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
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
How the West Lost the World
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Europe, the Mother Continent of Western Man, is today aging and dying, unable to sustain the birth rates needed to keep her alive, or to resist conquest by an immigrant invasion from the Third World.

What happened to the nations that only a century ago ruled the world?

In "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War': How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World," published today, this writer will argue that it was colossal blunders of British statesmen, Winston Churchill foremost among them, that turned two European wars into world wars that may yet prove the mortal wounds of the West.

The first blunder was a secret decision of the inner Cabinet in 1906 to send a British army across the Channel to fight in any Franco-German War. Had the Kaiser known the British Empire would fight for France, he would have moved more decisively than he did to halt the plunge to war in July 1914.

Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 and brought in Japan, Italy and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner. Leninism and Stalinism would never have triumphed in Russia, and Hitler would never have come to power in Germany.

The second blunder was the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that added a million square miles to the British Empire while putting millions of Germans under Czech and Polish rule in violation of the terms of the armistice and Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points.

A third was the British decision to capitulate to U.S. demands in 1921 and throw over a faithful Japanese ally of 20 years. Tokyo took its revenge, 20 years later, by inflicting the greatest defeat in British history, the surrender of Singapore and an army of 80,000 to a Japanese army half that size.

A fourth British blunder, which Neville Chamberlain called the "very midsummer of madness," was the 1935 decision to sanction Italy for a colonial war in Ethiopia. London destroyed the Stresa Front of Britain, France and Italy that Mussolini had forged to contain Germany, and drove Mussolini straight into the arms of a Nazi dictator he loathed.

In 1936, France sounded out the British to determine if they would support a drive to push German troops out of the Rhineland that Hitler had occupied in violation of Versailles. The British refused. And Churchill congratulated France for taking the matter up with the League of Nations, and said the ideal solution would be a voluntary Nazi withdrawal from the Rhineland to show the world that Hitler respected the sanctity of treaties.

Munich, 70 years ago this September, was a disaster. But it was a direct, if not inevitable, consequence of a Versailles treaty that had consigned 3.5 million Sudeten Germans to Czech rule against their will and in violation of the principle of self-determination.

But the fatal blunder was not Munich.

It was the decision of March 31, 1939, to hand a war guarantee to a neo-fascist regime of Polish colonels who had joined Hitler in the rape of Czechoslovakia.

Britain gave Warsaw a blank check to take her to war over a town, Danzig, the British themselves thought should be restored to Germany. Result: a Hitler-Stalin Pact and a six-year war that left scores of millions dead, Europe in ruins, the British empire bankrupt and breaking, 10 European nations under the barbaric rule of Joseph Stalin and half a century of Cold War. Had there been no war guarantee to Poland, there might have been no war, no Nazi invasion of Western Europe and no Holocaust.

Churchill was the indispensable war leader who held on until Hitler committed his fatal blunders, invading Russia and declaring war on America. He was also the man most responsible for Britain's fall from mistress of the greatest empire since Rome to an island dependency of the United States.

About the character of the Bolshevik regime in 1919 and Nazi regime in 1933, Churchill had been right. About British rearmament, he had been right. But Churchill was also often disastrously wrong.

He led the West down a moral incline to its own barbarism by imposing a starvation blockade on Germany in 1914 and launching air terror against open cities in 1940. These policies brought death to hundreds of thousands of women and children.

He was behind the greatest British military blunders in two wars: the Dardanelles disaster of 1915 and the Norwegian fiasco of 1940 that brought down Chamberlain and vaulted Churchill to power.

While excoriating Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler, Churchill's own appeasement of Stalin lasted longer and was even more egregious and costly, ensuring that the causes for which Britain sacrificed the empire -- the freedom of Poland and preventing a hostile power from dominating Europe -- were lost.

Churchill was, however, surely right when he told FDR in their first meeting after Pearl Harbor that they should call the war they were now in "The Unnecessary War."

He was a Great Man -- at the cost of his country's greatness.

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
Wasn't WWII inevitable?
So Hitler would not have gone to war (for which he was long preparing)except for the obstinancy of the Polish. Why then did he invade the Soviet Union, with whom he had a non aggression pact?
I find it hard to believe that Hitler would not have made war eventually.

Second-Guessing History
Second-guessing history is mere speculation and therefore a waste of time.

To Santayanaistas: history IS repetition.

I think it is something else.
Even if you grant that WWII was unnecessary, how does that relate to the cultural decline of Europe today? Didn't western Europe flourish after she recovered from WWII.

CHURCHILL APPEASED THE COMMUNISTS
** Churchill created great controversy over his policies in Iraq. It was estimated that around 25,000 British and 80,000 Indian troops would be needed to control the country. However, he argued that if Britain relied on air power, you could cut these numbers to 4,000 (British) and 10,000 (Indian). The government was convinced by this argument and it was decided to send the recently formed Royal Air Force to Iraq.

**An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen took place in 1920. Over the next few months the RAF dropped 97 tons of bombs killing 9,000 Iraqis. This failed to end the resistance and Arab and Kurdish uprisings continued to pose a threat to British rule. Churchill suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." He added "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq.

**Despite intense pressure from Stalin to open a second-front by landing Allied troops in France in 1943, Churchill continued to argue that this should not happen until the defeat of Nazi Germany was guaranteed. The D-Day landings did not take place until June, 1944 and this delay enabled the Red Army to capture territory from Germany in Eastern Europe. Also, it helped Stalin when he came to the table to negotiate the partitioning of Eastern Europe at Yalta.






















CHURCHILL WAS POSSIBLE ANTI-SEMITE?
**"Weeks before he became prime minister in 1940, Winston Churchill stopped publication of an article he had written in which he suggested that the Jews were partially responsible for "the antagonism from which they suffer," according to a paper published by a Cambridge University researcher.

The Churchill article, titled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution," was written in 1937. It argued that "the wickedness of the persecutors" was not the sole reason for the ill-treatment of Jews over the ages.

While Churchill described Jews as "sober, industrious and law-abiding," and praised their willingness to fight and, if necessary, die for the country they lived in, he added: "Yet there are times when one feels instinctively that all this is only another manifestation of the difference, the separateness of the Jew."

Further, Churchill criticized the Jewish refugee's willingness to work for low wages as "bad citizenship," and suggested that it created anti-Semitism because it forced English workers out of jobs."



WAS CHURCHILL AND OPPORTUNIST?
"Before 1940, the word most closely associated with Churchill was "opportunist." He had twice changed his party affiliation from Conservative to Liberal, and then back again. His move to the Liberals was allegedly on the issue of free trade. But in 1930, he sold out on free trade as well, even tariffs on food, and proclaimed that he had cast off "Cobdenism" forever. As head of the Board of Trade before World War I, he opposed increased armaments; after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, he pushed for bigger and bigger budgets, spreading wild rumors of the growing strength of the German Navy, just as he did in the 1930s about the buildup of the German Air Force. He attacked socialism before and after World War I, while during the War he promoted war-socialism, calling for nationalization of the railroads, and declaring in a speech: "Our whole nation must be organized, must be socialized if you like the word." Churchill's opportunism continued to the end. In the 1945 election, he briefly latched on to Hayek's Road to Serfdom, and tried to paint the Labour Party as totalitarian, while it was Churchill himself who, in 1943, had accepted the Beveridge plans for the post-war welfare state and Keynesian management of the economy. Throughout his career his one guiding rule was to climb to power and stay there."


WWII
I think Pat has lost his mind.

Hitler wasn't so bad and if they just gave him what he wanted there wouldn't have been war?

I've read "Paris 1919" and yes a bunch of stupid things were done. The stronger nations dividing up the spoils, a feeding frenzy. Revenge against Germany.

Pat does ignore one critical fact. France was decimated by the Germans in WWI. Their industries destroyed, infrastructure destroyed, mines flooded etc. They felt they had to have a buffer zone between them and Germany.

"In March 1936, Hitler again violated the treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland. When Britain and France did nothing, he grew bolder"

I've read that he was most nervous about that move. Because he wasn't stopped he WAS emboldened.


Was it an option for Hitler to negotiate for what he wanted? Maybe if he was not actually a madman he could have made a case that they shouldn't worry. But he was doing the opposite. Obviously preparing for war.


WWII cont.
It was inevitable that the Jewel in the Crown would produce a Ghandi eventually.

Iran was split between England and Russia. Churchill was not willing to budge on negotiations over oil and he was wrong. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize oil. So Churchill determined to get rid of him. They failed and we did it for them. That maneuver turned out well. How far was Churchill supposed to go with his war weary country?

It was simply inevitable that England would lose it's grip over far flung colonies.

"Versailles treaty that had consigned 3.5 million Sudeten Germans to Czech rule against their will and in violation of the principle of self-determination."

Pat is for self-determination for Sudetan Germans, but not the people in English colonies? How does that work?




WWII cont.
Did Churchill have feet of clay? yes he did. Were mistakes made...yes. I don't think ultimately the outcome would have been different.

I think some of Pat's suppositions are simply unsupportable.

There could have been no war.
No Holocaust.
Churchill lost the Empire.

I'm not buying it.

God rules in the affairs of man. It is necessary to pull way back for better perspective. Everything is moving inexorably towards a conclusion that has already been predicted. The only interesting thing is how it is being fleshed out.


What is the point of this exercise anyway? Pat thinks he can predict what the outcome would have been if things were done differently? Right.


So what is Pat's next move? He has already indicated he thinks Israel should be thrown under the bus. Is all this about his case about the coming crisis? If we just do things right the nutjob won't nuke Israel (actually who cares about Israel). If we just do things right the nutjob doesn't really want a world wide Caliphate, hegemony in the ME. I suppose it's our fault to that the nutjob,Chavez and Nicaragua are working together? Our fault the nutjob has strongholds in our hemisphere?

I'm thinking that's where Pat is really headed.




CHURCHILL&ROOSEVELT WERE WAR MONGERS!
"In 1976, the public finally learned the story of William Stephenson, the British agent code named "Intrepid," sent by Churchill to the United States in 1940. Stephenson set up headquarters in Rockefeller Center, with orders to use any means necessary to help bring the United States into the war. With the full knowledge and cooperation of Roosevelt and the collaboration of federal agencies, Stephenson and his 300 or so agents "intercepted mail, tapped wires, cracked safes, kidnapped, . . . rumor mongered" and incessantly smeared their favorite targets, the "isolationists." Through Stephenson, Churchill was virtually in control of William Donovan's organization, the embryonic U. S. intelligence service."


Churchill anti-semite?
Subject: Churchill, Moses and the wandering tribe
From an article in the UK's "Sunday Chronicle" about Moses (11/8/31)

Noting that the Biblical story had often been portrayed as myth, Churchill declared: 'We reject, however, with scorn all those learned and laboured myths that Moses was but a legendary figure upon whom the priesthood and the people hung their essential social, moral and religious ordinances. We believe that the most scientific view, the most up-to-date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible story literally, and in identifying one of the greatest of human beings with the most decisive leap-forward ever discernible in the human story.'



****'This wandering tribe, in many respects indistinguishable from numberless nomadic communities, grasped and proclaimed an idea of which all the genius of Greece and all the power of Rome were incapable.'****



'Moses was the greatest of the prophets, who spoke in person to the God of Israel; he was the national hero who led the Chosen people out of the land of bondage, through the perils of the wilderness, and brought them to the very threshold of the Promised Land; he was the supreme law-giver, who received from God that remarkable code upon which the religious, moral, and social life of the nation was so securely fastened. Tradition lastly ascribed to him the authorship of the whole Pentateuch, and the mystery that surrounded his death added to his prestige.'

Churchill and the Jews
“To 'Jewish enterprise,' Churchill stressed, 'the Arab owes nearly everything he has. Fanaticism and a sort of envy have driven the Arab to violence, and for the present the problem is one of proper policing until harmony has been restored.'

'The Jews have developed the country, grown orchards and grain fields out of the desert, built schools and great buildings, constructed irrigation projects and water power houses and have made Palestine a much better place in which to live than it was before they came a few years ago. The Arabs are much better off now than before the Jews came and it will be a shot time only before they realise it'

Churchill made the same points in an article in the New York American magazine. Praising the work of the Zionists in Palestine, he wrote of ... the wine-making town he had visited eight years earlier, that out of 'the blistering desert, patience, industry, and civilised intelligence have created green, smiling fields and vineyards and delicious shady groves, the home of thriving, happy, simple communities who, even if there had been no Balfour Declaration, would deserve the strong protection and the sympathies of free and enlightened people in every quarter of the globe.'

As for the Arabs of Palestine, Churchill wrote, they had been brought, as a result of the Jewish presence there, 'nothing but good gifts, more wealth, more trade, more civilisation, new sources of revenue, more employment, a higher rate of wages, larger cultivated areas, a better water supply - in a word, the fruits of reason and modern science.' “ (Gilbert, “Churchill and the Jews” 2007)



Rockefeller requested the Overthrow
"In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain's ire when he nationalized the Rockefeller controlled oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government."


mr buchanan strikes again
dear mr buchanan. you seem to have covered almost everything. did hitler make any mistakes. i cant remember your mentioning them. if the west fails does the east pick it up or whom.? certainly you can if you had a mind to, compile a litany that teh east had made in regard to losig europe.and asia for thatr matter. why dont you try it. itll be an exercise good for your soul. by the way, i hate to keep asking, but have you ever returned the hundreds of thousands of dollars the the federal election commission is trying to get back from you because you didnt account for it in your presidentail campaigns.? if not . please do., they need the money by the way, where do i go when its time to surrender and to whiom will i surrender to. i hope its not far i have a bum knee. best wishes to your sister. i understand she has joined some sort of cult out wes somewhere. wasnt she the died in the wool catholic while she was running your campaign. wish i had as interesting a life as you seem to have had.

Churchill
Churchill said if you weren't a liberal when you were young you didn't have a heart and if you weren't a conservative when you were older you didn't have a brain.......he evolved.


He was largely immune to the horrors of war, describing the feeling of bullets whizzing by as exhilarating. (Boer War)


"One Christmas in Washington : the secret meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill that changed the world" David J. Bercuson and Holger H. Herwig.


Churchill may have been gung ho about war, but he had to lobby hard to get Roosevelt on board from everything I've read.

Aslan
Read "All the Shah's Men"

"I think Pat has lost his mind."
That assumes he had one to begin with. Why anyone would pay attention to him in the first place is beyond me. He has never created, accomplished, or been responsible for anything of value in his life. In 2000 he ran a laughable vanity campaign for President, starting out thinking he could get 10% of the vote and ending up scrapping for a fractional percentage with the kookaboos from the "Natural Law" party. He is a world-class loser, the Harold Stassen of our era.

Poland started WWII
... and 7-year old Megan was responsible for her own rape and murder. This is the "mind"set of the deluded Buchanan and his nitwit acolytes.

I might disagree with the premise...
...I'm no history expert, so I may not know that of which I speak. And so I welcome your opinions on the following commentary.

I'm not convinced the bombardment of civilians during WWII is what led Europe (in general) to its current humanistic/Godless world view. I believe it's what I'm starting to see happening here in the States: we forgot how we got here. We forgot how much was sacrificed to make such a prosperous and progressive society. We humans take credit for everything, believe our prosperity is a right, our freedom an entitlement, and that God had nothing to do with it. Ancient Israel fell and became an occupied power because they were so successful as a nation that they forgot the God who blessed them and fought for them.

When people develop this Godless, self-centered POV, they no longer want the "burden" of children or families, just the immediate, responsibility-free, adolescent, instant-gratification lifestyle. This is the hippy mentality, and it is the outlook we see increasingly in the West. If we don't do an about-face, we will fall to Muslim extremists, or perhaps just to a socialist dictatorship for the nation of babies expecting Big Brother to hand them everything. They are, after all, entitled to free prosperity, free lunches, free drugs, free sex, free health care, free housing, etc, etc. They don't need to *earn* anything.

GW Bush is not the anti-Democratic force that we need to be worried about.

CHURCHILL'S ZIONIST OPPORTUNISM??

It is true that Churchill claimed that he was a Zionist later and that he bragged about being part of the Balfour Declaration which set aside the land for the State of Israel but many don't realize that his purpose was to plant the seeds of British Colonialism by using the Jewish people and a perceived state of Israel as a partner and wedge to shake up the Arab countries for the sole purpose of expansion of the British Empire and thought he could better handle the Jewish question by making them a proxy partner in that endeavor.

Its ironic but true that when Britain was no longer at war...Churchill soon was out of a job and was not re-elected to parliament. Churchill thrived during war times but did not know what to do during peacetimes.


Would You Fight Against Communism?
Great article Pat. I'm looking foward to the book.

Back during the Cold War when everyone was aware of the "Communist threat," I would ask people this question: Would they not help, aid, and even join a nation fighting Communism?

Every person I asked said, Of course. Absoulutely. Why certainly.

Well then I would say, Why did we join with the Communist Soviet Union against Germany? After all, Hitler's famous book, Mein Kamph (My Struggle, i.e., Hitler's superiority complex made him think he had to tackle Communism himself), was about how Hitler planned on stopping the Soviet Communists under Stalin from taking over all of Europe.

But then they say, Oh but that was different. Hitler was evil; we had to stop him from conquering the world.

Next I ask, Well why then did we take the side of the Chinese Communists against Japan? The answer is pretty much the same: We had to stop Japan from taking over the world.

Now, both Japan and Germany were Nationalist nations, which inherently means they're not interested in much outside their own countries. And neither nation ever stated it had any intention of taking over the world.

Indeed, Mao had been threatening the takeover of all of Asia and Japan since 1920; and papers discovered after the fall of the Wall in 1989 showed that Stalin was planning on invading Europe and was indeed headed west as Hitler's troops tromped eastward.

So then, why did we twice take the side of governments our leaders claimed were the enemies of the free world?

Could it be because FDR and his cronies were cryptic Communists themselves?

Btw, old Flaming Joe's list of Communists in the FDR/Truman Ad. and the US State Department turned out to be very accurate.

Traitors leading us. It's happened before. It will happen again.

Steve

MRBMRB
I think most everyone has already covered Hitlers mistakes. Its our own mistakes and those who represented us whose mistakes hardly ever get airtime.

The bigger monster than Hitler was probably GOOD OLE UNCLE JOE Stalin who killed a lot of Jews too but in addition he murdered about half of the Ukrainian population but you never hear about that? Why? Because he was Good friends with Churchill and Roosevelt???? UNCA JOE STALIN KILLED AN ESTIMATED 7 SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JAiUcqy3lM

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.ht m



MRBMRB
Wonder why you never hear about the ARMENIAN HOLOCAUST and the UKRAINIAN HOLOCAUST???????

GARY ROSEN WRITES:
Subject: "I think Pat has lost his mind."
That assumes he had one to begin with. Why anyone would pay attention to him in the first place is beyond me. He has never created, accomplished, or been responsible for anything of value in his life. In 2000 he ran a laughable vanity campaign for President, starting out thinking he could get 10% of the vote and ending up scrapping for a fractional percentage with the kookaboos from the "Natural Law" party. He is a world-class loser, the Harold Stassen of our era.

ASLAN WRITES: Gary, if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation besides insults
you are wasting our time...

BTW...Opinions are about as numerous as grains of sand on the beach!!??

China
Kim (or Steve, as it was signed): "Next I ask, Well why then did we take the side of the Chinese Communists against Japan? The answer is pretty much the same: We had to stop Japan from taking over the world."

China was not a communist nation during WWII. There had been a civil war between the nationalists and the communists, but the communists didn't win until 1949.

Power and Its Abuse
Pat was an isolationist before WWII and like a dog with a favorite bone he can't give it up. Only power counts in this world and that is true since the beginning of civilization and will remain so as long as humans live and flourish on this planet.

Historians, like Pat, point out all the mistakes that led to World War II. But the postwar establishment of Israel in the middle of millions of Arabs may have been the critical mistake that will plunge the world into an apocalyptic WWIII.

Sir aslan:

Aslan: an Armenian man’s name.

If you are of Armenian descent, you have much to be proud of: Armenians are among the most civilized peoples in the world.

Not enough has been published concerning the Turkish massacre of Armenians that began in April, 1915, and led to the deaths of between a million and a million and a half innocent people.

The tragedy happened before mass communications, in exotic locales—Turkey and Syria—and involved state secrecy.

The Turks deny the massacre occurred: to the best of their ability—using persuasion and state power—they still censor materials describing it.

If you are interested in the event, Sir Aslan, you might read: The Forty Days of Musa Dagh by the Czech-born, Jewish poet, playwright, and novelist, Franz Werfel.

Werfel’s novel—which first exposed this state-sponsored-horror to the world—is a masterpiece contrasting man’s inherent inhumanity with the triumph of his God-given spirit.

Hardly
"Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 and brought in ... and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner."

The war started in August 1914. The US did not enter the war until April 1917, but since they need to mobilize and train their troops, few were in Europe until 1918. The US did not play a major role in warfare until the summer of 1918. The war ended in November 1918.

How The West Lost The World?
Mr. Buchanan, this title is misleading, the "WEST" would have ruled the world at some point, which it never did. You seem to forget that we here in the west are leveraged and leased with an option to buy.
We pay high taxes which takes care of the rest of the world, but we don't rule the world.
We never have and we never will, and frankly we really shouldn't want to.
You seem to get these idiosyncratic idea's in your head every two to three years which you turn into book form and that's commendable sir.
However, the losing of the west has more to do with religion than any of the foolhardy theories about Hitler, Stalin and Churhill, these idiot's underestimated the third world from the get go, with their high and mighty attitudes and using it for basic natural resources, you can rape nations of their natural resources only for so long before they rise up and demand their fair share.
The fact that these a**holes mismanage wars is a moot point.

Bolshevik rule of Russia had consequence
A number of interesting posts here, especially relating to the general history and mindsets of a few of the major participants of the era leading up to WW2.

Buchanan is certainly correct economic devastation resulting from WW1 caused great agitation among returning Russian soldiers, which served as a revolutionary catalyst exploited by the Bolsheviks.

I think Buchanan is on firm ground that had that war been avoided, or concluded in a much less costly manner, the Bolsheviks would likely not have seized power, fundamentally altering the makeup of Europe in the succeeding decades(Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe).

But if Russia never succumbed to communism, would Hitler have happened?

Hitler exploited the threat of international communism in his rise to power.

Communist movements existed in European nations after WW1 of course, but absent any coherent strategy, focus and resources from Russia, just how effective would those movements have been?

And if communism in Russia never materialized, would Mao's movement in China have happened?

On a related note, the botched, incoherent boundaries of today's Iraq, with inclusion of various muslim sects and composed of Arabs and non-Arabs, is traceable to the decisions by the English, and presumably Churchill, at the end of WW1.

I cannot believe it was God's design to bring about all this devastation(the wars).

But if those wars were God's design, and if He is using Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to remake today's world , He must be one sadistic god.

Churchill
Dardanelles(WWI) failure was not Churchill's fault. If things have been done the way he wanted the war would have gone in another direction.

Churchill was one of the biggest critics of anti-semitism. He might have criticized some attitudes of the Jews, but that does not make him anti-semitic, that affirmation is intelectually dishonest.

And Churchill was not an opportunist...is critics said that. He had his own opinion which frequently were opposed to his party views. He would be considered an independent, but in parlamentarism if you are not in one party, things are really tough.

Churchill despised bolshevism, that is why he wanted to aid the white army more during the soviet revolution war.

I recommend you reading the biography of Churchill wrote by William Manchester.

Here we go again....
Pat Buchanan the Unnecessary Columnist: How to Revise History and Lose your Mind

Mussolini/Ethiopia
What is being suggested here, that Italy should have been allowed to annex Ethiopia without a murmur of dissent from the other powers?

Churchill-Disaster
Having read a few interesting histories of WWI I tend to agree with Mr. Buchanan. Churchill was a classic micro-manager. Many of his decisions in WWI (as 1st Lord of the Admiralty)lead to negative consequences. For example, his seizure of Turkish warships coupled with his orders to pursue and destroy two German cruisers into neutral Turkish waters lead almost directly to the Ottoman Empire siding with the Axis.

Everyone's an "expert".
It seems that everyone and their second cousin fancies themselves to be historians, regardless of their level of academic education and professional training. Given the nature of the human ego, a LITTLE learning is, indeed, a dangerous thing. Those who possess only a mountain of presumption will always mistake it for a mountain of actual knowledge.
Mr. Buchanan is like a back seat driver who never has the personal responsibility for steering the "vehicle" of state, but who, nevertheless, feels he has the clairvoyant ability to know the wisest path . . . even though such "clairvoyance" is almost always provided only by hindsight.
It is now manifestly obvious that those people who cling to the foolish notion that Hitler had no inherently expansionist intentions toward eastern Europe and the Ukraine, in particular, have never actually listened to his speeches or read what he wrote in his own book.
As for the Romanov dynasty, hindsight and new archival evidence has made it abundantly clear that, although it would certainly have lasted longer without the burden of the first World War, it was ultimately doomed anyway because of its own internal structural weaknesses, inefficiencies and economic pressures . . . just like the Soviet Union many years later. Warnings of the Romanov monarchy's decay were sounded many years before its actual demise, by people like Tolstoy and Prince Kropotkin. It was an anachronistic 18th century regime in an early 20th century world.
The study of History is not an exact and completely "objective" science, for the simple reason that it is, to a great extent, based on personal subjective interpretations of human motivations and ambivalent emotions driving policy decisions. All of us . . . professional historians included . . . will never, as single individuals, be able to incorporate the full reality of a huge historical event, with all its multi-faceted complexity.

Perhaps we can try this
Why do I have the feeling that some people who come on here and make ad hominem attacks on Pat (in all probablility without reading the book) are also the same people who buy into AlGore's Earth in a Lurch Global whatever theory without question.

How about a little critical thinking on this (like Anna). Read the book and then read some others about similar topics. Just a thought but it seems that the loudest on the left and the looniest on the right seem to protest more vociferously and crucify more quickly without and in depth analysis.

To Anna, thank you for being a reasoned voice of analysis among the serial posters who seem poised to attack as fast as possible no matter what.

For Anna (#8)
You wrote: "It was inevitable that the Jewel in the Crown would produce a Ghandi eventually".

Actually (although this goes tangential), according to Vishal and Ruth Mangalwadi, this was NOT inevitable. A quote from their bio of William Carey: "Without Carey, there would have been no Michael Madhusudhan Dutt, no Bankim Chandra Chatterji, no Rabindranath Tagore (and Bengali, the only Indian language to win a Literature Nobel, would have languished as one only referenced in derogatory manner) and no Gandhi".

True that Ike and Winnie's removal of Moussadegh was a blunder. He could have been handled by "Iran oil boycott" (US had about 50% of world GDP in 1952, and 50% of Moussadegh's oil sales were to US)--and would have been begging for favourable terms within one year. Admittedly, he would have been a dictator (Iran is "Western" Muslim country, where moderate when applied to Muslims means irreligious or areligious), but...

No where does Mr. Buchanan
meantion the decisions Europeans made after the war which have resulted in their weakened, almost childless, empty cathedrals existence of today. I mean decisions about how the government will be run, what will be expected of the people,the role of religion in their lives, what values and morals will guide them. I see the answers to these questions more responsible for current problems then the decisions Churchill made so long ago.

WWI and the Germans
Mr. Buchanan:

Why are you so determined to let the Germans off the hook for starting two world wars? For the second time in two weeks you understate their complicity in starting the wars that devastated the continent.

The Kaiser was a fool. He dismissed Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, and allowed the Reinsurance Treaty to lapse. This treaty kept the peace among Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary and relieved Germany's anxiety regarding its eastern front. Without this treaty, the Czar's decision to mobilize the Russian army in 1914 utterly alarmed the Germans, who now feared attacks from Russia in the east and France--Russia's ally-- in the west.

The possibility of being surrounded by hostile enemies, of fighting a two-front war, was Germany's greatest fear. The German army had long advocated a preventive war to alleviate this fear, and in 1914, as the strongest military force on the continent, it took advantage of the Balkan crisis and launched the Schlieffen Plan, whereby it intended to take out France in six weeks and then turn east to deal with Russia. Britain's entry into the war was guaranteed when Germany, following Schlieffen's directive, violated Belgian neutrality in order to sweep into France from the north.

One can find an excellent analysis in David Fromkin's "Europe's Last Summer--Who Started the War in 1914", a book from which I draw the remarks above.

Patrick J. Mikes
Troy, MI

Churchill was small potatoes
until Chamberlain fell in 1940. Churchill had a big voice because he belonged to a titled family and he was an excellent writer, but except for his stints as an undersecretary of the navy (WW I), briefly (1919-1920) sec. of war, and undersecretary (again, briefly) of the state of the colonies in the early 1900s, he was a voice without a constituency through most of the 20s an 30s.
Churchill was right about not capitulating all of Eastern Europe to communism (FDR did that), he was right about resisting Hitler altho' after Dunkirk Hitler suggested a pact between *Anglo-Saxons* that would've been a truce for Britain, and he was right about AS law and culture being a foundation for world order.
Today, 1/3 of the world speaks English as its first language, including int. airline pilots, and British common law is the general standard even at the rotten UN.

Kim
"Now, both Japan and Germany were Nationalist nations, which inherently means they're not interested in much outside their own countries."

So what about the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere? Why did Hitler invade the Soviet Union?

Putrid Politicians
Good piece Pat...shows how human pride and ambition often play a more significant part in decisions that have grave consequences, but are rarely mentioned in the resulting events.

There any number of comparisons between the political decisions made leading up to and during war campaigns of the past and our own ambitious politicians of today (McCain, Obama and Clinton...to name three). The comments and statements that flow from their fallacious sound holes are, at best, self-serving and at worse fatal for unamed young people of the near future...

Where are our Patriots?

A bad thing about Pat B.....
...is that he seems an obsessive crank who knows all the answers.

A worse thing about him is that he brings out all the Townhall posters from various ends of the spectrum who are likewise obsessive cranks who know all the answers.

Pat's (selective) domino rule...
Most of what Pat emnumerats as causes of today's Europe decay (and I agree with that) might be seen as part of this century's long crash. Now leaving aside all that happened before 1939: simply there wasn't a way to control of history dynamics - Soviet Union WAS poised to attack & conquer Europe (for economic, strategic & ideological reasons), and Hitler's view WAS that the 3rd. Reich NEEDS "Lebensraum".
Period - ratiocinating and how and which would have been Europe's/America's best response to that is just an exercise in alternative history.
As far as Europe's decay, while this unfortunately this appear to be so, I still hope that this is just a part of the current political continental transition, i.e. the European integration. We'll see, history happens v. fast nowdays - as far America, the specter of a socialist president looming over us is not good news.
Vote for McCain!

Pat Buchanan For President
As usual, Mr. Buchanan, a man who knows and understands history and how it applies to the present, has hit it dead on. Now, what are the lessons we, the United States, can learn from this. No more appeasements to Fascists, such as the midget in Iran or others. We, too, are being invaded by foreigners without papers, as the Britains have done. Now, England has a Muslim Invasion that has cowered their Parliament down to Appeasing all their demands. We are doing the same thing in this country with the Illegal Invasion from the South and elsewhere. We need to clean up our own house, rebuild the military by reinstituting the draft that is run by the Military and not the Congress and the kneejerk Socialists that run Congress now. If we do not learn from history, we will, as the old adage goes, "be condemned to repeat it." We better take our country back before it is too late.

M. Jerome Ennis
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
jeromeennis@aol.com

Benefit of hindsight
There are few wars that couldn't have been prevented if only Mr. A had spoken to Mr. B, etc., etc., etc...

Anymore, it seems that some writers have run out of ways to affirm history, so they find ways to revise it in order to publish a book or two.

I'm all for keeping some perspective about history's heroes, but I grow weary of the Monday morning quarterbacking that has become vogue.

PJM

Read over some the fine posts today. Your excellent letter to Pat stood out.

ANNA made terrific points, also.

Now to Pat Buchanan.

With one glaring exception, I find I'm often in agreement with Pat's views. However, this major exception, this roll as America's greatest isolationist, negates his other fine qualities.

I noticed TH ran Pat's column THE DAY AFTER Memorial Day. Wise move. It borders on treasonous today. Yesterday, it would have insulted the memory of those who died for our freedom. For the life of me, I can not understand what causes Pat to write such lunacy.

BTW, on occasion, columnists for TH have responded to those who post. I'd love to see Pat reply to your letter.

Then again, maybe I wouldn't.


50 YEARS FROM NOW

.....Some Historian might write about how America gave up its position as World leader and collapsed, as did the Roman Empire, from within, of internal rot and decadence ...

.....The Democrat/Socialist/Commies and the mindless masses they control are slowly starving the life out of this once great Country ...

.....They have made Capitalism and Industry the enemy of the State and through onerous taxes and regulations are driving jobs out of the Country ...they have put America's vast natural reserves of coal/gas and oil off limits to exploration and development and have blocked the development of Nuclear Energy so that America will soon sink to Second World status ...

.....This is not done for no reason, though the masses remain unaware, ...the mob is sedated with slogans, "Go Green", and alarmist hoaxes, "Global Warming" ...but the leaders of the movement know what is going on ...they want the American Economy to collapse so that they can implement a Socialist State ...

.....Recently while Congress grilled Oil Executives about the energy problems that they themselves have caused ...Dim bulb Maxine Waters let the cat out of the bag by saying that her aim was to Nationalize the Oil Companies ....whoa Nellie! ...heah come Communism .....COLOSSUS

'Would' may not
Churchill acted as he best saw fit, for any number of reasons. To say that one thing wouldn't have happened in 1914 or 1940 had Churchill not acted as he did is self-important, aggrandizing idiocy. Insisting that X must always lead to Y in retrospect assumes history can take only one unerring path. That is lunacy. Even a well-read student of history such as Mr. Buchanan should know that.

Mein Kampf
I suppose Buchanan thinks this book by Hitler gives no insight to his aims. But that would be his mistake. All the things Hitler did under a guise of German repugnance towards the Versailles Treaty were actually the fulfillment of the aims he set forth in the book. The German people may not have known or thought so but Hitler surely did.
It is also a known historical fact that Churchill went toe to toe with FDR over his (FDR's)"Uncle Joe's" post war ambitions. But FDR would have none of it. Britain was in no position to go it alone against Stalin.
WWII could have been avoided prior to 1939 if France and Britain had made good on their defense pact with the Czechs earlier. Some historians speculate that the Czechs had a better military than the Germans in '38 but without logistical support promised by France and Britain they couldn't hold out against a prolonged German attack. That was Chamberlain's blunder not Churchill's.
And the Dardenells, Norway, Dunkirk even were tactical blunders not strategic and certainly not political. The matter little in the theme of this article. Buchanan is just trying to pile on in a clumsy way.
Also of note is that the Western reaction to the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran vis-a-vis Mossedegh is happening again in Venezuela. Westerners do value private property rights, then as now.
The West's decline is not a result of political mistakes though many have been made. It is the result of spiritual malaise. We are in a war with a religious theory of society not a political one. Buchanan makes a serious and fatal miscalculation taking this route.

The sad thing about ...
war is that it tends to create more problems than it cures. Who knows what would have happened if a war was held and no one came. Second guessing is a game played by people that feel they have a solution to a problem if only people would listen to them. If their skills at second guessing are so finely honed perhaps they need to try inserting their wisdom into the current issues of the day. So the real question is not what would the world be like if only the right decision were made 60 years ago but rather what decisions are correct today so that in 60 years some one will say the right decision was made.

Response to Apollo Speaks
"Once the jihadists are defeated: when bin Ladin is destroyed, Hezbollah is liquadated and Iran's theocracy is in ruins then Islam will accept reality, accept the fact that we live in a pluarlistic world and that no one religion is the final answer for everything and everyone."

I disagree strongly for the same reason I disagreed with Mr. Buchanan. Your statement insists that one thing will definitively occur because another thing has. While I would agree that the elimination of radical Islam as a political force will result in positive outcomes for the world, insisting that radical Muslims will accept living in the 21st century because they are defeated is wishful thinking. Their bastardization of Islam is only one reason for their utopian bloodletting quest.

Good for Pat
for writing this book. Some of us have been aware of this for decades. The stupidest thing the US ever did was to allow itself to be propaganized by people like Churchill and declaring war on Germany in WWI. "Winnie" not only was the gravedigger of the British Empire, but may very well be the gravedigger of America as well. We are still paying the price for his stupidity and Wilson's.

baseballdoc
Regarding your point about Maxine Waters - how right you are. Her exact quote, until she realized her error, was the use of the word, "socialize".

When I saw the video clip of this - I had to laugh at the sight of some of the people in the background while she was struggling to find a more "PC" word for her "socialize" boner.

It was very evident that those around her know what an utter nitwit this woman is.

If she can get elected, perhaps I should take up politics.

Here's a clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg

WWII wa inevitable
Hitler started his murders of human beings in 1933. We waited too long and by the time that we entered WWII Hitler had invaded Austria and killed thousands of Israelis and disabled human beings. Indeed, WWII needed to be fought because Hitler intended to invade the whole world in order to persue his insane ideas of the 'super race'. He chose to regard these human beings as human garbage. Which incidently are the words used by planned parenthood in order to convince a future mother that the baby is not a human being, (the mother's own child). You see, Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, respected and followed Hitler's insane ideas in order to control what we so coldly called a population explosion. China has been using abortion for decades as a means of stopping the babies from being born in their country. We so hyocritically are calling China's use of abortion as inhuman. We have killed over forty million babies since roe vs wade (murder) was made the law of the land.

Ryan01
If you recall, we only declared war on Germany AFTER they had first declared war on us. The Germans were upholding their treaty obligations to Japan after Dec. 7. Also, in each and every case it was Germany who make the first overt acts of aggression from marching into Sudentland to open sub warfare on the high seas. What happens after that comes under the cliche "all is fair in love and war". So whatever propaganda you may want to attribute to Churchill after he survived the summer of 1940 is to me what any sane Prime Minister would do.
Nevertheless, Buchanan's assertion that winning WWII was the reason for the current Western dilemna is ridiculous. Now if he had asserted rather that it was merely the starting of the timeline of Western decline I might go along. But that is all he's right about in this story.

M_From Idaho
Yes, Europe did recover nicely (at least Western Europe) thanks to the Marshall Plan and Truman. However, the generation that fought WWII and rebuilt Europe was far different from their children's and grand children's generations.

The offspring that grew up in a shattered Europe took for granted their protections by large number of American servicemen. They were also filled with the nihilism that prevaded post-war univsersites (esp the works of Foucoult and Derida, and Satre). They were both good capitalists and good socialists. But most of all they are good materialists. Now in thier 50s and 60s, the European boomers cannot look further then thier own comforts. They will consume thier nation's wealth (much like our own boomers), and will leave nothing behind but thier own nihilism and greed. They believe in nothing but themselves. Thier shallow talk of diversity, peace, and multi-culturalism is nothing but a facade for thier own selfishness.

Europe has few children and fewer grand children. It's rural areas are near emtpy and its urban areas are filled with sullen arabs biding thier time. Europe in the coming decades will not have enough farmers to feed itself, enough young people to work, and very little money to grow its economy. Europe is finished as a bastion and birthplace for Western Civilization. Within 100 years it will be fully within the Islamic camp. Way to go boomers.

"poor racist Pat"
It's not the rule by gun or even the direct rule at all over native people's that Pat mourns. With the exception of perhaps the Vietnamese and Algerians, no native people freed themselves with gun or without, without the evolving humanity of the Western power that gave up rule. In fact Algeria and Vietnam could have easily been held if the methods used in the past were still acceptable.

What Pat means is the non-military benefit and energy the West (and countries who basically by design became part of the 'West' such as Japan) brought to civilization. Chief amongst these is the rule of law, the rights of man, modern governmental forms and administration, technology, invention, medicine, hygiene, farming...

It has yet to be proved that sustained liberty, innovation and progress can be expected from the parts of the world that have shown little if any skill or desire for it.

Or will it all come crashing down and regress?

Call us racists, but looking at the non Western world, most rational and honest thinkers point out it will likely regress.

===================================


MDoggg writes: Tuesday, May, 27, 2008 8:37 AM
Pat asks:
"What happened to the nations that only a century ago ruled the world?"

The "savages," learned how to shoot a gun instead of throw a spear...

That's what roils at poor racist Patrick. If you look at European conquest, it was ALL based on superior weaponry - does ANYONE deny that had the "American" Indians possessed guns and canon that America today would be a land of teepees? The same goes for Africa and Asia. It was easy for Europe to take much weaker peoples by force. When they turned the guns on themselves - such as the American Revolution, the war of 1812 - etc., culminating in WWI, they were left with millions dead and mostly stalemate.

Pat makes some assumptions
that probably belie what real historical figures did.

Ger. attacked Poland first because of the Silesian oil fields, Ger. not having any homegrown energy sources once losing WW I took away the Ruhr Valley and all its coal;
just as it is presumptuous to say some one event perpetuated by Churchill brought the Ottoman Emp. into WW I as an Axis ally. Oil was a huge factor in the Axis countries wanting the Middle East on their side.

Something Churchill supported while others dithered was arming the Jews of Palestine in 1941 which was opposed by Gen. Waverly, the commander for Britain in Africa. Churchill was never successful in his plan because the Eng. colonial sec. and Parliament feared any weapons in the hands of Jews would bt turned on their Brit. rulers as an after effect. Additionally, Churchill tried to help the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto as the USSR advanced by sending air strikes, altho' the support was mostly symbolic as the distance factor mitigated against any Eng. airplanes reaching their targets and returning.

Churchill's non-anti-Semitism was rare among his class for the time. The same was not true in the US that historically denied the existence of the camps until Eisenhower's troops stumbled on Buchenwald.

However, in the 1942 movie Casablanca, the character Victor Lazlo speaks of escaping concentration camps twice.


The real REASON
The reason that Europe is heading into the gutter is the same one that the United States is following.

When you take all the money your citizens earn to provide a welfare state to take care of everyone who won't work, there isn't enough money left to raise children. So you don't have them - or have only one. Your population dwindles so the country tries to make up for the loss in citizens by allowing immigration. The main problem is that most of the immigrants are coming so they can get into the welfare state.

If they want to grow and progress again, they need to reduce their welfare system and allow their citizens to have enough money for more than subsistence.

para_dimz
Unfortunately, Town Hall is too cheap to install decent software, otherwise I would have placed in boldface "WWI".

"Some of us have been aware of this for decades. The stupidest thing the US ever did was to allow itself to be propaganized by people like Churchill and declaring war on Germany in WWI."

I don't make typos of that nature. By the way, Britain and France declared war on Germany first in WWII, not the other way around.

Next time read the post twice and engaged brain before putting hands in gear.

Churchill
No,No, No! The Dardanelle strategy was a good one and would have placed the British behind the unprotected German line. The real culprit for it's failure was a cowardly British Admiral. The Turks had alrady abandoned thier fortifications but at the first sign of resistance the admiral turned tail and ran. Had he gone on the war would have ended much sooner.

Why was keeping Bohemia intact a blunder
Speaking as a descendant of folks who got left on the wrong sides of borders over across the pond, why was keeping the old Crownland of Bohemia intact after World War One a mistake? Czechs, Germans, and a sprinkling of Jews and Roma had lived side by side in that land for ages. Maybe, had the Germans accepted that they lost World War One and told Young Schickelgrueber to go ______ himself, we'd still have a multi-ethnic region in the heart of Europe.

Also, Old Wilhelm von Hohenzollern II could have decided to use Britain's Pax Maritima as a way to protect Germany's merchant marine (the way the Americans did); he could have kept Bismarck's sage advice on always being part of a majority of three; or even made some sort of deal to give Britain favorable rail rates through Tanganyika in return for something else; etc. etc. Britain's not the only messmaker in history.

SPOT ON !!!
45caliber writes: Tuesday, May, 27, 2008 11:05 AM
The real REASON
The reason that Europe is heading into the gutter is the same one that the United States is following.

When you take all the money your citizens earn to provide a welfare state to take care of everyone who won't work, there isn't enough money left to raise children. So you don't have them - or have only one. Your population dwindles so the country tries to make up for the loss in citizens by allowing immigration. The main problem is that most of the immigrants are coming so they can get into the welfare state.

If they want to grow and progress again, they need to reduce their welfare system and allow their citizens to have enough money for more than subsistence.

Re: walkerny
Sorry but if the American Indians had muskets and cannon then they wouldn't have been living in teepees. The primary reason the American Indians didn't have such things was they didn't need them so never invented them. This is pretty basic to cultural development.

Additionally, the way war was fought among the American Indian tribes was not conducive to victory against a European military. The problem has to do with tactics. The American Indians had developed a more civilized type of warfare based on raiding for goods and women. I know it sounds odd but in Indian wars there were usually very few casualties. While in European wars the whole idea was to maximized the casualties of your enemies.

re: 45caliber
You're partially right about what has happened but more insidiously has been the open access to easy birth control. Now I'm not against birth control but one of the effects is to reduce population growth. Which is exactly what's happening among the native European population. Birth control hasn't been fully accepted by the immigrant population in Europe so the immigrant population is growing. That means a basic change for Europe as the customs and morals of the immigrant population become the dominate population. Kind of a darwinian end to European civilization. I don't believe the same thing is happening in North America as the populations that are moving and increasing are uniquely American regardless of skin color.

Danger!Danger!, .45 Caliber!!
You are making TOO much sense, Old Slabsides. Waaay too much for the lib-tard trolls that infest this site. Don't you know that if you want to keep even another 5% of what IS yours you are "cruel, heartless, and probably racist" too?

The other shoe is family integrity. Before the Welfare State (a travesty of good intentions and mindless policy) transferred over 2 TRILLION dollars thus far from producers to leeches a single girl had an incentive to chase after her "baby daddy" and have him do right by her. Not necessarily marry her but provide support for her AND the child(ren) he fathered.

Now you have the Neighborhood Sperminators running amuck and knowing that their kidlets will be wards of the state AND "jewels in the crown" on top of it all. Before the Welfare State you didn't see nearly as many two income families because one wage earner pulled down enough for the family. Wages were not diluted by an influx of 20 million illegal invading leeches. As opposed to legal immigrants like those who went through Ellis.

WHERE is it written that we HAVE to endorse shipping CSR jobs overseas to dung holes like Bangalor and Delhi anyway? If enough people griped long and loud enough they'd HAVE to bring those jobs back here where they never should have left.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

maldain
The book, "Don't Tread On Me" by H.W. Crocker points out that much of American military history and experience was based on fighting Native Americans. As a result, the US developed very effective light infantry tactics. This development can be traced to Rogers' Rangers.

JPK is Correct
I really thought we might survive the Baby Boomers and all of the idiots who celebrate the '60's (I do think the music was great back then when compared to the bilge and incoherent noise we see today). But, when you place this in the context of the crumbling European democracies, it does indeed portend the future of our Republic. In addition, as you inspect the crowds swooning for the messiah-like Obama, it is frightening to see the now-emerging needy generation only focused on what the Government can promise to provide. First the greedy, self-centered and politically correct Baby Boomers and now the needy, lazy and totally indoctrinated (thanks to all of those liberal '60's era, tenured professors) Obamaite generation. It is doubtful if our Republic can handle these two, successive body blows.

As a very senior citizen, I really fear for my grandchildren. On the other hand, it is going to be quite a "trip" to see how the Boomers handle their aging when they confront the failing entitlement system and how the naive, lazy Obamaites respond when they see the government cannot make their lives a Socialist Utopia.

They were STONE AGE throwbacks!
NO Amerindians ever developed metallurgy because they were stone age primitives. They were not centrally organized except for the Six Nations and the Mandan Confederacy. The Mandan numbered over 500,000 in the early 18th century and were all but gone in less than 100 years.

They almost immediately dropped the use of flint and chert in favor of steel as soon as they learned they could trade surplus pelts and hides for them. They abandoned the bow even faster. By the French and Indian War it was very hard to find a Huron, Sauk, Fox, Mahican, Delaware or Haughdenoughsaunee (Iroquois) who even owned much less used a bow.

By the end of the 18th century the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) had become a nation of riflemen as they considered a musket no better than a club.
The one thing Michael Mann got right about "Last of the Mohicans" was the weaponry and fighting styles of the Huron and Algonquins allied to the French. They used guns knives and clubs almost exclusively. Their hand-to-hand skills were scary as well.

As you saw in the "Massacre Valley" scene they fired many volleys BEFORE attacking the Brits. They knew that to charge headlong at Redcoats would bring a hail of lead and then a massed charge with bayonnettes which they were NOT ready for.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

The Real Reason, Truth and Undestanding
All you have to do is read this book and it will open your EYES!

"My Awakening" By David Duke

Funny how no one mentioned anything about the Jew's role and presence in the wars! hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You're welcome!

greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind
Yankeedog: "What is being suggested here, that Italy should have been allowed to annex Ethiopia without a murmur of dissent from the other powers?"

Yes, apparently, and that Germany should have been allowed to anschluss Danzig and intimidate the Poles out of the Corridor because Poland was ruled by "a neo-fascist regime of ... colonels". The presumption seems to be that preventing the re-disappearance of Poland from the map was not worth the damage subsequently inflicted on the Western combatants. Better to let Hitler and Stalin shred each other over the spoils, though this ignores Hitler's craving for revenge on France.

Also, I fail to see how the fall of Norway was Churchill's fault. Though First Lord of the Admiralty, his plan for securing Narvik was delayed by the rest of the War Cabinet until the German invasion made its failure certain.

Pat's mistake here seems to be in his assumption that Hitler was acting reasonably when incorporating German-majority territories into Germany. If it had ended there, maybe he would have been, but, with Mein Kampf as foreshadowing, Hitler's goal was a bit loftier than mere self-determination for the Sudeten and Danzig Germans: it was Lebensraum, the dispossessing and disposing of Slavs and Jews to make room for a greater German Reich. And as we all know -- well, all of us except clowns like Imadinnerjacket -- that didn't involve deporting anyone to Madagascar.

Still, I agree that the mistakes that led to World War II were made in the run-up to World War I. I have long held that the First World War was the greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind.

Since I gravitate toward all things WW2, I'm likely to pick up a copy. It sounds like an interesting read, even if I end up spending half the time shaking my head and wondering how he could think that.


China
kim:

"Next I ask, Well why then did we take the side of the Chinese Communists against Japan? The answer is pretty much the same: We had to stop Japan from taking over the world."

While the US did aid the PLA during the war against Japan, at the time in theory the PLA was part of the National Revolutionary Army and again in theory since the Xian Indicent in 1936, the KMT's NRA and the CCP's PLA was unified against Japan. In reality, the two sides continued to fight, the PLA did little during the war with the bulk of the fighting done by the KMT part of the NRA and the warlords--mostly the PLA sat the war out for the more important war to come--the renewed Chinese Civil War once Japan was defeated.

Thus the US didn't simply take the side of the communists, it took the side of China and support during the war was more directed to the KMT-part of the NRA than the PLA.

what to do with bad admirals
"[I]l est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres."


Nonsensical!
“The first blunder was a secret decision of the inner Cabinet in 1906 to send a British army across the Channel to fight in any Franco-German War.”

“In 1936, France sounded out the British to determine if they would support a drive to push German troops out of the Rhineland that Hitler had occupied in violation of Versailles. The British refused.”

Mr. Buchanan,

I wonder if you recognize the irony of your individual indictments. In the first, Britain erred in agreeing to go to war against Germany. In the second, Britain erred because it did not sanction a war against Germany. They are darned because they did and they are darned because they didn’t

Other than correctly pointing out Churchill’s great military blunders in the Dardanelles and Norway, military disasters which have nothing whatsoever to do with the decline and fall of the British Empire, and the lunacy of the Versailles treaty, your thesis is unsupported and silly.

Steve
Traitors leading us. It's happened before. It will happen again.

Steve


Already true. CFR/One world gov types control this country.

American Indians???!!
I don't recall addressing American Indians at all (re: your comments below.) They were a fine, noble people (although they have had all the "less admirable" human traits romanticized out of them.) They could be cruel and did indeed press for land and domination on a tribal level, just as Europeans did on a country and continent level. Side note: African wars of the same period had surprisingly few casualties probably for the same reasons.

The American Indians haven't been relevant for a century and a half, and certainly not to Pat's main point: That the wounds inflicted during the global wars, and the subsequent loss of energy (and will) of the West looks like it spells a regression in the condition of humankind over the next few hundred years.

Do you see improvement coming out of Africa the overpopulated Southern Hemisphere, or the followers of Mohamed? It's not apparent on first, second or third look...

You seem to think the main reason for the conquest by the West was technology. Technology would have been nothing without organization, governance, spirit and ENERGY. WILL to endevor and explore. The Energy of free men (whether used poorly or not).

I'll give you that if technology were equal, the American Indians would have been a tougher nut to crack, but Pat's writing isn't top that subject point of debate.

-----------------
------
-----------------


maldain writes: Tuesday, May, 27, 2008 11:52 AM
Re: walkerny
Sorry but if the American Indians had muskets and cannon then they wouldn't have been living in teepees. The primary reason the American Indians didn't have such things was they didn't need them so never invented them. This is pretty basic to cultural development.

Here we go again
Here we have Pat again showing off his rather prodigous memory and learning...to no account. How typical.

That's really your explanation of Europe's decline, Pat? World War II explains it all--and all that led to it? I'm sure your next comparison will be the U.S. to Europe and our willingness to foment war everywhere. That's next week's article, I'm sure.

How about Europe's departure from religion, Pat, and their concentration on materialism, nihilism, and pragmatism in its place? Might that have brought about a weakening of social cohesion and order...maybe even contributing to WWII? As the churches go, so goes the country. The cathedrals are empty, people moan; well, their countries are becoming just as empty.

European folly will be renounced by its citizenry or they'll disappear--just ask the Sumerians and so many other once-great civilizations. Existence is NOT guarranteed; it's up to them.

Peace in our time
In March 1938 Hitler pressured Austria into unification with Germany (the Anschluss) and made a triumphant entry into Vienna on 14 March.[52][53] Next, he intensified a crisis over the German-speaking Sudetenland districts of Czechoslovakia.[54] This led to the Munich Agreement of September 1938, which gave these districts to Germany.[55]

As a result of the summit, Hitler was TIME magazine's Man of the Year for 1938.[56] British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain hailed this agreement as "peace in our time", but by appeasing Hitler, Britain and France left Czechoslovakia to Hitler's mercy.[55] Hitler ordered Germany's army to enter Prague on 15 March 1939, and from Prague Castle proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia a German protectorate.


Why wasn't it peace in our time?

Time magazine hasn't gotten any better either.




Gas ----& Obama
Where do the reporters get the "almost" $4.00 gas price??? it is over $4,20. for a gal of gas in Orange County in NY.!!! think of those making $300.00 per week' that MUST DRIVE, because they live in the rural area where there is NO BUS OR TRAIN service!!! what use to cost $40.00 per month to full up is now costing more than $50.00 PER WEEK!!! . How do they live??? there is nothing left for food, rent, car insurance (say have anyone thought of how many UNINSURED DRIVERS there will be on the street??) some thing have to go and that may be one of it!!.
Where is the food lines???, anyone thought of heating this winter??? where is our ELECTED OFFICIALS??? what about people on fixed income??? SS. Disability,and the retirees?????
COME ON PEOPLE WAKE UP DO SOMETHING!!!! Make believe that there is a disaster in another country and bring help to the people!!
Any food storage can now be open to help those that WILL go hungry THIS IS AMERICAN IN NEED HELLOOOOOOO??!!!!!!.

Charles Martel
Would you please translate that "What to do with bad admirals" quote.

Some of us don't speak or read Italian.

the final solution
Hitler was talking about gassing Jews before the war.


Two passages in Mein Kampf mention the use of poison gas:

“ At the beginning of the Great War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas…then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain.[24]

One of the foundations of Hitler's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, a French count, a pseudo-science[weasel words] called eugenics which sought to breed humans as if they were farm animals,[citation needed] and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were children with physical and developmental disabilities; those killings occurred in a program dubbed Action T4.[49] After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued (see Nazi eugenics).

Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews,[50][51] in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere. Besides being gassed to death


God is still on the throne. We now have the nation of Israel.


Read the book?
Oh and this is the same thesis Pat put forward in A Republic, not an Empire.

Is there any evidence that Hitler would not have turned west? In the "Second Book" which was the sequel to Hitler's first, he saw Germany defeating the US in a war in 1980 which would give Germany control of the entire world--sure sounds like he wanted to go west to me.

And would war not have fully broken out in China in July of 1937 if Hilter the UK and France had not opposed Hilter in Poland? Would Japan have not gone into Indo-China in 1941? Would the US and the other major oil exporters have not turned off Japan's oil supply?

More tripe from Pat is what it can be boiled down to. Oh and what is Pat's expertise? A BA in communications if I recall. Does pat have a Ph.D. in history or other related field, if so I am unware of it.


45 calibre
Is an idiot. Welfare state? Talk about clueless. None of the European nations have been a world power in well over a century. They are not in the same category. That role has been the domain of the US and the former USSR. There is your comparison and what killed the Soviets was their inability to compete in the arms race AND maintain the infrastructure necessary for such a large country. They couldn't afford both and it was their domestic deterioration that spelled the end.
We can't sustain both either, as one can see by our shrinking middle class, Katrina and other signs of decay that have nothing to do with a welfare state, which we are clearly not.
As for Pat, some fun points but I'm afraid hypotheticals surrounding both wars enabling Hitler and Stalin to rise to power are a stretch. Their was a power vacuum in both countries that a strong leader filled and given their psychological makeup, it was only a matter of time before madness would prevail. The failures of the Weimar Republic only sped up the process.

Oil
broken eagle:

Well if the Democrats and the environmental Nazis that control it would allow for drilling offshore, in ANWAR and use western Shale, then it wouldn't be $4, and here it is $3.84.

Of course, Mort what's his name from the Beltway Boys on Fox want higher gas prices via taxes so people will conserve more. Typical limo driven liberal.

The third world made their own mess
Unable to sustain the birth rates needed to keep her alive?

There are about 7 billion people on this planet. So you punish the West (for being responsable and controlling populations) by flooding our countries with immigrants from over populated out of control countries.

Thanks for destroying this land of tomorrow for our grandchildren with your greedy reckless endeavors of today.

Unable to sustain the birth rates needed to keep her alive?

There are about 7 billion people on this planet. So you punish the West (for being responsable and controlling populations) by flooding our countries with immigrants from over populated out of control countries.

Thanks for destroying this land of tomorrow for our grandchildren with your greedy reckless endeavors of today.

The third world made their own mess, let them deal with it.

Obama &the Veterans
Obama and his "followers" are not thinking before they open their "mouth" and they are wearing blinders so that they cannot see when they make a mistake, and the "press" follow blindly!!

The bill that Mccain put forward what is wrong with it ??? "Webb" put forward a bill and he is to be commended for doing so, but is it not the job of congress and the Sennett to debate and try to upgrade or fix a bill that comes in so that the BEST is pass , Mccain tweak what Webb put forward but here comes Obama to shoot down what put forward, and instead of the press debating on it all you can here is that Mccain is dissing the veterans.

This constant picking what they will talk about and to hell with the rest is killing me, when you start a job you do not get vocation right away so giving vets that serve one "term should get what they always get with the exception of upgrading it to reflect the present cost of college, those that do more tour should get more schooling!! .

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, THAT ALL SERVICEMAN & WOMAN RECEIVE A LIVING WAGE!!!! what they are getting is not much more than minimum wage!!!!! they put their lives on the line, put in lots of hours and get squat, their families ARE NOT COVERED TO THE FULLEST WHEN IT COMES TO MEDICAL coverage, as do the "elected official" what a disservice to the men and woman's of this country!!! some of them have to make do with food stamp. People do not get me started as MY CHILDREN had to go through a lot, so I do hope Obama will come out and say something about. that,and yes he should go again to the front line to see what is happening Hillary went more than once!!!!

svpallava
You really don't think that at some point India would have fought for independence?

One argument for colonialism is that it was good for the countries. Britain did bring institutions that benefited the countries. There is definitely an argument for that.

I think that all peoples want self-determination. And when they are able will throw off any yoke imposed on them. I am no expert on India, but as they progressed I think it was inevitable.


I read your post where you said you are from Canada. Were you born there? It's great you found the truth (Jesus).

Mira Nair is one of my favorite directors. Her latest is great.

Deepa Mehta's "Water" was very good, tragic. (Caused a lot of uproar in India for exposing that practise)



I enjoy your perspective on Canadian events. They have gone downhill with hate speech laws, age of consent lowered to 12, etc. Are you following events of NAU?

Obama & the VETS

Obama and his wife if so full of themselves that they are not thinking about the good of the party(also the snakes and Judas) therefore they will not put Mrs. Clinton on the ticket that is the only way MOST of her people would vote in this election.

Mr. Buchanan i think that you are among the FEW that do not talk out side the side of their mouth keep up the good work.
PS i am sick of the punditd saying that Hillary IS HURTING OBAMA BY STAYING IN THE RACE!! IT IS NOT OVER PEOPLE SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO STAY IN , This is why her people is angry

First there is no Third World
ToeNee:

That term hasn't be valid for at least 15 years if not longer. And even using that term, few of the countries that send the most immigants, legal and illegal would be considered Third World even if you used that term.

Mexico, China and India would be considered NICs--Newly Industralized Countries like South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore were in the 1970s.




Mccain & Obama & the VETS

Obama and his wife if so full of themselves that they are not thinking about the good of the party(also the snakes and Judas) therefore they will not put Mrs. Clinton on the ticket that is the only way MOST of her people would vote in this election.

Mr. Buchanan I think that you are among the FEW that do not talk out side the side of their mouth keep up the good work.
P.S. I am so sick of ALL THE PUNDITS THAT SAYS THAT HILLARY IS DOING OBAMA WRONG BY STAYING IN THE RACE!! PEOPLE THE RACE IS NOT FINISHED NO WONDER HER PEOPLE IS MAD!!!!!

Pat's selective history
Pat blew it big time. His rant can be dismissed as another Irish diatribe against the British - except I can't let some glaring historical erors go unnoted.

The British did not statrt the aerial bombing of undefended cities in WWII - Germany did from day one - read the accounts of the bombing of Warsaw. And how does Pat account for what was done to Rotterdam - which, technically, was already an open city?

The Sudeten Germans weren't all that enthusiastic about becoming part of the Reich - Heinleins Czech Nazi movement, in terms of numbers, was miniscule. The most telling rebuttal, however, is how many Sudeten Germans responded to the call-up of the Czech Army in September 1938. The Czechs were ready to fight - they had a well-armed force - and their four tank divisions would have made things VERY unpleasant for the German Army. Better than 90% of the Sudeten Germans called up responded and reported to their units.

If Churchill was taken in by Stalin, so was FDR much more so. Churchill also sadly realised that by 1944 and 1945 Great Britain had been replaced by the U.S. as the dominant Western power - and as #2 his freedom of action was constricted, particularly when the U.S. threatened calling in the loans made during the war.

Word to Pat - if you are going to talk history, get your facts straight.

A neat little theory...
I have to say out front that I respect Pat Buchanan and do agree with alot of his points. However, there is too much room to speculate on this little theory. Would everything have fallen just as Pat lays out here? No one can say for sure. I, for one, am always hesitant to judge historical figures too harshly simply because it's impossible to say what I would have done had I walked in their shoes at that time.

Clinton
"...therefore they will not put Mrs. Clinton on the ticket that is the only way MOST of her people would vote in this election."

Broken Eagle:

Most of her supporters are hard leftists who will vote for Obama. Those who won't are working class Reagan Democrats who are voting not for her but against Obama and won't be voting for Obama in the fall no matter who he picks as #2. Clinton would be an awful choice as VP--something Dick Morris has written about on TH just last week or the week before.

kaqi Gas
Hello Kaqi . look there is COAL that the US have more than we know what to do with, and someone discovery a way to make it into oil WITHOUT THE EMISSION that would destroy the ozone (it is being use in Africa as gas ) and in fact the CEO of that company is coming to the US. to talk about it but that is not what the BIG OIL company want to talk about they are hell bent on going to Alaska or bust!!! it was on TV that someone found a way to use "water" as fuel , but nooooo it is not OIL so guess what it is shot down.

Look It was on the Telly in Boston that the big oil company told gas station owners to RAISE THE PRICE ACROSS THE BOARD. when they ask to have their rent lowered as they were not making any money(some have close their gas stations) in stead of charging higher for credit cards, see what I mean it is price fixing and gouging the little man/ woman you and I.

The Immigrant Invasion
from the Third World would be easy to stop if only the Western nations had the will to do so. Mexico is taking over the US only because we allow them to. We should deport all illegal aliens immediately and strictly enforce the border. This will be very painful, both economically and socially, but the pain will be small compared to the disaster of surrendering the country.

Boutte
Interesting insights.

Hindsight
Seems we can be myopic even in hindsight. However, Pat's column is not without merit or error. Churchill was a self loving megalomaniac who was up against other self loving megalomaniacs who distroyed their countries.
Those countries are still working on destroying themselves even after the Marshall plan rebuilt most of them.
The US a very young country by world standards keeps keeps trying to save a suicidal world. Perhaps we think life is worth living or at least let US have a chance to mature before we give up the ghost.

kaqi Gas
Hello Aquai. look there is COAL that the US have more than we know what to do with, and someone discovery a way to make it into oil WITHOUT THE EMISSION that would destroy the ozone (it is being use in Africa as gas ) and in fact the CEO of that company is coming to the US. to talk about it but that is not what the BIG OIL company want to talk about they are hell bent on going to Alaska or bust!!! it was on TV that someone found a way to use "water" as fuel , but nooooo it is not OIL so guess what it is shot down.

Look It was on the Telly in Boston that the big oil company told gas station owners to RAISE THE PRICE ACROSS THE BOARD. when they ask to have their rent lowered as they were not making any money(some have close their gas stations) in stead of charging higher for credit cards, see what I mean it is price fixing and gouging the little man/ woman you and I.

Second Guessing History
"Second-guessing history is mere speculation and therefore a waste of time."....povidus

I disagree. British historian, Niall Ferguson at the Hoover Institute, who is highly respected, has the opposite view on alternate history analysis. yes, it may be speculative but it is a valid means of extracting the real lessons history has to offer. I recommend is latest book "War of the World" and "Virtual History". To say that history is repetitive is both trite and fatalistic. We can and must learn from past mistakes.

For broken eagle
Much of the idea that freons are responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer is a scientific fiction started by DuPont to avoid competition when the patent expired.

(easily provable through University-freshman-level thermodynamics)

para_dimz
"It is also a known historical fact that Churchill went toe to toe with FDR over his (FDR's)"Uncle Joe's" post war ambitions. But FDR would have none of it. Britain was in no position to go it alone against Stalin."


Agreed. I am not expert on Churchill but I have read Manchester's volumes. Churchill was also warning of the evils of communism from the beginning and getting grief for it.



"The West's decline is not a result of political mistakes though many have been made. It is the result of spiritual malaise. We are in a war with a religious theory of society not a political one. Buchanan makes a serious and fatal miscalculation taking this route. "


The ultimate truth also. The west has fallen because they have turned their back on God. Europe is just ahead of us on the continuum.

Jack #87
It's French.

"Dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
(In this country [England], it is thought well to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.)"

Jean Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire


Pretty Funny Charles M.!

Wrong goat
Pat: How do you get up every morning?

Re: the theory here, Pat decided on the villain first and then wrote the book to conform.

The real culprit of the decline of the West?

That most racisit presdient of the 20th Century, the one still beloved by Leftist totalitarians and academics everywhere: Woodrow Wilson (D).

Had America not entered WWI (scared into doing so by the Zimmerman Telegram - like Mexico was going to invade us militarly? riiiight), America's entry caused the following:

1. The saving of the French. WHY?
2. The defeat of a strong Germany
3. The dislocations that caused the Russian revolutions in 1917
4. The USSR - absent a strong Germany on her flank to suppress her
5. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, which ought to have been left to itself to disintegrate - it didn't need any assistance
6. WW2
7. The Cold War
8. Korea - which required the USSR and Red China
9. VietNam - which required the USSR
Cuba - which required the USSR
10. and with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the idiocy of Jimmy Carter
Islamofascist terror.

Had Wilson been more intelligent and knowledgeable, and more in-tune with America's traditions, we would have stayed OUT of WW1. The French have taught the world nothing but bad manners and how to surreneder ever since. Had France been left to conquest at the hands of Germany, the world would be a far, far better place.

And all it took to really screw it up was one messianic Democrat.

Sound familiar?

jerabaub
"But if those wars were God's design, and if He is using Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to remake today's world , He must be one sadistic god."


It is not just them, it is global in scale. All the global elites working for one world gov.


Being raised Catholic, with 12 yrs of parochial education I got lots of catechism and no bible.

You want want to start reading it, starting with John chapter 3.


God does govern in the affairs of men. Israel was destined, and set the timer.



I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ. And so all Israel will be saved. As the Scriptures say,

The one who rescues will come from Jerusalem,
and he will turn Israel away from ungodliness.

And this is my covenant with them, that I will take away their sins.

Many of the people of Israel are now enemies of the Good News, and this benefits you Gentiles. Yet they are still the people he loves because he chose their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For God's gifts and his call can never be withdrawn. RO 11:25-29


God is patient, not wishing that any soul shall perish, but this fallen world's days are numbered. Is it "sadistic", to finally free this world from corruption? It was never God's will that the world be this way, man chose corruption.

The destiny of mankind on this fallen world started in the ME and it will end there.


If you want to see how great God is and his love for his own read Randy Alcorn's "Heaven". I am really looking forward to the new earth.





I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. Ben Franklin





svpallava
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 57228

I can't get the page to load so hopefully the article will open for you. There may be something up with the site.

"North American Army Created without OK by Congress" (with Canada)


take a look at his archives


Tom #68
Churchill
"No,No, No! The Dardanelle strategy was a good one and would have placed the British behind the unprotected German line. The real culprit for it's failure was a cowardly British Admiral. The Turks had alrady abandoned thier fortifications but at the first sign of resistance the admiral turned tail and ran. Had he gone on the war would have ended much sooner. "



From what I have read you are right on this!




General Ludwig Beck
Chief of the German Army General Staff from 1935 to 1938, made overtures to the French and British governments to stand up to Hitler in the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia,with plans for the German Army to arrest Hitler. Involved in the 1944 plot to kill Hitler,commited suicide May 20th 1944.

WWII A Final Chapter of WWI
The fate of Europe was set by the fin de siecle generation(s) of Europeans who for a variety of reasons couldn't digest the harmful after shocks of the Enlightenment. If one looks at the arts, science, philosophy, as well as the near boiling social movements (anarchism, positivism, progressivism, and communism) and add the incompetent bombast of the German Kaiser (a grandson of Queen Victoria), the seething Gaulic hatred for all things Teutonic, the incomprehenisble neglect of the peasantry by the Romanovs, the scoleric degeneration of the Hapsburgs and you get an idea of how quickly Europe was declining. To make matters worse, a sated England hadn't quite gotten a firm grip on reality. Her ridiculous idealism concerning the Benelux region all but guarenteed her entry into the next European War.

Hegal once wrote, "The owl of Minerva Flies at Dusk". By 1900, Europe was demythologized, de-Christianized, and no longer could inspire the kind of inspirational creativty we call "Kulture". Pope Pious X warned Europe and America in a famous encyclical concerning Modernity and Chirstian Thought. Europe could no longer inspire. To make matters worse, Europe was converting its deep religious longings into irrational politics and nihilistic art. Something was bound to give.


decline of the west
Sounds like the first paragraph about declining birth rates unable to sutain populations in once powereful western coutries tell the story..

all the rest.....so what..deal with the current birth rate situation vjf

Tim
Talk about History being perverted. Beck at it set up, but Chamberlin (Peace at Any Cost) not only stabbed the Czechs in the back, but prevented Beck et als from carrying out thier coup d'etat.

Funny how historians absolutely ignore all of the chances people had in taking Hitler out. France could have sent troops into the Ruhr in 1936. The Versailles Treaty forbade the Germans from militarizing the Ruhr, and once Hitler sent a few companies of infantry into Dusseldorf and Cologne, France has every right to crush Hitler and demand a new German goverment be established.

France also had a chance in Sep 1940 in destroying Hitler by invading the Rhine; instead they sat fat dumb and happy in Flanders while Germany had all but its weakest units in Poland. The Saar, Rhine, and Neckar vallies were totally unprotected (that is, unless you call 50 year old reservists with 2 days ammo protection). The French already had at least 3 fully armed infantry corps ready to invade on 1 September 1940.

"Italian"?? Quelle horreur!
Thanks for answering the question, Anna.

And JPK: small error. France fell in June 1940. You meant 1939.


svpallava
True that Ike and Winnie's removal of Moussadegh was a blunder. He could have been handled by "Iran oil boycott" (US had about 50% of world GDP in 1952, and 50% of Moussadegh's oil sales were to US)--and would have been begging for favourable terms within one year. Admittedly, he would have been a dictator (Iran is "Western" Muslim country, where moderate when applied to Muslims means irreligious or areligious), but...


In "All the Shah's Men" he paints the picture that Mossadegh would have been moderate. It's the only thing I've read on the subject. I did get the vibe that the author was liberal. He says that there were those looking to US for inspiration and many disgusted by our betrayal. Truman wouldn't do it. This author says they used the Red scare to get Ike to go along, who was also initially reluctant. Water under the bridge now.

Aslan's post interesting....Rockefeller involvement?

In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain's ire when he nationalized the Rockefeller controlled oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).


I read Queen Noor's autobiography recently. I wonder how long Jordan will last.


JPK
Historians? couldn't agree with you more.

Pat's above article
Like most of his material of long past histiory is of conjecture from what is recorded. But One would not know how one would have decided had he actually been inpower at the time with the exact same information available at the moment of decision(like the information Bush had about WMDs). Many people are to blame for the losing of the world by the west. Our own leadership's failure to exploit our own fossil fuel,gas and nuclear resources for the resources for the last 30 years, in cowardice before a hadfull of environmentalists has resulted in a gutting of western economy by castrating America.

TURDWORLD
CORRECTION PAT. THAT'S TURD WORLD.
I'VE SEEN IT FIRST HAND.
FECES RUNNING DOWN THE TROUGH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DIRT ROAD TO THE SMELLY 'SWAMP'.
PIPES LEADING OUT OF HOUSES DRIPPING URINE INTO THE ROAD. POTS OF FECAL MATTER THROWN OUT THE WINDOWS. ESPECIALLY EARLY IN THE MORNING.
THERE WASN'T A RIVER THAT FLOWED CLEAN. EVERY VILLAGE SMELLED LIKE TURDS. VIET NAM 1969-1970.
NO PLANNING, JUST SQUATTERS BUILDING ANYWHERE THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE, BUT USUALLY USING AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AS 1 SIDE OF THE HOOCH.
RIVERS OF URINE RUNNING DOWN THE STREETS IN BOMBAY, 1982. NO SEWER OR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS, NO SEWAGE PLANTS. JUST TURDS EVERYWHERE.
IT'S NOT SHAMBALA GUYS. IT'S NOT SHANGRA LA GIRLS.
ADIOS,
HARVEY
LANCASTER, MEXIFORNIA, GREATER AZTLAN
dial 1 for english
viva la raza and the ignorant peasants flooding into the u.s. from the southern turd world.

First Lord of the Admiralty
Even if one believes that Churchill's Dardanelles' strategy was sound, Winston is still to blame for its failure. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he was directly responsible for ensuring that the correct admiral was in command.

I say this as a ardent admirer of Churchill who has made a sort of pilgrimage to his grave, which is in a small simple church cemetery very near Blenheim Palace.

Buchanan
What a contrived load of rubbish!!! There was nothing secret about the Entente Cordiale, or it's implications for Anglo-French security. It carried no more or less weight than all of the other military pacts that tied up the major powers before WW1. The hardest drivers for reparations and annexation at Versailles were the French, not the British. The invasion of Ethiopia was the invasion of a long-standing sovereign state. To characterize it as a colonial war would make a blackshirt blush. To suggest that Hitler would have been satiated by the invasion of Poland is laughable. To describe the Norwegian campaign as the greatest military blunder of WW2 is plain ignorant.

If Pat Buchanan actually cares about the decline of the British Empire (a notion I seriously doubt) he needs to look a lot closer to home. The vicious demand for immediate repayment of war debts (in gold) by the US led Britain to the point of bankruptcy in 1946. This precipitated hurried British withdrawal from Palestine, Iraq and India (among others), with inadequate time or money available to ensure a peaceful transition of power. The sudden collapse of the British economy post war created a power vacuum which was not filled in an orderly manner and remains the root of much misery today.

The decision to fight Hitler had nothing to do with those subsequent events. Fighting Hitler could not be delayed further and to blame Churchill for that inevitability is a disingenuous attempt to punt some books.

Anna
"We waited too long and by the time that we entered WWII Hitler had invaded Austria and killed thousands of Israelis..."

Israelis? Was this before or after Al Gore invented the internet?

Oh Please!
So for the second time in two weeks, Pat Buchanan blames WWII on Poland!? Give me a break! So because Poland refused to give up Danzig (Gdansk), they were responsible for the war that destroyed Europe? If Danzig were the issue, couldn't the Nazis just have seized the city and be done with it? Why then did they have to invade all of Poland and destroy it? Why invade ally Russia? Why invade France? Oh - that's right! It was all because Poland would not give up Danzig. Nothing to do whatsoever with Hitler being a racist madman.

Pat Is Twisted
Pat is a Hitlerphile.
He will write or say anything. Most of it makes no sense. One cannot reason with him because he has a perverted psyche. If he could only have had some children maybe he wouldn't be so eaten up with irrational hate.

Lamafobe
Germany and Russia invaded Poland.

Well-
-now I know another book I'll never have to waste my time reading. Buchanan's obvious lack of understanding of history's twists and turns and his oversimplified "version" with all of its "ifs" returns me to his original premise: that Europe, the "Mother continent of Western man" is under siege by hordes of "evil" Asians and Africans, and the blame lies in the actions of its leaders in the past. Funny- Adolf Hitler used precisely the same fear-mongering line of thinking to paint Germany as surrounded by enemies. Rome lasted for centuries with a large population of immigrants (and slaves), and I'm sure they had their own share of pundits who screamed for a return to the "good old days". Pat seems to think that Mussolini should have been given a free hand to slaughter Ethiopians, as it was a "colonial" issue (Italy thought they were their colony; they didn't)- mustard gas was used on the tribesmen there, by the way. Pat also seems to think that it would have been just peachy if England still had her empire of millions subjugated by English weapons. I wonder what European country's culture is the "model" one, in Pat's mind: Germany, perhaps?

Socialism is evil. Nationalist or Sovie
There were four evil empires vying for control from the 1900's. There was the brutal, savage rape pillage and plunder by the Japanese from 1905 to 1945. The atrocities committed by the Shinto followers of Hiro Hito far exceed the atrociyoes of Hitler and the National Socialist. The Jewish-financed Bolsheviks ( like Trotsky and the Cheka chief, Durzhinsky) began a totalitarian, tyrannical empire that enslaved or eradicated millions from Uzbekistam to Estonia and the Ukraine The English ruled an Empire with a ruthless habd as any Irishman , Boar or Hindu can attest, And finally there was the Nazi machine. In this war Teutonic Aryans, Slavic and Jewish Russians, Japanese and Normans all alternated between victims and victimizers, each tried to starve or slaughter the other contenders to hegemony and all four were equally ruthless and savage in their quest for power.the armies of these nations all inflicted devastation and the civilians of these nations all suffered not only from their enemies but even their own government. Each of these four were determined to ruthless destroy the whole populations of the others, each wanted hegemony to the point that they sanctioned the genocide or enslavement of all other peoples. Mike Guy

Socilaism esp. Sybaritic Fabian is evil
It is the Sybaritic, Fabian socialism that causes the atrophy and decay of civilization; Those advocating a BRAVE NEW WORLD are the ones responsible for the moral and ethical rot that infest Europe, America and the world. This insidious infection began with Rousseau and rhe French Jacobins, resurrected itself in 1848, morphed and mutated into Jewish-financed Bolshevism and continues a scourge on humanity as either the more virulent communism of China and North Korea or the more subtle yet equally deadly liberalism espoused by Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the progressive Democrats. The Muslims are merely the scavengers eating the decaying remains of nations already destroyed by liberal, atheistic, progressive socialism, Mike Guy

Why are neo-cons afraid of debate?
Whether people agree or disagree with Pat's conclusions as set forth in his new book, I do find it disturbing how so many of the neo-con types are already launching salvo's against Pat when they haven't even read the book yet! The inability of the neo-con types to even engage in discussion on issues appears to show a lack of confidence they must have in their own ideology. If someone felt their arguement was the correct one, surely they would welcome debate, not try to stiffle it.

RW
You failed to notice that there is now apparently an Anna with a capitol "A" (which is me) and an anna with a little "a".


I noticed that mistake myself and I am not responsible for it.


Someone jacked my name!

mike guy
I enjoy reading your posts.

Break them up with spaces! Much easier to read!


The two you posted the other day on the consequences of "carbon" policies were slamming.

(Subject: One-world Plantation or Gulag )

Churchill


"All babies look like me."

Winston Churchill

Read before you rant
Ryan01: "Good for Pat for writing this book. Some of us have been aware of this for decades. The stupidest thing the US ever did was to allow itself to be propaganized by people like Churchill and declaring war on Germany in WWI. "Winnie" not only was the gravedigger of the British Empire, but may very well be the gravedigger of America as well. We are still paying the price for his stupidity and Wilson's. "

Germany declared war on the US.

Whoops
I read you wrong. I read it as WWII you were talking about. I need to see my opthamologist for some reading glasses. Sorry.

To 'WAY Down South'
"Even if one believes that Churchill's Dardanelles' strategy was sound, Winston is still to blame for its failure. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he was directly responsible for ensuring that the correct admiral was in command."


Churchill wanted to continue and was stoped by the prime minister and the other ministers from cabinet.



Caligula
I'm talking about WORLD WAR ONE, you idiot. Next time read the post before making a fool out of yourself.

Caligula
My apologizes for referring to you as an idiot. After reading some of these posts on this thread I should have referred to you as the historically ignorant. This is what happens when you get all your history from illiterates like Sean Hannity and liars like Rush Limbaugh.

Gawd, I hope Pat doesn't read this thread. No wonder this nation is in the mess that it is.

WHA!!!!!!!!!!
Pat's "twist" on history proves he has his head where the sun don't shine!

All wars can be boiled down to a simple premise: "I want what you have."

ALLIANCES are always formed for mutual protection and a base of power (neighbors, gangs, schools, countries, etc.). The idea is, if someone jumps my buddy I will go to his aid.

There may be a grain of truth in the article, but it sounds like a cse for appeasement - "if we don't take sides, MAYBE the "bad" guys will play nice".

I remember a BIG school bully who constantly beat us up - until an alliance of 5 of us boys fought back and beat his butt. Then, and ONLY then, did C.B. drop his aggression.

Churchill's errors
Pat Buchanan's assessment of the errors of war history sounds like a critique of chess game moves. The problem with finding wisdom for dealing with current events is that one can not find a rule book like a chess instruction book that everyone agrees on. The real world can not be made as clear-cut as capturing an opponent's king. Though the proper path may be to vanquish the enemy, it must be done is such a way that the enemy is winnable to the victor's world view at the end. The game of life doesn't end with checkmate. I wonder if Churchill had made decisions differently, would the results been consistent with the world-view of his countrymen. I wonder if all of the hindsight Pat has could have been implemented with effective result or would some of it have been politically untennable. If the atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved lives, it could be argued that, had they existed sooner, dropping them at the begining of the war would have saved a lot more lives. I doubt that that would have worked though. I don't think it would have resulted in anything like the positive relationship that America enjoys with Japan today. Corrective actions to the attacks of foreign nations unfortunately require great loss on both sides because the "game" is never really over. When a parent diciplines a child, the dicipline has greater effect if the corrective action costs the parent something. My mother used to chase us kids around the house with a rolled up newspaper all the time trying to swat us for something. I don't remember what. I only remember my father spanking me once. He caught me doing something he told me not to and then lying about it. As he spanked me, I saw tears running down his cheeks. The incident was burned into my 8 yr. old brain and remains vivid at age 57. I was aware that it pained him to punish me. That made all the difference.

Goalieman, the rules of debate
"Whether people agree or disagree with Pat's conclusions as set forth in his new book,..."

Much like the term "neocon" Pats "conclusions" derive from non-existent "facts" of history.

In order for there to be a debate about historical or political conclusions one must first start with accuracy beyond being able to name names and places, but also as to who did what when.

Pat has so distorted the basic order of events in such a way that it hardly is useful to continue discussion without first correcting his twist. If one can not first agree with basic facts of who did what when in the 20th century one has no issue to debate.

Welfare and Life
Europe was doing well in 1914 before WWI. The start of WWII was due to not ending WWI. We left the Germans able to rebuild and attack. Even at the end of WWII, Europe was still doing well and rebuilding despite the comments others have made above.

But then Europe turned to welfare. In Sweden and many other countries, over 90% of income is tax that goes to support welfare systems such as free child care, looong vacations, social security, free medical care, etc. Sweden, for instance, had less than one child per couple born due to the taxes. Many countries opened their borders to immigrants on the hope of attracting enough people to handle all the jobs and pay the taxes the existing population couldn't. In most cases, the immigrants, legal and illegal, immigrated solely to get on the dole. They would work but prefered cash to prevent paying the taxes. Many of the locals do too. Most low paying jobs are paid in cash for that reason. Italy, France, and several other countries there have a terrible problem with that.

As a result of this system, Europe now has much of its population from other countries. Most of that increase is on the dole and refuse to work. They riot if they don't get their money on time. Government expenses have turned from infrastructure and growth to keeping the welfare people happy. At the same time much of their income is going away as the taxpayers die or retire.

That is the main reason that Europe is in as bad a shape as it is now. They are improving by going to their European Commonwealth but the native citizens are disappearing and the new-comers are starting the set the rules.

And liberals wonder why people here aren't interseted in paying for additional welfare systems and illegal aliens.

Buchanon's Out There Again
Buchanon's strange interpretations of these historical events have little to do with with the current immigration problems which really are the issue of danger to the West.

Also, his interpretations seem to based on some flawed assumptions, and also lead to some conclusions that are not necessarily realistic.

Buchanon seems to assume, for example, that protecting Poland led to the war, and had Britain not done so, Germany would have quit invading it's neighbors and then proved to the world that it's plans, as laid out in
Mein Kamph, for domination of Russia and France was all just talk and they weren't really serious.

Also, as far as Churchill being behind the disaster of the Dardenelles campaign,
it was a well-conceived plan that failed because the general who led it was unfit for command. Churchill did not assign this general this task.

The Treaty of Versailles is already widely understood to have been a mistake, and that it contributed to the next war, so we didn't need Buchanon to remind us, and it has nothing to do with any present day threat anyway. Others paid the price for that that needed paying, so we need not worry now about it.

All in all, something about Buchanon's revisionist sense of history seems both irrelevant and un-American.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.