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, April 07, 2009
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
March Madness, 1939
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?


On Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler's panzers smashed into Poland. Two days later, an anguished Neville Chamberlain declared war, the most awful war in all of history.

Was the war inevitable? No. No war is inevitable until it has begun. Was it a necessary war? Hearken to Churchill:

"One day, President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once, 'The Unnecessary War.' There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world ... ."

But if the war need not have happened, what caused it?

Let us go back to Munich.

On Sept. 30, 1938, at Munich, Chamberlain signed away the Sudetenland rather than fight to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule imposed upon them at the Paris peace conference in violation of Wilson's principle of self-determination.

Why did Britain not fight?

Because Britain had no alliance with Prague and Chamberlain did not "give two hoots" who ruled the Sudetenland. Also, Britain had no draft, no divisions to send to France, no Spitfires, no support from America or her dominions, no ally save France, who had been told that, if war came, the United States would not deliver the planes France had purchased.

U.S. neutrality laws forbade it.

In his meetings with Chamberlain, Hitler had warned that Poland and Hungary would also be entering claims for ancestral lands ceded to the Czechs at Paris in 1919.

Thus, after Munich, Warsaw had seized coal-rich Teschen, which held tens of thousands of Poles. Hungary, in the "Vienna Award" of Nov. 2, 1938, got back lands in Slovakia and Ruthenia where Hungarians were the majority and Budapest had ruled before 1919.

Neither Britain nor France resisted these border revisions.

Came then March 1939, when Czechoslovakia began to crumble.

On March 10, to crush a Slovakian push for independence, Czech President Emil Hacha ousted Slovak Prime Minister Father Tiso, occupied Bratislava and installed a pro-Prague regime.

On March 11, Tiso fled to Vienna and appealed to Berlin.

On March 13, Tiso met Hitler, who told him that if he did not declare independence immediately, Germany would not interfere with Hungary's re-annexation of Slovakia. Budapest was moving troops to the border.

On March 14, Slovakia declared independence. Ruthenia followed, dissolving what was left of Czechoslovakia.

Adm. Horthy, told by Hitler he could re-annex Ruthenia but must keep his hands off Slovakia, occupied Ruthenia.

Hacha now asked to meet with Hitler to get the same guarantee of independence Slovakia had gotten. But Hitler bullied Hacha into making the Czech remnant a protectorate of Germany.

Thus, six months after Munich, the Germans of Czechoslovakia were where they wished to be, under German rule. The Poles were under Polish rule. The Hungarians were under Hungarian rule. And the Slovaks were under Slovak rule in their new nation.

But 500,000 Ruthenians were back under Budapest, and 7 million Czechs were back under German rule -- this time Berlin, not Vienna.

Ethnonationalism had torn Czechoslovakia apart as it had the parent Hapsburg Empire. Yet, no vital British interest was imperiled.

And though Hitler had used brutal Bismarckian diplomacy, not force, Chamberlain was humiliated. The altarpiece of his career, the Munich accord, was now an object of mockery.

Made a fool of by Hitler, baited by his backbenchers, goaded by Lord Halifax, facing a vote of no confidence, on March 31, 1939, Chamberlain made the greatest blunder in British diplomatic history. He handed an unsolicited war guarantee to the Polish colonels who had just bitten off a chunk of Czechoslovakia.

Lunacy, raged Lloyd George, who was echoed by British leaders and almost every historian since.

With the British Empire behind it, Warsaw now refused even to discuss a return of Danzig, the Baltic town, 95 percent German, which even Chamberlain thought should be returned.

Hitler did not want a war with Poland. Had he wanted war, he would have demanded the return of the entire Polish Corridor taken from Germany in 1919. He wanted Danzig back and Poland as an ally in his anti-Comintern Pact. Nor did he want war with a Britain he admired and always saw as a natural ally.

Nor did he want war with France, or he would have demanded the return of Alsace.

But Hitler was out on a limb with Danzig and could not crawl back.

Repeatedly, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. Repeatedly, the Poles rebuffed him. Seeing the Allies courting Josef Stalin, Hitler decided to cut his own deal with the detested Bolsheviks and settle the Polish issue by force.

Though Britain had no plans to aid Poland, no intention of aiding Poland and would do nothing to aid Poland -- Churchill would cede half that nation to Stalin and the other half to Stalin's stooges -- Britain declared war for Poland.

The most awful war in all of history followed, which would bankrupt Britain, bring down her empire and bring Stalin's Red Army into Prague, Berlin and Vienna. But Hitler was dead and Germany in ashes.

Cost: 50 million lives. "But 'twas a famous victory."

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
Our biggest problem . . .
is that we generally do not learn from history and as the old saying goes, we tend to repeat it - often.

Obama is the president of the United States today because those who swoon at the sound of his name and the sight of his "dreamy eyes" know nothing of history, will not listen to those who do know and live in an imaginary utopia in which every one gets a car, a house, a credit card with no limit, free medical care, free eductation (in which they are not required to study history) and all their bills will be paid by the "gracious god" Obama.

talent scout/Pistol Replies#42to49
Great points guys.
TS,Great stuff about Stalin and the communists.
Pistol,your right,playing what if....is pointless.
I LOVE PAT.
He's been my hero for years.I learned my conservativism from him.Way back in his Crossfire days.But i think history has been decided.Hitler was bad and we did a good thing.We took him out.And 50years later we took out communism.Thank you Ronald Reagan.
Pat should move on.We need leaders today who will fight for LIBERTY,today.
Conservatives need a plan to win.Not a history lesson.ANYWAY.

ROB from Louisiana.

Good points Pistol
But I know one or two things for certain.

People will not learn anything from history.

And people will never agree on the lessons even if they try and learn from history.

Talent Scout
From what i've read, Buchanan is a little rough on Churchill. FDR misread adn underestimated both Stalin and the Russians. I have heard apologies for FDR's failure to move east when he could have in WW2, which would have saved a lot of people a lot of misery. The apologizers said he did it to save American lives. Whatever,it was an expensive decision. Buchanan is an iconoclast and raises interesting possibilities, but in the final analysis playing what if.... is pointless. Observe, learn and move on.

Genocide
Is happening right now. today, this minute.

Oppression is going on right now today.

In a multitude of nations around the world.

We belong to an organization we pay the lions share for its existence to bring about a perfect union of nations and what are they doing about any of it?

NOTHING!


GENOCIDE IN SUDAN
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide_genocide_in _sudan.php

The UN will not even use the word Genocide.

This generation is the biggest bunch of hypocrites planet earth has ever produced

Chamberlain concedes to Hitler
Roosevelt and Churchill conceded to Stalin, or Uncle Joe as they called that murderer.

Chamberlain is excoriated, rightly perhaps, but if so, both Roosevelt and Churchill deserve the very same excoriation for their deals with the devil.

Nazi's were defeated and are not a problem today, but the damn communists/socialists/marxists are.

No difference in Hitler and the Nazi's and Stalin and the Communists.

Murdering scum all

The link to understand Pats point
http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050511-ww2.htm

Quote:
If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

P. Buchanan

Maybe some of you genius's can answer the question Pat asks and is what he is generally talking about and people like awwwkagi have never understood

Bruce
Neither you or awwwwkagi understand a word of what Patrick is speaking of.

He has never justified Hitler or divined what would have happened from the Nazi's.

Patrick's points have been about how harsh the Western world has judged Hitler and Germany and GAVE STALIN, MAO, HO CHI MINH, CASTRO AND POL POT excuses.
Murdering devils no better than Hitler

All the while both FDR and Churchill condemns Hitler, they are the ones who done deals with the murderer Stalin.


Like I said and everyone skips past.

Germany done nothing in invading Poland that Stalin did not do as well, and worse.

"If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie."
P. Buchanan

awwwkagi
Don't just quote bits and pieces of what Patrick has said.

You need to read more and then ask for help in understanding what you read

TS
Pat's claim is this and he has been making it for years and years. The UK's war gurantee to Poland made Poland become "unreasonable" over Danzig and I suppose in Pat's mind that if the British (and don't forget the French made similar gurantees).

So Pat argues that if Poland had only given up Danzig which it would have if no gurantees from the French and British, then no war, they would have kept their empires, no Soviet Army in eastern Germany, no millions of dead..blah blah blah.

Read his article "The Good War" from 2008.

In Mein Kampf Hitler made it clear where German Lebensraum would be and it would include Poland and much of the USSR. Is Pat unaware of this book? Or Hitler's ideas in Zweites Buch...Germany's conquest of the world in 1980 or so, defeating the final obstacle...the United States.

And quote the entire article from Churchill, not just bits and pieces like that hack PB does...include the final part...

"Meanwhile, he makes speeches to the nations, which are sometimes characterised by candour and moderation. Recently he has offered many words of reassurance, eagerly lapped up by those who have been so tragically wrong about Germany in the past. Only time can show, but, meanwhile, the great wheels revolve; the rifle, the cannon, the tanks, the shot and shell, the air-bombs, the poison-gas cylinders, the aeroplanes, the submarines, and now the beginnings of a fleet flow in ever-broadening streams from the already largely war-mobilised arsenals and factories of Germany."



Are you kidding, Pat?
I understand Chamberlain's blunders here, but are you seriously saying that WWII cannot be blamed on Hitler? That he was backed into a corner? Pat, you have many times spoken against revisionist history, but you, my friend, have stepped over that line youself with this column.

The best thing Churchill said
About War Is this:

" * Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.

The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war.

Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance."
o Roving Commission: My Early Life (1930)

From Churchills own mouth

We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.

* "Hitler and His Choice", The Strand Magazine (November 1935)


Now akagi, show me where Pat said:

"Pat has been claiming for over a decade now that if the British Empire and France had simply not gone to war with Germany over Poland, Germany would have marched east and there never would moved against the British Empire or France.."

Here is what Patrick said here in this very article:

"On Sept. 30, 1938, at Munich, Chamberlain signed away the Sudetenland rather than fight to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule imposed upon them at the Paris peace conference in violation of Wilson's principle of self-determination."

TS
Pat has been claiming for over a decade now that if the British Empire and France had simply not gone to war with Germany over Poland, Germany would have marched east and there never would moved against the British Empire or France...Churchill never would have supported such a mad claim.

Hitler made it clear his desire for world conquest. I am unsure why Pat is so blind in regards to Hitler, but he is.

If the British and French and Americans had all united against Hitler's moves in the Rhineland in 1936 it would have been over. But they let Hitler do that and then Austria and Sudetenland in 1938 and Poland in 1939 and by then it was far too late.






Churchill had lots to say
About the "unnecessary war"
No one can sum it up and cover all the angles, not even Patrick.
Who never hinted he could, only idiots like Akagi make those sort of claims
=======================

Page 1
The Unnecessary War?
An Introduction to Churchill’s
The Gathering Storm
. Was World War II unnecessary? On
the one hand, it may have been avoidable, and in this sense unnecessary, as
476
Copyright © 1995 by Word & World, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN. All rights reserved.
Word & World
Volume XV, Number 4
Fall 1995
The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948).

The other volumes of The Second World War, all from the same pub-
lisher, are Their Finest Hour (1949), The Grand Alliance (1950), The Hinge of Fate (1950), Closing the Ring
(1951), and Triumph and Tragedy (1953)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:xJIjuhxHiKgJ:www.luther sem.edu/word%26world/Archives/15-4_Nations/15-4_Schwandt.pd f+Winston+Churchill+the+unnecessary+war&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk& gl=us&client=firefox-a

History
Pat
You are right on the money, the truth hurts

Patrick made no claims
He used the words of Churchill, in a quote:

I said at once, 'The Unnecessary War.'
======================

Akagi writes
TS
Yes but Churchill didn't mean what Pat claims.
====================
Only you make claims that are stupid

Mr Buchanan
You make Hitler sound like a swell guy. Just a gruffer Bismarck? Who knew?

Lessons of history
The war of 1939 was unnecessary. It should have been fought in 1933. Hitler, in defiance of the Versailles Treaty, was rearming Germany, his intentions had already been clearly laid down. He could have been stopped by a credible show of force by Britain and France which in a worst case scenario may have resulted in a few deaths. This was unthinkable to the liberals of the day. Realists, like Churchill and Eden were labeled “warmongers” and banished from mainstream politics. Ten years later we were in the process of destroying 40.000,000 people. Yes Patrick, WW II was unnecessary but not because of your reasoning. History lays down the lessons but few take the time to learn them

TS
Yes but Churchill didn't mean what Pat claims. Churchill didn't support allowing Hitler to walk into Poland, but the west should have stood up to Hitler sooner. If the west had given Hilter the ultimatum of withdraw from the Rhineland in 48 hours as Hitler was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles in 1936, he would have been forced to withdraw and that would have killed him politically--no Hitler, no Nazi Party in power, no war. But they let him in the Rhineland in 1936 and then let him have all of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938.

Hitler claiming he had all he wanted, Chamberlain returned to the UK saying that had achieved peace in their own time--less than a year later Hilter was in Poland and WWII had begun.

The war in Europe was totally avoidable if the west had reacted to Hitler's aggression in 1936, but it didn't and by the time they decided to do something about it the only option was war. Pat's meaning of the war not being unavoidable meant to allow Hitler to walk into Poland.

Akagi
Hitler did not want a war with two fronts. Much evidence suggests his primary objective was to defeat France, isolate, destroy, or neutralize Britain before he turned east. He nearly accomplished it.

USSR archives suggest Stalin was content to watch Hitler fight the west. He had his treaty of non agression. Stalin had his own agenda.

Hitler made plans for operation Barbarossa in 1940. The start date was spring of 1941. It had to be delayed because Hitler wanted to punish Yugoslavia. That delay cost him some time. That delay probably cost him the war.

So much evidence is contrary to the authors position in this article and others. Especially about the Poles.

Double post
Sorry about the double post. TH logged me out with their stupid popups so wasn't sure if the post went or not.


jaybird
Because Pat the dumb has this theory that if the British and French had let Hitler into Poland he would have turned east and attacked the Soviet Union and the two regimes of evil would chew each other up and the British and French would have kept their empires (as if imperialism is a good thing), millions would have been saved (except the Jews, homosexuals, socialists, etc that would have ended up in the death camps), there would not have been a WWII (forget Japan?), etc etc.

Hitler made it clear in Zweites Buch his desire for world conquest and there is no evidence that he would have NOT go west first and then east against the USSR. Stalin assumed Hitler would not attack before 1943.

Pat is exactly the type of person Churchill was talking about in 1940..."feeding the Crocodile in the hopes it would eat you last."

jaybird
Pat the dumb has a theory that by allowing Hitler into Poland he would turn his sights on the Soviet Union and the two regimes of evil would chew each other to bits and both France and the British would have kept their empires (as if empires are a good thing). There wouldn't have been a WWII (forget Japan?), millions would have lived (except for the Jews, homosexuals, socialists, etc etc that Hitler would have sent to the death camps)and on and on.

Of course Hitler made in clear in Zweites Buch his desire for world conquest and there is no evidence Hitler would have NOT atatcked west first, then move east again. Pat is exactly like what Churchill had said in 1940, feeding the crocodile in the hopes it will eat you last.


Chip, you wrote:
2:27 AM

Otherwise, what's Buchanon's point? If he's not trying to turn the world upside down by attacking our historic sensibilities, then what does his latest lame visit into history have to do with any of today's issues?
=======================

I took this as the point Patrick made.



Buchanan asks:
Was the war inevitable? No.
No war is inevitable until it has begun. Was it a necessary war?

Hearken to Churchill:

"One day, President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called.

I said at once, 'The Unnecessary War.'

There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world ... ."

So, why was defeating the Nazis bad?
Reading this article, it seemed that the author was saying that if we'd only done things right, we could have left Hitler alone, not had a war, and everything in the world would have been just peachy.

Has this author ever seen the photos of Hitler's extermination camps? Ever hear of what Hitler did to not just Jews but any group he disliked (intellectuals, Catholics, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. etc.)?

How could leaving Hitler alone to accomplish these things have been good for humanity? This man was a horrible, evil cancer on humanity, the Germans supported him and his policies, they were spreading all over Europe, and Pat says we should have left Hitler and his Nazis alone? The result of doing that would have been too terrible to contemplate.

I'm wondering now whether Buchanan is somewhat unhinged.

Astonishing
This take on history completely ignores Hitler's subsequent conquest of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and France, or his attempt to conquer Britain rather than sue for peace from a position of unchallengeable strength. Under what sort of logic does a war with Poland naturally lead to the conquest of all of Western Europe? It is likely that these were a series of justifications that Hitler gave, all of which Buchanan has chosen to swallow whole.

Pat
"Lunacy, raged Lloyd George, who was echoed by British leaders and almost every historian since."

Like to see a list of these so-called historians.


"Hitler did not want a war with Poland. Had he wanted war, he would have demanded the return of the entire Polish Corridor taken from Germany in 1919. He wanted Danzig back and Poland as an ally in his anti-Comintern Pact. Nor did he want war with a Britain he admired and always saw as a natural ally. Nor did he want war with France, or he would have demanded the return of Alsace."

Hitler wanted world conquest. And he is quite clear on that point in Zweites Buch.

So should the US have also allowed Japan a free hand in China, afterall the US had no interests in China. And allow Japan to take Indochina, the Straits Colonies and Malaya as well as the NEI, Hong Kong, Macau, India-Burma? No interest there either. Why should the US worry about one colonial master being replaced by another?

But somehow I am betting you would have problems with that. Can't have a bunch of yellow barbarians kicking around the master race now can we? That's not how the world is supposed to work, it is supposed to be the master race kicking around yellow barbarians. Allowing Japan to create the East Asian Co-Prosperty Sphere would upset that natural order.




On Hacha and Father Tiso
Back in parochial school and high school, we used to have knock-down debates over just how World War Two got started...and if you believe that I've got a bay house in West Texas I'd like to sell you.

To this day, I'm not sure I can find "Sudentenland" on the map or spell it correctly.

But I do remember exactly where I was when I heard the news about MLK. A man at the bowling alley with a cigar in one hand and a drink in the other said, "Well, they shot the n______."

At this moment, some of the things I DID learn at parochial school kicked in.

I was not "one of them."

I mean, I was not on the side of those who assasinated people or characters. A sinner, yes. A hater-to-the-core, no.

God help us, and God help President Obama and all human beings and citizens everywhere in these extremely hard times.
p.s. It would be good to hear comments on this article from A) Charles Krauthammer B) our Holy Father C) Niall Ferguson D) Daniel Hannan. All four studied their history! And lived it!

I'm laughing at myself . . .
A few days ago I listened to one of the conservative talk shows on radio. I think it was Hannity but I'm not sure. The guest was Pat Buchanan.

I had trouble understanding what they were talking about because of Pat's laughter. It seemed as though every thing said was humorous to him. And his laugh - well, it was a little unusual.

I don't really think we should make fun of folks for the way they laugh or the sound of their voices. (I think I live in a glass house so I'm usually careful about throwing rocks.) but the sound of Pat's voice that day and the pitch and tone of his laughter caused me to have doubts about the reliability or reason of anything he might have said.

In fact, it was so unpleasant, I turned the radio off and have no idea of what they were talking about. So, as I said, I'm laughing at myself now.

OBAMA IS A POLL DRIVEN FOLLOWER
LEADING BY POLL IS NOT LEADERSHIP
Great Presidents are often not popular while in office.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/lincoln-did-not -lead-by-polling.html

Jim
You may be right.

Gordon
Or it may just be that the old nut has marginalized himself to the extent that he is no longer relevant or worth bothering with. This may be the opinion of folks wiser than I, who, obviously, have troubled myself to say something.

Twelve posts?
Twelve? Usually the crowds who mob Pat Buchanan's writings are overwhelming. Why not this one? Could it be that it is a thoughtful analysis of a difficult period of failed diplomacy?

I must be careful for leaving out the consequences to European Jews of this travesty would be unforgivable. It is remarkable that Adolf Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt had so much in common. It has long been suspected by some historians that those two might have become good friends and allies but for their divergence over the Jews.

But I digress. The problems which led to WWII were really little more than a continuation of the problems of WWI. One poster questions Germany's right to abrogate the treaties which separated Germans from Germans after 1919. I question the spoils system which allows victors to believe they have the right to destroy what they choose and steal what they want simply because they won a military victory.

For example: Would WWII have occurred had Germany not been partitioned? Well, we'll never know, but that certainly was the centerpiece of Hitler's expansionary program, i.e. to recover lands which Germans regarded as having been stolen from them. Mexico is doing the same thing to us today.

Today's remarks by Buchanan seem to continue his earlier argument against the U.S. being dragged into foreign military conflicts needlessly through treaties. Does Vietnam ring a bell?

Although I have problems with Buchanan at times, I find it quite interesting that so many ignore the incentives given to small, poorly armed nations to stir up trouble when the biggest kid on the block promises to protect them. Kosovo, anyone?

I suspect that so few have posted on Buchanan today because much of what he said resonates with the problems we face as a nation. Our president is going around the world confessing his allegiance to many of those who regularly demonstrate their enmity toward us. How about a little Islamic terrorism?

Buchanan's antisemitism
You don't find too many commentators laboring to make a sympathetic figure of Adolph Hitler. But ol' Pat can't help himself. Antisemitism burns inside him, and colors so much of what he writes. I don't know if it's on a conscious level or not, but you can see the clear link: Hitler hated the Jews, therefore he can't be all bad, therefore we have to try to find some way to sanitize Hitler.

I am a strong pro-life conservative, but I think PB is a kook, and has become a caricature of himself, and IMO wrongly benefits from being taken seriously by TH and other media gatekeepers.

qhoratius
"It seems that the UK should have let Hitler have the war he wanted against the USSR alone. Perhaps Hitler would have run a stake through the communist menace. Though it is unthinkable to imagine where his bizarre anti-Semitism would have led after that."

That's crazy Pat's theory too. There is no evidence that Hitler would have attacked the Soviets after Poland first. He just as easily may have gone after the low countries and France which is what he did in 1940. Churchill commented about people that held such views "Each one hopes that if it feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last."

The Second Book (Zweites Buch) Hitler makes it clear his desire for world conquest and the low countries and France would be easier takings than the USSR. Hitler had a desire for conquest of the USSR, yes, but he had eyes on the west too and it is folly to assume that he would have left the west alone if only they had let him ravish Poland.

TS:

It was Germany and not the Soviets that first violated Poland's territory and to quote Lincoln, one war at a time.

Because
"Regardless of Hitler's motives, why did England go to war for a bunch of Pollocks? To save face?"

Both were obligated to defend Poland just as prior to WWI, France and the British Empire were obligated to defend Belgium's neutrality or the US was obgligated to defend Taiwan from an attack from the PRC (until it withdrew from the mutual defense treaty in 1979).

Nonsense on stilts
Mr. Buchanan's analysis is nonsense on stilts.

He says no vital British interests were harmed by the destruction of Czechoslavakia. In fact the central British policy goal - the preservation of the European balance of power - was completely undermined.

Czechoslovakia was the key to the system of alliances for containing militaristic, expansionist Nazi Germany. The Czechs had 35 good divisions, and excellent military technology. The deadly “German” 88 mm artillery piece, for example, was actually a Czech weapon. The destruction of Czechoslovakia, not only eliminated the Czechs as assets to the allies and transferred their military technology to the Nazis, it made the defense of Poland completely untenable. Thus, in selling out the Czechs, Chamberlain effectively sold out Poland as well. Observing this, Stalin concluded that the allies would do nothing to defend Poland (They could have, but did not – allied bomber strikes launched from nearby bases in France in 1939 could have devastated the critical German synthetic fuel industry and many other vulnerable targets). So, the Soviets, who had been seeking a western alliance against the Nazis throughout the 1930s, read the writing on the wall and switched tactics to try to join the winning side. This allowed Germany to overrun eastern Europe with ease, and then turn to conquer France without the threat of a two-front war. As a result, the very existence of Britain was placed in peril.

“No vital British interests harmed” indeed!

What German rights
An international treaty agreement set post WWI borders. What right did Germany have in '38-'39 to annex territories it had lost? None. Under the terms of the treaty of Versailles the Germans had no right of territory repatriation. Therefore all of Buchanan's mutterings about German "negotiation" is nothing but pure revisionism. Those "negotiations" were backed up by threats of war. Troops were deployed to borders.
Your pointless article had what underlying purpose, Patrick? You went there to get someplace else. Come clean on it. This is bumbling.

Ummm... Pat...
... what's the point of all this revisionist BS history?

CHIP:
You'd help your arguments if you learned how to spell.


inevitable war
If you look carefully, it was Churchil who suggested the name "The Unnecessary War" and Buchanan just elicited the historical reasons for this. I don't see that Buchanan's article in any way exculpates Hitler or Stalin or any of the many malefactors who brought the world to the brink of ruin. If anything, the article demonstrates how complex and crazy the world of international relations is; which complexity, ironically, makes war inevitable, if not necessary. In this regard, no matter what the question, somebody will, sooner or later, think that war is the answer.

Mr. Buchanan, God is embarrassed by you
I lost a substantial part of my family history in World War II thanks to people like you who said to one another, *Good riddance to those Jews! The more booty for us when they are gone!*

I cannot imagine why you feel that here at the end of all things it is the time to bring back approving fantasies about how simply sacrificing the entire Jewish religion would have saved the world.

Well yes, I can. And if you can, I hope you tremble when you realize God is Just. And Jesus was a Jew.

EVIDENCE OF GOD SUPPORTING PRO-LIFE
America has the most radically anti-life president in its history a progressive fool struck deaf, dumb and blind by the socialist idea and moral relativism; a man leading our country into necessary peril. If you're losing faith after 36 years of Roe v. Wade and millions dead that we are losing the battle against abortion and the culture wars don't give up hope. God is with us and victory is near though it may come at a terrible cost of national tribulation and suffering-the price of the Obama presidency, the price of our forgetfulness of what made this country great. Click ApolloSpeaks and read my piece: Evidence of Divine Action Supporting the Pro-Life Movement.

European Powers.
What's more interesting is that Hitler and Germany had their hands on the one item which could have made all their desires come true -- Jews.

In fact, all Europe had this little item -- this little item that seemed to contain the wherwithal needed for the best weapons, the best medicine, the best laws for justice, the best financiers, the best writers, even the best movies. And this little item's military troops and operations have proved to be quite good.

Talk about lunacy, Europe wasted this little item, all the time -- and Germany, needing it most, wasted it best.

Isn't that interesting?

It is what Hitler turned the German
people into. So many did savage evil things it is hard to beieve they were once decent citizens. That it the shame of war. Give some people authority over others and tnere is no end to how power, big or small. corrupts.

Don Jones
TownhallPlus.com

And the point of these lies is?
Adolf Schicklgruber (aka Adolf Hitler) had his plans of conquering much of the European
continent already laid out in his book, Mein Kampf, for everyone to see, long before 1938. One way or another, a big war was probably going to happen, whether Chamberlain could or could not avoid making mistakes.

And only a retard of a historian would equate Nazi German rule from Berlin over the Czechs
with Hapsburg "German" rule from Vienna over the Czechs. As Buchanon glossed over his
summary of facts, he clearly implied the two were equal, and this is a lie.

Sure, the Great War was followed by much stupidity that led to WWII, and history acknowledges that and learned from that. Buchanon tells us nothing new that is of any use. His big point of "March madness 1938", made such by Chamberlain promising British help to Poland, is interesting, but Buchanon seems to admit his column was pointless because he says himself that "almost every historian since" also agrees Chamberlain's action was lunacy.

One of the problems with many "conservatives" today is that there are too many schemers wasting other peoples' time and energy with their newest, latest twist and batch of utter nonsense. Maybe we just have a lot more radicals among us than we know, being nothing but more baggage.

Otherwise, what's Buchanon's point? If he's not trying to turn the world upside down by attacking our historic sensibilities, then what does his latest lame visit into history have to do with any of today's issues?

The war that should have been
It seems that the UK should have let Hitler have the war he wanted against the USSR alone. Perhaps Hitler would have run a stake through the communist menace. Though it is unthinkable to imagine where his bizarre anti-Semitism would have led after that.

But it seems like a good policy to stand back and watch bad guys kill each other.

The point
Regardless of Hitler's motives, why did England go to war for a bunch of Pollocks? To save face?

As for history
England and France went to war with Germany over the invasion of Poland, and ignored the USSR's invasion and occupation.

"On 17 September 1939, the Soviet Red Army invaded the eastern regions of Poland in cooperation with Germany"

So why didn't England and France also declare war on Soviet Russia?

They did the exact same thing as Germany did.

Bad History
The whole Polish side written here is simply wrong. Hitler wanted war, the Poles had beaten Germany in the 1920s, and became a Republic. Hitler had no love loss for the Polish.

This is a terrible revision of history. And the author leaves out the details Hitler made with stalin about ruling Poland.

Terrible.
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.