Comments on: Debating Hitler

By: Daveg

Daveg — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:50:12 +0000

I agree with Skippy. Our primary strength is not our military-industrial strength, particularly in the new battlefields of thoughts and urban house-to-house combat. Our strength, and what tyrannical whackjobs fear the most, is our freedom.

What better way to pointedly demonstrate the strength of our freedom than to fearlessly (well, we could have done a little better at that this time around) allow a man that believes he has a calling to destroy our culture come stand in front of us and speak his mind?

By: ASM826

ASM826 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:19:08 +0000

I clicked the link, it took several seconds for me to realize what the page was.

It will not protect them, for in the long run, anyone not willing to defend their freedom will lose it.

By: OregonGuy

OregonGuy — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:54:12 +0000

Where are the adults in all this?

Alas, I believe the university system has been purged of adult systems of belief.

The student has become the teacher.

By: Gray

Gray — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:05:40 +0000

“…prevent Columbia men from having to face the consequences of their fine ideas…”

Men like that have no ideas, just fancies. They will jump to whatever power structure feathers their nest the best. They are idiots and useful.

The reason leftists scream so loudly regarding their fear of the government, free-speech infringement, jack-booted conservatives, and wire-tapping their cell-phones, is because they know that’s what they would do if they were in power and could get away with it.

“bigger that that” Sentimental hogwash.

By: Skippy-san

Skippy-san — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:36:00 +0000

There is another side to the arguement. Much of Hitler’s perceptions of the Americans were based on incorrect information. He got his race bating from Heine, and his whole ideas of European domination from a Frenchman-Napoleon. They were very much incorrect and that was why he blundered into declaring war on the Americans in 1941-when he did not have to.

This BTW, is why historians dislike counterfactual history, although I like to read it. Perhaps as the previous commentator pointed out-he might have slowed down and that would have given Britain more time.

Plus let’s not forget-Hilter was the German head of state as is Old Beady Eyes. The US was not at war with Germany (or Iran) yet. We’ve hosted equally repulsive people in the US and not batted an eye. Otherwise, why did Kruschev get a kiss from Shirley McLaine?

If this is the war of ideas-then the whole Columbia event can be counted as a victory for the US-it showed the Iranian President as a deluded guy for all to see.

And besides if it was so objectionable-the goverment could have stopped it, just like they do in Iran. However we are supposed to be bigger than that.

By: david foster

david foster — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:04:21 +0000

“Mr. Coatsworth takes the optimistic view that “an appearance by Hitler at Columbia could have led him to appreciate what a great power the U.S. had already become,” and thus, presumably, kept America from war”…demonstrates once again the self-absorption of many academics. If the objectives was to show Hitler our great-powerness in a way that would keep him from messing with us, visits to Detroit and Pittsburgh would have been more effective than visits to universities.