Patrick J. Buchanan got upset that I wrote a column about the World War II revisionists, especially his book, and that of Nicholson Baker’s on the allied “crimes” of bombing German cities. I produce his column by paragraph and then comment in brackets.
In attacking my book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World,” Victor Davis Hanson, the court historian of the neoconservatives, charges me with “rewriting … facts” and showing “ingratitude” to American and British soldiers who fought World Wars I and II.
[In dealing with Mr. Buchanan, one must accept at the beginning two caveats. First, as is his style, he will always resort to ad hominem attacks in lieu of an argument. Thus note at the very beginning his sneering “court historian of the neoconservatives.”
Second, Buchanan unfortunately is neither a reliable journalist nor an historian, and thus simply cannot be trusted to report accurately what is written. He says I charge him with “rewriting… facts” (note those convenient three dots). I did not charge him with rewriting facts, but simply advancing a thesis contrary to them: “Questioning the past is a good thing, but rewriting it contrary to facts is quite another.” (emphasis added)
And I didn’t just criticize Buchanan’s book, but in a brief 750 word newspaper column lumped it together with the novelist Nicholson Baker’s (Human Smoke) equally critical attack on the allies in World War II—both as signs of the sorry state of historical revisionism that has sprung up in the climate of the Iraq war.
Writing a book whose theme is that the allies, and especially the British, unwisely and unduly pressured Hitler, and therefore were culpable for much of the carnage of World War II, again, does not “rewrite… facts”, but simply ignores them. And, yes, it does indeed serve to lessen the enormous sacrifices that American and British soldiers endured to stop a monstrosity like National Socialism, whose doctrine of racial hatred and territorial expansion logically led to a German government attacking by 1940 most of its neighbors, to the east, west, north and south, and eventually, in industrial fashion, murdering 6 million Jews.
Much of Hitler’s madness was outlined well in advance in Mein Kampf. By the late 1930s his harsh treatment of the Jews was a harbinger of things to come, once his own power was consolidated and Germany free from outside objection.]
Both charges are false, and transparently so.
Hanson cites not a single fact I got wrong and ignores the fact that the book is dedicated to my mother’s four brothers who fought in World War II. Moreover, the book begins by celebrating the greatness of the British nation and heroism of its soldier-sons.
[Within a 350-word critique devoted to the theme of his book, I cited his misreading of the Versailles Treaty (see below), and his special pleading that serves to exculpate Hitler’s Nazi government. Again, the thesis of Buchanan’s’ book is not based on facts, but can only be advanced by contradicting them. And it has a disturbing habit of mechanically at times praising those who are his natural targets—or supposedly naive victims—of the book, as if that allows him to further denigrate their wisdom and sacrifice.]
Did Hanson even read it?
[Unfortunately I did read it, and was appalled by his absence of logic—hence the column.]
The focus of “The Unnecessary War” is on the colossal blunders by British statesmen that reduced Britain from the greatest empire since Rome into an island dependency of the United States in three decades. It is a cautionary tale, written for America, which is treading the same path Britain trod in the early 20th century.
[This is as ludicrous as it is disingenuous. By 1939 the British Empire was in financial straits, its global economic position long displaced by the industrial power and growing population of the United States, and its empire an increasing economic drain. Its so-called decline had begun at the end of the nineteenth century, and was confirmed, not created, by World War II. Despite the cast-off and occasional warning about Hitler’s cruelty, the book accepts that there was nothing intrinsic within National Socialism as practiced under Hitler that would necessarily have led to war, and indeed a number of legitimate grievances that would justify Hitler’s own preemptive wars.]
Hanson agrees the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was “flawed,” but says Germany had it coming, for the harsh peace the Germans imposed on France in 1871 and Russia in 1918.
Certainly, the amputation of Alsace-Lorraine by Bismarck’s Germany was a blunder that engendered French hatred and a passion for revenge. But does Teutonic stupidity in 1871 justify British stupidity in 1919?
[Again, Buchanan misleads. I wrote that Versailles was less harsh than the treaties imposed on the defeated by Germany—and less harsh than what Germany had planned for the allies. 1871 was not a matter of “Teutonic stupidity”, but the logical result of German aggression and carefully thought-out punishment.]
Is that what history teaches, Hanson?
[Again, Buchanan is not truthful. I argued the problem was not Versailles, but the inability or the unwillingness of the allies to promote and foster German postwar democracy, occupy the country and thereby remind the German people that they had not been “stabbed in the back” in foreign territory, but militarily defeated on the battlefield and in full retreat when their generals sued for peace. That would have had a powerful effect in reminding the German people that neither Jews nor socialists had caused their defeat, but the madness of invading France, and the futility of fighting Russia, France, Britain, Italy, and the United States all at once.]
In 1918, Germany accepted an armistice on Wilson’s 14 Points, laid down her arms and surrendered her High Seas Fleet.
Yet, once disarmed, Germany was subjected to a starvation blockade, denied the right to fish in the Baltic Sea, and saw all her colonies and private property therein confiscated by British, French and Japanese imperialists, in naked violation of Wilson’s 14 Points.
Germans, Austrians and Hungarians by the millions were then consigned to Belgium, France, Italy, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland and Lithuania, in violation of the principle of self-determination.
Germany was sliced in half, dismembered, disarmed, saddled with unpayable debt and forced, under threat of further starvation and invasion, to confess she alone was morally responsible for the war and all its devastation — which was a lie, and the Allies knew it.
[France, Britain, and Italy did not accept the 14 Points, and thus it was never an official allied position. Germany knew that when it discovered that Wilson could not speak for the allies, given the late entry of the United States into an ongoing allied effort. Germany lost two large slices of territory, about 13 percent of it European landmass, land once annexed from France by its invasion of 1870, and areas in what would become Poland that had been annexed by Prussia during the aggrandizement and long unification of the Germany. Much, though not all, of the returned territory had been won through coercion by imperial Germany in a series of wars, and was given back following plebiscites. As I wrote, the treaty was “flawed” by our modern sensibilities, but by the standards of the times, far less punitive than what Germany herself customarily demanded from the defeated. France did not invade Germany in 1870, 1914, or 1940, but by May 1940 found itself for the third time in seventy years with a German army advancing on Paris.]
Where was Hitler born?
“At Versailles,” replied Lady Astor.
[Buchanan’s citation of the quip of the aristocratic hostess Nancy Witcher Langhorne as an authority on Versailles is revealing and gives his game away—a woman known for her virulent anti-Semitism, pro-Hitler appeasement, and close correspondence with another kindred soul in Ambassador Joseph Kennedy. Her slurs about Czechoslovakian refugees, prejudice toward Catholics, lunatic pronouncements on slavery and blacks, and reprehensible slanders of British soldiers proved her to be unhinged—but apparently earns a citation of wisdom from Buchanan.]
As for the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany imposed on Russia in 1918, is Hanson aware that the prison house of nations for which he wails, which was forced to disgorge Finland, the Baltic republics, Poland, Ukraine and the Caucasus, was ruled by Bolsheviks?
Was it a war crime for the Kaiser to break up Lenin’s evil empire?
[This is surreal and reveals Buchanan’s lack of even a simple grasp of history. Lenin had been in power for a little over a few weeks when negotiations with Germany began in November and December 1917—and only a few months when the treaty was signed in March 1918. His “evil empire” was in fact the centuries-long imperial Russia of the Tsars. Yes, imperial Germany did want Russia to “disgorge” land—so that it in turn might gorge upon them. That’s why the Kaiser seized much of the Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Belarus. Many on Buchanan’s list of free states “disgorged” in fact in the last year of the war came under sway of the German empire as virtual dependencies.
In short, Germany demanded and until defeated got its hands on a great deal of Russian territory, ninety percent of her coal, and much of Russian industry—a greed that severely hampered its efforts to transfer manpower and material to the Western front in 1918. Note that Buchanan omits my mention of Germany’s plans for Western Europe in the event of its victory, which we know from post-World War II archives would have made the Versailles treaty tame in comparison.]
Two years after Brest-Litovsk, Churchill himself was urging Britain to revise Versailles, bring Germany into the Allied fold and intervene in Russia’s civil war — against Lenin and Trotsky.
[Now Buchanan is praising the Churchill he serially damns as the fool who had prompted World War II. What Churchill was trying to do was exactly what I stated in my essay—incorporate Germany into the family of Western nations—something impossible not because of Versailles, but because a defeated German army in November 1918 retreated from foreign territory and reentered the fatherland, promulgating the myth that it had never been beaten, when in fact it was within days of annihilation by an advancing allied army that included over a million American soldiers.]
As for my thesis that the British war guarantee to Poland of March 31, 1939, was the “Fatal Blunder” that guaranteed World War II and brought down the British Empire, Hanson is mocking:
“Buchanan argues that, had the imperialist Winston Churchill not pushed poor Hitler into a corner, he would have never invaded Poland in 1939, which triggered an unnecessary Allied response.”
First, Hanson should get his prime ministers straight. It was Neville Chamberlain who issued the war guarantee to Poland after the collapse of his Munich accord. Churchill was not even in the Cabinet.
[Buchanan, again, cannot honestly reproduce quoted material. Pace Buchanan, note that I did not write “Prime Minister” Churchill—and for precisely the reason that he was not Prime Minister in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But the very reason that the British turned to the “imperialist” Churchill in extremis in May 1940 was because he was on record in the British Parliament and in public life since 1932 for restoring British military preparedness, and, from at least 1936, enlightening British naïve rightists about the sinister nature of Hitler’s National Socialism. Yet Churchill is the veritable villain of Buchanan’s book, not the maniacal Hitler.]
Second, Hansen implies that I portray Hitler as a misunderstood victim. This is mendacious. Hitler’s foul crimes are fully related.
(a) Hanson, not Hansen. (b) Hitler’s crimes are mentioned in the customary Buchanan disclaimer fashion; but if they were “fully related,” they would make it impossible to empathize with a psychopath whose polices ended logically in the Holocaust.]
Third, was it moral, Hanson, for Britain to promise the Poles military aid they could not and did not deliver, thus steeling Polish resolve to resist Hitler and guaranteeing Poland’s annihilation?
[Now this is a strange contortion. The Poles were already steeled since they had known first hand German aggrandizement since 1914, had seen what Hitler had done in the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and knew well the futility of appeasement. A militarily weak Britain and morally bankrupt France are to be faulted for not attacking in the West in September 1939, but applauded for at least declaring war on Hitler and finally apprising him that his aggression would no longer be treated with rhetoric but now with armed resistance. ]
Was it wise, Hanson, for Britain to declare a world war on the strongest nation in Europe over a town, Danzig, where the British prime minister thought Germany had the stronger claim?
[This is ludicrous. Danzig was a mere “town"? In fact, Britain declared war because for years Hitler had serially violated all of its WWI and international agreements, dismembered Czechoslovakia, and revealed the true nature of Nazi global aggrandizement as outlined years before in Mein Kampf.]
What were the consequences for Poland of trusting in Britain?
Crucifixion on a Nazi-Soviet cross, the Katyn massacre of the Polish officer corps, Treblinka and Auschwitz, annihilation of the Home Army, millions of brave Polish dead, half a century of Bolshevik terror.
[This is reprehensible. Now British military weakness is blamed for Auschwitz, rather than the innate sinister nature of Nazism? Does Buchanan believe that had Britain not tried to stop Hitler, the death camps would have never occurred? Does he know of the prewar Nazi precursors to the Final Solution, the geneses of which were clear from Germany’s own treatment of its chronically ill and mentally disturbed?]
And how did Churchill honor Britain’s commitment to Poland?
During trips to Moscow, Churchill bullied the Polish prime minister into ceding to Stalin that half of his country Stalin had gotten from his devil’s pact with Hitler, and yielded to Stalin’s demand for annexation of the Baltic republics and Bolshevik rule of a dozen nations of Eastern and Central Europe.
[Churchill distrusted Stalin, but by 1943 understood that a weak British Empire had no leverage at all against Stalin’s 400 divisions. Again in hindsight Churchill can be made to look illiberal, but given the realities of the times, there was no one more suspicious of the ally Stalin, or more sympathetic to the Poles. ]
Was it worth 50 million dead, Hanson, so Stalin, whose victims, as of Sept. 1, 1939, were 1,000 times Hitler’s, could occupy not only Poland, for which Britain went to war, but all of Christian Europe to the Elbe?
[How odd that the allies are indirectly blamed for the Holocaust, as if its seeds were not innate to Nazism. Most credit Stalin with the atrocious crime of killing 20-30 million of his own, versus Hitler’s 6 million. How that translates in “1,000 times” I am not sure—except by the misleading qualifier “by Sept.1 1939.” But here Buchanan engages in hindsight. In 1939, Britain knew of no other means—not political, not diplomatic, not economic—of stopping Hitler from absorbing all of Europe, an agenda of aggression clear from 1936 onward.]
Churchill was right when he told FDR in December 1941 it was “The Unnecessary War” and right again in 1948, when he wrote that, in Stalin, the world now faced “even worse perils” than those of Hitler.
[This is disingenuous. The aggregate of Churchill’s writings make it clear that he felt the war had been unnecessary only on the grounds that he felt, rightly I think, that it could have been prevented by standing up to a then weak Hitler in 1936, which would have humiliated the Nazis and perhaps even led to a change of government or at least a sort of containment of Nazism. And note Churchill’s choice of word “perils”. Churchill did not think, as implied by Buchanan, that Hitler was any less evil than Stalin, only that the Red Army and the resources of the Soviet Union gave it the potential to become far more dangerous than a much smaller Nazi empire.
Both World War II and the Cold War were necessary. And while the Soviet government was a vile and evil entity, millions of Red Army soldiers were not communists, but brave patriots who did much to stop the Wehrmacht, and, yes, by their efforts did save allied lives. Again, they fought for a horrendous government, but the motivation for many was not global communism or Comrade Stalin who had butchered millions of their families and friends, but to rid German soldiers from the soil of Mother Russia.]
So, what had it all been for?
[World War II—forced upon, not the fault of, the allies—was worth it. It ended fascism and Nazism, liberated thousands from death camps and starvation in forced labor compounds, led to a new democratic Europe, prevented the extinction of European Jewry, and reformed a once serially bellicose Germany that had attacked France three times in 70 years. Today’s Europe and Japan are proof of our grandfathers’ achievement.]
Historian Hanson should go back to tutoring undergrads about the Peloponnesian War and the Syracuse Expedition.
I guess Mr. Buchanan believes that working as a political operative in Richard Nixon’s White House is better training for history than formal study of classical languages and history. I think his ancient Greek citation is a vague reference to my support for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the effort to foster constitutional government in Iraq. But once more, Buchanan reveals his ignorance of history. The Syracuse expedition, as he calls it, was a case of a democratic Athens attacking a larger and democratic Syracuse and its Sicilian allies at a time when its adversary Sparta was not beaten. When I last looked the United States had not expanded its war on radical Islam by invading democratic India.
And the last time I had any notice of Buchanan himself was when his American Conservative magazine asked the so-called “War Nerd” (who once “daydreamed” of burning down my vineyard [which in fact later mysteriously experienced a roadside brushfire], cf. his “Victor Hanson: Portrait of an American Traitor” http://groups.google.com/group/eurolegalgroup/browse_thread/thread/62138f41e7283b35) to review A War Like No Other, and wrote an incoherent rant about Iraq rather than the book in question.
I stand by everything I wrote about Patrick J. Buchanan’s book, and find his latest effort further confirmation of his delusional views about both past and present.
PJM Home
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Why the West Has Won: Nine Landmark Battles in the Brutal History of Western Victory
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
212 Comments
1. Accept » Blog Archive » Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator:[...] Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator [In dealing with Mr. Buchanan, sadly one must accept at the beginning two caveats. First, as is his style, he will always resort to ad hominem… [...]
Jun 14, 2008 - 1:41 am 2. John B:While we all know what the Kaiser’s plans for eastern Europe were by way of treaty with Russia, what exactly were his specific plans for western Europe if victorious? I’ve never seen details of that scenario anywhere!!
Annexing more of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, ???
John
Jun 14, 2008 - 3:14 am 3. Jim Shaw:Brilliant!
Jun 14, 2008 - 3:51 am 4. John G.:“Historian Hanson should go back to tutoring undergrads about the Peloponnesian War and the Syracuse Expedition…”
Actually, if appears that VDH has just provided a history lesson to Mr. Buchanan, and to readers (myself included) of Mr. Hanson’s column.
Jun 14, 2008 - 4:56 am 5. Donald R. McClarey:Bravo Dr. Hanson! Buchanan’s book is all too typical of the junk history in fashion today: twist facts, ignore facts and, when necessary, simply lie in order to serve a current political agenda. As to Buchanan’s ad hominem sneers, I found them unsurprising. He certainly couldn’t debate on the actual historical record could he?
Jun 14, 2008 - 5:23 am 6. ~Paules:John B,
Given that Germany had built a great surface fleet to challenge the British, it’s likely that Germany was looking to shake loose overseas colonies from her imperial rivals. Germany had established herself as Europe’s leading economic and military power, but she lacked the colonies necessary to play the game of empire. Wilhelm was a grandchild of Victoria, and he deeply resented playing second fiddle to his cousins King George and Czar Nicholas. The fratricide that ensued would claim 8.5 million on the battlefield plus the royal houses of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
Jun 14, 2008 - 5:34 am 7. Ron B.:From all of us, thank you for pushing back against the incoming tide of revisionism.
Jun 14, 2008 - 6:27 am 8. Dan Duff:If Buchanan had any true sense of history, he would be quite aware of the damage Protectionist Populism did to the United States in 1927-1941. His misreading (or purposeful misstatement) of the period of pause in the 20th Century’s Great War is to be expected given the precarious foundation of his personal politics. After all, a critical examination of the period undermines his entire cause d’etre.
Jun 14, 2008 - 7:28 am 9. Ray N.:Bravo, Mr. Hanson. I have enjoyed your writings for sometime now. I appreciate your intelligent responses to sensasionalist revisionist history. Keep up the good work!
Jun 14, 2008 - 7:31 am 10. George:Professor Hanson,
Jun 14, 2008 - 8:06 am 11. L Nettles:You are my favorite historian/social commentator on the internet. I am a bit surprised you devoted so much time to argue with Buchanan. I am afraid he is a bit of a pit-bull and you will have hard time of
a. getting away from his barking/pestering,
b. learning much from him.
George,
Professor of Mathematics
My thanks you for this. Maybe this is the ultimate Angry Letters.
Jun 14, 2008 - 8:26 am 12. WT Lewis:Good volley.
PJBs perception of what he believes to be history comes back to haunt him yet again. It is a pity that his ego routinely overwhelms his intellect.
All the best to you and your vineyard.
Jun 14, 2008 - 9:00 am 13. J.E. Dyer:Not that this is needed after VDH’s masterly takedown of Buchanan’s blithering nonsense. But here is the response I posted to the Buchanan piece at Townhall yesterday:
—–
Consummate idiot
I don’t know what to make of Buchanan any more. He seems congenitally unable to discern that Britain did not declare war on Germany because of some weird, arcane interest in Gdansk, but because Germany was the main, and imminent, hegemonic threat to a stable balance of power in Europe (considered vital by England for centuries) — and by 1939, had been for more than 80 years, already having started the most horrendous war in Western history.
Buchanan assumes that Germany wasn’t a threat to the rest of Europe, is the bottom line. If he could actually make the case that England and France should not have seen Germany in that light, perhaps he would do that instead of making specious arguments about Gdansk and the Sudetenland. But he can’t, because that case can’t be made. For a variety of reasons — one of them simple geography, which encouraged the development of a Germany with no naturally prohibitive borders — Germany was the aspiring hegemon to worry about, in the Europe of the first half of the 20th century.
It is never a matter of indifference to regional security when one nation wants to change boundaries that were set by the conclusion of a war. Buchanan, however, wants to selectively assume that it was, in the case of the Third Reich and Hitler’s boundary-changing aspirations. This in spite of the three centuries of war that preceded 1939, incident to boundary-changing in Europe — and Germany’s career as the chief boundary-changer of the previous eight decades.
Sorry, Pat. VDH’s reference to “Churchill backing Hitler into a corner” pales in comparison to your historical illiteracy.
—–
Not to worry, Mr. Hanson. There are quite a few folks who are beginning to think Pat Buchanan needs to be placed under restraint.
Jun 14, 2008 - 9:24 am 14. Zhombre:One could call Pat Buchanan the court paleocon in the royal petting zoo of the media. He is trotted out, like an aging bear on a chain, on those occasions when the media requires an “authentic” conservative to disparage neoconservatives and Republicans and especially Bush & Cheney. He emits pugnacity and noxious fumes and spouts cockeyed history.
Jun 14, 2008 - 11:51 am 15. Jack Marcotte:Essential vdh.
Pat Buchanan is in a difficult position. He presents himself as a “conservative”. He thinks like a liberal in that any position or statement that he makes–is in context only for the day he made it in. He says things simply in the present context to get his desired effect at the time.
He cannot be considered a legitimate historian or a “historical writer “–that takes to much work and does not allow him the fanciful pronouncements because the actual facts don’t support them. He could call it fiction but that does not fit his own assessment of who he is.
My question is how does he really make a living. The answer is of course the MSM who couldn’t tell the difference of a fact from a fiction and who like Buchanan are only interested in the immediate effect on a rather limited audience.
I get it! PB is a MSM TV talking head conservative. By the way who has even watched a program with PB on it? Not me.
I am glad vdh took the time to let the air out of the windbag. However it can’t be worth to much time.
Jun 14, 2008 - 12:05 pm 16. Mr. Moose:Where can I find this article about Buchanan’s book and Human Smoke?
Jun 14, 2008 - 1:30 pm 17. John Bailey:Might it be that Mr. Buchanan is having an “Oswaldian” moment and is trying to “BUF” up?
Jun 14, 2008 - 8:48 pm 18. Ron Kean:Buchanan targets the loony far right to sell his wares and he may make some money.
Buchanan is a has-been who never-was and VDH is at the top of his game.
Jun 14, 2008 - 10:08 pm 19. Pajamas Media » The Delusional Views of Pat Buchanan, Pseudo-Historian:[...] Read the post here [...]
Jun 15, 2008 - 1:52 pm 20. A. N. Pierson:Zonmbre above is correct. Pat Buchanan serves the interests of the pseudo-liberal mainstream media . He is their whore.
Jun 15, 2008 - 2:18 pm 21. William Hamblen:German war aims developed during WWI to include annexation of parts of Belgium and France and a protectorate over Luxembourg. Before the war it is hard to say what the Germans wanted, except to neutralize the Russians. It was France that declared war on Prussia in 1870, after some clever maneuvering by Bismarck. The French just didn’t do a good job of it, and it was exactly what Bismarck wanted.
Jun 15, 2008 - 2:22 pm 22. Anthony (Los Angeles):Pat Buchanan: living proof that the America First movement of the 30s never died out.
Historian Hanson should go back to tutoring undergrads about the Peloponnesian War and the Syracuse Expedition.
Actually, if Dr. Hanson did start teaching again, I’d probably go back to school for a second BA.
Jun 15, 2008 - 2:36 pm 23. Dark Helmet:Not all of what Mr Buchanan has to say is incorrect. Nor should his points be taken without any less consideration in dealing with the un.
Not perhaps as the entire picture but as often a glossed over aspect of how events unfolded from a non npr point of origin without the need to go on about the 6 million that died and ignoring the other 30 million that perished as well. But all too often, WWII is about Jews, not all the humans.
I had the opportunity to read his Republic Not An Empire and found it to be very well presented.
A good teacher knows not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Jun 15, 2008 - 3:00 pm 24. John:In the past several years I’ve been reading VDH I’ve seen his thinking develop into a razor sharp instrument, not something to trifle with, as Pat Buchanan has probably by now figured out.
Excellent Professor, as usual.
Jun 15, 2008 - 3:09 pm 25. Mohammed the Teddy-Bear:Take notes, Buchanan, you “Know-Nothing”! (given Buchanan’s Irish ancestry, the irony of calling him that is delicious!)
Jun 15, 2008 - 3:20 pm 26. John S:“John B:
“While we all know what the Kaiser’s plans for eastern Europe were by way of treaty with Russia, what exactly were his specific plans for western Europe if victorious? I’ve never seen details of that scenario anywhere!!
“Annexing more of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, ???”
John
John B, I would start with Fritz Fischer’s seminal “Germany’s Aims in the First World War” (1961), a seminal work based on newly available archival sources.
John S
Jun 15, 2008 - 3:45 pm 27. Jim Rockford:Pat Buchanon combines the typical anti-semitism of the far-right (Ron Paul, Libertarians, etc.) with that of the far left (Moveon, Code Pink, etc.).
In these groups certain themes reappear:
*America is always wrong and the sole source of all evil. If not America, Britain.
*Fighting evil is always worse than simply surrendering.
*A “Jewish Conspiracy” is behind every war that causes Western lives to end.
*Evil must always be appeased, because it’s unstoppable.
*Human nature has “changed” and made warfare impossible (this is the pet fantasy of the “War Nerd”).
*Bad things in general are always the result of a “Jewish Conspiracy”
*All problems with the world and America can be solved by a fantasy of returning to some golden past.
What are the common features of the far-left and far-right? The link between Ron Paul, Libertarians, Pat Buchanon, Rev. Wright, Code Pink, and Moveon?
A desire to blame scapegoats instead of bad decisions by flawed people, compounded by laziness, fear, greed, cowardice, and rigid, ideologically driven adherence to pacifist principles. The scapegoats always being “Jews” in whatever form, Americans, and British conservatives. A fantasy of retreat from the modern world into an isolationist golden-age past. A desire to be part of a status-driven “select few” openly contemptuous of the people and the traditions of the nation.
Jun 15, 2008 - 4:13 pm 28. david levavi:“Pat Buchanan is living proof that the America First movement of the 30s never died out.”
Anthony (Los Angeles):
On the money, Tony. Pat Buchanan learned his history sitting at the kitchen table with his daddy listening to Father Coughlin on the radio.
It is sad that after Pearl Harbor so few American Nazi sympathizers were arrested while so many loyal Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps. Had Pat’s Daddy spent the war looking out at a free America through barbed wire as he deserved, Pat and his hideous sister Bay would be singing a different tune today.
American Bundists of the period, German-Americans with a goodly contingent of Irish-Americans in support, Mainly Roman Catholics all, were doubly offensive in claiming to be superpatriots and wrapping themselves in the American flag—an hypocrisy which Buchanan and his like still practice.
When the war broke out, it turned out that the FBI had the names of most of the Bundists. No credit to the Feds. The names were provided to the FBI by ordinary Americans offended at the mixing of brown shirts, swastikas and iron crosses with American flags and the National Anthem at bundist rallies. On Long Island, where the largest rallies were held, local church and boy scout groups would make an activity of writing down the license plate numbers of their flag waving Nazi-American visitors and turning them over to the FBI.
With patriots like Pat Buchanan, who needs traitors?
Jun 15, 2008 - 4:18 pm 29. Dave, Kingsburg:Since being sent by the military to the Middle East in my twenties, I have toyed with America First Isolationism. I read Hanson to remind myself of the historical consequences of being wrong in attempting this kind of foreign policy.
Although Hanson is right about WWII, I don’t see many parallels between Iraq (c. 2000) and Germany (c. 1930).
Jun 15, 2008 - 5:55 pm 30. Sandra M:I read the war nerd’s article attacking VDH. Envy and jealousy reek in every line. Wikipedia offers a much more accurate portrait of VDH. I I was going to comment on the war nerd’s article but apparently only one person had so why dignify such drive?
I’ve noticed that comments on PJM are much more civil than on other sites (good work by the moderators) and especially intelligent in response to VDH columns.
My favorite VDH books are CARNAGE AND CULTURE and THE SOUL OF BATTLE. The film MIDWAY, ZULU (Rorke’s Drift chapter) THE CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE (Cortes) TET (WE WERE SOLDIERS) and 300 (not on Salamis but on Thermopylae which immediately preceded Salamis) Can anybody recommend films on Lepanto and the Christians against the Ottoman Empire? Gaugamela? I’m in the mood to see films about our defeating the Persians.
PATTON the film has only one brief scene I would cut in which a G.I. says of Patton: “Yeah, his guts, our blood.” The opposite was true. As with Sherman, men loved fighting under his leadership which gave them the best chance of surviving and going home to their families. None of the disease of trench warfare as in WWI or the battles of other Civil War generals. Both generals kept their armies on the move and sometimes moved ahead of the enemy cutting them off from resupply. How many American lives would we have saved in the Pacific if we had followed such a strategy? Just island hop and cut off Japanese-held islands from resupply.
If you don’t own THE SOUL OF BATTLE, pick it up in a bookstore, and read page. 126 which describes Sherman’s Army of the West parading before dignitaries in DC after the war is over. The comments of the German ambassador as described by Hanson are one of the most inspiring pages I have ever read. Does anyone know of any films about Sherman? He is anathema in the South, not because he killed so many Confederate soldiers, he didn’t. It was the Scarlett O’Hara types who loathed him for effectively destroying the possibility of their aristocratic plantation life from ever rising from the ashes.
Patrick Buchanan’s biggest career mistake ever was taking on VDH. Sales of Buchanan’s book will be hurt even more than by VDH’s negative review. Hanson is as deadly in rebuttal as those Western heroes we all love in the movies. And he seems like such a nice, quiet man.
Jun 15, 2008 - 5:59 pm 31. Minerva:Pat Buchanan — the first name pretty much exhausts the subject.
Jun 15, 2008 - 6:12 pm 32. TLM:I appreciate VDH’s desire to defend his critique of Pat Buchanan’s most recent book, but wonder if it’s worth the effort to deflate the delusions of a “has-been who never-was”, as one commentator above accurately describes Buchanan. Revisionist history in all its manifestations, far right or far left, is certainly worth disputing. However, I suspect Pat Buchanan represents a moribund segment of our polity which may become extinct over the next generation, if not over the next eight years should we elect a leftist oriented president. Far left revisionist social scientists have been proliferating like viruses in our schools and universities for four decades, and their affect on our society is far greater than Buchanan and his ilk ever were. Pat can continue to peddle his wares for peanuts for all I care, the monied Left and their champion, Barack Obama, is the greater worry. I doubt the majority of Obama’s young college educated supporters could accurately identify the members of the Axis alliance we defeated in WWII. We might want to focus our concern on these “Know-Nothings” and their leader, before we elect him and stumble into WWIII.
Jun 15, 2008 - 7:50 pm 33. Koblog:I will take VHD over PJB each and every time. Buchanan’s gone round the bend. Dr. Hanson is brilliant.
Jun 15, 2008 - 7:58 pm 34. Matt S:I think Mr. Hanson perhaps is missing the mark somewhat in his responses to Nicholson Baker and Patrick Buchanan. While writing from different perspectives, (Baker a pacifist and Buchanan a non-interventionist,) both illustrate the insanity of war and the greater evils it inevitably begets. Certainly the results of the Second World War were good for the emerging United States on the world stage. But I think most of us in the States, because it has been our time in the sun, fail to see the indescribable pain and suffering of the scores of millions who are at the bottom of the heap.
Mr. Hanson is certainly a learned academic. Toe to toe with Baker and Buchanan in a recitation of historical facts I’m sure Hanson would prevail. But his somewhat frustrated excoriation of Buchanan in this last blog betrays an uneasiness with his position in a world which knows and has seen, by the millions firsthand, the brutality of the military solution.
I think Baker and Buchanan show courage to question the common wisdom of the necessity of the Second World War, and war in general as a tool of national policy. I think sadly for us and the world, the latest expeditions by the United States government are just a repetition of the blunders of arrogant and moribund empires. I just hope that there are more who will stick their necks out in such questioning and endure the feeble, albeit impassioned attempts to cut them off.
Jun 15, 2008 - 9:16 pm 35. Misanthropicus:In vino veritas!
Jun 15, 2008 - 11:36 pm 36. Chris:Mister Hanson, ages-old observations show that good vine has always been the wise man’s companion and your excellent piece on Buchanan/WWII tells me that your vineyard is well. Very good.
As far as mister Buchanan, I do not know what fluids does he favor, but since his scientific efforts generally end up on the “alternative history” shelf he might consider tending a vineyard before engaging himself in other historical excursions.
I understood from a LA Times (prudent) book review that Baker’s effort is not a “book/treaty” but rather a scrap-book of commented headlines (??), technique which I find fit for “art” shows or coffee table albums, not for matters of the WWII seriousness.
Besides the intellectual sterility of those efforts, that (prudent) book review also reminded me that although Derrida is dead, the deconstructionist fashion is… silly, of course, yet well alive, and this fact should be of concern for everybody.
Deconstructionism for sophistry’s sake is, well, acceptable - however, I cannot see the benefit of such contortions during our very difficult times.
“Matt S: Certainly the results of the Second World War were good for the emerging United States on the world stage. But I think most of us in the States, because it has been our time in the sun, fail to see the indescribable pain and suffering of the scores of millions who are at the bottom of the heap.”
Yeah, like our defeated foes from WWII, Germany and Japan. Oh, the woes they’ve suffered as a result of our continued support and friendship in the four decades since that conflict ended.
I think a great number of countries in the world would rather be our defeated foe–given how we treat those we have defeated–than the ally of our enemies.
Far from causing the suffering of “scores of millions” (whatever that means), we have rebuilt and continued to support our erstwhile enemies even after suffering scores of thousands of dead in conflict with them. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan will also proper and benefit from our assistance and friendship, just as Germany and Japan have, if they but embrace a flavor of democracy.
I personally believe that in The Shield of Achilles, Philip Bobbitt is correct in counting WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War as chapters in an epochal war to determine what form of government is to replace the previously dominant form. However, I also believe that in American Jihad, Emerson has identified a profound connection between our current foe as represented by al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood and the fascists of WWII. Namely, that the Muslim Brotherhood was formed as the Middle Eastern “branch” of fascism–an answer, and ally, to the Italian and German versions of it. Therefore, this “Long War” has not yet ended and we are in a fight to determine whether the democratic republic or fascist theocracy will prevail.
As to our “moribund empire,” what is it that we get out of imperial “outposts” like Germany and Japan versus the benefits they reap from our association? Some empire. If our nation’s imperial ambitions are so overwhelming and all-consuming, why is it we haven’t added more stars to our flag in the past 40-years? Germany? Make it a state! Japan? East Hawaii, I say!
What a curious way to build a hegemonic empire when compared with the historical exemplars.
Professor Hanson? Thanks for wielding that sharp instrument and letting the air out of the windbag. I look forward to the next installment as I am sure you will have a surfeit of targets in the months to come.
Jun 15, 2008 - 11:56 pm 37. Chris:OK, OK, West Hawaii. In Vino Veritas, indeed. Happy Father’s Day to all.
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:06 am 38. Barry Meislin:I knew that Buchanan had certain “conceptual” issues but had no idea that he was so seriously unhinged.
Yet, I fear that his grandiose deception (in the guise of history) will be swallowed uncritically by a receptive audience, in America and around the world; though perhaps not so much in Europe, since (except for those German revisionists, and fellow travelers, e.g., David Irving, who must be greatly encouraged by his defence of those who did their best to bring about Germany’s, as well as Europe’s, destruction) while Europeans may generally applaud Buchanan’s anti-Americanism, they will not look favorably on his absurd absolution of Nazism, which can only invite ridicule of the kind Professor Hanson so justly delivers.
Jun 16, 2008 - 1:00 am 39. Kim Zigfeld:Thank you! Buchanan is a dangerous lunatic run utterly amok, and it’s to the credit of conservatives that we pull no punches in saying so — unlike the Dumbocrats in regard to, say, Jesse Jackson.
Scary. Reads like a thriller. If only it weren’t for real!
Jun 16, 2008 - 4:06 am 40. Ken Besig:Pat Buchanan is an anti Semite fast becoming simply a xenophobe who hates just about everybody including his own country, or at least the non White Aryan parts of it. I begin to wonder now if maybe Herr Pat is just losing it and can no longer discern his bigotry and prejudice from the larger reality. Mr. Buchanan plainly envies and admires the Third Reich, politically, militarily, racially, and philosophically while at the same time attributing ulterior, base, and actually evil motives to the Western Allies who eventually were forced,(remember, Germany declared war on America two days after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor) at great expense in lives, money, and property to destroy the fascist evil of both Germany and Japan. Mr. Pat Buchanan’s twisting of WWII history is right in line with his twisted and perverse racial bigotry, and of course, his blatant, indisputable, and irrational anti Semitism.
Jun 16, 2008 - 4:16 am 41. Jim:PJB is an isolationist of the old school circa 1939. PJB is at least consistent in his “let the world do its thing, we in America will ignore it.” Over the last 20 years he’s advocated consistently for Fortress Amerika and ignored the fact of globalization. He seems to think we will be safer and more prosperous by ignoring the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Great work Dr. Hanson keep exposing moronic concepts espoused by these reactionaries such as PJB.
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:13 am 42. Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Comment — And Must-Read — Of The Day:[...] this article, where Professor Hanson guts Pat Buchanan’s Hiltler apology like a [...]
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:23 am 43. kiwikit:And George Will was just on Bill Bennett (best internet morning show in the US) saying that politics with lack of history knowledge is like ‘planting cut flowers!’ It’s a quote from someone else (Bourstin?) but says it all. Buchanan is proof of that!
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:28 am 44. ZEITGEIST:[...] VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator. [...]
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:56 am 45. blackminordcapullets:Wow - never mind WWII revisionists.
What about WW1.5 deniers?
What else can this be as it makes no mention the Ukrainian Genocide Famines of the 20’s and 30’s.
Why is this relevent to WWII? Because Hitler gained power precisely while the west covered up (and still covers up) the Ukrainian Holodomor, a genocide that claimed more than WW I.
Hitler’s rise to dictator came precisely during those weeks where murder by starvation was peeking - the first months of 1933.
More were killed during the Holodomor than on all the battlefields of Europe during WW I.
Hitler’s propagandists made the threat of starvation the main message and this was done while thousands of “Bruder in Not” letters were escaping the death zone - letters from Mennonite and Amish and other fundamentalist Germans who had emmigrated to Ukraine during the reign of Catherine the Great.
Seriously, if one wants to pontificate re: history, one should dig a little deeper than Duranty.
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order/rvossler/vossler2.html
The Nazis did not pop up one day like evil mushrooms - they were a reaction to the murder of millions in an unknown WW 1.5
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order/general/sinner.html
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:57 am 46. Former Belgian:John: you asked about the plans of Hitler (y”sh) for Western Europe. Here’s what I know off the top of my head:
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:58 am 47. George Best:* Holland was to become a province of Greater Germany
* France was to be a vassal state under the Vichy government (the French were not considered Aryan enough for absorption)
* Denmark and Norway were to be protectorates. The occupation regime in Norway, interestingly, was much harsher than that in Denmark, which was to be a sort-of “model protectorate”
* Belgium’s fate was a point of contention, since the Flemish were considered purely Nordic and thus fit for absorption into Greater Germany, while the (French-speaking) Walloons were considered to be of “Phalic” stock (say, “grade B Aryans”). Some of the Flemish collaborationist groups like the VNV wanted to carve out an independent Flemish state which would be allied with Germany, while the radical DeVlag and General SS Flanders proposed full “Anschluss”: the Nazis played the groups off against each other.
I used to like Buchanan but he has gone way left while pretending to be Libertarian. It continues to amaze me that the mainstream commentators in this country seem almost apologetic for how we treated enemies we defeated after they started the conflict. Even someone like Hitler is the result of our own actions.
It continues today with the war in the Middle East. Its our fault for starting the war, and treating our enemies poorly. Where is the outrage that we are actually taking it easy on the enemy this time. No matter what we do, our own commentators question our actions. These are people from our own country!!
Its scenarios like these that allow someone like Obama to become President of this great country while those of us who know better are watching our country collapse. For such an ultra competitive society, we come across as a bunch of liberal wimps with enemies who are just going to continue to break us down a little at a time until we are destroyed. Unlike Hitler who did not hide what he was doing, todays enemies are smarter and do things under the radar and when we catch on, it will be too late.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:01 am 48. Mark Buehner:Describing Buchanan as an isolationist is insulting to isolationists. The man is a nazi-apologist, nothing more. Latter day neo-nazi literature hits on exactly the same points- Hitler was pushed into a corner, it wasnt his fault, and his crimes were overblown. Lets just call a spade a spade, Buchanan’s track record of hostility toward Israel and admiration for the nazis is pretty convincing.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:12 am 49. John Oh:TLM:
Its worth the effort. Buchanan gets wide distribution, and most people lack the basic background in history to understand how flawed his position is. Glance at some of Buchanan’s assertions and imagine you are a recent graduate of public schools and a pretty good state college. Will you have enough background to know this is junk?
Hanson’s response is at least now part of the discussion and anyone looking for more can find it and learn.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:14 am 50. Pete:Hitler was mad that the Brits and French robbed him of the invasion of Czehoslovakia by caving in at Munich. I wouldn’t call that being unduly pressured.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:14 am 51. Ernest Brown:You’ve got to remember that, when dealing with a racist America-hating sassenach like Buchanan, truth is his kryptonite.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:15 am 52. aloysiusmiller:Buchanan is of a particular strain of intellectual that while Catholic actually denies much of Catholic teaching on moral agency and partakes more of Catholic tradition of control and clericalism. If we had a Buchanan type world it would be full of monasteries and archbishoprics with vast estates and immense political power and not many Jews. It would be a nominally theistic society with a lot of atheistic priests busy laying up treasures on earth.
Leftists would buy into this very readily if they could be the priesthood.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:17 am 53. justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » VDH thumps Reichsfuhrer Buchanan:[...] Several weeks ago we took Pukecannon to task for finally showing his Nazi stripes. Now he is called out by a much more esteemed source…Dr. Victor Davis Hanson. [...]
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:23 am 54. Citizen Grim:Pat Buchanan is a dilettante. He watches a documentary and thinks he’s suddenly an expert.
And I enjoyed the first “war nerd” article I read. But then I read a few more, and discovered him to be naive and inchoate.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:25 am 55. A.W.:Um, seriously, why do you bother?
Hitler wrote a book saying he wanted to take over europe and wipe out all non-germans. He then tried to take over europe and wipe out all non-germans.
Pat Buchanan can’t see the cause and effect? Then he is beyond reason.
And its only the latest version of the moronic convergence between the far, far right and the far, far left. The far, far left refuses to learn the lessons of WWII, such as when a guy says he is going to kill lots of jews don’t let him gain the ability to do it. And the far, far right denies completely that this is the lesson to be taken from it. Its the clearest example of this since Cindy Sheehan said we went to iraq to save isreal, and David Duke said (paraphrase) “that’s right!”
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:29 am 56. Mike Haft:Buchanan’s no Libertarian or for that matter, even ‘libertarian’.
Incidentally, just to give an earlier comment some attention, while it’s true that there are some libertarians out there who are undoubtedly anti-semites, it’s often a side-effect of this idiotic isolationist mindset that some libertarians bring to the table.
Nobody can claim that all libertarians are rational, but please, don’t lump Pat Buchanan with *us*. We don’t want him.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:39 am 57. Andrew Lale:To re-write Billy Bragg, ‘what do they know of German history, who only the Treaty of Versailles know’?
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:40 am 58. David:Buchanan’s book is currently 16th on the N.Y. Times non-fiction best-seller list and moving up. Also, the book’s subject has made the cover of the current “Newsweek” with an inside review of it by C. Hitchens. All the gefilte fish in Canarsie can’t marginalize the power of his ideas and their growing popularity with the American public. One reason why post 9/11 the Likudnik slogan - “We’re all Israelis, now!” never took off is in no small measure to P.J. Buchanan’s excoriations of the neocons on cable TV and in print. Disenchantment with Bush’s foreign policy and the neocons who manipulated him into implementing it is not going away and if Obama becomes President - we may yet see people like Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, and Feith go on trial. Sombody’s going to be held to account for all the dead and maimed so lovingly brought to their misery by neocon lies. Buchanan’s one of the good guys, now. In contrast, more and more - “Court historian of the neocons” is the kind of odious infamy we once associated with Herr Goebbels and Herr Streicher. A lot of “dumb goyim” died because of vile, Israel-first scoundrels like V.D. Hanson and as the neocon shrieks to “Obliterate Iran!” intensify to hysterical pitch - the Day of The Rope grows nearer.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:42 am 59. blackminorcapullets:Is this an issue of WWII revisionism or WW1.5 denial?
Sadly, here is another effort to discuss modern European history without a mention of the Ukrainian Genocide Famines of the 20’s and 30’s.
Why is this relevent to WWII? Because Hitler gained power precisely while the most covered up (and still covers up) the Ukrainian Holodomor, a genocide that claimed more than WW I.
Hitler’s rise to dictator came precisely during those weeks where murder by starvation was peeking - the first months of 1933.
More were killed during the Holodomor than on all the battlefields of Europe during WW I.
Hitler’s propagandists seized this issue and made the threat of starvation the main message. This was done while thousands of “Bruder in Not” letters were escaping the death zone - letters from Mennonite and Amish and other fundamentalist Germans who had emmigrated to Ukraine during the reign of Catherine the Great.
A serious discussion of this era requires that one should dig deeper than Duranty.
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order/rvossler/vossler2.html
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order/general/sinner.html
No one should be surprised that Buchanan pussy foots around this crime by the Kremlin as he has become a Russophile of late.
However, he does open the door for discussion of the precursors to WWII and of all issues, the Holodomor is the Big Bang of the 20th century which culminated in a final death toll of 100 million by the communists.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:46 am 60. Tom Paine:It is too bad that Buchanan and his mirror-image lefty revisionists can’t be sent to actually LIVE under the Nazi, Communist, or Saddamist regimes that they think are “not as bad as War”.
Those “stalwart” worthies would “re-revise” their revisionism in about one nanosecond — and beg for a war of liberation to liberate them.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:47 am 61. fdcol63:If Buchanan had any sense, he would not have picked a fight with VDH!
Whenever a “paleo-con” like Buchanan slings the “neo-con” slur, you can bet that it’s based on anti-Semitism and hatred for those pesky Joooos and Israel.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:57 am 62. Monday Morning Liars [Dan Collins]:[...] VDH rips Pat Buchanan a new orifice, employing a phalanx of facts. [...]
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:06 am 63. F:I used to respect Buchanan. I guess that was before he began to sound like a bitter loser, which is the way I view him now. It’s a shame, really — he clearly has (or maybe had?) a sharp mind that occasionally forced a closer look at liberal dogma. Now he sounds more and more like the last fifth grader to be selected for dodgeball and so demeans the rest of the players to illustrate that he really doesn’t want to be in their game.
Dr. Hanson’s rebuttal is precise and right on the mark, but overly dignifies Buchanan’s comments. F
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:16 am 64. Don Eyres:Matt S:
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:26 am 65. Seth Halpern:You are under the (mis)impression that the military solution was an “option” in late 1930’s Europe. It wasn’t. Hitler intended to seize surrounding territories whether by force or by diplomacy. The Wehrmacht had orders to attack Czechoslovakia in September 1938- orders that were cancelled only because France and Britain served up that country on a silver platter.
The only option was whether Hitler would take on weaker opponents one by one, or whether they would abnd together to stop him.
Before you rattle on about the “brutality of the military solution”, keep in mind that Poland saw 160,000 military deaths fighting against the Germans- and 5,600,000 civilian deaths under German “peaceful” occupation. Likewise, the Soviet Union lost more civilians than soldiers. The military solution is rarely a good one- but it is often the best one.
A first-class post from VDH. Small addendum: Imperial Germany broke up Lenin’s evil empire? Was it not the Kaiser & friends who sent Lenin back to Russia in that sealed train — with the aim of further destabilizing what was then still one of the Allies — and thus arguably unleashed Bolshevism on the world?
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:32 am 66. Bear:I migrated into conservatism twenty years ago. I’ve never met anyone who cares what Buchanan says or writes. I suggest the only reason Buchanan gets airtime and column inches is because the legacy media snobs use him to discredit all conservatives. The legacy media snobs enjoy using Buchanan as a straw man, claiming his bizarre ideas represent conservatives.
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:32 am 67. George B.:Pat Buchanan is used on talk shows on MSNBC, which feature four panelists to represent a token conservative point of view. Placing a clown to represent one’s political opponents is a clever form of bias.
The comments of Buchanan, a former presidential speech writer who had the audacity of hoping to reach the Oval Office, reminds one of the comment by Senator Borah. He claimed that all the WWll madness would have been avoided if only he had the opportunity to talk with Hitler.
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:41 am 68. mike g:Any high school sophomore can refute Buchanan.
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:53 am 69. David West:Before George Bush Sr got into the presidential office, Pat Buchanan actually made sense. His hatred of the Bush family, however, has pushed Pat more and more into a national socialist stance on just about every issue out there. When he moved to the anti-Bush network called MSNBC, it just sealed the deal.
Pat Buchanan’s hate has changed him. He is no longer a conservative. His takeover and destruction of Ross Perot’s third party prove that, along with writings such as these that try to justify the madness of Hitler.
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:58 am 70. John:VDH as a write in, anyone? He’s surely better informed on the political framework than most of what we have to choose from today. I suspect a poll around here would be a resounding, YES~!
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:58 am 71. timb:At least Buchanan was right about “the court historian” line, although I think the Kagans (père and fils and fille) all weep when they read that.
Sadly, with the passing of this administration and failure of the Iraq invasion, the world might not be big enough for more than one war-mongering historian.
At least the Kagans can take heart in knowing these things are cyclical…it took 40 years for us to recover from our last overseas failure, maybe in forty years we can get another Texas president who needs war-mongers and neoconservatives (a distinction without a difference?)? Until then, Dr. Hanson will continue his battles with a phalanx of helots to his rear, all the time thinking he Theban, when he’s actually Spartan.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:03 am 72. blackminorcapullets:Is this an issue of WWII revisionism or WW1.5 denial?
Sadly, here is another effort to discuss modern European history without a mention of the Ukrainian Genocide Famines of the 20’s and 30’s.
Why is this relevent to WWII? Because Hitler gained power precisely while the most covered up (and still covers up) the Ukrainian Holodomor, a genocide that claimed more than WW I.
Hitler’s rise to dictator came precisely during those weeks where murder by starvation was peeking - the first months of 1933.
More were killed during the Holodomor than on all the battlefields of Europe during WW I.
Hitler’s propagandists seized this issue and made the threat of starvation the main message. This was done while thousands of “Bruder in Not” letters were escaping the death zone - letters from Mennonite and Amish and other fundamentalist Germans who had emmigrated to Ukraine during the reign of Catherine the Great.
A serious discussion of this era requires that one should dig deeper than Duranty.
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order/rvossler/vossler2.html
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order/general/sinner.html
No one should be surprised that Buchanan pussy foots around this crime by the Kremlin as he has become a Russophile of late.
However, he does open the door for discussion of the precursors to WWII and of all issues, the Holodomor is the Big Bang of the 20th century which culminated in a final death toll of 100 million by the communists.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:12 am 73. Bob:Dr. Hanson, you won the battle and the war against Pat Buchanan. Ol’ Pat brought a knife,a rather puny one at that,to a gun fight. Seriously, VDH, keep using the truth to detroy the revisionists who don’t know it and don’t care.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:37 am 74. T.W.:Reading Buchanan is on Poland is like listening to the rationalizations of a wife-beater’s mother: “He wouldn’t have hit you if you hadn’t made him angry; it’s all your fault!” The best policy for dealing with tyrants is always to keep quiet and hope they don’t hit you again. And if you don’t, and they do, it’s all your fault.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:46 am 75. Steve B:Matt S
It appears to me that you are unable to see the forest for the trees. In the midst of any war, if the commentator focuses solely on the resulting deaths, the war easily can appear to be a terrible mistake. However, this perspective generally suffers from the assumption that had the commentator’s side simply refused to go to war (which assumes it had a choice), all would have been well. This is the same type of polly-anna mindset that argues that if all law-abiding individuals gave up their guns, crime, or at least crime utilizing guns, would cease to occur.
War should be, and generally is, used only as the last resort, when all other peaceful options have been exhausted. That said, anyone who believes it will ever cease to be part of the human experience cannot be taken seriously, as they have lost touch with reality. Will noncombatants experience suffering and loss of life in war? Yes, of course. But to ignore the fact that absent the war other non-combatants will suffer the same, and generally for a much longer period, is to relegate one’s argument to the absurd.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:56 am 76. Steve Skubinna:It’s a pity you have to spend time responding to Buchanan. The man is a relic of the 1930s, the bad old days when the Republican Party bore two horrible sins: Smoot-Hawley protectionism, which exported and internationalized the Great Depression, and America First isolationism, which gave the totalitarians breathing space to build.
As such he represents the worst period of the Party of Lincoln, when the party betrayed its principles. Whatever he calls himself today, he is a throwback, in addition to being intellectually dishonest. A sad combination for a character the media insists on trotting out on display.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:06 am 77. lavon:VDH should get on the next plane to Baghdad and exercise his pugnaciousness and bellicosity there. He is way too comfortable with the vast and obscene slaughter(at least 50 million dead) and civilizational destruction of the Second World War to be living outside a war zone when one is readily available for his enjoyment.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:16 am 78. Harry W. Mazal OBE:Mr. Buchanan, like his fellow traveller David Irving, is an unabashed apologist for Hitler and the Third Reich. His statements on the Nazi invasion of Poland fly in the face of all of documented evidence of the period. A very few examples:
Volume X of the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, *The “High Command Case” : United States against Wilhelm von Leeb,
et al. [Part I] presents a section: ” D. Invasions of Other Countries : 1. Poland” Manipulators of the facts such as Buchanan ought to read this before presenting their inane and twisted arguments. http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/10/NMT10-T0642.htm
The “Directives from Commander in Chief of the Navy” dated 23 November 1948″, state:
“C. Preparations of an operation against Danzig
27. The High Command of the Army has received the order to make preparations for a surprise operation to occupy Danzig, in a similar way as in the case of the, “Transport Exercise Stettin.” Assuming that no hostile action on the part of Poland is to be expected before this occupation, it should be examined, in cooperation with Corps Headquarters I, as to how far the navy will be in a position to support the task of the army.” [...] and,
“The Naval Group Command East will make the necessary investigations and will submit proposal by 5 January concerning the fortification and occupation of Memel and Danzig and the question of transports.”
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/10/NMT10-T0643.htm (//)
“Case White” dated 3 April 1939 states:
“The aim then will be to destroy Polish military strength, and create a situation in the East which satisfies the requirements of national defense. The Free State of Danzig will be proclaimed a part of the Reich territory at the outbreak of the conflict, at the latest.
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/10/NMT10-T0649.htm
Hitler’s speech of 22 August is unambivalent:
“Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The aim is elimination of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line. Even if War should break out in the West, the destruction of Poland shall be the primary objective. Quick decision because of the season.”
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/10/NMT10-T0702.htm
From these few examples it is clear that Mr. Buchanan seeks to obfuscate and distort the facts in a futile attempt to discredit Professor Hanson.
Harry W. Mazal OBE
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:18 am 79. Jennifer:http://www.mazal.org
Thank you, Mr. Hanson! I honestly feel like I should have paid concert ticket prices to read that!
Or maybe Mr. Buchanan should have paid…seeing as he’s probably gotten the most educational benefit.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:31 am 80. Thanos:Buchanan’s new book is “Nuremberg The Promised Land” lite. Trust me that you don’t want to look that Bardeche book up and read it.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:31 am 81. Paul M Hupf:My compliments to Dr Hanson. Well done!
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:33 am 82. E.S.:It is obvious, that Mr. Hanson’s position is much more defensible, than Buchanan’s. It is also obvious, that WWII was necessary. However, it was longstanding anti-Germanic policy of Great Britain, together with it boundless imperialism, that made WWI inevitable, which made WWII inevitable.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:36 am 83. Bill Whittle:“It is a pity that his ego routinely overwhelms his intellect. ”
Yes, in the same way a single snowflake descending into a smokestack is overwhelmed by an industrial steel blast furnace.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:43 am 84. bob:Let’s see, Mr. Hanson’s screed boils down to one irrefutable argument: Germans are evil! And to a generation of National Review readers brought up on Hollywood movies, that appears to be enough.
Personally, I have always thought that Victor bore an uncanny resemblance to Joan Crawford. He has that same pyschotic motherly domination that appears to keep his fans enthralled.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:51 am 85. Meryl Yourish:Matt S., we get it: War is bad.
However, until human nature changes, and people suddenly start putting down their weapons and refusing to cover their neighbors’ land and goods, war is the only solution to aggression. It’s been that way since Cain and Abel (if you are religious) and the first caveman who seized a stick or rock to bash in another caveman’s head (if you’re not).
Pacifism is not a solution. It’s an escape.
Jun 16, 2008 - 10:11 am 86. Gabriel Hanna:Matt S–
While writing from different perspectives, (Baker a pacifist and Buchanan a non-interventionist,) both illustrate the insanity of war and the greater evils it inevitably begets…I think Baker and Buchanan show courage to question the common wisdom of the necessity of the Second World War, and war in general as a tool of national policy.
You confirm VDH’s point without realizing it.
The entire 1930s was spent trying to find some way of stopping Hitler without resorting to war. Because Hitler was DETERMINED to go to war, there was no way to do this, except to surrender to him what he said he wanted.
This was ALSO tried, and of course Hitler kept demanding MORE, and accumulating more military and political strength with each concession.
And so when war came, it came when circumstances were right for Hitler, and millions died instead of tens of thousands.
You, and Buchanan, and Baker, are ignoring history for ideology. Which was what VDH was saying all along.
Jun 16, 2008 - 10:35 am 87. 123SocialMedia:Game, set and match, Dr. Hanson. You’ve fisked Buchanan into an inch of his pointy-headed life.
Jun 16, 2008 - 11:25 am 88. johnbrown:I’ve read that shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, one midwestern newspaper ran a story claiming that the attack was actually carried out by British airplanes with red balls painted over their usual markings. There has always been a segment of American society whose antipathy toward Britain goes beyond rational argument; where they once derided Churchill, their successors today deride Tony Blair. Pat Buchanan clearly stands firm in that tradition.
Jun 16, 2008 - 11:36 am 89. Tony:Buchanan (and the Ron Paul section of the Republican Party) form a kind of isolationist-authoritarian-pacifist movement (in England, George Orwell labeled this outlook as “fascifist”). So long as the U.S. is allied with England and Israel, this movement is likely to remain. The Republican Party would be better off if it openly dissociated itself from them.
Pat Buchanan is so thoroughly ridiculous I’m impressed Hanson even took the time to respond.
Jun 16, 2008 - 11:38 am 90. P Haddock:It seems to me that Buchanan is assuming that Stalin and communism would have been defeated if only the Allied powers had not declared war. To Buchanan, communism was more deadly than Nazism and thus the more vile and dangerous of the two. This view point makes seems specious to me.
It assumes that Hitler would have defeated Stalin and taken Russia, thus ridding Russia of communism and preventing Eastern Europe from ever suffering under its oppression. Perhaps, but cold weather was not the only thing that stopped the Nazis. The Russians fought for Russia with a devotion and ferocity that is under appreciated. Had Hitler been defeated by Stalin in a war that did not involve Britain or United States, Eastern Europe could easily have fallen to communism as Stalin’s spoils of war.
This view point also assumes that Stalin was more of a plague on human history than Hitler because Hitler killed fewer people. An unchecked Hitler could have easily killed as many or more as Stalin had he been able to fully realize his world vision. Hitler orchestrated the death of 6 million Jews and couple of million other undesirables/political or war prisoners while waging war in Russia and Europe. No one knows who may have killed more in the end if Hitler had not been stopped.
Both ideologies had a global vision and were totalitarian in nature. Even if Buchanan’s assumptions are correct, at best Stalin would have been defeated and the world would then have faced an even more powerful and menacing Hitler. I doubt that lives would have been saved in the long run by that scenario or that America would be better off.
Jun 16, 2008 - 11:52 am 91. John Cunningham:Pat Buchanan is an Irish blowharded windbag. Always was…always will be. The only thing
Jun 16, 2008 - 11:59 am 92. Kent G. Budge:he ever said that I got a kick out of (paraphrased)”The extent of Bill Clinton’s foreign
affairs experience is that he once ate at an International House of Pancakes” Republican convention 1992?
VDH taking on Buchanan is a battle of wits with an unarmed man. So I found myself wondering why VDH bothered. Buchanan is way out on the fringe. He’s not objectively worth the effort.
Other commenters here have supplied the answer (thank you all): In spite of his fringe status and what is, in my opinion, a delicate grasp on his sanity, his column continues to be run by a significant number of newspapers and he continues to be a “political analyst” on MSNBC. He’s become a walking straw man in the service of the Left.
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:30 pm 93. P. Ami:Regarding 1870: there are fine points and arguments which indicate that Nepoleon III was happy for an opportunity to fight against Prussia/Germany. The economic state of France and its morale was such that the third Nepoleon thought a war fought on some of the territories where his ancestor and county has gained wealth and Glory in the past might prove good ground for a second reeping. He declared the war, his was the initial offensive and the Germans followed his path of retreat all the way to Paris.
It is during the siege of Paris that the Sorbonne, the guilds and professional revolutionaries sort of banded together and provoked a civil conflict which was the short live Commune. One Karl Marx studied the phenomenon and having arrived at the realization that this “movement’s” failure was in not controling the artillery or banks, went to England and wrote his infamous views on revolution.
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:34 pm 94. Dave Begley - Omaha:Hanson v. Buchanan. If it was a boxing match, the refs would have stopped it.
Pat Buchanan is the second biggest disgrace to Jesuit education. The first? Bill Clinton. Both are Georgetown grads.
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:35 pm 95. William of OC:I guess Buchanan’s book is hitting home, if VDH’s hysterical response is any indication. I still very much doubt VDH gave the book a careful reading. WWII was NOT necessary, as the critical situation of the West today demonstrates. It was a stupid, unnecessary war. Of course, one wouldn’t expect a Neocon such as VDH to agree.
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:49 pm 96. Gene Tuttle:Hanson complains of Buchan’s use of ad homonyms – but Hanson had started his critique with a lie about Buchanan claiming Churchill pushed “poor Hitler.” If Hanson thinks that’s not an ad homonym remark, given what Hitler has stood for, than Hanson ought to recheck his Latin.
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:50 pm 97. jim2:Hanson’s demonstarates a lack of historical grasp with his hackneyed arguments implying there was a clear cut choice between good and bad for the Brits (and later Americans) to choose from in the insanity that had gripped the Eurasian continent in the early last century. Hanson also shows a pimp’s cunning for exploitation and a ghoul’s taste when he drags up the American dead in Europe’s military cemeteries as a prop for stifling criticism of the decision to go to war. I spent a year as a draftee in the infantry in Vietnam, joining a 1st Infantry Division company that had just experienced a higher casualty rate in the night of April 11, 1966 than it had when it hit the beaches on D Day. (C company, 2nd Batallion 16th Infantry – look it up). I don’t get cross when people criticize the politicians and thinking that got us into that war. I wish someone with Buchanan’s acquired wisdom had been around earlier to put into question the whole issue of US responsibility for straightening out the globe. The Vietnamese communists were a murderous lot, but they and their enemies sorted things eventually, and probably would have sooner had we not intervened. The country is not heaven on earth today, but it’s quite livable!
Historians can be forgiven for getting their facts screwed up occasionally, but Hanson manages more in this second critique of Buchanan’s new book than most should be allowed in lifetime (e.g. by writing that France attacked Germany 3 times in 70 years, perhaps Hanson apparently does not consider France’s mere declaration of war on Germany to be an “attack”). What kind of a historian thinks – as Hanson does - that “second guessing” is inappropriate when exploring the past? With historical hacks like Hanson wielding so much influence among Americans, it is no wonder we elect superficial presidents like Johnson and Bush.
VDH -
Unfortunately, the French did indeed invade Germany first in 1870.
Indeed, the French declared war first in 1870 (July 19) and the first military action of the Franco-Prussian War was the French crossing the German border on August 2, 1870 and invading and occupying Saarbrücken. This action was undertaken by the French General Frossard’s II Corps and Marshal Bazaine’s III Corps and succeeded in dislodging the Prussian 40th Regiment of the 16th Infantry Division from the town and its other positions.
Jun 16, 2008 - 1:07 pm 98. TLM:John Oh:
You may be right. Reading these comments, I’ve learned more about Pat Buchanan than I ever cared to know. I guess we should put our own house in order before castigating the other side for their intellectual messiness. VDH can have at it. Also, it is hard to show pity to the pathetic when they start the fight.
I hope, in vain probably, you’re wrong about college graduates.
Jun 16, 2008 - 1:22 pm 99. David:I agree with your analysis. I’m amazed that Pat Buchanan could offer such a far-fetched hypothesis when the facts scream just the opposite. If you doubt this, I challenge you to read “Mein Kampf” and Shirer’s seminal work, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” Unlike Pat, Mr. Shirer was actually in Nazi Germany during Hitler’s rise. Mr. Buchanan fails to note that Hitler was actually disappointed that the Munich Agreement postponed his war plans. Hitler clearly wanted war and it was inevitable. If the allies had intervened at the occupation of the Rhineland, Hitler would not have been able to launch a war against Poland. At the time, France had the largest army in Europe and could have easily turned back the few battalions that the German Army sent. The loss of face would have crippled the Nazis. Of course the hidden agenda for Pat Buchanan and his new friends on the radical left is that it is preferable to talk to dictators than it is to match force with force. Unfortunately, the historical record is clear–appeasement in the face of a determined aggressor never works.
Jun 16, 2008 - 1:28 pm 100. Jeff:The caddy sarcasm of Mr. Hanson’s replies suggest to me that his view of history and facts are weak. Buchanan’s well thought out book is a refreshing look and exposes realities that, by virtue of the victor/vanquished perspectives, have been catagorically kept from historical discussion, writings, and debate. Hanson’s points of view would lead one to believe that history is like math…just plug in the formula and the study is done.
Jun 16, 2008 - 1:55 pm 101. Misanthropicus:RE: William of OC: “[...] I guess Buchanan’s book is hitting home, if VDH’s hysterical response is any indication. [...] WWII was NOT necessary, as the critical situation of the West today demonstrates. It was a stupid, unnecessary war. [...]”
Probably the right term for “necessary” would be “unavoidable”.
Jun 16, 2008 - 2:00 pm 102. BeckoningChasm:Anyway, I still don’t get it. How and why the critical situation of today’s West demonstrates that WWII WAS NOT necessary?
Can you connect the two notions & explain? Feel free to use your own words.
Confused in California.
blackminordcapullets wrote:
“I think a great number of countries in the world would rather be our defeated foe–given how we treat those we have defeated–than the ally of our enemies.”
CF, Leonard Wibberly’s “The Mouse That Roared.”
Buchanan’s book “Right from the Beginning” is pretty good, and actually quite moving in spots. A pity he has descended so far in recent years.
Jun 16, 2008 - 2:22 pm 103. TLM:Gene Tuttle:
Personally, I look to historians like VDH to understand the past — what did happen and why. Speculating on what might have happened, as Buchanan does, is not helpful. If studied seriously, I believe wars are understandable only to a degree. I do not think they are intrinsically rational in origin or conduct, and therefore a Buchanan can always offer a “reasoned” or “reasonable” alternative to what did happen. This is akin to a parlor game, sophistry as someone above terms it. And yes, history’s victors usually write the story from their perspective. But I suspect the majority of modern Germans and Japanese would disagree with Buchanan’s ideas regarding WWII.
Jun 16, 2008 - 2:30 pm 104. Zane:Buchanan muggs it up for the camera. He needs to spend more time reading and less time talking. VDH - stay understated.
Jun 16, 2008 - 3:50 pm 105. The political spectrum is a circle at Hoystory:[...] Proof that the far left, embodied by historian Howard Zinn, and the far right, embodied by Pat Buchanan, are practically the same. [...]
Jun 16, 2008 - 3:51 pm 106. jim2:VDH -
After my brief post earlier (1:07 PM), I went back and checked some more sources on the early days of the Franco-Prussian War. The French apparently had every intention of achieving more on the ground as part of their opening attack. The French were heartened by the initial success of their new rifles and hopeful of their gatling gun variant effectiveness. Napoleon III’s hopes to improve his flagging popularity grew.
However, the French RR lift capacity was lower than the Germans in the area and they vastly under-estimated the ability of the Germans to bring in and concentrate troops. Within a few days, the Gremans drove the French back across the border and pressed on in a counter-invasion.
The French might well have relished the chance to march on Berlin. The Germans just did not allow it to happen. In fact, the Gremans might never have marched on Paris, except the French elected body deposed Napoleon III, declared French a Republic, repudiated the peace terms agreed to by Napoleon III, and voted to continue the war. So, the Germans continued, also.
Jun 16, 2008 - 3:54 pm 107. Mardukhai:I try to separate the world wars and place them in their own contexts.
I find it difficult to blame Germany for the outbreak of World War I. The reasons are far too complex to set down here. Suffice it to say that the Serbian Black Hand was financed by the Russians, and that they probably informed French President Poincare of their plans.
Yes, Germany should never have threatened Britain with its High Seas Fleet. It was a needless provocation and a waste of resources. And Germany should have neutralized Alsace-Lorraine, or granted it intependence, or simply returned it.
But the war wasn’t about A-L, it was about Russian ambitions in the Balkans, which is a subject far too complex to discuss here.
Nazi Germany was an abomination and a gross and stupid perversion of German nationalism, by 1914, was an entirely satisfied ideology.
It’s unfair to consign them to the same circle of hell.
Jun 16, 2008 - 4:44 pm 108. lirelou:Gene Tuttle. I agree with you that draftees should never have been used in Indochina. Indeed, aftet the failure of the “Autumn Offensive” of 1947, the French National Assembly prohibited the employment of draftees in Indochina. I arrived there during the Tet Offensive, and found myself in the field as one of two Americans with a Vietnamese unit, wherein neither of us spoke the language, for my first combat action. That said, I doubt that the casualty figures of my unit (a subelement of the 5th SFG) or your’s match the overall casualty figures of our forebears in WWII. I do not believe that the two wars offer an easy case for comparison. Vietnam, for all its faults, and I would argue that the use of draftee units was unconstitutional and thereby meets the definition of such a “fault”, does not meet the template for WWII, which was a duly declared war. Obviously, the majority of membership in the 1941 Congress saw it that way. It was therefore constitutionally legal and proper. Buchanan would argue that it was unnecessary. Pity he didn’t choose to write on Vietnam rather than WWII. There was a war he could have mined for both pathos and legitimacy (though it was legitimate for me, a regular, under the President’s contingency operations powers, but illegitimate for you. It was only necessary for the Vietnamese, and those who lost paid the bitter price. (Not as bitter a price, it would turn out, as paid by those who “won”.)
I never heard any such qualifying by the WWII vets who were my senior NCOs and Commanders during my first enlistment. Nor among the ranks of the many “displaced persons” with whom I served. Nor, over the years, with any of the U.S., Canadian, British, French, Russian, Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Czech, Australian, or even German veterans of that war whom I have met. None have ever raised with me the question of its “necessity”, or of Hitler’s goals. That has been left to alleged intellectuals.
As for you who term Buchanan “Irish”. He is not. He is as American as any of you, whichever side of the Irish Sea his remote ancestors may be been from. March 17th affectations aside, he is a purely American product.
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:01 pm 109. Mardukhai:I’m sorry, my second-to-the-last sentence above was written improperly. It should have been:
“Nazi Germany was an abomination and a gross and stupid perversion of German nationalism, which was, by 1914, an entirely satisfied ideology.”
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:14 pm 110. harry:Too much information to keep up with here. Even with a high school level history education it is evident Buchanan twists the facts around from time to time. There are times Buchanan makes sense and there are times he jumps into an empty pool. He’s done crakced his head into the gunite here. Buchanan reminds me of the Hitler loving author who wrote “Springtime for Hitler” in the play “The Producers”. Perhaps a helmet Buchanan next time you go diving.
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:38 pm 111. Sam:Though the term is generally grossly overused, in this case it fits: Pat Buchanan is nothing more than a crypto-fascist. He’s got a history of anti-Jewish insinuation, a repulsive nativist ideology, an affection for Nazi war criminals, and track record of association with Holocaust deniers. For example, he claimed that Jews could not have been murdered by one of his favorite war criminals because “[d]iesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.” and so “Demjanjuk’s weapon of mass murder cannot kill.” Read http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/ for all the revolting details.
Jun 16, 2008 - 5:53 pm 112. DubiousD:Mr. Hanson, you imply that at the time the Brest-Litovsk treaty was first being negotiated with Germany, Russia was still under the influence of the Tsarists. As I recall, the Tsar had been ousted in March of 1917 and a democratic government had taken its place. Thus the country Lenin “inherited” (to employ a euphemism) was reformist, not Tsarist, when the Brest-Litovsk treaty was first being proposed.
Also, in his biography of Lenin, the Soviet historian Dimitri Volkogonov noted that the Bolsheviks had been secretly funded, at least in part, by the Germans. Hence Lenin owed part of the success of the October Revolution to Germany; therefore, his sudden acquiescence on Brest-Litovsk (after much saber rattling that the Kerensky government had failed to effectively prosecute the war against Germany) could rightly be construed as an under-the-table quid pro quo.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:11 pm 113. Matt S:How many of you have actually read Baker and Buchanan’s latest books? Please read them. They are some of the more insightful books written about European and American history in the last 50 years. Sure they each have their own agendas and are not written in classical style, but they also raise points that are relevant to American policy in our current conflicts in the world. VDH obviously has read them, hence his strong rebuttals. Obviously these books hit a nerve with him and indirectly with many of the respondents on this blog the majority of which I suspect have not even read the books. Feel free to respond.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:42 pm 114. Jack Marcotte:Essential vdh.
Hanna: My hat goes off to Hanna Gabriel for her verbal jujitsu on Matt S. She outlines the essential problem with being a liberal or better with liberals and how their minds work. They always think that decisions can be made in a vacuum and also looking backwards from today for something that happened over 70 years ago achieving such a better outcome with their “current decisions” “No WAR”, true reductionism.
It takes a born yesterday frame of mind to think like this. No historical facts involved. And of course while doing this rocking chair thinking and second guessing based on their limited liberal (feel good) education they have such a smug sense of “self”. Hanna straightened that one out.
I wonder if that smug sense of self exhibited typically(by Matty) has to do with the vastness of what they do not know, including the fact that what they do not know is vast. It is as if they were born yesterday. So in that sense it is all completely understandable. Has anyone ever listened to the conclusions of a two year old just learning how to talk and reason? It is the sweetest thing.
Sandra M: My hat goes off to Sandra M for discovering on her own that an island hoping campaign in the pacific would have been so successful during WWII. It was so successful.
Here you actually have the opposite of the above problem resolved by Hanna. Sandra actually on her own thought in today’s context, with historical facts, looking backward that an Island Hopping campaign would have been very successful in the Pacific.
Go to the head of the class! You would have made a good general. You may even be a reincarnation of MacArthur who of course had an island hopping campaign or he at least took credit for it. It may have been the Navy’s planners.
I hope that (most of) the women who contribute to this blog vote. We need more steel in the gene/voting pool.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:55 pm 115. Quatermaster:Reading Hanson above is real trial. He may have seen the words of Buchanan’s text, but he didn’t read much. He has little knowledge of the context of the book, or more than an enthusiasts knowledge of the European wars of the 20th century.
I would expect Hanson to know a as much about Ancient Greek wars as anyone - that’s his specialty (however, what the normally clownish “War Nerd” said about Hanson seeing the Peloponnesian War in everything we were trying to do in the Middle East was on the money). On the other hand, I would expect a man of Hanson’s credentials to tread a bit more lightly on ground he clearly doesn’t know as well.
Hanson shares the academic’s disdain of anyone that does not possess credentials like his own. He may stand by what he said about Buchanan and his book, but he doesn’t realize how much of an idiot it makes him look among the informed.
Incidentally, Buchanan is not a “journalist” and never was. He is a grad of the Columbia Grad journalism program, but started as a pundit in St. Louis and has been one since. That he makes some mistakes that Hanson classifies as misleading or dissimulation says more about Hanson than Buchanan. What it says is Hanson is your common academic who has never had to really work for a living and that believes the world revolves around his provincial views, most of which, when it comes to the modern world, are detached from a modern context.
Jun 16, 2008 - 6:58 pm 116. Richard L. Kent, Esq.:I have but one word for VDH.
Bravo.
…and for Pat…
Aricept.
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:04 pm 117. Matt S:Jackie,
Thanks for the spirited defense of Gabriel Hannah. I’m sure Gabe would appreciate the support of his unreasoned “jujitsu” if not the reference to him as a woman.
Here’s a question. Wouldn’t it have been better to just let Hitler and Stalin divide up Eastern Europe by themselves (with or without their own war). None of us know the outcome of that hypothetical battle, but I dare say it could be much worse than the millions annihilated in the war that actually occurred.
What place did Britain, let alone America, have in the ancient battle for control of Eastern Europe? Certainly there was no concern for the situation of the Jews what with the tepid response to the increased need for Jewish emigration in Britain and the outright hostility on the part of most of America to helping the Jews.
The appeasement of Hitler in the 1930’s came about because the majority of the British and American people, still traumatized from the previous war, absolutely would not let their warmongering representatives lead them once again into a fight in which they had no dog. The world was sick of war, just as it is now. Once again, who knows what would have happened if the British Empire and America would have just let Stalin and Hitler duke it out, all the while buttressing their own positions. I suspect we may have still seen unspeakable genocides, destruction of property, and displacement of millions. However we may have also seen the collapse of barbaric Communism in the Soviet East much sooner than 1989 and most likely military coups d’etat which would eventually overthrow the maniacal Hitler. The good Germans and Russians would eventually have awakened.
Jun 16, 2008 - 7:50 pm 118. TLM:If we wish to continue speculating about what might have happened during WWII, we should factor in the very real possibility that Hitler’s Germany could have developed the Atomic Bomb before anyone else did. In that case, the rosy scenarios outlined above would be moot.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:42 pm 119. uburoi:He may look mild-mannered, but VDH just dished out the most thoroughgoing intellectual demolition I have read in years. VDH has pummeled Buchanan through the ropes and into the first row of seats. Wake up, Pat, you just got knocked into tomorrow.
Jun 16, 2008 - 8:51 pm 120. Javelin:I was listening to PB spiel about his book on the Jim Bohanon show tonight. He must have backpedaled a but cause he said that Britain shouldn’t have moved to protect Danzing in 1939, as if Hitler was only planing on taking one city instead of annihilating the whole Polish people. Instead, according to PB, Britain should have drawn a line around Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France and warned Hitler they would go to war if they attacked any of them. Since Hitler did attack them, and that happened after Britain and France declared war on Germany, I don’t know how his scenario would have played any different then history.
The Anglo-Franco war plan up to May 1940 was to blockade Germany and starve her without taking any land offensives. They lifted not a finger to help the Poles when the Rhineland was open, at least to the west Bank of the Rhine, and it could have been theres if they had any courage and elan. Not only was that plan a failure from the start, but certain players wanted to attack the USSR to interdict oil shipments and to help the Finns, as if they needed the largest army and country in the world as an enemy along with Germany when they couldn’t even deal with the Germans alone.
Pat Buchanan’s anti-Communism, as well as his vintage anti Semitism has made him a soft sell for all that soft core revisionist trash about Germany. One poster here asked about Germany’s plan if she won the first one, well she was planning on seizing the whole coastline and ports of the allied countries as well as most of their industry and resources. The only trouble with Versailles in the long run, was that no one had the guts to enforce it when the time came. And please leave out the requisite Francophobia, ALL allied countries were in full appeasement and pacifist mode until that became untenable. It’s not like the defense of Belgium, Holland, Lux, Denmark and Norway could be compared to the Poles or the Russians, they were less than the French.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:11 pm 121. Javelin:Matt S,
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:19 pm 122. Gabriel Hanna:“The good Germans and Russians would eventually have awakened.”
Like when, after they destroyed two continents and another hundred million? Even if someone had managed to kill Hitler or Stalin, do you think a Nazi or Soviet successor be any more humane and reasonable?
Matt S, again you are forgetting facts in favor of ideology.
The Soviet Union allied with Nazi Germany BECAUSE they didn’t think the West was going to do anything about Hitler.
And your callous condemnation of tens of millions to Nazi and Communist death doesn’t seem to me very compassionate or humane.
Consider how much the German war effort was hampered by the Holocaust, but they did it anyway. You think war with Stalin would have made it not happen? There WAS war with Stalin and it DID happen!
Consider how many millions Stalin killed and starved in PEACETIME, both before and AFTER WWII.
It is hard to take your arguments seriously. It seems that you would prefer the same number of people, or more, killed so long as you could feel good about the West not taking part.
This is moral idiocy. And historically ignorant. These arguments were put forward at the time by the America Firsters and the Partisan Review crowd–that war to stop Hitler would make us worse than Hitler.
But they are better than you, because they didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.
Jun 16, 2008 - 9:46 pm 123. P. Ami:Matt S,
You sunk so far into a neither world of what if, deeming your imagined possibilities to be the likely scenario on the premise that the situation would sort itself out on its own. Where were the Good Russians in the first 30 years of the Soviet Era? You want to know where? Liquidated, and not like little nitroglycerine drops ready to spontaneously combust under the evil little men whose had them all killed.
You seem to forget that the Molotov-Ribbenitrop Agreement between Russia and Germany was accepted by Hitler precisely because he had planned to go to war with France while worrying only about a Western Front, so lets not think the natural battlefields of Hitler’s mind were solely in the East. Remember, he had a Versailles Treaty to symbolically tear up even as he was tearing it up in reality with every foreign policy he realized. He then planned to cut a deal with England so he’d have time to consolidate his Empire before moving on to his war with Russia.
As a little aside, the Versailles Treaty was signed as a symbol as well. In the 1870’s the German Army marched under the Arc de Triumph for the first time after the French suit for peace had been accepted and the terms signed in the Hall of Mirror in Versailles. French pride had stung since that time and as a gesture to that pride, after defeating Germany in 1919, they wanted the treaty signed in the same place where their surrender had been made official 50 years earlier. 30 some odd years later, Hitler had the train car in which the Versailles Treaty had been signed set up so the French could capitulate in the place where German pride had been stung. Keep in mind, that in Hitler you were not dealing with an Aristocrat or a Junker. Hitler was of the common folk, German, born in a village in Austria to a nobody pair of folk. Yet, the sense of national pride, of deep shame, of a thirst for glory, was something felt by common folk and not only kept by the elite. To think that war is only a game played by the elite, using the simple folk and only for their own edification and profit, ignores Hitler’s roots, not to mention Stalin’s and even Mao’s. It seems the modern age was marked by simple men, not aristocrats, willing and able to send scores or hundreds of millions of people to their doom. Meantime Matt S. seems pleased with himself in stretching his imagination to wonder the good done by allowing these psychopaths their reigns.
This mania of vilifying the West, England, the US, Israel, whomever, all because of their success in commerce and in War, why? I have absolutely no wish to put down my guns, to weaken my nation and to put my fate, my children’s fate, my home and the graves of my ancestors in the hands of fools who believe things will just work themselves out if we refuse to fight. I don’t have your faith in the good Germans or the good Russians, or the good Palestinian, or the good whatever you want to call your mythical creature. I have faith in the strong American, the vigilant Brit, and the well trained Jew. If you think the world has given up on war, you haven’t had a look at the world. China has a million man army. The Japanese are negotiating out of the defense only portion of their armed forces. The Indians have their nukes. All of central Asia is packed with folk buying arms of every kind and G-d help us when nukes get on the market in one of their bazaars. You shouldn’t judge the world by a demographically shrinking Western Europe. The world is plenty satisfied with war and that is not a set of circumstances you can blame on the UK, the US or any other nation on Earth. War is in our nature. Anyone who refuses to take account of that truth is begging for servitude to those who are not so deluded.
Jun 16, 2008 - 10:27 pm 124. Jim Stutts:“John:
VDH as a write in, anyone? He’s surely better informed on the political framework than most of what we have to choose from today. I suspect a poll around here would be a resounding, YES~!”
The man’s merely a professor of history. While my dog would be a better choice than McCain or Obama, Hanson is hardly qualified for the office. He’s certainly not “better informed on the political framework”, judging from his columns. He’s at best a quasi-conservative who thinks it is the role of government to - for instance - give the taxpayer’s money as charity around the world ( note an approving reference in one of his May 2008 columns on NRO). I find that attitude despicable.
I don’t understand this Hanson worship. I’ve enjoyed a few of his Greek histories, but found his comparison of Athens and the United States weak…..
Jun 17, 2008 - 12:32 am 125. JZ:Lets’s cut to the chase, shall we?
Pat Buchanan’s deranged thesis has nothing much to do with WWII. It has to do with appeasement, alright, but not appeasement of Nazi Germany. Instead, it has to do with Pat’s perceived need to appease one of the Nazi’s direct heirs and progeny–the Ayatollahs of Iran.
What is the Ayatollahs and the current president of Iran are feverishly working around to clock to accomplish? That’s right, to “geographically wipe off the map” a certain area of land they call “the Zionist Entity”.
That we should appease Islamofacism today is the reason for this bizarro rewrite of the history of WWII, it has both much and little to do with history.
As an aside note, Professor Hanson sure is cool. I never had a professor who even compares, and neither did the pseudo-conservative-who-is-actually-a-Jew-hating-leftist Pat Buchanan either.
Jun 17, 2008 - 2:33 am 126. seeker:Why Gen. Wallace lost the War? Simple. He lost it because of “Pride”.
Why many people nowadays propose things such as “unnecessary war”… Pride. They think that they have found wisdom and made them superhumans. These people are advocates of One World Government living in peace and harmony.
They think of European Union as as model of new government of governments. They are dreaming. EU is just another layer. Ethnic and ideological struggles are constantly working within Europeans.
One Government to rule the Government built by men and women in pure equality is a dream by “proud people” who think they have already reached the culmination of highest human standard.
By that they forget the the lesson offered by History: Those who tried to fulfill that vision always faltered. Because they are just human being.
Unless humans becomes inhuman, devoid of greed, love, hate, preference, desire, insecurity, fear, advantage, and so on…. that One World Government with No War scenario will remain farce.
We saw the irony of the 60s and 70s: Those who were shouting “Stop Vietnam War” were also people with hate and derision.
Coming up with justifications that WAR is unnecessary and unjust is a total denial of reality.
When an Anti-War movement is doing all it can to stop a war… they are also waging war.
That is reality. Bible Conservatives and Q’ran Fundamentalists are more rational that your so-called average people. They fully understand the inevitability of War to seek justice against the unconverted.
For Atheist who strongly believes in Science: Survival of the Fittest and the elimination of unfit.
Those who tell “War is unnecessary” has an agenda of their own: They want you to lose without even a single fight.
There is no such thing as JUST WAR. War always involve one country’s interest.
Justice can only be safely defined if people have the same vision, color and religion.
War is not dictated by Common Sense. Once in War, take as much as you can. What you get is what you need to repay the damage it costs.
Jun 17, 2008 - 3:35 am 127. Jack Marcotte:That’s the only “half” justice that you can define. Other forms of redress are nonsense.
Essential vdh,
My mistake, Gabriel Hanna, while outlining the problem with “liberal thinkers” and trying to praise your intellectual and conceptual superiority over Matty and at the same time transposing your name I assumed you were a woman with steel for a backbone.
In consequence I have been corrected, rightly so, by Matty doing what he does best, giving me hindsight, and telling me that you are a man with steel in the backbone. Matty does OK in real time being in the moment.
I can’t apologize without upsetting some women, rightly so, and of course women have steel in their backbone just as often as men and those that frequent this blog should vote.
Either way, Gabe I hope you vote. I am sure Matty does to. Thanks for correcting me Matty.
Jun 17, 2008 - 3:35 am 128. Buchanan's Bull:What shows the absurdity of Buchanan being any type of historian is the fact that Hitler declared war on America five days after Germany’s Japanese allies attacked Pearl Harbor. Buchanan is an anti-Semite (he means Jews by “neoconservatives” and would ahve us believe we fought World War 2 for the Jews. That the press gives this hack constant exposure as a political expert is shameful. Brave to VDH!
Jun 17, 2008 - 6:12 am 129. Keith Kunzler:What seems truly tragic to me - and what I cannot seem to get any explanation for - is that sites that purport to be “conservative”, like Human Events and Townhall, continue to give this Jew hating idiot, Pat Buchanan, a platform for his ignorant bile.
Jun 17, 2008 - 8:20 am 130. Harry Bergeron:Bill Buckley had this anti-semitic troglodite figured out 30 years ago.
I fear that PJB is following on the apparent successes that the left has in re-writing history. Why not join in a proven strategem?
Jun 17, 2008 - 8:23 am 131. njoriole:Buchanan is truly a despicable human being, one who gives “Conservative” a bad name by confirming the liberal trope that all conservatives are closet-Nazis and anti-Semites. If there is some way to excuse Germany, pre-1939, or to blame Israel, post-1948, you can bet Pat Buchanan will lead the charge. As a wise man once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Dr. Hanson shows, once again, how Buchanan insists on his own set of facts, since the real ones are too inconvenient for his hateful ideology.
Jun 17, 2008 - 8:29 am 132. njoriole:Buchanan is truly a despicable human being, one who gives “Conservative” a bad name by confirming the liberal trope that all conservatives are closet-Nazis and anti-Semites. If there is some way to excuse Germany, pre-1939, or to blame Israel, post-1948, you can bet Pat Buchanan will lead the charge. As a wise man once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Dr. Hanson shows, once again, how Buchanan insists on his own set of facts, since the real ones are too inconvenient for his hateful ideology.
Jun 17, 2008 - 8:34 am 133. Jim Stutts:Buchanan’s Bull,
Your basis for your charge?
Jun 17, 2008 - 8:45 am 134. Gerald Arcuri:I’ve always considered Patrick Buchanan more of a demagogue than an historian. This article by Victor Hanson helps confirm my impressions. Buchanan is, in the immortal words Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts”.
Jun 17, 2008 - 9:58 am 135. The Mythology of Munich - World Affairs Board:[...] needs to smack ol’ Bucky in the yob with a sockful of warm sh*t. Oh wait, Victor Davis Hanson already did. [...]
Jun 17, 2008 - 10:37 am 136. Fred:I completely agree with Dr. Hanson’s take-down of Patrick Buchanan, but I do respectively disagree with his judgement that the terms Germany imposed on France in 1871 were more harsh than the ones imposed on Germany in 1919. Obviously, the post-war situation was different, since the Franco-Prussian War was quickly over and did not lead to the devestation and economic strain of 4 years of WWI. However, the war indemnity Germany imposed on France in 1871 was paid off relatively soon, and did not begger the country. Obviously, the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was a major issue, but Germany lost territory as a result of WWI, and its a subjective judgement to say that the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was harder on France than the carving up of East Prussia was to the Germans. Bismark did want France out of the way in order to unite Germany under Prussian leadership, but he also intended to reconcile France with the result of the war, and made an attempt to moderate the terms of the treaty (much to the dismay of von Moltke). The Versailles treaty was more deliberately punative than the 1871 terms.
Jun 17, 2008 - 10:55 am 137. Gene Tuttle:In response to “Lirelou”: yes, my First Infantry Division company (C/2/16), that had also landed in Normandy on D Day, did indeed suffer a higher casualty rate on Easter Sunday 1966 (80%, including over 35 dead: http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/Mudsoldiers/abilene.html)
than it did on D Day. I was fortunate to have been one of C company’s infantry replacements, not one of its casualties (http://www.angelfire.com/mo/Blondie/doc19_11.html).
My point was not that draftees should not have been used. I had raised the Vietnam analogy as a challenge to Hanson’s misuse of our war dead by implying Buchan was out of line in challenging prevailing dogma regarding WWII. Buchanan criticized the political decisions that had led to Anglo American interventions in the wars of others. Hanson clings to the simplified version of history forged in the time of war: the Nazis were bad irredentist aggressors (true), so Britain and France were justified in declaring war on them, and the Roosevelt administration was right in encouraging and eventually joining Britain in that war (not necessarily). Buchanan challenged the necessity of expanding that central European war (part of a long tradition in that region). He drew some defensible conclusions after putting together relevant facts that those of us familiar with the more complex history (and the region itself) have long known: the number of Nazi murders up until September 1939 were miniscule compared to the numbers committed by the Bolsheviks; the Bolsheviks had lorded over a massive number of peoples who shared neither their ideology nor their Russian language (as did – albeit in a more gentle way – the European colonial powers) and had invaded a few countries of their own; the tit-for-tat process of ratcheting up injustices cost the lives of millions of additional civilians on both sides, including the already persecuted Jews).
This is not an idle exercise in “what-if speculation” or western self-flagellation, as some commentators have implied. It is an analysis that is relevant today because Hanson and his likes tend to help themselves to selected lessons of WWII history in order to justify new overseas adventures. I lost count of the times that our leaders had pointed to the lessons of Munich in that regard, but I remember it was an argument I heard as a teenager being prepped for war in Southeast Asia. Buchanan is performing a much needed service in examining the simplistic assumptions behind the ever recurring Munich analogy.
Jun 17, 2008 - 12:08 pm 138. Javelin:Correction to my initial comment: Hanson’s claim that I challenged was that Germany had attacked France 3 times in 70 years, not the other way around.
Buchanan’s Bull:
Jun 17, 2008 - 1:11 pm 139. Javelin:You struck right at the heart of it. Pat’s innate anti-Semitism causes him no end of grief. It comes out every time he comments about neo-cons, even during the ‘91 Gulf War. It causes him to defend Ukranian holocaust helpers, it causes him to vilify Israel and support her enemies. When Jewish protestors at Auschwitz picketed the nunnery there, Buchanan vilified them as enemies of the Church. I think his hatred of Jewish people, coupled with his knee jerk pre Vatican ll Catholicism, makes his history an exercise in Jew baiting. Look how he tried to rationalize teh Holocaust, as if the Germans did it in response to our war effort. The list goes on and on. That’s not to say that occassionally Buchanan is correct, nobody says he isn’t intelligent or articulate.
Mr. Stutts is that proof enough for you?
mr. Marcotte
Jun 17, 2008 - 1:14 pm 140. TootSweet:What exactly do you mean by liberal thinkers? I think your generalization is as dishonest as it is shallow. Who are the liberal thinkers here? Pat Buchanan?
“Baker and Buchanan show courage to question the common wisdom of … war in general as a tool of national policy.”
War has clearly been identified as an unwise tool of national policy, particularly as described within this column. Neither Hitler, Stalin, Saddam or any of many other modern statists that opened wars with their neighbors have demonstrated war to be wise or successful. Little courage is required to preach to the ordained.
Said otherwise, war as a tool of national policy is a weak strawman.
However, democracies responding to attack AND WINNING has been demonstrated to be quite successful for the resultant democratic populations of both parties.
Jun 17, 2008 - 1:55 pm 141. Steve - San Francisco:My father, West Point ‘43, fought in and lived through WWII. He is one of PJB’s biggest fans, and so am I. It never ceases to amaze how posters can deride PJB for using “neo-con” as a code for jew when neo-con was a self-imposed label for activist foreign policy until the Iraq war started going bad. Then, the very same people who had proudly refered to themselves as such decided it was no longer flattering. Their solution was to squelch the term by hurling epithets such as anti-semite at those who used it even when clearly appropriate. While Neo-con is descriptive of interventionists who are hell-bent on changing the world. Anti-semite is a true slur. It can’t be disproved or argued. Virtually all its targets are silenced. But, a brave few (PJB and Joe Sobran in particular) have the guts to sustain the smear and speak for the timid rest of us. Sobran said it well, “An anti-semite used to be one who hated jews, but now it is one who jews hate.” Maybe it is because the state of Israel is a product of WWII, that many Israel-firsters get firery when one questions whether WWII was worth the carnage.
Jun 17, 2008 - 2:41 pm 142. Gene Tuttle:Lirelou:
I had raised the Vietnam analogy as a challenge to Hanson’s misuse of our war dead by implying Buchan was out of line in challenging prevailing dogma regarding WWII. Buchanan criticized the political decisions that had led to Anglo American interventions in the wars of others. Hanson clings to the simplified version of history forged in the time of war: the Nazis were bad irredentist aggressors (true), so Britain and France were justified in declaring war on them, and the Roosevelt administration was right in encouraging and eventually joining Britain in that war (not necessarily). Buchanan challenged the necessity of expanding that central European war (part of a long tradition in that region). He drew some defensible conclusions after putting together relevant facts that those of us familiar with the more complex history (and the region itself) have long known: the number of Nazi murders up until September 1939 were miniscule compared to the numbers committed by the Bolsheviks; the Bolsheviks had lorded over a massive number of peoples who shared neither their ideology nor their Russian language (as did – albeit in a more gentle way – the European colonial powers) and had invaded a few countries of their own; the tit-for-tat process of ratcheting up injustices cost the lives of millions of additional civilians on both sides, including the already persecuted Jews).
This is not an idle exercise in “what-if speculation” or western self-flagellation, as some commentators have implied. It is an analysis that is relevant today because Hanson and his likes tend to help themselves to selected lessons of WWII history in order to justify new overseas adventures. I lost count of the times that our leaders had pointed to the lessons of Munich in that regard, but I remember it was an argument I heard as a teenager being prepped for war in Southeast Asia. Buchanan is performing a much needed service in examining the simplistic assumptions behind the ever recurring Munich analogy.
By the way, my 1st Infantry Division company (C/2/16), that had also landed in Normandy on D Day, did indeed suffer a higher casualty rate on Easter Sunday 1966 (80%, including over 35 dead: http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/Mudsoldiers/abilene.html)
Jun 17, 2008 - 3:03 pm 143. Jim Stutts:than it did on D Day. I was fortunate to have been one of C company’s infantry replacements, not one of its casualties (http://www.angelfire.com/mo/Blondie/doc19_11.html).
My point was not that draftees should not have been used.
Correction to my initial comment: Hanson’s historical claim that I challenged was that Germany had attacked France 3 times in 70 years, not the other way around.
“Mr. Stutts is that proof enough for you?”
You didn’t present proof at all. What does his lack of support for Israel have to do with anti-Semitism? If that is your guide, then our very own Secretary of State is virulently anti-Semitic - she supports FUNDING the enemies of Israel (and us). Both support an independent Palestinian state (something I consider insane). Is Dr. Rice an anti-Semite for it? Is President Bush? No - they’re just wrong on an aspect of policy. Using words like “racist” or “anti-semitic” in this way voids the meaning of those words. You’re trying to shut down debate.
Here was his response to the initial accusations: http://www.buchanan.org/pma-99-1105-wallstjl.html
I sometimes agree with Buchanan. I sometimes agree with Hanson.
I don’t recall Buchanan actually “vilifying” Israel. I do recall him preferring us to act out of our own interests first. I think he’s quite wrong on the matter of Islam and the Middle East, but I’m not going to stamp my feet, call him names, and be dismissive of everything ELSE he says - some of which is quite true.
Jun 17, 2008 - 4:06 pm 144. Gabriel Hanna:I don’t recall Buchanan actually “vilifying” Israel..
In 1990 Pat Buchanan said that Capitol Hill is “Israeli-occupied territory”. I think that’s anti-Semitic enough. I remember discussing that with a secretary at the Embassy of Jordan in 1993, it made quite an impression on him.
There are no “Israelis” in Congress. There are American Jews. The accusation of dual loyalty is an old anti-Semitic canard.
Jun 17, 2008 - 4:20 pm 145. Jim Stutts:“Gabriel Hanna”,
So, you equate having any disagreement with the nation of Israel with anti-Semitism? That doesn’t follow.
Let me give you an example: while I appreciate Israel as an ally, I take great issue with their technology transfers (in some cases, technology the US taxpayer helped pay for) to China. Does that make me an anti-Semite? Is any criticism of Israel the political entity allowed?
The amusing thing here is that Buchanan is quite wrong. The Hill isn’t Israeli-influenced and never was. It’s Saudi-influenced.
Jun 17, 2008 - 5:38 pm 146. Matt S:What about America first? I know many will slur the idea. But isn’t it patriotic to support your nation above all others. Don’t we in our personal lives protect our homes and our families above others? We don’t go out at night in search of monsters to destroy. Why should our government send out our children to do the same?
I for one would never allow my children to be taken to some filthy desert wasteland to suffer and die for some neocon idea of benevolent global hegemony.
Jun 17, 2008 - 6:49 pm 147. Jack Marcotte:“Javelin?”, I get it. You strike to the heart of truth, you have speared my shallowness with your secret undercover name that gives you your powerful and all knowing identity on blogs.
However, the explanation is you would have had to read the previous comments to know what I was talking about. So you “missed”, sorry Javelin. Next time will be better–remember to “reload” and don’t let your cape get in the way.
Jun 17, 2008 - 6:58 pm 148. Stew Gottlieb:Pat B. never met a Nazi he didn’t like !
Jun 17, 2008 - 7:46 pm 149. Gabriel Hanna:Jim Stutts–
You can argue with a straw man, or with what I actually said. I did not say that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
What did Buchanan mean by “Israeli-occupied territory”? Did he mean citizens of Israel sit in Congress? No, he was referring to the what he regards as the inappropriate influence of American Jews.
It would have been anti-Catholic to say that JFK, merely because he is Catholic, couldn’t be trusted not to hand America to the Pope, and it is anti-Semitic to say that American Jews, merely by being Jewish, work for Israel and not America.
If Buchanan could actually name specific Jews, in Congress or with great influence there, who were acting as agents for Israel, that would be a different story.
But he has no such evidence. He distrusts Jews because they are Jews, and being anti-Zionist is the pretext.
Jun 17, 2008 - 9:03 pm 150. Gabriel Hanna:Matt S–
SERIOUSLY get a history book.
Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. So what’s your beef with America fighting Hitler? He declared war on the US, not the other way around–so did Italy and the other satellites.
One moment you argue one way, and the other you argue the opposite, all in service of the same point?
Free your mind from your ideology.
What does the pacifist do when told, “Let me enslave you or I kill you?” What does he do when told “I will kill you if you fight me, or if you don’t?”
He sucks his thumb and pretends it isn’t happening. But such things have been the norm for most of human history.
Jun 17, 2008 - 9:17 pm 151. Darrel Sissons:Victor Davis Hanson is my favorite contempory writer, He understands history as applied to our present as no one else does. If Pat Buchanan doesn’t have some sort political demagogery hidden up his sleeve, it shows he has a poor understanding of history and what this history means in relation to our present situation.
Jun 17, 2008 - 10:46 pm 152. traeh:Darrel Sissons
I don’t want to be unfair to Buchanan, so I’ll put this as a question rather than an assertion: Does he have a crypto-racist, crypto-anti-Semitic agenda? It seems like he often flirts, in one way or another, with some kind of racial agenda.
Jun 17, 2008 - 11:58 pm 153. traeh:I think JZ probably hit the mark:
“JZ: Pat Buchanan’s deranged thesis…has to do with Pat’s perceived need to appease one of the Nazi’s direct heirs and progeny–the Ayatollahs of Iran.”
Buchanan has certainly argued repeatedly against taking any military action whatsoever against Iran, whose rulers — or some of them — are evidently planning to nuke Israel at the first opportunity. Nukes will either be fired directly by missile, or else passed off to terrorists to deliver. The plan seems to be to detonate those nukes not just in Israel, but in the U.S., which Iran every week in large rallies curses as the Great Satan that should be destroyed.
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:23 am 154. William of OC:What exactly did the Allies fight for? After WWII half of Europe was consigned to Soviet occupation for 40 years. Today, the West is ruled by hostile power elites guided by multicultural ideologies. Our nations are undergoing an invasion from the third world. Our Christian values have been mocked and replaced by a decadent “if it feels good do it” philosophy. Hedonism reigns. Porn and Hollywood dominate. In Europe, the EU increasingly cracks down on the freedoms of a populace that opposes the ongoing Islamic occupation of the continent. In the US, Mexico is slowly conquering US territories through demographic warfare. And still, our so-called “leaders” do nothing. VDH himself wrote a book about the Mexican invasion and occupation of California. Tell me, what exactly did the Allies of WWII accomplish?
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:17 am 155. John Meier:Pat Buchanan’s identification of Hanson as “court historian of the neoconservatives” obviously struck a nerve, as his own wild reply and those of his followers here demonstrate. Hanson is contemptible, but sadly, symbolic of the widespread pop culture level of history that even ostensibly “professional” mainstream academia historians regurgitate. He seems to have received his talking points education from Neocon seminars, Indiana Jones movies and perhaps the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. God knows he doesn’t have the intellect to question the two-dimensional red-herrings and straw-men constructed by the Neocon puppet masters pulling his strings. He’s probably trying to replace George Will as the State-sanctioned, suitably convincing “opposition” to the left-liberal status quo, cashing checks on the side from Big Brother. What a cad. Pseudo-conservatives are even worse than liberals, because they are far more intellectually dishonest. Did Hanson get his academic credentials from a Cracker Jack box?
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:31 am 156. Jim Stutts:“You can argue with a straw man, or with what I actually said. I did not say that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.”
You equated criticism of Israel - in this case, perceived political influence of same - with anti-Semitism.
“What did Buchanan mean by “Israeli-occupied territory”? Did he mean citizens of Israel sit in Congress? No, he was referring to the what he regards as the inappropriate influence of American Jews.”
I believe he was speaking about lobbyists, not Congress, and policies he believed subordinated American interests to those of the nation of Israel. Whether or not that was true, all Americans should be concerned about foreign influence in Washington. No matter the country. No country, except perhaps Britain, can be considered a friend of the United States. Nations act in their own interests. Just like Israel did when they sold advanced military technology to China. That was the actions of no friend. Our funding of the Palestinians is not the actions of a friend, either.
“But he has no such evidence. He distrusts Jews because they are Jews, and being anti-Zionist is the pretext.”
Your basis for this claim? What he has stated he believes is that we are embroiled in the Middle East because of our support for Israel. That’s not correct (oil and Saudi lobbying is correct), but that is his political outlook. You would call that belief “anti-Semitism”.
Jun 18, 2008 - 7:34 am 157. Matt S:Gabriel,
Why did Hitler declare war on the United States? Because the US was already heavily involved in the British military effort against him. If we would have just stayed out of the “entangling alliance” of the Lend-Lease as our forefathers warned, there would be no reason for Hitler to declare war on a nation thousands of miles away.
But you are missing the point of Buchanan’s book, if you have even read it. The point is that Britain made the blunders which dragged the rest of the English speaking world into an Eastern European conflict between two ancient rivals. It was Britain’s guarantee of Poland in 1939, a promise they knew they could not keep (and did not keep in the postwar sellout of Poland to Stalin), which unnecessarily dragged her into a war which would lead to the destruction of her empire and relegation to a “second rate” world power.
Please do some reading yourself.
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:26 am 158. Benevolent Misanthropy » Archive » “Now, it’s going to start hurting in a few minutes, so take one of these for the pain, and this should help with the swelling.”:[...] Victor Davis Hanson responded. And didn’t pull any punches, either. [...]
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:50 am 159. Gene Tuttle:Yes, Europe and Asia certainly had their problems last century.
The problem for the US started when Wilson took General Pershing away from the Mexican border and sent him to France.
Our country was a geo-strategic paradise. We really could have found a better way of dealing with the mess the across the oceans. That’s the point Buchanan was making.
Mat S. is probably right: few of the commentators on this blog seem to have read PB’s book (which in many ways sums up what quite a few noted historians have been saying for years).
By the way, my friendly attempt yesterday to respond to “Lirelou’s” gentle critique of my initial comment apparently was blocked by the censors?
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:57 am 160. Gabriel Hanna:Jim Stutts–
It’s no good telling people I wrote something I didn’t write–they can read it for themselves. If you interpret what I said that way, all it shows is a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
Pat Buchanan uses “Jews” and “Israel” interchangeably–from 1992:
“If we can give 50 Phantoms [jet fighters] to the Jews, and a multi-billion dollar welfare program for the blacks…why not help the Catholics save their collapsing school system.”
Not all critics of Israel are anti-Semites, but all anti-Semites are critics of Israel. (If you think that sentence means I’m equating the two, then you don’t understand English.) Pat Buchanan, I think, has made it clear that he belongs to both groups.
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:20 am 161. Gabriel Hanna:Matt S–
It was Britain’s guarantee of Poland in 1939, a promise they knew they could not keep (and did not keep in the postwar sellout of Poland to Stalin), which unnecessarily dragged her into a war which would lead to the destruction of her empire and relegation to a “second rate” world power.
So where should they have drawn the line? At France? At Denmark and Norway? With Germany getting stronger with every country it absorbs, how could they have kept any further promises? They couldn’t help France. They couldn’t help Russia until 1943.
They tried it YOUR way and it didn’t work. Things kept getting worse. You, apparently, would have handed all of Europe to Hitler and preened yourself on how clean your hands were.
Jesus said something about “whited sepulchres” which you should look up.
Jun 18, 2008 - 10:24 am 162. Gene Tuttle:If I might answer Gabriel Hanna latest question to Matt S (PB also covers it in his book that hardly anyone on this blog is willing to read): the line could have been drawn at the Channel, but that very likely would not have been necessary. The Germans had plenty on their plate recovering lands that were heavily populated by Germans who preferred being governed by Germans, as once was the case. They also wanted more “living room” in Eastern Europe where Russians lorded over peoples all the way to the Pacific. Not very neighborly! But they weren’t bent on taking away the colonial lands where non-French speakers were lorded over by the French, where non-English speakers were lorded over by the British, where non-Dutch speakers were lorded over by the Dutch, etc. etc.
I don’t hear PB or Mat S. or anyone saying the Germans had a right to take such lands, as our American ancestors helped themselves to Indian lands not a whole lot of decades earlier. The issue is simply – as PB’s book title suggests – was it a necessary war from the Brits or American’s perspective? Buchanan and an increasing number of reasonable and informed people believe not.
Here’s one of the foremost historians of central European history, the late A.J.P. Taylor, in a preface to his 1960 book “The Origins of the Second World War:”
Quote. Every newspaper in the country applauded the Munich settlement with the exception of Reynolds’ News. .. Of course the “appeasers” thought firstly of their own countries as most statesmen do and are usually praised for doing. But they thought of others also. They doubted whether the peoples of eastern Europe would be best served by war. The British stand in September 1939 was no doubt heroic; but it was heroism mainly at the expense of others. The British people suffered comparatively little during six years of war. The Poles suffered catastrophe during the war, and did not regain their independence after it. In 1938 Czechoslovakia was betrayed. In 1939 Poland was saved. Less than one hundred thousand Czechs died during the war. Six and a half million Poles were killed. Which was better—to be a betrayed Czech or a saved Pole? I am glad Germany was defeated and Hitler destroyed. I also appreciate that others paid the price for this, and I recognise the honesty of those who thought the price too high.
End of Quote.
Let’s keep the debate at that level.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:31 am 163. P. Ami:Gene,
Jun 18, 2008 - 12:53 pm 164. P. Ami:the Germans didn’t stop at annexing the German speaking portions of Czechoslovakia or Poland. The Germans did not stop at Danzig. Not only d the events of History clearly show that your arguments are baseless but so does the Nazi blueprin, Mein Kumpf, clearly states the real objective of the Nazi Empire. Every one of Germany’s “peaceful” conquests upset the balance of power in Europe. Even if the Germans weren’t yet colonizing Africa or Asia, they were colonizing Europe proper. The Nazi intent was to enslave amd kill every non German and once those slaves were spent, weed out impuritities in Germans through eugenic warfare. The whole basis of Nazi ideology is constant warfare and the purification of humanity through the rituals of violence.
speaking to the problem of not having read his books, I have read numerous articles, listened to him speak and heard him interviewed while he’s made the round to sell this paticular book. This entitles me to an opinion regarding PBs views. Are they totally informed? No. But, the value in studying his convolusion in thought, twistiness of facts, and contra sensible opinion is negated by the limits on my time. I don’t have to read every word published by a thinker in order to get the gist of their intentions.
Jun 18, 2008 - 1:34 pm 165. Aaron's cc::Hannity, Hewitt, Medved, et al need to cease to give “the man who never defended anyone who wasn’t an accused Nazi” a forum. There is NOTHING that Buchanan can contribute to the conservative movement.
For American Christians who believe in the divine promise from Genesis of “Those who bless you will be blessed and those who curse you will be cursed”, the downfall of Britain began after they reneged on the Balfour Declaration and carved out 2/3 of the Palestinian Mandate to become the artificial nation of Transjordan. Israel has, since them been fighting to keep even the majority of the remaining 1/3. America, which continues to have its diplomats cajole Israel into carving off additional territories to appease those who would Dhimmify, convert or slay us (the Koran provides NO other option), is in jeopardy of following Britain into insignificance because of the Anglosphere’s kowtowing to Wahhabism. Our prisons are captive audiences for Wahhabist preaching. Our libraries and universities are eagerly pocketing Wahhabist bribes.
If we never lose enough casualties in any one blow, say, fewer than 100 at a time, they will attack us forever and the West will succumb. We have not even BEGUN to develop the rhetoric necessary to combat asymmetric warfare. Of course, this would require destroying the Islamic dream of hegemony deader than God-Emperor Hirohito’s dreams and the dreams of the Third Reich. The only safe Muslim is one who feels Islam is not on the ascendancy.
Jun 18, 2008 - 1:36 pm 166. Jim Stutts:“It’s no good telling people I wrote something I didn’t write–they can read it for themselves. If you interpret what I said that way, all it shows is a lack of reading comprehension on your part.”
Actually, I’ve read that into most of your posts - particularly most of your complaints as to Buchanan’s quotes. Especially the one referring to his complaint at what he thought to be undo influence of the government of Israel on the Hill.
“Pat Buchanan, I think, has made it clear that he belongs to both groups.”
On the contrary. It’s far from clear:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/buchanan-pat/buchanan-on-buchanan.html
Jun 18, 2008 - 1:39 pm 167. abe coen:Hanson gets schooled. Aain Hanson doesn’t offer any credible defense to the factual charges laid down by Buchanan. He skirts the points by focusing on ancient Greece. Stick to reading the “300″ comic books..(cough) graphic novels. Your justifications for interventionist wars that don’t directly (and unconvincingly indirectly on even the most generous scenarios) advance national security, as is the point of the constitutional mandate to “Provide for the common defense”. The common defense of American Citizens O’ Saged One, not the common defense of the Iraqi’s, or the Chechens, or the Italians, or the Israelis. Put $1 Trillion military upgrades, into missile defense, border/port security, troop training and benefits, fbi and cia, instead of spending that money on a war and an inernational presence that wastes resources and diminishes our readiness and might. That is a genius proposition Mr. Hanson. All of you who think you are “conservatives” here, maybe you should read the constitution again, and this time think put some cognitive effort into it.
Jun 18, 2008 - 2:22 pm 168. Steve Nelson:John B, the seminal work on the subject is Fritz Fischer’s Griff Nach Der Weltmacht (The Grasp for World Power) written in the 1960s. A lot of German and non-German reviewers have remarked at how it stripped the post-WWII West German political elite (specifically, people like Konrad Adenauer in their private moments) of the dignity that at least their fathers in WWI had only fought when war was forced on Germany and that Versailles was the main cause of Nazism, and not something poisonous in the German national character. The East German Communists, of course, were allowed by their Soviet masters to blame the Western capitalist powers for spawning Hitler.
Now with Fischer’s book in evidence drawing heavily on WWI era archives, the best one can say about the Kaiserreich’s attempts to create Mitteleuropa was that the Germans were no worse than the Belgians and French in their imperialism and that they started the game too late and tried to build their empire on a non-dark Continent. You can also add that the Kaiser broke with the shrewd policy of Bismarck that picked off rivals one by one and finally left France without allies in 1871. By alienating Russia, something that on paper would seem hard to do given the bloodties and personal meetings between the two royal houses, the Kaiser undid all of Bismarck’s decades of work and doomed Germany to fighting the next war on multiple fronts. The Germans consequently fought better than their adversaries on all Fronts (especially the blundering British) in WWI precisely because their military was grossly outnumbered and had to be superb to hold on (this is the argument of The Myth of the Great War, an American revisionist history that is sympathetic to the French but is relentless in its criticism of the British high command). Hitler’s early successes in Blitzkrieg arguably a more mechanized extension of the “stormtroop/short hurricane bombardment” tactics Ludendorff employed with great success on the Western Front in early 1918. In my view the Kaiser might have won the war if not for his stupidity in allowing Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare to drag an isolationist U.S. into the conflict. What really demoralized the German High Command in WWI into surrender was not just the failure of their Western offensives but the introduction of 1,000,000 American troops who inflicted casulties on them almost man for man, with millions more American troops potentially on the way (see Belleau Wood, a small battle but the biggest the Marines would fight until WWII).
As a final caveat, I would say that Grif Nach Der Weltmacht was written only after Germany’s crimes in WWII were revealed, and hence Fritz Fischer can be accused of painting WWI era German politicians and the Kaiser’s war in darker colors. I specifically asked Niall Ferguson, whose revisionist book The Pity of War blamed England for turning the Franco-German-Balkan war of 1914 into a World War, if he felt this way about Fischer’s thesis (arguing essentially that, save the genocidal element, Germany’s war aims in WWI were basically the same as in WWII) when the former visited the University of Texas in 2004. Ferguson’s answer didn’t exactly address my specific question, but I remember everyone being impressed by his smooth Oxford delivery.
Jun 18, 2008 - 2:54 pm 169. Gene Tuttle:P.Ami:
Historians have argued for decades over whether Mein Kampf was a blueprint. A.J.P. Taylor, whom I quoted earlier, believes not. There’s nothing in Hitler’s recorded dreams about he or his satraps sitting on the British throne, and reams of other material indicating an admiration for England and desire to let it have its empire. Princeton historian Arnaud Mayer, himself a Jewish refugee from Hitler, quoted from Mein Kampf in his book on the Holocaust (Why Did the Heavens Not Darken) that Hitler “proposed to stop Germany’s ‘external drive to southern and Western Europe’ in order to focus ‘on the lands in the East.’ ”
But whatever Hitler’s dreams were, the more significant question was what was he able and likely to do. As I said before, he had a full plate. He never could have subdued the US and – as the Battle for Britain showed – he was not able to subdue the UK either. If the war against Stalin’s state had not worn out both countries, time would have. Like the Soviet Union, China and my old adversary Vietnam, repressive governments eventually mellow.
The suffering of the Jews, tragic as it was before Britain and France’s declared war on Germany, was accelerated as a result. Mayer noted that aside from the several dozens of Jews killed in the so-called Crystal Night, and unlike earlier Russian pogroms, “there was little orchestrated physical violence and few Jews were actually killed” by the Nazis prior to the outbreak of war. Stalin had killed by the millions prior to the war. In the period between the invasion of Poland and the Soviet Union some 20 months later, “between 5,000 and 10,000 Jews, virtually all of them adult males, were murdered individually” by the Nazis and two to three times that number of Jews of all ages and sexes died in the Polish ghettos of disease and malnutrition. British neutrality might not have lowered much the number of executions, but the British food blockade certainly did not help the latter victims. (For perspective, incensed Poles massacred 4,000 to 5,000 German civilians after the invasion, and 25,000 Polish officers were executed by Stalin’s forces after they invaded Poland on the heels of Hitler’s forces).
The sad fact is that with or without British and later American intervention (Roosevelt was waging a de-facto war before the Germans made it official following Japan’s lead), the Eurasian continent was doomed to tragedy during that period. Buchanan’s thesis that such intervention only made things worse is highly defensible (i.e. both through the escalated massacres of soldiers and civilians and the 50 year legacy of Communist oppression all the way to the Pacific.)
This is not an idle exercise in “what-if speculation” or western self-flagellation, as some commentators have implied. It is an analysis that is relevant today because Hanson and his neo-cons tend to help themselves to selected lessons of WWII history in order to justify new overseas adventures. I lost count of the times that our leaders had pointed to the lessons of Munich in that regard, but I remember it was an argument I heard as a teenager being prepped for war in Southeast Asia. Buchanan is performing a much needed service in examining the simplistic assumptions behind the ever recurring Munich analogy.
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:01 pm 170. Nina Carlotti:Hanson, unfortunately, is at least as doctrinaire an historian as Buchanan. Not once during the first five years of the Iraq War did he admit that there was even a problem. Then, after the Surge started working, he announced that things were getting much better–much better than they had been back when he was telling us everything was fine.
Jun 18, 2008 - 3:42 pm 171. Ted Lawrence:Frankly, I don’t trust a word Hanson says.
Although Buchanan has been an apologist for the Nazi’s for some time, I don’t think this last book is as ridiculous as some of his others. Basically he takes the right wing hope from before the war (that he learned from his father) which was that if America stayed out and Britain could hang on, eventually the Russians and Germans would have a knock down, drag out to the end and we could pick up the pieces. That is not too far from what happened, but of course the problem is that if the British had stayed out, Hitler wasn’t stopping in Russia. He made it very clear in several places that he wanted to rule the world and he developed alliances with all sorts of countries that you wouldn’t think of as natural allies of his basically using the same scheme a con man uses in a pyramid game. His pitch was join us early and help rule the world and if we happen to lose, your country may be able to play off political disagreements on the other side or if you go the other way and Germany wins, you will be slaves. Buchanan tried to imply that Hitler had no territorial ambitions beyond Europe, but any honest reading of German papers will tell you that is nonsense. Hitler was preaching that the world was supposed to be ruled by an elite and a lot of people in all countries saw themselves as that elite.
Jun 18, 2008 - 4:21 pm 172. Ted Lawrence:I will add that I just read some of the other comments and the Buchanan apologists really need to read more on the subject. Hitler was not just about the Germans ruling, he was about creating an elite in every country (which is one of the reasons so many German’s were in South America before the war building alliances with those nations) Racism was a part of it, but Hitler was very quick to brand people aryan’s when he could use them (i.e. the Japanese) but what he really believed in was special people, created by god to make all of the decisions.
Jun 18, 2008 - 4:27 pm 173. Tim Starr:Wernher von Braun told my grandfather that Germany was only months away from building atomic bombs when the war ended. This was when my grandfather, a mechanic in Patton’s 3rd Army, was driving von Braun out of Germany after the war so von Braun could go work for America. Von Braun was working on the transatlantic rockets that would’ve delivered those atomic warheads to America as an SS officer before the war’s end. The way he put his skills to use helping America build rockets for NASA, etc., prove that he could’ve done it if Germany hadn’t been defeated in time.
Buchanan ignores this, and cherry picks his other data to deny the German threat to America. For instance, he claims that the US never came under attack by any German surface navy ship. This is only because Germany had chosen to put its limited resources into submarines instead of surface ships, as it had planned until the Anglo-French declaration of war. As it was, German subs had a field day on America’s east coast after Germany declared war on America. Buchanan also denies the German air threat to America, claiming that Germany’s “Amerikabomber” projects didn’t contemplate planes capable of return flights back across the Atlantic. True - but the pilots wouldn’t have to come back alive in order to attack America, as the Japanese kamikazes proved. How many Amerikabombers would Germany have been able to build and arm with atomic payloads if Germany hadn’t been stopped by the Allies?
Furthermore, the Japanese _did_ build a plane capable of round-trips across the _Pacific_ from Japan to America’s west coast. It was a flying boat, that would refuel with Japanese subs at pre-arranged stops in the middle of the ocean. If Japan could do it, so could Germany.
Only the total and swift defeat of Germany & Japan kept America from being atom-bombed by those countries.
Buchanan cherry-picks his evidence, only presenting that which is favorable to his thesis, and most of that consisting of half-truths, as is the opinion of the man who reviewed Buchanan’s book in Buchanan’s own magazine, “The American Conservative,” John Lukacs. Among the points others haven’t yet mentioned here are:
1) Hitler promised not to invade any more of Czechoslovakia than the Sudetenland, then invaded & annexed all of Czechoslovakia. Hitler promised not to invade any further countries after that, then invaded Poland and the Baltics, splitting Eastern Europe with Stalin and. As part of this deal, Hitler promised not to invade Russia, then he broke that promise, too. Yet Buchanan believes that the Western Allies ought to have trusted Hitler’s promises not to attack them. In fact, Hitler’s Second Book outlined a plan to conquer Eastern Europe to acquire the resources needed to develop the military might to bring the fight to America, which Hitler saw as Europe’s greatest rival in the world.
2) Buchanan denies that the German bombing of Guernica in the Spanish Civil War was a war crime, but accuses the Allies of a war crime for Dresden. Furthermore, the upper-bound of the range he gives for the estimated death toll for Dresden is 250,000, which was fabricated by David Irving, the infamous Holocaust Denier.
Buchanan’s worse than merely ignorant or uneducated. He employs the method of Chomsky or Holocaust Deniers, of mastering volumes of evidence for the sole purpose of pretending that his positions have support from credible sources. In fact, when his sources are credible, they don’t support his positions, and when they do support his positions they invariably turn out not to be not the least bit credible. Those who lack the time or knowledge to check all his sources are in danger of being seriously misled by him.
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:24 pm 174. Javelin:Pat Buchanan’s anti-semitism is a fact, just like Mel Gibson’s. Even William F. Buckley explicitly stated that better than my efforts. This has nothing to do with legitimate criticism of Israel or other red herrings like that, but as far as I am concerned, his book not so covert defense of Nazi Germany is anti-Semtism as well as anti-Communism ron amok. As bad as the post war Soviet block was in Europe, it was preferable to the Nazis. Anyone who disagrees is a moron or a fascist. If we had chosed to sit out the war, as radicals on both ends suggested, we would have been a Nazi state or still fighting them.
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:30 pm 175. Wednesday Links | The Doctor Is In:[...] No need to call the Incredible Hulk: if you want to witness a good thrashing and smashing, read VDH take down Pat Buchanan. Not pretty, but very, very satisfying: Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator [...]
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:49 pm 176. Mike:Hanson is a joke and an insult to objection histiography, if there ever one.
He is a court historian for the neocons, and should be ashamed of his shameless career.
Jun 18, 2008 - 6:49 pm 177. Matt S:javelin,
Please spare us the holier than thou political correctness. It is people like you who use the bludgeon of anti-semitism to silence ideas that conflict with your global ideology.
To defend the murder of tens of millions by Josef Stalin as a result of having the world made safe for Communism by an unnecessary war is truly the moronic position. If we and the British did not intervene, those two maniacs would be left to battle each other. I think you might want to look again at the Soviet bloc and its unspeakable crimes you “prefer”.
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:12 pm 178. Jim Stutts:“Wernher von Braun told my grandfather that Germany was only months away from building atomic bombs when the war ended. ”
Von Braun may have believed that, but it wasn’t true. They were also FAR from producing ICBMs. The plans for bombardment of American cities involved either a bomber that was never built or sub-launched A4s.
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:12 pm 179. Red Phillips:Hanson is a neocon hack. Buchanan’s description of him as the court historian of the neocons is exactly correct. We can’t have anyone questioning WWII mythology because in the simple minds of neocons it’s always 1939 and every tin pot dictator is the next Hitler. To disturb the mythology disturbs the neocon interventionists reason for being.
Please don’t confuse Jacobin revolutionary neocons with authentic conservatives. Authentic conservatives seek to conserve. Jacobin neocons preach permanent revolution and creative destruction.
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:18 pm 180. Michael T:Buchanan= Irish David Irving=revisionist dreck. Why would a serious publisher print his drivel?
Jun 18, 2008 - 8:25 pm 181. P. Ami:Matt S.
How odd, Hitler wrote a book detailing his ideology and plans. He came curiously close to actualizing his book’s details and yet folk want to blame the British for the direction Hitler’s foreign policy took. We are sitting here 70 years after the well documented facts of that era and rehashing scholastic arguments on whether a man meant to act as he did even though he wrote a book telling us exactly how he would behave. Next you’ll try to convince us that the Soviets put a man on the moon. Seeing that we were only setting up the Apollo Project in response to the advances made by the Soviets. Never mind that Kennedy promised the world that we would put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, never mind that American scientists, industry, astronauts and taxes were what sent us to the Moon, the Soviets made us do it so it is their accomplishment. These thoughts are so twisty I want to take a nap after trying to come up with a parallel revision to history that comes close to matching Buchanan’s. That his reasoning appeals to your logic sets me wondering what abuse you suffered at the hands of your teachers.
Javelin is using the rapier of anti-Semitism where it fits, in the guts of Buchanan’s ideology. Meanwhile Buchanan himself, and you with his minions, hide behind bogus scholarship to argue cherry-picked points. This discussion is already redundant and ugly seeing that no matter how many established facts folk bring to the table you are prepared to twist the facts and their messengers to your fantasy and call it scholarship. And please, Javelin never defended Stalin’s murders of tens of millions or claimed to prefer those murders over the ones committed by Hitler’s programs. Your determination to paint Javelin as some Stalin apologist lacks anything substantial to stand on, just like Buchanan’s agenda driven revision of WWII. Anyone with experience in the world knows you pick your fights. Only the immature and violently deranged will fight all comers at all times. A hot war against a race-supremacist, National Socialism became a cold war of attrition against International Socialism. We won both wars and are now negotiating the ancillary conflicts kicked up in the scuffle of those momentous victories over evil. If we can put down Islamo-Fascism and contain China, we should be well on our way towards another Pax Americana. I hope the work our generation and the next is undertaking makes for a better world for my grandchildren. Sitting here in the US, isolating ourselves from the many business interests and points of conflict, will not make them go away. They will become someone else’s business opportunity and the conflicts will follow us home.
Jun 18, 2008 - 9:59 pm 182. Derrick Smith:First, both PJB and VDH have forgotten more history than I ever will know.
Second, I have not read PJB’s book so I cannot comment on it until I do.
However, even if I end up disagreeing with him on this, I cannot just throw out the baby with the bathwater. Buchanan has been right on many issues such as the problem with illegal immigration and his positions on the loss of America’s industrial base. So unlike some of the posters on this thread, I won’t wish ill for him.
Jun 18, 2008 - 11:44 pm 183. Matt S:P.Ami,
Once again someone is missing the point of Buchanan’s book. He is concerned about the British war guarantee for Poland and the entry into another world war. (America was dragged into the war only after years of behind the scenes support of the British military effort.)
Buchanan’s point is that the war was a bad decision for the British Empire. It led to the loss of its overseas power, bankruptcy, and relegation to the status of an American protectorate. We can endlessly debate which dictator was worse, or who killed more people, but in the end it is clear that the Second World War was the end of the British Empire. On the other hand, the war was a great success for the United States. With Britain, France, Germany and Japan decimated, the United States ascended to the place that Britain had held for centuries.
Buchanan is now trying to draw the parallel between British imperial mistakes and the mistakes made by an American “Benevolent” Empire in its efforts to secure all corners of the world. Of course it was a moral thing to free the Kurds and Shias from the tyranny of Saddam, but just as Britain’s destruction of Nazi Germany left a power vacuum in Eastern Europe for Stalin to fill, American destruction of the Iraqi dictatorship has left a weak Iraq that will most surely fall to extremists and Iran the minute American troops leave.
America, already deeply indebted to China (just as Britain was deeply indebted to us) is making the same mistakes in fighting foreign wars. This cannot go on indefinitely. It appears to me that nations like China and Russia are just biding their time, watching America run herself into bankruptcy and waiting for the time when there will be no more money to borrow and no more willing American blood to fight someone else’s battles.
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:24 am 184. Jim Stutts:“They will become someone else’s business opportunity and the conflicts will follow us home.”
The current path the past few Administrations have taken has and will continue to not only transfer critical defense technology to hostile governments for those “business opportunities”, but invite those fighting us to settle here by the job lot.
It’s not “isolationism” to not want to be dependent on hostile governments for critical needs, it’s sanity.
Jun 19, 2008 - 9:05 am 185. smg45acp:America’s involvement in WWII was a total disaster.
WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal!
Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today.
After Hitler’s death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity.
With the death of millions of Europeans, the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe.
With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe.
Remember the Holocaust didn’t start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don’t use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.
The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure.
We never should have stuck our nose into the orient’s business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao’s murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China.
The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn’t need to kill millions to speed it up.
Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:18 am 186. Steve:Buchanan says it was an unnecessary war, I agree.
I enjoyed this article. Buchanan and VDH are like two heavy weights slugging it out. After reading his rebuttal of Buchanan’s rebuttal, however, I must confess I only see a draw. VDH brings up good points but fails to KO Buchanan’s ideas. Instead he seems to try and nuance what Pat says (e.g., see the section above on Churchill and the ‘unnecessary war’). In fact, VDH and Pat sometimes nuance their subject matter to near death - fun to watch, I must admit.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:40 am 187. Tim Starr:Another observation: Interesting how VDH attacks Pat’s “ad hominems” and then launches his own.
Finally, could we have some intelligent discourse/disagreement on this blog without resorting to name calling of either party? Is that too much to ask?
Given that much of the info about the German a-bomb programs - plural - remains classified, I think Wernher von Braun was in a better position to evaluate how close it was to success than any of us. Also, Germany was co-operating with Japan on its a-bomb programs, and we know that Japan was closer to having a working a-bomb by the end of the war than Germany was - at least, according to all non-classified info.
How long would Germany have needed to be ready for war with America? Hitler’s Second Book outlined a plan for Germany to prepare for war with America in the 1980s. KGB defectors after WWII said Soviet Russia had similar plans for war with America along the same timeline.
Yes, Buchanan’s right that Britain sacrified its Empire, which Hitler admired, to beat Germany. What he omits is that Hitler admired the British Empire for its white supremacy, which Hitler hoped to emulate in Eastern Europe with the Slavs in the place of the Indians. Hitler also admired the American South for its racial segregation. Given that Buchanan’s a defender of the Old South, it’s no wonder he sympathizes with Hitler on these points.
What did the Allies fight for, given that Eastern Europe fell into Stalin’s hands after WWII? They fought primarily to save the West from falling into totalitarian rule for decades. They were unable to spare Eastern Europe that fate, although they might have pulled it off if Patton and MacArthur had been given a free hand in Europe and Asia in the 1940s & 1950s.
The Allied military buildup to beat Hitler, and the demonstration of Allied military capability & resolve to stop totalitarianism, also had a good effect upon Stalin. It’s not for nothing that Stalin was at his worst when the Allies were doing nothing to stop Hitler. In many ways, Stalin’s crimes merely followed Hitler’s precedent. For example, Hitler’s purge of the Nazi Party preceded Stalin’s purge of the Communist Party.
Buchanan also minimizes Hitler’s pre-war crimes, including not only the Night of the Long Knives but also Kristallnacht and the Anschluss (which led to the deaths of hundreds of Austrian Jews, who were now subject to the Nuremburg laws and unrestrained Nazi persecution for the first time). On the radio today, I heard him say Hitler’s pre-war victims were vastly less than those of Pinochet, which is completely false.
Yes, Stalin’s death toll prior to WWII was much higher than Hitler’s, but Buchanan bases his foreign policy views upon national self-interest, not its benefits for other nations besides America, and Germany was the greatest threat to America and Western Europe before WWII, not Russia. After WWII, yes, Russia occupied Eastern Europe and threatened Western Europe (along with much of the rest of the world), but Buchanan approves of America’s Cold War policy of defending Western Europe, etc., against Communism. Why does he think it OK for America to protect the world from Communism but not Nazism?
Also, bad as Soviet occupation of eastern Europe was, Soviet policies were not aimed at exterminating entire ethnic groups, and there was no attempt to repeat the Ukrainian famine in the Soviet-occupied countries. This was largely because Stalin knew how strong the democracies had become to beat Hitler, and how vulnerable he was to Allied might. That’s why he gave up trying to take West Berlin & why he told Tito to stop supporting the Commies in the Greek civil war. Even before WWII, Stalin stopped his invasion of Finland far short of his demands for total annexation of Finland, as he’d done with Lithuania, Latvia, & Estonia, in large part due to the threat of the democracies coming to Finland’s aid.
In sum: the Allied defeat of Hitler saved the Allied countries and Western Europe from German domination, enabled them to rebuild the military capacity needed to tame Stalin, and set the stage for winning the Cold War and liberating Eastern Europe as well.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:59 am 188. Jim Stutts:“Given that much of the info about the German a-bomb programs - plural - remains classified, I think Wernher von Braun was in a better position to evaluate how close it was to success than any of us.”
Von Braun was not actually involved with the German A-bomb program. I’ve spoken with some of his people and they never mentioned any of this. Their delivery systems were further behind. Neither Japan or Germany were close at all. At best, Japan was able to recognize the weapon for what it was, but were not close to duplicating it. Neither Germany or Japan had the resources to devote to it anywhere near to the scale required.
Again, neither were at all close to a working device. You present 2nd hand anecdotal evidence that directly contradicts the historical record and published documents from the guy who was in charge of the German program.
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:13 pm 189. Steve:No offense Tim but I think Jim is correct. In fact, if memory serves, the allies bugged the cell(s) of the German scientists to see what they “knew” (they were not forthcoming under direct interrogation). The cell bugging indicated the Germans actually knew a lot less than we assumed. Unless the Germans, were deliberately obfuscating - improbable - they were many years away from successful design. Not surprising, since Hitler had been deliberately underfunding their research for years.
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:29 pm 190. P. Ami:I think most people here would agree that indebtedness to China is insane. You can’t blame the war for our debt. We’ve been growing that debt for over a decade previous to the War on Terror. The debt has much more to do with a trade deficit then a war effort. You would have an easy time convincing me we should close the gap in trade deficits between ourselves and the Chinese, that we should manufacture much more in the US and that we should be much, much, much more self reliant for our energy needs.
As for Britain’s promise to Poland… They also made promises to the Czechs. They followed the Buchanan policy in regards to the Reinland and Austria. The British refused to build up its Navy, let alone land forces, all while watching Hitler’s ability to exert his will grow by the month. Britain’s finances were in straights for decades before the war. Their shift in policy towards gold was a major proble, not military spending. The policy of two Prime Ministers before Churchill were focused on minimizing military spending.
There is not one issue in which you or Buchanan can stick to the facts and cleanly rationalize your arguments. For you to even suggest that you stuck to only the general thesis of Buchanan’s book is, if you read your comments, disengenuous. You have alterior motives for your arguments, strata upon strata of blind contempt for vivid and reasonable directions taken in foreign policy and you’ll not be able to revise that truth while a record of your comments exist on this site.
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:37 pm 191. John Zmirak:For more on this, I invite readers to read my own essay defending Buchanan’s book:
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:39 pm 192. Steve:http://www.takimag.com/site/article/patrick_buchanan_and_the_necessary_book/
“I think most people here would agree that indebtedness to China is insane. You can’t blame the war for our debt. We’ve been growing that debt for over a decade previous to the War on Terror. The debt has much more to do with a trade deficit then a war effort. You would have an easy time convincing me we should close the gap in trade deficits between ourselves and the Chinese, that we should manufacture much more in the US and that we should be much, much, much more self reliant for our energy needs.”
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:59 pm 193. Tim Starr:I personally don’t care if it’s because of war or trade imbalances. The fact is we’re running huge trade deficits with China and we’re a nation largely in debt! Pat’s trying to draw parallels between what he views as our costly and unnecessary forays into Iraq, and the British Empire’s costly, unnecessary global forays. The thesis - agree or disagree - is this: Great empires fall primarily because they overextend themselves militarily and financially.
If neither Germany nor Japan had adequate resources for an atomic bomb, that was partly because the Allies stopped them from getting enough resources. Also, it fails to take into account the fact that the two Axis powers were co-operating with each other on atomic research; a German sub was shipping uranium to Japan when Germany surrendered, and the Japanese military personnel had to be arrested when they tried to take over the ship. They would’ve eventually developed atomic weapons, given enough time - and that’s exactly what they would’ve had if Buchanan had his way.
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:54 pm 194. Tom Piatak:My response to Hanson: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_court_historian_of_the_neoconservatives/
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:48 pm 195. Jim Stutts:“If neither Germany nor Japan had adequate resources for an atomic bomb, that was partly because the Allies stopped them from getting enough resources.”
I take it you no longer claim they were a few months away?
“They would’ve eventually developed atomic weapons, given enough time - and that’s exactly what they would’ve had if Buchanan had his way.”
Given a huge amount of time.
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:58 pm 196. CC:As you quoted: “The focus of “The Unnecessary War” is on the colossal blunders by British statesmen that reduced Britain from the greatest empire since Rome into an island dependency of the United States in three decades. It is a cautionary tale, written for America, which is treading the same path Britain trod in the early 20th century.”
[This is as ludicrous as it is disingenuous. By 1939 the British Empire was in financial straits, its global economic position long displaced by the industrial power and growing population of the United States, and its empire an increasing economic drain. Its so-called decline had begun at the end of the nineteenth century, and was confirmed, not created, by World War II. Despite the cast-off and occasional warning about Hitler’s cruelty, the book accepts that there was nothing intrinsic within National Socialism as practiced under Hitler that would necessarily have led to war, and indeed a number of legitimate grievances that would justify Hitler’s own preemptive wars.]
1. Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the three decades Buchanan refers to the years, roughly, 1914 (the beginning of WWI) to 1945 (the end of WWII)? Isn’t Buchanan’s argument that WWI begot Versailles which begot a resentful Germany which begot Hitler which begot WWII, with mistakes by Britain all along the way? If so, then isn’t it disingenuous of you to focus on 1939, as if that year stands alone.
Jun 20, 2008 - 6:59 am 197. Pat Buchanan has jumped the shark « Moose Droppings:2. There is a difference between “decline” (which you apparently can’t even commit to as you add the qualifier “so-called”), and reduction, as in Buchanan’s “reduced to.” For instance, compare: His decline had begun years earlier, with bad habits of drinking and excess; losing his job reduced him to penury.
[...] turd get sliced, diced, folded, spindled, mutilated, scattered, smothered, and covered, check out the gibbing that historian Victor Davis Hanson gives it. Or just sit back like I am and enjoy the well-deserved bitchslapping that the conservative [...]
Jun 20, 2008 - 11:33 am 198. P. Ami:Stutts,
Jun 20, 2008 - 12:06 pm 199. Jim Stutts:Buchanan extrapolates convoluted points from clear facts and escues the more common sense reasoning of those he opposes in order to make his case. To further obstruct a reasonable view of his agenda, he and his supporters vilify those with the stronger opinion. One cannot successfully challenge orthodoxy with less direct logic and less supportable facts then the established meme. To sway orthodoxy your arguments have to be better then ours and if anything they are the lesser.
“To sway orthodoxy your arguments have to be better then ours and if anything they are the lesser.”
So, it is now the orthodox viewpoint that Buchanan is a Nazi? That is the “established meme”?
Interesting. My specific arguments here have not been bettered by your statements of opinion. You’ll have to do better than this. Otherwise, you’re operating from an “everybody knows” position and not actual facts on the ground.
BTW, which specific argument that I’ve made here are you dripping condescension on? My questioning the statement made by fiat that Buchanan is an anti-Semite due to his viewpoints on Israel’s policy, my viewpoint that Hanson is not qualified to be President, or my viewpoint that Germany was in no way close to an atomic bomb? Do be specific and do not shelter behind overly circumlocutory language. I do not find highly academically-worded posts to be impressive.
My “agenda”, as it were, is not directly aligned with Buchanan at all times. I view the security of the United States as paramount and Islam its greatest threat. Where I agree with Buchanan is the idea that 3rd to 1st world migration is disastrous unchecked and that Western Civilization is worthy of defense. Of course, I really do owe you no explanation of my viewpoint and I doubt you care.
Jun 20, 2008 - 12:35 pm 200. Gene Tuttle:Mr. Star:
Buchanan did not understate the number killed by the Nazis prior to the outbreak of war. Buchan claims that Hitler executed about 150 to 200 political opponents (mostly other Nazis) during the Night of the Long Knives. This is a widely accepted figure by historians. Arnaud Mayer puts the number of Jews murdered on Kristallnacht at several dozen (See my comment above quoting that Princeton historian). I don’t think Buchan gave a figure, but I’ve seen others put the Kristallnacht death toll at close to a hundred. The rough numbers – close to Buchanan’s - are not even debatable among historians. Buchanan said the Nazis murdered in the hundreds prior to the war (so do leading scholars of the period). I think the number killed in the weeks following the coup in Chile was about 3,000. The Bolsheviks murdered millions prior to September 1939. This is not to play down Jewish suffering prior to the outbreak of war. The discussion is whether war made things better or worse, for the Jews and for Brittan. Buchanan makes a good case in arguing that both would have been better off – not well of – had Britain avoided the war.
There is no inconsistency in Buchanan’s defense of cold war policy in western Europe after the US had spent so much in life and treasure “saving” Europe (i.e. Europe without Poland and other countries to the east). Just as with Iraq, the question as to whether or not we should have gone in is a different one than what to do after we went in.
Jun 20, 2008 - 2:18 pm 201. c. kupfer:i thought nothing worthwhile could come from buchanan’s ineffably stupid book, which only reveals his personal neuroses in a sad way. . . but v.d. hanson’s superb smack-down of buchanan’s feeble contrarian effort is a welcome outcome. something good coming out of something bad. thanks, victor davis hanson, for cleansing that stain so effectively.
Jun 20, 2008 - 6:04 pm 202. Tim Starr:Mr. Stutts: My claim remains that von Braun was in a better position to know the likely timeline for a Nazi a-bomb than either of us. Hitler’s timeline for fighting America went into the 1980s; that would’ve been plenty enough time for a Nazi a-bomb to come to fruition.
Mr. Tuttle: The internal report of the SS on the Kristallnacht death toll was higher than the figure you attribute to Mayer; if you mean Arno Mayer, then he’s an infamous crank whose work on the Holocaust has been roudly criticized by mainstream Holocaust historians. (E.g., he claims that Hitler only decided on the Holocaust after the invasion of Russia went bad; in fact, the Einsatzgruppen started mass-murdering Jews immediately after the invasion of Russia.) In any case, the dead from Kristallnacht alone doesn’t include the tens of thousands of Jews put into concentration camps in Germany at the time.
There most certainly is an inconsistency in Buchanan’s argument. If Western Europe was worth saving from Stalin, why wasn’t it worth saving from Hitler?
Buchanan also seems oblivious to the fact that German subs raided the east coast of the USA after war was declared, with such impunity that the German Navy called it their “happy time.”
Jun 20, 2008 - 6:46 pm 203. TLM:Estimates of how close Germany and Japan were to having an atomic bomb at the end of WWII are not pertinent. The question is where would they have been had we not intervened, bombed their facilities for four years and occupied their territory. Also, would there have been a Manhattan Project without a declared war against the Axis Powers?
Jun 20, 2008 - 8:56 pm 204. Gene Tuttle:Mr. Starr:
I suspect a crank in your vocabulary is anyone who deviates on this issue from the orthodoxy established during the passions and hatreds of WWII.
As I said, Meyer may possibly have been off by a few dozen on Kristallnacht, but the comparison was with the millions already murdered by the Bolsheviks and the tens of millions of war dead that followed. As Buchanan said, “Kristallnacht was a shameful crime and a historic blunder…shocking, revolting and stupid.” As you rightly said, (the number of dead from) “Kristallnacht alone doesn’t include the tens of thousands of Jews put into concentration camps in Germany.” But in your determination to show that nothing could have been worse, you omit the fact that most were released the following month with a warning to leave Germany. I don’t think Buchanan even referred to the subsequent release, but the history is well documented. As horrible as their treatment was, Britain’s intervention assured that things would get worse for them and others.
Given the track record of Hanson and other neo-cons in applying WWII’s appeasement “lessons” to contemporary geopolitics, such lessons need more careful scrutiny. Most scholars of the period recognize the insanity of Britain’s surrendering its war-making decision to a Polish military junta with its own agenda. Buchanan is measured in supporting their analysis. But his gifts as a brilliant polemist and pithy, lively writer attract a wider audience. That’s one reason, I suspect, for the hysterical reaction of those clinging to the old war propaganda influenced dogma.
By the way, in insisting that new circumstances are irrelevant to how one deals with a problem (e.g. those prior to and after WWII) you continue to miss the point.
Jun 21, 2008 - 2:48 am 205. Jim Stutts:“My claim remains that von Braun was in a better position to know the likely timeline for a Nazi a-bomb than either of us. Hitler’s timeline for fighting America went into the 1980s; that would’ve been plenty enough time for a Nazi a-bomb to come to fruition.”
That may very well have been your claim, but I’ve met some of his team and your claim doesn’t match the historical evidence - including the declassified debriefings.
Jun 21, 2008 - 7:01 am 206. Ed Mahmoud:Buchanan is an antisemitic nutcase. And anyone who runs for President with a Marxist lesbian as his running mate has no claim to conservatism.
Jun 21, 2008 - 10:26 am 207. bskb:Buchanan is a joke. I don’t say this lightly, because he gets so much media play, but try to imagine an individual on the political front who has been marginalized less than him.
Just the same, he uses his so call “political authority” to justify his abilities as a historian. Quite frankly, I’d rather trust Alan Keyes to teach me how to build a nuclear submarine using objects found around the house.
The fact that any media has embraced such a public figure only speaks to the quality of the train wreck we are witnessing, not the quality of the train itself.
Jun 23, 2008 - 12:32 am 208. Steve:For Bskb- Could you please tell us exactly how Buchanan is a joke? Ed Mahmoud- could you inform me how Pat is an anti-Semite? c.kupfer- could you please enlighten yours truly about why you feel his book is stupid?
Jun 23, 2008 - 7:15 am 209. Matt S:I don’t agree with Mr. Starr or P. Ami but at least they are providing reasons why they believe the way they do. I guess it’s just more fun to engage in childish name calling …correct?
From VDH’s rebuttal to comments in this forum:“Once Hitler invaded Poland, the last chance to prevent a global conflagration would have been to launch an immediate invasion in the West, to cross the Rhine with well over 100 British and French divisions.”-VDH
Wrong. The last chance to prevent the global conflagration came on September 3 when Britain declared war on Germany. Germany had not declared war on Britain, nor did it intend to. Germany’s interests were in Eastern Europe, recovering German lands amputated at the Peace of Paris (Danzig and the Polish Corridor), and eventually confronting the Soviet Union over the other weak states of the region who had since ancient times been ruled either by Romanovs, Hohenzoellerns, or Hapsburgs. By inserting Britain (and thus France and later the United States) into this battle between two ruthless dictators, Chamberlain, Halifax, and Churchill guaranteed the destruction of their empire as well as condemned many more millions unnecessarily to death.
Why not just leave Germany and Russia to fight it out, weakening each other and coming to some eventual stalemate? I know that would have outrightly condemned Eastern Europe to rule by dictatorship by one of these two men, but was the result of the war any better for these people who suffered under 50 years of rule by the “foul baboonery of Bolshevism”, in the words of Churchill in a more sane frame of mind.
Not excusing these murderers, I think Hanson’s idea of sending in 100 divisions,(where were these warriors when France was overrun in a matter of days in 1940?), is utterly ridiculous and shows a judgment perhaps clouded by the politics of western interventionism. It was this very intervention by the West, arrogantly assuming that we knew better and could structure the world according to our own ideals, that threw the gas on this regional struggle and exploded it into the global conflagration Hanson decries.
Jun 23, 2008 - 9:24 am 210. Andrew:It’s pretty rich to read Hanson whining about ad hominem attacks coming from Buchanan after reading this piece. Sorry, but the modern NR, including Hanson, has been ridiculous in its ad hominem assaults on Buchanan for well over 15 years, as well as any other traditionalist conservative who dissents from a) the view that while both great evils, Nazism was the greater threat than Stalinism, b) Lincoln was a political messiah who “saved” the Union, c) at least a dozen other interpretations of different historical events that can only be read one way or you must be a racist, a xenophobe, an anti-Semite, a lunatic, etc. I haven’t read Buchanan’s book yet, though I look forward to doing so, so as far as I know it may be greatly flawed. But the ridiculous canard that PB is some sort of raging anti-Semite is ALWAYS the standard neocon “argument” about anything he ever writes about anything. Hanson’s conservative credibility is hanging by a thread; after writing a whole book about the destruction open borders immigration is reaking on CA and the whole republic, he now spends his days on NR’s blogs telling everyone and anyone who will listen how they must support the biggest globalist presidential nominee in Republican history, otherwise the end is near. For “conservatives” like Hanson, the Leftist influenced ideology of democratism imposed by America is all that matters in conservatism today. Sorry, Victor, but a “neoconservative court historian” is not an ad hominem; it’s an accurate label for you and your current positions.
Jun 24, 2008 - 3:55 am 211. Wm Belts:Here is a great example of an ad hominem fallacy.
“In dealing with Mr. Buchanan, one must accept at the beginning two caveats. First, as is his style, he will always resort to ad hominem attacks in lieu of an argument. Thus note at the very beginning his sneering ‘court historian of the neoconservatives.’
Second, Buchanan unfortunately is neither a reliable journalist nor an historian, and thus simply cannot be trusted to report accurately what is written.”
The ad hominen fallacy wrap up in an allegation of some one else employing the ad hominen fallacy.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:31 am 212. Ernst Friedel:The opinion that Germany is a war-loving nation is often broadcast by politicians,the media and even taught in our schools and universities. However, when research is done the results are showing the opposite. The American scientist and author Professor Philip Quincy Wright (1890 – 1970) writes in his book “A Study of War” University of Chicago Press, 1942 the following:
From 1480 to 1940
278 wars involving European countries where fought.
Below is a breakdown (in %) of the European nations that were involved in these wars.
England: 28%
France: 26%
Spain: 23%
Russia: 22%
Austria: 19%
Turkey: 15%
Poland: 11%
Sweden: 9%
Holland 8%
Germany/Prussia: 8%
Denmark 7%
Professor Philip Quincy Wright is a very respected scientist who, in 1970, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Price. Read his Biography at: http://tripatlas.com/Quincy_Wright
Ernst Friedel
May 10, 2009 - 4:01 am