Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, June 20, 2008
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Was the Holocaust Inevitable?
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"What Would Winston Do?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Buchanan's a tard
Ok I know this article is MONTHS old by now but I just couldn't help sharing exactly why it's completely idiotic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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