PJB: How the West Lost the World

buchanan.org ^ | 2008.05.27 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[B-Chan]

Europe, the Mother Continent of Western Man, is today aging and dying, unable to sustain the birth rates needed to keep her alive, or to resist conquest by an immigrant invasion from the Third World.

What happened to the nations that only a century ago ruled the world?

In “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World,” published today, this writer will argue that it was colossal blunders of British statesmen, Winston Churchill foremost among them, that turned two European wars into world wars that may yet prove the mortal wounds of the West.

The first blunder was a secret decision of the inner Cabinet in 1906 to send a British army across the Channel to fight in any Franco-German War. Had the Kaiser known the British Empire would fight for France, he would have moved more decisively than he did to halt the plunge to war in July 1914.

Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 and brought in Japan, Italy and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner. Leninism and Stalinism would never have triumphed in Russia, and Hitler would never have come to power in Germany.

The second blunder was the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that added a million square miles to the British Empire while putting millions of Germans under Czech and Polish rule in violation of the terms of the armistice and Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points.

A third was the British decision to capitulate to U.S. demands in 1921 and throw over a faithful Japanese ally of 20 years. Tokyo took its revenge, 20 years later, by inflicting the greatest defeat in British history, the surrender of Singapore and an army of 80,000 to a Japanese army half that size.

A fourth British blunder, which Neville Chamberlain called the “very midsummer of madness,” was the 1935 decision to sanction Italy for a colonial war in Ethiopia. London destroyed the Stresa Front of Britain, France and Italy that Mussolini had forged to contain Germany, and drove Mussolini straight into the arms of a Nazi dictator he loathed.

In 1936, France sounded out the British to determine if they would support a drive to push German troops out of the Rhineland that Hitler had occupied in violation of Versailles. The British refused. And Churchill congratulated France for taking the matter up with the League of Nations, and said the ideal solution would be a voluntary Nazi withdrawal from the Rhineland to show the world that Hitler respected the sanctity of treaties.

Munich, 70 years ago this September, was a disaster. But it was a direct, if not inevitable, consequence of a Versailles treaty that had consigned 3.5 million Sudeten Germans to Czech rule against their will and in violation of the principle of self-determination.

But the fatal blunder was not Munich.

It was the decision of March 31, 1939, to hand a war guarantee to a neo-fascist regime of Polish colonels who had joined Hitler in the rape of Czechoslovakia.

Britain gave Warsaw a blank check to take her to war over a town, Danzig, the British themselves thought should be restored to Germany. Result: a Hitler-Stalin Pact and a six-year war that left scores of millions dead, Europe in ruins, the British empire bankrupt and breaking, 10 European nations under the barbaric rule of Joseph Stalin and half a century of Cold War. Had there been no war guarantee to Poland, there might have been no war, no Nazi invasion of Western Europe and no Holocaust.

Churchill was the indispensable war leader who held on until Hitler committed his fatal blunders, invading Russia and declaring war on America. He was also the man most responsible for Britain’s fall from mistress of the greatest empire since Rome to an island dependency of the United States.

About the character of the Bolshevik regime in 1919 and Nazi regime in 1933, Churchill had been right. About British rearmament, he had been right. But Churchill was also often disastrously wrong.

He led the West down a moral incline to its own barbarism by imposing a starvation blockade on Germany in 1914 and launching air terror against open cities in 1940. These policies brought death to hundreds of thousands of women and children.

He was behind the greatest British military blunders in two wars: the Dardanelles disaster of 1915 and the Norwegian fiasco of 1940 that brought down Chamberlain and vaulted Churchill to power.

While excoriating Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler, Churchill’s own appeasement of Stalin lasted longer and was even more egregious and costly, ensuring that the causes for which Britain sacrificed the empire — the freedom of Poland and preventing a hostile power from dominating Europe — were lost.

Churchill was, however, surely right when he told FDR in their first meeting after Pearl Harbor that they should call the war they were now in “The Unnecessary War.”

He was a Great Man — at the cost of his country’s greatness.

[B-Chan]

Patrick Buchanan is right about a great many things. I think that he is wrong on the topic of World War II.

That being said: I have not read this book. I intend to do so as soon as possible, and to consider the ideas Buchanan proposes within carefully and seriously.

Opinions expressed in links posted by me to FR do not necessarily reflect my own opinions.

[Dilbert San Diego]

It’s politically incorrect to say this, but many people are having fewer children or not having children at all. The Muslim population in Europe are having more children than native Europeans.

Sad to say that reproductive choice all too often means not having as many children, for lifestyle reasons. If “demography is destiny” the civilized world as we know it is in trouble.

[DB]

“Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 and brought in Japan, Italy and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner. Leninism and Stalinism would never have triumphed in Russia, and Hitler would never have come to power in Germany.”

Up is down, black is white...

All because Britain stood up to Hitler when he started rolling through Europe...

Nuts.

[littlehouse36]

“How the West Lost the World”

Birth control.

[B-Chan]

White people (and Japanese people) damned well need to give up the flatscreens and the bass boats and start having children again. It’s that simple.

NB: I am a white person and a father; we hope to have more.

[max americana]

As long as we sacrifice the Euros to the Muslim horde, we’re fine...they’re cannon fodder.

[umgud]

I’ve got 4 kids and 8 grandkids. My youngest son has given me 5 grandkids.

[B-Chan]

WTG!

[KTM rider]

"“How the West Lost the World” Birth control. " + abortion, fragmentation of the family, liberal education, governmental oppression by taxation/socialism

[Pelham]

“All because Britain stood up to Hitler when he started rolling through Europe...”

You better not make any bets with 5th graders. You do know that there were two World Wars?

Buchanan was writing about August 1914, WWI. Allies vs the Kaiser and the Austro-Hungarians.

Britain vs Hitler is 25 years later.

[ketsu]

Up is down, black is white...

All because Britain stood up to Hitler when he started rolling through Europe...

Nuts.

Fool. He's talking about WWI.

[AmericanInTokyo]

some are even joining across the Pacific in that noble effort ;-)

[ketsu]

White people (and Japanese people) damned well need to give up the flatscreens and the bass boats and start having children again. It’s that simple.

NB: I am a white person and a father; we hope to have more.

Humans are economic actors. Japanese and higher status whites know that the best way to preserve and enhance their social status is to have fewer children and devote more resources to the success of those children.

Until you make education and raising children cheaper, easier and better western civilization will continue to decline. Otherwise the only people that will breed are the ones who don't care about the success of their children.

[icwhatudo]

Pat jumped the shark long ago. Theres a reason MSNBC uses him as the token con.

[Luke21]

Pat is really on this World War Two thing defending the “peace loving” Germans. Why doesn't he mention Mein Kampf? Hitler was repulsively open about his territorial and racial ambitions.

With Pat, everything happens in a vacuum. He starts with the Sudeten agreement and then blames Poland for the war. Germany had been rattling sabers for years. Churchill and Duff Cooper warned against the Nazis constantly during the thirties. Germany first reoccupied the Rhineland and then armed Franco in the Spanish Civil War. They twice meddled in Austria and finally invaded there, after a so called election.

Between the Sudeten crisis and the invasion of Poland, Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia. He violated the agreement with Chamberlain. He violated them constantly. The only thing that could have possibly been done to stop Hitler was going to war earlier in the decade, and the British and French publics wouldn't have gone along with that at all.

Hitler wanted living space taken from sub-humans. That was his grand design. He murdered between 6-10 million people. But Pat makes him sound like a misunderstood diplomat. Pat is in essence, apologizing for Nazi Germany.

I've foolishly defended Pat here for way too long. This is revisionist history at its worst. He has lost it.

[DB]

My mistake.

You could be a little kinder about it.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Why doesn't he mention Mein Kampf? Hitler was repulsively open about his territorial and racial ambitions.

The world's great tyrants and mass murderers have always been remarkably open about their goals and how they intend to achieve them - Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Osama bin Laden. Their defenders in the West have always sought frantically to pretend that the spoken and written proclamations of these fanatics don't matter - that if only the West had done a better job of appeasing them, things would have been different.

In this, Buchanan is no different from the leftists who claim that 9/11 is our fault because we didn't allow Israel to be destroyed long ago.

[antceecee]

PJB?
Peanut, Jelly, Butter?

Shouldn’t that be PBJ?

; ~ )

[nathanbedford]

Without question, one of the most original and provocative writers on the scene today is Patrick J. Buchanan. Every time a piece written by him appears in Free Republic, it engenders a flurry of posts and much invective grounded in the belief that Buchanan is anti-Semitic. It is not my point here to argue one side or the other that issue, however, I restate my general proposition that ad hominem arguments are a very bad way of getting at the truth and in the long run only serve to divert this forum from its grand potential which is to be a leading light of conservatism as the movement enters its exile in the wilderness.

My quarrel with Buchanan is that he appears to judge historical figures according to hindsight and not upon a standard limited to what the figure knew or should have known at that time. Here is an example of the absurdities into which this practice can lead a historian:

A third was the British decision to capitulate to U.S. demands in 1921 and throw over a faithful Japanese ally of 20 years. Tokyo took its revenge, 20 years later, by inflicting the greatest defeat in British history, the surrender of Singapore and an army of 80,000 to a Japanese army half that size.

It is absurd to pin blame on a politician or a statesman for a policy that goes wrong two decades later. This is an old trick of the left. For example the left blames Dwight Eisenhower for installing the Shah in Iran nearly 3 decades before the Shah was ousted and our people were taken as hostages. In between, a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, declined to act to save the Shah. To impute responsibility to Eisenhower for the hostage crisis 30 years later or, equally, to British statesman for the fall of Singapore 20 years later, is preposterous.

Seems to me, without having my judgment handicapped by actually reading Buchanan's book, this amounts to little more than parlor game, a "what- if" game. It is one thing to examine history to distill from it the essences of timeless truths. Is appeasement a good and safe policy? Are secret alliances a smart policy? Should commitments be made which in reality are so impractical that they cannot be honored? Should commitments be made the implications of which cannot be known? These are all legitimate questions coming out of the run-up to World War I and they present some truths that clearly have application to our war on terror today. It is quite another thing to play parlor games with history.

Buchanan's article, and presumably his book, contains other problems:

He led the West down a moral incline to its own barbarism by imposing a starvation blockade on Germany in 1914 and launching air terror against open cities in 1940.

Has Buchanan not heard of unrestricted submarine warfare? Is he unaware of German surface Raiders attempts to starve Britain at the beginning of the war? Does he not know that the ultimate near starvation of the German homefront by 1918 was a principal reason for the disintegration of Germany, causing Hindenburg and Ludendorff to tell the Kaiser there was no option but surrender?

With respect to the, "air terror against open cities in 1940," one can only respond: is Buchanan ignorant of Rotterdam? Of Coventry? Of the decision by the Luftwaffe in mid-September 1940 to divert its attacks from English airdromes to English cities thus commencing "the blitz?"

These kinds of ludicrous assertions which actually are wholly counter to historical reality betray a shallowness or more likely a need to create controversy in order to sell books.

Similarly, Buchanan claims:

He was behind the greatest British military blunders in two wars: the Dardanelles disaster of 1915 and the Norwegian fiasco of 1940 that brought down Chamberlain and vaulted Churchill to power.

It is no good playing with the English language like that. Either Churchill was responsible for Gallipoli and should therefore be blamed or he was not. In either case, a historian making this kind of an assertion is obligated to marshal facts to prove it. It is only cute to say that Churchill "was behind" the Dardanelles disaster-was he or was he not responsible and why? What does it mean that he was "behind" it?

If Buchanan wanted us to explore the real lessons of World War I and other lessons from Churchill's career, he might have talked about how technology outran the generals of World War I, or how secret alliances confounded diplomats before 1914. He might even argue that by 1939 there was very little option but to appease Hitler and the practice should have never gotten that far.

These are all respectable points of view that can be argued. When one writes revisionist history as Buchanan has apparently done here one owes it to the reader to be very careful with the facts.

When one undertakes to undermine the reputation of the man whom I think is the greatest man of the 20th century, one ought to consider how Churchill drew his moral judgments from World War II:

In war: resolution

In peace: magnanimity

In defeat: defiance

In victory: Goodwill

[patriciaruth]

Had the Kaiser known the British Empire would fight for France, he would have moved more decisively than he did to halt the plunge to war in July 1914. Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 and brought in Japan, Italy and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner. Leninism and Stalinism would never have triumphed in Russia, and Hitler would never have come to power in Germany.

This is such total crap.

ONE. The Kaiser Wilhelm II was an young ambitious man when he came to power, and he began building his army AND his navy immmediately with the absolute determination to become the conqueror of Europe. There is absolutely nothing that England could have done to turn him from his ambition, just as there was nothing they could do in the 1930's short of war to turn Hitler from his ambitions.

Until near the start of hostilities in WWI, Churchill had a pleasant relationship with the Kaiser, who was a grandson of Queen Victoria, while Churchill was the grandson of a Duke and part of England's aristocracy which allowed them to interact with respect for each other.

Churchill was reluctant to believe the Kaiser had such great ambitions and was such a threat to England, but when he saw the Kaiser building up Germany's Navy, Churchill as the Lord Admiral of the Navy could not let England be overshadowed. Two thirds of England's food supply was imported. The British Navy was needed to defend the merchant marine bringing goods and food back from the far flung British Empire. So, Churchill, with great resistance from the government of the time, built up their Navy even more than before so they could blockade any attempt by the Kaisar to take control of the English Channel.

Looking at the close proximity of French ports to England, and knowing that Southern England was undefended to any landing attempt by a hostile nation, Churchill realized that they could not allow the Kaiser to overrun the European continent, as then he would be in a position to gravely threaten England.

Churchill decided that they would have to make alliance with some nation in Europe to defend it against German invasion, and strategically they decided that France was the best bet. The British public was dead set against any involvement in Europe, although they did consider Belgium an underdog that should be defended if invaded. But for a couple of reason the decision to defend France was made secretly. One, that to give away one's strategy to an implacable enemy in advance would simply mean that the enemy would subvert your strategy by choosing another route to conquer Europe. And two, the British public did not yet realize the grave threat posed by Germany and wouldn't have allowed the government to stand if such a strategy had been made public.

Buchannan has always been a Nazi apologist, and to excuse Hitler, he has to excuse the Germans in WWI and condemn the peace treaty that was so onerous to them after the war.

For the record, Churchill begged Prime Minister Lloyd George and the King of England to send a dozen ships with food to Germany after its surrender in WWI. And he and Lloyd George both were against the onerus terms of the Versailles treaty, but Lloyd George wanted to shoot the Kaiser while Churchill did not. It was the French under Clemenceau who were adamant about reparations as they had suffered incredible destruction due to the occupation of the Germans.

TWO. If the British had not declared war on August 4, and entered with their army already ready to go and NAVY war games planned, France would have been overrun. Japan and Italy refused to become allies of the British. England had nothing to offer them in return, except to turn a blind eye if Japan should invade China or Italy should grab territory in Africa. And it is totally laughable to suggest that the United States would have entered the war early. Who is his right mind thinks that holds any water??

But then Buchannan has always been insane.

[patriciaruth]

He [Churchill] was behind the greatest British military blunders in two wars: the Dardanelles disaster of 1915

Investigation after the fact exonerated Churchill of the Dardanelles disaster. The blame lay with the Naval commanders of the fleet that were pushing through the Dardanelles, and with the Prime Minister for flinching inches before the operation was completely successful.

I will go into the particulars of why the Dardanelles operation was inches from success if wanted, but the Turks knew it was inches from success and were evacuating Constantinople (Istanbul) and were down to their last three rounds of munitions at the Narrow Straights forts when the Brits flinched.

Many military historians believe if the British naval commanders had simply persisted one more day that all of history would have changed. They would have been able to offer another front over the stalemated and deadly Western Front of trench warfare, and brought the war to an end much sooner. They would have been able to supply the Russians through the Black Sea and quite probably prevented the Russian Revolution.

It was the fear of the naval commanders that they were being fired on from Gallipoli peninsula that caused them to pause and ask for the Gallipoli peninsula to be cleared of Turkish defender by the army before they continued through the Dardanelles. The Turks were astounded that the British paused for weeks allowing the Turks to return to Gallipoli and bring in more amunition and guns. (They had been pounded to pieces by the naval guns which had longer range than the guns at the Turkish forts).

Churchill was deadset against the delay. He was exonerated when the facts were investigated later.

[jamaksin]

All of PJB's points were made long, long ago. See, for example, Design for War, Frederic Sanborn; Back Door to War, Charles Tansill; Popular Diplomacy and War, Sisley Huddleston; America's Second Crusade, William Chamberlin; plus Charles Beard's two volumes.

Of note, none of these text are in print today.

Asking now (2008) "Just who won War World II?" triggers some interesting responses. This is what PJB is really asking in his book, and what has transpired in the world since.

[patriciaruth]

Recommend seeing my posts at 20 and 21.

[hellbender]

Japanese and higher status whites know that the best way to preserve and enhance their social status is to have fewer children and devote more resources to the success of those children.

Your "social status" will last only your lifetime. Only children perpetuate your culture and characteristics. The West is living as if there is no tomorrow. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we become extinct.

[canuck_conservative]

Has Buchanan not heard of unrestricted submarine warfare?

Germany did not begin unrestricted submarine warfare until 1917, after Britain had been blockading for 3 years.

"Soon after the outbreak of hostilities [August 1914], Britain initiated a naval blockade of Germany. The strategy proved effective, cutting off vital military and civilian supplies, although this blockade violated generally accepted international law codified by several international agreements of the past two centuries."

(>>Wikipedia)

[sport]

And abortion.

[joe fonebone]

pat did not mention the biggest blunder...allowing him to have a forum to spew forth his egotistical self centered garbage...pat buchanan is a moron...

[Randy Papadoo]

First, I agree with those of us who believe Pat Buchannan has gone over the edge on this one. World War II, IMHO, had little to do with the third world’s emigration to Western Countries.

In Henrik van Loon’s “The History of Mankind”, the movement of populations always to greener pastures has been a constant throughout history. All these countries who now have influxes of these immigrants either have lax entry requirements, or needed more population to aid the economy and build up the tax base, since their own slow-growing population was not keeping up the tax revenues and no longer worked menial jobs.

The Western world lived a luxurious lifestyle compared to the Third World, so, according to van Loon, the Third World population movement to greener pastures is a natural and to-be-expected event.

But this, in time, does detract from the luxurious lifestyle. Look at Southern California....many problems with the Mexican immigration (except to farmers, etc). Tax revenues allocated to support them, instead of going for the usual and regular requirements. Pollution goes up.

So, what do the luxuriants do? The only thing they can do: Leave the beautiful beaches and the pollution and the skewed politics, and move to Utah, Arizona, Idaho, etc, which have now become the greener pastures.

Always moving to greener pastures. Seems like a lousy way to go, but it is natural and inevitable so long as the World’s population continues to grow and move.

[spetznaz]

That is very true. In Western (and Westernized) societies, the main bane when it comes to having offspring has been the income factor. This is the reason that as societies develop the number of kids borne experiences significant downward pressure. This is the case in all segments and strata of society that are either affluent, or tending towards affluence. This is not just the case in the richer strata of society in the West, but also in developing nations. For instance take the African nation of Kenya ....the poor have many kids on average, while the middle-class oscillates between 2 to 3. The wealthy settle for 2.

This is what has led to the rise of the SINKs and DINKs (single income no kids, and dual income no kids), whereby discretionary income soars. Having a nice income (or two)without kids adds a lot of discretionary spending depth, and as mercenary as that may seem many people opt for it (most do not go for the pure SINK or DINK approach, but they definitely cut down on the number of kids to one or two).

In places like Japan there are additional constraints beyond the discretionary spending approach to be found in places like New York ....namely that it is bl@@dy expensive to have kids.

Anyways, what you said is very correct. Structural dynamics basically lead to the rich and those who aspire to be rich to cut down on the numbers of kids (most just cut down to 1 or 2, a few cut down to zero). This generally leaves most people having a lot of kids to be in certain income groups (not a perfect truth, since some rich people have many kids, while some poor people have few kids .....but it is generally true that the richer the person the fewer the kids), which leaves the following: In Europe most kids are being born by immigrants, namely Islamic immigrants. In the US the same is the case, but from a Hispanic perspective. In Africa and Asia it is more indigenous, with rich Africans/Asians having few kids, and the poorer lot many.

simple test: Go to an affluent region of America, and count how many kids each family has. Then go to a poorer section of the nation (not necessarily a ghetto ....even a more downscale area of sub-urbia will do), and check the number of kids. There is a major economic aspect to this.

[pyrless]

Declining birth rates in Europe are economic and morality issues. I lay it primarily on their rampant liberalism:

1. The average family is squeezed by taxes so much they can’t afford kids, especially with education costs driven up so high by the libs.

2. Liberal secularism has driven family values so low that easy abortions are the preferred economic choice.

[jim_trent]

> “he might have talked about how technology outran the generals of World War I”

That happens in almost all wars. From your signature photo, you should know that one of the reasons that the Civil War was so bloody was because of the change from smoothbore musket to rifled barrel and mini-balls. Their killing range was doubled (or more). The massed charges of earlier years became suicide during the Civil War.

Or, you can go back to Cerce’ (sp?) or any number of other examples. Generals always try to refight the last war.

[ketsu]

Your "social status" will last only your lifetime. Only children perpetuate your culture and characteristics. The West is living as if there is no tomorrow. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we become extinct.

Nope. Here's the rub. Western culture(i.e. refined taste, education etc...) has become so hard to transmit effectively that it's almost impossible to transmit to a lot of children if you have a normal dual income household. That's why Koreans have the lowest birthrate and the highest SAT scores.

[nathanbedford]

A slight quibble with your excellent review: a very strong consideration for the British in fighting in Belgium and France in world war one was to deny channel and North Sea ports to the Germans not just because these ports were proximate to England. If the German Imperial Navy could sally out of these ports (as its subs did in World War II), the Royal Navy's task of keeping the sea lanes to Britain open would be infinitely complicated beyond its task of bottling them up in the Baltic.

As it was, the British succeeded in keeping the cork in the bottle by virtue of the Battle of Jutland but that, to borrow wellington' s phrase, was a damn close run thing.

Since Great Britain was by virtue of geography compelled to import such a high proportion of its foodstuffs, war material, and manpower from its colonies around the world, the maintenance of its sea lanes was the number one priority beyond thwarting an actual invasion. Lose the sea lanes, and the war would be lost. Britain always understood that its obligation to the alliance was first a maritime one. In the event, especially on the Somme, Britain got drawn into land battles and, at the end before American power began to tell even marginally, Great Britain actually carried the bulk of the fighting as the French went into eclipse.

A second quibble, and I mean just that, it is my recollection that a battleship and a couple of cruisers were sunk in the initial effort to force the Dardanelles and that contributed mightily to the inertia which gripped both the Royal Navy in the British Army. How much Churchill deserves blame for this portion of the affair is not clear to me, but I would argue that the temporizing by Hamilton was the primary cause for the debacle on land. I would be interested to know your thoughts.

But these quibbles do not affect our conclusions respecting Churchill and Buchanan's criticism of him.

[nathanbedford]

All the more reason to talk about it.

[nathanbedford]

Germany did not begin unrestricted submarine warfare until 1917, after Britain had been blockading for 3 years.

This analysis in Wikipedia, which you have cited as a source, does not agree with that conclusion:

http://www.germannotes.com/hist_ww1_uboat.shtml

With regard to the legality of the British blockade, I am unaware of the treaties which you cite. The British had been blockading the continent since before Napoleon. Moreover, after the Germans cleaned out Belgium, quibbles about the legality of the blockade seem misplaced

[Cronos]

The West lost the World at many points:
1. When Sweden set up an alliance with the Ottoman Caliphate,
2. When the British and French supported the Ottoman Caliphate against the Russian Orthodox who could have returned Constantinople to Christian hands in the 1800s.
3. When the French didn't return to a monarchy in 1848
4. When the Christian powers didn't forcibly return North Africa to Christianity

[Tailgunner Joe]

Winston Churchill and Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1909

[Cronos]

Your "social status" will last only your lifetime. Only children perpetuate your culture and characteristics. The West is living as if there is no tomorrow. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we become extinct.

Well, not extinct, but soon, China and India will be world powers again.

[patriciaruth]

Agree with your assessment of the importance of holding the Channel and the sea lanes.

When it became obvious to Churchill that the efforts in France were stalemated in deadly trench warfare with no path to victory there, he sought about for other options to advance the war.

The operation of forcing through the Dardanelles was first suggested to Admiral Carden by Churchill, and asked if it was feasible. Cardon came up with a multistaged plan which gained the acceptance of the War Council. First to pound down the forts at the entrance to the Dardanelles, then to sweep the mines from the Dardanelles, then to pound down the forts at the Narrows, and then to advance into the Sea of Marmara to the Island of Marmara. Istanbul was at the other end of this sea on the narrows that led into the Black Sea. It was known that there would be losses, and thus the first four battleships in line were old ones that had been taken off line that Churchill rescued and made serviceable to be sacrificed.

After pounding down the forts at the entrance of the Dardanelles, after beginning the mine sweep operation in the Dardanelles, and before any ships were lost, Admiral Carden suffered a nervous breakdown and was replaced by De Robeck.

There had been difficulties with the mine clearing because the minesweepers (actually trawlers) had been manned by British civilians and they had quailed and retreated when fired upon even though they didn’t suffer any casualties. They had had to be rallied and sent back to minesweeping a couple times.

The fleet in the Dardanelles when De Robeck took over was led by four dreadnoughts with 2 battleships behind and to the side. Behind were 6 more battleships, surrounded by destroyers and trawlers. The battleships proceeded to pound down the fortifications and defense at the Narrows. Ahead, unknown to them, Istanbul was being evacuated and was undefended.

The British battleships took turns with the French battleships. When the French turn came they sailed forward and spread out. The Suffre, the Bouvet, the Charlemagne and the Gaulois came forward and continued the destruction. But when they began to withdraw back toward the rear so the Brits could come forward again, the Bouvet blew up and sank with over 600 French sailors.

This caused great confusion. Till then only about a dozen of the seamen had been injured. The thought was that a howitzer had hit the ship in a lucky strike. The Brits went ahead and finished pounding the banks, and then the trawlers advanced again to finish minesweeping. But then Inflexible, near where Bouvet went down was “hit” and had to withdraw, and 5 minutes later Irresistible was hit. De Robeck thought that these last two ships were victims of mines that the enemy was floating down the straight toward them, but the truth was that a line of mines along the shore had been overlooked and all three ships had sailed too close and hit them.

De Robeck ordered withdrawal and during the withdrawal another ship came too close to that shore and Ocean also was lost. An officer stayed behind to rescue the last three ships hit, which were repairable, and noted there was no further shelling from the shores. But when he returned to the fleet with the belief that all they had to do was advance behind a minesweeping force (outfitting the destroyers for this with equipment at Malta) to gain the objective, he found De Robeck in deep depression and unwilling to continue. The French had lost one ship and its crew, and sixty odd British sailors had been hit, but the other ships hit were no loss as they had been destined to be scrapped.

Churchill sent four more battleships and the French sent another one. They had expected losses forcing the Dardanelles, but De Robeck refused to continue until army could be landed on Gallipoli to clear off any remaining resistance and guns.

Thus with the Turks and Germans down to three rounds of munitions did the Brits halt and give the Turks and Germans weeks to return and rearm and dig in to defend the Gallipoli peninsula.

And then the War Council of Britain, despite the arguments of Churchill to go forward, agreed to De Robeck’s plan; and Prime Minister Lloyd George sided with them and against Churchill, despite knowing what he and Churchill knew about the enemy being almost out of munitions, as the Brits had broken the code and were reading the desperate dispatches of the Turk defenders.

[Pelham]

“You could be a little kinder about it.”

Must be the effect of watching 3 episodes of ‘House M.D.’ in one session.

[Pelham]

To quibble with your most excellent post, I don’t think he is arguing that the British could have predicted the Japanese payback. He’s simply listing a series of blunders that led to the second war. His point is that the road to WWII is a good deal longer than the always-faithful Munich example.

“These kinds of ludicrous assertions which actually are wholly counter to historical reality betray a shallowness or more likely a need to create controversy in order to sell books.”

Isn’t his theme here just war doctrine? Jettisoning that isn’t exactly a mark of improvement for the West. Arguing that war justifies barbarism is often a line offered by Sherman’s enthusiasts who approve of targeting civilians. It’s effective and they don’t shoot back.

[nathanbedford]

It seems to me that Buchanan is listing a series of actions, implying that they are causes leading to effects,that is, "blunders" leading to, for example, Pearl Harbor. He does not describe the actions as mere waypoints in the course of history, he describes them as "blunders."

If one wants to ascribe a moral quality of blameworthiness to actions of a historical figure, such as Churchill or other British diplomats, that must imply a degree of foreseeability. How can an action be called a "blunder" if the actor could have had no idea of the sequelae? That takes me back to my original premise, historical figures should be judged on what they knew or should have known, not what decades of hindsight reveals.

But I did take your point to this degree, if a historic figure violates an undeniable principle, such as a British leader denuding his country of seapower, the consequences of which, while not specifically foreseeable were nevertheless to be expected to be negative, like the loss of war and invasion of Great Britain-such departure from principle might well be described as a "blunder."

If Buchanan's theme was in fact to advance the just war doctrine, it is literally impossible for him to have picked a more contrary example than the Nazi Holocaust to prove his point.

[patriciaruth]

Thought it only right that I should credit my source, which I forgot to do after I dusted it off and found the information about the ships that were hit by mines in the Dardanelles.

The Last Lion: Visions of Glory 1874-1932 by William Manchester.

A great book and surprisingly easy read for all its detail is couched in an exciting literary style.

[Pelham]

“If Buchanan’s theme was in fact to advance the just war doctrine, it is literally impossible for him to have picked a more contrary example than the Nazi Holocaust to prove his point.”

Nice try, but you’re evading his point which was whether making war on civilians was just. It said nothing regarding the holocaust. Once again a resort to argumentum ad hitlerum indicates either laziness or the lack of a suitable argument.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks for your posts but I must tell you that the last one has sent me scurrying up and down ladders looking for my old copy of Manchester's book which I finally found. You are right it is a great book but now I am troubled because I cannot find the sequel covering the between war years when he was alone.

Speaking of Churchill I would like to acknowledge that I have criss- crossed the admonitions which he draws as lessons in his history of World War II in my original post, but no one has yet corrected me.

You might be interested that here in Germany where I live most of the year I often play a bit of a parlor game with my German friends to get a sense of their worldview. I simply ask them to identify the greatest man of the 20th century. They usually name Adenauer and sometimes even Stalin or Mao, but never Churchill. Questioning reveals that it is not animus because of the war, it simply does not occur to them.

[nathanbedford]

Let's bring the conversation up to date from the beginning. Originally, Pat Buchanan wrote these words which I subsequently objected to:

He led the West down a moral incline to its own barbarism by imposing a starvation blockade on Germany in 1914 and launching air terror against open cities in 1940.

My objections were framed as follows:

Has Buchanan not heard of unrestricted submarine warfare? Is he unaware of German surface Raiders attempts to starve Britain at the beginning of the war? Does he not know that the ultimate near starvation of the German homefront by 1918 was a principal reason for the disintegration of Germany, causing Hindenburg and Ludendorff to tell the Kaiser there was no option but surrender?

With respect to the, "air terror against open cities in 1940," one can only respond: is Buchanan ignorant of Rotterdam? Of Coventry? Of the decision by the Luftwaffe in mid-September 1940 to divert its attacks from English airdromes to English cities thus commencing "the blitz?"

These kinds of ludicrous assertions which actually are wholly counter to historical reality betray a shallowness or more likely a need to create controversy in order to sell books.

Quoting my last paragraph, you offered the following observation:

Isn’t his theme here just war doctrine? Jettisoning that isn’t exactly a mark of improvement for the West. Arguing that war justifies barbarism is often a line offered by Sherman’s enthusiasts who approve of targeting civilians. It’s effective and they don’t shoot back.

To your observation I replied:

If Buchanan's theme was in fact to advance the just war doctrine, it is literally impossible for him to have picked a more contrary example than the Nazi Holocaust to prove his point.

In rejoinder, you offered this:

Nice try, but you’re evading his point which was whether making war on civilians was just. It said nothing regarding the holocaust. Once again a resort to argumentum ad hitlerum indicates either laziness or the lack of a suitable argument.

It was you who introduced the theme of, "just war doctrine" into the discussion. I understood the doctrine to come from Catholic theology and to have mostly to do with whether the undertaking of the war was morally defensible. In that context, clearly undertaking a war against Hitlerism is hardly constitutes resort to an ad hominem and is clearly unworthy of criticism.

But let me assume that by "just war doctrine", which you do not define, you meant not just the undertaking of war but also the means by which the war was waged. Buchanan asserts that Churchill: "launch [ed] air terror against open cities in 1940." First, use of the word "launch" implies that Buchanan meant that Churchill initiated air bombing. If he did not mean that, his choice of language was careless or misleading because, as I pointed out in my objection, we had already had Rotterdam and Coventry and the blitz.

Second, Buchanan said the bombing was "air terror." Prior to the firebombing raids especially against Dresden which came very late in the war, the Allied air war was directed at defensible strategic objectives. Long before the firebombing, Goebbels had made his famous speech declaring total war. To stand history on its head and imply that Churchill waged air terror, ( no "launched" air terror) is under these historic circumstances the worst kind of disregard of moral truth. Why is it "unjust" to bomb guilty civilians who support a regime which is literally murdering other civilians by the millions when one has reasonable cause to believe that such bombing will hasten the end of the war and save innocent civilian as well as military lives?

Third, Buchanan asserts that Churchill "launched" "air terror" against "open cities." An open city in warfare is one which has been declared to be abandoned and one which will not be defended. No German city was ever declared such. No "open city" was ever bombed. Again, Buchanan is playing fast and loose with his vocabulary. If he is so high-minded as you imply when you introduce the just war doctrine-even though he himself never refers to the doctrine-he does his cause no service with this deception or carelessness.

Fourth, you state that civilians do not shoot back, well, someone was certainly shooting back at the eighth Air Force whose losses were staggering and someone was certainly shooting back at the British who had to suspend daylight bombing because of their losses. Civilians organize a nation state and support its armed forces, including its air defense, in that sense civilians were indisputably shooting back.

Finally, I think the foregoing demonstrates that what I have written is more than a,"nice try." I do not know what prompted you to descend to such condescension. I say again, undertaking a war against Hitler, and waging air strikes against cities which contain civilians, as well as strategic targets, in a war in which the civilians themselves have become a strategic target, is "just" by any rational standard. So, when I asserted, "If Buchanan's theme was in fact to advance the just war doctrine, it is literally impossible for him to have picked a more contrary example than the Nazi Holocaust to prove his point." I can confidently, even complacently, say that history and this very thread support me in every respect and there is utterly no warrant to be found anywhere in history or in this thread to justify this remark:

Once again a resort to argumentum ad hitlerum indicates either laziness or the lack of a suitable argument.

[patriciaruth]

This discussion has likewise made me interested in reading the Alone sequel of The Last Lion, and I found it offered at Amazon and have bought it. Will probably dive in when it arrives later this coming week. Hope you find your copy.

Churchill’s monumental WWII series drew me back to reread the last three volumes last year.

I recognized his aphorisms about honorable conduct of the various stages of war; but as I had pondered them once, I skipped your repetition so I didn’t notice any anomalies. Now I have forgotten where exactly I saw them before.

My copy of The Last Lion: Visions of Glory is now in a care package going to Baghdad.

They say a prophet or genius is often not recognized in his own country, so I would assume it is less so in one he brought to its knees. But a recent survey showed only 67% of the people in England knew the Earth goes around the sun. More Germans than Brits knew but Americans got the best score, around 80%.

One thing that I remember from the book that impressed me was that T.E. Lawrence became such a friend and admirer of Churchill. I made a small attempt to get a copy of Lawrence’s writings on strategy for counterinsurgency and fighting guerrila warfare a copy years ago, but they were very expensive then.

Now I see they have an anthology of military writing by him called Lawrence in War and Peace, and I wonder if that would be satisfactory for now.

I’m not sure what candidates there are for the greatest man of the 20th century. Whose life made the most difference? The Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Ronald Reagan, Churchill? Or who affected the most people? Mao and Stalin and Lenin and Hitler and the Kaiser all have left their mark on events. I don’t think I can begin to get a handle on that one.

Have you got some names for a candidates? Did Einstein really change much in the last 100 years or is his effect yet to come. The rocket scientists? Or are we overlooking Noam Choamsky’s perverse influence?

Going to bed, but I will ponder this again later.

Cheers!

[Pelham]

“I understood the doctrine to come from Catholic theology and to have mostly to do with whether the undertaking of the war was morally defensible. In that context, clearly undertaking a war against Hitlerism is hardly constitutes resort to an ad hominem and is clearly unworthy of criticism.”

Just War theory is concerned with how war is fought, not just whether the enemy is morally deserving of being attacked.

In WWII the Pope condemned the bombing of civilians, in Germany as well as Japan. That doesn’t mean he condemned our fighting Germany and Japan, simply that some of our methods were evil in his eyes. Buchanan is an observant Catholic who gives weight to this sort of critique. He isn’t inventing the critique on his own, which is what I gather you think he is doing.

“But let me assume that by “just war doctrine”, which you do not define, you meant not just the undertaking of war but also the means by which the war was waged.”

I didn’t know I had to define it, seeing as there has been a body of literature on the subject in the Christian west for centuries. I assumed that since you were criticizing Buchanan’s writings which addressed the topic that you knew the topic yourself. Evidently I was mistaken.

“First, use of the word “launch” implies that Buchanan meant that Churchill initiated air bombing. If he did not mean that, his choice of language was careless or misleading because, as I pointed out in my objection, we had already had Rotterdam and Coventry and the blitz.”

No, it simply means you conflated “launched” with “first to initiate”.

“Second, Buchanan said the bombing was “air terror.” Prior to the firebombing raids especially against Dresden which came very late in the war, the Allied air war was directed at defensible strategic objectives.”

In 1942 Churchill’s Cabinet decided on a policy of area bombing of German cities in contrast to strategic precision bombing. The campaign explicitly targeted homes and houses, as described by Professor Lindemann who designed the policy. The massive firestorm of Dresden is only the most famous of the raids conducted by Bomber Harris.

“Third, Buchanan asserts that Churchill “launched” “air terror” against “open cities.” An open city in warfare is one which has been declared to be abandoned and one which will not be defended.”

No, it doesn’t mean “abandoned”, it does mean it isn’t being occupied by a defending army.

“Again, Buchanan is playing fast and loose with his vocabulary. If he is so high-minded as you imply when you introduce the just war doctrine-even though he himself never refers to the doctrine-he does his cause no service with this deception or carelessness.”

Once again Buchanan is taking the line of his church. You really ought to read more of his writing, then perhaps your criticisms would at least be informed. You seem to be a stellar example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. In this instance to your target as opposed to yourself.

“Fourth, you state that civilians do not shoot back, well, someone was certainly shooting back at the eighth Air Force whose losses were staggering and someone was certainly shooting back at the British who had to suspend daylight bombing because of their losses.”

The AAF attacked military targets which naturally shoot back. The RAF was engaged in the city bombing designed by Churchill’s professor, and that is what is being debated.

“Finally, I think the foregoing demonstrates that what I have written is more than a,”nice try.” “

Hardly. You set yourself as a critic of a writer who has been writing on the theme of the just use of force for over a decade now, who often cites the source for his reasoning, and it is obvious that you haven’t a clue about the background of his writing. If you did you wouldn’t be suggesting that I have introduced the theme of just war doctrine, you would know that this is a major theme in Buchanan’s historical musings.

[KC_Conspirator]

Token “con” is right, but not conservative. Pat should have just subtitled the book “In defense of Mein Fuehrer” and posed in his Hitlerjugend SS uniform hidden in the false panel in the back of his wardrobe. This all goes down to his reflexive and ugly hatred of Jews, couched in what he believes is intellectual thought.

[patriciaruth]

He [Churchill] was behind the greatest British military blunders in two wars: the Dardanelles disaster of 1915 and the Norwegian fiasco of 1940 that brought down Chamberlain and vaulted Churchill to power.

I've already discussed that Churchill was exonerated in the Dardanelles affair in WWI.

This week I've been reading William Manchester's The Last Lion, Alone 1932-1940, and I find out that Buchanan doesn't know what he's talking about when he refers to "the Norwegian fiasco".

Chamberlain, taking Halifax's advice about the Norwegian excursion instead of Churchill's advice, was who was behind making the Norwegian campaign a fiasco, which is why he and not Churchill was the one turned out of office.

Churchill was Hitler's bete noire, and evidently he is the bete noire of Nazi-lovers.

It's pretty sad when a little old lady with Amazon Prime can easily learn historical facts than PBJ seems to have no knowledge of. I have to assume than PBJ has drunk the Nazi Kool-Aid, and should be believed as much as I believe the Marxist Kool Aid drinkers who think that President Bush blew up the World Trade Center.