Pat Buchanan: Hitler Didn't Plan to Kill the Jews

Little Green Footballs ^ | 6-20-08 | Charles Johnson

[SeafoodGumbo]

Hey, way to go, Townhall.com. Why not publish Pat Buchanan’s Holocaust revisionism? After all, he’s a real conservative, isn’t he?

Retch.

Townhall.com::Was the Holocaust Inevitable?::By Patrick J. Buchanan.

I’ve removed Townhall.com from our list of news sources. This is appalling.

UPDATE at 6/20/08 9:39:59 am:

The article has been deleted, but the print version is still online.

[Jim Noble]

Not true. The holocaust began in earnest as soon as Hitler invaded Russia in June of 1941

I thought the Einsatzgruppen were there to build day care centers, like Osama. You mean that's not true?

Here's a Nazi patting a Jew on the head - they didn't mean any harm...

[dfwgator]

In America, You watch TV. In Soviet Russia, TV watch YOU!

It started with Krystalnacht.

[dfwgator]

Oops! Damned copy/paste.

[BroJoeK]

"The network of alliances, and highly competitive imperialism (especially with Germany trying to make up for lost time) pretty much made war inevitable."

I argue that what made the war "inevitable" was NOT some mechanistic "system" that somehow careened out of control.

No, what made war "inevitable" was that Kaiser Willy WANTED war, and STARTED IT.

He WANTED it because: what Kaiser (Latin: Caesar) worth his weight in spit does not conquer territory and add to his empire?

He NEEDED war in 1914 because: in the best estimate of German intelligence, if he waited too long, Russia would grow too strong to be defeated.

The Kaiser had little respect for the French & Brits, and gave no consideration at all to the Americans.

[Oztrich Boy]

I've always said the US should have intervened in WWI, ON THE SIDE OF THE KAISER.

Well The US couldn't have intervened in Europe, so the queation is how long would the American public supported the US Government in the fight against the Canadian Resistence insurgents?

[BroJoeK]

"Clearly, much of the fault for WWI rests with France. Not that the Kaiser was not irresponsible (as he certainly was) but the French refusal to accept the settlement of 1871 was the cause of European instability."

Imho, you're just jabbering nonsense.

World War came in August 1914 for one reason and one reason ONLY -- BECAUSE THE FRICKING KAISER DECLARED WAR -- on Russia, on Belgium and on France. And then invaded them.

And, so far as I know, neither Belgium, France nor Russia ever declared war on Germany, even though they fought for years to drive the b*stards out of their countries!

If the Kaiser had not declared war, there would BE NO WAR. It's that simple.

So all this other psycho-babble is PURE NONSENSE.

[r9etb]

Oh, I fully agree with you that the Germans were at the forefront of wanting the war; but the Allies were not far behind. The whole network of treaty obligations was such that all parties went to war with a will.

Still, I think the outbreak of hostilities was quite inevitable ... especially because I think none of the European nations actually understood what modern warfare would entail; and once they actually got into it, they had no idea how to get back out short of total victory.

[BroJoeK]

"The Holocaust was invoked only when Germany began to lose the war."

Apologists for Nazis play endless games with definitions of the word "Holocaust," and in the end, somehow manage to define it away. So there was no Holocaust, they claim.

Many Jews consider the Holocaust to be the entire Nazi era, from 1933 to the end in 1945. Depends on your definitions.

From the beginning, the Nazi plan was to expel all Jews from the Nazi empire, and by 1939 they had largely succeeded in Germany.

The takeovers of Austria and Czechoslovakia brought more rapid, though incomplete expulsions.

With the conquest of Poland, the plan changed to mass transport of Jews to Ghettos & concentration camps -- where Jews & others worked, starved and died in huge numbers.

There were also mass murders in Poland (1939), though not yet on the scale of genocide.

Long before his invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Hitler announce it would be a "war of destruction," and established Einsatzgruppen for the mass murder of Communists and Jews.

In all, over a million Jews were murdered by Einsatzgruppen & other military units, but the effect on German troop morale was bad, and so a "better way" was needed.

Enter the gas chambers. Different methods were tried, including sending gassing vans to murder sites.

In the end, from the Nazi perspective, the best solution (indeed, the Final Solution) was the Death Camp, the first of which, Chelmno, began operation in late 1941.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE: In late 1941 Adolf Hitler was at the absolute pinnacle of his powers. Since 1933 he had gone from one success to the next bigger success -- never faltering, never failing, always succeeding.

By late 1941, Adolf Hitler was the closest embodiment to a god on earth that the Germans or anyone else had ever seen -- he could do no wrong, both in his own mind and in the minds of Germans. So, what Hitler wanted, Hitler got.

And Hitler wanted the Jews dead, all of them.

By late 1941, Hitler was so confident of his own powers that at the same time he began to gas Jews, he also unnecessarily declared war on the United States.

[spanalot]

No - the Ukrainian Holodomor that claimed 10 million in 1933 which included half a million Mennonites, Amish, and other fundamentalist Germans that had colonized the area from the time of Catherine the Great.

http://colley.co.uk/garethjones/soviet_articles/holodomor_letters.htm

Thousands of letters got back to Germany describing the Communist genocide which peaked exactly when Hitler attained his dictatorship.

Unfortunately, FDR ignored the truth and the Pulitzer gave Duranty his prize for the NY Times articles that covered up this unknown war. His son also got a nice “commission” for the sale of war planes to the newly recognized Bolshevic scum country.

No FDR meant no Holodomor meant no Holocaust (or WWII for that matter).

[quadrant]

You're falling into the trap of those who skim over the events of history, rather than deeve into the deeper problems.
Lets remember that pre-WWI Europe has been described as a house cards: one card removed and the whole structure tumbled.

Granted the Kaiser was irresponsible, but he was not the only one who was unwilling or unable to for see the tragedy that awaited Europe if a general war broke out. Ironically, the one individual who did understand the potential tragedy was Edward VII. Bertie spent his entire adult life (between dalliances) endeavoring to keep the peace in Europe. His death brought George V to the throne, and though an honest and upright man, he did not possess the vision of his father.
If you wish a list of those who share blame for the tragedy, any objective book of history will do. But in addition to the Kaiser, you can add the Serbian General Staff, The Czar, the French government, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, and even Lord Grey, who concluded an entente with France, the details of which were never communicated to Parliament, the Cabinet, and worst of all in a constitutional monarchy, to the King.
And to rebut your contention, if the Czar had not mobilized the Russian Army, it is unlikely the war would have broken out at all.

[quadrant]

You're falling into the trap of those who skim over the events of history, rather than delve into the deeper problems.
Lets remember that pre-WWI Europe has been described as a house cards: one card removed and the whole structure tumbled.

Granted the Kaiser was irresponsible, but he was not the only one who was unwilling or unable to understand the tragedy that awaited Europe if a general war broke out. Ironically, the one individual who did understand the potential tragedy was Edward VII. Bertie spent his entire adult life (between dalliances) endeavoring to keep the peace in Europe. His death brought George V to the throne, and though an honest and upright man, he did not possess the vision of his father.
If you wish a list of those who share blame for the tragedy, any objective book of history will do. But in addition to the Kaiser, you can add the Serbian General Staff, The Czar, the French government, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, and even Lord Grey, who concluded an entente with France, the details of which were never communicated to Parliament, the Cabinet, and worst of all in a constitutional monarchy, to the King.
And to rebut your contention, if the Czar had not mobilized the Russian Army, it is unlikely the war would have broken out at all.

[quadrant]

And this means what?

[okie01]

...if the Czar had not mobilized the Russian Army, it is unlikely the war would have broken out at all.

By all accounts, an accurate identification of "the point of no return".

[BroJoeK]

"And to rebut your contention, if the Czar had not mobilized the Russian Army, it is unlikely the war would have broken out at all. "

Knowing all the existing alliances, eight days after the archduke's assassination, on July 5, 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm promised German support for Austria against Serbia. Had he not dones so, there could be no war.

So Austria went ahead with its ultimatum and declared war on Serbia, July 28.

On July 31, as required by their treaty with Serbia, Russia began a partial mobilization, giving assurances to Germany it was only against Austria.

On August 1, Germany refused to accept Russia's explanation, declared war against Russia and mobilized; then soon invaded Luxembourg, Belgium, France and Russia.

None of those others declared war on Germany or mobilized against Germany until after the Germans acted.

Clearly, Germany is the major actor here -- all the others just reacting to Germany's aggression:

[meadsjn]

Thanks for posting the link.

It's amusing to see the ravings of ignorant bigots that follow postings of any material by Pat Buchanan. You boast of your own prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance in a lame attempt to label someone else as such.

Rather than read the articles to discuss or debate the issues or historical information therein, you and similarly brainwashed sycophantic communists dutifully set about attacking the writer. Thus has it been for PB articles for several years.

Buchanan deliberately chooses provocative headlines. I can guess two reasons why.

One would be to attract readers with an interest in historical analysis, who though shocked by the headline, still would like to see the author's analysis of the historical record to see just how the theoretical conclusion was formed.

The other reason would be to repel ignorant bozos like you and the subsequent posters who, true to communist propaganda form, attack the messenger prior to reading any of the article, and solicit others to join in bashing the person rather that discussing the issues.

World War II left over 50 million people dead and a multitude of questions about what happened and why. Events of that scale don't emerge from a vacuum or from short disagreements. It would behoove the people of the modern world to learn more from history, rather than less.

The thought police are not your friend.

[BroJoeK]

"Rather than read the articles to discuss or debate the issues or historical information therein, you and similarly brainwashed sycophantic communists dutifully set about attacking the writer."

Hmmmmmmmmm.....

I read Buchanan's article several times, and have responded to some of his points, six times.

But the long and short of it is, what Buchanan writes is utter and complete bunk. Sorry, but all he's doing is sucking up to neo-Nazis. Well, he can have them.

You have made no argument at all. All you've done is blast away with ludicrous insults.

Are we to suppose that you pretty well reflect Buchanan's own true feelings...?

[quadrant]

True

[quadrant]

Never, have I written or implied that the Kaiser was without fault. The guarantee that he gave to Austria was reckless in the extreme.
No one can deny that the Serbian General Staff was deeply involved in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. If Russia could not allow Serbia to be crushed, then neither could German allow Austria to be dismembered.
The questions are: would Russia have mobilized if she had not been confident that France would support her?
And if France had not been determined to regain Alsasce-Lorraine, would she have gotten herself involved in a quarrel that did not concern her at all?
Remember, it is the conflict between Britain and France v. Germany that is the issue. WWI was a terrible miscalculation on everyone's part. And as I wrote before, only a man as farseeing as Edward VII could have prevented it. Unfortunately, Bertie was dead.

[Zman516]

"The seminal error of the Twentieth Century remains the US intervention in WWI."

I agree. Although England, France and Germany were all exhausted, Germany did have the upper hand, and worst case scenario, France would have had to surrender territory in a negotiated ceasefire. WWII would never have happened, at least under the circumstances that it did.

But since we have no parallel universe to observe, we'll never know.

[BroJoeK]

"Never, have I written or implied that the Kaiser was without fault. The guarantee that he gave to Austria was reckless in the extreme."

No, no, no. Not RECKLESS. Deliberate, intentional, calculated, premeditated -- knowing full well what the consequences must NECESSARILY be.

The Kaiser had backed away from precisely this kind of confrontation several times in previous years. He knew exactly what must happen next, and this time he was determined not to back down again.

And the PROOF that Germany knew what must happen is in their great Schlieffen Plan.

Remember, the conflict here was between Austria and Serbia, with Russia threatening Austria on behalf of the Serbs. Had the Kaiser been seriously interested in peace, he could simply have called off the Austrians, called up his younger cousin Tsar Nicholas, and arranged a peace conference.

But the Kaiser didn't want peace, he wanted war.

And what did he do?
Did he send troops to Austria to help them against Russia?
Did he first march into Russia?

No, of course not.
He first invaded Luxembourg, Belgium and France -- none of which had declared war on Germany.

The reason the Kaiser WANTED war was because he believed he could win it in 1914, but possibly not if he waited too much longer.

And he was almost, almost, almost right.

So the real truth of the matter seems obvious to me.
Why then do so many want to deny or obscure it?