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, September 01, 2009
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Did Hitler Want War?
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

Culture of Corruption by Michelle Malkin FREE

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland's rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn't want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative "to stop Hitler" after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary's ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland's turn, then Russia's, then France's, then Britain's, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world -- Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia -- why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can't get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, Miklos Horthy's Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso's Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it "The Unnecessary War" -- the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

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
"The Unnecessary War"

While it is true that there is anecdotal evidence that Hitler did want to avoid WWII, Britain had made the tragic error of issuing a unilateral guarantee to Poland on March 31, 1939. Due in large part to Hitler's failure to recover Danzig, which Germany had lost after WWI, the German army rolled into Poland on September 1, 1939. Britain, along with Poland, declared war and that was that.

Would WWI have been avoided? I don't know. I do know that countries must be very cautious about issuing unilateral guarantees.

Pat, I liked your book.

My god man.
It was never "world conquest."

It was a continentalist "Lebensraum" and that required war.

The NSDAP was not static. There were competing sectors and impulses. None of which however saw the Foreign Ministry and von Ribbentrop as the instrument for the moves east.

Why not just write fiction? It pays better ... you can be the new Richard Condon.

The history of socialism.

The history of socialism in the 20th Century is not a pretty one.

Liberals are now seeking socialism for the United States.

Disagree
While Britain did not need to go to war with Germany, there was always going to be war between France and Germany. Hitler wanted back territory that the French got after the First World War. Britain would have been left alone and worst France would have gotten is some territory lost, like after the Franco-Prussian war.

Maybe...
... he was an anal-retentive megalomaniac who didn't have a clue & just made it up as he went along?... like the guy in the White House now.

Ridiculous

The Argument over territory in Poland was never a real argument. It was an excuse for Hitler to take the land he wanted.

Hitler and Russia at the time had a non-agression pact that was to give half the territory to Russia.

Buchanan is an idiot.

WORLD DOMINATION BY INTIMIDATION
Hitler wanted to dominate the world without war as did Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, Napoleon and the Soviets. As do Al Qaida, Iran and global jihadists today. If an imperial power could intimidate humanity into submission without bloodshed and war, so much the better. But it never works out that way. Whoever wants the world has to kill there way to it. Hitler was willing to shed the last drop of German blood for the triumph of the master race.

Man Diva
He had a fatal STD, he was a drug addict, he was way into the occult, he was a homosexual, he was an art lover, he wanted Jewish gold, and he was a control freak.

He had a false sense of destiny for himself he was either going to make everything his or if he couldn’t have it no would have it.

His last words were “Now everything is Equal” so that’s how the national democratic socialist government workers party thinks.

All or nothing “equal”.

Evil is Hard to Confront
2% of the human race is evil, seeking to harm or destroy. When these people gain power in a country financial ruin or war or both ensues.It is hard for social people to imagine true evil as we see in mass murders,etc.and we have seen some of these evil people disguise their intentions well, their neighbors seldom suspect a thing.The greater calamity occurs when these people rise in the political structure and become leaders of nations.Every generation has it's own travails brought on by these evil 2% to confront or succumb to.Hitler was evil.The real question is to identify and isolate this generations'2% evil leaders before they wreak their havoc.

Bin Laden doesn't want war either
He "wants" the whole world to practice his brand of political Islam.

So Hitler didn't really want war, he just wanted all of Europe except the Jews. He attacked every neighbor (except Switzerland) that didn't ally with him, and the Soviets who did.

I'm not a conservative (more like part of the radical center) but I read this site to get the news the MSM leaves out. This article by Buchanan is more worthy of Stormfront, where they argue that we should have helped Hitler fight the Soviets, and deny the Holocaust happened.

Hitler Was Crazy With Power
Why else would an elected leader get so consumed with power that he tries to destroy a or contain whole race of people.

Obama's actions are not too far from Hitler's. He wants to destroy the rich and will use every legal and illegal tool to do it because he has to get rid of the rich to take over the country's means of production & distribution of the people's wealth while he and his chosen Elites stay rich.


For God's Sake . . . Hang it UP!
Buchanan,

What is the basis of your obsession with THIS issue? WWII . . . with all of its mistakes on BOTH sides . . . is dead and gone!
MOVE ON!
Why is it so hard for you to understand that Hitler was a freakin' LUNATIC? He was POSSESSED by INCONSISTENCIES. He was constantly CONTRADICTING himself and changing his mind. His VACILLATION was a major contributing factor to the defeat of the German Forces on the Eastern Front.
Just like many other tyrants, as well as Muslims, he would portray himself as a "moderate" whenever it was in his tactical interest, at any given time, to do so. He laid out his plans, IN DETAIL, in Mein Kampf . . . but virtually nobody read it or paid any attention to it at the time. Have YOU read it? I have. He pointed out, on several occasions, that Germany NEEDED "lebensraum" in the EAST . . . Poland, Russia and Ukraine. Hitler MAY have been forced, by some circumstances, into going to war PREMATURELY, but he STILL wanted war . . . only on his own terms and in his own time.
Why are you so inclined to take Hitler's contradictions and pretense of "good faith" negotiations at face value? The man simply could NOT be trusted to keep his word . . . with ANYBODY. Why is that palpable fact so hard for you to accept?

Pat
Read "Mein Kampf" and then his unpublished sequel that surfaced after the war...then re-think your thesis

Love you Pat, but.....
"Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel." - This cannot be true, as in 1939 the Americans were not yet working on the Manhattan project. IMHO

The Nazi-Soviet Pact
Seems odd that the author would convey such a detailed knowledge of the lead-up to the Second World War, yet leave out the monstronsity of the Nazi-Soviet Pact that allowed them to divy up all of Eastern Europe between themselves, become the largest trading partners in Europe, and secure Hitler's Eastern border to allow him to attack the West unimpeded.

Of course, to allow that bit of data into the debate would totally debunk the theory of the written article itself, now wouldn't it?

No mention of Hitler's persistant demands for the return of Germany's former colonies in Africa (South-West Afika & Tanganyka) either, but that would lean towards Hitler's greater ambitions as well.

This is the bottom line....Britian and France (who also guaranteed Poland) didn't cause the Second World War, Hitler did.

Likely scenario
Hitler may have modelled on the Assyrians, who were known to send messages ahead to a nation they wished to absorb to intimidate that nation into surrendering (and thus getting easy absorption); my speculation, due to the fact that this strategy had worked for him from 1936 to 1939 (UK and France, who considered themselves Europe's "major powers" at that time, had surrendered to his demands everytime--resulting in Germany's absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia) and the messages/demands he was making on Poland for a more than threemonths prior to "Gleiwitz staged incident" 1939/08/31.

Had he attacked UK (under Chamberlain) and/or France (under Daladier) RATHER THAN Poland (which chose to go-down-fighting), he would likely have only had to face Soviet Union (whom he had managed to stay with Molotov-Ribbentropp pact) as Poland would possibly have surrendered after its purported "allies" did.

(note: France did surrender rather quickly in 1940 after Hitler launched full-offensive though UK did not--but by that time, UK had changed PM's from Chamberlain to Churchill and still had the delaying effect of La Manche to help it).

Further note
Even had Hitler not "moved first" against Soviet Union, there is little doubt Soviets were just as deceptive as Germans (as Soviet goal was takeover of all Europe--the agreement to divide up Poland was a temporary one, USSR's real view of where German-Soviet border should be was at the Rhine) in signing the pact.

The 1942 Start Date
Pat querries:

Why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can't get out of the Baltic Sea?
-------------------------------------------

The London Naval Treaty of 1935 allowed the Germans to rebuild their surface fleet, which they did immeadeatly, all while violating every provision set by the treaty...it was nothing more than a cover.

If Poland had caved, East and West Prussia would have been reunited, and Poland would have gone the way of the Czechoslovakia, with the Soviets still coming in from the East.

Italy would have been able to finish their modern battleships, and fully develope their excellent Air Force.

By 1942 the Germans would have had 6 to 8 battleships like the Bismarck and Tirpitz, along with a couple of Aircraft Carriers, and an amphibious fleet capable of delivering 4 amry corps...not to mention the finest Air Force in the world.

Their economy would have been developed to a war footing that did not have to defend against 3 1/2 years of bombing by the British.

BTW- Germany DID start the war with troop transports...those were the ones they used to invade and conquer Norway with....on the OTHER side of the Baltic Sea.

Phil Byler wrote it best here.
Pat is debasing history with the extraordinary distortion of this premise.

In no way were the political leanings of those Sudeten regions justifiable inferences to conclude Hitler wanted to avoid war.

To suggest that the Siegfried Line was only to protect Germany from France (via a question) and that somehow his naval shortcomes showed low inclination for war, is ludicrous. This part of Pat's article shows such lack of understanding that it is apparent Pat needs professional help, as he is clearly not in reality.

Response to vonryanexpress' 01:13
The "continental lebensraum" to which you refer appears to ignore the reality of British colonies (including Hong Kong, Burma 98% of Sub-continent, Guyana and large portion of Africa) as well as French colonies (Algeria, Indochina, French Guiana, ...) and "overseas departments" (unlike colonies, considered part-and-parcel of France despite of distance; France still retains many of these today, such as the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon close to Grand Banks***) which would have then been annexed as German by default--and would have given Hitler control of a large portion of the world's land surface.


***the two islands are only 26 km (16 miles) from Newfoundland's (island) southern coast, cover a total area similar to that of Baltimore City, and can easily be circumsribed within a 200 km (124 miles) voyage by boat; still France claims a 321 km (200 miles) EEZ around the islands, which inevitably overlaps about 97% with Canada's 321 km EEZ.

Hitler
Where have I read this before...and before...and before ? And he never meant to harm the Jews, of course.

You're Right Pat
Pat, You are absolutely correct. Adolph Hitler was just a misunderstood agrarian reformer. He was just looking for a little more farm land for the Volk. After all, he was a vegetarian and an animal lover. How could someone so loving and caring want anything other than the best for all people?

Just ignore Mein Kempf because young Adolph wrote that when he was going through some difficult times: women problems mostly. Plus Adolph was a man with tremendous foresight. He did not actually murder 12 million people (6 million of whom were Jews). What he really did was reduce world population in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to stave off the true and real evil of "anthropogenic climate change." I think the current cooling trend we have experienced over the past eleven years can probably be attributed to Adolph's fine work. In fact, the concept of "blitzkrieg" is the forerunner of modern day "cap and trade". And you thought Al Gore thought that up all on his own.

If Europe had just done the right thing and given poor Adolph everything he wanted, we could have avoided all the mess in 1930s and 1940s. But you know what, we just never learn from our past mistakes. For instance, in order to avoid more war, we should just give our lands to the Muslim jihadis. That's all they want. Like Adolph they don't want war. And, like Adolph, they have nothing against the Jews either.

Lovely
Obviously Pat agrees with Franz Liebkind, the Nazi playwright in Mel Brooks's "The Producers." According to Liebkind, Hitler was a pussycat and was a better dancer than Churchill.

Buchanan's love affair with Hitler is disgusting.

RW
Please explain what it means to be a yarmulke-sniffer.


Hitler hated communists too
No totalitarian ideology likes competition from another. Facists and communist? Sorta like Coke and Pepsi comparison when you live under them!

Dave from VA your right, Hitler was just a misunderstood nice guy. So he created an industrial complex to kill millions of people, everyone has their faults.

Seriously, Pat your a smart guy but you look like an idiot writing convoluted, nuanced views of dictators who want to rule the world. Yea Hitler would have loved to stop the war after 1940, so he could take some time to gear up to take down the rest of Europe.

Stick to current events.

Buchanan's flawed theory
His entire theory is based upon taking Hitler at his word. No really, he said he didn't want war, except for Hitler's own words in mein kampf about a 1,000 year empire. Brilliant analysis Buchanan.

As for Pat's "why" questions
Q: "Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?"

A: Hitler actually wanted the SS (who had come into Poland after the Wehrmacht had beaten that nation to a pulp) to share combat-glory in the destruction of British forces, so he asked his generals to delay (Rommel, Guderian and Rundstedt were ready to crush the retreating British, but complied with their "supreme leader's" orders) which allowed UK to withdraw its troops from Dunkirk. (c)

"Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?"

A: When Poland fell, he hoped Chamberlain would capitulate seeing a hopeless situation (Chamberlain reacted like a cornered roebuck--which WILL attack); after France fell, he hoped Churchill would see that it was REALLY hopeless, forgetting that La Manche (French name for English Channel) was a barrier of some (albeit severely limited) degree. Note that Hitler DID use French and Belgian bases (lots closer to UK shores than the original German bases) ro launch Dorniers and JU-87's during Battle Of Britain. Plus, the British territories (Sub-continent being particularly of value due to its being "rather close" to Soviets' southern borders (a))

Q's: "Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez?"

A: As he now ruled France, he did not need to DEMAND these, simply he took for granted their being at his disposal.

Q: " Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?"

A: Easy one; he didn't want to share spoils with Mussolini!

Q: "As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?"

A: Exactly what Molotov-Ribbentropp pact did was to create border with Soviet Union which he could then use for invasion (b), (c)

Footnotes to my last post
(due to post-size limit on TH, I could not include them in that post)



(a), (b) It is also likely that Hitler failed to include geography into his (mis)calculations--the Sub-continent is indeed quite close (Wakhan corridor of northeastern Afghanistan is only 30 km wide) but Afghanistan has some very high mountains which would deter tanks (possibly Hitler's generals could have figured a way to use tanks in such areas--such a strategy WAS developed and implemented by an erstwhile British-Indian army officer in 1948) and motorised transports; also the sheer size of Soviet Union (Hitler was defeated in no small part due to Soviets' use of 12th-century tactic of "retreat-burn-lure-trap" which had worked against Napoleon in early 1800's)

(c) Many of Hitler's orders to his top generals were quite erratic--but the generals obeyed due to his being "supreme leader"; specifically, he gave orders when German troops were only 100 km from Moscow in August 1941 to go southward and to stay advance towards Moscow.

Pat, what is the point of this column?
Let me start off by saying that I've been reading Pat Buchanan's columns for at least 20 years (long before THIS site was in existence) and was a frequent watcher of the political talk shows he used to appear on like Crossfire and The McLaughlin Group; heck, I even contributed money to his 1992 primary campaign. Although I didn't always (usually, but not always) agree with him even in his more conservative days (meaning before he started going off the deep end in the late 1990's), and agree with him fairly little nowadays, there are still very few pundits who can turn a phrase better than Pat, and when he is on point, he is hard to beat at being able to make a compelling argument.

That having been said, I join with Myk, Phil Byler, and others on this thread and basically say to Pat, as Myk did:

GET OVER WW2 ALREADY, PAT!

Regardless of what should or shouldn't have been done way back then, what is the point of rehashing all this now, for a war that's been over now for almost 65 years? And even the Iron Curtain that was a residue of WW2 is now dead and gone, too.

Seems to me there's PLENTY of issues of far more pressing concern to Americans, especially conservatives, on the 70th anniversary of the start of WW2 than the dynamics of that conflict.

Did Hitler Want War
Sir, I think your research on the subject of what Hitler thought and did is seriously deficit. I am no historian but I have done much reading on the subject of WWII by various authors, including those who were against the war in those days, and there were good reasons to believe that Hitler DID want war because, in a nutshell, he wanted to expand the German peoples over the European continent. There is no reason, however, to think he had any desires beyond that, which would have left Britain, The U.S., etc. out of his equations. He did not have borders on the oceans, either, so a heavy presence in the oceans would not have been his concern, until our supplying of Britain's war forced him to consider that. Please take a year off Town Hall and start reading 20th century books on the European situation and especially those documents that came out of Germany since, including those declassified in the last decade.

What an idiotic article
As a Brit in the UK, I think this article it absolutely insane and pretty stupid.

Trying to say that Hitler may not have gone to war is we, the British, hadnt drawn a line in the sand (a line against evil), over which we told him not to cross. He did. And as we should all know, but apparently Pat doesnt, you cannot bluff with meglamanaical facist dictators.

The fact that Hitler went on to do what he did, killing millions should tell you Pat, how absurdely stupid your article is. Are you really trying to tell us that he would have done none of this if we hadnt called him out? Actually I think he would have done WORSE.

You should be ashamed.

I never understood
Why England and America declared war on Germany became partners with Stalin's USSR.

Its said that England declared war on Germany for invading Poland.

Cannot be true cause the Soviets also invaded Poland right along with Germany and they were called friends.

This has never made sense to me.

The Cold War began just as soon as Berlin fell, and the Soviets took over more territory than Germany had.

Stalin murdered more people than Hitler did, but FDR called him uncle Joe, like he was family.

Maybe they were family, sure seems like it to me today in how much influence the Marxists now have in both America and England

Can We Agree
that Hitler and Stalin were equally EVIL? And that Roosevelt and his pals were useful idiots?

As for little Patsy, I'm being kind when I say he's mental and is in the midst of another episode at the moment.

Without the Versaille Treaty
28 June 1919
Hitler could not have ever gained the influence he was able to gather.

His first speech that I can find is in direct relation to the extortionate pressure the bankers had demanded the nations of England, France and America put on Germany.

Here is his first speech that I can find he tells the world of his motivation for another war.

MUNICH

SPEECH OF APRIL 12, 1922

AFTER the War production had begun again and it was thought that better times were coming, Frederick the Great after the Seven Years War had, as the result of superhuman efforts, left Prussia without a penny of debt: at the end of the World War Germany was burdened with her own debt of some 7 or 8 milliards of marks and beyond that was faced with the debts of 'the rest of the world' - the so-called 'reparations.'

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

Read all of it, this is what gave Germany the path to war and the reason the man Hitler gained power.




Response to Mike's 10:07
It is possible that Hitler did not want war--but only in the same way as Assyrian Emperors (who, as I stated before, oft used intimidation to make enemies surrender before Assyrians arrived--and then annexed these foes to Assyria); analogously, Hitler probably wanted to intimidate Europe's nations to submitting to Third Reich's suzerainty (and, due to several of Europe's nations ruling much territory overseas, he would thus obtain a considerable percentage of the world's landmasses).

Note: there would have been much blood spilled either way (as-was, much was spilled in Europe; in the hypothetical case of UK, Belgium and France making "Assyrian surrenders", the bloodbath would have been even larger particularly in their overseas posessions--note: Idopas pipped me at this one, I tip hat).

Also, I noticed another detail about Pat's question about Hitler's "failure to commandeer French fleet and bases"--that he never asked the question why Hitler did not establish bases (for ships or submarines, or even land troops) on St Pierre and Miquelon (while some distance from nearest US territory in Maine, this is considerably less than the distance of US territories from continental Europe).

Hitler Didn't Want War?
Of course he didn't. He was getting what he wanted without war. However, in 1939, he wasn't attacking Poland to get Danzig, but to get a border with Russia, which he intended to attack on his own schedule later. It is true he was surprised when France and England finally had the guts to honor a treaty they had signed, but unless the Western democracies were willing to watch while Hitler absorbed or dominated Eastern Europe, war was inevitable. Had France and England not declared war, Germany under Hitler would have been an unbeatable superpower able to dictate the terms on which the remainder of the world not immediately under his thumb lived. My father and his family left Germany in the thirties to get away from that loon, and fought him during WW2 although they were still German citizens. We could indeed have avoided war, but only if we think a Nazi continent from the Rhine to the Pacific was a better alternative.

Agreeing With Idopas
Miracles never cease because I find myself agreeing with Idopas the Englishman. The Holocaust is all the evidence required to prove that Hitler was evil and needed to be stopped. Thankfully Churchill was there to rally a dreadfully unprepared Britain to stand in the gap against this madman. Most Americans do not realize that the British stood practically alone for two years until America woke up to this threat to all of civilization. It was no accident that after Pearl Harbor was attacked we fought a delaying action in the Pacific and primarily concentrated on destroying Nazi Germany. Hitler needed to be stopped.

Now a hypothetical question
Given an "Assyrian surrender" of UK and France, would the (miscalculated) attempt to conquer Soviet Union have effectively stopped Hitler?

Lepanto
"Agreeing With Idopas
Miracles never cease because I find myself agreeing with Idopas the Englishman."

Well then its a miracle Lepanto isnt it? ;-)

Most of us are agreeing because unlike most other articles, we all seem to have grasped that Hitler has an evil b*stard. and like bin Laden, you CANNOT think these people are going to be reasonable just because you are reasonable.

The theory that he would have left the UK and the US alone is, at best, wishful thinking.

We and the US and a lot of other brave countries downed Hitler and his revolting regime forever. (Hopefully). For that we should all be very proud of the men and women from our nations who took part, not write sill articles like Pat does about speculative nonsense.

Lepanto.....are we best buddies? Well for now! ;-)

svpallava
Thanks for the response, I think. I have no idea what your post said. I find it interesting, but please put it in non-professor speak.

Western Bankers
Financed the Bolsheviks war on Russia and WW1 followed this upheaval.

Just allowing myself to question what all was going on that started WW1 questioning some of the answers given about "assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his pregnant wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914"

The more I have looked into bankers, the worse they look, and that goes for today as well.

If one reads about the Versailles Treaty, bankers put pressure on the Governments of England, France and America to force Germany into economic slavery that gave rise to a man like Hitler.

Without the reparations the bankers demanded be part of that Treaty, the world would not have heard of an Adolph Hitler.

Without the Western bankers, the world would not have heard about Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Follow the money trail, and it will always come back to the thieves in banking.

That's my opinion, and we can blame the people like Hitler all we want to, but bottom line the bankers set the tone for war with their demands for reparations and financing of Lenin and the Bolsheviks

Maybe it's time Pat joined the Obama cam
Pat is just dead wrong on this issue. He will go the the end of the earth to minimize the evil of Hitler's Germany. This column does not belong on a conservative web site.

Since Pat seems to have deep sympathy for sychopathic tyrants, maybe it's time Pat joined the Obama camp.

Lebenstraum
Pat, Did you read Mein Kampf? Why set yourself up as a Nazi apologist in 2009? We have more pressing issues in the present.

Idopas
Like Churchill my Wife is half British half American and I loved the stories her Grandmother would tell about the War. My wife’s family comes from Nottingham Britain’s industrial heart which was bombed continuously throughout the WWII. Her Grandfather served in the RAF search and rescue and spent the war pulling downed flyers out of the English Channel. He served for seven years spending a total of five months with his family during that time. I do not know which was the greater sacrifice trying to raise a family without your husband while your world is being destroyed around you or spending years away from you family knowing the dangers they face. Truly remarkable people and the British should be very proud that they are descended from such as these.

Idopas, we may disagree on issues of politics but I know without doubt that Britain’s greatest ally is the United States.

Idopas
Like Churchill my Wife is half British half American and I loved the stories her Grandmother would tell about the War. My wife’s family comes from Nottingham Britain’s industrial heart which was bombed continuously throughout the WWII. Her Grandfather served in the RAF search and rescue and spent the war pulling downed flyers out of the English Channel. He served for seven years spending a total of five months with his family during that time. I do not know which was the greater sacrifice trying to raise a family without your husband while your world is being destroyed around you or spending years away from you family knowing the dangers they face. Truly remarkable people and the British should be very proud that they are descended from such as these.

Idopas, we may disagree on issues of politics but I know without doubt that Britain’s greatest ally is the United States.

disagree with Pat here
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/causes.htm

I like Pat, and agree with him about the overwhelming Zionist influence in America (over 50% of all contributions to BOTH parties come from < 2% of the populace), and about the insidious and pervasive threat to America socio-economically of ILLEGAL aliens, BUT I think he tries to see things not there about WWII.

If you read Hitler's only book, Mein Kampf, he made pretty clear who his targets were. He definitely wanted to gobble up a big part of Russia. As for his other motives, he was not stupid, but he was unbalanced-- Pat tries to presume logical thinking from an unstable guy. At the end, he insisted that Germany be allowed to totally collapse because it failed/proved unworthy of HIS grandiose and misbegotten dreams.

Buchanan similiar to birthers
Unwilling to accept facts. Unwilling to reason. Takes historical facts out of the context of the day.

Lebensraum
Pat,normally I am in agreement with you on most issues,but this time your postulating has gone too far.You are assuming that Hitler was a sane person,which is utterly false.He was a madman.His generals were aganist every move that me made against France in the Alsace because he knew at the time France could defeat them by moving troops into Germany at anytime.And who is to say Poland's freedom should be compromised just because it would prevent a war? Actually if the French and British had attacked Germany instead of playing the phony war and sitting for weeks while the valiant Poles were attacked from both sides,the war could have ended right then and there.
Your conclusions are wrong,dead wrong,and you miss the bigger point-the Allies COULD have stopped Hitler many times leading up to 1939.

Agree with Standshisground.
I'm with you on this, Standshisground. This column makes Pat sound like the fan of a sports team complaining about a referee's call, only in this case, about a game 70 years ago!

Sure, maybe the Treaty of Versailles was too heavy handed, and gave birth to resentment that led to the rise of Hitler, but what were the leaders of Britan and France supposed to do in 1939? Say "Gee, maybe the Treaty of Versailles wasn't such a good idea" and leave it at that? No, they had to deal with the reality of what they faced, and the fact is that Hitler was pure evil and had to be stopped.

Response to Mike's 11:13
Basically, Hitler was trying till 1939 to intimidate UK and France to surrendering their sovereignty for German suzerainty (or possibly past that point, rule by Germany as states?). These two nations had colonies in Asia (UK effectively ruled Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and entire South Asian Sub-continent with exceptions of three small Himalayan nations (a); France ruled entire Indochina of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) as well as Africa (several current African countries were British or French colonies) and to a lesser extent so did Netherlands (which ruled Indonesia more-or-less until 1950 (b)) and Belgium (which ruled current "Democratic Republic of Congo" till 1960). Also, France has many scattered overseas "departments" (considered as part-and-parcel of France) such as the two minuscule islands I mentioned earlier (St Pierre and Miquelon, just south of Newfoundland island).

Basically, if these four nations (Netherlands and Belgium would certainly have surrendered speedily had France and UK done so) had accepted German rule, Hitler would have gained the bulk of Africa (about 3.5 times the size of entire Europe) and considerable portion (about 80% of entire Europe by area) of Asia. (I actually used Canada for the area comparisons, but that country coincidentally matches entire Europe in this measure)

(a) Nepal, Bhutan and (defunct since 1975 due to merger with India) Sikkim

(b) Japanese occupied much of Indonesia during WW2, a time when Netherlands (home country) was under German bootheels.

the answer is obviously "yes"
Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who actually do.

I rather like pb in WA's interpretation (1:52am): "Maybe he was an anal-retentive megalomaniac who didn't have a clue and just made it up as he went along?" Counter-productive improvisation was a hallmark of Nazi administration, with overlapping jurisdictions and often confusing lines of authority. Hitler was said to enjoy the resulting spectacle of conflict among his -- let's coin a word here -- czars.

Was Hitler in 1939 the megalomaniacal dictator bent on world domination as outlined in his infamous book written some fifteen years before? Or was Hitler the swaggering cartoon of a statesman throwing his weight around because he could and altering and advancing his plans as events either allowed or dictated?

Given those two choices, the answer is obviously "yes".


+++

No surprise, then, that Early-Onset ...
... Korsokoff's Syndrome's Poster Person, Trade Luddite and Perot-like perpetual Populist "president" wannabe, Mr Buchanan, now posits himself as an authority on the insidious inner workings of Herr Hitler's hideous head?

Idopas @ 11:12 wrote
"The theory that he would have left the UK and the US alone is, at best, wishful thinking."

There is an irony in that Hitler (had he NOT been erratic in his military orders) could easily have attacked at least parts (Maritime Provinces) of Canada (which actually had near-state-of-art forces/equipment at that time, almost 30 years before a draft-dodger became PM of the country) from St Pierre and Miquelon--and even possibly (assuming German taking of Maritimes) used Maritimes to attack US (last-I-checked, there is a border between New Brunswick and Maine of about 600 km).

Talent Scout
talent scout
Location: CO
Reply # 34
Date: Sep 1, 2009 - 10:44 AM EST I never understood
Why England and America declared war on Germany became partners with Stalin's USSR.

Its said that England declared war on Germany for invading Poland.

Cannot be true cause the Soviets also invaded Poland right along with Germany and they were called friends.

This has never made sense to me.
------------------------------------------
Some corrections- It was the Germans who declared war on the Americans after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor as part of the Tri-Partite Pact, not the other way around, although we would have eventually done so.

The Soviets didn't invade Eastern Poland until September 17th, 1939 IAW the provisions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and it would have been completely insane for the British and the French to have declared war on the Soviet Union, possibly having to take on both the Nazi's and the Russians.

The Brits didn't like the Soviets but when Hitler attacked them on June 22, 1941, they were quite happy to share Germany as a common enemy, and thus began their rocky wartime 'friendship'.

As the old Arab saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Concerning bankers and the First World War, J.P. Morgan (the man AND the bank) had invested heavily into the British winning the war and could not afford for them to lose and consequently was quite influential in getting the Americans to become involved....the rest, as they say, is history.

Next Week....
"Did the Jews force Hitler to kill them?"

oracle1 wrote
"If you read Hitler's only book, Mein Kampf, he made pretty clear who his targets were. He definitely wanted to gobble up a big part of Russia. As for his other motives, he was not stupid, but he was unbalanced--Pat tries to presume logical thinking from an unstable guy."

Revealed through how erratic his orders to his generals (although this could be partly explained off as being the delusions of a man who never progressed beyond the Royal Army equivalent rank of Lance Corporal having command over trained generals--of course such delusions don't exactly disprove Hitler's madness) were, particularly on Dunkirk (there are records of the surprise of Rommel and Rundstedt about Hitler's orders to temporarily halt--the delay was used by the British to assemble the evacuation flotilla and rescue a large portion of their forces for later fighting).

If we had the forsight. . .
we would have encouraged Hitler to roll into russia and destroy communism. After stalin's artificially induced "famines" and other forced collectivism schemes (supported by some collectvist communist jews) at the time, (sometimes unjustified) hatred for the "jewish overseers" in that communist dominated part of the world. Lithuanians and Ukrainians saw life under Hitler as being preferable to life under Stalin.
This by no means justifies the forced relocation and deaths of jews and others, but IF YOU KNOW THE REASONS BEHIND SUCH HUMAN ACTIONS, YOU CAN HELP PREVENT THEM IN THE FUTURE.
Mr. Buchanan has taken a lot of heat over his (mis)perceived "anti-semitism". Quite often, the unvarnished TRUTH hurts those who have a vested interest in seeing that it is never revealed.
One has to look at the state of pre-WWII Germany to see how the seeds for war could be sown. With WWI "reparations" still fresh in many German's minds and the economy in a shambles, it is easy to see how a charismatic figure like obama (oops, I mean Hitler) could come to power. Resentment for the jews came in the form of the poor German with nothing but a defeated country seeing his wealthy jewish neighbor (businessman) making money off of them.
It is well known that the communist movements (around the world and) in Germany were largely supported by jews; hence, the resentment factor among non-jewish Germans took hold.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

svpallava
"If you read Hitler's only book, Mein Kampf..."

Nope. There was a second one. The Zweites Buch was never published but written in 1928 and in it around 1980 Germany along with her allies the British Empire conquers the United States in a final epic battle and German world domination.

Did Hitler want war? Yes. Pat has been selling this garbage for years now--the claim that Germany only wanted the Polish Corridor and Hitler only turned west on France and the United Kingdom because of their support for poland and if not for the war gurantee Poland would have been more reasonable toward German desires--pure tripe.

To quote Churchill, Buchanan's treatment of Hilter is like feeding the crocodile in the hopes it will eat you last. Hitler and Stalin made their Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 which Hitler broke in 1941--there is no evidence that Hitler would not have attacked west before moving east--none at all.


Allowing evil to fester
What we must never forget is that evil is a REALITY. Evil did not start with the Nazi regime nor did it stop with them. The same evil that pervaded the thoughts of the SS is the same Evil that caused 19 Moslems to hijack 4 planes and kill over 3000 people in attacks on America in 9/11. This same evil was present in the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein. This is what we must remember and we must understand that the only way to confront these types of evil in the world is with ACTION.
The holocaust, and the Nazi government that created it, was the worst Evil in the 20th Century. But it could have been stopped sooner with earlier action from the ‘free’ nations of the world. Many people tried to appease the great evil. People like Neville Chamberlain and followers who would do anything to avoid action and have “peace in their time”. They talked and sanctioned and they allowed the evil to fester. The appeasers in power in the 1930’s did whatever they could do to avoid action
Ask yourself what would have happened if America and the nations of the free world had not went to war and defeated Germany and Japan in WWII. Imagine if we didn’t want to take on the additional casualties after Pearl Harbor or the Army didn’t want to fight far from home for long periods of time. How many more people declared undesirable by the Nazi state would have been wiped off the earth? But instead of giving in to Japanese and German aggression, America took on the challenge, we defeated two once powerful Nations, and stopped their evil atrocities. Even with these important historical precedents, Libs today when faced with modern evils in the world want to appease. They want to talk to the countries that our last president so aptly called the “AXIS of EVIL”. They want to sanction, they want to watch, they want peace at any price, and they want to forget what happens when evil festers.

Allowing evil to fester 2
Some people would blame the Holocaust on one man and excuse the behavior of a civilized nation as if Adolf Hitler misled all the people. But this is not the case. Ruthless tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and Kim Jung-Il can never succeed without the willing help of thousands of loyalists and supporters. These supporters of evil do not act out of fear of one man, but because they believe in their own superiority and the righteousness of their cause. The evil intention of these leaders pervades their followers and incites them to greater and greater immoral acts. Once the leaders have gained this type of power there is no stopping the depravity to which they can sink without taking bold and decisive ACTION by the free states of the world.
When talking about the holocaust we think of drastic chambers of torture. Medical experiments on living people, exposing people to hideous penalties for the slightest offenses or for no offenses at all. And of course the use of gas chambers on a minority people who were citizens of the country. To think of these atrocities as “history”, to blame it on Hitler, or the struggles that Germany was going through following WWI , is to miss the most important lesson which is that evil that still exists in the modern world. Saddam H, in continuing the Legacy of Tyrants like Hitler, used torture, murder and in 1988 he used poison gas to kill 1000s of Iraqi people.
Yet many American people today, think of it as “history”. When these modern appeasers are confronted with a regime like Saddam’s that used poison gas to kill men, women and children of an ethnic minority, used torture chambers on its own people, and filled mass graves with tens of thousands of people, these libs wanted further debate and talk before decisive action. The same tyrannical type governments, the same evil that was in Germany, is still in places like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Darfur many other places throughout the world. This is what we can never forget

History
Many points have already been covered. I just want to add a couple.

Q: "Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet?"

See this article:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/merselke bir.aspx

"Hitler’s naval emphasis had been on submarine warfare and he simply did not have the manpower to staff a fleet of seven battleships, twenty cruisers, two aircraft carriers and dozens of destroyers and auxiliary ships."

The British attacked the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir not long after the surrender precisely to prevent it falling into German hands.

Q:"Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?"
Maybe because the Italian military were not very competent and the Germans would have had to go in and bail them out (which is what actually happened).

Poland did not invade Germany in 1939.
You can make every excuse for Germany and Hitler you like Mr. Buchanan but you cannot escape the truth that Germany that invaded Poland and not the other way around.

Mr. Buchanan
Nuts.

Tj and liberal wealth envy
Tj writes as if he supports, "we were at the top (the cream of) of German society we had the culture, we were the doctors, lawyers and businessmen. How could they do this to us?" When the average German (without a pot to p!ss in) saw his wealthy jewish neighbor doing well, the seeds or resentment were planted."

Its crazy how the libs like Tj and Obama see wealthy people and resent it. The "I am not as rich as him so take from him and give to me crowd". It is liberal redistribution of wealth theory pure and simple.

Rather then saying how do I BECOME a wealthy businessman, lawyer, doctor etc it is easier to engage in liberal class envy. Then the National Socialist Party took by force what they wanted, scapegoating a few minorities in the process. Now the Liberal Socialists in America like President Obama and Van Jones et al take it by taxing (backed by gov force) the "rich" and scapegoating the conservatives like me.

Interesting facts, dumb conclusion!
Hitler may not have wanted the war he got, but he did want war. When you attack somebody, and declare war on them, then duh, you want war. Even, or perhaps especially in war, the Law of Unintended Consequences will hammer ya.

Hitler did not want peace
Goebbels wrote in his diary that Hitler was angry when Chamberlain caved regarding the Sudetenland, because Hitler wanted war. War was his religion. Recent German scholarship has proven this.

Kooky Pat
I usually like Pat Buchanan a lot, but when he goes off on this weird schtick about blaming Poland for WWII, he's really a nut-case. Sort of like blaming a woman for being raped. I guess "Lebensraum" and the planned extermination of the Jews and Slavs was just an afterthought, once Hitler found himself in a war he "really didn't want." Give me a break.

Pat Buchanan the Historian
What a brilliant historian! If Buchanan would spend more time actually studying history and less time reading comic books he would realize that the timing of the war with France and Britain caught Hitler by surprise. He wasn't ready for them, yet. We are very fortunate that the war started BEFORE he was ready.

Is he for real?
Taking opposition to the War on Terror (or whatever it's called these days) to a shameful extreme. This piece reads like an apologia for Adolph Hitler. Shame on you, Pat Buchanan!

This is too far!
Of course Hitler wanted war. He just didn't want it before 1942. His generals told him to wait. But, Hitler thought he could get Danzig - and Poland, as well - on the cheap.

That's why he signed the Non-aggression Pact with the Soviets, only a week previously. To be able to attack Poland and have the Brits and French realize that Poland wouldn't get help from Stali before Hitler had swallowed it whole.
This was to make them back down - as they always had before.

Someonw posted that you might want to read about WWII before taking such a ridiculous a-historical tack. I agree! Start with reading Mein Kampf. Hitler laid it out in detail almost 20 years before. This foolish diatribe doesn't help keep credibility with conservatives. Especially if you're going to suggest that we should EVEN have fought in that war. You've become a real isolationist dove, Pat. What's your next installment - Reagan the warmonger?

Corrections?
I said at

10:44 AM EST

I never understood
Why England and America declared war on Germany became partners with Stalin's USSR.

Its said that England declared war on Germany for invading Poland.

Cannot be true cause the Soviets also invaded Poland right along with Germany and they were called friends.

This has never made sense to me.



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

Thomas writes:12:20 PM

Some corrections- It was the Germans who declared war on the Americans after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor as part of the Tri-Partite Pact, not the other way around, although we would have eventually done so.
======================
You are not even talking about what I said.

If England went to War with Germany over Poland, they would have went to War with the Soviets as well.

The Soviets done worse than the Germans.
Look at Katyn Forest.

"mass murder of thousands of Polish military officers, policemen, intellectuals and civilian prisoners of war by Soviet NKVD, based on a proposal from Lavrentiy Beria to execute all members of the Polish Officer Corps"

I will never believe England went to war over Poland against Germany but made friends with the Soviets disregarding the Soviet invasion and murders of the above, let alone others

This is too far!
Of course Hitler wanted war. He just didn't want it before 1942. His generals told him to wait. But, Hitler thought he could get Danzig - and Poland, as well - on the cheap.

That's why he signed the Non-aggression Pact with the Soviets, only a week previously. To be able to attack Poland and have the Brits and French realize that Poland wouldn't get help from Stali before Hitler had swallowed it whole.
This was to make them back down - as they always had before.

Someonw posted that you might want to read about WWII before taking such a ridiculous a-historical tack. I agree! Start with reading Mein Kampf. Hitler laid it out in detail almost 20 years before. This foolish diatribe doesn't help keep credibility with conservatives. Especially if you're going to suggest that we should EVEN have fought in that war. You've become a real isolationist dove, Pat. What's your next installment - Reagan the warmonger?

No Nazi's In Whitehall
No (maybe, maybe yes) Nazi's in Washington DC, but plenty Marxists in both places.

Not only is "Uncle" Joe in both places, so is brother Marx and Cousin Engels.

In fact the whole damn family of Socialists, International and Nationals are here now.


Liberious and why
Liberious says "Stalin WAS worse than Hitler. We allied ourselves with the bigger devil. WHY? WHY? WHY? "

Well we were not allied with Russia at first but had to go through germany to get there. Certainly Hitler and Nazi germany had to go. By 45 after years of fighting germany and with Russia as a pseudo ally it would have been tough to take Russia head on.

Stalin was certainly every bit as Evil As hitler and his followers but that didn't lesson the need to take out Hitler.

Would Russia have went into Poland at the time If Hitler hadn't? Who knows but maybe not. Fact is Hitler did invade Poland before Russia and that after Annexing of Austria, where Europe tried to appease him although it was against the terms of earlier German WW I Surrender, and after his move into Czechoslovakia. After those moves he told the appeasers that he wouldn't move any more, he built his strength and went into Poland.

Like Saddam invading Kuwait he had to go.

If Russia had not been an ally (only as so far as Talent pointed out earlier the Enemy of my enemy is my friend)Hitler would have had a Lot more troops to keep on the western Front and we would have had a much tougher time taking back Europe. Can anyone imagine D-Day if all the troops Hitler lost at Stalingrad and elsewhere in Russia had been sitting near the coast of France?

Horrible article
The obvious reasoning to some of Hitlers actions were:
1. Propaganda. by offering peace he looked good to the people and kept them rallied around him.
2. If peace did get accepted, it was good for hi army and industry to wait a few years before marching on. They could recuperate.

I do agree, though, that Stalin was the worst of all them.

Bet Mike voted for Barry Soetoro
Mike writes: 11:51 AM EST
Buchanan similiar to birthers
Unwilling to accept facts. Unwilling to reason. Takes historical facts out of the context of the day.
======================
If so, you are no different than the people who backed Hitler

Read more carefully Akagi
Since you double-quoted (somewhat akin to double-parking) me after I'd quoted and replied to Oracle1.

Comment on Accuracy
Sniffle, Sniffle, poor misunderstood Hitler; but please let us remember that it was FDR who handed Eastern Europe to Stalin on a platter at Yalta over Churchill's protests. I remain very impressed with Mr. Buchanan's fidelity the the official Nazi propaganda line. His description of Hitler's taking of Czechoslovakia could have been cribbed straight from that source. The reason that I think that he isn't at all accurate was his failure to get one small but important fact straight which is available to anyone with the slightest interest in the matter. The surname of the Czech president at the time of the takeover was Benes, not Hacha.
There are a lot of things that he says that I might not know about, but if he can't tell the truth about a fact that I happen to know, why should I beleive anything else he says?

Buchanan is an anti-Semite
I'm disappointed and disgusted that Townhall allows this drivel to be published. It reminds me of a great analogy - a young boy told his father, a pastor, that he wanted to watch an R-rated movie. The father said no, that it wouldn't be pleasing to the Lord and could lead the young boy into sin. The son begged and said "it's ok this one time - it's just one little time and God won't even notice!"

The father said he'd think about it, then made a batch of brownies and offered one to his son. Before he took a bite the father said, "Oh, I put a little dog poop in the brownies - but it's ok, it was only a little bit - you'll never even notice." The brownie was put back on the plate.

All that said, having Pat Buchanan as a contributor to TH is like a little poop in the brownies and because of that I won't be reading TH anymore - your association with him taints everything.

talent scout
Your rationale is proof of the drangement of birthers.

PLEASE PULL THIS GARBAGE!
TOWNHALL! PLEASE PULL THIS GARBAGE!

I rarely use all caps, but I'm making an exception here.

Mike
Your dumb accusation prove you did vote for Barry

Why don't you get off TH
EveningStar




I don't know about Danzig
As Hitler did not mention it until many years later, after he had decided he wanted war as early as 1922.

He speaks very clearly from his 1st speech and afterward.

Excerpt 1.

MUNICH

SPEECH OF APRIL 12, 1922

1. 'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html




Danzig is not mentioned
When Hitler made plans for war that the Treaty of Versailles caused.

(in my judgment)
Read this speech:

MUNICH

SPEECH OF APRIL 12, 1922
http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-12-22.html

[Word for word, Shortened for word count.]

1. 'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS

2. And then we said to ourselves: THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS CLASSES: THEY CANNOT BE

3. And in the third place IT WAS CLEAR TO US THAT THIS PARTICULAR VIEW IS BASED ON AN IMPULSE WHICH SPRINGS FROM OUR RACE AND FROM OUR BLOOD

4. And fourthly WE WERE FURTHER PERSUADED THAT ECONOMIC PROSPERITY IS INSEPARABLE FROM POLITICAL FREEDOM AND THAT THEREFORE THAT HOUSE OF LIES, 'INTERNATIONALISM,' MUST IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE

5. WE AS NATIONAL SOCIALISTS and members of the German Workers party - a Party pledged to work - MUST BE ON PRINCIPLE THE MOST FANATICAL NATIONALISTS

6. And then sixthly we grasped the fact that POWER IN THE LAST RESORT IS POSSIBLE ONLY WHERE THERE IS STRENGTH, and that strength lies not in the dead weight of numbers but solely in energy.

7. If one has realized a truth, that truth is valueless so long as there is lacking the indomitable will to turn this realization into action!

These were the foundations of our Movement - the truths on which it was based and which demonstrated its necessity.


Lois
"Sniffle, Sniffle, poor misunderstood Hitler; but please let us remember that it was FDR who handed Eastern Europe to Stalin on a platter at Yalta over Churchill's protests."

Outside of sending in US and British troops to roll back the Red Army, the only thing Yalta did was formalize facts on the ground or as they would be once the war ended.

FDR didn't give Poland, etc to the Soviets, the Soviets had them already.


Talent Scout
I didn't, and never will. You only assumed I did because I dissagreed with you. What does that tell you about yourself?

Talent Scout II
You stated:

You are not even talking about what I said.

==========================================
I replied:

The Soviets didn't invade Eastern Poland until September 17th, 1939 IAW the provisions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and it would have been completely insane for the British and the French to have declared war on the Soviet Union, possibly having to take on both the Nazi's and the Russians.

The Brits didn't like the Soviets but when Hitler attacked them on June 22, 1941, they were quite happy to share Germany as a common enemy, and thus began their rocky wartime 'friendship'.

As the old Arab saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
==========================================

The British were stunned when the Germans and the Soviets announced their Non-Aggression Pact on August 25th, 1939.

On Sept. 1st they (and France) honored their treaty commitment to Poland and declared war on Germany.

They were shocked whem the Soviet Union crossed the Polish frontier on Sept. 17th as part of one of the secret provisions of the Pact.

As I stated above it would have been insanity for them to have declared war on the Russians.

The Katyn Forest was not even known to the West until after the German invasion and did not play a factor in that decision.

I suggest you begin believing that Britian went to war with Germany over Poland but did not with the Soviet Union because that is reality.

Tells me nothing Mike
Except you did not vote for Barry, it was just a guess as I said.

I think you anti-birthers are as bad anyway.

Barry has never said a word about it or showed a single document.
The only thing you have seen is what someone put on the internet and has not been allowed into evidence anywhere.

Its more than his Birth Certificate he is hiding anyway, all his records are buried and sealed and asking to see then is reasonable, including the same one the Hawaiian Officials seen.
They did not go look on the internet to see if he had one, capiche.




Patty Hearts Adolph
Anyone who hates jews as much as Hitler is A-OK in Pat's book.

Of course HItler didn't want war
He wanted to take what he wanted with impunity. He wanted the British and French to keep appeasing him. He got away with it so often, he thought he could do it again. That's why he was caught unprepared for war with the Brits. He ignored British history, their clever role of siding with the weaker of the continental powers in a war, so as to prevent hegemony of the mainland. They sided with Prussia against Napoleon, with the French against Hitler. In the cold war, with Germany again. Hitler over reached, united complacent enemies in fear, and brought about his own downfall. Sounds like Barry has taken a leaf from Adolph's book of pride and arrogance.

Thomas writes:
They were shocked whem the Soviet Union crossed the Polish frontier on Sept. 17th as part of one of the secret provisions of the Pact.
=======================
Probably were, not in contest as I accept they were.


Mike writes:
As I stated above it would have been insanity for them to have declared war on the Russians.
====================

Yet they did declare war on Germany for doing EXACTLY WHAT THE SOVIETS DID.

So lets not pretend they went to war to save Poland.

The Soviets were worse than the Germans, or at least as bad.



Mike writes:
The Katyn Forest was not even known to the West until after the German invasion and did not play a factor in that decision.
=======================

Even if true Thomas, it was known when the Soviets invaded Poland.
That is obvious they were killing Poles.


Mike writes:
I suggest you begin believing that Britian went to war with Germany over Poland but did not with the Soviet Union because that is reality.
=======================
I suggest you decide what you believe for yourself and leave me out of your suggestions, cause I am not going to believe it.

Lots a of Marxists in Whitehall yet today

Mike, "birthers" are not deranged
Unfortunately, it was the DHIMMICRUDS who first raised the eligibility issue (against McCain, who proved to have been born in Canal Zone, which was US territory in 1936) but were much less-than-straightforward in providing corresponding info about 0bama. The fact that 0bama has spent a six-figure (some say seven) number of dollars to hide the requested documents lends some credence to it.

I personally think he was born in Seattle (while Vancouver does have a US Consulate with chancery, I don't know if this was the case in 1961) due to Ann Dunham's having been there a fortnight after Barack Jr's purported DOB.

This garbage is why I
refuse to read anything by Pat Buchanan. His anti-Semitic screeches have gotten more than a little old.

Correction
Thomas writes:
I suggest you begin believing that Britian went to war with Germany over Poland but did not with the Soviet Union because that is reality.
=======================
I suggest you decide what you believe for yourself and leave me out of your suggestions, cause I am not going to believe it.

Lots a of Marxists in Whitehall yet today

re: Birthers
As much as I dislike the man's ideas, I have no doubt that Obama was born in the US. I'm afraid that eventually they'll produce the evidence that's been demanded, and everyone who's mentioned this claim, along with anyone else on the right, will look like fools.

Response to Pistol's 18:41
I covered that earlier by stating that Hitler used "Assyrian method" (intimidating enemy, even stronger, to surrender) in order to conserve his own troops from fighting and dying.

"They sided with Prussia against Napoleon, with the French against Hitler. In the cold war, with Germany again. Hitler over reached, united complacent enemies in fear, and brought about his own downfall."

Did you mean "they sided with the French against the Kaiser"--since France and UK were allies in WW1? Also, by Cold War times, Hitler was an ash-heap (due to suicide and cremation with petrol).

Sorry Thomas
For mixing your screen name up with Mikes

Calling people " anti-Semitic "
Is getting as bad as calling someone a racist, pure bs.

Birther birther birther
Shut up right_wing2
I think I would become a "birther" for no other reason than idiots like you


Birthers
Don't you think Hillary's campaign would have seized the opportunity to disqualify Obama if there were a shred of truth to this theory?

You all claim that he's never offered evidence that he's US born. He actually has done this, you just refuse to accept it as fact. And even if he showed it again you people wouldn't believe it, so what's the point?

As for the $100,000's spent hiding the truth...what evidence is there of this? Don't show me a link to some crack pot website, I mean real credible evidence.

Nothing birthers say makes logical sense. No credible evidence has been shown by them that he is not US born. None. I know you are all going to go crazy, call me names and post links to crack-pot websites. There simply is no evidence to support your theory. None.

Anti Birthers
Did you know that Phil Berg is and always has been a Democrat and he is/was a Hilliary supporter?

How do you knwo Hilliarty did not give Berg the information about obama's questionable citizenship and most definitly is not a Natural Born Citizen anyway.

Both parents have to be US Citizens even if he was born in Washington DC

Well, at least we have no nazi's
St. Denis In Obama's Red Amerika Location: LA
Reply # 109
Date: Sep 1, 2009 - 7:01 PM EST
Red Propaganda, It's Official

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/31/c ontradictions-are-revealing-politicizing-the-nea/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/sep /01/official-dishonesty-national-endowment-arts/


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/09/01/the_a rt_of_agitprop/


Welcome to the Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Ortega, Chavez and Obama RED circus.
=================

Thank God its just the most murderous ideology the world has ever known...

Stinkin communists are no better than the nazis

Buchanan is not anti-semitic
Nothing he has offered is anti-semitic, and he's not saying one dictator is better than the other (stalin or hitler). He's said repeatedly that Hitler was a evil, murdering tyrant, as was Stalin. His point is that the most violent, costly and deadly war in world history might have been avoided, and many lives saved.

Most historians disagree, but that does not make Buchanan anti-semitic.

Birthers
The Presidents dad was a “dead beat dad” his mother is an American so by default the President is an American.

It’s amazing how the Blacks worship their dead beat dads but bite the hand that feed them.

Talent
You stated:

Yet they did declare war on Germany for doing EXACTLY WHAT THE SOVIETS DID.

So lets not pretend they went to war to save Poland.

The Soviets were worse than the Germans, or at least as bad.
=================================

The Brits and French went to war for Poland, but did not want to go to war with the Russians as they had their hands full with the Germans.

They had been bamboozled by both, but in the end they still defeated Germany.

If you do not believe that Britian and France went to war with Germany over Poland based on the fact that they did not also go to war with the Soviet Union, then what DO you believe that Britian and France went to war with Germany over?

Also, while their were Polish battlefield deaths suffered against the Russians by the Poles, no large scale units were in place to resist the Soviets...it was literally a 'cake-walk'.

The decimation of the Polish Officer Corps would follow in 1940 and on.

talent scout/ St Denis(denise)
Would either of you two talented folks ask
Patsy B. why Hitler rocketed England almost to
ashes?! You know, that country that he admired.
And ask Patsy if you ever meet him to quit adding speculation to truth.Also ask this
bonehead did he slaughter the jews because he
admired them? So he didn't have this,that to
conquer the world he would have if enough time
was given him! Patsy is full of dogbones and
KOOL AID! Did Hitler invade Russia...tried to
and got his butt kicked by another evil source!
Elvis

German Laborsporne
Welfare (German)

The state owns the women and children.

This frees the men to go a Viking. (War)

American welfare

The state controls the women and children.

This allows the dead beat dads to go a Viking. (Domestically)

Rob, rape, kill and destroy.

Enslave own people to rat poison.

Enslave own people to sex slavery.

Attax the people to support the standing army(dead beat dads)

Federal camp followers (Mothers)

Agents and agencies
(getting paid to do the dead beat dads job)

Socialism consumes everything gives nothing back.

Bite the apple.

Thomas
The whole world knows what you posted about England and France going to war over Poland, cause that is the stated reason.

I am simply saying it makes no sense to say they went to war to save Poland from Germany so the Soviets could have it and not the Germans.

Everyone in the world knows what you are posting, not all know the Soviets did the exact same thing as Germany did and worse.

Yet the world has not condemned the communists as they have the nazi's.

Now why is that?

Marxists own the history book and the press is about all I can come up with.

Hitler killed his millions and Stalin and the Communists killed their tens of millions.
Yet its the nazis who are despised and communists honored by some in our own government and media.
As well as in Europe

Both parents
Must be United States Citizens for their child to be natural born.
Barry Soetoro's dad was not ever a US Citizen.

Barry is not a natural Born Citizen, not even if he was born in Topeka Kansas, Washington DC or Honolulu Hawaii
=======================


Crazy
Pat has good points from time to time but this article makes him look nuttier than squirrel s**t. I think he has been reading some of the alternative history books in the Sci-Fi section of Barnes and Noble or the Alzheimer's is kicking in and he is forgetting the actual facts.

Stalin did more damage than Hitler only because he was in power longer. I'm sure the Furher woudld have outdone Stalin if he would have been around for a decade or two more. They were both grade A socialist A-holes.

Death by Government
The nazi's were pikers compared to the communists.

quote:
DEATH
BY GOVERNMENT
By R.J. Rummel




Lethal Politics: Soviet....

China's Bloody Century





Article: "Understanding Factor Analysis" (entire)
DEATH
BY GOVERNMENT
By R.J. Rummel
New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1994.

Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long
----Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

CONTENTS



1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]



3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

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

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



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


And all we hear about is the Spanish Inquisition America is evil or the nazi's, never the most murdering scum ever, the communist/socialist/bloshevik/menshevik/fabian/progressive killers


Did Hilter want war?
Hitler was not Alexander or Caesar(thank God).
So he when to war instead of waiting till his forces were fully ready.
In Mein Kampf he states he wants to destroy the USSR & take the land for Lebensraum.
That the Russians & Slavs are Untermenschen to be enslaved. That like all real Germans he wanted revenge on France.
Today Germany.
Tommorow the World.
Was their slogan.
What part of that don't you understand Pat?!

You wonder why we liberals consider
You wonder why we liberals consider some of you conservatives Nazi sympathizers. Pat's column provides a good example. Why don't Pat and you TH readers who salivate at his revisionist history just go to "American Renaissance"? It's where real conservatives go when they want their right-wing batteries recharged with that good old fashioned racism that makes Pat's heart beat faster. Here's the url
http://www.amren.com/

Thomas wrote:
If you do not believe that Britian and France went to war with Germany over Poland based on the fact that they did not also go to war with the Soviet Union, then what DO you believe that Britian and France went to war with Germany over?
======================

Boy o boy, I could drop a bombshell an open this question up to all sorts of crotch grabbing, lol.

Check into what Hitler did with Germanys money once he got into power.
He took it away from the bankers and printed his own, cutting the bankers out.

Stalin did not do that.


Gestell
No one wonders why you are an idiot

Gestall
One can't be a conservative and a Nazi. Nazi's loved the power of the state, much like modern day liberals (socialists)do. Conservatives prefer the power of the individual. That's not to say that some "conservatives" don't spout this kind of crap but it is only because they are race based socialists and they don't like regular socialists who are all inclusive so they throw the conservative label on their gargage to try to hide their real colors. The folks at American renaissance disgust me as much as I'm sure they do you, but they are not conservative.
They resemble groups like the Nation of Islam, who often throw themselves into the liberal camp when in all actualality there is nothing liberal about them - they are cut from the same cloth as the white supremist idiots.
But most people are easily swayed by appearances and simple labels and don't look any deeper than that.

You should check out the history and policies of the Nazi party - a lot of their policies resemble what the modern day liberal agenda is, nothing conservative about either of them. A lot of what Prezbo is pushing smells a lot like Facism.

Hello elvis
Hitler is on record he did not want war with England.

He knew it was possible when he attacked Poland, just counting on the British not wanting any part of it as Chamberlain had projected.

In some ways Chamberlain has got a bad name he did not really deserve altogether, in my opinion.

England still has its armed forces spread all across the world in the the 1930's.

Facing war with Japan and Mussolini, he wanted to avoid war with Germany.

Lot more to the story than a one liner can tell, as in appeaser.

Without his policies England would not have had any production for war when it did come.

We all try to sum everything up about WW2 with simple statements and it cannot be done

Townhall has all-star columnist list
I love to come on this site because you have stuff from most of the top conservative commentators. Where else can you read Sowell, Krauthammer, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone and John Stossel in the same place?

This column does not belong in the same place. Looking at the archives, I see you have not had a column from Victor Davis Hanson or Michael Yon in over a year. Those two would be a far better use for this space, or someone like Mark Steyn, than to keep posting BS like this.

Hitler is on record he did not want war
Taking Hitler at his word...does anyone not see the flawed reasoning here?

Also, Hitler and Stalin were both evil. Moving on.

So what's the point?
So what's the point--that the British are stupid? That's a given. But what about our own stupidity? What about our own responses to Stalin and the Soviets after WW2? Those can't be blamed on the war. What about our own stupid mistakes in our dealings with all of the communists world-wide since WW2? If WW2 hadn't happened, we still would have had to deal with communist expansion across the globe. What's to make us think that we would have done any better without WW2 than we did with it?

WW2 was admittedly unnecessary, though Buchanan's conclusions about Hitler's lack of expansionist ambition are far from certain. But this thesis--that WW2 was the cause of the West's demise--is tenuous at best, and probably just plain wrong.

No one is reasoning
For it to be flawed.
Your are assuming a lot and is what is flawed

Mike writes:- 8:35 PM EST
Hitler is on record he did not want war
Taking Hitler at his word...does anyone not see the flawed reasoning here?
======================

Who is reasoning Mike?

He obviously did not want war with England.

He obviously wanted war with Poland, France and Russia.

He built an Army for war, and he meant to have war, just not with England if he could avoid it

Tinsldr2 . . .
Thank you for your comments.
I do not "resent" wealthy people. Through hard work, I have made a good life for myself and my family and am as conservative "as they come". You fall into the trap that liberals often use by name-calling someone that you disagree with. It is an unfortunate fact of human nature for some to resent the wealthy. I merely point this out.
You are correct about scapegoating and the national socialists blaming an entire ?race? (culture) for its problems.
However, one cannot discount the very real support that many jews gave to communism and radicalism in that age. The political upheaval of those times gave Hitler an opportunity to rise to power. One has to look at the "context of the times" and not judge previous actions by today's standards.
Recommended reading:
"The Holocaust Industry" by Norman Finkelstein
"Other Losses" by John Sack
Norman Finkelstein's book has incurred the wrath of organized jewry (zionism) who (still)use the holocaust to achieve their political aims and to stifle dissent contrary to zionist aims.
John Sack's book looks at the former "concentration camps" in soviet dominated territory and how they were used (by jews) to torture and murder the indigenous populations (German) as a form of revenge.
Sometimes it takes a dispassionate "outsider" to see things that get overlooked through the eyes of emotionalism or those with an agenda.
One only has to look at the case of John Demanjuk and EVEN AFTER BEING ABSOLVED OF "WAR CRIMES" BY THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT is still being hounded by vindictive jews (with complicity by the US government). It seems that these (zionist) jews want someone's blood regardless of guilt or innocence. I would like to see the US "office of special investigations" to go after the JEWS THAT SOLD THEIR OWN INTO CAPTIVITY.

The Katyn forest massacre . . .
is another instance where the communists committed criminal acts and attempted to "get away with it". Communists murdered the Polish Military Officer Corps and attempted to blame it on the Germans. Luckily, the Germans had the foresight to deal with the situation, enlisting the aid of the allies through the International Red Cross; after much international review of the evidence, the communists were held responsible.
This did not in any way silence the apologists for communism which exists to this very day.
Only today, communist tentacles reach the highest levels of the US government starting with hitler (oops, I mean barry soetoro hussein obama).
Throughout history, communism has caused much more human misery than any other form of "government".
Looking back through history, it is easy to see why the eastern bloc countries under communist control would find it preferable to live under german control. ANYTHING ELSE was better than communism. With the "forced collectivism", famines, and subsequent extermination by the soviets and the whitewash of these events by our esteemed "mainstream media" (new york times) ANY population would jump at the chance to throw off communism.

Defeat our Domestic Nazis
You know what they call people that won’t stand up to these Nazis?

French.

How about Madoff

By the way, I never read Mein Kampf, but I did scan a few parts some years ago. I don't remember exact quotes, but I do remember that parts of what I read were exactly what I have read other places.

Over the Centuries Jews have done a lot of things that have caused them problems.

How about Madoff?

How about turning off traffic lights that were intended to keep people from getting hit in traffic, and on and on.


Hitler and war
Perhaps he just really wanted the rest of the world to surrender without conflict.

Anti-Semitism has caused a problem

I have talked to many people over the decades, and have found that when you get to the bottom line, no one really hates another person because of color, race, gender, creed, or anything like that. Those factors are the identifiers, and what you do next depends on your past experience with such a person, or what you just read in the paper, or heard on the news.

Since Anti-Semitism has caused a problem in each of the 2,000 or so Countries, Governments, Races, and Cultures that have existed in the past 2,000 years, don't you think that Jews caused at least part of the problem?

A country consists of a Border and a Culture, without one, the other can not exist. For thousands of years the Jews have had a culture but never a border.

If a child went to school, complained that people didn’t like him, so next year you sent him to a different school, with the same results. This continued for 16 years, through college, a different class, a different school, different people, but everyone disliked him. Wouldn’t you finally believe that at least some of the problem was the kid?

Hitler was in power for just a few years before the concentration camps started their dirty work. Do you think it was possible for the German Jews to create such hatred in just those few years, or did that result from hundreds and hundreds of history.

I am sure that many will say I just made this up, but recently my best friend for the last 50 years died at age 93. He was a Jew.

Now this is an honest question. Why are Jews so hated in so many countries for so many centuries.

History according to Pat
Blaming WWII on Poland is like blaming Megan's Law on Megan. Of course no one should be surprised that Pat takes his ethical cues from NAMBLA.

As for his feigned distress at Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews, how stupid does he think we are? The only problem Pat has with the Holocaust is that the Allies prevented his idol Hitler from finishing the job. That is not an accusation, it is a fact as certain as the Eastern sunrise.

To Mike
You said: "So what's the point--that the British are stupid? That's a given"

Why the hell did you need to post that? Its rude and totally undeeded in the context of this debate.

We are the size of Maryland (on state) and have a trillion dollar economy in the UK. Hardly stupid.

Please have some manners, I wouldnt dream of being so rude to you.

You need to read and understand the history of what happened. The logistics (for the US) and the fact that we in the UK were devastated by fighting the war, meant that there was unfortunately political expediency required towards the Soviets. We in the UK have always felt bad about the Poles, our close friends, for example.

But what could any of us do. Would the US have wanted to fight the Soviets straight after the War, and what resources and troops did we and many of our allies have left to combat them?

So we all, you and us, had to come to a dirty but inevitable deal with them.

Lepanto 11:49 AM EST
Lepanto

Thanks for that nice post. It was interesting reading.

I agree with you. What annoys me in these debates is when we (I have been guilty! ;-) ) all attack in nasty terms each others countries.

I think we need to seperate the debates from the nasty comments. Im sure you agree.

Because in the real world, you and I know that while say the US and UK may not always agree, there are a lot of countries who dont share our views of freedom, free speech and want us all dead. We need to be careful not to give them hope by being too nasty to each other.

And yes, we see the US as our closest friends, which of course is why we are seen as renegades by the European Union. but hell, it never bothered us before! ;-)

Correcting TS' 2009/09/01 19:07
"Both parents have to be US Citizens even if he was born in Washington DC."

No, a child born IN THE US is automatically conferred US citizenship irrespective of the immigration/visa status of the parents--which is one of the driving incentives behind the "anchor-baby" scenario (not exactly helped by Reagan's 1986 "one-time" scamnesty which encouraged even more to attempt illegal immigration to US--the number of malfeasant aliens now stands at somewhere between 12 and 20 millions). The rules for a child born to ONE US-citizen parent outside US are much more complex (complexity was same in 1961, but with stricter numbers) in contrast to that of post-1977 Canada (due to my being naturalised in our northern neighbour in 1982, I read this most carefully) where the one Can-cit parent automatically confers Canadian citizenship on the child (implication: any child which I hypothetically fathered between 1982/03/25 and 2008/02/28--the latter was the day I filed a CIT-030 to renounce citizenship--would automatically be a Canadian citizen, irrespective of mum's citizenships or even location of birthplace).

svpallava
"Both parents have to be US Citizens even if he was born in Washington DC."

You are correct, TS and others have been spreading this garbage for awhile now.

If Obama was born in the US (and he was)he is a natural born US citizen no matter if his parents were illegal aliens. Neither of Bobby Jindal's parents were US citizens when he was born in 1971, but in the US on student visas.

As for outside the US, when Obama was born the standard was if the US citizen parent was a male, then he only had to have lived in the US at some point in his life before the child was born, but if the parent was a female the law (from 1952)stated that she had to have lived in the US for ten years and five since the age of 14 (Ann Dunham would have failed to meet this second requirement by 4 months or so).

Since 1986, and it applies to both males and females, to confer US citizenship on a child born outside the US, the US parent must have lived in the US for five years and two since the age of 14.

Even if the birthers are right it wouldn't matter as Congress would simply make the 1986 law retroactive to 1952. No way the Congress would allow Obama to lose the presidency because his mother was 4 months too young and the law today had existed in 1961 as it does today this is a moot.


Correcting svpallava


svpallava - 8:30 AM EST
Correcting TS' 2009/09/01 19:07
"Both parents have to be US Citizens even if he was born in Washington DC."



who writes wrongly:
No, a child born IN THE US is automatically conferred US citizenship irrespective of the immigration/visa status of the parents--which is one of the driving incentives behind the "anchor-baby"
=======================

There is a difference in citizenship and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Any person in the world can become a naturalized citizen by law.

No law can grant or take away the Natural Born Citizenship.

BIG big difference in naturalization of a citizen and natural birth.

Read the US Constitution where it tells they are not one and the same thing in the very paragraph that mentions this as the qualification for the Oval Office.

And is the ONLY office natural born citizenship is required.

BIG difference
In a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen.

Seen here in the very words of the US Constitution.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.


The word OR shows there is a distinction.
Just being a citizen was only good for the Generation that was alive when the US Constitution was ratified as the Law of the Land.

As this CLEARLY STATES:

"or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"


TS
"5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill"

This mindless crap again. A good number if not most of those who died during Mao's tenure died during the Great Chinese Famine between 1958 and 1961 and this was mostly caused by a mix of gross incompetence by the regime and natural diasters which is why formally in China it is called the Three Years of Natural Diasters (San Nian ziran zaihai). This was not an intentional act of murder. All one has to do is look at the rapid increase of grain imports to China during the latter years of the famine to see this.

Claiming these were victims of murder is like saying Bush murdered those who died during Katrina.

As for those in Vietnam, how many of those deaths were a result of the war for national liberation against the French and later the Americans?

Hard to say a member of the NLF killed by the Americans is an example of Vietnamese murder.

Natural-Born Citizen Defined
"One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The first Naturalization Act passed by Congress recognized “natural-born citizens” to be those born beyond the States to resident fathers who were already established citizens of the United States.

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defin ed.html

China is one of the most murdereous
Regimes in the history of the world, and are still murdering citizens of Tibet.

TIBET: AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY

A Long History of Sovereignty

While China claims that Tibet has always been a part of China, Tibet has a history of at least 1300 years of independence from China. In 821 China and Tibet ended almost 200 years of fighting with a treaty engraved on three stone pillars, one of which still stands in front of the Jokhang cathedral in Lhasa.

The treaty reads in part: Both Tibet and China shall keep the country and frontiers of which they are now possessed. The whole region to the East of that being the country of Great China and the whole region to the West being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side there shall be no hostile invasion, and no seizure of territory... and in order that this agreement establishing a great era when Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed, the Three Jewels, the body of Saints, the sun and the moon, planets and stars have been invoked as witness.

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html

kagi justifies the murdering scum of red China

TS
"The word OR shows there is a distinction. Just being a citizen was only good for the Generation that was alive when the US Constitution was ratified as the Law of the Land."

True. And being born to a US parent abroad makes you a natural born US citizen--see George Romney--just as if you had been born in Petoskey provided the US parent has met the residency requirements. Being born inside the US even if neither of the parents were US citizens or even in the US legally makes one a natural born citizen except in the case the parents are diplomats in the service of their country or members of a hostile foreign force who are occupying the nation's territory (e.g. Attu, 1942). The third exception of American Indians became moot due to changes in US naturalization law.

I might add the prohibition on a naturalized citizen being president is rather idiotic and should be repealed. No reason why Elaine Chao, Carlos Gutierrez or Arnold as well as a host of others shouldn't be able to run for POTUS.


If Barry Soetoro was born in DC
During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?



"Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,"

Barack Obama
(Transparency? ha ha.
all know this is a lie by now)



He is still unqualified for the Oval Office being made a citizen by law and not nature.

He was born with allegiance to England, the UK, what ever they called themselves in 1961.

Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama admits this himself and its simply ignored.



Natural born is defined by the 1st US Congress in 1790.
Read it for yourself on the following link:


http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-res earch-guides/wkadisplay/1%20Stat.%20103.pdf


I can't read the minds of people
who died over 50 years ago and Pat Buchanan shouldn't presume to, either.

What in the world u reading?
Gary Rosen writes:- 12:59 AM EST
History according to Pat
Blaming WWII on Poland is like blaming Megan's Law on Megan..
======================

Please provide me, if not anyone else, any sentence where Patrick blames WW2 on Poland.

TS
"who writes wrongly:
No, a child born IN THE US is automatically conferred US citizenship irrespective of the immigration/visa status of the parents--which is one of the driving incentives behind the "anchor-baby"
=======================

There is a difference in citizenship and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."

Yes and svpallava has never said there isn't one--not that there should be--in the case of the requirements for POTUS.

"Any person in the world can become a naturalized citizen by law."

Yes, your point?

"No law can grant or take away the Natural Born Citizenship."

Untrue. Natural born citizens who left the US as young children and resided outside of the US for long periods of time also faced lost of US citizenship until immigration law reforms stopped the practice. It has also in the past stripped female US citizens (no matter how they obtained it, naturalization or naturally born)if they married a non-US citizen and then left the US to reside in his country (assuming she'd obtain citizenship in his country).

The US can also revoke citizenship for other acts such as military service in another country, treason, and a variety of other things (which the State Department hasn't enforced since the 1980s).



If any citizen
Of America can be qualified for the Oval Office, then this very paragraph is MEANINGLESS to even be in the US Constitution.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.

They were not writing a meaningless paragraph, and it has meaning.

Just because people ignore the law of the land as they do today, does not make them right, no more than any other person who commits perjury before the law.

Its perjury to lie against the one HUGE difference for holding the Office of President and say just any old citizen that is naturalized by law is qualified for the Oval Office.

We have a FRAUD in the WH, PERIOD!

Get lost kagi
I do not argue with idiots.

Not after seeing all your bs for the past two years.
Take a hike

TS
"During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?"

Called dual nationality. Many states (like the US) have not only citizenship by jus soli but also jus sanguinis. A person born of Taiwanese parents in the US would be considered a citizen of the ROC as well as the US, since in 1961 Obama's father was a citizen of British Kenya, he was thus a British Subject which became a citizen of Kenya when it became independent in 1963. When Obama became 21, he lost his Kenyan citizenship because Kenya doesn't allow for dual-citizenship for adults, to retaiin his kenya citizenship, he would have had to renounce his US citizenship a swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, which he never did.

Also, being a dual national in the US (but natural born citizen) wouldn't make one ineligible to be president, the Constitution only requires one to be a natural born citizen--it is silent on dual nationality. If Hsiao Bi-Khim had lived in the US for 14 years (she lived in the US for about 10--born in Kobe, Japan and raised in Tainan, Taiwan), was 35 (in 2006)and had not renounced her US citizenship, she could have run for POTUS as she was a natural born US citizen.

TS
"They were not writing a meaningless paragraph, and it has meaning."

Not meaningless, just idiotic--at least from the standpoint of life in 2009.

"...and say just any old citizen that is naturalized by law is qualified for the Oval Office."

They should be--e.g. Elaine Chao--but they aren't. No one outside of the nutcases are claiming Obama is a naturalized US citizen. Being born outside the US doesn't make you a non-natural born US citizen--e.g. George Romney, Hsiao Bi-Khim, being born to non-US citizens on US soil doesn't either--e.g. Twinkie Girl, Bobby Jindal.

"I do not argue with idiots."

Good. That will keep you from doing so with yourself.

TS
First, China isn't red as in comminist, but a one-party authoritarian state not unlike the ROC and the ROK before the reforms in the 1990s.

Second, while I support Tibetan independence, the relationship between Xizang and China is complicated and goes back to a time when your ancestors were living in shacks off in Europe some place. Tibet in the past has invaded China, so China has not always been the aggressor and since the Yuan dynasty, China has either claimed or controlled Tibet--be it the Ming, the Qing, the ROC or the PRC. The ROC formally until the early part of this decade claimed Tibet (and Mongolia). And had an office of Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs as part of the Executive Yuan. This is not a "red" Chinese thing, but a Chinese thing.

And claiming the deaths of the San Nian Ziran Zaihai was murder is just mindless. While no doubt the deaths would have be less if the KMT had been in charge since they wouldn't have engaged in the idiotic Maoist economic policy, the KMT could no more control the weather than the CCP could and of the perhaps 30 million that died in those years, 20% were due to the natural diasters and not Maoist economic decisions.

I might also say that today, Chinese in China are freer and more prosperous than in the history of China--be it under the imperial system, the ROC or the PRC--murderous scum? In general, no.


Democide-Death by Government
Thanks Talent Scout for bringing attention to Rummel's book, Death by Government. Democide is practically one of the first steps tyrants take in reaching for or maintaining complete power. I expect our present Leftist Gov to move to that stage in the near future...

We must remember that Global Communism is a tyranny of murderers with 100,000,000+ examples of Democide in the 20th Century.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT, By R.J. Rummel is the best book written on this subject....all should search on 'Democide'.

'Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long'----Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice


Military historians have suggested....
that while a war WAS planned and considered inevitable on the part of the Third Reich, the timing was off. Hitler's best planners had been begging for him to hold off until 1944.

Why? They were already building prototype jets and rockets. They were planning four more hulls like the Tirpitz and Bismark but as AIRCRAFT CARRIERS plus a super battleship that would have dwarfed the Yamato with hellish AAW capability. In other words the Faery Swordfish would not have crippled it having been turned to confetti before being able to drop torpedoes.

The buildup of ground forces would have meant at least 20,000 more Tiger tanks (much more important in fast blitzkrieg attack than the famed Panzers). They were working on bombers with trans-Atlantic range. Think dirty bombs all over the Eastern Seaboard.

Good thing Der Scheisskopf couldn't hold his wad.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

I agree
Vaquero writes:- 11:44 AM EST
Democide-Death by Government
Thanks Talent Scout for bringing attention to Rummel's book, Death by Government. Democide is practically one of the first steps tyrants take in reaching for or maintaining complete power. I expect our present Leftist Gov to move to that stage in the near future..
======================

I found his book about 5 years back, maybe 4 years, nor certain.

But it has the best information on Death by Government I have come across.

I believe they are hyping the swine flu for more reasons they are using it for than they are saying.

I recommend everyone read up on some of the stuff flying around the internet about the swine flu.

Like this:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pandemic_swine_flu_bioter rorism.html

Then items like this:

Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard 'round the world
Pandemic bill allows health authorities to enter homes, detain without warrant

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108604

reply to talent scout #36
Gotta love your way with words, your argumentative skills, your..well, whatever it is you think you have going for you.

I'm suggesting that conservatives save themselves some time and effort, go sign on to something like American Renaissance, and get fortified with your daily dose of white superiority.

Gestell
You are to dumb to waste time arguing with

TS
I don't usually attack people for typos and the like, but if you are going to call someone stupid, dumb, idiot or words to those effect, you better make sure you don't do something dumb yourself such as this gem:

"You are to dumb to waste time arguing with..."

The phrase the pot calling the kettle black ring a bell with you?


shut up kagi
dummy

No, Hitler Did Not Want War.....
He and Buchanan would have preferred the rest of the world just give in peacefully to Hitler's desire for world conquest.

It's bad enough Buchanan's a Nazi sympathizer but his dishonest lame distortion of history is particularly pathetic.

It is easy to rant . . .
about Pat Buchanan and use the old jewish "anti-semite" canard (perpetual victimhood) in an attempt to cast aspersion on Mr. Buchanan's writings. "Truth" is rarely comfortable and reassuring; much of what comes out of historical writings is based on hearsay with an emotional component in order to attempt to "prove" one's (the victors) point. With WWII, dissension from the "official historical viewpoint" (the victor's version of history) about the Germans is barely tolerated. Any honest historical research that deviates from the "official line" is often treated with name-calling and outright hostility.
WWII uthor and historian David Irving has been "tarred and feathered" by jewish interests for daring to cast doubts on certain aspects of "WWII history" and the "holocaust". This resulted in his prosecution in Europe for merely questioning certain aspects of the "holocaust". To gain his "freedom", he was forced to repudiate certain historical facts. I would suggest that anyone who doubts David Irving's veracity and honesty READ HIS BOOKS. You will find them to be thoroughly footnoted and referenced.
WHAT ARE THE JEWS AFRAID OF?? The TRUTH.

It's if but when he wanted war!!!!
The careful predator wanted to wait as his general staff argued for at least another five years. They would have had more than double the numbers of tanks and the Luftwaffe would have had many more fast bombers with radar capability and night fighters to make the English night raids a visit to Hell.

The Kriegsmarine (Navy) would've had four more heavy battleships, a dozen more pocket battleships, heavy cruisers and about 3-4 aircraft carriers to defend the long shooters.
Add to that the Type XXII U-boat (snorkel, faster motors and about another 300 feet dive depth and the Atlantic could have been a British graveyard.

Good thing he lost patience and the predator was overruled by the inner maniac BEFORE better plans and arms were ready. If he had LISTENED to his predecessor he would never have fallen into the trap of "Bismarck's Nightmare" the war on two fronts. That's what you get when megalomania overcomes reason.


-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Did Hitler want war?
In answer to your question, Pat, of course Hitler wanted war. I haven't yet seen in these posts, nor in your article, the well-known historical fact that Hitler used Operation Himmler, a false flag operation in which Germans disguised as Poles staged a series of border incidents to make it look like Polish aggression against Germany in August 1939. So let's go to Hitler's own words: On 22 August, Adolf Hitler told his generals:
“ "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."
Pat, I'm sure you are aware of this historical fact, so I have to ask why you are ignoring it in your article. The answer of course, is that with it you have no argument. So you are essentially lying about the invasion of Poland in order to prop up your defense of your beloved Fuhrer, and relying on the historical ignorance of your readers to make your case. Disgusting.

Greg,
Handing over Danzig would only have taken the wind out of Hitler's sails for a short time. MAYBE a year, maybe. He WAS eager to go to war AGAINST all reasonable advice from the professional officer corps. TOO soon, they warned him but he thought he had a destiny.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Bravo! Pat is correct
The list is mostly a depressing litany of uncritically repeated wartime propaganda that the victors have enshrined as the official history.

Hitler and Stalin both knew that a clash in the east was inevitable. Seizing the opportunity of the outbreak of hostilities in 1939 to push their frontiers outward in anticipation represented an acceptance of the political reality. Hitler didn't want a war with England and France, whom he saw as natural allies against the Asiatic/Bolshevik threat to Europe--backed, ideally, by the strength of the US from across the ocean. Ironically, this was precisely the state of affairs that came about a decade later in the form of NATO.

As to why he moved against Poland when he did, those interested in the background that isn't taught in today's textbooks might start by visiting http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm


Were there any...
of the suppositions being made by you now being made about Hitler at the time of the events? Were there intellectuals discussing these possiblties about Hitler then? Hindsight, as is often spoken, remains close to 20/20. Beyond that are we to take this as encouragement to respond differently when currently confronted with similar war chants. Are we to wait and intellectually analize leaders such as recently Saddam Hussein before acting on what's being presented at the time? I remain puzzled by your query, but do admit to lots of logic in it. Perhaps, simply stated, it is far more easier to look back then to look forward at the unknowing events. If one knew an affair would lead to the destruction of his/her family {assume one cares a lot}, one wouldn't have had the affair to begin with...one never can honestly tell the future with certainly. I believe with Hitler, the allies reacted with the present conditons and the actions at the time, which regardless of your deductive reasoning, can't and shouldn't be ignored. Hitler, built up the German military, attacked other countries, constantly when against his word and was very aggressive of what he felt... regardless of intellectual hindsight. My query: has Japan done any of this since WW 11...has Germany?? None sure of your motivation Mr. Buchanan!! What was your dad saying at the time?

Did Hitler want war?
There is nothing new in Mr. Buchanan’s writing that someone without an agenda, other than searching for truth in history, would not have already been aware of. What is new is reading those facts and conclusions from someone that close to the mainstream. Still, I thank Mr.Buchanan for his courage to publicly state the obvious in America when the obvious collides with the ignorance of the herd.

Of course, reading the comment section is where serious history morphs into entertainment. Here the brainwashed herd animals--educated by Hollywood, the controlled mass media or government-approved history textbooks--are going wild. Active ignorance at its finest!

H.L. Mencken, dissecting the mentality of the great majority of Americans, said it best: "Whenever he [the average American]is confronted between two ideas, the one sound and the other not, he chooses, almost infallibly, and with a sort of pathological compulsion, the one that is not……....What is worth knowing he does not know and doesn’t want to know; what he knows is not true. The cardinal articles of his credo are the inventions of mountebanks, his heroes are mainly scoundrels."



Of course Hitler didn't want war
He wanted every body to continue appeasement and let him take anything he wanted. He was perfectly willing to go to war should anyone resist him.
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.