Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, June 20, 2008
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Was the Holocaust Inevitable?
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



"What Would Winston Do?"

So asks Newsweek's cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.

Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill's career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.

That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War" seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book "stinks."

Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.

Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.

We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. "The Kaiser's policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe."

Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.

From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.

Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?

As for the Kaiser's bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.

In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish "blank cheque" to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.

Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking "the dominion of the world," conceded, "History should ... acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War."

What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.

Yet consider. Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.

Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain -- a war he never wanted.

If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.

Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?

If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?

That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. "Mein Kampf" is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.

Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.

That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.

And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.

Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.

"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"

Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.

The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.

Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.

The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, "Mankind cannot bear much reality."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Buchanan's a tard
Ok I know this article is MONTHS old by now but I just couldn't help sharing exactly why it's completely idiotic.

There is absolutely no way that Hitler EVER had plans to be "buddy ol' pals" with England, OK? Why do I say this? Because he made exactly that kind of deal with the USSR as war was breaking out: Hitler promised Stalin that he would not invade Russia as long as Stalin didn't invade Germany.

And guess what? AFTER Germany was ALREADY at war with France and England, he ALSO launched a surprise attack on Russia ANYWAY - this more or less proves with hindsight that Hitler had absolutely no intention of modestly keeping his ground. He wanted to conquer Europe and that's exactly what he tried to do.

Besides the fact that's it's a well-documented fact that Britain TRIED to appease Hitler before war broke out!!! It didn't work!

And I learned all of this in my (public funded) high school education! Buchanan is a total spaz and he knows nothing about WWII history at all, apparrently. What a tool.

too quick to use "anti-semite" label
Seems funny that you all are so quick to use the "anti-smemite" and "idiot" and "isolationist" label just because he engages in revisionist history in a way different the people who write textbooks and the myth of "The Good War" do.

Although I disagree with a lot of the details he uses to prove his thesis, it's essentially correct. Hitler's ultranationalism wouldn't have even been kindled had it not been the "peace" in 1917 that completely stripped Germany of its economy while sacking it with massive debt.

That being said, Neville Chamberlain's idiotic "appeasement" policy only made things worse, because Germany wanted more and more and more, and when Chamberlain refused to appease anymore and decided to attack, history repeated itself.

As for "was the Holocaust inevitable," I say that that actually leaves a big question mark. I would have said "no" if we were retconning this from a 1917 perspective, but as for from 1933 on, maybe. Hitler tested his mass internment methods on communists at first, and it may have been to prepare for a large prison population. Then again, as the Night of the Longknives in '34 proved, there was still much infighting within Berlin, and often during this infighting to appease him and get more power, some officials would try to appeal to the more base aspects of his ideology such as the anti-Semitism. Most historians agree that the compliance of government institutions and private individuals was a critical aspect of the Holocaust, and the war may have served as a stabilizing factor to correct this infighting.

(I also agree with a lot of the people here that this is the past and there's no use to get all hung up on it.)

I definitely think Buchanan got a lot of things wrong, but attacking him on questioning historical detalis is certainly not productive.

Too much talk of bits and pieces.
I'd like to see someone come up with some of Hitler's talks before he was in power and what all he promised the German people. Then compare all of this with that which Barrack does. The only thing the man has going for him is a dictionary and how to use it.
And, the German people, more literate on the whold than the Americans bought into it. Just as we bought into Bill Clinton's TALK!

just plain wrong information about histo
I teach history and English to kids. They know better than to make claims that aren't supported by fact. How can Buchanan make the claim that Hitler was not building up the military, or the navy in particular? Buchanan may want to start with the wikipedia article on the kriegsmarine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsmarine#Build-up_during_t he_interwar_period
or about the Nazi "Plan Z."
Even though wikipedia isn't trustworthy, it seems to have more reliable information than whoever was on Buchanan's research team!

Wake up, Buchanan
You say only Congress has the right to declare war, and that the President does not, in your opinion, have the authority to bomb Iran unilaterally; then you have the nerve to complain when Congress is debating a bill to blockade of Iran--the very thing you said only congress can decide!

Will you please make up your freaking mind! You sound like a crazy man. Do you forget what you write two paragraphs later?

I don't remember your old buddy Reagan having his hands tied behind his back awaiting congressional approval when he destroyed Iranian oil rigs in the Persian Gulf!

...Or don't you consider such a provocation as that an act of war? If Iran bombed oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, would that be an act of war, Pat? Get your mind in order, Pat. Issues of war, violence, the military, and Israel are driving you to the brink.

But it is the past and can't be changed
THis traps you with details and makes you feel guilty for not knowing more and appeals to the jewish emphasis on free will. It puts Jewish people and those who love them in a bind because we want to be knowledgeable about the holocaust and beleive in free will, but the tormenting trap is that it is the past and can't be changed. Don't fall into the pit because of hte trees.

What is Pat Smokeing!
The way he writes reminds me alot of Akmadenajan with the convoluted logic and multitude of rhetorical questions.

I am not saying take him off, but this is just bizare.

re-writing history
Pat, Pat, Pat, there you go again, re-writing history. My God, Pat, before the trains started going east, there was "Kristal natch" there was demanding money from the jews to immigrate, come on Pat, You're taking a mighty leap from "no war, no holocost" to what had been happening in Germany before and after the war started. Let's face it, Hitler was a madman, some would say he was demon led, as far as the jews were concerned. Include also, the gypsies, homosexuals (except of course the homosexual nazis) the impaired, the old, the lame, and weak
and everyone else that didn't fit his master race theory. However, every nazi sympathizer in the USA would be on your side. Come on Pat, let's be serious.

Ignoring Hitler
Read Mein Kampf. In the chapter dealing with self-defense (Notwehr als Recht) Hitler claims that Germany would not have lost the war had 12 or 15 thousand Hebrews had been gassed:

'Hätte man zu Kriegsbeginn und während des Krieges einmal zwölf- oder fünfzehntausend dieser hebräischen Volksverderber so unter Giftgas gehalten, wie Hunderttausende unserer allerbesten deutschen Arbeiter aus allen Schichten und Berufen es im Felde erdulden mußten, dann wäre das Millionenopfer der Front nicht vergeblich gewesen.'

Here you have it, World War Two in a nutshell: Hitler was convinced Germany lost the First World War because of the Jews. Therefore, if the Jews were externminated -gassed as he wrote in 1925(!)- then Germany would have been invincible. This is exactly what happened.

Hitler intended to refight WWI, with the one difference that the war would also be fought against the Jews. He was hell bent on starting war.

Any student of this period knows that Hitler was very disappointed when the Brits and the French capitulated in Munich. Hitler wanted war, he may not have wanted war with Brittain but that hardly makes it Chamberlains fault when he finally decided to make a stand.

One cannot study this period and disregard the personal ambitions of Adolf Hitler. Yet this is exactly what Buchanan has done. It is as if in Buchanan's mind Hitler didn't exist and if he did, he could be reasoned with.

The question is, why?

Why ignore Hitler? Why ignore facts? What is Pat Buchanan's intention?

sorry-- computer glitch
well actually...

re:
"his immigration policies are downright racist"
************************************************

Pat believes, like the vast majority of Americans, that we are committing socio-economic and cultural suicide by tolerating the ILLEGAL alien invasion and incursion. His book on the topic is more than a little bit persuasive.

Aside from the fact that ILLEGAL aliens are here ILLEGALLY, they permeate pandemic social ills like the plague. "Racism" has nothing to do with objecting to the pernicious blights associated with them-- they are simply generally ignorant, unskilled, largely indigent, and they take to serious crime like ducks take to water. They purloin and prey upon social services like locusts on crops.

Their apologists say that we need the "cheap" labor, but only a few benefit from milking them-- our hotel rooms and food is no cheaper-- the owners just pocket more money.

What exactly are Middle Americans supposed to like about all of that?

well actually....
re:
"his immigration policies are downright racist"

What I've learned from Buchanan et al
I did not know how the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand led to WWI though I was under the impression that alliances were involved.
I did not know about the German dispute with Poland over Danzig and was only vaguely aware of the British guarantee to Poland.
Because Buchanan has written about it I have a bit more knowledge of the matter.
I have other things to do beside doing independent research on WWII.
When I do pick up a book on these matters I will have a better grasp of the subject because I am a little better informed.
He has done this without a degree or published research. Most pundits don't have in many of the fields in which they write. So? The can still report. I am capable of recognizing that his contributions are not authoritative

Akagi
I do not agree with his thesis. I do see it as flawed. That does not make him an idiot. Let's see if he faces the criticism and responds to it and how he responds.
His views on “white” immigration and birthrates are set in a context of Muslim immigration and birthrates in Europe and Mexican in America. Is he wrong to be concerned about the changing of the culture of which he has been proud to the point of its demise? Is his use of racial terms more than an identifier?
He certainly criticizes Israel. In doing so he calls attention to the plight of ordinary Palestinians, some of whom are Christian. These people are otherwise ignored in conservative discussions.

Don't know much about history
"Most of us do not have expertise in these matters and he presents the history in a concise and understandable way."

Neither does Pat. he doesn't have a B.A. in history or a M.A. or a Ph.D. His has never published any work in a peer reviewed academic journal or book published by an academic press.

Nor does this work contain any primary sources (German or non-German sources) to back up his conclusions. Sadly, you have not been better informed by him, you have been misinformed by him, you have been better informed by his critics though so you will see his conclusions are 100% bunk.

For taking him off TH, no. We need the entertainment.

Satan's Delusion
It is ironic that Buchanan cites the Kaiser's blunders in giving Austria a blank check in WWI, while the premise of his book is that WWII erupted because of Chamberlain's guarantee to Poland which Britain could not back up with force of arms. Obviously, mistakes were made on both sides. It was not so much that Hitler was a megalomaniac lunatic as that the Christian culture in the West had lost its vitality beginning with the French Revolution. It is noteworthy in WWI that the French officers including Petain began the process of imploring God for protection while the politicians continued to rely on their own human abilities to no avail. This is what finally turned the tide.

Buchanan is good for TH
Even if Buchanan is wrong in his interpretation and some of the facts of early and mid 20th century Europe he has stimulated discussion of the factors that led to what happened. Most of us do not have expertise in these matters and he presents the history in a concise and understandable way. Because of him and the reasoned discussion that has followed, some of us have become better informed about that history. Buchanan was taken off of TH before when he opposed the initial war in Iraq. When he was, we lost an opportunity to think about things from a different perspective. He belongs on Townhall.com

But he is an idiot
"His general thesis is that Britain and everyone else would have been better off if they had not intervened against Germany in either WWI or WWII."

Because his thesis is flawed. There is no evidence that Hitler would have not have turned west after Poland before going after the USSR. Hitler saw Germany ruling the world after defeating the US around 1980. The mistake was not that the west declared war on Germany, the mistake was it declared war on Germany too late--it should have done so in 1936, not 1939.

Buchanan's thesis is based on faith that Hilter would have not touched the western countries but have directed his wrath toward the USSR.

Churchill addressed Buchanan's advice during the time Hitler was actually running across Europe. He said appeasing Hilter was a bit like feeding a crocodile hoping it would eat you last.

Sorry, but Buchanan is at best a fool and at worst a closet Nazi--his views on "white immigration" and "white birth rates" and Israel leads one to suspect the latter.

But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just regard him as a fool.

IsBuchanan anti-Semitic?
Most of Buchanan's statements that have been interpreted as anti-Semitic are in relation to policies in which he is in disagreement. If this is anti-Semitic then criticisms of policies advocated by certain people of a certain race is racist. E.g. It would be racist to criticize the policies advocated by Sharpton, Jackson, et al and at the same time mention that these people are African-American.

Pat
Buck:

Well he supports US arms sales to Taiwan and he also opposes US arms sales to Israel and he and I agree on those two issues as I said before, hard to find anyone you disagree with 100% of the time.

His trade policies are more inline with Obama than a conservative, his immigration policies are downright racist, and on and on. So little we agree on, but on these two issues--we agree.


Is Pat an idiot?
I had originally intended to criticize and dispute Buchanan's points, but most of my criticism has already been mentioned by others. Therefore I will defend him.
Those who call Buchanan a moron, an idiot or call for his banishment from TH reveal more about themselves than they do about Buchanan. He has presented us with some unconventional thinking that is legitimately reasoned and I for one appreciate unconventional thinking, even if I find myself in disagreement with it. He is not a defender of Hitler or the Nazis. What he is is a type of isolationist. His general thesis is that Britain and everyone else would have been better off if they had not intervened against Germany in either WWI or WWII. This is a topic worthy of discussion.

Buck's Declination
You, my very good Christian friend Buck, are the one who asserts what the Talmud says but just cannot quite seem to find a quote to support it.

Personally, I like "Jesus in the Talmud" by Peter Schäfer. But it's easy to get in trouble using it as "proof" of what the Talmud really said specifically about Jesus. But let it be your guide if you will, to find and quote, uninterpolated, from the Talmud itself. (The numbers of Christians who think they know what Talmud says and means are legion, but only a small fraction of them can tell you even where to find a copy of Talmud, and even fewer have ever opened it. Buck, I trust that you are not one of them, my very good Christian friend.)

And then, of course, feel free to elaborate on the historical consequences, in terms of mass murder, torture, degradations and predations, forced conversions, ghettoization, etc., of Christians (or anyone else) due to Talmudic or any other Jewish anti-Christian polemic (include here if you like the Toledot Yeshu). Or even any inconvenience at all to Christian domination, triumphalism, and political control.

I mean, I'm very very sorry that you feel badly that Jews didn't like being treated by Christians as they were thru the centuries, and that some chose polemics in response. That is a harsh and unbearable burden for you, I understand. Have you tried fasting and prayer? Perhaps Jesus can make easy your yoke and light your burden?

Shabbat Shalom

What about the article?
It appears that there is no one left posting on this article except those who have their own agenda which generally bears little relation to Buchanan's article. However, I will try to post a few and perhaps contribute something of relevance, if anyone is still interested.

Buck
Me a bigot? No.

But I don't really like the idea of the leadership of a party that visits the leader of a country that has never renounced the use of force and has 800 missiles pointed at us just 120 miles away in Fujian and making all kinds of side deals. Like to recall Lian Zhan and the other 70 members of the KMT that visited the PRC in 2006? A visit that would have violated the old KMT stance of the "Three Noes" meaning "no contact, no compromise, and no negotiation." In some quarters what Lian did could be seen as treason and in my view he and the rest of the 70 should have been arrested, tried and become the new residents of Green Island (the site of a now closed prison that held political prisoners who opposed the KMT).

Would I like to have seen a Taiwanese as president instead of a Hong Konger, yes, because I would trust a native Taiwanese to have Taiwan's interest at heart over some waishengren like Ma. I supported Hsieh Ch'ang T'ing for president, but owing to the corruption of the DPP over the last eight years of Chen Shui-bian's administration and the mismanagement of the government and the economy, there was little hope in Hsieh winning. I was suprised Hsieh only lost by 17. So now we are stuck with Ma for at least four years as well as a super majority in the Li fa Yuan. Ma's election was of course welcomed by Bush as he was never a fan of either Chen or Taiwan's democracy no matter his propaganda of the so-called "Bush Doctrine" that is supposed to support democracy--this was not the case in regards to Taiwan as Bush and his mouthpieces (Powell and Rice) were harshaly critical of the Taiwan referendums in 2004 and 2008.

But Buck, being suspect of someone that seems far too close to the PRC doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me a patriot. I would have been just as critical of a Taiwanese if they pursued Ma's policies or Lian's actions in 2006.

Luther
The question is not, and never was, whether Christians "believe in Martin Luther." The question is did Christians ACT based on what Martin Luther said? Just as did they ACT based on NT anti-Jewish propaganda, polemic and politics? It's naive at best to argue that in Europe they did not, or to to conclude that centuries of murderous Christian anti-Semitism, rooted in canonical Christian polemic (as well as centuries of ecclesiastical anti-Jewish polemic at all levels) did not enable Hitler's Holocaust.

What Christians confess as the higher hopes and aspirations of their faith is not totally irrelevant: if it improves the quality of your daily life, and makes life and death easier and more meaningful, then go for it. It matters not, then, despite Paul's declaration, that Jesus was not resurrected and is not coming back and never was. But if it leads you to the conclusion that Christians, and Christian texts and canon and history are blameless in the matter of the Holocaust, you are mistaken and in blind denial, as is Buchanan.

Such denial is commonplace in Christianity: it takes a level of self-critique too few Christians are capable of. More and more Christians in recent decades, however, have removed the blinders, even as some of them maintain an affinity for Jesus of Nazareth. However they chose to interpret him after realizing that the gospels are not reliable indicators of what Jesus actually said or did. And that Christianity, from its early decades, was less the religion of Jesus than a manufactured religion about Jesus (the Greatest Story Ever Told). And which included major pillars of lethal and self-serving triumphalism and replacement theology.

Shabbat Shalom

Shelama 2
We won't agree on this, of course. It is sad to see you so sure that what amounts to a pile of human doubts -- your summary of criticisms of the New Testament -- must be true. Christians are not ignorant of the fact that the generation of the New Testament has been criticized. But neither do Christians agree that every doubt raised by man is a signpost on the highway to truth. Man's limitations make a poor standard by which to judge truth.

Your citation of Martin Luther, incidentally, is yet further proof of human limitations. Christians do not believe in Martin Luther, they believe in Jesus Christ. No human has ever done unalloyed good, and humans of all persuasions have been found following bad ideas to evil conclusions. The difference with Jesus is that in spite of centuries of distortion by even the best-intentioned humans, his exhortation of us to a better way is still incandescent and powerful.

Shelama 1
With, again, respect, you have demonstrated only that you are able to quote verses out of context. Knowing the parable that preceded the Luke 19:27 quote doesn't mean you used it in context. The context for anything Jesus said is his life, and the totality of his teachings.

Jesus used the typical behaviors and reactions of humans for illustrative purposes in many parables, without imputing them to himself in his life on earth. What did Jesus actually do about not being made king in Jerusalem? He did not have anyone brought before him and slain. Instead, he accepted torture and death for himself. No apostle of his ever advocated that his followers seek to actualize Luke 19:27.

I'm sorry, but you have not demonstrated greater knowledge of the gospels than the Christians here, including myself. You have merely demonstrated that you believe something different about them. You do not believe there is a God whose prerogatives over us can be, in part, illustrated by the example of rigorous king like the one in Luke 19. You judge everything from that human-centered perspective.

Licked??
...Hard to say for sure what it is they licked, but they certainly lacked the genius and circumstances of Paul and the later authors of the gospels.

Read the Gospels Indeed
I surmise that I have read the Gospels more often than you have, and in more versions.

What convinces me (and any honest reader) more than anything of the nature of the Christ Myth is, in fact, careful, honest, open study of the NT, particularly the Gospels. Including but not limited to the way in which the authors use/misuse Hebrew scripture (albeit virtually invariably from the Greek version), yanked totally out of context in an exegetical free for all in which anything goes, the more cryptic and less obvious the better: if it's hidden we found it; if we found it it was hidden; it refers to Jesus because we said so; and if you don't believe it, we'll either self-validate by calling you stiff-necked, hardhearted and Blind, or perhaps create an 'historical' vignette of 'fulfillment.'

Not all of this was unique to the Jesus Jews of the period. Both the Qumran community as well as the Jewish authors of the Deuterocanonical texts had approaches not totally dissimilar. They licked the genius and the circumstances of Paul and the later "evangelists."

And, of course, they put a whole lot of the much later Christ Myth theology back into the mouth of poor dead Jesus. Brilliant!

The Bible is extraordinary and compelling reading precisely because the creation of the Christ Myth is the greatest story ever told, and the Bible is the best window into the process.

(Careful honest study of Bible is public education, Weyrich fears here in Townhall, will cause loss of faith. He is correct. Whose fault is that?)

Shabbat Shalom

Shelama
I'm curious about something: what is your own theological ethos? Do you believe in the supernatural at all? If so, do you believe in an Almighty God? And if so, where do your beliefs about Him come from? The Old Testament? The Koran? The Book of Mormon?

Dear and Glorious Physician
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (KJV)

Or, if you prefer the NRSV, Luke 19:27 "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and slaughter them in my presence."

Triumphalism par excellence, placed into the mouth of poor dead Jesus decades after his death, and swallowed hook line and sinker by pagan Greco-Romans ignorant of Hebrew scripture and messianism. And Jews have suffered from another lie of the Christ Myth and Christian triumphalism as a result.

Like I said, from a clearly self-referential parable. Not actually spoken by the real Jesus of Nazareth, of course, but safely and irrevocable ensconced within the Christ Myth and the Christian canon. And who can deny the seed therein of violence by Christians against Jews (who quite correctly rejected and reject the Christ Myth and it's rapine mangling of Hebrew scripture?

You can and will, of course, argue that any Christian who would do violence against Jews based on their reading of canon, and/or the proddings of Christian ecclesiastical authority, were not really Christian at all. But that will fly only with the choir. Meanwhile, the Holocaust occurred in the middle of Christian Europe where Luther published his "The Jews and Their Lies." So perhaps one must conclude that Luther was not a Christian?

Since someone as obviously bright as Buchanan doesn't get it, it's of no surprise that others here also don't get it.

Shabbat Shalom

Standshisground
Normally I do just ignore things like Shelama's peculiar view. I weighed in today in part because I was disappointed in poster "Buck," who tried to retaliate with angry words for Shelama's litany about "the Christ Myth."

Now and then I engage the anti-Christian posters here at TH, basically because I want them to understand that Christians can defend their faith with civility, and without ad hominem attacks. It's tiring to spend too much time trying to have a dialogue with a brick wall -- but there is power in the Word, regardless of the situation. Jesus' example of responding with quotations from the Word to Satanic provocation -- "It is written..." -- is one for the ages.

Semper Vigilans and talent scout
Just ignore posters like Jack Threesongisus and Shelama. We who know the reality of the risen - and returning - Christ aren't threatened by the denials of these two and those like them. The skeptics, like Jesus told us about the poor, we will always have with us - at least until the day of Christ's return. Let's face it, the last thing that those who deny Christ's divinity want to see is His return - because for those still around when it happens who haven't acknowledged His lordship, it means eternal damnation.

Regarding Pat Buchanan's book, as some commentator I saw on TV recently put it so aptly, his book is a thinly veiled criticism of George Bush and our war with Iraq. This commentator said, and I think he's absolutely right, that when you see the title "Unnecessary War" on Pat's book, the "Unnecessary War" Pat is REALLY referring to is IRAQ, not WW2 - and he has cast Winston Churchill in the role of George Bush as far as his responsibility for the inauguration of that war. Pat knows his history, I'll give him that, but I say he draws a lot of wrong conclusions from it. I still enjoy watching him on MSNBC and wherever else he pops up, because even though I now agree with him on fairly little, there are still very few who can turn a phrase as well as Pat, so I still find him entertaining to listen to even when I think he's dead wrong: there are practically no liberal commentators I'd put in that class. And he is still one of the most politically astute commentators on the scene.

Shelama
Please provide your citation for this "quotation":

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

The only acceptable citation is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Acts. If you cite another source, you are citing from outside the "Christian canon," and you cannot impute any defense of this statement to Christians.

Shelama
Jesus did say he was the son of God, but also God, that he was the promised Messiah (God's anointed one), that he would be executed and then rise again after three days, and that this process would be a triumph over sin and death for the whole world, Jews and Gentiles. He stated very clearly that his coming and triumph were in accordance with the Law and the Prophets.

He is as complicit in the development and perpetuation of this idea as anyone else. One may choose not to believe this, but it is not possible to "prove" that it is not so. You have simply adopted another belief.

However, I won't be drawn off by your red herring. Jesus is not responsible for Hitler. Christian ideas are not responsible for Hitler. Human sin is.

Jesus is the antidote to the pathetic, Hitlerian human idea that we need to rid the world of what we don't like in order to remake it as we would prefer. You, for example, don't need religious "triumphalism" removed from the world. That you think you do places you in the same mental prison as Hitler: the human prison of self-reference; the blind, reactionary idea that our great enemy is something other humans are doing, or something other humans are.

Jesus is the promise that that is not the case -- that, as Paul said, we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood (other humans). The walk of a Christ-like Christian is as much the opposite of Hitler's pathologies as it is possible to be. With respect, you know only what you have read by critics of Jesus and Christianity. You do not know Jesus himself. I recommend reading the gospels -- with an open mind and without fear -- to see what is recorded in them about Jesus.

BTW
Semper, yours' includes a fairly nice synopsis of significant aspects of the Christ Myth. But you left out a signifcant saying of Jesus, a self-referential parable actually:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Now, did Jesus ever really say such nonsense? Of course not. But you get the idea of how the Christ Myth and the Christian canon had and has in it the roots of centuries of murderous Christian anti-Semitism in Europe. Which undeniably enabled Hitler's holocaust.

Jesus is dead. He's not coming back. Get over it.

Shabbat Shalom

Jack & Sacred Myth
You underestimate the power and presence and "reality" of sacred myth to those so prone.

Shabbat Shalom

Semper Fi
I attributed nothing whatsoever to either Jesus of Nazareth, or the mythical Jesus the annointed ("christ"). The Christ Myth and Christianity, on the other hand, is another story.

Sorry ...read more closely.

Shabbat Shalom

Shelama
Friend, you are 100% wrong in attributing anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, and Hitler's ghastly "Final Solution" to Jesus Christ. You claim to be attributing it rather to his followers, and this theme of "triumphalism" you harp on.

But Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." He also said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

He said, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms... This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

People like Pat Buchanan have twisted Christianity for centuries to use it against Jews. But it is not what you call the "triumphalism" of Christianity that is the problem; it is the sin and pride of the human soul. Jesus did proclaim triumph as his birthright and legacy -- triumph over sin and death. He did not "triumph" over the religious leadership of Israel, but over the universal condition of mankind.

Jesus did not live by the sword, and did not adjure his followers to take it up. His triumphalism was of a different kind. It does not operate on the world's principles -- as Hitler did, or as the creators of the European ghettos did, or as the Spanish Inquisition did. Jesus is fully entitled to triumphalism -- on HIS OWN terms, which are not those of sinful man. He invites us to share in it. He does NOT advance it by the sword.

War and the British Empire
Buchanan deserves credit for his research and most of all courage in writing this article. Thanks, its long overdue.

Jack Threesongisus
Shelma shows the power of Jesus Christ in her own life all the while she slanders Him and His Words, or followers.


He has so much power in her life she has gone to seed on any and every thread with her Anti-Christ message of denial.
Proving the words of the New Testament herself as a witness to His Life.
This thread is not about the New Testament, Christianity or the bible, but she makes it as if it was cause she is eat up with a fanatic hate against Jesus Christ.

And fulfilling the words of the Apostle Paul.
To one we are the savor of life, to another (like shelema) the savor of death.

Some love death over the Life that will only be Found in Jesus Christ.

Hats back on, gentlemen
... an idiot.

Buchanan does it again. "Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all."

This is fall-down-laughing hilarious. Germany invaded the Low Countries and France in 1914, after declaring war on Russia (in response to Russia's declaration of war on Austria-Hungary). Germany invaded Poland in 1939, after invading Austria and snatching the Sudetenland in 1938.

But sure, Germany had not attacked Britain, and didn't want war with her. Germany wanted to achieve hegemony over Europe WITHOUT having to fight Great Britain. All would-be hegemons would prefer to achieve power that way.

Britain has sought national security in discouraging the ascension of European hegemons for at least the last 600 years. As you would do, if you were Britain. Important as a Europe not dominated by a single power was in 1415, it was that much more important to Britain in the age of the armed airplane, the undersea cable, and the submarine. Technology rendered the threat of a continental hegemon more, not less, immediate.

Pat Buchanan: Nincompoop.

Shelama - a meeting

Dear Shelama, I can offer no defenses for those who abuse the scripture or the name of Christ through hatred and vitriol. We will all have to give an account for every idle word spoken. As for the myth, Christ is only a myth to those who haven't been visited by him. Once met, he is undeniable and unforgettable. Perhaps your meeting is coming? He knows how to find you.

Best regards,
Jack

Striving Jesus & the Christ Myth
Amongst your recitation of elements of the Christ Myth about poor dead Jesus, I would agree with you that Jesus is not striving. He's not doing anything at all. He would turn over in his grave if he ever found out about the Christ Myth and what it did to him and his Jewish person, Jewish faith and hope, Jewish message, Jewish scriptures and Jewish God.

No, it is not Jesus who is striving nor Jesus who is or was triumphalist, except in his failed hope and belief in the triumph of a present and imminent "kingdom of god" during his lifetime. An eschatolgical event for Jesus just as it was for Paul. Both dead wrong.

It is the Christ Myth and Christianity, invented from a very creative view of the Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus, which is triumphalist. And which is doomed to the same massive disappointment and failure as was the hopes and teachings of Jesus and the kingdom. Christianity is not what Jesus had in mind, sorry.

But it's not just Christianity: all religious triumphalism is doomed to be both scourge and failure.

Shabbat Shalom

Thank you Jack
For bearing your testimony. I am well aware of the extraordinary seductive and life changing power of the Christ Myth. And I really do feel badly that Jesus is dead and that he's not coming back. But that's not my fault, and I didn't kill him. It's a pity, but that's just the way the Roman Empire worked.

But as long as it improves the quality of your life and family and community, then go for it. For some Christians it comes with a heavy baggage of nearly latent inbred institutional anti-semitism and anti-Judaism. Rooted in Christian canon. Is Pat Buchanan an example?

Sorry Buck...not Talmud
it is not in Talmud at all, sorry. That is why neither you, nor anyone else, can quote it there. Nor can you reference a legitimate Talmudic web site which supports your nonsense. That's not to say that there are not a lot of Christian websites that peddle that nonsense. And not a few Christians who eat it up.

It just goes to show how weak and ineffectual and nearly meaningless any post-Talmudic Jewish anti-Christian polemic was that folks like you constantly attribute it to Talmud.

Shabbat Shalom

Shelama, if you only knew him . . .
Shelama, if you knew him you would know that the bending of every knee to him is only appropriate. He "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

His stature, authority and majesty require the sujection of all that is created. He is not striving, as your charge of triumphalism implies; he has no need to strive - because he is already LORD. His receipt of adoration and obeisance is inescapable, and ultimate. You will be there, friend Shelama, whether willing or not.

G'day
Jack

Buck
Don't assert or parrot when you can quote, tractate and all.

Shabbat Shalom

Pat Buchanan and no Doctoral Research
It is apparent that Pat has dusted off his mein kampf but not read it in its entirety. Pat, a card carrying bund member, really should have done his homework more thoroughly.

The most important and comprehensive work on the subject of Hitler and the Jews was written by Lucy Davidowitz. The book is the War Against the Jews: 1933 -1945.

"The book's premise is that one of Hitler's main purposes was to eliminate Jewish populations throughout Europe. Hitler pursued this policy even to the detriment of pragmatic wartime actions such as moving troops and securing supply lines. (e.g. he delayed railcars providing supplies to front line troops in Russia so that Jews could be deported by rail from Russia to death camps.) The book also provides detailed listings by country of the number of Jews killed in World War 2. She researched birth and death records in many cities of prewar Europe to come up with a death toll of 5.85 million Jews. Many consider this number an underestimate since many records were lost during the war, and since many births and deaths were not recorded in small towns and villages."

Not only does one Not have to read, buchanan's anti-semetic revisionist theories but instead can go to the library or any book store and read a disertation of the course of the most anti-semetic lunatic of the ages....one that buchanan not only embraces...but if had his druthers....would emulate.

It is sickening that he is given a forum on any conservative venue such as Fox MSNBC MBC or even TownHall to espouse Hitler's ideas in new packaging!!!

Some person wrote of him earlier and I totally concur....what a f'n tool!!!!

Townhall, Drop Buchanan
Please stop giving Pat Buchanan a voice.
He is anti-semite, a white nationalist, and he supports European white nationalists.

He is either extremely ignorant, or he lies about history. Either way he is nearly as much a liability to Conservatives as David Duke.

For years I have wondered why you have supported this idiot, because he certainly doesn't represent conservatives/classic liberals.
Not to mention, he has zero credibilty.
Quite embarassing yourself and get rid of Buchanan now.





Read Reply #40 . . .
by "tgwWhale"
Location: WI

I believe the most cogent and on-target analysis of any of the posts I have read so far.

Nice.

Talmud & Jewish Triumphalism
Pat's topic was the Shoah, to which Christian triumphalism over the centuries is undeniably relevant.

Quote me anything in Talmud which was a root inspiration for mass murder, mass terror, mass forced conversions, mass marginalization, mass predations, mass contempt, mass dismissal or mass ghettoization of non-Jews by Jews. Or would or could have had Judaism ever been the overwhelmingly powerful political force.

Better yet, quote me Talmud referring to a place for the Gentile in the world to come. Is it stated there to be ONLY if that Gentile converted to Judaism? Or not? Triumphal or not? Requiring conversion to Judaism or not?

Tanakh is not without its problems in regard to the Hebrews and outsiders, but they also work at least as much against the Christian view of god as the Jewish. And are not relevant to the Shoah.

I'm equal opportunity regarding religious triumphalism, and in Townhall, if you hadn't noticed, the dominant flavor is Christianity. "Salvation is of the Jews" is a Christian monstrosity from Christian scripture, not Hebrew.

To the degree that Jewish religious triumphalism even exists, its most likely consequence is to lead directly or indirectly to the nuclear destruction of Israel (sorry, poor dead Jesus won't be coming back then either.)

The only other major monotheistic triumphalist religion will eventually suffer the same massive disappointment and failure that Christianity will, only centuries later, as I;ve often stated. Christianity and Christian triumphalism has set itself up for massive disappointment in THIS century. Not so Islamic triumphalism (which is much deeper than merely bin Laden), which has not spent nearly as much patience, and not dug itself into such an eschatological hole, as has Christianity.

You're down Buck.

Shabbat Shalom


Pat, scripture and Triumphalism
Php 2:10-11, "...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

THAT indeed, is religious triumphalism, and a pillar of the Christ Myth (as is John 3:16), and doomed to failure just like all other forms of the scourge.


Ac 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Scriptural and religious triumphalism.

Pat Buchanan is a wonderful proof that even very bright people of above average intelligence can be seduced by the Christ Myth and its inherent replacement theology and triumphalism. Implicit and explicit in Christian scripture, and the massive house of cards edifice of Christian "theology." And a root of the murderous Christian anti-Semitism that enabled Hitler.

Pat Buchanan is the American Pétain
Buchanan flaw logic is based on Vichy thinking. After WW2, French diplomats were poking fun at the Brits and claiming that the Brits may have won the war but the French had kept their resources and their empire.

These French were so stupid that they did not foresee the loss of their own empire.

The Brits lost their empire, not because of WW2, but because it was not profitable and too expansive for their economy. It would have been too expansive even without the losses of WW2.

Regarding the Jews, Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite and he would have try to exterminate them anyway because he was convinced that they were a threat to its imperialistic project.

Buchanan's poor understanding of WW2 facts and actors is one more proof, if any was needed, that he is totally unable to be a decision maker.

Doc
"As far as me, I did not libel anyone. IMO, people who think different (kool aid drinkers) than myself are wrong."

Ah, the logic of "I can call anyone anything, because whatever I say is true, and that makes it OK, 'cause they deserve it."
In this life, it seems that there are too many people like yourself, who set themselves to rationalizing why it's OK to treat others as garbage. They can always find a reason.

"Also I have met all my goals in life"

Good for you. Here's hoping you find some more worthwhile goals than typing lies, libels and insults by your 16th birthday.

To tj ... the Kind David Hotel
The King David Hotel was a British command post at the time of the bombing. Palestinian Arabs are one of the worst led people of all time. They deserve much, much better.

The 1,000 year Third Reich
Does Buchanan really think that Europe should have been ruled by Nazi thugs? Can someone tell me of one redeemable quality of Hitler's regime? The Nazi's used to talk about the 1,000 year reich of the Third Reich of Germany.


Re: holocaust questions (51)
The only people to give a good review of this book are people who 1) either hate Jews or 2) bleeding heart liberals hopelessly in love with Palestinians. The fact of the matter is, nothing in this book is a secret, it is an imperative for Jews to save lives, not matter what, so if they collaborated with Eichmann to save their people that is fine, unfortunately the Nazis changed their plans and chose to eliminate the Jews instead of deporting them to Israel. One can't help but think what small thing could have been done to stop all of this in the beginning.

As for the rest of these stale charges, it should be noted that David Ben-Gurion and the Yishuv Central DENOUNCED THE STERN GANG, and, indeed, after independence, a number of these people wound up in Israeli jails, if their involvement could be proved.

holocaust questions (51)
To see some of the reasons for difficulties experienced by Jews (and others) in Germany, read the book "51 Questions" by Lenni Brenner.
This book documents Zionist complicity with the Nazi regime in order to facilitate emigration to what was then known as Palestine. The Zionist complicity was designed to make life difficult for Jews, hoping that emigration would be encouraged. It turns out that things did not go the way the Zionists hoped. One has to also look at the formation of the state of Israel and the tactics used (terrorist)--bombing of the King David Hotel comes to mind. The Stern gang and Erdun used terrorist tactics successfully to help establish the state of Israel.

Buck
Homework done, pat is wrong and may well be as big a nutjob as Imanutjob, they nut from Iran.
And with that, a good evening to all.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean



tgwWhale
ENNNNNT WRONG! We know what moonbats and wobbie look like. Of course they kinda look the same what with wobbie being a leftist. If I can get GunnyG to post them on his blog I will do so. We even have pics of wonder woman too.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean

Let Us Just Hope
That pro-German and pro-Nazi Pat Buchanan quietly folds his tent and disappears.

Keep Pat...
Disclaimer: I think Pat Buchanan is a moron, and close to being truly insane, in the sense that he generally comes from the position "I know the truth. Don't mislead me with facts." If you don't believe that, read any economic commentary he was written during the last 20 years. He has been calling the great collapse and depression of '88, '89,'90, on up to '08. He's been utterly wrong all along, but he never changes his tune,

Given that, I rather like the fact that this fool gets his column published here. The comments here, when our usual name-calling is removed, provided an interesting and stimulating historical discussion.

Most TH columns generate only name-calling and little else. By the way, just what is a moonbat? It would be an interesting artistic exercise to draw one... But then, of course, since we don't know what Robert looks like, I suppose we can't draw one...

More Questions For Pat
"The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust."

-- 1) Who claims that the Holocaust was the cause of the war? Answer: nobody. So why mention it? 2) How do you know that German expansion, if allowed to take place unmolested, would not have resulted in a Holocaust anyway? Given all of the evidence listed here by others, including the best evidence of all -- Der Fuhrer's own words -- it comes off as a highly unsubstantiated conclusion on your part.

Allah
Oh, and by the way - God does not believe in Allah.

Cheers.
Jack

Ignorant I may be . . .
Ahh. Ignorant I may be, but I am not a name-caller.

The scriptures don't give much credence to religious triumphalism. They simply declare that Jesus Christ is the ultimate reality. He is what the world is coming to. And, "If you believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." That death, the unbeliever's death, will not come at the hands of Christians but at the Lord's own hand. Repent and believe.

Regards,
Jack


Why This Creepy Lumpenproletariat?
Mr. Buchanan's piece is neither historically accurate nor particularly informative. Unlike Mr. Hitchens', whose prejudicial ravings on religion are at least interesting, Mr. Buchanan seems to have had nothing better to do than concoct some odd fantasies regarding Churchill and WWII that have no basis in reality.
Why would Townhall host such a boring oddity? Surely not to embarrass Mr. Buchanan?
Please delete Mr. Buchanan from the Townhall website.
Thank you.

william writes:
Buchanan's thesis pretty much conforms to what historians believe, that the holocaust was decided on as policy only when Germany preceived it was going to lose the war.


That is laughable considering “mine crap.” The little sawed off piece of rear horse discharge hated the Jews long before the war. What historians were saying that any ways? Imanutjob maybe?

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean


Seeking Sources
Before I presume to weigh in on this terribly fraught debate, can anyone tell me where the FULL TEXT of the original two pices (Buchanan's essay AND Hitchens' review/response) are available online?

If full-text is NOT online, I'll just have to haul out my crutch (sigh) and hie me to my local public library, nine painful blocks away.

Thanks in advance!

Buck writes:
Hey Doc,Pat Buchanan has steadfastly opposed Illegal Invaders coming over our Mexican border.Do your homework.

And? I know Dems and Lib's both who are against not securing our borders. That does not mean we will ever stoke fires for Buchanan. And they are no more than I at being racist.
I will say that I Hate Marxist and Nazis and the Muslims who just want to kill and behead infidels. Even that does not make one a racist.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean



Jack, Katz, Holocaust & Allah
Concerning author Katz, a better read is "The Holocaust in Historical Context, Vol.1", by Steven T. Katz.

Concerning god and punishments today, a conclusion at least as rational as that of Threesongisus, if not more rational, is that Allah is unhappy with Christianity.

In the end, ALL religious triumphalism is doomed to massive disappointment and failure. In the end, however much the Holocaust owes to Christianity and centuries of murderous Christian anti-Semitism, neither the Holocaust nor 9/11 have anything at all to do with god. Both, however, have roots in religious and scriptural triumphalism.

Not a surprise that the majority of contributors and readers in Townhall are devout religious triumphalists. I feel badly for your coming disappointments. Undoubtedly, as Jesus in the coming century still (and always and forever) fails to come back, Christian disappointment and frustration will give rise to new spasms of anti-Semitic scapegoating. It's inherent in fatally flawed triumphalism.

Shalom

Primus54 @ 5:36 p.m.

"TH Robert Free" IS a good thing.

Good for Robert, also. Guy needs a life.

I wish him well.


Yes he does
"Buchanan,as a Free American, has as much right to voice his American concerns, interests and agendas as you do Mr.Taiwan."

And we have the right to call him a pro-Nazi, racist, loon too.

You going to vote for McCain, Bucky boy? Because if so remember he called for Buchanan to be expelled from the GOP the last time he tried to sell this snakeoil in the book "A Republic, not an Empire."


And Jack Threesongisus:

You are an idiot. Please change the state in your profile, otherwise, you'll make everyone think that the entire state is infected with morons.

And Buck, agendas, like anyone. Ethnic problems, not all that much really. After all, Ma the carpetbagger just got elected didn't he? If there were ethnic problems why did the majority of Taiwanese vote for a non-Taiwanese?



Art Katz
Read Art Katz' "The Holocaust - Where was God?"

God has the nations in charge and manipulates them at will. "I know, O Lord, that a man's way is not in himself; nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps" Jer 10.23

The Holocaust came upon Jewery for the same reason punishments come upon any nation - they had completely turned their backs upon God and forgotten his claims upon them.

Sounds a bit like America today. Batten the hatches.

Buchanan is Right
Buchanan's thesis pretty much conforms to what historians believe, that the holocaust was decided on as policy only when Germany preceived it was going to lose the war. As some Jewish survivors later reported, they were told by the Nazis "whatever happens in this war, we have won our war against you".

Buchanan is courageous to advance this historically correct account during this climate of fear, and all the conservatives who attack him are simply cowards trying to enhance there own credibility by finding an easy target to knock down and kick. Bravo Patrick Buchanan!

Is Pat Buchanan inevitable?
I guess so. On every issue there are always moral pygmies staking out the low ground. Thank G-d that in the worlds darkest hours there was a man like Churchill ruling Britain.

Oh, Mr. Buchanan....
I guess the beating you took from VDH last time...

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/patrick-j-buchana n%e2%80%94pseudo-historian-very-real-dissimulator/?print=1

...just wasn't enough, and you HAD to come back for more.

Poor, sad little man - if all you want is for someone to beat on you, you needn't try so hard - I'd do it for free.

- MuscleDaddy

Ahhh... Happiness is a ...
... "Robert-free" Townhall.

Pat: The good Nazi of DC
Andrews:

Well, you can put his anti-trade insanity under either xenophobic or isolationist labels (or both), but you are correct in your analysis on this point as well.

And Buck:

"Hey Akagi,you have far less true interests and loyalty and ties to America than Pat Buchanon does. Back off, Mr.Taiwan Agendist."

That may be so, but doesn't mean I'm wrong and it doesn't negate the fact that Pat is a racist (or bigoted) xenophobic, anti-semitic, isolationist loon either.

"Pat Buchanan has taken issue,at times with the agendists of a foreign nations,Israel and Mexico.That's neither racist nor un-American,Mr.Taiwan."

His crying over the fact that American is less white now that 30 years ago is at least bigoted if not down right racist. Pushing forward policies that would hurt the US is if not unAmerican at least idiotic. I haven't called him unAmerican though, many pro-Americans are racist, xenophobic, isolationistic rubes. I'm sure he'd fit right in with those other pro-American groups the KKK and the League of the South. Me a Taiwan agendist? 100% "Taiwan firster", absolutely guilty as charged, doesn't make me wrong about Pat though. I did support his reaction to Israel selling advanced weapons to China--I did agree with his opinion the US should cut off all military aid to Israel in response to them selling to China the Python III and other advance weapons, but you never disagree with everyone on everything do you? I am sure you and I even agree on somethings.

"Hey Doc,Pat Buchanan has steadfastly opposed Illegal Invaders coming over our Mexican border.Do your homework."

And against legal non-white immigration too just like a good little Nazi--can't have these non-Aryan mud people spoiling the place can we?

I really object to Town Hall
publishing Buchanan. It is time to dump him. He is not a conservative: he flirts with fascism and even then, I am being kind!

Buchanan is a revisionist
and TH should stop posting his nonsense. What does Buchanan think happened to the Jews of Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia prior to the invasion of Poland? Does the expression "First Europe then the whole world" not mean anything to Pat? Pat is not a Republican bur unfortunately many people think he still is. I object to Town Hall publishing this swill. It tarnishes conservatives.

Short Summary
Since I just realized I have to go after making some inflammatory comments, I suppose I should give at least a short summary of my thoughts:

Buchanan is using garbage history to make a dubious point. And he has done it before. And it always seems to come out either pro-nazi or anti Israel. That makes me suspect the man has something of an agenda.

Honest mistakes tend to go in all directions. Pat's bad history always exonerates Hitler, or makes the Jews to blame. Sometimes he bashes the Brits too. But, somehow, when you look at his evidence, it just isn't right. His history is wrong and his analysis is shallow.

In short, it seems he is starting with a conclusion and then making history fit that conclusion. And his conclusion is startling antisemitic, anti-British, and pro-Nazi. Regardless of what some here may be claiming.

That about sums it up.

Buck
You know defending Buchanan by xenophobic barbs at Akagi doesn't exactly make a strong case that Buchanan and his supporters aren't xenophobic racists, does it?

I have to agree with those who said we need to muzzle pat. I spent years convincing people that "Nazis are conservative" line was BS, and now along comes Pat singing the Horstwesseleid trying to prove me wrong.

Nazis weren't conservative and neither is Pat.

Akagi
Don't forget, besides his isolationism and his fondness for nazis, Buchanan is also a rabid protectionist who would see trade pretty much shut down at the border.

Somehow anti-trade, anti-defense, pro-nazi is the new definition of conservative? Because he mutters "Christian" and "culture war" in between his praises of Hitler and bashing of Churchill?

I don't see it.

(I know I am going to get grief now from all those protectionists who think that is the essence of conservatism. So go ahead...)

arrogance and hubris

The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.

So Pat thinks he has the mind of God? He is able to move the pieces and predict the outcome? If it wasn't for France and England there wouldn't have been the holocaust?


DISGUSTING

The reds are coming
"Owning the UN, and all Western Europe, Red China, Cuba, Vietnam and many other spots across the glove.
Marxism is spreading and stealing liberty of all individuals."

Really Western Europe is Marxist? Since when? China isn't, been to Shanghai or Shenzhen lately? Where is Marxism spreading to, outside of Nepal that is.

A cold wind blows from Buchanan's mouth
When discussing the Nazis, calling Buchanan a "pacifist," "isolationist," or "appeaser" may be extreme understatement. The truth of his feelings are likely much more chilling. His "American Conservative" magazine and many of his books would have been best-sellers in 1930's Germany.

Oh no
Doc:

We agree on something.

"Patriot Buchanan? About as much as Obambi. Firmly Right Conservative? Once again, about as much as Obambi. What a laugh."


Good points Gil
And I agree


Gil - 3:32 PM EST
Subject: Reply to talent scout
While I take second to none in my hatred of communism, despite the sheer scale of killing by Communism, no thinking person should ever think one or the other of USSR's and Nazi evil were somehow unequal. The two systems were morally equal but only one almost conquered the world.
----
ts:
With all this above


But not with this below
-----
Gil writes:
At no time did the USSR ever have the power to conquer the world by force. That left them to the battle of ideas and we destroyed them.
----
ts:
You are wrong Gil.I know this is the accepted "wisdom" but its 100 percent wrong.
The Communists have gained world power by force of another means.

Money and influence, moles and spy's, indoctrination and lies of gargantuan proportions, right here in America.
Going on right now.
Owning the UN, and all Western Europe, Red China, Cuba, Vietnam and many other spots across the glove.
Marxism is spreading and stealing liberty of all individuals.
---



Gil writes:

.....
The evils are the same; Buchanan's sin is believing a Hitler can ever exist in the world without war following. Totalitarians states are war by definition. The only question is how many will die. .
---
ts:
If that is what he believes, he is wrong of course.
I just do not read him saying that

Buck
Then tell me are right conservatives then best described as racist (or at least bigoted), anti-semitic, xenophobic isolationists because that basically is what Pat Buchanan is.


Buck scribbiles:
Patriot Buchanan Trumps Akagi

Patriot Buchanan? About as much as Obambi. Firmly Right Conservative? Once again, about as much as Obambi. What a laugh.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean



Mental Meltdown
For many people, examples of stupidity are rare, for others, a common occurrence. Sadly, for Buchanan, it is the latter. He is one of those vile individuals who give Conservatives a bad name, and he gives every impression that he enjoys doing so. We would all be much better off if Buchanan would seek the mental help he so desperately requires.

Sure he is.
"Pat Buchanan is a principled conservative in the traditional sense, and I have far more respect for him than I have for those leftists who abandoned the Democratic party..."

Yes, he is a conservative if a conservative is now defined as someone who supports big government intrusions into people's lives, then yes. Otherwise, no.


Akagi
Not so. If not for lend-lease (see FDR) the commies would have not got their factories pulled back out of Nazi bomber range before being destroyed. I don't care if uncle joe had all the people in the world on the front lines. Flesh would have not stopped the Nazi blitzkrieg. Lend-lease from us gave them the tools and time to move their important factories back across the mountains, too give them the tools to fight with. That and the Russian winter, is what started the decline of the Nazi’s in Russia.
Stalin was so stupid and paranoid that he had killed of most of his military minds before the war.
How smart is that?

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean

Who in the HELL
...At Townhall.com (and Fox News, while we're at it) keeps giving this anti-Semitic troglodyte a platform?

How are we supposed to fault Barack Obama for hanging out with racist garbage when we can't keep our own houses clean?

Jewish texts & Morons indeed
The Jewish texts which became the Christian New Testament are loaded with internecine Jewish politics, polemic and propaganda. But it was empowered Christianity, which canonized them and made them "literal" decades and centuries after the fact, that made from them the roots of murderous lethality.


Nonhistorical b.s. propaganda, such as:

Matt 27:25. "Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

and,

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."


In the 1st century, Jews arguing with Jews was one thing. Centuries later, well after Constantine's brilliant conquest of Christianity made it an arm of the state and the dominant influence in Europe, those relatively innocent and harmless intra-Jewish arguments had turned deadly. Ever hear of the "blood libel"? The Crusades and Christian anti-Jewish atrocities? And centuries of other Christian anti-Jewish degradations, predations and murders? You also don't read of that in Christian canon either, but you can be sure of its roots and inspiration. Which includes Christian canon and its lies, polemic and triumphalism.

It is correct, of course, to note that the Gospels are significantly Jewish texts. But it was their role as Christian canon in inciting and promoting pervasive (and obviously persisting) institutional and individual and often murderous anti-Semitism, that is both undeniable and relevant. Islamic anti-Judaism and anti-semitism derives significantly from Christianity's. (including The Protocols). Hitler could not have accomplished what he did without it.

You and Pat are indeed soul mates.

Shalom

I disagree 100% w/Pat on Israel
jerabaub 2:51 PM EST
Subject: Talent Scout
We are in agreement that many Townhall posters fail to understand Buchanan, or, worse yet, accuse him of being anti-semitic
----
As I am a strong supporter of Israel, and despise Bush's "road map" to hell for Israel.

But I do NOT see him as many here portray the man for their perceptions he is anti-semite simply cause he criticizes a Jew.
What I have seen is many Jews will try and destroy anyone who would criticize anything Jewish.
Especially if you point out the Communist Jews who supported mass murder in Russia.

The hypocrites


China
And I would argue that the PRC does not. It has a Leninist-based party, but so was Mexico's PRI and Taiwan's KMT--were they Marxist too?

And TS:

"35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill."

Most of those deaths were during the Great Leap Forward and to be more precise during the Great Chinese Famine between 1958 and 1961. Unlike Stalin's intentional campaign to starve the Ukraine in the 1930s, the Chinese famine was a result of gross economic mismanagement by the CCP which included putting the peasants into collectives, use of peasants to make low quality steel instead of grow rice and idiot campaigns such as the "Four Pests" which included the sparrow which did eat some rice, but ate more bugs that ate more rice. This added to various natural diasters (which is why the period is called the "Three Years of Natural Disasters" or "san nian zi ran zai hai").

Estimates are between 15 and 50 million dead during these three years. In China today, the government claims about 35% of the deaths were due to the natural diasters and 65% mismanagement. But even if 100% were due to mismanagement, you can hardly call these deaths murder as they were not intentional. The CCP did indeed murder people--during the anti-rightist campaign, the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen, etc, but of all the deaths you listed the CCP was responsible for most of these were unintentional during the great famine.


Obergruppenfuhrer Buchanan
I cannot believe Townhall would actually publish such inaccurate and revisionist garbage. I will no longer frequent Townhall, and all this does is help Obama. Nice going Townhall.

Reply to talent scout
While I take second to none in my hatred of communism, despite the sheer scale of killing by Communism, no thinking person should ever think one or the other of USSR's and Nazi evil were somehow unequal. The two systems were morally equal but only one almost conquered the world. At no time did the USSR ever have the power to conquer the world by force. That left them to the battle of ideas and we destroyed them. Communism believed itself the end result of a historical process that would deliver the world to them. Moreover, Communism usually committed most of its murders in the first generation of power, after that it was less murderous (still murder!).
Hitler's regime was overtly warlike and far more ruthless in its methods and because they were competent and scientifically advanced, they almost succeeded.
The evils are the same; Buchanan's sin is believing a Hitler can ever exist in the world without war following. Totalitarians states are war by definition. The only question is how many will die. .

Pat Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer.
Townhall, Hannity, et al. are to blame for giving this loon a platform.

Shame on you all.

Jews are such self-righteous hypocrites
Not the only ones of course, but they have mastered it.
All the while the Jews are righteously filled with hate for Hitler, they are leftist leaning little communists themselves.
Supprting the worst mass murderers the world has ever seen.
Making Hitler look like a good guy in comparison.

Not all of course, just like not all the Jews were the anti-Christian, anti Messiah self righteous bigoted Pharisees of former times.

They will condemn the Nazis and support the murdering Soviets and Red Chinese.
Plus the killer's in Cuba and Vietnam.

Such self-righteous hypocrites as democrats and RINO's are.

Akagi
I note you dropped PRC from your list of Marxist-Leninist countries. I would argue that they qualify pretty well.

They may have adopted Lenin's NEP strategy, but since they are taking a page from Lenin, they are still Leninist in my book.

Father Coughlin Prize for History
I find the bulk of the comments to be written by folk with clearer minds, sharper reasoning, and,I dare say, greater erudition than the
aging creep whose blather sullies the pages of Townhall.

sew glaed u kin reed, moron
kingsXrulz 3:03 PM EST
Subject: talent scout
"Even here in America, its the Marxists who have gained in the after math of WW2 as we defeated the Nazi's."

-- I have gained after math myself. Usually it was a better command of the English language, as that was my next class . . . you know, after math.
---

spayce kadit, reed dis

azeole, u ere two talc bowt tyhole's ore da artickhole?

Htler 8 Months Before Poland
"In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance only the Jewish race that received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

Adolf Hitler - January 30, 1939

Hitler often chose to offer things and make treaties that he then violated when it suited him. Consider the treaty he made with the Russians which lasted until he decided to attack them with no provocation on their part. Or consider the agreement he had over the Sudetenland. He swallowed that and then took the rest of the Czechoslovak state soon after.

The fact that Hitler may have offered Britain temporary peace at various times is quite meaningless when arrayed against the fact that he never honored his agreements.

The Holocaust was inevitable once Hitler was in power...whatever Britain decided. Hitler was clear about his intent for 20 years.

Kooky Buchanan
Leave Pat on MSNBC where he belongs.

Shelama writes:
Her typical anti-Christian bilge.

----
Shelama says:
Centuries of murderous Christian anti-semitism in Europe, rooted significantly in New Testament polemic, propaganda and politics enabled Hitler's Holocaust. Those Christian texts, and individual and institutional Christian anti-semitism and anti-Judaism, obviously continue, however abated, to this day.
---

Moron
The New Testament is written by Jews, Christianity began with the Jews.
Nothing in the New Testament about murdering Jews, moron and anti-Christian bigot

talent scout
"Even here in America, its the Marxists who have gained in the after math of WW2 as we defeated the Nazi's."

-- I have gained after math myself. Usually it was a better command of the English language, as that was my next class . . . you know, after math.

If I go to Hell
Reading the collected works of Pat Buchanan will likely be my punishment. The man disgusts me. Someone said words to the effect of "makes some good questions...Pat is not an anti-Semite for bringing them up..."
I agree; Pat is not an anti-Semite because he brings up questions about the causes of events during the World Wars, he is an anti-Semite because he is a hate-mongering old SOB who despises Jews. In my book, that makes him a loser and a fiend.

Poorly Reasoned
Buchanan is undoubtedly a smart man and knows his history, but he fails to come forward with anything in this article that remotely supports his proposition that "[t]he Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war." Buchanan concedes that Hitler was a rabid anti-semite who took severe actions against the Jews long before WWII. Buchanan's entire argument, however, is that, because the Holocaust did not begin until after WWII began, WWII must have been the cause of the Holocaust. I would expect better reasoning from an elementary school student.

Communists, worst mass murderers
In the world
DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, MOSTLY COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT.

DEATH
BY GOVERNMENT
By R.J. Rummel

Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long
Shakespeare


II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
References Index


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE: Among all the democide estimates appearing in this book, some have been revised upward. I have changed that for Mao's famine, 1958-1962, from zero to 38,000,000. And thus I have had to change the overall democide for the PRC (1928-1987) from 38,702,000 to 76,702,000. Details here.
I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000. Details here.

Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000.



http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Townhall would do
better to invite an actual historian to write up names,dates,and timelines then to continue to allow themselves to be associated with this...

This continued promotion of Mr Buchanan and his book do nothing but tarnish the reputation of conservatives.

Inevitable or enabled?
Pat recounts that the trains didn't start to roll until 1942 after Wannsee, but neglects to detail Nazi mass murder of Jews in Poland and Russia and elsewhere in Europe prior to the trains. Nor address the future of European Jewry that was foreshadowed no later than the 1933 Aryan clauses, and inevitable by Krystalnacht.

The points Pat correctly make about Hitler may be overshadowed by the ones he intentionally omits.

Centuries of murderous Christian anti-semitism in Europe, rooted significantly in New Testament polemic, propaganda and politics enabled Hitler's Holocaust. Those Christian texts, and individual and institutional Christian anti-semitism and anti-Judaism, obviously continue, however abated, to this day.

Talent Scout
We are in agreement that many Townhall posters fail to understand Buchanan, or, worse yet, accuse him of being anti-semitic.

Pat Buchanan is a principled conservative in the traditional sense, and I have far more respect for him than I have for those leftists who abandoned the Democratic party(beginning in the George Mcgovern era), and gravitated over to the GOP, where they and their progeny hijacked much of the GOP's foreign policy apparatus.

They are known as "neocons".

I disagree with Pat Buchanans on a couple of issues, but I generally find him to be a fine patriot, a good American.

I wish more people had his general understanding of history. His knowledge and sweep of history is most impressive.

I think he is the product of a Jesuit education, which is far superior to the education most Americans receive.

I did not receive a Jesuit education, as a disclaimer.

Strange Days Indeed Mama

When I clicked on a TH thread this morning, I read this: "O comments".

I clicked on Pat's!!!!

My first thought was great. No one wants to dignify Pat's column with a comment. But than I clicked on a few others and "0 comments" came up again. Still don't know what that was about.

Anyway, I notice fewer ads for Pat's inane book, lately. Let's be thankful for somethings. Now if we can just get TH to stop running any Buchanan columns that defend the book!

Someone please tell me what this man doesn't understand about evil. Good grief! I keep waiting for Joe Scarboro to stand at attention, stick his right hand straight out, palm down and then state, "Now welcome to the show, filling in for Adolph Hitler as always, Pat Buchanan".

Want to know the real crime about this whole thing. Read the notes listed under "About the Author" for Pat today. Mentioned is a brilliant book that should be required reading for anyone who believes in this country. Amazing!!!!

The man truly is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

Lumberjack
In this and only this area (Britain's involvement in The Great War)do I agree with Buchanan. The conflict was a continental conflict that Great Britain had no stake in. That is, they were screwed no matter who won. I know many historians like to lump the Kaiser, Bismarck and Hitler into the same camp, but that is not the case. France and Russia, in my opinion were more the belligerents than Germany. Germany had nothing to gain, and the Schliefflen Plan was a plan of a desperate General Staff. The German General Staff was anything but optimistic in August 1914. Moltke the Younger was anything but joyfull when mobilisation was announced.

My point is:

a)France and Russia were spoilng for a fight. Germany was willing to scrap its friendship with England in order to survive a multi-front war.

b)Great Britain had nothing to gain or lose no matter who won or lost. She sacrificed an entrie generation and half of her youth plus most of her accumlated wealth. And for what? Most of the wartime propaganda about German soldiers raping villagers and setting farms to fire was just that -propaganda.

c)When it was all said and done, what do Great Britain gain? Germany was no more a menace than was France -most probably less so. Austria was the Sick Man of Europe.

rawmuse
Pat is only a so-called conservative. Not sure if there is a term for what he is--oh yes there is faux populist demagogue. He is not unlike the King Fish from days gone by.

He often shares opinions with other well known conservatives like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and "Barry" Obama.


IPat is a Nazi Sympathizer:
Mr. Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals ... (New York Times, 4/21/87)

Pat Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried...

Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)
________

Now Pat is also an Islamist Sympathizer:
http://conservativevalley.blogtownhall.com/2007/02/05/who_a re_you,_mr_buchanan.thtml

((spit))
My Irish grandmother used to use an expression: "As stupid as an Orangeman."

Now I know why.


Has TownHall taken leave of its sense?
What in the name of God is an article like this doing on TownHall?
Don't we Republicans have enough problems with people equating us with Nazis without a prominent conservative author seemingly coming to the defense of, or otherwise rewriting the history of Hitler?

We don't need this. Lose it. And Pat, please go away.




Yes Doc
The Americans could have defeated the Nazis on its own, but not without a much greater loss of life and treasure. Look at the numbers the Soviets put up against the Nazis--3 times as many troops as did the Americans (really even more than that since the US had a large number of its forces in the Pacific against Japan).

Just look at the losses the Soviets took taking Berlin, the British and Americans got half of the city without firing a shot.

As for the slam on FDR (and no fan of him, either) of giving Stalin everything he wanted. How could the US have stopped him from doing what he wanted in Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe--outside of pushing the Soviets back with the force of arms, very little.

Yalta and Potsdam simply ratified what was done or would be done on the battlefield.

If you want to blame FDR and Churchill for something, blame them for the Cairo Agreement.

Oh and TS:

Please list for us outside of Cuba, the DPRK and perhaps Venezuela and I guess we can add Nepal and Laos the countries you see as Marxist-Leninist.

While the Soviets indeed sought world conquest, so did Hitler--his goals on this were quite clear in Zweites Buch.

As for America, is Obama a Marxist? If you think so, you don't understand Marxism. Democratic Socialism is not Marxism. Sweden is not Maoist China.

True Doc
Doc writes: - 2:11 PM EST
ts sayz
Where was British outrage
Against Russia, the Soviets?


At the time I think it was the whole enemy of my enemy thing. They did it knowing full well it would sonner or later bite them in the buttocks
---
ts:
Yes
And its how I am reading Pat's remarks, how it has come to not just bite the British in the buttocks, but the entire globe.

Look at all the emotional distress by many posters here who first off do not even grasp what Buchanon is talking about.

Commenting as if Patrick supported death camps, and show themselves the ones who are the ones doing the mis-reading.
Pat is not supporting Hitler, death camps or anti-semetism.
Which now means do not criticize a Jew.

Which this article does not do anyway.

Outrageous
So, if Britian accepted Hilter's 'peace overtures' there would have been no Holocaust. Outrageous Holocaust revisionism. And so we should believe that if only Churchill had been a little more understanding of Hilter, the SS Einsatzgrupen, who serially rounded up Jews and executed them on the front lines in the Ukraine and elsewhere, would have been much nicer--perhaps shipping them off to a Warsaw style ghetto? There would have been no experimentation with death machines, like gassing Jews in enclosed truck--machine gunning them on the front lines proved inefficient, wasting ammunition, affecting morale, and not killing in the desired numbers. Churchill could have stopped all this, because, you see, the Holocuast was a symptom of the war.

This is not the first time Buchanan has minimized the deeds of the SS. In 1985 Buchanan was a strident advocate of Reagan's visit to a cemetary in West Germany which held the remains of SS Einsatzgrupen, and when Jewish groups were outraged, Buchanan advised Regan not to give into 'Jewish pressure'. Look in Elie Weisel's Memoirs, Vol 1, p. 269, and read about Buchanan's scrawling out on a piece of paper 'Jewish Pressure', as Jews tried to explain the Regan why the visit to the cemetary was so morally adominable. Buchanan, it seems, either does not know about what the SS did or doesn't care.

Pathologies show up in the strangest ways, don't they?

"Hitler was a rapid anti-Semite"--and there are other forms of the pathology not quite as rapid, but just as real.

Townhall utterly disgraces itself with this article and deserves avoidance because of it. I post this merely to expose the moral depravity of this article.

Thats what I said
jerabaub - 1:55 PM EST
.

Talent Scout, Nazis were racial purists, while the communists despised any affinity or allegiance to races, nationalities, religions, or any other institutions that came between them and the internationalism and coalition of interests among the working classes of the world.
----

But thanks anyway

To communists, nations, nationalities, etc, were a hindrince in keeping the working class from understanding the INTERNATIONALIST nature of the struggle for the liberation of the proletariat.

correction
"Dreadnought," and "Castles of Steel" by Robert K. Massie

jaafar writes:
A German Navy?
Pat, you moron, Germany is basically a land-locked nation.

Look at a map of Germany. It has ports at Kiel, Wilhelmshavn, where I docked on a NATO cruse, Bremerhaven and Hamburg.

Have you ever heard of the German High Seas Fleet, or the Kriegsmarine of WW II and after? You might read a little about the history of the German Navy before making such an incredibly stupid statement." by Robert K. Massie, and "The Two Ocean War" by Samuel Eliot Morrison. Try "Dreadnought," and "Castles of Steel

Contrarians
I don't agree with Buchanan, either, but admire him for his willingness to think thoughts contrary to the "received wisdom." Gus like him make us think, and defend our beliefs, and that's healthy. This reminds me of Hiller Zobel's book from 35 years ago about the Boston Massacre, which showed that almost everything taught in high school history classes about it was wrong. But Zobel was an excellent historian and Buchanan is not,

Hitler's support of Franco in Span, the annexation of Austiria, and the seizure of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, had more than proved his aggressiveness and hunger for war to restore Germany's past glory. Churchill understood all that, just as he later correctly assessed Stalin's objectives in the famous "Iron Curtain" speech. Hitler may not have wanted war with Britain and France - yet - but he thought they would not declare war because of Poland. Hitler was ot avoiding war, but he wanted it on the cheap.

"Kristalnacht" in 1937, the slaughter of Jews in Poland and later Russia, and the mass internments of Jews that began with German Jews and moved on wherever the Wehrmacht went, set the stage for the Holocaust. Is it possible that Hitler, Himmler, Streicher et al would have simply interned Jews, Gypsies, political dissidents, gays etc indefinitely? That's silly and a guy as smart as Buchanan should know better.

ts sayz
Where was British outrage
Against Russia, the Soviets?

At the time I think it was the whole enemy of my enemy thing. They did it knowing full well it would sonner or later bite them in the buttocks.
We could have defeated the Nazi’s without the commies, but they wanted two fronts and Churchill really had little choice to go along with FDR who loved and happily conceded every thing “Uncle Joe” wanted.
Mr. Churchill was no fan of communist. But I suspect the opposite was true of FDR.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean


Buchanan a skinhead?
I"m a bit aghast that this article is a TH publication, and wonder at their judgment.

Buchanan, in saying "no war, no holocaust" is almost literally putting the BLAME for the deaths of 6 million people on the BRITS and the WEST for their AGGRESSION.

But Jews were maltreated in Europe for a thousand years or more... anyone heard of the Dreyfus Affair? The Pale? Come ON, Pat... Hitler was only advancing a social attitude to its next level. All over Europe Jews were second class citizens subject to the periodic pogrom, and by the time the Zionist movement found its feet they were being killed in large numbers in Russia. This was all before Schiclgruber was born. Jew hatred in Europe is WHY the nation of Israel exists, because they needed to ESCAPE Europe.

THe idea that without the war the holocaust would not happen is STUPID. It had begun decades before, in various places in Europe, and was only ratcheting upward in seriousness and deadliness when Hitler came along and gave it a shove in the name of the Aryan race.

Get real, Pat. Or get out of the public eye. This is genuinely offensive stuff. Makes you sound like a skinhead.

I'm sorry to post this...
but before Townhall.com decided to publish this story by Buchanan I was tempted to subscribe to your magazine. I will withhold that urge and consider this one strike against you.

While I welcome most all viewpoints to an argument I draw the line on revising facts to suit one's agenda. The only pause to think I have after reading this submission is to consider why it was published by you at all.

oh well.
Of course, the easiest and most cost effective means of ensuring the holocaust had never happened would have been to assassinate Hiter, along with a few dozen, maybe one hundred, of his closest confidants, back in 1939...had we known then what we knew in 1945.

Talent Scout, Nazis were racial purists, while the communists despised any affinity or allegiance to races, nationalities, religions, or any other institutions that came between them and the internationalism and coalition of interests among the working classes of the world.

To communists, nations, nationalities, etc, were a hindrince in keeping the working class from understanding the INTERNATIONALIST nature of the struggle for the liberation of the proletariat.

You are wrong Gil
Gil - 1:33 PM EST
Only Pat Buchanan continued
Buchanan fights hard to scrub Hitler's reputation. Why he writes to redeem the most sinister totalitarian regime in human history; Stalin's Russia was an equal, but at least it never overtly attempted world conquest...
-------

He is not trying to clean Hitler up any at all, he is commenting on the entire circumstances that brought him into power.
At least the way I am reading his comments.
If you think Stalins Russia is not interested in World conquest, you do not understand Marxism and International Communism.

Global Conquest is precisely their goal, and are accomplishing today.
Not by Revolution as the Communist method.
But by POLICIES, the Menshevik method.

As the world goes Marxist Socialism more and more.
Even here in America, its the Marxists who have gained in the after math of WW2 as we defeated the Nazi's.




Pat Buchanan's insanity
The very act of printing such drivel cannot be justified in the name of freedom of speech. Doing so without opening up the boards to Louis Farakhan, Terry Nichols and Cesar Chavez does great injustice to these other madmen.

A German Navy?
Pat, you moron, Germany is basically a land-locked nation.

A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE
Ol' Pat really has a lot of you stirred up, that's good, the human mind should always be occupied but most people should wear boxing gloves to bed.

One must remember, the jews and other dissidents who offended the main Herr, were used as slaves in the NAZI manufacturing plants and the allies owe them a lot of gratitude for all the sabotage performed at very great risk by these enslaved people. They were as much a part of defeating the Axis as any of the tactics used to bring this evil to it's knees and kill it.

As much as we know and as well as we can communicate today, the economics, ideaology and desire to control are always going to be a factor in the tenacious attitude of man, it is our hardest flaw to overcome but it makes us the most competitive animal on the face of the earth and maybe beyond.

Pat Buchanan?!?!?!?
Why not print stuff from "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan?

Are you guys NUTS, or what????

So the Nazi's were defeated
And now we are all Keynesian.
Who by the way was a Marxist.

The real difference between the Communists and the Nazi's?
The Nazi's were racist Marxists, conquering the world for the Aryans and "NATIONAL" Socialism, while the Russian Marxists were Communists and are not racist and just want want GLOBAL SOCIALISM.

Choose your own poison, both are deadly enemies of Liberty and the American System of Government.
The Communists just the worst massive killers is all.


Remember the S.S. St Louis?
There is no doubt Hitler despised the Jews.

Nazis viewed the Jews as vermin, like cockroaches.

Hitler intended for Europe, or at least a Nazi occupied Europe, to be cleansed of Jews, to be free of Jews.

To be free of Jews, to be cleansed of Jews, could be accomplished in ways OTHER than extermination.

I know some will disagree here, but for the sake of argument it is very possible to believe had ALL Jews from occupied Nazi territories been expatriated(forcibly or otherwise)from those territories, Hitler could well been satisfied, and their physical extermination avoided.

Of course that was not about to happen.

Most nations would not accept such a vast number of destitute Jews. Even the United States turned away that ship of Jews seeking safe haven here...the S.S. St Louis that sailed from Hamburg in 1939 with Jews onboard who were fleeing Nazi Germany and which both Cuba and the United States refused to accept...forcing the vessel and its doomed Jewish human "cargo" to return to Europe.

I am not condemning either the U.S. or Cuba, any more than I would condemn any other nation.

I am only saying there was no way millions of Jews would have been accepted by other nations, EVEN if they had been permitted to leave Europe.

But if, in hindsight, the world had known in 1939 what it knew in 1945, perhaps some way would have been devised to avoid the holocaust.

At any rate, this in no way is an excuse or justification for the utter horror the Nazis inflicted on the Jews(see my 9:38 posting).

Only Pat Buchanan continued
Buchanan fights hard to scrub Hitler's reputation. Why he writes to redeem the most sinister totalitarian regime in human history; Stalin's Russia was an equal, but at least it never overtly attempted world conquest, Hitler tried and almost succeeded. Any reading of history that does not see Stalin and Hitler and conjoined evils isn't worth the paper its printed on. Buchanan never addresses the central truth about Hitler, that he was a war waiting to happen, a murderous totalitarian sociopath armed with an entire nation in the throes of his psychotic ideology. At no point in Hitler's career did he ever deviate from his plans of war and conquest. There is no historical evidence that he ever considered NOT going to war and committing genocide. He was not some conflicted Hamlet, he was Hitler the beast unleashed, the man who declared war on the US after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor, even though he did not have to.

A finer steaming mound of bad historical analysis has never so been gussied up on a pretty porcelain plate for the unwary diner as this article, but I suggest that only Mr. Buchanan consume his creation.

Townhall should be ashamed
This article is a revolting embarrassment for Townhall. As long as Buchanan soils your site, I won't return.

JPK writes:
However, after the German 1871 unification, and the advances in conscription methodologies through out Europe (taken after the Prussian Model), the risk of a general European war that featured not hundreds of thousands, but millions of combattants should have alerted Westminster to re-think its European diplomacy.

I would recommend that you read "Dreadnought" by Robert K. Massie. It'll explan much of British policy from 1860 tp 1914. Additionally, the main reason that Prussia did not go through Belbium in 1871 was that the Franco-Russian Alliance did not exist. Germany did not face a two front war. The Schlieffen was designed for that eventuality, and Belgium made the best highway for the German right flank. What you seem to be saying is that Britain should have let Germany and its unstable Kaiser win WW I.

Can't see the forest for the trees
Pat Buchanan seems to have missed the whole point about Hitler. Of course, all of the players have a role in the war, but to think that Hitler was not the conquering megalomaniac that he was is idiotic. Furthermore, to say that the Holocaust was a consequence of the war is disingenuous, repulsive, and dangerous.

Of course the antiSemitic policies began right from the beginnings of Hilter's reign in 1933. He progressively ratcheted up the activity so it would gradually become more accepted by the German people, who would have been shocked if the exterminations had started right away. Before the death factories began, the death squads were liquidating whole villages of Jews in Poland and Russia. That Hitler devoted tremendous materiel and resources to the murder of Jews (and, lest we forget, an equal number of other undesirables)even when he was losing the war, shows that the extermination program was an aim of his war and conquest of Europe and Russia. He wanted to make sure that job was done before he was unable to continue it. I suspect that if all the resources used in the roundup and extermination of Jews and others had been redirected into the war effort, Germany could have at least held on a lot longer, but I say that the exterminations were Hitler's principle objective.

Townhall, it is reprehensible that you would publish this drivel without a disclaimer. It is important to understand where Buchanan is coming from, but not to support it.

BrainFreak
"Funny how ALL the hosts of them TV shows, be they libs or conservatives, praise Buch's book---hot one dissenting opinnion!"

-- I must have missed that. Care to cite some of these incidents of praise?

Where was British outrage
Against Russia, the Soviets?

When Stalin invaded Poland along with Hitler?

On 28th August, 1939, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed in Moscow. Under the terms of the agreement, both countries promised to remain neutral if either country became involved in a war.

Stalin now ordered the Red Army into Poland and reclaimed land lost when the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was signed in 1918.

Churchill and Roosevelt went in partnership with the Communists.
And the Communists have murdered more people than Hitler did.
Something like 200 million in the 20th Century.
And now we do not have Nazi's here in the America Government, but we damn sure have Communists.
As does Briton and other Western European nations.
Run from the Lion, we get Eat by the Bear


paul sayz:
Retaliation is not an option anymore. Preemption is the new word to survival. The military response is all Islam understands or ever did understand, otherwise they will kill you.

And did you hear that the price of oil rose back up today just because Israel had a “practice run” for this very reason? Should they decide to protect themselves, I will be the first to admit I was wrong in saying that Jews had lost the balls to defend Israel. And glad to do it.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within”
W. Durant. Socialist.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean



Run from a Lion, eat by a Bear
Patrick's point


Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was not enthusiastic about forming an alliance with the Soviet Union. He wrote to a friend: "I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives, which seem to me to have little connection with our ideas of liberty, and to be concerned only with getting everyone else by the ears."

Winston Churchill, an outspoken critic of British foreign policy, agreed with Stalin: "There is no means of maintaining an eastern front against Nazi aggression without the active aid of Russia. Russian interests are deeply concerned in preventing Herr Hitler's designs on eastern Europe. It should still be possible to range all the States and peoples from the Baltic to the Black sea in one solid front against a new outrage of invasion. Such a front, if established in good heart, and with resolute and efficient military arrangements, combined with the strength of the Western Powers, may yet confront Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Goebbels and co. with forces the German people would be reluctant to challenge."


The comment about a 1,000 to one is in reference to before the War began in 1939.

quote:
"Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939"