not already done so. Read more about turncoat Charles here and here.

All of these people, either pacifists or what might be called co-conspirators, were equally responsible for WWII. And, as now with Israel, the world stands by and does nothing! And when war finally breaks out, the our own generation's institutional players will wonder "HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?"

While there may be no such thing as a good war, there are however, necessary wars. The alternative is to lose one's liberty, identity, and any self determination inherent in the global punchline. If pacifists had their way, we would all be slaves of the biggest baddest wolf on the planet. This leads us to the thought that since the United Nations has become nothing but a puppet of the most egregious nations now struggled for revolutionary status, the US needs to be more willing to smack down dangerous tyrants quickly and without waiting for the rest of the world to approve.

But we have lost our way. Our leadership has sold out our national heritage, We can no longer act as he global police. Our economy is iin shambles. Our people are fragmented and even polarized. Lawlessness abounds, and these issue require dire attention if this nation is to regain its strong footing of the past.

China, Russia, Iran and its satellites, Venezuela, North Korea, and let's not forget the slippery cutthroat Saudi Arabian financiers (pals with the Bush family) are all salivating at the chance to help personally accelerate fall of the West, and thus add to their own stature and cultural mytholgies. It stuns and disappoints me how many North Americans and Western Europeans don't even care, or worse, are actively pursuing the corruption of national strengths in the immediate sense by embracing the dark and ugly global totalitarianism agenda that will replace nationalism with an oppression far greater than the society of the spectacle illustrated by vigorous capitalism, and the lures of the commodity culture.

If there is, indeed, a "good" war, it is a war that is fought for freedom, liberty, and the rights of man (and woman!) and our friendly neighborhood pacifists are our and their own worst enemies.

Be the first to comment on "Considering The Good War Concept"

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.