Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
Apparently Buchanan has never heard of Plan Z: the Nazi plan to build a great fleet in order to neutralize the British advantage.
Hitler began constructing an aircraft carrier in 1935.
Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered?
Part of Hitler's propaganda was that France would remain an independent republic following the surrender and retain possession of all its military resources - this was to give the Vichy regime the appearance of governing a France that was a willing ally of Nazi Germany.
Regardless of what the formal terms of the treaty dictated, the Vichy regime was a Nazi puppet state and its army and navy were Nazi property as a practical matter.
It didn't much matter, since the UK Royal Navy destroyed France's North Atlantic vessels or incorporated them into the Free French Navy, and the Vichy Navy was bottled up in the Mediterranean at Toulon or at Dakar in Senegal by the Royal Navy as well.
And, in 1940, the Marine Nationale was no larger than the Italian Navy anyway.
In order to swallow Buchanan's analysis, you need to believe that Vichy France was a free and independent state that was an equal partner in a voluntary alliance with Nazi Germany.
And just think: Patsy is the go-to conservative for MSNBC.
Britain losing her empire was inevitable, I think most people realize that. Considering that the same thing happened to every European power, placing blame on Churchill is disingenious.
He is a whore.
Nothing more than a sad bid for attention. Mr. Buchanan has reached the point where the only way anyone will print his name is for him to trot out his odd notions about history and foreign policy. And so he keeps doing it.
It's too bad. At one time he was a clear thinker.
The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.
Huh? So, no Inquisition, no Torquemada?
I think you don't get what he's saying. He is saying that the preconditions that empowered Hitler were engendered by the aftermath of WWI.
Remember that not long before Hitler became chancellor, the city of Berlin had been taken over by the Spartakusbund, a rabidly communist party comprising many Reform Jewish leaders, particularly Polish Jewess, Rosa Luxemburg. The Spartakusbund brought crushing strikes and depravity to Berlin, which was rapidly becoming the San Francisco of Germany. It was to be the first step in a nationwide communist takeover repeating a first attempt in 1848. These folks had the German middle class shaking in their boots. Not a few fell into Hitler's arms out of fear.
Toss in news of the Balfour Declaration as a cause of America's entry into WWI and Germany's resulting loss. That was easily portrayed as a betrayal in return for the historic accommodation the Germans had shown for the Jewish people, despite the fact that the agreement had been concluded by radical Sabbatean bankers who had nothing but antipathy for the Orthodox Jewish commoner.
History is more complicated than good guys v. bad guys. People need to understand that Judaism is by no means homogeneous, but deeply divided between Orthodox and the Sabbatean left, inventors of communism in the first place.
I’m just finishing the Max Hasting book. It’s excellent.
“He’s regularily published by conservative sites like Townhall and World Net Daily. Though the latter can’t really be called Conservative. I don’t know what the hell it is really.”
We need to write those groups and respectfully ask them to not give Pat Buchanon a platform to spread his poison.
I am against censorship, but private organizations have the right -— and responsibility — to keep not let nutbags like this spread nonsense.
Disingenuous is a very kind way of putting it.
Well, actually, before the bullets and shells started flying, it wasn't.
Germany cleaned France's clock in the Franco-Prussian War and the World went on, hardly noticing.
The traditional enemy of Britain was never Germany. It was France. In their hearts, the French still feel that way. Just ask one of them.
The Anglo-German rivalry began with the threat to British naval supremacy but that did not have to lead to war. Britain could have made room for a powerful ally on the waves that Britannia ruled rather than devastate Britain in a World War.
After World War One, a similar situation was developing between the U.S. and Britain. In the 1920's, most senior U.S. naval officers believed that the most likely future enemy of the U.S. Navy would be the Royal Navy.
Especially when that indicated a failure of Chamberlain's appeasement policies?
I agree with all your comments. It’s a schtick. Although I think it is a schtick near and dear to his malignant heart. I never for an instant liked this guy. He’s a modern John Bircher.
I tend to agree with you. Pat is primarily a hater. Unfortunately, his position on Illegal immigration which I concur with is based on hate. My position is not based on hatred of any racial group. Any racial group who gets here legally and not by illegal invasion, I welcome. The illegal invasion of this nation has become an unwelcome issue on the MSM except for Lou Dobbs. So Pat is not welcome to rant, vent, and hate against illegals. In the era of Barry, the networks not only tolerate more anti-Semtism, they will give it a voice with Buchanan who is more than happy to fall back and scapegoat the Jew who has always been the convenient scapegoat.
Not sure “Sabbetian” is the word you are looking for.
Sabbateans is a complex general term that refers to a variety of followers of, disciples and believers in Sabbatai Zevi (1626 - 1676), a Jewish rabbi who was proclaimed to be the Jewish Messiah in 1665 by Nathan of Gaza. Vast numbers of Jews in the Jewish diaspora accepted his claims, even after he became a Jewish apostate with his conversion to Islam in 1666. Sabbatai Zevi’s followers both during his “Messiahship” and after his conversion to Islam are known as Sabbateans
The late, liberal columnist Molly Ivins had the best line about a Buchanan speech: She thought it must have sounded better in the original German.
This is actually a very good point. Maybe it is time to really try to purge him. I wonder what the response here on FR would be, both from the operators of this great site, as well as from the Freeper community. Is this is a justifiable cause for Freeper activism? I think so. But I wonder what the general reaction would be to an enthusiastic, unabashed call to freepers to expunge Pat Buchanan from conservatism. Thoughts?
/Rev Wright rant
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.