...so...wait. When did Pat Buchanan become an actual Nazi?

[Fenris]

A) My dad is a Holocaust survivor and I hate the wimping out of the word "Nazi" to mean "People with whom I disagree".

B) That said, yeah. Pat Buchanan is a fucking Nazi-of the "Invade the Sudetenland for lebensraum." variety.

One example--Jeepers. If only that naughty War-Mongerer Winston hadn't needlessly antagonized Adolph, we'd be living in utopia now. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090901/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3311160)

Those damned murderers, Winston and FDR: if they hadn't FORCED Hitler, there wouldn't have been a Final Solution (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27107&keywords=hitler)

and there's a half dozen others all with the theme
1) Hitler was a good guy. Winnie and FDR were the warmongering bad-guys
2) There wouldn't have been a Holocaust*--it was all the Allies fault
3) Besides, Stalin was worse**

I remember Buchanan's radio show in the late '80s--he had a co-host who was always a pretty hard-line (non-wimp) liberal. David Corn and Barry Lynn (neither of these guys were like Alan (doormat) Combes) were both co-hosts for a while and it was an incredibly fun and educational show as they discussed issues, took (friendly) cheap-shots at each other, etc.

What happened? Was he always a Nazi and I just missed it? Has he gone insane? And why does he think it's a good idea to be a Hitler Apologist in public?


*And my mom--who pays attention about such things--swears she's heard Buchanan engage in vague Holocaust denial (of the "Well, we don't know the EXACT number-it could be much, much lower. And many Jews in the camps probably died 'cause the Allies cut the supply lines and they starved" variety). No cites other than "My mommy said it."

**Technically true on a "body count" scale, but when we're talking 6,000,000 vs 8,000,000 (or whatever), it's really kind of irrelevant as to who's the bigger inhuman monster.

[Baldwin]

I enjoy alternate history stories. But it'd be hard to sell the scenario that: 1) Germany invades Poland; 2) Britain and Western Europe don't react; 3) Hitler stops there. You'd have to ignore an awful lot of stuff.

Buchanan's a strange old dude.

[Fenris]

No--see, Germany ONLY invaded Poland in self-defense and was welcomed with open arms by all the oppressed people he liberated. It was only that Winston Churchill hating democracy that forced (FORCED!!!) Hitler to do anything further.

[WednesdayAddams]

Wow. I'm not used to seeing that kind of thing from Pat. I really do think he is in a world he does not understand and cannot bring himself to bend long enough to allow that his may not be the correct stance. Pat's a dinosaur. Why he is still being given a voice in politics is a mystery.

[Lounsbury]

...
B) That said, yeah. Pat Buchanan is a fucking Nazi-of the "Invade the Sudetenland for lebensraum." variety.
...

What happened? Was he always a Nazi and I just missed it? Has he gone insane? And why does he think it's a good idea to be a Hitler Apologist in public?


*And my mom--who pays attention about such things--swears she's heard Buchanan engage in vague Holocaust denial (of the "Well, we don't know the EXACT number-it could be much, much lower. And many Jews in the camps probably died 'cause the Allies cut the supply lines and they starved" variety). No cites other than "My mommy said it."
....

I am no Buchanan expert, but I too seem to recall seeing something in a news item quoting Buchanan saying something that sounded like Holocaust denial, but phrased just so, to avoid the firestorm as it were.

I rather suspect then in his old age his tendencies are hardening, and insofar as he's apparently very much the Authoritarian Conservative, rather than Liberal (libertarian) Right.... he's evolving (devolving?)?

[Uthrecht]

I'm fairly certain I've heard bits of this from Pat for some time now. You can say that he's in a strange place or something if you want, but I feel the reverse is true. There's a certain amount of wagon-circling happening, and those doing it are increasing their rhetoric. I think some folks are getting a bit bolder in their language as a result.

[WednesdayAddams]

But Uthrecht, he is. I'm not saying I feel bad for him or making excuses for what he's saying. I'm saying the world has moved on and because he has refused to recognize those changes as valid or even real, he is out of place. Since he entered politics we have seen a massive shift in civil rights for just about every group. Views like Pat's are what we expect to see watching a historical documentary, not something from a current political pundit.

[Uthrecht]

Aah, I see. Okay, I see what you meant there. I thought you meant he felt like his party was in a strange place or something and so might be a little out of sorts and saying things he would normally keep to himself. In which case I'd disagree, as I think he's said stuff like this before on various occasions.

However, as to noting that he's a product of a different age, I'll agree. I was reading out to my wife (who is a HUGE Kennedy fan) some of the things that Joe Kennedy, Sr. had said about Jews in general, and she got a bit techy. Who of course was a previous generation to Pat. But these things persist. And while Pat is a product of a different age, that should not be read as me thinking that there are not products of THIS age which have similar mindsets. I cut him (and Joe Sr, and Theodore Roosevelt and all the rest) some slack for when they grew up. Heck, look at our VP and his comment about Obama. However, I also expect folks at some point to unplug their ears and open their minds to what they're saying and what's going on in the world around him.

Pat should honestly know better by now, to either stop thinking these things, stop saying these things, or back out of the spotlight.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Ehhh. Actually, yeah. Hitler, or rather Germany, may have wanted English hands off the Continent but Buchanan's correct (and hardly novel) in that a protracted war with the UK was not on the agenda. Part of it was racial ideology, the UK were "pure men of Albion" or some weirdo Nazi crap. A bigger part of it was that the UK could be relied upon to open the colonial spiggots and flood Germany in pissed off Canadians, Ozzies, Indians, Nepalese, etc etc. And eventually, Americans. Which is precisely what happened. Hitler specifically didn't even engage in active infiltration attempts (against the counsel of his officers iirc) onto the islands for fear of unduly escalating the war. By the time he tried it, the war was turning and his agents were critically underskilled, and all or nearly all were apprehended and killed/turned within weeks.

Of course Buchanan's not the first to point it out and is an otherwise indefensible creature, but it's historically recognized fact that after a certain point in the war, the UK was technically the aggressor.

[Fenris]

I think they're weirder than that Marissa.

Outside of Idaho-style Nazis, I've never heard anyone, let alone one of the say, 50 biggest voices in the American political media, actually praise Hitler and defend his invasion of Poland as "self-defense".

Holy cow--this stuff goes back to 1977:
Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.

I'm also tracking down him saying perpetuating the myth that the showers weren't gas chambers because (apparent quote--researching) "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.", so if that's a real quote, it firmly puts him in the denier camp.

[WednesdayAddams]

Fenris, I don't doubt you (or your mommy). It is the first time I've heard this, but it doesn't surprise me considering some of his other assertions. All of which are equally WTF-inducing.

Aside from the near-awed phraseology, I don't think anything in that paragraph is untrue. He was a genius. A sociopathic genius with a great insight for knowing what motivates people (fear) and how to exploit that. He was a greatly persuasive speaker. What flummoxes me is how Pat goes a step further and sees that as admirable. (Poland was self defense? HOW?)

[Fenris]

Aside from the near-awed phraseology, I don't think anything in that paragraph is untrue. He was a genius. A sociopathic genius with a great insight for knowing what motivates people (fear) and how to exploit that. He was a greatly persuasive speaker.
True--but I quibble with 'genius'. Charismatic public speaker? Yes. Militarily, Hitler was a nitwit. If he hadn't backstabbed Stalin and then attacked Moscow in the winter! he very well could have won.

What flummoxes me is how Pat goes a step further and sees that as admirable. (Poland was self defense? HOW?)
They were oppressing the poor German people of the Sudetenland, if I'm reading Pat correctly.

[Baldwin]

Buchanan has never flat-out denied the Holocaust. No, he treads the line carefully. Instead, he finds tiny areas in our historical picture of the Holocaust that aren't entirely filled-in, like the exact provenance of every cubic inch of gas used, and uses those little missing details to imply that maybe the whole thing is made up. It's like the Creationists who make a big deal out of us not having fossils of every transitional form leading to every modern animal.

What goes on in his head, I couldn't guess.

[Uthrecht]

They were oppressing the poor German people of the Sudetenland, if I'm reading Pat correctly.

I believe that was at least part of his reasoning for both the Rhineland and Poland (don't recall about Czechoslovakia): he was bringing in the ethnic Germans from being under the thumb of foreign governments.

Yeah, where Hitler had savvy was in oratory and being able to convince people. He was not horrible at tactics from what I've seen, but he was best at choosing good people, convincing them to work with him, and getting out of the way. Well, until the crucial moments when he interfered, made mandates, and screwed things royally.

I think his bigger military boondoggle vs. invading the Soviet Union in the first place (that was impetuous, but it's the kind of gamble that has happened before and will happen again, sometimes winning) was not allowing his troops to pull out of Stalingrad, Fenris.

However, I digress.

Pat can get... overly appreciative of folks that I find questionable sometimes. Both then and now. One of the things I found interesting about him is how much he admires scrappy people. I noticed this during the presidential debates. He really liked folks that mixed it up and stood their ground - regardless of whether he agreed with their style. I think he has this opinion on strength, and it can blind him to other things that he should perhaps back away from.

[Khampelf]

Why he is still being given a voice in politics is a mystery.


First Amendment? Well that was my initial response, but upon reflection, I'm supposing you mean 'why is his network still giving him airtime, instead of canning him as an embarrasment?'

[WednesdayAddams]

Yes, Khampelf, that is what I meant. He is really not a good voice for conservatism.

Pat can get... overly appreciative of folks that I find questionable sometimes. Both then and now. One of the things I found interesting about him is how much he admires scrappy people. I noticed this during the presidential debates. He really liked folks that mixed it up and stood their ground - regardless of whether he agreed with their style. I think he has this opinion on strength, and it can blind him to other things that he should perhaps back away from.

My most recent WTF moment was watching Pat tell Rachel Maddow that the white man has been opressed in this country long enough, that white men were the ones that fought and died and built this country and everyone else should have a great big steaming cup of STFU and leave the poor white man alone. Rachel rather bluntly told him to quit living in the 1950's and wake up. (Both the argument and Rachel's follow up here (http://gawker.com/5319207/rachel-maddow-eviscerates-pat-buchanan-again) ).

[Lounsbury]

Of course Buchanan's not the first to point it out and is an otherwise indefensible creature, but it's historically recognized fact that after a certain point in the war, the UK was technically the aggressor.

Aggressor?

Not by any ordinary definition. The UK did not initiate hostilities, she responded to her treaty obligations (as well as of course clear national interest) per mutual defence treaties. That is not "Aggression" under any ordinary sense of the term.

[Zeener Diode]

Aggressor?

Not by any ordinary definition. The UK did not initiate hostilities, she responded to her treaty obligations (as well as of course clear national interest) per mutual defence treaties. That is not "Aggression" under any ordinary sense of the term.

I think what AJH is referring to was Chamberlain essentially giving up the Alsace-Lorraine regions of France to Germany, with the understanding that the Nazis would not cross into French heartland after that. When they did, Britain responded with force.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Aggressor?

Not by any ordinary definition. The UK did not initiate hostilities, she responded to her treaty obligations (as well as of course clear national interest) per mutual defence treaties. That is not "Aggression" under any ordinary sense of the term.
So you're making a grammatical correction? Thanks for stopping by.

[Lounsbury]

So you're making a grammatical correction?

When did definitions of concept become an aspect of grammar?

I was making a correction to your silly UK statement.

[Lounsbury]

I think what AJH is referring to was Chamberlain essentially giving up the Alsace-Lorraine regions of France to Germany, with the understanding that the Nazis would not cross into French heartland after that. When they did, Britain responded with force.

????

[Uthrecht]

????

While I laud you for phrasing your answer in the form of a question, we will need more than, well, the question itself.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

When did definitions of concept become an aspect of grammar?

I was making a correction to your silly UK statement.

No, you're trying to troll me again. It passed the point of amusing, interesting or educational whole threads ago. I get that you're lonely and that this is your big chance to interact with humans, but it's better when you contribute something to the OP, or take on the substance of your chosen post's content instead of the form. Otherwise you come off like a pedantic, lonely creep.

[Lounsbury]

While I laud you for phrasing your answer in the form of a question, we will need more than, well, the question itself.

Well, Zeener's statement was:

I think what AJH is referring to was Chamberlain essentially giving up the Alsace-Lorraine regions of France to Germany, with the understanding that the Nazis would not cross into French heartland after that. When they did, Britain responded with force.

I am a wee bit perplexed as to Zeener's understanding of WWII. Or perhaps his understanding of European geography, as UK, Empire troops were in France well before German troops were in Alsace-Lorraine. They were sent to the Low Countries region right after the German invasion of Poland, in response to UK treaty obligations.

No, you're trying to troll me again. It passed the point of amusing, interesting or educational whole threads ago. I get that you're lonely and that this is your big chance to interact with humans, but it's better when you contribute something to the OP, or take on the substance of your chosen post's content instead of the form. Otherwise you come off like a pedantic, lonely creep.

You have a very pecular understanding of the word "troll." Troll does not mean to correct factual errors to your embarrassment. You made a statement supporting Buchanan's bizarre position, to the effect the UK was an aggressor. The UK began hostilities with Germany following German aggression against a treaty ally, the defensive terms of which were well known to the Germans. That is not Aggression in any ordinary sense of the term. Not only am I highlighting your particular stupidity in so noting, but Buchanan's.

Damn sight more useful than your blithering on, so stop whinging like a little girl every time I correct your drooling mumblings you spineless git.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

You made a statement supporting Buchanan's bizarre position, to the effect the UK was an aggressor. The UK began hostilities with Germany
Began hostilities. That's right, began hostilities. That's an aggressor in the ordinary sense of the term.

That is not Aggression in any ordinary sense of the term.
Yes, it is.

Damn sight more useful than your blithering on, so stop whinging like a little girl every time I correct your drooling mumblings you spineless git.
Oh, don't get all upset. I just pointed out that the way you desperately scrabble at my posts in PPR looking for anything, anything to argue with me about makes you look like a stalking chickenhawk homosex creep-a-thon. No reason to take it personal, Lawrence d'Arabia. I'm sure you'll find your special little Hittite someday. But I don't go for fat blowhard drunken expats, or males, so you're twice damned I'm afraid.

[Lounsbury]

Began hostilities. That's right, began hostilities. That's an aggressor in the ordinary sense of the term.


The UK declared war in keeping with its DEFENSIVE alliance with Poland, in the event of an Aggression against Poland.

UK then transferred the BEF to Continental Europe to take up DEFENSIVE positions in Belgium and France.

That is not Aggression in the ordinary sense of the term.

Of course perhaps to cretins such as yourself who lack a grasp of the English language or ordinary logic....

Oh, don't get all upset. I just pointed out that the way you desperately scrabble at my posts in PPR looking for anything, anything

My you are deluded. You genuinely think I am... following your posting. Good bloody Christ, you're not in any way so remotely interesting as to follow anywhere. You happen to have cropped up here. I'd sooner never see you post anywhere near me actually, but if you insist on saying stupid things in threads of interest to me, well, I shall have to correct you.

So, again, stop whinging on like a little girl or some deluded little adolescent in junior school.

[Tamerlane]

The UK declared war in keeping with its DEFENSIVE alliance with Poland, in the event of an Aggression against Poland.

UK then transferred the BEF to Continental Europe to take up DEFENSIVE positions in Belgium and France.

That is not Aggression in the ordinary sense of the term.

Yep.

Did Britain declare war on Germany, rather than vice-versa? Yes.

Did Germany initiate hostilities, i.e. aggressions, by invading Poland, to which Britain was bound by treaty? Yes.

I'm afraid friend Lounsbury is entirely correct here.

[Uthrecht]

I am a wee bit perplexed as to Zeener's understanding of WWII. Or perhaps his understanding of European geography, as UK, Empire troops were in France well before German troops were in Alsace-Lorraine. They were sent to the Low Countries region right after the German invasion of Poland, in response to UK treaty obligations.

Now see, that's much more entertaining than the first. Thanks!

[GIGObuster]

[Moderator hat on]

I got notices regarding personal insults in this thread and forum.

There is still no rule that forbids personal insults. However, if the subject of the thread gets derailed thanks to those insults, sending a poster to the box for a few days is still an option, so please cool it down and stick to the subject.

[/Moderator hat off]

[The Second Stone]

Well, FWIW, Pat seems to think that the Holocaust was a mistake and/or bad thing. He has had a weird habit of defending Hitler and the Nazis for at least 20 years now, although this round really is beyond the pale. It's probably a plot to discredit all people who dislike FDR and want to hold Israel up to the same standards of international law and human rights all other countries are held to in these matters. Now anybody how disses FDR has to hear about how didn't Hitler and Pat Buchanan hate FDR too? It's an Obama plot.

[Anacanapuna]

I don't know if Buchanan does it deliberately, but he actually does help serve a viable purpose -- he keeps alive the need to "never forget." I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it isn't enough to have museums and monuments dedicated to what Hitler did to the world. If nobody ever challenged it, I'm of the opinion people eventually would quit going to the museums, the books and records would lie undisturbed on the shelves and, eventually, we would forget. Oh, sure, it would always be there in the back of our minds, but when something lies dormant long enough, it tends to slide out of public consciousness.

But Buchanan's near-denial of the Holocaust and all those events related to it keep people going back to the books, back to the records, to prove again and again that it really did happen the way history says it did. It's not the reality of World War II that keeps being revitalized this way, but the accuracy of it. The deniers actually serve to require the continuous proof of that which they deny. Think of Pat Buchanan and his ilk as an innoculation against Nazism ever again gaining widespread acceptance among any population.

[Lounsbury]

I don't know if Buchanan does it deliberately, but he actually does help serve a viable purpose -- he keeps alive the need to "never forget."... But Buchanan's near-denial of the Holocaust and all those events related to it keep people going back to the books, back to the records, to prove again and again that it really did happen the way history says it did. It's not the reality of World War II that keeps being revitalized this way, but the accuracy of it. The deniers actually serve to require the continuous proof of that which they deny. Think of Pat Buchanan and his ilk as an innoculation against Nazism ever again gaining widespread acceptance among any population.

Mmmm. I guess I can see the argument, although I find this style of denial rather more invidious, as it can slip through the radar so to speak.

[Lounsbury]

Yep.

Did Britain declare war on Germany, rather than vice-versa? Yes.

Did Germany initiate hostilities, i.e. aggressions, by invading Poland, to which Britain was bound by treaty? Yes.

I'm afraid friend Lounsbury is entirely correct here.

Leaving aside the pointless part of the exchange, actually this rather illustrates the sheer dishonesty and invidiousness of Buchanan's ... presentation of the facts.

To put it in simple terms, it's rather like a situation where you have a known bully that likes to rob smaller kids, and beat the hell out of them as well. You (the UK, France) make it well-known the next time the bully engages in Aggression, you'll step in to defend the little kids, no more, no less.

And bingo, bully goes right ahead and takes down little Poland. France & the UK step up and say, "Oi, don't do that mate, we're going to give you one" ... but don't actually strike said bully (sitzkrieg / phoney war). What does the bully do, well he goes right ahead and takes a swipe at you. He could have walked it back, but he didn't

But any ordinary sense, contra Buchanan, the UK did not in any way engage in Aggression in re Germany. One might make a damned weak case relative to France, insofar as they exchanged / initiated some minor actions with the Germans during the Phony War, but largely also sat on the defensive.

Implying or right out claiming the Allies were in any shape or form "Aggressors" is to take an Orwellian approach to the English language.

Not surprising from Buchanan as he really gives an impression of having some real authoritarian tendencies.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

The UK declared war in keeping with its DEFENSIVE alliance with Poland,
Declared war? On who? Oh yes, that was Germany.

That is not Aggression in the ordinary sense of the term.
Sure it is. Of course, whatever internal definition you have of aggression that requires you to capitalize the letter "a" probably isn't going to fit. Probably something along the juvenile line of aggressor=bad guy, right? The problem with capitalizing words that normally aren't is that it indicates that the word has some sort of special significance to the capitalizer. It also makes the person look insane.

Here the question is whether it was unprovoked. Your concept that "if you do A, I will attack you" exculpates the speaker from being considered an aggressor in the event that someone does A is ridiculous, and indefensible.

And bingo, bully goes right ahead and takes down little Poland.
AHAHAHAHA. Little Poland is it? Oh, how precious. You're actually trying to make it out that the UK was protecting Poland. You're actually trying to win this argument on moral grounds. My dear sweet Jesus.

When Churchill himself labeled the simultaneous Soviet invasion of the other half of Poland self-defense...even when a joint German-Soviet military parade was being planned! How beautiful! Glorious England, charging in to defend poor little Poland. Where was UK sympathy when thousands of Free Poles fought to free their homes, only to be betrayed to Moscow after the war was over? Betrayed by whom? Ahhh. Yes. The Americans and their tireless defenders, the UK.

Save your posturing because it won't win you anything. The Allied legacy of betraying "little Poland", of conveniently redefining "aggressor" to suit expediency, is legend. A trait you've evidently inherited.

I'd sooner never see you post anywhere near me
If it helps you to salvage your tattered dignity, I'll pretend that's actually true. We'll just pretend you're not a rejected suitor shuffling off across the barroom floor, muttering that I must be a lesbian. :rolleyes:

[Lounsbury]

Well by the above I suppose that we have to conclude three things:

Your logic and thinking essentially are the same as Buchanan
You have an impaired and private definition of Aggression
Your sad obsession with me leads you to increasingly bizarre positions


Sad really, but getting boring.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Well by the above I suppose that we have to conclude three things:

Your logic and thinking essentially are the same as Buchanan

Right. Once again I address the factual nature of a rightwing pundit's statement rather than his or her character, and once again I'm painted as a conservative myself notwithstanding previous disproving statements. I'm sorry, is this the SDMB? Crawl back under a rock, they have plenty of room. Why not take your troglodyte nonsense with you.

You have an impaired and private definition of Aggression
If by private you mean the Miriam-Webster definition, and by "Aggression" you mean aggression, and if by argument you mean the one I made to you moments ago in a public forum, you'd have a meritorious point.

Your sad obsession with me leads you to increasingly bizarre positions
[/LIST]
Yeah, I bet you'd like to get me into some positions.

Sad really, but getting boring.
I'm not surprised you find losing so boring given the frequency of your exposure.

[Lounsbury]

Right. Once again I address the factual nature of a rightwing pundit's statement rather than his or her character, and once again I'm painted as a conservative myself notwithstanding previous disproving statements. I'm sorry, is this the SDMB? Crawl back under a rock, they have plenty of room. Why not take your troglodyte nonsense with you.

I don't give a bloody fuck if you're conservative or something else, my observation was that your command of logic, the English language and common reason was precisely like that of Buchanan.

Your strange obsessiveness and hostility are perhaps reminiscent as well, but he has more style than you.

If by private you mean the Miriam-Webster definition, and by "Aggression" you mean aggression, and if by argument you mean the one I made to you moments ago in a public forum, you'd have a meritorious point.

No, I meant by logical usage, really. Quite evident, insofar as the UK declared war per defensive treaty obligations and then sat in a defensive posture until the Germans launched their offensive. That would be Aggression to any normal person, ex Buchananites and ridiculous internet cretins.

Certainly fairly obvious to anyone with a mite of logical reasoning facilties (or not obsessed with some strange prejudices).

Yeah, I bet you'd like to get me into some positions.

Please, while a tolerant fellow, I really don't care to be any further exposed to your sad fantasies and obsessions. And really, trite and vulgar implications of homosexuality is so very adolescent - in keeping with your usual style and no doubt mental age, but really very boring and lacking.

Now trot on, you're simply hijacking the thread from adult conversation, over a fairly pointless little - what is the phrase, ah, butt hurt obsession with me.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

I don't give a bloody fuck if you're conservative or something else, my observation was that your command of logic, the English language and common reason was precisely like that of Buchanan.

Your strange obsessiveness and hostility are perhaps reminiscent as well, but he has more style than you.
Wow, what was that? Five, six posts before you ran off to your panache thing? You're getting better at this! Good boy!

No, I meant by logical usage, really. Quite evident, insofar as the UK declared war per defensive treaty obligations and then sat in a defensive posture until the Germans launched their offensive.
Right, the part where they declared war on Germany then parked a bunch of troops on the German border. Little things like that tend to get written up as provocations in the entire history of humanity, ie the logical usage. What's most amazing is that you seem incapable of realizing that a given confilct can have more than one aggressor. NO, right? It can only have just one? Durrrr.

Now trot on, you're simply hijacking the thread from adult conversation, over a fairly pointless little - what is the phrase, ah, butt hurt obsession with me.
For someone that has so much style, you sure seem to spend alot of time trying to mimic mine.

[Baldwin]

You're both sounding like childish idiots. Lounsbury, I've reported you for personal insults. (There's no rule against your apparent inability to understand a nuanced argument.) Hair, I'd suggest you stick to specific historical facts and to logic, where you're doing quite well, and not rise to such obvious bait. Take the high road.

See, Pat Buchanan gets people talking!

[Tamerlane]

Hair, I'd suggest you stick to specific historical facts and to logic, where you're doing quite well,

No, he really isn't.

ETA: I also think he is acting just as churlishly, if not as openly insulting. MHO.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

No, he really isn't.

ETA: I also think he is acting just as churlishly, if not as openly insulting. MHO.
Post something other than "me too" and we'll talk about it. A faint light: didn't you once claim on the SDMB that the Celts at Watling Street weren't enemy combatants? That was lol. Can't wait to see how you define "aggressor" but one thing's for sure: it won't be by common definition anymore than was your definition of combatant, because that means your argument is over.

[Lounsbury]

You're both sounding like childish idiots. Lounsbury, I've reported you for personal insults. (There's no rule against your apparent inability to understand a nuanced argument.)

Click away. Really, many times.

However, in the absence of a nuanced argument to understand, of course there's no rule against my mastery of actual historical fact.

Hair, I'd suggest you stick to specific historical facts and to logic, where you're doing quite well, and not rise to such obvious bait. Take the high road.

Obvious bait?

Obvious bait?

I submit the below:

Post something other than "me too" and we'll talk about it. A faint light: didn't you once claim on the SDMB that the Celts at Watling Street weren't enemy combatants? That was lol. Can't wait to see how you define "aggressor" but one thing's for sure: it won't be by common definition anymore than was your definition of combatant, because that means your argument is over.

Baiting is not being done by me.

Nor trolling.

[Tamerlane]

Post something other than "me too" and we'll talk about it.

The fact that you used the phrase "technically the aggressor" is really the crux of any argument I'd make. Like I said, while the UK may have declared war first, they did not initiate hostilities. Lounsbury maybe can be faulted for nitpicking you in the first place since you qualified your statement to begin with, but I agree with him generally. Technically the aggressor isn't really the aggressor in this case and IMO it's kind of a silly statement to make. Especially in context in any sort of attempt to even backhandedly defend Buchanan.

A faint light: didn't you once claim on the SDMB that the Celts at Watling Street weren't enemy combatants? That was lol.

No doubt.

This thread? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=367228) My issues were with the absurd figures of both combatants engaged and casualties engendered. There is just no way. Most pre-modern historical sources ( and more than a few "modern" ones ) were notoriously innumerate and combined with tendencies towards hagiography, their estimates usually can't be accepted as being worth too much in isolation. In addition I noted that based on whatever source I was looking at ( and I really can't remember what that was ) there were indications that there were women and children slaughtered by the Romans in the aftermath and this may have inflated the casualty figures for the battle itself still further.

[Lounsbury]

The fact that you used the phrase "technically the aggressor" is really the crux of any argument I'd make. Like I said, while the UK may have declared war first, they did not initiate hostilities. Lounsbury maybe can be faulted for nitpicking you in the first place since you qualified your statement to begin with, but I agree with him generally. Technically the aggressor isn't really the aggressor in this case and IMO it's kind of a silly statement to make. Especially in context in any sort of attempt to even backhandedly defend Buchanan.

I disagree that even "technically" is correct, thus my intervention.



No doubt.

This thread? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=367228)

Oh bollocks, Andrew J Hair is Grossbottom? (was grossbottom)

Now I understand

Well if I had known that, I would have ignored the whole bloody thing. Bloody hell, and here I was almost going to post that his bloody modus operendi reminded me of Grossie.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

The fact that you used the phrase "technically the aggressor" is really the crux of any argument I'd make. Like I said, while the UK may have declared war first, they did not initiate hostilities. Lounsbury maybe can be faulted for nitpicking you in the first place since you qualified your statement to begin with, but
Very kind of you to agree that he was being a nitpicking creep, like I said, and that I was correct. Like I said.

I agree with him generally.
As you will. I think a clever strategy lies in provoking Hitler into a larger war before he was ready to handle it, whether he recognized it or not. He could not understand that once the UK had tasted blood it would fight until the end. There would be no peace at any price, no ceasefire convenient to his Eastern ambitions.

Technically the aggressor isn't really the aggressor in this case and IMO it's kind of a silly statement to make.
Actually I think what you mean is what I said, which is that technically they were the aggressor, even if in the larger sense of the conflict war was inevitable and no moral condemnation could attach to their initiating the start of hostilities to achieve an advantage.

Especially in context in any sort of attempt to even backhandedly defend Buchanan.
Why? I don't care about his politics or yours. What he said was factually correct or not.


Most pre-modern historical sources ( and more than a few "modern" ones ) were notoriously innumerate and combined with tendencies towards hagiography, their estimates usually can't be accepted as being worth too much in isolation.
Except that Roman numbers have been found plausibly accurate enough times that only amateurs openly doubt them automatically. The wiggle room on Watling Street is to be found in the intra-Roman disparities, not some sophomoric generalized dispersion as to the accuracy of classical sources.

In addition I noted that based on whatever source I was looking at ( and I really can't remember what that was ) there were indications that there were women and children slaughtered by the Romans in the aftermath and this may have inflated the casualty figures still further.
People dont cease to be combatants simply because the tide turns against them on the field. Those women and children were happy to be counted as combatants when they sacked Roman towns and murdered the inhabitants. They were happy to be combatants when they chased Paulinus' men halfway up the island. They did not magically cease to be combatants the moment their guts decorated the field that day, merely by virtue of age or gender. Just because they were bad troops didn't make them something other than troops.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Oh bollocks, Andrew J Hair is Grossbottom? (was grossbottom)

Now I understand

Well if I had known that, I would have ignored the whole bloody thing. Bloody hell, and here I was almost going to post that his bloody modus operendi reminded me of Grossie.

The one where you lose the debate and start talking about panache? But that happens to you in most PPR threads. :confused:

[Tamerlane]

Very kind of you to agree that he was being a nitpicking creep, like I said, and that I was correct. Like I said.

See, now this is why I have some trouble in engaging you in debate. Fair or not you come off to me as wanting to score points more than you want to discuss.

As you will. I think a clever strategy lies in provoking Hitler into a larger war before he was ready to handle it, whether he recognized it or not.

While Hitler does appear to have underestimated Britain's committment to both declare war and refuse to settle quickly, I think any suggestion that Britain deliberately mislead Hitler in an attempt to provoke him to attack Poland is reading a bit too closely between the lines.

no moral condemnation could attach to their initiating the start of hostilities to achieve an advantage.

Again, Hitler initiated hostilities by invading Poland. That he may not have believed that Britain would ultimately choose to declare war on the basis of the treaty with Poland is irrelevant. By taking that step, he knew he was seriously risking that declaration of war and he knew that it logically might follow. He chose to do so and in so doing began the war. Hence he was the primary aggressor.

Except that Roman numbers have been found plausibly accurate enough times that only amateurs openly doubt them automatically.

Roman writers have been found plausibly accurate in a rough sense, in that the Roman state was well-burecratized and kept good records of things like numbers of units and theoretical unit composition. So Roman estimates of Roman forces are often closeish. Even then there are discrepancies though, as in an apparent consistent over-inflation in many periods due to the seemingly chronic problem of ( often heavily ) under-enrolled units among other issues. I've seen Roman figures for Roman forces chopped by very substantial margins by various authorities. But in general I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a Tacitus discussing the size of a Roman army.

The wiggle room on Watling Street is to be found in the intra-Roman disparities, not some sophomoric generalized dispersion as to the accuracy of classical sources.

That is entirely different from Roman sources estimating enemy armies. Estimating crowds is hard for any non-expert - just look at the varying numbers people will spit out for modern political demonstrations. Combine this with deliberate or unconscious attempts to glorify the victors and you get numbers which must be taken with a large grain of salt, whether you are a sophmore or not. ~230,000 Celts to ~10,000 Romans should be read as probably "Romans were very heavily outnumbered." Which I well believe. Accepting even the lowest estimate as representing the real bottom end would be just as foolish as discounting them entirely. Guesstimates of demographics and logistics both argue against such a massive force being even assembled.

They did not magically cease to be combatants the moment their guts decorated the field that day, merely by virtue of age or gender. Just because they were bad troops didn't make them something other than troops.

Except accounts list them as "spectators" rather than as combatants.

[Andrew Jackson's Hair]

Hence he was the primary aggressor.
Awwwp. Saw what you did there. Now who's qualifying their statements? :D

That is entirely different from Roman sources estimating enemy armies. Estimating crowds is hard for any non-expert - just look at the varying numbers people will spit out for modern political demonstrations.
The point I made 3 years ago was never addressed so I'll restate it: there is variance in classical sources for the number of opposition they faced, but not the number of enemy dead. 80,000 is the consistent number. That figure remains undisturbed. And while a mob is difficult to count, a mob of dead bodies isn't.

Guesstimates of demographics and logistics both argue against such a massive force being even assembled.
Modern day smarty-pantses that try to re-evaluate Roman numbers have rarely been quite often humbled. It works well with the Egyptians and the Sumerians, who were notoroius bullshit artists. It's not a particularly well accepted practice with the Romans.

Except accounts list them as "spectators" rather than as combatants.
I could list 18th century British powder monkeys as spectators but that wouldn't be very accurate now, would it?

[Lounsbury]

The one where you lose the debate and start talking about panache? But that happens to you in most PPR threads. :confused:

No the point where I realise I am talking to you. Losing, winning, hasn't a point in any conversation with Grossie. It's all about the monkey flinging poo.

[Icerigger]

Hey guess what, David Duke is giving Pat top billing. Great minds think alike.


http://www.davidduke.com/

[Tamerlane]

Awwwp. Saw what you did there. Now who's qualifying their statements? :D

I usually do. I have no journalism training whatsoever.

but not the number of enemy dead. 80,000 is the consistent number. That figure remains undisturbed. And while a mob is difficult to count, a mob of dead bodies isn't.

Far as I can tell the 80,000 figure all trace back to Tacitus, who notes it as being second-hand and none too definitive:

Some indeed say that there fell little less than eighty thousand of the Britons, with a loss to our soldiers of about four hundred, and only as many wounded.

The above doesn't particularly strike me as emanating from a careful and thorough tally. I would very much doubt that any classical army would have bothered with such a thing under most circumstances and particularly not while undermanned and in the midst of putting down a rebellion.

Modern day smarty-pantses that try to re-evaluate Roman numbers have rarely been quite often humbled.

I think I get what you meant. I don't doubt scholars have been proven wrong, including revising upwards - happens all the time. I know off the top of my head that the great military historian Hans Delbruck has often been cited as being excessively conservative in his estimates of both medieval and classical numbers ( though I think he still has his defenders ). But the larger the figures cited, the higher the skepticism tends to go. I think that is a pretty common attitude with most historians I have read.

We know that Boudicca's Iceni and the neighboring Trinovantes were the primary players in the revolt. They basically covered the territory of East Anglia and Essex. Even taking the higher figures for estimates of Britain's population as a whole at the time ( say 3-5 million ) and supplementing the above two tribes with other assorted local rebels( probably mostly local Catavellauni ), it just doesn't seem very likely they even had that kind of potential manpower.

[Anacanapuna]

Mmmm. I guess I can see the argument, although I find this style of denial rather more invidious, as it can slip through the radar so to speak.That is a risk, I'll admit, but have you seen all of the back-and-forth between your post and this one? That's what I'm talking about. Good people will always have posession of the Nazis' own records, which damn them (the Nazis) in perpituity. Just having the conversation damns Hitler forever. That's the point -- we must constantly have this conversation. God bless those young and energetic enough to keep having "the conversation."