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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.

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

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

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

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
...
"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"

Pat answers his question with this incredibly ignorant quote from Hitchens.

I'll add this answer to his question. Having a president with two wars on his hand, who wants to start a third one with Iran.

Buchanan is an idiot.
First, Hitler did increase the size of the German navy, quite dramatically, just as he established an army 6x the size of what was permitted in the Versailles treaty.

As to the Wansee Conference in '42, that was hardly the origin of the idea of murdering all the Jews-- it was merely a discussion of the technical means of going about it-- in fact, Hitler and Himmler had been discussing the use of poison gas for the purpose of wiping out undesirables (i.e., Jews, etc.) well before Wansee.

Moreover, far from seeking war with Germany, England (dishonorably) stood by while Germany annexed land that belonged to Czechoslovakia. It was only when Hitler invaded Poland that England declared war. The way for England to have avoided the war would have been for them to stand up to Germany when Hitler militarized the Rhineland.

As to the "British Empire," which Buchanan seems to think is the only good thing about the British, is there some particular reason why the British should maintain sovereignty over countries other than Britain if those countries prefer independence?

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

-Perhaps there were no trains, no gas chambers, no furnaces and no death camps, but life was very difficult for Jews in Germany even during those times.

Fortunately, some of my family members had the cognitive sense and the ability to flee from Germany well before Hitler became organized in killing Jews before WWII really began. Some were not so lucky.

They were attacked, their homes vandalized, their businesses or where they worked was in ruins. They existed in fear for years, and shortly there after, were killed.


weak argument
This is a rather silly argument. Hitler did not declare war on everyone at once because doing so would have been a huge strategic blunder. It was clearly more effective to move a step at a time and get world aquiescence for each move before taking on the world.

SO the fact that Hitler chose a more sensible tactic is hardly evidence that he did not have the goal generally attributed to him.

He made peace with the Russians only until he decided it was time to attack the Russians. That was a strategic blunder when he made it, but obviously would have been worse had it been made earlier.

Buchanan is off his meds.
Why did Hitler build a thousand military aircraft? For peaceful crop dusting?

Hitler's admirals told him they needed five more years or build up, but just like opening the Russian front (which he did later), Hitler was impatient to reopen WWI.

Churchill was in power in the waning years of the empire, therefore he caused the waning of the empire?

His reasoning is sophomoric.

Well, this thread...
... should certainly liven up a Friday.

Countdown to Shells showing up... 5, 4 3, 2... oh, never mind, she's already here.

Buchanan's theses above combine a handful of good sense with a generous load of "WTF was he thinking?" illogic. Hitler's NOT investing in a massive Maginot Line defensive system proves he wasn't planning an offensive war?

In his book "Mother Night," Kurt Vonnegut writes about the Nazi mindset as being like a well-crafted clockwork machine with one tooth broken on a gear. It ticks along with superb logic... until the gear slips, and something wholly irrational pops up.

Thanks, Pat!
Thanks, Pat. Very interesting article. I plan to get your book and read it. I'd always heard that it was the Versailles Treaty which led to Hitler's uprising, but hadn't had the opportunity to study it much. I plan to now.

In a way, this reminds me a bit of how the U.S. government overthrowing Mossadeqh, paved the way for the likes of Khomeini and the Islamic extremists.

Actions have consequences. Sometimes that is hard for us all to accept as adults, even though we teach this rule to our children every day.

Loss of an Empire
Britain lost her Empire for many reasons, not the least of which: she refused to devalue the Pound Sterling in terms of gold after WWI.

Along with the costs of fighting the nationalism burgeoning among her colonies, and the demands of socialists at home, she could no longer afford an empire.


Through the looking glass...
Really, I start to feel like Alice in Wonderland whenever I read Pat's take on the World Wars.

My advice to history-minded TH posters: Your money would be better spent on such titles as "The Guns of August," "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (hey, William Shirer was THERE) or William Manchesters 2-volume set "The Last Lion."

interesting question
There were concentration/slave labor camps in Nazi occupied Europe prior to Wannsee Conference.

Many Jews were consigned to them, but so were communists, homosexuals, dissidents...but after Wannsee, camps were built exclusively as extermination camps for Jews.

Pat says once Hitler realized he was doomed, he tried to exterminate as many Jews from Europe as he could..hence the Wannsee Conference.

But if Hitler had "won"(controlled Europe and Russia), what would have been the fate of the Jews?

We will never know, but given his anti-semitism, holocaust is certainly plausible.

I don't think Pat is an anti-semite for raising this question.

I do know any human being who was present when those camps were liberated came away with the knowledge that the war sure as hell BECAME justified as a result of those camps.

Some folks may have not been sure the war was totally justified prior to seeing those camps, but they were certain it was justified after seeing them.

Some may argue that "genocide" occurs today in Sudan, or in Rwanda in the 1990s, and perhaps that is true.

And that therefore if we justify waging war as a result of the holocaust, why not now in other "genocides"?

Good question.

But I don't think anything today rises to the level of a systematic state policy of obliterating from the face of the earth the targeted tribe.

But it is a good question whether it is appropriate to place our troops in jeopardy over socalled "humanitarian" reasons.

As a conservative, I would say it isn't, but on the horrors of the holocaust, it is hard to argue against placing our troops in jeopardy to stop such carnage.





I think Most People Forget
That Hitler and the OKW expected a relatively long war with the Allies. No one, least of all Hilter, expected the French 9th Army to collapse as quickly as it did in May 1940. Even Germany's most senior officer Gerd von Rundstedt was expecting a French counter-offensive as late as 30 May. For this reasons he advised Hitler not to send Guderian's and Hoth's panzers too quickly into the Dunkirk Sailent. Hitler's halt order to the panzers allowed 350,000 soldiers of the BEF and French Army to escape. Without these soldiers, Enlgand would have been defense-less.

The French Campagin was the last well thought out German campagin. After France, Hitler winged it. His forray into North Africa had a whiff of improvisation to it. And his decision to invade Russia in Nov 1940 made no sense at all from a strategic point of view.

One must not forget the incompetence of the German High Command. They fed Hitler compeltely wrong intelligence concerning the Soviets capabilities. Heck, they couldn't even come up with accurate road maps of Russia.

A case for noninterventionalism?
Who knows if Pat is right but he makes an interesting case that certainly has implications for today's foreign policy. Too bad no one thought of that before we went stumbling into Iraq. I can't wait to see those Exxon stations on every corner once McCain finishes the job.

Pat wins
OK, Pat so the west did not declare war on Hitler in 1939. And, he later conquered the Soviet Union and installed a fascist dictatorship. And, the jews were all allowed to leave Europe peacefully and settle somewhere.

Now we have Europe under the rule of Adolph Hitler and his thugs. Would you like the Third Reich to rule Germania for one thousand years?

Okay
I guess Hitler taking Austria, Czech, and Poland is okay to Buchanan. Also, the Final Solution was going into effect before Wannsee. Part of Hitler's problem was that Nazis had more trouble killing German Jews. So how would he make German territory Jewish free. That was in 1941, before Wannsee. Sure, Buchanan, Hitler was doing okay before Winston pushed him. Moron.

The Great War
One could argue that the Great War was a mistake for Great Britain to take part in. Buchanan is correct is pointing out that the Kaiser didn't want a general European war anymore than did Great Britain.

If one studies closely European Histroy from 1860-1914, one sees two nations that were bent on war: France and Russia. It is one of the great ironies of History that these two nations got what they long coveted, and in the process destroyed thier own societies.

It made no sense stragetically for Great Britain to guarentee Belgium and Holland's neutraility. Nither France nor Germany were strong enough to dominate Continental Europe in and of themselves. Germany was viewed as a Naval threat, but she lacked the tradition and the skill to take on Great Britain, as subsequent events proven (Admiral Jellicoe did quick work of the German fleet off the Jutland Peninsula).

An Amateur Historian
It takes much more time to build up a Navy from scratch than increase your Army with conscription. Raeder had a build up plan that would give Germany a competitive Blue water Navy by '43-44. However, with limited resources Hitler decided to prioritize the Army instead. He had a lot of reasons for doing so, but one of the main ones was that he considered a major European war as inevitable.. He certainly wanted to clear out and expand Germany's borders and reclaim the territory lost at Versailles. Most importantly he believed that violent confrontation with the Soviet Union was inevitable. Hitler was planning on fighting a major war from the time that he gained power, even though he was uncertain of the exact circumstances and timing.
Hitler's foreign policy took advantage of all of the quite reasonable grievances that Germany harbored from Versailles. If you look at any one issue, like Danzig, for instance, it does seem that Hitler was only voicing reasonable arguments. This is an obvious conclusion that anyone can make by looking at the statements made at the time on face value alone. However, looking at Danzig in the context on the Polish corridor, Silesia, in a highly charged and emotional region where you have a very rapid military buildup by Germany enabling a series of territorial concessions forced from smaller, weaker neighbors, and a history of violent and aggressive rhetoric from Hitler, does not look like a reasonable disagreement between gentlemen any longer. And Hitler always made his demands on a short suspense, purposely backing his opponents into a tight corner where "negotiation" was very difficult, if not impossible. The "grievances" of the German populations in Poland and Czechoslovakia always had to be redressed "now", or else.

I'm not done making my point!
Pat Buchanan is entertaining a terrible revisionist myth by separating the diplomatic crises of the Thirties and analyzing them on their own merits. Hitler himself never looked at his strategic position in that way. Every action Hitler took after gaining power, from remilitarizing the Rhineland, rearming, territorial enlargement, and invasion, was a part of a concerted reach for dominance in Europe enabled by the threat and later application of extreme violence. The timing of each event and the method of attack was opportunistic, but Hitler tied these together with that certainty of a Second European War that Germany had to win on a large scale.
The Wansee conference was held, from my understanding, because by 1942 Germany had no locations or means to deport the huge European Jewish population. Saying that without the War there would have been no Holocaust is only correct in understanding that there may not have been a series of death camps of quite the scale that we saw. Jews would have been forced out of or killed in any territory Germany controlled regardless of whether there was a European war or even if it had been limited to a German invasion of Poland (with the largest European population of Jews). Remember that Germany initially intended to deport their Jews, but nobody (including the US) was particularly eager to take them in.

I'm not done making my point!
Pat Buchanan is entertaining a terrible revisionist myth by separating the diplomatic crises of the Thirties and analyzing them on their own merits. Hitler himself never looked at his strategic position in that way. Every action Hitler took after gaining power, from remilitarizing the Rhineland, rearming, territorial enlargement, and invasion, was a part of a concerted reach for dominance in Europe enabled by the threat and later application of extreme violence. The timing of each event and the method of attack was opportunistic, but Hitler tied these together with that certainty of a Second European War that Germany had to win on a large scale.
The Wansee conference was held, from my understanding, because by 1942 Germany had no locations or means to deport the huge European Jewish population. Saying that without the War there would have been no Holocaust is only correct in understanding that there may not have been a series of death camps of quite the scale that we saw. Jews would have been forced out of or killed in any territory Germany controlled regardless of whether there was a European war or even if it had been limited to a German invasion of Poland (with the largest European population of Jews). Remember that Germany initially intended to deport their Jews, but nobody (including the US) was particularly eager to take them in.

I'm still not done!
One last note, Hitler would have welcomed keeping Britain out of the fight, but understood that it was very unrealistic for the island nation to actively or passively support the dominant land power on the continent. That British Strategy in dealing with the continent was much older than Hitler or Churchill. Offers of peace to Britain reassured his domestic audience with the potential for a negotiated end to the war. They also served to divide the neutrals waiting on the sidelines (most importantly the US), by giving the pacifists a tool to use in morally equalizing Germany with the rest of Europe. It worked for a long time. Looks like its still working with Pat Buchanan even now.

I'm still not done!!
One last note, Hitler would have welcomed keeping Britain out of the fight, but understood that it was very unrealistic for the island nation to actively or passively support the dominant land power on the continent. That British Strategy in dealing with the continent was much older than Hitler or Churchill. Offers of peace to Britain reassured his domestic audience with the potential for a negotiated end to the war. They also served to divide the neutrals waiting on the sidelines (most importantly the US), by giving the pacifists a tool to use in morally equalizing Germany with the rest of Europe. It worked for a long time. Looks like its still working with Pat Buchanan even now.

JPK writes:
It made no sense stragetically for Great Britain to guarentee Belgium and Holland's neutraility

Actually, the guarantee came in 1830. Even then the Britsh knew that Belgium was a natural highway both directions for invasions. The guarantee was to limit the military boptions of France and Prussia, later Germany.

Jersey 48

After re-reading your post (reply #6) I realized it was satire—not, of course, before I attacked it.

Good satire, too—maybe too good, it hooked me.

My defense? I am tired of schmeckels who do not know what Zionism is (except it has something to do with Jews), blaming Zionism for everything that is wrong with the world.

May peace and good juju attend you.

Fredjay

Pat's at it again
Hey Pat

For someone who didn't want to run the world, Hitler certainly fooled everyone.....for a while. After he took the Sudatenland, he declared his imperialist desires were fulfilled. He certainly convinced Neville Chamberlain of that, but then moved into Poland.
Hitler also signed a non agression treaty with Russia, whom he had planned to invade the whole time. Heck Pat, you seem to have Hitler all figured out, unfortunately your postulations breathtakingly leave out what he actually did. Besides, put yourself in the place of Churchill whose responsibility it is to protect his people. With a madman like Hitler, who was gaining military strength and using it to roll over countries a stone's throw from yours, how prudent is it to wait until the bombs actually fall on your cities? Hitler actually told us what his ultimate goals were in MeinKampf and they did not include a warm relationship with Great Britain or any other country.

Lumberjack7392
But 1914 was a totally different situation than 1830. The memories of Napolean were still in the British mind. The British and the Prussians were traditional allies, and Britain was thinking more of Belgium being invaded by a reinvigorated France. The 1860's were filled with French agression both in Mexioc as well as Europe. It was only after Prussia defeated France in 1870-71 did things change.

One can admit that after Bismarck retired things began to decay. There was no one in Berlin who could chart a course keeping France and Russia apart diplomatically, and Bismarck would never had allowed Admiral Tripitz the freedom to expand his Dreadnought Class of battleships at the expense of Britain's freindship. The Kaiser was also a buffoon.

However, in the long run Great Britain had nothing to fear from Germany. If Germany would have defeated France in Sept 1914 (very unlikely), she still had Russia to face. In going to war, Great Britain suffered over a million casulties, was near bankrupt, and lost all confidence in her ability to manage her emprire. What did she gain?

Wannsee Conference
The Nazis' Wannsee Conference in January 1942 was sort of a project meeting for the Holocaust. It included dialogue such as "Even the women and children? Yes, especially the women and children so they don't get started again." But Pat "blames" the Holocaust on Churchill. We all know of course that the only thing Pat didn't like about the Holocaust is that the Allies wouldn't let Hitler finish the job. And Pat has been a sour, embittered man ever since.

It is well established in Pat's "career" as a media jockey - of course he has never accomplished anything of substance in his life - that he idolizes Hitler, derides Holocaust survivors and even promotes Holocaust denial. So this column is simply yet another exercise by this loser in cynicism, hypocrisy, and intellectual fraud.

Unsupported Claim
Pat says, "The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust." Pat does not make a direct attempt to support this monumental claim -- with good reason.

It would be very simple minded to claim that the fact that the Holocaust occurred during the war is proof that it was a therefore a consequence, and that it would not have happened in the absence of war. Hopefully, Pat has better justifications for his belief than this.

Pat does imply that Hitler's sense of impending doom about war with America might have helped to precipitate the Holocaust, but fails to provide an argument as to why that would be. Indeed, he also seems to dismiss what he terms the "Hitler-madman theory". So, it seems fair to conclude that Pat believes that a sense of impending doom could cause a sane individual to instigate a holocaust.

If indeed the Holocaust was a consequence of the war, and Hitler was a reasonable man rather than an evil madman, then can we conclude that the Holocaust was a strategic move on the part of Hitler? Did Hitler think that the Holocaust would convince the Allies to end their war with Germany, Pat?

History is like a mountain
Depends on where one stands in relation to the direction he sees it.

If a man stands on the Western Side of a 14,000 foot mountain, he will not have the same view of the mountain a man sees it standing on its Eastern side.

And because each man has a different view of the same mountain, hardly makes him an idiot for describing the view open to him from where he stands.

To call Pat a moron because he does not see the mountain as you see it, and then think what you see is all there is to it, that is what is stupid.


Amateur historian: exactly right
Amateur historian, in his 10:10 post, shows a lot more knowledge than the moronic Buchanan does. Britain's behavior prior to WWI was a continuation of what she had done for several centuries. For most of that time, the great rival to Britain was France -- from Louis XIII through Napoleon I, France had the most powerful army in the world. In order to keep France from dominating Europe (and thus to keep Europe open to British trade, which was the foundation of the Empire's wealth), Britain repeatedly entered in various coalitions to oppose France, and generally bankrolled those coalitions.

By the 20th century Germany, not France, was the dominant military power. Britain thus entered into a coalition with France and Russia to keep Germany from dominating Europe (and thus, in the mindset of the time, dominating the world).

The same kind of power politics was functioning before WWII. Even if Buchanan is right and Germany would not have attacked west after conquering the East, Germany would still have held hegemony over Europe. This is exactly what British foreign policy had been attempting (successfully) to prevent for 300 years. The guarantee to Poland must be seen in terms of this history.

Winston knew the future
Germany started it’s war when Hitler took power in 1933 – he started a war against his own country and his own people:

The Third Reich’s motto: "One People, one Empire, one Leader."

And the Third Reich, as you know, was adopted by Hitler the 1920s to describe the "thousand-year Reich" he intended to create. Sounds a bit expansionist, wouldn’t you say? Maybe Winston saw the inevitable.

From Catholiceducation.org: “A major part of what Hitler saw as his forthcoming struggle was targeting, isolating and destroying a number of enemies who were perceived as inherently hostile to his dream of ‘Racial Community’. Chief among these were Jews, Communists, the Social Democrats, the Catholics and the Christian Churches. All were threats, each to be dealt with as quickly as circumstances would allow. … Thousands of Catholic activists were already in concentration camps by the end of June 1933.” His War had begun.

You wrote, “If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet?” Maybe because he was too busy building ballistic missiles and trying to develop nuclear ones – remember Einstein? And his submarines for sinking ships. And his massive air power bombing everywhere he could reach.

You strangely wrote “If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland…?” What you should have said was “After invading, declaring war, and conquering Poland, why did he offer peace?” Then the question would sound as silly as it should have been.

To Correct
Pat made a number of historical errors. To correct just two:

1. By the time of the Wannsee conference, there were already mobile killing units in the east killing Jews, so the conference did not start extermination, it just formalized the procedures. Extermination, at least of eastern European Jews, started with the assault on Russia.

2. At the time of Wannsee, Hitler was not losing, or did not know he was. The US had entered the war, but had lost in North Africa to Rommel. He was still planning new offensives in Russia, and the west was quiet, except for the ongoing battle of Britain. Why would Pat think that a relatively positive situation would convince Hitler to suddenly start exterminating Jews?

There is more on my blog, as space prevents me from correcting every absurdity.

If everyone
Believes Versailles gave rise to Nazi Germany, I will contend the "Victory" over Nazi Germany gave rise to the present crumbling Europe under knuckle headed Fabian Socialists.

Oh boy, so many ways to view this mountain isn't there.

Patrick Buchanan, Shame on You
You are very fortunate that my Jewish Bubbe is long ago in her grave, or she would come to your house and pull your lower lip over your head and tie it in a knot behind your neck.

Shame on you for blundering along the road to destruction like Tracy Krohn at Le Mans, blind and deaf to anything but your cuddly thesis. The world is unfortuately more full of tea-sipping cowards who spend their days concocting reasons for their cowardice that convince them that it isn't cowardice, but the simple indifference to the world outside their penthouse and what is happening to people who are not like them.

May you, like Mr. Krohn inevitably does, wind up against the nearest possible wall as soon as you possibly can, and leave the race to those who know what in the Hades they are doing.

6 billion?
Mr. Buchannan says that Stahlin's victims outnumbered Hitler's by a factor of 1000 to 1.

The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews. According to Pat's assertion Stahlin had to be responsible for 6 billion deaths, a number equal to the total population of the world.

It just ain't so.

Glenn

THis book is twisted
Hitler was killing Jews before the final solution what they had not done is sat down and said how can we most efficiently kills jews. Bullets are too expensive, we need a factory model. Faultin Great Britain for the murder of six million jews is twisted. Hitler was an evil maniac who was obsessed with the domination of Europe. He was constantly testing the extent that he could push his powers. A pact with GB would have only emboldened him.

The end of the empire came because colonialism was no longer viable. That is why as the British Empire was ending their was no creation of a US empire.

Forget for a moment what would have happened to all of the Jews. Where would Germany be today if Hitler had been able to consolidate his power? Pat seems not to care about that which suggests that deep in his heart he is a facist and a Hitlerphile.

Apollo Speaks
I am in complete agreement. I would only add that we should not ignore the "little Iran" on the other side of Iraq (aka Syria) or we may face a counterstrike from behind.

If it is a quick strike on nuclear facilities, we can afford to ignore Syria, but any prolonged struggle needs to take Syria into account.

Of course, we should have been arming and supporting dissidents in Iran since the start of our actions in Iraq (and probably since 1979), but it appears we have not. (Unless the administration is actually succeeding in a covert operation for once without the NYT leaking the facts.)

Pat Buchanan is nuts
Pat Asks the Question "If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet?"
The answer is in Mein Krap, Hitler wanted to go East. To take the Grass lands of Russia for living space.

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

The answer is the same, Hitler wanted to go East. To take the Grass lands of Russia.

Had France and Britain done nothing they still wouldn't have been safe. For Hitler had Global Ambitions. After Russia, he would have turned west.

Britain lost it's Empire, Because its people lost their will, to retain it.

The Big Question is Why is buchanan still consider a conservative? Why is still on Townhall?

Glenn
I am amazed I missed the 1000 to 1 thing. I usually catch such absurdities.

Beyond power politics
Buchanan's historical myopia is bad enough, but his moral blindness is a lot worse.

WWI was a stupid war, probably the stupidest war in history. As I argued above, WWI was a continuation of European power politics as they had been practiced for centuries -- a fighting over border provinces and foreign colonies. (I wonder how many hundreds and thousands of people have died over the centuries to decide whether the residents of Alsace and Lorraine pay their taxes to Paris of to some place farther east.) The difference was that by 1914, economic growth provided the means, and rabid nationalism provided the motivation, for a war far more horrible than previous wars. By 1918, 20 million people were dead.

WWII was a different animal. It was an ideological conflict. The Kaiser of WWI was playing the same "game" as his opponents, though he played it more violently. He was playing traditional European power politics. Hitler and his gang were not playing the same "game" as Britain and its allies; the holocaust is the great proof of that. Hitler and the Nazis were evil in ways that the old Kaiser could never have imagined.

WWII was much more like the Cold War than it was like WWI. The Cold War needed to be fought, not primarily because of power-political considerations, but because Communism is evil. WWII and the Cold War were crusades; WWI was old-fashioned European power politics gone insanely amuck.

As a rabid isolationist, Pat Buchanan hates crusades. So he interprets everything in terms of power politics only. This is how he gets WWII so completely, utterly, wrong.

pat the appeaser
You still beating your drum pat? We are not buying your way of thinking or your book. No war no holocaust? That is just plain ignorance or a lie on your part. Which is it?
Hitler would have had the camps anyway. And you knowing this makes it a worse lie. Next you will be telling us that all Muslims are peace loving people.
And another lie you tell is, 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.
He never asked because he had already planned to take them back along with the rest of Europe. What was England suppose to do, sit around and wait until he was ready to invade?
What a kool aid drinker and appeaser you turned out to be.
One star just to keep your rating low.

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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

glnflwrs
"Mr. Buchannan (sic) says that Stahlin's (sic) victims outnumbered Hitler's by a factor of 1000 to 1."

He said that this was as of 1939. Hitler then worked hard to play catchup.

Buchanan an @ss
" 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."

Historical revisionism of this sort just shows shades of anti-semitism.

The premise is so outlandish, it doesn't deserve correcting.

That Does It
OK Pat, you're going mental. I think it's time to take stock of your whole life and do some soul searching. It's time to come clean with the American people.

Das Boat
"If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet?"

This one is unbelievably ignorant.

"The name "Battle of the Atlantic", first coined by Winston Churchill in 1941, is a partial misnomer for a campaign that began on the first day of the European war and lasted for six years, involved thousands of ships and stretched over hundreds of miles of the vast ocean and seas in a succession of more than 100 convoy battles and perhaps 1,000 single-ship encounters. Tactical advantage switched back and forth over the six years as new weapons, tactics and counter-measures were developed by both sides. The British and their allies gradually gained the upper hand, driving the German surface raiders from the ocean by the middle of 1941 and decisively defeating the U-boats in a series of convoy battles between March and May 1943. "

Gary Rosen
"...that he idolizes Hitler, derides Holocaust survivors and even promotes Holocaust denial. "

Strong claims. Please prove them -- especially since the author writes above: "What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust."

Pat
is losing it! Now, he is a Hitler apologist. This column is full of non-sequitors, and omissions. Read Hitler's rhetoric prior to invading Poland. He aimed for world domination, and called Americans a race of mongrels. Read Inside the Third Reich for insight Pat. You know, the book that cits Nazi writings, and does not use conjecture as you do.

Historical Ignoramus
Buchanan writes not as an historian but as a pro-Nazi propagandist, anti-Semite and Anglophobe, revealing more about his curious identity politics as an American of German origins (more important to him than his Irish roots) than anything else. The only thing that's new is his turning these prejudices into a whole volume of disgusting and preposterous psuedo-history.
He fails to mention that Hitler's intentions were clearly laid out in "Mein Kampf," published 13 years before the outbreak of war. He also fails to mention that the "racial" campaign against Jews was already in force in 1935 with the Nuremburg Laws, or that there were no less than five concentration camps in Germany prior to the War -- Dachau (1932),(Sachsenhausen (1936), Buchenwald (1937) and Mauthausen and Ravensbruck, both in 1939. Nor does he mention that the prophetic mass pogrom, Kristallnacht, took place in 1938.
Buchanan long ago entered the universe of rank outsiders. He is no conservative, but a proto-facist and racist who does not belong in the conservative movement -- nor in the pages of this publication. Until he is banished, he brings shame on us all.

Are You Kidding Me?
After reading Pat's article, I was stunned. Did he do any research at all before writing this column or is this what he chooses to believe?

The persecution of Jews started in 1935 with the Nuremberg Laws which basically took basic human rights from Jews. This is also when thugs began to burn synagogues, destroy businesses, and physically harrass Jews. You may remember Kristallnacht, that was in in 1938, well before 1942. I guess Pat feels like since people weren't actually burning, it's not a "holocaust".

Severe anti-Jewish legislation increased in 1938-1939. Jews, by this time, had lost all rights and were now forced into labor all through the German controlled areas.

When Germany invaded Poland, they established ghettos for Jews to live in. These ghettos may not have been concentration camps, but they weren't far from it. This was 1939.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, they had these units called Eisatzgruppen, mobile killing units to clean out Jewish pogroms. Still not a "holocaust" I guess.

If you want to blame someone for The Holocaust, you should blame the regular folks. People, like you and me, who stood by and did nothing.

Hitler had plans to annhilate the Jews long, long before 1942.

Remember the old saying: Those who forget the lessons history has taught us are doomed to repeat them.

RW
On Gary Rosen
Strong claims. Please prove them

It was his opinion and he is entitled to it. I will add with what pat says in his book it makes for a convincing one.
Of course I don’t expect people who drink the kool aid and or have BDS to get it.

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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



Never again, except for genocide that is
genocide: the deliberate and systematic murder of an entire political, ethnic, or religious group. Twentieth-century genocides occurred in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. Armenians and Iraqi Kurds

Of the Kurds were found in positions of power all over the world, would the genocide they experienced under Saddam be called a holocaust?

Seems to me, nothing has changed from 1930's Germany to today with the good and evil of governments and men.

How is it that Stalin is not as vilified today as Hitler?
He did murder many more people than Hitler did, and was a Western Ally.


Just plain nuts
How can anyone take Buchannan seriously after this?

I am no WW II historian, but I seem to remember the appeasement mission of Chamberain (sp) was supposed to gain Britain peace by giving Hitler territory. So this indicates that Britain was anxious for war with Hitler. I fail to see the logic.

Next Buchannan seems to be implying we and the jews would all be better off if we'd left Hitler alone to do as he wished with them and help him fight Stalin.

It may be true that Hitler double crossed Stalin who thought they were allies when he attacked the Soviet Union. However, I just don't believe we would have been better off if Hitler had defeated the Soviet Union and then took advantage of its vast resources and people to turn around and attack Britain and eventually the US.

Empire
It is a wonderful thought to consider what the world would have been like with America and a more or less intact British Empire could have accomplished during the decades of the cold war between adveserial powers (US vs. Soviet Union).

I share the view of most people that the best guess is that WWII probably would have been necessary. Although, Mr. Buchannan is as right to his musings of what "might have been" as Hitchens is certain of his musings that failure to stop Hitler would have been even more disastrous for humankind. No one can say for sure.

What is certain is that the west (the US and Britain) failed humanity considerably and with ample warning by tolerating Stalin. Liberal critics of President Bush attack Bush I for not "finishing with Sadam" or attack George W for not finishing the war in Afghanistan. The failure by the left to tolerate, support, ally and even praise the murderous reign of Stalin is the real black mark on American history.

Good Press = great sales
Funny how ALL the hosts of them TV shows, be they libs or conservatives, praise Buch's book---hot one dissenting opinnion!
What gives? Has Buchanan become a TV Land unifier, taking the crown/mantle/tile/designation/label away from Obama?

Wasted brilliance
Here we go again, to quote your idol. Pat, why did Hitler and company call themselves the Third Reich? What does Reich mean? Who was to make up the Reich, and how was it going to be achieved...if, of course, countries chose not to enter or participate willingly?

How about this Pat: if Hitler and the Nazis never came to power, would there have been a WWII? To me, it stops there. Done deal.

Countries and Empires have become war weary before; it is likely WWII certainly led to this in Britton. This usually, however, speeds up the forces ending an Empire, not creates the forces.

JPK writes:
Lumberjack7392
But 1914 was a totally different situation than 1830. The memories of Napolean were still in the British mind. The British and the Prussians were traditional allies, and Britain was thinking more of Belgium being invaded by a reinvigorated France. The 1860's were filled with French agression both in Mexioc as well as Europe. It was only after Prussia defeated France in 1870-71 did things change.

The thing is Britain's leaders felt that they had given their word in 1830, and it was still valid. They rreceivec France's word of no violation of Belgian Territory. They did not from Germany and the Treaty with Belgium went into effect. In my WW I Seminar in Grad School we concluded that everyone and no=one was to blame for the outbreak of the War.A war that was expected to be over in 3 months.

Hitler's navy
The reason Hitler didn't build a huge navy, was because he thought he saw a different way for Germany to become "lord of the earth": A vast empire stretching across Europe from Spain to Russia, all the way to the Urals.

In his mind, if Germany could conquer Eurasia, it could then dominate the world. That's why Hitler put most of the German defense budget into quick-striking armored units and the Luftwaffe.

Yes, Hitler's view seems quaint from today's perspective of intercontinental submarine-launched missiles, and nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines with unlimited range. But it made sense in the 1930s, when such devices were just science fiction.


It Wasnt Churchill, Dummy!
After the war Britain, under the malignant little leftist maggot Clement Atlee nationalized mining, the railroads, the steel mills and imposed onerous restraints and regulations on the rest of Britain's economy. Taxes went through the roof and unions were encouraged to run amok. By 1950 Germany, which had been completely physically destroyed only a few years previously, had no rationing and a booming economy. Britain retained rationing well into the 50s. The socialist policies of the labor party did more than Passendale or the Luftwaffe to destroy the British Empire. Hey, I know, lets elect a government to do all that good stuff here! GO OBAMA!

Historical Panaceas?
I am not a historian, not even an amateur historian, but I belonged to the History Book Club at one time. I cling to the very simple King of the Hill theory of history. Every century or so a megalomaniac comes along and wants to rule the world and you all know the names: Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and, wake up, Pat, Hitler.

I see where Pat is going. If no World War II, no holocaust, no Israel and bingo, the Arabs would be happy, prosperous, non-aggressive and non-suicidal.

Give it up, Pat, this is Alternate History and I am happy to say I never read or respect alternate histories or "historians."

Questions For Buchanan
-- So, the only reason Hitler invaded France is because Britain declared war on Germany? The fact that France declared war on Germany on the same day had nothing to do with it?

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

-- So, he only invaded Russia to teach Britain a lesson? That has to be the most costly lesson (costly to the teacher, not the student) in the history of the world! If Hitler wasn't worried about the US coming to Britain's aid, then why didn't he concentrate all of his attacks on England and leave Russia alone? But of course, according to Pat, we can take Hitler at his word, just like Chamberlain did.

-- So, is it your premise, Pat, that if Britain had just left Germany alone Hitler would have limited his expansion and NEVER would have instituted the Final Solution?

Are you saying that his despicable actions were caused by the actions of his enemies?

Are you comfortable talking like a blame-shifting isolationist liberal?

for Bulldog74
Bulldog74,
The only caveat I would put on "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is that it's not very objective. Shirer has a definite anti-Nazi, anti-Hitler slant.

A more objective look at Hitler was the newer biography, "Hitler," by John Toland. It doesn't resort to loaded language or editorializing like Shirer did.

By The Way, Pat
The Einsatzgruppen which followed the invading German armies into Russia in June 1941 were rounding up Jews and Communist party members and shooting them. In fact, before that, Nicoli Tolstoy in 'Stalin's Secret War' describes a scene where the Soviet NKVD refused to allow Jews to cross the Bug river, where the two armies met, and watched as the refugees were mown down by German machine guns. The Wannsee Conference didnt initiate genocide it created an industrial system to regularize it. The policy was already ongoing from the conquest of Poland. Buchanan's weird distortions of history are a disgrace because he is unfortunately labeled a 'conservative' instead of a 'loony' , which is what he is. Conservatives hate utopian, totalitarian uber-governments in whatever form they take and dont make excuses for their social-engineering schemes.

Jimbo
"How about this Pat: if Hitler and the Nazis never came to power, would there have been a WWII? To me, it stops there. Done deal."

I can easily make the counterargument that there would have been a WWII and a good chance of Germany being allied with the Soviet Union, in view of the strength of the German communist party. The dirty little secret of this was that while so many people were talking about the wonderful experiment the USSR was, the Nazis were really the only ones who saw them as the threat they were and were determined to take action against them. Most people aren't aware of the actions of Trotsky in fomenting a bolshevik revolution at the end of WWI and in the immediate post war period. Operation Barbarossa was payback.


Ryan01
"Pat answers his question with this incredibly ignorant quote from Hitchens. I'll add this answer to his question. Having a president with two wars on his hand, who wants to start a third one with Iran."

-- President Bush doesn't want to start a war with Iran. Talk about being ignorant.

One Big Mistake
I note one huge mistake Buchanan makes. He, like many, does not understand Hitler's views of eastern Europeans. Yes, Hitler wanted first to deport western European Jews and turned to extermination only when deportation was impossible.

In the east things were different. Hitler thought eastern Europeans were barely humans, and the Jews there subhuman. He was exterminating eastern Jews as soon a she invaded Russia, with a huge extermination center at Minsk. It was not the later death camp type of facility. Jews were just shipped there and then shot. Or shot where they lived if shipping proved impossible.

Then again, even if Hitler was willing to deport western Jews, he still did not like them, or think they deserved to live. He was willing to execute them as well, just not quite as quick to kill them off as the eastern Jews.

And it certainly was not the fault of the Allies.

Pat sounds like a man who says "It is your fault you were mugged. You shouldn't carry all that money around!"

Ryan01
Are you saying that one of the many communist/socialist uprisings in Germany following WWI were Trotsky inspired? And that was the reason Hitler invaded Russia?

You sounds as mad as Pat.

Hitler and others hated communism for any number of reasons, but the invasion of the USSR was driven mostly by the need for lebensraum in Hitler's mind. It helps that it also took out one of the nearest rival powers, but the primary interest was in establishing German colonies in the lands between Germany and the Urals.

Trotsky had nothing to do with it.

Doc
Which translates as -- the crankier and more outrageous your "opinion," the less need you have to defend it.

"Of course I don’t expect people who drink the kool aid and or have BDS to get it."

Doc, has it occurred to you that you might get a little further in life by not libeling and insulting people with whom you disagree? Just a thought.


jacmicwag
"I can't wait to see those Exxon stations on every corner once McCain finishes the job."

-- Coming a week after Exxon's announcement that they are selling ALL of their corporate-owned stations, this comment is particularly meaningless.

Israe'd death wish
Hitler wrote the Mein Kampf telling the Jews his intentions to them. And he did it!

Iran's LEADER, no less, said he intends to annihilate Israel. Will the Jews stand by and let it happen--------AGAIN. Take the guy at his word--- his repeated intent in case they didn't get it the first time.

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

RW
Subject: Doc
Which translates as -- the crankier and more outrageous your "opinion," the less need you have to defend it.

"Of course I don’t expect people who drink the kool aid and or have BDS to get it."

Doc, has it occurred to you that you might get a little further in life by not libeling and insulting people with whom you disagree? Just a thought.

Which translates into only lib’s may have opinions? Funny but I think the man bears his opinion out because history bears him out, not pat’s musings, or your dislike of it.
As far as me, I did not libel anyone. IMO, people who think different (kool aid drinkers) than myself are wrong.
Also I have met all my goals in life and I never have or ever will, like too see people who tear at the fabric of this nation by bad mouthing it, or by calling our president a criminal. Don’t like what I write, don’t read it.
Of course if some should wish to come and carry me off to a camp, do not expect me to go quietly such as most Jews did while the Germans cheered. But then I would not stand by if they tried to take all the liberals in America off to a camp either, as all Germans of the time did.
Just some facts.

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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



Lumberjack
"The thing is Britain's leaders felt that they had given their word in 1830, and it was still valid."

And that is my point. Little thought was given by the British as to the costs of thier agreement with Belgium. As long as Prussia was ruled by a rational Kaiser (Kaiser Wilhelm's grandfather) and Chancellor Bismarck, the chances of a general war were slim -Prussia didn't invade Belgium in 1870 in order to flank France.

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

After the Second World War, when the archives of the German General Staff were opened, it beame clear that the German General Staff was anything but optimistic concerning a war with France. The Schliefflen Plan (circa 1905) was an act of desperation. The Prussians since the Seven Year's War had one long lasting goal -avoid a 2 front war at all cost. With the reitrement of Bismarck and the reign of Wilhelm II, the Germans made every diplomatic mistake possible. By 1905, Schliefflen saw the writing on the wall. The Prussians may have been prone to outward bombast, but they were anything but optimistic about a war with France and Russia.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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



Where was British outrage
Against Russia, the Soviets?

When Stalin invaded Poland along with Hitler?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nazis viewed the Jews as vermin, like cockroaches.

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

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

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

Of course that was not about to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Are you guys NUTS, or what????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But thanks anyway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Which this article does not do anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh and TS:

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

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

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

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

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




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

Now I know why.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

My point is:

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

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

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

Strange Days Indeed Mama

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

I clicked on Pat's!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are known as "neocons".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEATH
BY GOVERNMENT
By R.J. Rummel

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


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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Shelama writes:
Her typical anti-Christian bilge.

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

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

Kooky Buchanan
Leave Pat on MSNBC where he belongs.

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

Adolf Hitler - January 30, 1939

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

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

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

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

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

spayce kadit, reed dis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on you all.

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

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

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

And TS:

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

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

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


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

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

The hypocrites


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


Nonhistorical b.s. propaganda, such as:

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

and,

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


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

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

You and Pat are indeed soul mates.

Shalom

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

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

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

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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

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

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


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

Buck scribbiles:
Patriot Buchanan Trumps Akagi

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

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

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

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



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


Good points Gil
And I agree


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


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

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



Gil writes:

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

Oh no
Doc:

We agree on something.

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


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

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

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

arrogance and hubris

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

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


DISGUSTING

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

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

I don't see it.

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

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

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

Nazis weren't conservative and neither is Pat.

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

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

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

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

That about sums it up.

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

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

Pat: The good Nazi of DC
Andrews:

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

And Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- MuscleDaddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds a bit like America today. Batten the hatches.

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

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

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


And Jack Threesongisus:

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

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



Primus54 @ 5:36 p.m.

"TH Robert Free" IS a good thing.

Good for Robert, also. Guy needs a life.

I wish him well.


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

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

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

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

Shalom

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

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

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

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/
<