Quote Originally Posted by Brenus
There are wars you have to fight. There are just causes, and the war against Nazism IS none of these.
I suppose you mean: the war against Nazism is one of these, not 'none' of these.

Of course it was a just cause. That's why the Allied war effort was necessary and the outcome was predominantly good, but certainly not in every sense. The outcome in Europe was almost as bad as a German victory would have been, because that outcome relied so much on the contribution of that other ruthless dictatorship, the USSR. 'Potsdam' was both a victory and a defeat for freedom. The war generation hasn't forgotten this ambivalence; they were well aware at the time that 'Potsdam' was necessary in order to crush the beast, but that it was a defeat at the same time. Russians soldiers realised this just as much, judging by the story I linked to above. They were happy with Germany's defeat, not with Uncle Joe's triumph.

The outcome in the East was a crucial grab for power by the Chinese Communists -- enabled by the Japanese defeat just as much as by Chiang's incompetence -- and a series of devastating colonial wars ending in national independence and a flurry of native dictatorships taking over from the colonial powers. Count your blessings...

I have been thinking about Don Corleone's and Proletariat's question what I got out of the article. I've been thinking both about the answer to that question and about the question itself.

If different birds like Panzerjager, KafirChobee and I all get something out of it for our own reasons, the author must be doing something right. His article lacks all the popular markers of conservatism, PC or leftist lunacy that Americans seem to be trained to look for these days. Maybe that's what makes it confusing to some. They keep looking for the subliminal message buried in the text that whispers: 'America bad, Communism/Jihadism good' or something to that effect. It isn't there. The article leaves no room for an easy way out.

What I got out of it? I think the main thrust of the article is that the triumph of a good cause always, or at least very often, requires some costly compromise with evil. The victory over fascist Japan and Nazi-Germany required a compromise with the USSR, an understanding with the Chinese Communists and undue tolerance for the old British, French and Dutch colonial bastards who wanted to resume exploitation-as-usual in their former overseas empires. The victory in the Cold War required costly compromises with unpalatable forces all over the world, some of which have come to haunt us in the shape of islamist terrorism that grew out of the islamic movements fostered by the West as an antidote against Arab and South East Asian Communism.

There's a lesson there for everyone. Foreigners who demand that America fight a 'clean' war on terrorism are just as deluded as Americans who expect their country to win a decisive victory over 'evil' in the world.

If we want to fight islamist terrorism, it is going to require another compromise, another 'Potsdam'. Who should be our partners? What will be the new iron curtain drawn across the world, cutting right through our own societies and probably our own hearts and minds?

Proletariat, you wrote some months ago that Anericans should keep guns at home and keep them well-greased, just in case the Patriot Act turns out to be the beginning of an all-out offensive against liberty in their country and they would have to defend themselves. Osama would love to see Americans fight their own government. Are you willing to compromise and accept your won 'Potsdam'?