Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
So asks Newsweek's cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.
Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill's career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.
That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War" seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book "stinks."
Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.
Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.
We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. "The Kaiser's policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe."
Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.
From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.
Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?
As for the Kaiser's bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.
In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish "blank cheque" to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.
Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking "the dominion of the world," conceded, "History should ... acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War."
What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.
Yet consider. Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.
Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain -- a war he never wanted.
If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.
Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?
If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?
That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. "Mein Kampf" is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.
Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.
That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.
And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.
Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.
"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"
Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.
The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.
Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.
The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, "Mankind cannot bear much reality."
Wow. Good thing we had all those Arabs like Nasser and Arafat fighting Communism with every breath in their bodies, wasn’t it?
Pat, for the most part, always has been.
Now, attempting the role of historian, he is clearly over his head.
Unfortunately, for we Conservatives, the MSM passes him off as a Conserative spokesman....not a role a nutty guy over his head should play.
au contraire mon ami,
they declared war on Germany two days after Germany invaded Poland.
that is hardly “sitting on their hands”
I don’t think he is an anti-semite.
He is an oddball at best on WWII history and admittedly does think the Israel lobby here wields too much power but so did William F Buckley and plenty of others...as well as even some in the far reaches of your denomination even who think Israel shouldn’t even exist yet..
That is not anti-Semitism. He simply doesn’t hold to what has become the conventional wisdom.
History is pretty replete with what is genuine anti-Jewishness.
I don’t agree with him myself on this particular stuff but shouting him down with bigot baiting falls flat for me. Let him defend his odd comments, he’s not exactly calling for pogroms.
Skeeter, I only know Buchanan like you probably do. Years ago before I threw the tv over the hill I would see him on McGlothlan. He was honestly the only guest that did not cause me to want to wretch.I have read serious history since I was an adolescent, yet I have never thought of reading a book of his. BUT nothing that I read on this post of the content of his book is in any way intellectually or historically indefensible. In over 40 years I have read some books by David Irving. I feel I should have that right. Yet in Britain and Austria, he has been JAILED for looking at history and positing a forbidden opinion. I don’t like that. I think the very idea that 99 percent of this forum wants only to break Pat Buchanans chops stinks of brown shirts. That is the only dog I have in this fight.
Please do not post from that toxic waste dump.
Men make war not God.
That is the only dog I have in this fight
(1) Churchill,Hitler And The Unecessary War.
Patrick J. Buchanan. Crown Publishers. New York.
(2) Blacklisted By History.(The untold story of Senator Joe McCarthy.
M.Stanton Evans. Crown Forum. New York.
(3)The New Dealers War. FDR and the war within World War II.
Thomas Fleming. Basic Books. New York.
With envy at America and it's First Amendment. My freedom is that a Canadian bookstore will order and get all books so far. The protection of authors however seems to be something we in Canada are now seeing to be lacking. Reference Mark Steyn and "America Alone".
It will take me days to even scratch the surface of Buchanans book. This is a task ahead. The jury rests. (chuckle).
Glorifying the Nazis is a crime in Austria. Irving certainly committed that crime. He is a Nazi sympathizer, a delusional narcissist, and a scoundrel. In my opinion Irving hasn’t done nearly as much time as he deserves. In any case, he wasn’t hunted and he could have avoided arrest. But he wanted the publicity.
Say what you will about Pat’s theory, it is more reasonable than the common schoolbook notion that Hitler started WWII out of irrational hatred for the Jews.
Obviously, you think that... like the Palestinians (vis a vis Israel), the Jews in Germany were actively involved in a shooting war with Germany and targeting Germany women and children.
Or, you believe that the Palestinians, like the Jews in Germany, simply lived peacefully with their neighbors.
Which fantasy is it?
Those are not my words. Maybe you should go back and see what I actually said before attributing words and thoughts to me.
You are correct. I was sort of referring to the thesis in the book, The Plot Against America and I don’t have any dog in the fight other than to comment. I apologize for the half cocked post.
The book The Plot Against America is a novel depicting an alternate history where Lindberg’s kid wasn’t nabbed and murdered and Lindberg ends up running against Roosevelt in 1940. I stupidly referred to it as some non-fictional historical fact. It’s obviously fiction.
Hitler started the way because he wanted to rule Europe. He said so in his book written in the mid 1920s. Oh and he also did indeed have an irrational hatred for the Jews.
When did their troops cross the Polish, or even German, border to help? Or was it a useless declaration: Don’t do that Hitler or I’ll stomp my foot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.