Posted on 06/09/2008 10:45:11 AM PDT by prolifefirst
I'm finishing up Buchanan's book and am looking for people who have read it who:
1) Argue in detail with any of his points.
2) Recommend essays from experts who challenge some of Buchanan's contentions.
Just going on what I read in the book, what he says makes sense.
Leaving aside the absurdity of that claim, how?
Recent documentary on telivision eulogised a controversial Jewish man. He bargained with the Nazi's and paid monies to get Jews out of Germany. Another man, being a Nazi, is documented in doing the same thing. Both men the recipients of mixed feelings. Some saying they enlarged their own coffers and this was the motivation.
A little known fact. Rich Jews were being flown out of Germany right up to September 1939. They were landing in New York.
The ordinary Jewish citizen did not stand a chance of course.
I turn to the third class of opposition, the Churches. National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable.... If therefore in the future our youth learn nothing more of this Christianity whose doctrines are far below ours, Christianity will disappear by itself ... All influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuehrer with the aid of NSDAP must be eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the Churches and their organs, the pastors
Martin Bormann, December 1941
It would have been his job to write for the President. That doesn’t mean he thought the thing up or decided how it would be implemented. Buchanan may want to believe that his pieces changed history, but history doesn’t confirm it.
You have certainly ventured on a controversial theme. The problem for those that research and are prepared to explore other ideas, is that it seems to denigrate what was done by those who made "the supreme sacrifice". This I would not do for the worlds. Even posing another view seems to raise some adverse comment, but those are not my views.
I simply do not know and really nobody will ever know. The Germans themselves tried to assassinate Hitler. All was not black and white in that war. You may have this book, but it is a fine piece of work and controversial.
"The New Dealers' War.
(F.D.R. And The War Within World War II.
Thomas Fleming. Basic Books 2001.
I would refrain here, from recounting some of the things that I myself remember,m being told as a child in WW2. I cannot however, not relate a returning soldier's comment to us.
"You thought you 'ad it bad? You should 'ave seen wot we did to 'Amburg".
Even Chamberlain conceded that the Germans tried to negotiate. Luckily for me this is in the British House of Commons Hansard. Chamberlain has got a lot of knocks. Let me give his reply to questions about the German attempt to negotiate.
"Hitler has missed the bus".
The war, after eight months of dallying, was on.
Plus teh Nazis were especially evil, why does Buchanan try to convince anyone Germany would have been no problem when in fact Germany was bust carving up the World? I could argue the Soviets were less dangerous because we never had a WW with them and we won.
note: speaking of neutral countries, I did not mean to imply that Portugal and Franco’s Spain were not also “left standing” — I should have specified neutral countries “east/north of the Pyrennees”
Whether or not Hitler would have gotten around to conquering the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal if he had succeeded in all of his aims to the east of Germany, who knows?? Even if he had left those 5 countries alone he still most likely would have completed his genocidal “Mein Kampf” programme all over Eastern Europe (any assertion to the contrary is the idlest form of speculation). But PB’s facile assumption that continued appeasement of Hitler would have ended with a nice cozy arrangement that left Western Europe alone while Hitler proceeded with his genocidal “Mein Kampf” programme in the east is way too lazy and speculative.
At best, PB is creating this whole fantasy alternate “what if” history based upon the kind of assumptions prevalent in the early 1930s, that Hitler was (in the eyes of some people) a useful bulwark against Bolshevism and that in any case Hitler would not be as bad as Bolshevism.
Nearly everyone in Europe tried to believe for as long as possible that Hitler was not a total megalomaniac out to dominate and/or conquer all of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Events PROVED that Hitler constantly discarded previous statements and policies/treaties of apparent moderation, and that each piece of territory and peoples he gobbled up only increased his demented appetites. That is what virtually everyone in Europe understood by Sept. 1939. I must note with astonishment that Pat Buchanan, with 70 more years to study the subject, can now believe that Hitler could have been appeased with just the Germanic territories and that he would have stoppped his aggression once he had Danzig and Sudetenland, etc.
The suggestion was in one of Pat’s pieces for one of the national magazines. He claimed his writings helped “test the waters.”
Buchanan presents a strong case that Churchill would take violence to any extreme available to him including the wholesale slaughter of women, children and the aged, and that he thought highly of Stalin through the first half of the war.
Further, quote after quote shows that Churchill was deep-seated racist.
Buchanan had an extensive section supporting how the German Navy wasn’t anywhere close to England’s.
One piece of evidence he points to is that the German’s agreed to a treaty whereby the Germans would not build a Navy that came to more than 35% of the stength of the Royal Navy, and the Germans didn’t even bother coming close to the 35%.
Much of that book was fabricated. See the book “Unreliable Witness: Espionage Myths of World War II” By Nigel West.
A little thing called the Second World War placed a considerable kink in the Kriegsmarine building plans. VADM Ruge details the year by year building plan and how German admirals urged Hitler to hold off on his war plans until the Navy was up to planned strength. The leading admirals wanted Hitler to wait until about 1945. Then, what did VADM Ruge know, he was only party to the planning committees and not a “conservative” apologist for the Third Reich.
.....just long enough to starve Britain of food, fuel and materiel.
Thanks America for helping break the blockade. Some of us still remember.
It had to be done to save the last major democracy in Europe. After France fell, it was just you against evil.
I did catch Monica Crowley hosting Pat Buchanan this morning. I lost him when he began to minimize Hitler's invasion of Poland.
I stipulate Hitler was an appetite. He was adept in channeling the German zeitgeist and harnessing it to his will.
His number seven membership in what became the NSDAP, and his long struggle ending in projecting blame and fleeing consequence was identical with an imperative to destroy him.
World conquest or his own destruction--an either or proposition: we chose wisely.
If Carthage warranted it in Caesar's eye, for a Free World, Hitler delenda est.
I view Pat Buchanan as a Hitler apologist. In another era, Pat Buchanan would have written Hitler's speeches.
I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
But opportunities exist.
Behold Baracka Hussein Mohammed Obama Junior Twelfth Imam of Chicago, Kenya, Indonesia, Defender of Hamas and Hizbollah, betrayer of Jerusalem, Disarmer of G-D America--
Surely David Axelrod needs a collaborator Pat--like that word?
Perhaps, willing handmaiden.
Adding to your point...concentration camps started in 1933 resulting in untold numbers of deaths....Pat is a fool....In the new bizzaro world, Churchill is Hitler and Hitler is Mother Teresa...Give me a fn break Pat....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.