> I agree with him on WWI, but not WWII. <
Yep. Buchanan was spot on in regards to WW I. But I found some of his views on WW II to be, shall we say, rather disturbing. In particular, he felt that Britain and France should just have let Hitler take Poland. It was no big deal that Nazi Germany invaded a sovereign country, and brutally subjugated it.
Buchanan thought that if left alone, Hitler would never turn west. And so it would just be Nazi Germany vs. the Soviet Union. Two monsters fighting, with poor Poland merely collateral damage.
I dunno. Hitler was much like Napoleon. Both wanted everything. So had Germany beaten the USSR, I can’t believe Hitler wouldn’t have turned west.
Well the flip side was that the Soviet Union had as a condition of allying with Britain and France, getting half of Poland. Now of course they phrased it as “allowing Soviet Troops to be stationed in Poland”, but we know what that really meant. Britain and France told Stalin, no, so, Stalin made the deal with Hitler.
I think Hitler didn’t have designs on Britain, assuming at the very least Britain stayed neutral. He would have been ok with Britain and Germany being the two big dogs, if Britain would have allowed it.
But clearly over time, Germany would have eventually worked to thwart Britain once she won her colonies in the East.
Yes he seemed to have unfounded sympathy for Germany. Germany got off easy in my opinion.