Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Morality -- Trotskyite vs. Christian
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Did Hitler's crimes justify the Allies' terror-bombing of Germany?

Indeed they did, answers Christopher Hitchens in his Newsweek response to my new book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War": "The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities."

Atheist, Trotskyite and newborn neocon, Hitchens embraces the morality of lex talionis: an eye for an eye. If Germans murdered women and children, the British were morally justified in killing German women and children.

According to British historians, however, Churchill ordered the initial bombing of German cities on his first day in office, the very first day of the Battle of France, on May 10, 1940.

After the fall of France, Churchill wrote Lord Beaverbrook, minister of air production: "When I look round to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path ... an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland."

"Exterminating attack," said Churchill. By late 1940, writes historian Paul Johnson, "British bombers were being used on a great and increasing scale to kill and frighten the German civilian population in their homes."

"The adoption of terror bombing was a measure of Britain's desperation," writes Johnson. "So far as air strategy was concerned," adds British historian A.J.P. Taylor, "the British outdid German frightfulness first in theory, later in practice, and a nation which claimed to be fighting for a moral cause gloried in the extent of its immoral acts."

The chronology is crucial to Hitchens' case.

Late 1940 was a full year before the mass deportations from the Polish ghettos to Treblinka and Sobibor began. Churchill had ordered the indiscriminate bombing of German cities and civilians before the Nazis had begun to execute the Final Solution.

By Hitchens' morality and logic, Germans at Nuremberg might have asserted a right to kill women and children because that is what the British were doing to their women and children.

After the fire-bombing of Dresden in 1945, Churchill memoed his air chiefs: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."

Churchill concedes here what the British had been about in Dresden.

Under Christian and just-war theory, the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime is forbidden. Nazis were hanged for such war crimes.

Did the Allies commit acts of war for which we hanged Germans?

When we recall that Josef Stalin's judges sat beside American and British judges at Nuremberg, and one of the prosecutors there was Andrei Vishinsky, chief prosecutor in Stalin's show trails, the answer has to be yes.

While Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were surely guilty of waging aggressive war in September 1939, Stalin and his comrades had joined the Nazis in the rape of Poland, and had raped Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well. Scores of thousands of civilians in the three Baltic countries were murdered.

Yet, at Nuremberg, Soviets sat in judgment of their Nazi accomplices, and had the temerity to accuse the Nazis of the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps that the Soviets themselves had committed.

Americans fought alongside British soldiers in a just and moral war from 1941 to 1945. But we had as allies a Bolshevik monster whose hands dripped with the blood of millions of innocents murdered in peacetime. And to have Stalin's judges sit beside Americans at Nuremberg gave those trials an aspect of hypocrisy that can never be erased.

At Nuremberg, Adm. Erich Raeder was sentenced to prison for life for the invasion of neutral Norway. Yet Raeder's ships arrived 24 hours before British ships and marines of an operation championed by Winston Churchill.

The British had planned to violate Norwegian neutrality first and seize Norwegian ports to deny Germany access to the Swedish iron ore being transshipped through them. For succeeding where Churchill failed, Raeder was condemned as a war criminal and sent to prison.

The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal decided that at Nuremberg only the crimes of Axis powers would be prosecuted and that among those crimes would be a newly invented "crimes against humanity." This decree was issued Aug. 8, 1945, 48 hours after we dropped the first atom bomb on Hiroshima and 24 hours before we dropped the second on Nagasaki.

We and the British judiciously decided not to prosecute the Nazis for the bombing of London and Coventry.

It was an understandable decision, and one that surely Gen. Curtis LeMay concurred in, as LeMay had boasted at war's end, "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

After the war, a lone Senate voice arose to decry what was taking place at Nuremberg as "victor's justice." Ten years later, a young colleague would declare the late Robert A. Taft "A Profile in Courage" for having spoken up against ex post facto justice. The young senator was John F. Kennedy.

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
Thought Provoking
Thanks Pat for more thought provoking commentary. Question: Where are we to look for your offspring? The gene pool would be much better off with your DNA keeping the sheep in check.




"Your Country is Dying From Political Correctness" http://www.FightPC.net

Need for Christian political leadership
Pat Buchanan is one of my most favorite people because of his clear vision and manly courage. He sees the truth and is willing to tell it like it is even though that can make him as unpopular as is his truth.

I fully agree with his unspoken underlying thesis that strong Christian leadership is necessary in government if we are to be a genuinely moral nation of which we can all be justly proud. Pagans making national policy in war and peace naturally lack the essential moral insight necessary to make the profound choices that define us as a moral people.

We are desperately in need of strong, highly informed Christian men who will enter the political wars on the side of clear-headed, uncompromising morality and integrity. Pat and Dr. Ron Paul are two of but very, very few men who fit this description on the national political scene at present.

Pat writes:
September 1939, Stalin and his comrades had joined the Nazis in the rape of Poland, and had raped Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well. Scores of thousands of civilians in the three Baltic countries were murdered.

Yet, at Nuremberg, Soviets sat in judgment of their Nazi accomplices, and had the temerity to accuse the Nazis of the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps that the Soviets themselves had committed
----
(Stalin murdered many more than Hitler too.)

At least we do not have any Nazi's here in our Government, but unfortunately we have a multitude of Trotskyites and Lenists.

So partnering up with the Marxists has gained the commie loving, God hating reprobates all over the western nations today.

So what did we win is a good question, slower death of America and Briton it appears to me.

Fast acting poison v. slow acting I guess.

We have American haters, God haters all across this land today, Marxists, Trotskyites and their useful idiots.

Buchanan
Buchanan is way off base on his thesis in this column and in his recent book. He spends a lot of time trying to find the democracies guilty of crimes, but at the time all this was happening in the early days of WWII, it appeared that Hitler might win, and as Churchill said at the time, he would make a pact with the devil to defeat Hitler. Yes, we were in bed with the Russians - how else to insure the defeat of Hitler? It was a "pact with the devil" we suspected to defeat the deveil we knew. The U.S. and Britain participated in carpet bombing, but rather than viewing it as finding as much to hate about the U.S. as he can, Buchanan forgets that whatever was necessary to defeat Hitler was on the table, including bombing to break Hitler's power to manufacture weapons. Buchanan forgets his history, he was not a grown person in the dark days of WWII, so he cannot know how close Hitler came to winning. Somehow, I feel Buchanan is using these allegations about how WWII was conducted by the U.S. and Britain to justify supporting those who are against the war in Iraq. All Buchanan's talk about the conduct of WWII is ancient history, long shown to justify our conduct. You cannot go back and rewrite history as Buchanan is trying to do.

Well this is a switch.
A writer normally associated with the Right criticizing the West and one normally associated with the Left defending it?

Don't throw Dresden in my face, Pat...
Much more was going on there... and NOT going on there... than you know, and much of the resulting tragedy that befell on February 13, 1945 was due to a mix of German incompetence and overconfidence.

Read DRESDEN by Frederick Taylor if you don't believe me...

Pat knows not what he's talking about.
Let's see what William Tecumseh Sherman, who unlike Pat, had firsthand experience with war and was eminently competent to comment on it:

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.

This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.

War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.

War is too serious a matter to leave to soldiers.

If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell.

My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

The voice of the people is the voice of humbug.

Patrick J. Buchanan has never served in combat let alone led men into battle or been responsible for executing a war.

Pat is an armchair civilian historian whose comments on war and military history are ridiculously misguided and absurd.

Listening to Pat sermonize on isolationist pacifism is as worthwhile as listening to Bill Clinton tell you how to have a happy marriage.

Get a job Pat.

Pat
Shhhh...best to keep your mouth shut than to open it and remove all doubt.

Good article.
There may be occasions when war is necessary.

There may be no alternative.

But let no one be so simpleminded as to believe that inhumane, savage acts are committed only by the enemy.

The "good guys" do commit savage acts, too.

Such is the nature of war.

"It is well that war is so terrible..(otherwise)we would grow too fond of it". Robert E. Lee.

Lee was right.

And Buchanan is right in realizing that our socalled noble cause did not prevent us from engaging in savage acts.

That is not to say we must therefore never resort to warfare.

But returning to Lee's quote, that is one reason I have such utter contempt for some neocons in the administration who so cavalierly counsel warfare in pursuit of "democracy-building" schemes.

Most of these "academicians", these "think- tank theorists" don't know the butt from the muzzle of a rifle, yet are all too willing to write papers justifying sending American men and women into battle for reasons other than national security.

"A Clean Break, a New Strategy for Securing the Realm", is but one of a number of papers on this general topic, which was written by American neocons to an Israeli audience, but which nonetheless envisioned using American troops to invade Iraq...for the benefit of Israel.

I am not concerned with how much Stalin supposedly aided the allies in WW2, the Soviet thug pretty well got all he wanted from the west, aided by a physically weakened President Roosevelt, and perhaps by a cadre of FDR advisors who were either communist agents, or sympathetic to the Soviet regime(Alger Hiss and others).

Buchanan is correct on the odious nature of having Soviet thugs sit in judgment of ANYONE, even Nazi thugs.


Our enemies declared war on us.

There are more people in the world who want to eat your liver with a side of your brains than live in the United States.

Pat Buchanan -- and/or his offspring (hello, Martha) -- would have the United States sit on the sidelines and let the heathen Islamic savages overrun the planet (hello, ColinCody).

Over one billion people on this planet danced in the streets when they saw images of innocent people -- they assumed to be Jew-loving Christians -- like you and me jumping to their deaths from the burning Twin Towers.

When an 8+ months pregnant woman jumped over 80 stories to her death she landed on her side and her abdomen split open like a watermelon expelling her baby across the concourse.

Trailing the still alive baby by the still intact umbilical were the ripped out uterus and other assorted organs of the baby's mother which, along with the live baby, splattered, into people who were running for their lives.

But, you say Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with this act of war.

Nonsense.

Every Islamic country gives aid and comfort to Islamic terrorists. It is their leaders who are responsible for us coming over to their corner of the globe to depose them, kill them and break their stuff.

If Pat does not want the U.S. to get into what he thinks are "unnecessary" wars he needs to write books for our enemies to read. Pat needs to tell the perpetrators of terror and war to quit killing us, threatening to kill us and raising their kids with the desire to kill us.

Arab TV openly advocates the murder of U.S. citizens. Arab Muslim countries openly support Arab TV. Arab Muslim countries openly preach the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews.

All war we wage against all Arab Muslim countries is justified and necessary. In fact, we aren't doing enough to kill our enemies and break their stuff.

This is RIDIDULOUS

Mr. Buchanan; did not the Germans commit the “Firebombing of Rotterdam” on the 14th of May 1940?
Even if Churchill had talked about such bombing before the 14th, the official RAF bombing policy was NOT to ATTACK Civilians! That all change of the 14th of May 1940. The gloves were taken off on the 15th.
The Britt’s began to fight according to German Rules.

WW2
i was a Marine (volunteered) in WW2.
Reading some of the history after the surrender's I was sickened by our President participating in giving Stalin half of Europe.
Further reading of history explained that FDR's first VP was a Communist,that FDR had known Communists on his staff, and that one of them was Alger Hiss who was FDR's right hand at that Historic conference.
FDR was a great orator, however.

Semper Fi

Pat, Let It Go
Harry Truman saved thousands, maybe millions, of lives when he authorized the atomic bombing of Japan. Like Sherman said, "War is hell," and you can't expect to win if you fight with Political Correctness.

By the same token, I have often thought why imprison these Muslim terrorists when they're caught red-handed. The surest solution is the cruelist: Line them up against a wall and execute them.

Saddam Hussein and other Arab leaders have demonstrated how to defeat these fanatics: they executed them and their families and burned their villages.

In the era of nuclear missiles it's no longer feasible to fight wars under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, unless you want to lose. I think Israel's leaders understand this and will do whatever is necessary to protect Israelis--and if they destroy Iran I'd be willing to bet that Buchanan would criticize them for not talking with the Iranians before bombing them into extinction.

World War II sticks in Buchanan's craw like a chicken leg. But a gifted historian like he is should understand that war has always been a horrible disaster for millions and that is not going to change.

In fact the sad, and unlovely truth, is that today the country that launches a first strike against its presumed enemy probably will be the winner but will have to contend with critics like Buchanan for ever after.

P. B. is stark raving nuts, vol. 1
Pat is clearly now in the last desperate stages of flailing about, looking for a leg to stand on. Exhibit A: “newborn neocon, (Christopher) Hitchens.”

That’s rich, Pat. Now go back to your Fortress America sandcastle.

Bill: It was Truman's fault.

Truman gave away Europe, nuclear secrets and Turtle Bay (headquarters of the UN).

Truman was an inexperienced executive and mental midget unfit for the office the President of The United States -- not unlike B. Hussein Obama.

Truman was putty in the Communists' hands. (Obama will be putty in the terrorists' hands.)

Truman believed in "moral equivalence" which is this:

There are systems of government and morality other than the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution (and Christianity/Judaism) that are just as valid.

Truman thought it was "unfair" for us to have nuclear weapons but not our enemies.

Truman gave away Europe to the Soviet Union because he thought it was "unfair" for the U.S. to "impose our version of democracy". Truman was completely ignorant or in denial of Stalin's genocide against 20 million of his own people.

When McArthur wanted to -- correctly and justifiably -- march up the Korean Penninsula into China to fulfill our promise to support the democratically elected leaders of China to avert the subjugation of nearly a billion people and the rise of a threat to our national security, Truman fired him.

And what was the result? The first U.S. defeat/retreat in our history, the fall into slavery of half of Korea (who are dying and suffering in unspeakable misery to this day) and the creation of the greatest threat to our nation next to the Soviet Union that we would spend trillions over the next 60 years arming ourselves to defend against.

Had we gone into China and stamped out Communism in Asia, 80 million of Mao's citizens would have been spared, the Soviet Union would have been defeated several decades sooner and the lunatic running now North Korea would be sweeping the streets somewhere as is befitting his intellect and skills set.

Pat: You're a pacifist idiot.

Stuff it Buchanan !
Your latest tome is garbage & "no sale" here.Several REAL historians have already shredded it.(ck http//www.victorhanson.com/articles).This book "urinates on all the heroic American/British soldiers who gave their lives in what was ultimately a valiant triumph over Nazi evil" (cred. to DebbieSchlussel) on 6/22/08.
Also,other opinions have accused Buchanan of avoiding service in Vietnam because of an ALLEGEDLY bad knee...so bad that they say he was observed afterwards regularly running at very high speeds.Hmmmmmmmm.
I have no opinion on these matters but wouldn't the thought of "draft-dodger" come to mind if it were true ?
Read the above references & decide for yourself.

Red flags phrases.

People who use the following phrases and claim to be conservative are not; they are actually giving themselves away as either escapees of the Boobie Hatch or side-of-the-aisle-confused transcons:

1. Neocon
2. Dr. Ron Paul
3. Ron Paul
4. Monetarism
5. Unnecessary War


Democracy Building
I never did think that "democracy building" was an end goal in Iraq or anywhere else we have fought. Rather, it was a tactic for promoting OUR national security. We could annihilate Iraq, adn that would have ended any threat from them; and we could have done it with less causalties than we have had. Instead, I thyink we took the attitude that making them a "friendly" nation by means of an accoutnable form of givernment would acheive our goal of antional seciruty without the total destruction of the country.

One may argue whther the idea has worked; but we must not think that our "democracy building" was simply meddling in other nations' business. It was a method of stopping them from causing us trouble to us.

Pat, please, heed my request
Pat, please, stick to what you are good at and write about our founding fathers, our republic and its founding principles. While I have not read your new book it strikes me that you are attempting to be the contrarian's contrarian but all you are doing is pushing people who normally agree with you to do the unthinkable and side with Christopher Hitchens. You may not like it but Victor Davis Hanson is correct and all your book is doing is insulting the memories of many fine men and women who gave their lives to win an unfortunate but necessary war against the embodiement of pure evil.

Stop Rehashing WWII
The war we now have is HERE AND NOW!!!! We have a Communist Running For President, and Nobody Is Taking Off The Gloves in Challenging This Poser, Obama. From his earliest training, he has been trained as a Communist. So, stop with the WWII and England, and all that. We have A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER FACING US NOW!!! Bomb Obama's Chances of Being Elected by EXPOSING THIS MOSTER'S PAST AND PRESENT IDEOLOGY. Obama is the most Clear and Present Danger we have. Then, begin Voting Out Every Congress Person Who Supported this Communist, because Birds of A Feather, and all that.

Jerome Ennis in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
jeromeenis@aol.com
Town Hall Blogs: Take Back Our Schools and Take Back Our Communities.

Stop Obama--Stop Communism
The war we now have is HERE AND NOW. We have a Communist Running For President, and Nobody Is Taking Off The Gloves in Challengin This Poser, Obama. From his earliest training, he has been trained as a Communist. So, stop with the WWII and England, and all that. We have A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER FACING US NOW. Bomb Obama's Chances of Being Elected by EXPOSING THIS MONSTER'S PAST AND PRESENT IDEOLOGY. Obama is the most Clear and Present Danger we have. Then, begin Voting Out Every Congress Person Who Supported this Communist, because Birds of A Feather, and all that. Barach's church for 20 years run by Rev. Wright was mentor. Davis, a communist, was Barach's early childhood surrogate father and mentor. Muslim and Liberation Theology (Marxist) was Obama's early Influence. His support for UN and 850 Billion in giveaways are the programs he has sponsored in the Senate. His Early Political Prowess--Community Organizer in Chicago--Translated Marxist Race Hustling. Wake Up. Stay In The Here and Now Mr. Buchanan. You used to be listened to by Conservatives. Use your talents and Help Expose Obama..

Jerome Ennis in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
jeromeenis@aol.com
Town Hall Blogs: Take Back Our Schools and Take Back Our Communities.

STOP OBAMA & STOP COMMUNISM AT HOME
The war we now have is HERE AND NOW. We have a Communist Running For President, and Nobody Is Taking Off The Gloves in Challengin This Poser, Obama. From his earliest training, he has been trained as a Communist. So, stop with the WWII and England, and all that. We have A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER FACING US NOW. Bomb Obama's Chances of Being Elected by EXPOSING THIS MONSTER'S PAST AND PRESENT IDEOLOGY. Obama is the most Clear and Present Danger we have. Then, begin Voting Out Every Congress Person Who Supported this Communist, because Birds of A Feather, and all that. Barach's church for 20 years run by Rev. Wright was mentor. Davis, a communist, was Barach's early childhood surrogate father and mentor. Muslim and Liberation Theology (Marxist) was Obama's early Influence. His support for UN and 850 Billion in giveaways are the programs he has sponsored in the Senate. His Early Political Prowess--Community Organizer in Chicago--Translated Marxist Race Hustling. Wake Up. Stay In The Here and Now Mr. Buchanan. You used to be listened to by Conservatives. Use your talents and Help Expose Obama..

Jerome Ennis in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
jeromeenis@aol.com
Town Hall Blogs: Take Back Our Schools and Take Back Our Communities.

Dear Pat,
It's called war.

Thanks for playing.


Please read the last book by P.Buchanan
May I kindly suggest that the participants of the discussion please read the last book by P. Buchanan "... and unnecessary war."
For me personally it was actually not an easy job, the book cites many events and sources not widely known. In this posting I am neither "for" of "against" the statements made in that book. But please everybody, have a decency to read the materials you are talking about.

Morality, etc.
WAR IS HELL, ain't it, as one of it's most ardent practitioners noted (Wm. T. Sherman) and the victors can DO anything they wanta, but most onerous is the fact that victors get to WRITE the history, huh!! Jim in Mo.

Morality, etc.
Nikita Kruschev said it best about 1960, WE WILL take you without firing a shot - from within. Now we have a MUSLIM COMMUNIST about to ascend to our highest office. The American people (for Obama) have just got to be DUMBER THAN DIRT. H. L. Mencken UNDERSTATED THINGS ON THIS SCORE!!

Jim in MO.

Insane
There are plenty of good, intelligent conservative columnists at Townhall.
Pat Buchanan isn't one of them.

Please remove this Nazi apologist from Townhall, you are embarassing yourselves and fast losing your credibility.
Not to mention indirectly smearing conservatives here by associating with this idiotic liar.
Whoever approved of printing this nazi propaganda should be ashamed of themselves.

Send Buchanan packing to the Daily Kos or Stormfront where he will be more at home.
He now stands for everything our Heroes of World War Two fought against.

You have completely destroyed Hitchens
Pat: You have completely destroyed Hitchens. I used to enjoy his writing. I had a pleasant conversation with him after one of his lectures on Orwell. I had asked a pretty funny question: "Why did Orwell remain a Socialist? Hadn't he read 1984?"

I had always questioned the nonsense about WW II being the "good war." I think it is called the good war because both liberals and conservatives were for it. Liberals were for it because we were fighting on the side of the Communists. Conservatives were for it because they are patriotic, no matter what. I think patriotism is about as dumb as school spirit.


I think some have missed
What Patrick is speaking about.
I am reading his comments stem from a very basic concept the Apostle Paul spoke of in his letter to the Ephesians.

Eph 6:12 -
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


What is good and what is evil?
If one is founded in Christianity and accepts Jesus Christ as Messiah, as Christians do, isn't His ideas and Words important to understand the battle is not against flesh and blood, but spiritual wickedness, rulers of the darkness of this world.

I believe this is the reason Patrick is bringing this subject up to talk about.
Hardly about supporting Nazi's any more than he is supporting the God hating Stalinists or Trotkyites, right here in America and Europe.

Buchanan Is No Conservative
Pat Buchanan can be called a paleo-con or a reactionary, but whatever you call him, he is no conservative and should not be referenced as such here or anywhere else. Pat Buchanan's revisionist pseudo-history of World War II only shows how off the wall he has become. The notion that Allied bombing of Germany resulted in the Holocaust is nonsense. Hitler's German National Socialism intended from the start that there to be a race-based "utopian" Europe dominated by the German "master race." Ridding Europe of Jews was but one part of that nightmarish "utopian" vision.

So are the Founders
Phil Byler writes:- 1:22 PM EST
Subject:
Pat Buchanan can be called a paleo-con

----
Paleo
Is the old not the new.

The Founders were all Paleo Conservatives by holding onto the Truths given to men from way back, based in Documents dating back to 1215, the Magna Carta.

And many more ancient and old documents, read them here.
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.h tml

A TREASURY OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS
Primary Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History
An invaluable collection of historical works which contributed to the formation of American politics, culture, and ideals

Bible:

Job 24:2 -
Some remove the landmarks;

Jer 6:16 -
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Ec 1:9 -
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

We still have wickedness in high places.

To Talent Scout
The Founding Fathers, in the late 18th century, established a new nation in America by a revolution from British imperial rule and then instituting republican government, embracing popular sovereignty and written constitutions, in a manner that was different from the past. The Founding Fathers were at once both radicals (see Professor Gordon Woods's "Radicalism of the American Revolution") and conservative in the sense of preserving, in their view, their inherited liberties, rights and property. With the foregoing, Pat Buchanan, in the early 21st century, has nothing in common.

Scout
what he OUGHT to be talking about is wiping out the Sandnazis here, abroad, and in the universe until the Koran is quoted only in Hell!

If Pat is making a "spritual" case for Just War then to criticize the Means as Unjust when the were, apparently, VITAL to the end is a kind of false moral dilemma.

The bottom line is Pat would rather let Sandnazis kill Jews rather than fight the Sandnazis, why I don't know because it seems irrational to me. All this WWII revision is simply to justify his Flat(ulent) Earth Isolationism--21st Century State Suicide by Foreign Policy.
A RATIONAL case would have argued gearing up for War the second Hitler came to power and for America and England to have blow him back to Berlin pre-Munich. The real sagacious long term strategy would have been to overawe him into initiating Barbarosa rather than Poland and France, give the Commies just a trickle of material to keep them in it and let the two Socialist Brothers bleed each other to death while Britain, America and an uninvaded France subjugate Japan BEFORE Pearl Harbor.

There's your life preserving, World Changing MORAL alternative--we might NEVER have GOT nukes if the Pat Buchannons of the 30s had had ANY brains or balls. That truth is still applicable today. The PBs of this World will ALWAYS make Wars both more inevitable and more costly by failing to ManUp at the right time.

And here I thought Pat was going to talk about the Gloucester Mass Fertility Cult.

Oh well, click on my blog (underlined name above) for a skewering of Gang GLM-17.
Why is TH so quiet about it? They are the Poster City for the logical, if unexpected--one hesitates to say unintended because one never really knows how commiequeers think--consequences of Blue State Society Norms.
Which is what I thought Trots and Christians would be about.

the big mick

Ruthlessness:
Necessary to defeat an enemy who understands nothing less.

To TH, rfc007, billybob, Jerseyvet And


anyone else who is sick of reading about this utterly worthless book which should be titled "Pat Buchanan: Unnecessary", here's good news.

Major Dick Winters' "Beyond Band Of Brothes" is out in a large paperback edition.

DON'T MISS THIS BOOK!

Some of the last words spoken in HBO's "Band of Brothers" are also the first words written in the book. Pat Buchanan might want to try reading those words and the book by Major Winters, who served in "a company of heros".



From this day to the ending of the world....

We in it shall be remembered...

We gallant few, we band of brothers.

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother.

Phil, I do not disagree
Phil Byler - 3:25 PM EST
To Talent Scout
The Founding Fathers, in the late 18th century, established a new nation in America by a revolution from British imperial rule and then instituting republican government, embracing popular sovereignty and written constitutions, in a manner that was different from the past. The Founding Fathers were at once both radicals (see Professor Gordon Woods's "Radicalism of the American Revolution") and conservative in the sense of preserving, in their view, their inherited liberties, rights and property. With the foregoing, Pat Buchanan, in the early 21st century, has nothing in common.
---

With you basic statements at all.
Yes they put a new nation together but only bringing in the very old ideas, that had been learned, yet never instituted or incorporated as foundational principles for a nation.

Liberal in the respect they wanted change from their present rule of Royalty, but paleo conservative in bring in the very old ideas of men like John Locke, and the many others they cited, including the Apostle Paul.


Read More History
I find it interesting that a lot of attention is now being focused on whether we should or should not have joined World War II. Looking back at that time, a lot of things were happening simultaneously. FDR ran against Alf Landon in that election. Landon wanted to stay out of the war and appealed to the quite-large anti-war sentiment that prevailed during the time. Reread editorials of the major newspapers of the day and you will see countless opinion against entering the war. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor, it's quite possible we could have sat out the war entirely.

Where I disagree w/Patrick
Is over Israel.
He is just wrong and this is where some get he is anti-semetic.
Maybe he is down deep, I do not know for certain, but I know he gets a lot of hate mail himself, right here for sure.

The other thing I know Pat is mis-understood about is "isolationism".
What crap.
America has had Global Trade since George Washington.
But before the corporations took over the government and became partners with government, our government believed in free trade.
The people who once wanted Tariffs are the same people who do not want Tariffs today.

The Tariffs protected American Manufacturing that allowed our standard of living to grow.
Workers were paid highest here, due to Tariffs and limiting outside cheap labor produced goods and service.

Now the large manufacturers want the cheap labor outside America but no Tariffs to pay so they label people like Pat as "isolationists" ha ha.

That is the phony-ist of all the arguments.
It is not isolationism to want to keep our standard of living and not have to compete against the workers in Bangladesh, China, Mexico etc.






Just cause
If we did not invade a state that is systematically destroying tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, what kind of a society would that make us?

CATO....YOU GAVE YOURSELF AWAY !!

CATO WRITES:

Subject: Red flags phrases.

People who use the following phrases and claim to be conservative are not; they are actually giving themselves away as either escapees of the Boobie Hatch or side-of-the-aisle-confused transcons:

1. Neocon
2. Dr. Ron Paul
3. Ron Paul
4. Monetarism
5. Unnecessary War

SIR_ASLAN writes: On the contrary, CATO..you just pis.ed in your own hat....LOL


Dear Mr. Buchanan:
If a nation does not invade another nation that is systematically destroying tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children per day, what does that say about its moral character?

Pat is right, again
For those of you screeching about "moral equivalence," war always, always devolves into a question of who is more ruthless and immoral. Although "Christian Just War Theory" is a nice parlor game, it simply does not work in the real world of war.

This is why war is to be avoided unless you have absolutely no other alternative for your own self defense.

We can screech about the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, but it sounds hollow when we realize we murdered over a hundred thousand of them in the first and only nuclear attack in history--at which time the Japanese were suing for peace and perfectly willing to discuss terms of honorable surrender.

We can screech about the German war crimes like attacking neutral Norway--but does that compare with the mass terror bombing of Dresden, a town with no military significance?

I am not a "peacenik." I believe there are rare instances where war is justified, about one percent of the time. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are completely illegal and unjustified.

Pat's revisionist history is accurate and very thought-provoking. Kudos to him.

Paolo:
I haven't heard the screeching.

The conservative estimate is that ten times as many people were killed in WWII with samuri swords as were killed with nuclear weapons. It was a part of Japanese officer training, carried out mostly in China.

As Menachem Begin once asked: "You want to compare atrocities?"

"Completely illegal & unjustified?" In your mind, maybe. No one wants war, but as the Book of Ecclesiates says: 'To everything there is a season... a time of war, a time of peace."
One of the flaws in human nature that even you cannot correct.

Pat Buchanan at his best
Im sure glad Mr. Buchanan is one of the good guys. He surgically dismantled Hitchen's pathetic attempt to draw swords with him. If I were someone who was a fan of Hitchens I would sincerely be embarrased for him. Most criticisms come from folks who haven't read the book. I know because as someone who has been reading the book it is obvious people aren't aware that their comments have been dealt with in the book. For example take a look at the intellectually paralyzed individual calling himself "rawmuse" whatever that is. He regurgitates that same old "Pat is an anti-semite/ pro-nazis" nonesense. Its easy to name call there genius, another thing to take on his arguments in an intelligent fashion which to his credit at least Hitchens pretended to do. Personally, I think the only redeeming quality of Townhall is that Mr. Buchanan writes for it.
And then there is someone who thinks he/she is "Cato" and proceeds to enlighten us that if we use his list of words then we are not conservative. I have my own list of words/phrases which would reveal a pseudo conservative like "Cato" 1) "Im a big supporter of John McCain" 2)I like watching Fox 3) Democracy 4) "compassionate Conservativism" 5)Republican Party
Please people at least read the books you criticize you would at least look more reasonable and serious. Yes Im talking to you "TheBigMick", Pat arguments for the case against entry in to WWII is solid when you consider the FDR never wanted to keep us neutral but wanted to fight alongside your favorite uncle Joe Stalin.

final comment
@TC in PA...Tks,I'll ck out that book.

@JR in TX...do yourself a favor,read Victor Davis Hanson's 2 articles,he certainly does to Buchanan what you think Buchanan did to Hitchens !Talk about real slicing & dicing,heh,heh,heh.

Oh Really
Are you serious there Billybob? Of course I read Hanson's 2 articles and that's precisley why I wrote what I wrote. Listen my liberal friend (and yes I do consider you a liberal if you support that extreme leftist Democrat Hanson)I know you are stuck on Hanson as the greatest court jester, excuse me I meant court historian for your views but perhaps like Mr. Buchanan said he should just stick to undergrads at Hillsdale teaching them about the ancient Greeks. BTW Mr. Buchanan once again responded to Hanson's second article. Hanson's so called "slicing" as you put it was nothing more than ad hominem attacks, nothing of substance of course. But Im sure folks like you will think that kind of stuff is the height of intellectual virtue. Good luck buddy. Oh I almost forgot to say, "heh, heh, heh, heh"

All to sell another book
Buchanon seems to think that by carefully selecting and omitting different facts, and to suggest things when no facts exist to prove them, he can revise history. Why is trying so hard to mislead? I suppose it could be just to sell another book.

For example, by saying Churchil ordered Germany bombed during his first day in office, Buchanon falsely implies Churchill was yearning for genocide. But history already knows (and accepts as sound strategy) that Churchill ordered that Germany be bombed in order to provoke Hitler to redirect the German war machine away from diminishing British air defenses, and thereby better enable Britain to defend itself.

And Buchanon goes further and appears to say that the Germans were justified in bombing Britain and deporting from Polish ghettos, in reprisal, but, the German actions were completely lacking in any military or moral justification whatsoever.

Buchanon is wrong because German reprisal bombings on Britain far exceeded the scale of the early RAF raids on Germany. And the
deportations from Polish Ghettos served no military purpose to the Axis war effort whatsoever, and had nothing to do with the air battles over Britain.


Just War Theory
actually applies in the real world more than some here seem to think.
Two atheist nations, USSR and Nazi Germany, did not take prisoners very often and usually killed, at various rates, the prisoners they did take.

Two Christian countries, Imperial Germany and Imperial Russia, did take prisoners and the prisoners were not killed.

In fact, sometimes only one side needs to be a [practicing] Christian power for this to work. Because two main WWII aliies, USA and UK, were Christian countries, they generally took care of their POWs, and so Nazi Germany took care of American and Bristish POWs. The system worked because if either side mistreated their POWs, the other side would (and sometime did) conduct reprisals. American POWs in Japan were greatly mistreated, but here you had an example of a people who were completely ignorant of Just War Theory.




Are you serious? Selling a book?
Chip, your comments do a good job of what others like Hanson and Hitchens have been doing for some time, misrepresenting Pat Buchanan. Anytime someone like Chip say things like Buchanan "fasley implies" or "appears" to be saying one thing or another its a good sign that you don't have a clue. These catch phrases are indicators that Buchanan did not say what they want him to say but by playing "lets pretend that's what he said" and setting up a strawman it makes life a whole lot easier fro Chip and others. First nowhere does Buchanan imply or appear to say anything. He says everthing on the page and there is no need to read between the lines by anyone except for Chip who seem to have developed this clairvoyant talent. It's simply silly and ridiculous to say that he is hinting that he defended the Nazis Polish ghetto. His point is that Germany's reprisals were wrong and deplorable but would not have happened if not for the bombing of German cities which were not morally justified unless your view of morality includes mass bombing of civilians which wouldn't suprise me really. And as Buchanan has pointed out, the chronology is fatal to the neocons (uh oh I used a censored word)and Chip.
The point is not that what Germany did was justified but if Churchill had not gone on his indiscriminate and immoral bombing campaign that the consequences of someone as evil as Hitler would not have responded the way he did. I know that this a hard fact to swallow
for those like Chip who burn incense at the altar of father Churchill but as Buchanan points out even Churchill would repudiate this form of warfare. Listen, Buchanan can write in his own defense but Ill just say the whole "he just wants to sell books" argument is rather old and mundane. As a matter of fact I just got an email from the 80's, it wants its argument back.

JR
Yes, I am serious. Buchanon did a halfway decent job with his book, Death of the West, which took a hard look at current "change" in the world, but after that he's turned nazi, and his books are just sensational drivel.

And no, I'm not a particularly great admirer of Churchill. But I know history respects his rationale for bombing German cities as a necessary
tactic to defend Britain.

And actually I do understand Buchanon's point that, as you wrote, "Hitler would not have responded as he did", [had not Churchill ordered German cities bombed]. But I know his point is basically wrong, because had not Churchill did what he did, Hitler would indeed have acted differently: He would have accepted Britain surrender.

But surrender wasn't an option to the British, JR. At least not then. So they WANTED Germany to bomb British cities rather than bomb their few remaining British military assets, so they would not have to surrender to Hitler.

It is a far more convincing argument that Hitler's disproportionatly heavier bombing of Britain early in the war, and his other immoral actions throughout occupied Europe, were what led the Allies to bomb German cities into rubble late in the war. The Brits carried out the night raids against the civilians, to exact their revenge, while the Americans kept to the precision daylight raids on German military targets.

Naturally Churchill, later in the war, since diversion was his intent all along and NEVER genocide, would have realized that with the extreme British bombing of cities such as Dresden, that the moment had come for this question of bombing cities should be reviewed, and then he said as much.

To Chip
Let me start off by saying that the last time I knew someone who engaged in name calling and took it seriously, much like you do, I was in the first grade. Name calling as one commentator puts it is more a description of the person launching it then the one recieving it. Thats why its easy to name call ("nazis") because it makes you fell you have accomplshed something.
Its hard to respond to a statement you make in your comments that makes absolutley no sense whatsoever, "He (Hitler) would have accepted Britain (sic) surrender" What? Where does this come from? What were German's intentions towards England before the war? Hostile/not hostile? Recount that bit of pre-war history for me please, Chip, and then tell me how this squares with the idea that Britain would have surrendered. Once again all German hostilities toward England due to the war guarantee (among other things) that England felt somehow obligated to uphold which is the theses of Buchanan's book.
Then you make this wonderfully delicous remark "So they WANTED (your emphasis) Germany to bomb British cities" instead of military assets. Humor me Chip and tell us where you got this from, namely that they wanted their own civilians killed. If you could justify that statement I'll be interested and so will many historians who perhaps didn't know that England was willing to sacrifice their people like that.

Does history respect his rationale for his bombing tactics? Perhaps, by those whose moral view of the world is like yours, an "anything goes" mentality. But what concerns me more is that for someone who is not a "great admirer" of Sir Churchill your statements are chilling as to what they reveal about your thinking.

Was Churchill right in going to war against Germany? As Buchanan writes, yes! from 41-45 they had every right and nothing Buchanan writes in his book takes away from his bravely defending England during this time.

To JR
You obviously misunderstood much of
what I wrote, and know very little of the history of these matters.

Of course I don't believe "anything goes" in war. And I didn't call Buchanon any names because I used the word "nazi" because I have read several of Buchanon's books and many of his columns, (which you obviously have not), and this is simply what I see: a nazi. It may be constructive to argue over whether it is better to always do right in wartime, or if one must choose between the lesser of two evils, but NOT with someone who knows nothing about the basic
history and background of such events, except what Pat Buchanon tells him.


To Chip Again
You don't give yourself the credit you deserve. You were very clear about want England wanted in terms of wanting their own civilian population bombed in order to protect their military infrastructure. I just noticed that you never accept my invitation for you to back up your assertions. You dismiss it with a convenient I "know very little of the history of these matters". Fine, then enlighten me and any others who may be following these exchanges. You made specific allegations about Churchill surrendering without any sources.
You spend more time in your latest post tryng to defend your name calling by saying you've read all his books and articles and therefore you know he is a nazi. Please, do you think that having read everything he written is a great feat that you alone have accomplished? As someone who has also accomplished this great feat, let me ask you to recite everything he has said on nazism for example in his book A Republic Not an Empire or elsewhere. Like I said names are more of an auto biographical sketch of the name caller and sure sign of an uniformed individual. But then again the invitation is still on the table for you to back up your talk. I look foward to it. Good luck, Chip

JR
Firstly, you misunderstood me about Churchill surrendering, probably because of a typo, a "'s" was missing from one of my sentences. I wrote "... had not Churchill did what he did, Hitler would indeed have acted differently: He would have accepted Britain['s] surrender." This means Hitler would have accepted Britain's surrender, not the other way around. Also, your saying I made "specific allegations" is pluralizing the one single assertion I made about surrender, which you misunderstood.

As to my historical sources, if you dispute a single historic fact below,
name it.

Fact 1) Churchill ordered Berlin bombed by 81 RAF Hampton medium bombers for a token pretext (a German plane accidentally dropped its bombs on London).
Fact 2) Churchill's raid provoked Hitler to order all British cities be bombed to rubble. Fact 3) Hitler's
raids gave the RAF the respite it needed to eventually win the battle.

Conclusion 1): Churchill knew what he was doing, because Hitler's raids, that he (Churchill) provoked, saved the RAF, and turned the battle's and the war's tide.

Fact 4) The German High Command believed if they bombed the British cities, it could cost the battle, because it would galvanize the British people and divert resources away from their actual war, so they advised Hitler against it.

Conclusion 2): If German High Command knew this, so did the British High Command. And so did Churchill.
Conclusion 3): Churchill and the British High Command WANTED the Germans to bomb Bristish cities, and win the war, RATHER than have them bomb their few remaining military assets, and lose the war.

The above facts are all on one easy page (below) for you. Also they are in most books on the subject readable
by those who have completed first grade.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/Battle_of _Britain/AP22.htm

Chip
Im glad you at least attempted to at least deal with the facts. Unfortunately for you I did finish the first grade and can read. So I looked up your great source you provided... a link. Again unfortunately for you I actually read it! Where does it say anything you assert in you're nice syllogism. You do a nice job smuggling your first conclusion "Churchill knew what he was doing"in. Its not supported by your Facts #1-3. You imply that by knowing he wanted it,both I dispute but even your own syllogism doesnt support it at all. If you dont believe me take it to a logic professor and have him grade it for validity!

Your 2nd conclusion is even less supported by the second set of facts. "If the German High Command knew this so did the British High Command. And so did Churchill" What? How so? One again just looking at the form of yur argument you dont even come close. Just look at your arguments. Thats why I asked for sources not games in syllogistic logic. Because even a good argument can be argued badly (I dont believe you have the former but definitely the latter). Once again your link is informative but I dont see how it supports yur case, but your trying at least, good for you.

JR
I gave you the facts, and challenged you to dispute a single one. The facts speak for themselves. I have no control over what conclusions you choose to draw.

How long has it been since you and your father parted ways?

Oh Chip
I see you are a comedian as well. Remember that whole thing about name calling and it being more telling of the name caller? Well everybody, I think Chip here has some daddy issues he needs to deal with. Please dont superimpose your personal failures on me, its kind of old As for your very noble attempt to use syllogisms to build a case, I see you've backed off from defendng it, I dont blame you partner, it was kind of embarrasing. But nice try in shifting the burden on me as though I have to do your own work. YOU made these assertions of Britain's tactical strategy and Churchill's intentions, not me, remember? You then make an attempt that I simply evaluated on the merits of the argument itself and found them invalid. Since you provide no sources except a government site, let me help you here, there is an excellent book called Churchill and Strategic Dilemnas Before the World Wars by John Maurer. Guess what? Your theory is nowhere mentioned in this book, what a surprise! Its a hard to get book but look for it in a library. Chip Ill just say this, people like you are a dime a dozen, personal attacks but no substance. You're a chip off the old block. I have no problems keeping this up for as long as you want. Youre not going to get off that easy.

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