Quote of the day
posted at 10:45 pm on June 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
As the book develops, Buchanan begins to unmask his true colors more and more. It is one thing to make the case that Germany was ill-used, and German minorities harshly maltreated, as a consequence of the 1914 war of which Germany’s grim emperor was one of the prime instigators. It’s quite another thing to say that the Nazi decision to embark on a Holocaust of European Jewry was “not a cause of the war but an awful consequence of the war.” Not only is Buchanan claiming that Hitler’s fanatical racism did not hugely increase the likelihood of war, but he is also making the insinuation that those who wanted to resist him are the ones who are equally if not indeed mainly responsible for the murder of the Jews! This absolutely will not do…
Winston Churchill may well have been on the wrong side about India, about the gold standard, about the rights of labor and many other things, and he may have had a lust for war, but we may also be grateful that there was one politician in the 1930s who found it intolerable even to breathe the same air, or share the same continent or planet, as the Nazis. (Buchanan of course makes plain that he rather sympathizes with Churchill about the colonies, and quarrels only with his “finest hour.” This is grotesque.)…
I myself have written several criticisms of the cult of Churchill, and of the uncritical way that it has been used to stifle or cudgel those with misgivings. (“Adlai,” said John F. Kennedy of his outstanding U.N. ambassador during the Bay of Pigs crisis, “wanted a Munich.”) Yet the more the record is scrutinized and re-examined, the more creditable it seems that at least two Western statesmen, for widely different reasons, regarded coexistence with Nazism as undesirable as well as impossible. History may judge whether the undesirability or the impossibility was the more salient objection, but any attempt to separate the two considerations is likely to result in a book that stinks, as this one unmistakably does.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Ouch.
Weight of Glory on June 15, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I’ve thought Pat was strange for the longest time…& now I know.
jgapinoy on June 15, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I always thought they put Pat on TV to make conservatives look bad.
trubble on June 15, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Creepy.
surrounded on June 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Buchanan thinks we started fighting Hitler “too soon,” because we weren’t well prepared for it. When is anyone ever prepared to step into a World War? And if we started any later, where would we fight from? German-occupied Great Britain? I think Buchanan’s elevator isn’t getting up to the top floors anymore. It’s sad.
RBMN on June 15, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Gee a Fascist defending a Nazi and sympathetic to a Communist.
mred on June 15, 2008 at 10:58 PM
One of the most telling remarks about Pat Buchanan: Every single time he is brought up in an unmoderated comments thread—every single time—the Buchananites come out to defend him. And by “defend him,” I mean, spread their anti-Semitism and blame Jews for the criticism of Buchanan.
Sorry, but years ago, William F. Buckley delved into Buchanan’s thoughts by reading years of his writings, and came up with the fact that Buchanan is an anti-Semite. And this was his friend.
The facts that he defends Hitler, and now is attacking Churchill, also speak volumes.
I cannot believe the mainstream media continue to pay him a salary. He’s David Duke with a lot more subtlety.
Meryl Yourish on June 15, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Not anymore…
surrounded on June 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Really, who can be surprised? Ever heard (or read about) the tapes with he and Nixon?
Warner Todd Huston on June 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I think Pat Buchanan completely lost his mind after he was tricked into an interview with Ali G (aka Borat, aka Sacha Baron Cohen).
barry norris on June 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Why else would they have him on MSNBC?
The guy is a loon..
Chakra Hammer on June 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Tucker Carlson is the same thing..
A soft “c” put up by MCNBC to make conservatives look bad.
Chakra Hammer on June 15, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Pat Buchanan and Scott McClellan should join forces and flog their books together.
wise_man on June 15, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Scott McClellan, oh yeah…i’d forgotten about him.
surrounded on June 15, 2008 at 11:20 PM
That’s an odd reading of history. Germany did not have a “grim emperor”, and he was not a prime instigator of the war.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Buchanan was not suggesting that the Brits not fight the Nazis, rather that they do so only after vigorous war preparation and after the Nazis dissipated themselves to the east. This is not an unreasonable nor particularly unusual perspective. Why not let the twin scourges of the 20th century fight to the death as they certainly would have?
Buchanan says that that the prevailing opinion then and now is that the Sudetenland and Danzig were taken from the unfairly from the Germans at Versailles separating ethnic Germans from Germany in direct opposition to Wilson’s 14 points.
I believe that his book is a worthwhile read. Allah, as is his wont, has unfairly characterized both Buchanan and his book.
Charles Martel on June 15, 2008 at 11:24 PM
War is never a necessity.
It is survival to which wars are fought.
Kini on June 15, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Didn’t Buchanan pose this thesis – not fleshed out – in his biography “Right from the Beginning”?
That is, he wrote how he and his father would discuss, after dinner, world events and that it was his father’s argument, a la Joe Kennedy’s, that the US could have waited longer (e.g., not supported Great Britain, et cetera) before intervening in Europe.
In any event, this argument from Buchanan isn’t new to me.
FWIW, I reject it.
SteveMG on June 15, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Hitler was a horror,
The Holocaust was a nightmare,
Nuff said!
Any rational discussion,
refer to the above!—–:)
canopfor on June 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM
That statement makes no logical sense. It says that “history” can in fact make such a judgement, but that the judgement is unlikely to be expressed in a book, other than one that stinks.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Hardly. Buchanan and his minions are thugs. I haven’t read the book. A man is known by the company he keeps. “The Brigade” groupies are a piece of work, and so is Buchanan.
eaglesdontflock on June 15, 2008 at 11:31 PM
You got that right!
We should also realize that evil still exist, but in another form.
Kini on June 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Ahh, the irony.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Because he is one of them, that’s why. And because his screeds fit almost perfectly into the modern ‘progressive’ approach to history…if history doesn’t fit your worldview, then history needs to be re-written until it does…
AUINSC on June 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I don’t believe that at all, but I no longer claim to understand what the hell he’s talking about or why.
Jaibones on June 15, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Okay ….. “charles,” …. It is too easy to suggest that while WW2 was ongoing that people could have predicted that the Nazi’s battles in the east would have gone so badly. What Churchill faced was a nation bent on conquest in the manner of a cancer and churchill clearly recognized the threat that England and the world faced.
Buchanan has the benefit over Churchill in the fact that he knew how the war ended, what exactly was at stake, and how brutal the battles were to make sure that they were defeated .. something that was not set in stone at the time that the nazis appeared to be unstoppable. Buchanan still gets it wrong.
wise_man on June 15, 2008 at 11:43 PM
but in another form.
Kini on June 15,2008 at 11:33PM.
Kini: Ya got that right,Jihady’s for one,hey
my daughter wants dounuts,I’m on a mission,
Kini———–catch you on a thread tomorrow!
The rest on Team Hot Air,Sianora,good nite guys! :)
canopfor on June 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM
You don’t have to read Buchanan’s book or Mein Kampft when it’s now so obvious to everyone but you.
wise_man on June 15, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Yes, he does. And if Churchill had had the benefit of that knowledge ahead of time, he’d have done things differently. That is why it was Churchill who called WWII “the unneccessary war”.
Britain did not enter the war to save the Jews, but for what it saw as reasons of sound realpolitik. It was wrong, and it lost it’s empire and was bankrupted as a result. From the standpoint of the Jews the war may or may not have been a good thing. From Britains standpoint it was a disaster. That’s the point being made, and I think one Churchill would have agreed with.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Spoken like a good little fascist. So when is the book burning?
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Heh. Hitchens and and the Big Lizard have something in common (other than Iraq). Go figure.
It’s called the Quote of the Day because someone other than AP said it.
No, it says that deciding which point is more salient is the job of history, but trying to completely seperate the two results in poor reading material.
VolMagic on June 15, 2008 at 11:54 PM
No surprise then that Pat seemed to be a big defender of another holocaust denying, closet anti-semite. Dr. Ron Paul. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/18/but_who_was_right_–_rudy_or_ron?page=full&comments=true
Its so tragic. Both of these brilliant men have consumed and digested the poison. What a loss. Put them on your prayer list. Please.
DD
Darvin Dowdy on June 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
That may be true, but that historical injustice doesn’t come close to explaining why Hitler waged a Holocaust in addition to a war. If the issue was a loss of German sovereignty, I do not see how attempting to exterminate a race of people rights that ‘wrong.’
Slublog on June 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
You’ll have to be a little more specific.
Wow.
VolMagic on June 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Well, you just threw away what little hope you had of being taken seriously.
Blacklake on June 15, 2008 at 11:59 PM
That’s not what the statement said.
The problem, according to AP, is any attempt to separate the two, not “trying to completely seperate the two”. Which leaves history in a bit of a bind.
flenser on June 15, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Sure it makes perfect sense. Hitchens was simply saying that to say that that co-existing with nazism was ‘impossible’ alone, has an entirely different moral dimension than saying it was ‘undesirable’. The two, together, have both a practical and moral component. To try to say that it was ‘desirable’ while at the same time ‘impossible’ is just another way of saying ‘it’s ok, as long as we are not threatened by it and don’t have to do anything’ So, the trouble starts when you say things like..”Hitler was fine until he invaded such-and-such, and we had to act, forcing him to kill all of those jews’.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:01 AM
About what? He was referring to WWII, if that’s what you mean.
Wow, what? Do Jews think WWII was a good thing? Do they wish the years 1939-45 had never happened? Seems to me that they might.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:03 AM
How could you read what I wrote and still attribute this to AP?
Anyways, I can see how the wording could be confusing, but trust me, it means that trying to separate the two considerations is a fool’s errand. Which is apparently what Pat has done in his book.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Pat Buchanan is the lovechild of Father Coughlin.
TexasJew on June 16, 2008 at 12:04 AM
That may be true, but that historical injustice doesn’t come close to explaining why Hitler waged a Holocaust in addition to a war. If the issue was a loss of German sovereignty, I do not see how attempting to exterminate a race of people rights that ‘wrong.’
Slublog on June 15, 2008 at 11:56 PM
The point is if the allies, Britain and France in particular hadn’t been so all fired driven to screw the Germans after WW1 that WW2 would not have happened. Hitler would not have happened…
WW1 was a entirely preventable disaster…and not sure what sort of history Allah has been reading but blaming the Germans for ww1 shows he isn’t very well read on the subject.
PierreLegrand on June 16, 2008 at 12:07 AM
I’d gathered that. What did he mean by it, is what I was asking. It could mean any number of things.
I’m not a historian, but I do recall something called the Final Solution, and how the Jews from all over German occupied Europe were being led to concentration camps and gas chambers by the millions. And I strongly suspect they were a little more then pleased when Allied forces came and liberated them. How you get to the liberation without WWII is a little beyond me.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
AUINSC
The statement I’m quoting was made by AP, not Hitchens. We’re on two different pages, I think. I’m saying that it’s illogical to say that “history” can make such a judgement but that it also cannot, without stinking.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Huh.
I thought that the German invasion of Poland started WWII.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Understood and agreed, but that hardly excuses German behavior in WWII and does little to exonerate Buchanan for the ridiculous statements quoted by Hitchens.
Slublog on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
All wars are preventable, as long as one side caves to the demands of the other…what’s your point.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Actually, no. Follow the link. The entire quote is Hitchens.
Slublog on June 16, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Look again…that entire quote was from Hitchens.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Do you not see the link? It is the words “a book that stinks”
It takes you to Newsweeks where Hitchens is reviewing Pat’s book.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM
People are confusing you with Hitchens, AP. Time to ask for a raise.
Pardon my historical ignorance, but was it pretty common knowledge in the late ’30s that Hitler was a genocidal lunatic?
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Almost certainly true. Hitler would have existed of course but we would never even have heard of him as he would have become a foul tempered little store keeper selling bratwurst and the like or a shady stock broker or something.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I suppose Buchanan explains in his book, but I’m not likely to read it. But using the internet, I find this.
The point being that from the standpoint of Britain, the war was a disaster.
The point being made was that Hitler would not have conquered all of Europe without the Second World War. The war included his conquest, not simply his defeat. From the standpoint of a Jew in France or Belgium, the Allies declaring war was a not a help, it’s what got their countries invaded and them killed.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM
No.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Glad to hear it, since I expect better from AP. But it’s customary to mark out quoted passages in some way. Like quotation marks.
The flaw in the statement remains.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Understood and agreed, but that hardly excuses German behavior in WWII and does little to exonerate Buchanan for the ridiculous statements quoted by Hitchens.
Slublog on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Perhaps I missed the part where anyone excused the atrocities of the Germans in WW2. And the Holocaust was NOT the cause of the war…the idiocies of the Versailles treaty caused the war. Buchanan is exactly correct to say that the Holocaust was an “awful consequence” of the war not the cause of it.
All wars are preventable, as long as one side caves to the demands of the other…what’s your point.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM
My point is this…if you make a deal to end a war with an enemy and then you violate nearly every single term of that treaty then you should not be surprised when it unravels with terrible consequences.
Can you tell me why we fought WW1? Why did Americans need to be involved with that war…why was the Kaiser worse than what came next…did the allies fix things or break things in a terrible fashion? Remember that Germany was not some evil empire in 1914…it certainly became one after our “Victory” in 1918. What responsibility do we have in that transformation? Or do you think that you can just split countries apart, people apart, go back on your word, and in general act like turds without any repercussions?
PierreLegrand on June 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM
No, he’s not. Calling it a ‘consequence’ implies that the Holocaust was the fault of the allies because we didn’t have the ‘wisdom’ to heed the threats of madmen. The Final Solution was part of Hitler’s plan from long before the war – his anti-semitic ravings are proof of that.
And I never said the Holocaust was a cause of the war. That must have been my associate, Mr. Convenience McStrawman.
Slublog on June 16, 2008 at 12:30 AM
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Ok, I read the quote you provided, but it fails to illuminate why it was the most preventable war ever fought. Preventable because Versailles could have been better? Preventable because acquiesence to Hitler would have resulted in a end to hostilites? Preventable because there was an inside man wou could have offed Adolph in 1931?
Hmm. Again, not a historian here, but I believe the Blitzkreig was the send off, and there wasn’t much of a “war” until the Brits stepped in. If they hadn’t, Jews would still have been on the cattle trains heading to their doom. And, unless I am much mistaken, Hitler had played “the man of peace” to get the German war machine into fighting order, increasing the size of his army and navy a lot beyond what was called for in the ToV. After hostilities broke out (instigated by Hitler), it became clear that Hitler didn’t see a real “end point” for his excursions beyond what he was limited to logistically.
So, unless you’re saying that fighting back is what made the Holocaust happen, I don’t follow. And if that is what you’re saying, then I think one of us has our history quite mistaken.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Ouch. Somebody please stop the bleeding!
Hiro_Tomizawa on June 16, 2008 at 12:32 AM
For the record, as you will note if you read those books by Churchill, he thought the war avoidable because the league of nations enforcing the WWI treaty. So that argument is not coherent with the generally accepted argument that WWII was a almost irresistible result of the ending of WWI.
I wish I could comment more on this book, but I haven’t read it. I’d kind of like to read it, because it doesn’t make sense for a man to destroy his credibility with one fell-swoop unless he has some clever devil’s advocate argument.
I like Churchill very much, but that’s doesn’t excuse his flaws – nor would I excuse ours in the war. Our own record toward Jews and genetic engineering at the time was not exactly stellar, nor is our record with containment camps.
And someone up thread said Tucker is like Pat. Please, that’s just ignorant.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM
By royally screwing the Germans after WW1 the Allies have some complicity in the rise of Hitler and because of that the holocaust. Had we not tried to humiliate the Germans and bankrupt them they probably would not have gone to Hitler for relief.
So it was indeed a consequence of the allies behavior during WW1 which has been one of the main points of the Paleos for quite some time. Read Thomas Woods…
PierreLegrand on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM
I think that it had something to do with an argument over which spoon to use when eating soup. Well, it was probably something a little more important, maybe.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:36 AM
What deals were violated…I assume you mean Versailles? The only country violating it was Germany in the late 20’s and 30’s…that the Allies basically didn’t enforce it, while a sin of omission on their part, has nothing to do with Germany’s subsequent and blatant violations.
Well, maybe you should read Tuchmann’s “The Guns of August” for a full review…we fought it because Germany was destabilizing Europe and the western world…whether evil or not, it’s actions were highly aggressive and destructive…Kaiser Wilhelm was a pretentious, arrogant buffoon who had an inferiority complex vis-a-vis England…and after numerous diplomatic and military blunders managed to convince a thoroughly pacifist US President (who really, really did not want to get involved at all, PERIOD!) that Germany was a reckless country dragging the entire western world into a bloody chasm and had to be stopped….but that is just my humble opionion.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Are all the B supporters ignorant or simply outright retarded? Hey brilliant beacons of intellectual pursuit. Clik the F’in link! The critique is by Christopher Hitchens, not AP!
You do understand the point Churchill was making right? That Hitlter should have been stopped by force very early on right? That he never should have been appeased. You do get that right?
TheBigOldDog on June 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM
PierreLegrand on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM
It was actually the Entente Powers who dominated the Central powers in WWI
And this smacks of a “blame the victim” argument. I don’t pretend to undertand the geopolitics of the early 20th century, but there was certainly more to the rise of Hitler than the mistreatment of the German people at the hands of the victors in WWI.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM
I’m not convinced of this at all after reading Jonah’s book.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 12:41 AM
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I wouldn’t go so far as to call Wilson a pacifist.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Heh. +1
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:43 AM
I think that it was our esteemed thread leader Mr. Allahpundit who in effect said that.
At least that is the way I read those words. I have tried my damndest to read them another way but have not gotten anywhere with that endeavor.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Well, I guess you could always read Buchanans book, since I gather its about just that topic. Or do your own research online into what Churchill meant. I notice you are not objecting to the notion that from Britains standpoint, the war as fought was a complete disaster.
Not the Jews in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway. They’d not have been on the cattle cars.
The focus on the Jews keeps getting us past the point – the war had nothing to do with the Jews. Britain and France did not go to war to save the Jews from Hitler. Or even to save Poland from Hitler. They went to war for what they thought were good reasons of realpolitik. They were wrong, and if you’d asked them in 1946 I’m sure they’d have wished they’d done things differently. As would everyone else involved.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Where?
TheBigOldDog on June 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM
It would have taken a lot of doing for it to have been much worse. *If* I wanted to do all I could to bring about the rise of a Hitler in a country, it is just what I would do.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:48 AM
The only person I see making that insinuation is Hitchens. And everyone is falling for it.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 12:50 AM
I find this hard to believe, as the Bltiz went directly through Belgium into the soft under-(over?) belly of France. And it is generally reagrded as fact that the French were pretty good enablers of the Holocaust, quite happy to hand their Jews over to Hitler to appease the goose-steppers.
Could be. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been fought. Iraq was a disater for over 3 years. Doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile.
I take it, when you write “realpolitik,” to mean “survival”?
I know England is the sceptered Isle and all, but Occupied Europe would have had little problem, in my view, of overrunning England in the course of time.
Fine. “Done things differently,” however, does not mean not waging the war. Unless that is what you mean, in which case I heartily disagree.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:53 AM
It didn’t. It was his invasion of Poland.
If Buchanan is referring to those of the forties I don’t know what the hell he is talking about, but if he is referring to those who brought about Versailles, then he has a point, although I would not say an equal responsibility.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 12:54 AM
You don’t have to. I’m here to tell you that the first volume addresses this. Churchill says, quite plainly by illustrating various missed opportunities, that WWII could have been prevented by enforcing treaty stipulations with the power of the League of Nations. The secondary point he makes is that Europe, and France especially because so much of WWI was on their soil, was weary of war and didn’t want to provoke another one.
The reason that matters is that is a totally separate argument from the one historians are having now – which is whether WWII could have been prevented with a different end to WWI. Many people think, League of Nations or no, after the rise of Hilter, was was not preventable.
As to the “disaster” on the part of Britian…Churchill didn’t call the war a disaster, in fact he is complementary of Britain’s role (very and rightfully) and saw it as another link in Britain’s esteemed history of defending freedom on the continent.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 12:54 AM
This is far to simplistic a view. There were many contributing factors that lead to the rise of Nazi Germany. Another large factor was the world wide depression of the 1930s. If there were no depression would there have ever been a Nazi Germany?
Also, the Versailles treaty is only background noise when it comes to having to actually deal with the evil that was Nazi Germany. Yes, it is important history and taught us a valuable lesson in how to deal with post WWII Germany and Japan. But what was done was done and what had to be dealt with had to be dealt with.
NotCoach on June 16, 2008 at 12:55 AM
What the hell does that mean?
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 12:56 AM
But doesn’t that assume that all people are basically alike? Isn’t Hitlerism (German Fascism) specific to Germany? Could it have arisen, as it did, anywhere else in the world? The Italian Fascists weren’t Jew-haters. The Soviet Fascists were quite different from the Germans in certain aspects. I’m not trying to defend the ToV as some great egineered diplomacy, but can you really blame the rise of Hitler solely on that basis?
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Lol. Was thinking the exact same thing.
NotCoach on June 16, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I haven’t read Jonah’s book yet, but he certainly ran on a pacifist platform and TR was thrashing him non-stop to jump in, much to his irritation.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM
More yes, but that was the “Rosetta Stone”. The beginnings of the Dolchstosslegende.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Let me phrase it this way. Despite his famous campaign slogan, I do not take him at his word.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 1:01 AM
…as his actions speak more loudly.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Well, yes. But you seem unaware that the Blitz came after Britain and France declared war, in 1939. They sat around twiddling their thumbs for several months, the so-called “Phony War”. Then the German overran them in 1940.
But if they had not declared war, there’s an excellent chance they’d not have been taken over, and their Jews shipped to concentration camps.
I suppose it all depends on whose lives and fortunes you value most.
No, you take it wrong. I mean exactly what I say.
There would have been no Occupied Europe if not for the declaration of war. Or at least, France, Belgium, Holland, and Norway would have been outside it.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Right where I blockquoted.
He sure seems to be saying that Buchanan is saying that the Holocaust was not a cause of the war and that he disagrees. That’s the way I read it. Maybe I am not being creative enough. Maybe it depends on what the meaning of cause is and what the meaning of is, is. I duuno, that’s the way I read it and I’ve tried to read it other ways with no success.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 AM
What part of it don’t you understand? They did not go to war for altruistic reasons. No country does.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Ohh. So you buy the “Hitler as man of peace” line. Well, that is where we diverge, and never shall we meet on this subject.
See above.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 1:08 AM
I am not convinced of this. Germany was slowly expanding and it would have been just a matter of time even if France and Great Britain had not declared war. To prove the point we only have to look at the invasion of the Soviet Union. Declaring or not declaring war was not going to stop German expansion.
NotCoach on June 16, 2008 at 1:08 AM
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 AM
It’s not AP, it’s the Hitch.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Yeah, after the Zimmermann telegram incident and unrestricted submarine warfare was unilaterally declared…and public opinion turned decidedly toward an American intervention..yes, then he acted.
AUINSC on June 16, 2008 at 1:10 AM
So you’ve got Mussolini threatening a “new Roman empire,” Hitler annexing himself some “living space” (as promised in Mein Kampf), and Japan picking a fight with anyone breathing anywhere in the Pacific, and the Allies were supposed to just hope that things would settle down on their own? And to say that the Jews in Belgium, France, and Poland would have accepted their own safety at the expense of the lives of their German cousins is grotesquely speculative.
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Ya! Hitler had no Continental, nay global, ambitions. And he just happened to forget that in 1941 when he turned East and attacked Russia despite the 1939 mutual non-aggression pact and splitting up Poland and such.
TheBigOldDog on June 16, 2008 at 1:11 AM
What are you talking about? I never said or implied such a thing. I said that the invasion if Western Europe was a direct consequence of France and Britain declaring war, and then losing badly. And it was. That’s the plain historical reality.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 1:12 AM
See, this isn’t true. They weren’t in a position logistically to do very much when war was declared. They tried somethings on the periphery, but neither France nor Britain had the offensive capacity to strike Germany at the outbreak. It was expect to be a defensive line turned to offensive front. I assure you, they were not twiddling their thumbs.
This a flawed point of foundation. The alliances pre-existed. When Germany went offense, they declared war by action. Where were the most tragic stories from WWII? Poland.
There is not a single legitimate reason to think the above statement is true. Hitler made a pact with Stalin for the purpose of consolidating Europe, which includes the countries you mentioned above.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Still haven’t figured out how “QUOTE of the day” works huh?
TheBigOldDog on June 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Very possibly not, but Versailles is what got the ball rolling downhill and the depression just added more “snow”. See Dolchstosslegende (literally “Dagger stab legend”), which preceded the depression. No Versailles, no Dolchstosslegende, no Hitler (other than as that angry little shopkeeper selling bratwurst and such).
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Is that what you mean by realpoltik, Wilson using events to manipulate public opinion to get the US into war?
Oh, I see. They do though, on occasion, overlap.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Which he’d have done even if France and Britain had never declared war. At which point he’d have been bogged down in the same war with Russia, while France, Belgium, Holland and Norway would have been free.
flenser on June 16, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Well, you think it was a mistkae for France to declare war because they did poorly and got overrun. Now why is that? Is it because Germany had truned itself in a war machine? And who wouldn’t be worried with an expansionist war machine as a next door neighbor.
Look, Hitler was coming in, whatever France and Britain did. If you don’t believe that, then you believe Hitler was a “man of peace,” a persona he had sold to much of Europe sucessfully while biulding up his armed forces.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Sorry, attributed the wrong quote to you.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »