I can’t even begin to parse the ridiculousness of Pat Buchanan’s latest piece, which argues that Hitler had no interest in conquering the world but was forced into war in Poland and then prevented from making peace by the recalcitrance of the Allies. “Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps,” Buchanan intones, as if the Holocaust was also forced on the Germans by lack of cooperation.
This is the kind of appalling historical piece that leaves me thinking that I’ve fallen through into a bizarro world, and wondering what on the earth Buchanan thought the point was? To rehabilitate Hitler? To excoriate those uncooperative Poles?
He’s not even particularly good at it. To handwave his way past Hitler’s true intentions, he has to define the world that the Nazi wanted to conquer carefully, as “Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia.” Any major countries missing? Anybody? Any massively large land power nearby Germany, full of (by Nazi lights) untermenschen that the Germans could conquer for some lebensraum?
He does deal with the Soviet Union, eventually, but can only manage the patently risible “As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?” The mind boggles. How strange a coincidence for Buchanan that the country blocking Hitler from invading Russia was, in fact, Poland, and that by October 1, 1939, Germany and the USSR did share a border. It was over this border that around 3 million German troops would pour two years later.
Enough. This is the kind of horrendous drivel that would embarrass a crazy uncle spouting off at a family reunion as everyone stands by awkwardly and shuffles their feet. It is the historical equivalent of speaking in tongues: the syllables, accents, rhythms, and pauses of actual speech that, when actually heard, dissolve to gibberish. Buchanan strings together his events from the past in a coherent narrative; coherent but absolutely disconnected from reality. Somewhere in this world, a rabbit in a waistcoat is looking at his watch, muttering about lateness. Buchanan has no worries on that score; he is well down the hole already.

86 comments
September 2, 2009 at 6:40 pm
ari
This is really nicely done, silbey.
September 2, 2009 at 6:43 pm
kevin
I think we should pit Glenn Beck and Pat Buchanan against one another in a Thunderdome-style crazy competition. Put it up on Pay-Per-View and we could erase the deficit overnight.
September 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Charlieford
I really like that last line, silbey. But questions remain: if someone’s really stupid, or if they’re actually mad (and I mean nut-house mad, not just Agnew- or Palin-mad) you can see them believing this. Buchanan, I’m guessing, is neither. How to explain?
September 2, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Brad DeLong
It depends what you mean by “mad.” I think at some level the young Pat Buchanan was taught by his priests (a) to hate the Godless Russian Communists, and (b) that the Jews were the Christ-killers.
So he thinks that Hitler killed lots of Godless Russian Communists, and killing Christ-killers is, after all, no biggie…
Matthew 27:19-25 has an awful lot to answer for:
>When [Pontius Pilate] was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
>The governor answered and said unto them, “Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?”
>They said, “Barabbas.”
>Pilate saith unto them, “What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?”
>They all say unto him, “Let him be crucified.”
>And the governor said, “Why, what evil hath he done?”
>But they cried out the more, saying, “Let him be crucified.”
>When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.”
>Then answered all the people, and said, “His blood be on us, and on our children”…
September 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Charlieford
Uh, well, ok. Of course, what’s with all those Biblical literalist fundamentalists being all ga-ga over the Jews all the time.
But look, when I say nut-house mad, I mean something kind of specific. I’ve spent some time in a nut-house (draw whatever conclusions you wish!) and one thing you note: lots of weird ideas, yes, but also not much competence at all kinds of everyday tasks. Buchanan strikes me as nice and clean-scrubbed.
September 2, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Ahistoricality
The only thing that distinguishes this from Buchanan’s past writings is how open it is.
That said, I’ve had enough: I’ve notified MSNBC that I’m boycotting and ridiculing their programing until he is no longer associated with them.
September 2, 2009 at 9:27 pm
RCocean
Buchanan while overstating in his case ( to say the least) has written extensively on diplomatic maneuvers leading to WW II, including a well written book. You on the other hand, are merely an idiot.
What was the point you ask? Easy. Buchanan is trying to destroy the “Munich Myth” used by the power elite ever since Truman to justify intervention around the world. Every intervention (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea) has been supported by blackening those opposed as “appeasers” or “Just like Chamberlain”. Buchanan is trying to set the record straight.
Doing so, doesn’t make him “An Apologist for Hitler” or C-r-a-z-y. Even though those who watch the History Channel may think so.
But sorry to interrupt your little hate fest.
September 2, 2009 at 9:28 pm
jacobus
I usually enjoy your posts sibley, but I’m afraid that when you saw the word “Buchanan” followed closely by “Hitler,” your brain turned to mush.
Before the silly hand-waving of the line at the end about the Soviet Union not having a border with Germany, he makes points which seem reasonable enough. I’m in no position to judge whether his argument is accurate, but I’m quite sure that “Oh, crazy right wing nut Buchanan is being slightly contrarian about Hitler again!” is not an effective counter argument. Arguments like these drive people in to the hands of hyper-literate, possibly insane reactionary Mencius Moldbug.
(ps to commenters: it’s no longer 1654. Right wing Christians now hate Jews because of usury and Hollywood, not because of deicide)
September 2, 2009 at 9:38 pm
ari
Wait, just to clarify, you’re saying the Jews are especially usurious? And you’re accusing the other commenters of dealing in anachronisms?
September 2, 2009 at 9:39 pm
ari
Y’know what, don’t bother answering. I’m sitting this one out.
September 2, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Miriam
Wow. Two trolls for the price of one!
September 2, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Uncle Billy Cunctator
“This is the kind of horrendous drivel that would embarrass a crazy uncle spouting off at a family reunion as everyone stands by awkwardly and shuffles their feet.”
I do not resemble this comment.
Pat Buchanan: Maybe this is his only way of getting attention? It is radically contrarian.
Mencius Moldbug: Is he or she the unfettered alter-ego of a regular contributor to this site?
September 2, 2009 at 10:06 pm
serofriend
After reading Silbey’s Case White post, I’m not really understanding why Buchanan cites German defense as primary evidence for his arguments. I mean, if I wanted to blitz Poland, I’d certainly make sure that I covered home base. Perhaps the devil is in the details, tactics, and historical context?
September 2, 2009 at 10:24 pm
John
So how does hating Jews for usury make today’s right-wing Christians different from the ones in 1654? Myths about usury and blood libel (along with ritual murder of Christian babies) go back to the high middle ages.
September 2, 2009 at 11:25 pm
amused bystander
I remember when the standard response to a Buchanan outburst was how much better his stuff read in the original German.
September 2, 2009 at 11:29 pm
herbert browne
Maybe Buchanan is acquiring indulgences by working on the “saint-hood” track for Pius XII… and is laying a little preliminary groundwork (“talking points”) to massage the image into a saintly mien… ^..^
September 3, 2009 at 2:33 am
infrequent commenter
what’s with all those Biblical literalist fundamentalists being all ga-ga over the Jews all the time.
I heard they are laying the ground for when they need to convert a certain number of Jews after the antichrist arrives.
September 3, 2009 at 3:32 am
Black Mage
In 1996, Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary. A week earlier, if a few thousand Iowans had changed their minds, he would have won Iowa as well; and with such momentum he surely would have won South Carolina.
He came close — damn close — to being the GOP candidate against Clinton.
We have our crazies on the left. Our hands are not clean. But at least we never came close to giving them the party standard.
September 3, 2009 at 3:57 am
dana
what’s with all those Biblical literalist fundamentalists being all ga-ga over the Jews all the time.
The Eschaton is scheduled for their backyard, and they’re hoping they’ll let them come over for the party.
September 3, 2009 at 5:59 am
silbey
Buchanan, I’m guessing, is neither. How to explain?
This is the second thread that you’ve raised thoughtful, probing questions that make me think. You really need to cut it out. Buchanan’s syndrome is not an isolated one: John Charmley has made similar arguments (eric was kind enough to remind me of this), as has David Irving. Charmley seems fixated on the loss of British greatness, while Buchanan still seems to me locked in the Cold War, as Brad DeLong pointed out, obsessing about the communists.
Buchanan while overstating in his case ( to say the least) has written extensively on diplomatic maneuvers leading to WW II, including a well written book
The book is certainly well-written. It is nonetheless as far down the rabbit hole as Buchanan’s post.
What was the point you ask? Easy. Buchanan is trying to destroy the “Munich Myth” used by the power elite ever since Truman to justify intervention around the world. Every intervention (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea) has been supported by blackening those opposed as “appeasers” or “Just like Chamberlain”. Buchanan is trying to set the record straight
There are people who usefully trying to do what you point to above, that is, bat down fevered readings of Munich. They are doing it, however, without butchering the history.
he makes points which seem reasonable enough. I’m in no position to judge whether his argument is accurate,
Oh, Good Lord, man, that’s a useful measure; “there’s an actual historian bleeding from the eyes after reading Buchanan’s post, but it _seemed_ reasonable to me.”
Look, if you want to read something that’s actually a sophisticated look at the immediate coming of war, go find Donald Cameron Watt’s _How War Came_. (Buchanan can’t even manage to spell Watt’s name correctly in his bibliography).
September 3, 2009 at 6:11 am
billiecat
Thanks for doing this. When I read Buchanan’s column yesterday I was horrified. Although I knew it was totally wrong and ugly, not being a trained historian I couldn’t articulate the problems with it in a coherent fashion, and I hoped someone with those skills would. Now I can just point people to this post.
Sorry about your eyes, though.
September 3, 2009 at 7:15 am
Anderson
That’s the trouble with Buchanan’s column — he tosses out those rhetorical questions that may actually seem plausible to people not up on the history.
God knows, I don’t do this stuff for a living, but it may be worthwhile taking a poke at these.
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?
Wiki: “More with propaganda in mind than for any strategic reason, Adolf Hitler planned the line from 1936 and had it built between 1938 and 1940. This was after the Nazis had broken the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties by remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936.” I would add that Hitler needed a while to rearm, and thus the Westwall was useful while that was going on, plus of course a Keynesian labor project.
Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines?
Because he did not have to sail to Poland.
How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
The fallacy of assuming that Hitler sought to conquer “the world” i 1939, all at once, should need little rebuttal.
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Because the Luftwaffe was conceived as a ground-support air force, esp. after Wever, the strategic-bombing guru, died in a plane crash. Wiki quotes that strategical genius, Goering: “the fuhrer will not ask how big the bombers there are, but only how many there are.”
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
By mistake.
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
First, because it was better to defeat France individually rather than having to fight the Brits at the same time; second, because invading Britain was not an inviting prospect.
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet?
France remained a theoretically independent state, and Hitler knew if he pushed too hard, the French navy might go over to the Brits, the last thing he wanted. Then the Brits sank a good bit of the French fleet.
Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez?
Hitler got a good bit closer to Suez from the western direction than Syria is.
Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Because it was a sideshow from the invasion of Russia, which it may’ve delayed (tho I think the rains & mud made an attack much before June 22 implausible).
… Any other thoughts from experts?
September 3, 2009 at 7:27 am
Steven
Hm. Wonder if this was a trial balloon for the next wave of GOP talking point idiocy.
If Hitler was forced to wage WWII two years before the camp trains started running due to lack of cooperation, does that mean they’ll suggest that Obama’s and the Dems “unwillingness to negotiate” with the GOP is equivalent to Nazi tactics?
I shudder to think this idiotic supposition could even be close to reality. Then again, I’m still amazed a highly paid political pundit still has a television job after many examples of racism, not to mention his Hitler-apologia.
September 3, 2009 at 7:31 am
Steven
To clarify my post above, I’m wondering if this is a potential ramp-up from the moronic “death panels” point to a fully-fledged suggestion that camps will be the result of Dem health care reform….
September 3, 2009 at 7:39 am
PorJ
I think I saw an interview or story where either Michael Kazin or Alan Brinkley called Buchanan “the last Coughlinite.” That gets it about right. His particular strand of isolationist populism is a constant in American life and while I think its far less politically popular than it traditionally has been, we shouldn’t really make the mistake of assuming he’s a lone nutball. He does speak for some segment of the population, but what I don’t understand is why any commercial journalistic enterprise is interested in giving him a megaphone for this kind of bizarre and malicious ranting.
September 3, 2009 at 7:58 am
Ahistoricality
To clarify my post above, I’m wondering if this is a potential ramp-up from the moronic “death panels” point to a fully-fledged suggestion that camps will be the result of Dem health care reform….
Steven, you’re behind the curve already: they’re there.
September 3, 2009 at 8:25 am
Nathan
Strange; you don’t actually attempt to dispute Buchanan’s thesis. You just launch a barrage of insults and then act like you’ve completely knocked down his argument. You haven’t.
Pat Buchanan is many things and he does have some wacky opinions. He’s also one of the most intelligent people in the talking head industry (an admittedly low threshold).
Regardless, Buchanan argues, I would say convincingly) that Hitler in 1939 was in fact trying to reassemble the territories lost to Germany after Versailles. This explains the action in Czechoslovakia and northern Poland – two countries that did not exist prior to 1919. The allied powers caved on the Sudetenland and then held their ground on Danzig. The invasion of Poland led to WWII – In a sense, Polish resistance to losing their territory (not traditionally part of Poland but understandable) the Allies earlier foolishness (not disputed anywhere) led to WWII. It can be agued that Hitler started out not intending to go to war with Russia which, given that that’s where his army went to dies, is plausible.
Calling Pat Buchanan names doesn’t disprove his thesis. Buchanan does not argue that Hitler was actually a nice guy – quite the opposite – merely that WWII was hardly the cut and dry narrative that is the conventional wisdom. Buchanan argues that the allies had a chance to prevent the war and didn’t.
That argument hardly excuses Hitler, the Holocaust, etc. You owe Pat Buchanan an apology for claiming it does.
September 3, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ahistoricality
It can be agued that Hitler started out not intending to go to war with Russia….
And that’s just what Buchanan did. by ignoring all the other evidence that shows Hitler clearly intended to go to war with Russia.
Buchanan argues that the allies had a chance to prevent the war and didn’t.
That argument hardly excuses Hitler, the Holocaust, etc.
No, Buchanan argues that the allies could have just let Hitler conquer Europe (and carry out his racial cleansing programs, which were already underway by 1939 and would have accelerated at some point) unmolested because they didn’t — in his view — directly affect the “vital national interests” of the US and UK. Hitler wasn’t all that bad, and the Holocaust wasn’t really his idea: this is Buchanan’s argument and it flies in the face of huge quantities of incontrovertible evidence — facts, we call them, sometimes.
September 3, 2009 at 8:41 am
Anderson
Regardless, Buchanan argues, I would say convincingly) that Hitler in 1939 was in fact trying to reassemble the territories lost to Germany after Versailles.
Rump Czechoslovakia was not German. The vast majority of conquered Poland was not German.
It can be agued that Hitler started out not intending to go to war with Russia
Not intending in 1939? Sure. Beyond that, that “argument” is just stupid. Russia was ALWAYS Hitler’s end goal, the lebensraum that would support German world domination, “our India” to Hitler. Arguing otherwise requires either ignorance or dishonesty.
What Buchanan does was done much better by A.J.P. Taylor in The Origins of the Second World War, and even that didn’t ultimately hold water.
September 3, 2009 at 8:41 am
RJP3
Pat is an open racist, Christianist and homophobe who has supported the most fascist American leaders in recent history … of course he is pro-Hitler.
September 3, 2009 at 8:55 am
Doctor Science
As Charlieford said, calling Buchanan nut-house mad is to go too easy on him.
Buchanan has the mind-set of a paranoid schizophrenic without bearing the many downsides of schizophrenia: he *thinks* like a schizophrenic without *suffering* like one.
So no, he’s not crazy, he doesn’t get off that easy. The only way to deal with people like him is to *stop rewarding him*, which means getting him off the TV. He will never change, but it will keep him from infecting another generation with Father Coughlin Disease.
September 3, 2009 at 8:59 am
Robert
Mein Kamp was a narrative of Hitler’s plans if he ever came to power. His eye’s were always on the east. The German General Staff wanted to avoid a “two front war” at all costs. Everyone seems to forget that the Soviet Union was Germany’s ally from August of 1939 until June of 1941. The non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany allowed Germany to attack Poland without fear of fighting a two front war.
The invasion of Poland was inevitable. Anyone who thinks Danzig would have appeased Hitler I believe is sadly mistaken. Once Poland fell Hitler needed France and the U.K. out of the war. He would not attack Russia without first dealing with these two countries. After the fall of France he did make peace overtures to Great Britain trying to free up the majority if his armed forces for the attack on Russia.
Buchanan’s time frame for stopping WWII is about 3 years to late.France and the U.K. should have pushed him out of the Rhineland in 1936. One can only surmise what the backlash would have been for Hitler had France and England acted.
September 3, 2009 at 9:06 am
blueollie
Hmm, I am not a historian either. From reading the comments: is what Buchanan wrote considered credible among mainstream historians? I strikes this amateur as being “crackpot” in the extreme.
I wonder why MSNBC continues to employ him.
September 3, 2009 at 9:11 am
Ahistoricality
From reading the comments: is what Buchanan wrote considered credible among mainstream historians?
No. Not in any way.
It strikes this amateur as being “crackpot” in the extreme.
Your instincts do you credit.
September 3, 2009 at 9:53 am
Mike Schilling
How did Genghis Khan expect to conquer the whole world without a navy?
September 3, 2009 at 9:59 am
Nathan
Ahistoricality,
What basis do you support Buchanan’s argument not being credible? Liberal’s understanding of history is analogous to conservative’s understanding of evolutionary biology.
Pat Buchanan is many things. Racist? Anti-semite? Crackpot? I don’t know. Nothing in his writing supports any of those allegations. Compared to 9/10 of the idiots on teevee, Pat Buchanan is thoughtful and intelligent. Of all the moronic banter before and after the invasion of Iraq, Pat Buchanan was against it from the start and made valid, fact-based arguments why. That’s more credit than can be given to most ‘liberals’ at the time.
Pat Buchanan’s piece cites historical fact and makes a solid argument, whether you believe it or not. He deserves better than personal attacks and slander. It doesn’t reflect well on liberals when you can’t argue an idea on merit.
September 3, 2009 at 10:09 am
kevin
Pat Buchanan is many things. Racist? Anti-semite? Crackpot? I don’t know. Nothing in his writing supports any of those allegations.
Certainly not his book titled The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.
Of all the moronic banter before and after the invasion of Iraq, Pat Buchanan was against it from the start and made valid, fact-based arguments why. That’s more credit than can be given to most ‘liberals’ at the time.
Yes, yes, I remember how excited liberals were for the invasion of Iraq. More than 300,000 of them took to the streets in New York in February 2003 because they just couldn’t wait for the war to start.
Pat Buchanan’s piece cites historical fact and makes a solid argument, whether you believe it or not. He deserves better than personal attacks and slander.
Actually, no, he doesn’t deserve better, but he has gotten a clear rebuttal both here and elsewhere.
Read the post again and you’ll see it makes actual criticisms of the glaring holes in Buchanan’s argument — the bizarre omission of the USSR and Eastern Europe from Hitler’s plan of ambitions, the idiotic line about Germany not sharing a border with the Soviet Union, etc. etc.
Those are misstatements of historical fact, and a weak argument. You’re welcome to believe them, but we’re just as welcome to laugh at them.
September 3, 2009 at 10:12 am
blueollie
My question wasn’t about what those in the general public thought; after all, many in the general public see creationist/ID arguments in science as being “credible” when, in fact, they aren’t.
As far as what Mr. Buchanan actually said:
1. It was clear that Hitler eventually wanted to attack the Soviet Union, eventually.
2. At the time, mainstream thought had submarines as a defensive weapon (though the Germans did use them in WW I against shipping). At that time, naval strategists didn’t foresee how effective submarines would be in strangling a country.
3. Strategic bombing: the jury was still out on how effective it would be; even after WWII the Strategic Bombing survey concluded that the resources in the attacks on Germany might have been more effectively used in another manner.
Of course I lack history credentials and I warmly welcome correction from those who know more.
September 3, 2009 at 10:16 am
Ahistoricality
Ahistoricality,
What basis do you support Buchanan’s argument not being credible?
Facts. Context. Evidence. The testimony of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of participants and the scholarship of hundreds, if not thousands, of credible historians.
September 3, 2009 at 10:19 am
Neil Reichline
The real question to me is why do people like Buchanan and his ilk still have seats at the mass media table?
September 3, 2009 at 10:21 am
SEK
What basis do you support Buchanan’s argument not being credible?
It’s not as if Hitler ever wrote a chapter in a book where he talked about how much soil Russia has, how vital soil is to an empire, and how the dirty, low-class Bolsheviks were controlled by the Jews.
September 3, 2009 at 11:05 am
Anderson
The real question to me is why do people like Buchanan and his ilk still have seats at the mass media table?
Because to the media, it’s He Said vs. He Said, two talking heads going on about something the reporter neither understands nor values.
“Opinions on Responsibility of Hitler for War Differ.”
September 3, 2009 at 11:24 am
Sir Charles
Buchanan in fact is a racist and an anti-semite. I don’t have time to find all of the things that he has written and said to lay that case out, but if you’ve paid any attention to him over the last thirty years as I have, there is little doubt of this.
Buchanan is a tribalist and petty fascist. He grew up in a family that worshipped Father Coughlin and Francisco Franco, and has never actually shed those roots.
I love that he didn’t mention Kristallnacht — although I suppose the Brits and the Jews provoked that too. Or maybe it was Hitler’s defense against usury.
September 3, 2009 at 11:33 am
eric
Buckley:
And evidently Buckley would know from anti-Semitism.
September 3, 2009 at 11:37 am
Nathan
I have yet to read or hear Pat Buchanan say anything that is overtly racist or anti-semitic – two charges that get thrown around way too much these days. Xenophobic? Yes. Arch paleo-conservative? To a fault. He’s a hard headed, unapologetic Nixon Republican and of a mold that’s been broken for some time. That’s a shame. Compared to the conservatives that came after him, I’ll take a Buchanan diatribe any day of the week. In the age of Glen Beck, FOX News and Karl Rove, a Father Caughlin throwback is a breath of fresh air.
And anybody who manages to completely piss off pompous intellectual frauds like Cristopher Hitchins and PJ O’roarke gets the benefit of the doubt in my book.
September 3, 2009 at 11:44 am
Anderson
I have yet to read or hear Pat Buchanan say anything that is overtly racist or anti-semitic
I don’t pretend to any familarity with Buchanan’s works — perhaps they are unlike the present specimen in not being total garbage — but here’s a free tip: those who don’t want to be mistaken for racist anti-semites, should not bend over backwards and warp the historical record in defense of Hitler.
Just sayin’.
September 3, 2009 at 11:50 am
Charlieford
So we need to start distinguishing between pro-Buchananites, and anti-anti-Buchananites . . .
September 3, 2009 at 11:53 am
Sir Charles
Nathan,
Pat Buchanan has been a racist and an anti-semite forever. It’s not a new charge against him. His recent diatribes against Sotomayor on behalf of beleaguered white men everywhere were in keeping with his long track record.
Of course you probably won’t find this sort of thing racist:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200803220001
in which case, there is no real point in having a conversation.
September 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm
j
Jesus Nathan, you must be kidding. (“What basis do you support Buchanan’s argument not being credible?)
for example:
“But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?”
This is too outrageous a lie to let pass. First, Buchanan simply ignores the victims of the Nazis prior to 1939, with the establishment of the first concentration camps and the Krystallnacht, the deportations and imprisonment of the Jews and others, the anti-semitic laws, and the death of tens of thousands of Jews and other opponents of the Nazis.
And what about the Nuremberg Trials? Does it mean nothing to you that the Nazi leaders were tried for and convicted of planning and waging war (counts I & II)?
If all Hitler wanted was Danzig and the corridor, then why did he secretly divide up all of Poland with the Soviet Union?
Apparently Nate what you meant to write is that Buchanan knows as little about history as he does about evolutionary biology.
September 3, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Erik Lund
Lies make Baby Cylon Jesus cry, Mr. Buchanan.
“But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia . . . . . Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z
Note that Germany had already broken out of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty by laying down “H” and “I” in the fall of 1939. The case for submarines is a little more complex, that for troopships pure looney tunes.
“If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_177
I’ve got the authority of Tod Flanders for Baby Jesus and lying, but I’ve never heard anyone on Miss Agathon and not reading the sport pages so this isn’t really the same level of indictment:
“— why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?”
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSHC_enCA341CA341&q=defence+wins+championships
September 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Nathan
J,
If you refer to Buchanan’s thesis, he does not say that Hitler would not have started the war later anyway. He does state that Hitler, like France and Britain, was really not in a great position for a total war. Knocking off Poland is one thing but a full on two front war is another. Thus, the pact with Russia to make it a one front war. Britain was in no position to send an expeditionary force to the continent. Hell, without US aid, they were in no position to fight at all. Nazi Germany was, more than anything else, paranoid in it’s hatred of communism. It was virulent anti-communism that propelled Hitler to power in the first place. That he would cut a quick, secret deal with Stalin, it could be argued (and is by Buchanan), is a sign that Hitler was NOT looking for a war with Britain and France in 1939 because he wasn’t ready for it. 1940 or 1941? Quite possibly, but not 1939.
It’s an thesis I think has merit thought I don’t really agree with it. I think Germany’s militarism, the bad blood as a result of the treaty of Versailles and just the plain old ‘way things were going’, a big nasty war was inevitable. The industrial slaughter of the Jewish population (and the Gypsies, and the Poles, and the Russian people) came after things had already gone way too far to be stopped.
Regardless, I think Pat Buchanan deserves the benefit of the doubt. I recall in 2003 Mr. Buchanan was accused of anti-semitism because he criticized neo-conservatives and their rush to war (when I might add, he was one of the only people on TV opposed to the war). He said, ‘it’s not their Jewish ancestry that bothers me, but their war-mongering.’
Does that sound like a guy who worships Hitler?
September 3, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Anderson
is a sign that Hitler was NOT looking for a war with Britain and France in 1939 because he wasn’t ready for it. 1940 or 1941? Quite possibly, but not 1939
You’re morphing Buchanan’s article into something more reasonable than it actually is. No, Hitler was not “ready” in 1939. Or, arguably, in 1940. Ernst May has argued pretty plausibly that, were it not for a world-class intel failure on the Allies’ part, Hitler would’ve gotten his ass handed to him in May 1940.
And sure, Hitler hoped that Britain wouldn’t really go to war over Poland. (See Kershaw, 2 Hitler 223: “Hitler had led Germany into the general European war he had wanted to avoid for several more years.”)
The bottom line, however, is that Hitler was determined to conquer an inoffensive neighbor, Poland, and subjugate its people as if they were natives in an African colony (cf. Mazower, Hitler’s Empire).
Buchanan, however, argues that the Allies should not have guaranteed Poland, because it was absurd to suppose that Hitler had any further territorial demands.
And saying that “Hitler had never wanted war with Poland” is simply a lie. May 1939:
“It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East and making food supplies secure and also solving the problem of the Baltic States. Food supplies can only be obtained from thinly populated areas. * * * No other openings can be seen in Europe.”
That’s Hitler meeting with army leaders on May 23, 1939, as recorded by his adjutant (Kershaw 191).
After Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together that Hitler’s claims of limited territorial demands, confined to historically German territory, could not be trusted. There was no reason for the Allies to believe that Hitler would be content with Danzig. And they were right.
Buchanan pretends to have studied this stuff, and thus cannot avoid the logical conclusion that he is an apologist for Hitler; ignorance will not serve him for a defense.
September 3, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Ralph Hitchens
So Hitler’s aims vs. Poland were moderate, undeserving of the World War that ensued? How does Buchanan square that thesis with the utter destruction of the Polish state, its transformation into the appalling General Government? The treatment of most occupied countries & territories shows exactly what sort of new European order Hitler sought. It’s remarkable that Buchanan evidences such selective historical memory.
September 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Erik Lund
Nathan:
I’m …. a little flabbergasted. (Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_order_of_battle_(1940). The Correlli Barnett nonsense does you no credit.)
So Hitler wasn’t planning to conquer the world until 1941, is an argument _against_ guaranteeing Poland?
Also, concerning accusations of anti-semitism, I suspect that Eric didn’t post the link to Buckley on Buchanan because he likes the colour blue.
September 3, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Anderson
Yeah, what is it with Barnett? His book on Hitler’s generals repeated a great deal of pure-and-noble-Wehrmacht stuff that really has no excuse any more.
September 3, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Chris Johnson
FYI, if you didn’t already know, your post got a shout on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-historical-equivalent-of-speaking-in-tongues.html)
The nativism strain in American politics is deep and persistent.
September 3, 2009 at 4:55 pm
eric
Buckley on Buchanan in full, beginning here.
September 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Kiri
In sympathy.. it might have made your eyes bleed, but it drove me to drink. I dread to think that it might have been peer reviewed.
September 3, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Raincitygirl
Erik,
I agree that Pat Buchanan makes Baby Cylon Jesus cry. If only Baby Cylon Jesus’s mommy with the itchy trigger finger was around to put two bullets in Buchanan’s chest just for looking at BCJ funny. And then BCJ’s auntie could break his neck just to make sure. And then BCJ’s daddy could…loom? Be noble and self-sacrificing and give Buchanan a crick in his neck from having to look all the way up at the guy?
Getting back to the actual point of the post, Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semitic moron. How does he still have a job? I mean, not only are his Hitler-wasn’t-such-a-bad-guy-after-all “arguments” offensive, they’re also really badly argued. And I actually clicked the link and read the whole piece, because I was sure it couldn’t be as nonsensically written as Silbey was saying. i was wrong. As if it wasn’t bad enough that he’s defending Hitler, he’s doing it BADLY. There’s an entire industry built around how Hitler was misunderstood and the Holocaust didn’t happen (but if it had, the Jews would’ve deserved it because of being bad people). I know for damn sure that there are pro-Nazi arguments that at least SOUND logical, even if they crumble when confronted with, you know, actual facts. Buchanan seriously needs to look into embracing plagiarism.
And I ask again (though the question is pretty much rhetorical): how the frak does Buchanan still have a job? I need to quit thinking about this man and go back to thinking about Baby Cylon Jesus. At least that topic is cute, and displays talent in both drawing and sprinting. Pat Buchanan displays talent in nothing. Nor does he have ringlets.
September 4, 2009 at 8:47 am
William Berry
Mike Schilling: “How did Genghis Khan expect to conquer the whole world without a navy?”
Apologizing in advance for an off-topic response to a somewhat off-topic question.
Genghis Khan long planned an invasion of the fabulously wealthy islands of the Japanese Archipelago. What with massacring millions in Central, South, and West Asia as well as much of Eastern Eurasia (incidentally setting back the incipient civilization of the relatively prosperous Eurasian Ecumene by many decades, if not centuries, and inadvertently helping thereby to pave the way for the rise of Western Europe), he just didn’t get around to it. That was left to one of his “Great Khan” successors, commanding all the power and resources of China.
No navy? The Chinese fleet the Khan launched against Japan (the second one at least; the first was handily defeated by the Shogun and his marine Samurai) was the largest naval force– in terms of ships and men– in the history of the world. Its fate was strikingly similar to that of the Spanish Armada more than 300 years later. Scattered and disorganized by harassing Japanese attacks, it ended up being almost completely destroyed by a powerful typhoon that became known to the Japanese as the fabled Kamikaze, or Divine Wind.
September 4, 2009 at 9:15 am
eric
Maybe less of the violent rhetoric around here, please.
September 4, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Gary Farber
“This is the kind of appalling historical piece that leaves me thinking that I’ve fallen through into a bizarro world, and wondering what on the earth Buchanan thought the point was? To rehabilitate Hitler? To excoriate those uncooperative Poles?”
That’s easy: he’s an apologist for Nazis, fascists, and antisemites. You never noticed before?
“To handwave his way past Hitler’s true intentions, he has to define the world that the Nazi wanted to conquer carefully, as ‘Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia.” Any major countries missing?”
Setting aside the entire east, and all those Slavs and Jews, it also makes no historical sense to claim that Hitler wanted to conquer Britain, and leave out France. O rly?
Next absurdity by Buchanan: “The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany.”
O rly?
Buchanan: “Why did he start the war with no surface fleet […]?”
O rly?
Buchanan then asks a bunch of question whose answer is, of course, that, yes, Hitler did not seek war with Britain. But, of course, that’s not the answer Buchanan wants.
“Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.”
Setting aside that all that trivial Lebensraum and untermenschen stuff, as well as the trivial matter of getting rid of the Jews. (Cue argument as to when the Final Solution was actually decided upon; I won’t play.)
But noting that Dachau was opened in 1933, the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses began on April 1st of 1933, and the Nürnberger Gesetze (Nuremberg Laws) were passed in 1935.
“Hitler had never wanted war with Poland”
Sure, that’s why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed.
“As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?”
I don’t know, Pat, why did he propose and sign the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on August 24, 1939? Why did Hitler open serious talks with the USSR on May 30th of 1939?
I guess this all happened by accident when Hitler fell on Ribbentrop, well, oops!
But to expect anything else from Buchanan at this point is like expecting the sun not to rise.
I’m not going to bother to supply links, nor deal with the apologists and trolls in the comment thread. Life is short.
However, silbey: “Charmley seems fixated on the loss of British greatness, while Buchanan still seems to me locked in the Cold War, as Brad DeLong pointed out, obsessing about the communists.”
Your hole here is the antisemitism.
PorJ: “I think I saw an interview or story where either Michael Kazin or Alan Brinkley called Buchanan ‘the last Coughlinite.’ That gets it about right.”
Yes. I’m no professional historian, merely an armchair amateur, but among the various subjects I’ve followed for decades is Patrick Buchanan’s rhetoric.
“He does speak for some segment of the population, but what I don’t understand is why any commercial journalistic enterprise is interested in giving him a megaphone for this kind of bizarre and malicious ranting.”
He’s still got lots of fans; he was a legitimate presidential contender, god help us all. He’s been an accepted Washington insider/outsider for decades. This says a great deal about what’s an acceptable voice on respectable American tv opinion networks and shows, and in American newspapers.
That Buchanan has fans is demonstrated by the apologists for him who show up in this thread.
September 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm
silbey
>“This is the kind of appalling historical piece that leaves me >thinking that I’ve fallen through into a bizarro world, and >wondering what on the earth Buchanan thought the point was? >To rehabilitate Hitler? To excoriate those uncooperative Poles?”
That’s easy: he’s an apologist for Nazis, fascists, and antisemites. You never noticed before?
You’re restating my question, rather than answering it. If I had written “Why is Buchanan being an apologist for…etc etc” it would have read the same.
>However, silbey: “Charmley seems fixated on the loss of British >greatness, while Buchanan still seems to me locked in the Cold >War, as Brad DeLong pointed out, obsessing about the communists.”
Your hole here is the antisemitism.
I don’t believe the two are incompatible.
September 4, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Charlieford
“Maybe less of the violent rhetoric around here, please.”
Am I still allowed to say “Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the lives of the people” now and then?
September 4, 2009 at 5:57 pm
silbey
Charlieford, we in fact count on you to say exactly that.
September 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Nathan
Gary Farber,
I assume my views would classify me as ‘a Buchanan fan.’ I respect Pat Buchanan and there are things to admire about the man. He’s not afraid to piss people off – especially in his own party. He was Nixon’s golden boy – your views on Nixon may vary but he’s part of history at the very least. He’s consistent – his views are the same regardless if there’s a Republican or Democrat in the White house; he opposed the Bosnian War and the Iraq War.
Liberals hate Buchanan. Republicans, by and ;large, also hate Buchanan for different reasons; namely that he does not tow the party line. Republicans could give a damn if liberals were in the street protesting the Iraq War. But Buchanan’s views brought out the most vile artillery they had because, being who he is, he posed a threat. They had to shut him up. Did he suck up and try to regain favor with the right? No, he did not.
I used to be a Buchanan hater like others on this thread. But his efforts to speak common sense while this country walked into the quicksand in Iraq made me listen carefully to what he had to say. In my opinion, he’s not an anti-semite, a racist or a crackpot. He’s a man with a point of view unafraid to speak his piece.
I read the articles in question, I am a history buff and I have an open mind. His points are debatable, his thesis on WWII’s origins in 1939 leave room for doubt, and his conclusions are only one of other possible conclusions. He IS NOT an apologist for Hitler. I suggest you read what he has to say again and leaver your own ‘crackpot’ leftist views on the table while you do.
Liberals have basically been on a long losing streak since 1968. President’s Carter and Clinton both won in spite of liberal activism, not because of it. Al Gore would have been the most liberal president since Roosevelt but many liberals voted for Nader because ‘he wasn’t liberal enough’; thus, George W. Bush. So since being a volunteer for Gore, I don’t give a damn what a Nader voter thinks.
If a Nader voter is allowed to voice his or her opinion, then Buchanan’s voice deserves to ring out across this land. Buchanan actually ran against Bush, from the right. He did his part to prevent the madness of the last eight years. Nader voters, liberals in general and especially the folks who religiously bash Buchanan (far lefties, right wingers, neo-cons) did there part to make this decade a lousy one for America. Buchanan has criticized Israel for it’s war mongering, criticized blanket free trade pacts that send American jobs overseas and consistently criticized the inept and criminal behavior of the Bush administration – all from a pulpit that actually made Republican’s uncomfortable.
If that makes me a Buchanan fan, then call me a proud Buchanan fan. Keep on truckin’ Pat.
September 4, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Sir Charles
Nathan,
You never responded to series of racist and anti-semtic remarks to which I linked. I guess you find them unobjectionable.
September 4, 2009 at 8:12 pm
TF Smith
See, I think “I read Pat Buchanan” was your first mistake…
He’s a crackpot of astronomical proportions, and has been, apparently, his entire life. If he had been born a few years earlier, he would have been working for Sen. McCarthy, undoubtedly, searching for the Reds in Eisenhower’s Administration…
Entertainingly enough for a cold warrior, he was physically fit enough for ROTC in college, apparently, but managed to become 4F when his draft notice came up…at least according to Wikipedia.
Can’t Rachel Maddow get him canned?
September 4, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Matt
In my opinion, he’s not an anti-semite, a racist or a crackpot. He’s a man with a point of view unafraid to speak his piece.
The way you put this statement makes it seems as if you think the two sentences are incompatible. They aren’t, though. Buchanan is a man w/ a point of view unafraid to speak his piece. It’s just a racist, anti-semitic, crackpot point of view.
September 4, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Gary Farber
Of course not.
“your views on Nixon may vary”
No, they’re consistent and haven’t ever changed.
“but he’s part of history at the very least.”
I’m guessing no one will argue against this point.
“…namely that he does not tow the party line”
Few do. Possibly you mean “toe the party line.”
“…his thesis on WWII’s origins in 1939 leave room for doubt….”
No, actually, they do not.
“I suggest you read what he has to say again and leaver your own ‘crackpot’ leftist views on the table while you do.”
Thank you for your suggestion. In return, I shall offer the suggestion that you learn how quotation marks are used.
“…call me a proud Buchanan fan.”
Ok. You’re a proud Buchanan fan. I live to serve.
“Am I still allowed to say ‘Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the lives of the people’ now and then?”
SLA splitter.
September 4, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Malaclypse
Hunter Thompson on Buchanan: “We disagree so violently on almost everything that it’s a real pleasure to drink with him. If nothing else, he’s absolutely honest in his lunacy — and I’ve found, during my admittedly limited experience in political reporting, that power & honesty very rarely coincide.”
Somewhere else (I think Fear and Loathing On The Campaign Trail) he said (paraphrase, as I can’t find it) that Buchanan was the only person near Nixon who believed the shit Nixon was saying.
My point is that Buchanan has been an evil, dangerous crackpot since back when HST could still write.
September 4, 2009 at 11:19 pm
j
Nathan: I’m not calling Pat an anti-semite. I don’t hate Pat either. But Hitler DID start WW II by invading Poland, and he didn’t leave Poland when France and Britain came into the war in order to make peace.
It’s also true that the overwhelming weight of historical evidence is that Hitler intended to attack the Soviet Union at some point (his argument for lebensraum); attacking Poland was a necessary adjunct to that invasion. Hitler also justified launching Barbarossa prior to concluding a peace with England because he feared that Germans wouldn’t support a war with the USSR if Germany was at peace by June 1941.
Finally, as I pointed out (and others have mentioned) Pat’s claim about the scarcity of victims in Germany prior to 1939 is utter nonsense and a shameful insult to those who suffered.
September 5, 2009 at 7:53 am
silbey
In some sadness, I note that Buchanan’s book is at 8,055 on the Amazon best sellers list, while D.C. Watt’s book on the start of the war (mentioned above; best on the immediate years before) is at 1.9 million.
September 5, 2009 at 9:33 am
Nathan
J,
It’s impossible to argue with your summation of the start of WWII. Undoubtedly, Hitler wanted a war and god knows he got one. I think Germany’s invasion of Russia was inevitable but recall that, prior to 1939, the city of Konigsburg (later sacked and renamed Kaliningrad) was separated from Germany as a little oblast territory. A simple map of post Treaty of Versailles Europe made it pretty clear what Hitler started out trying to do – namely, reassemble ‘Greater Germany.’ I think Pat Buchanan’s wrong in his assertion that the industrial slaughter of Jews (and many others) only ‘ramped up’ after the war got going – I think it was already in the works – but undoubtedly, the viciousness of the war particularly after the invasion of Russia removed any previous restraint the Nazi’s might have had. Pat Buchanan’s guilt of insensitivity on that count – and many others. Still, I don’t think that rises to anti-semitism. Not being Jewish myself, I have maybe a higher (lower?) bar to clear for that charge to stick than others do.
Mr. Farber,
Thanks for the grammar lesson. Too bad you’re not a stickler for human decency to the extent you are for punctuation – saying things like ‘Death to the fascist insect’ pretty much sums up why liberals are hated by the majority of Americans and have been electoral poison now for nearly half a century.
September 5, 2009 at 9:35 am
MarekNYC
Just to note Hitler had three official demands for Poland on the eve of WWII
To acquiesce to full German control of Danzig. (Which, btw, was not a part of Poland but a Nazi run Free City under the auspices of the League of Nations. Poland had the right to use it as a free port, the right to station a (very) small military force there, to operate a post office, and to use it for naval visits. The Polish minority also had guaranteed rights)
To allow the Germans to build an extraterritorial highway through the Polish Corridor (Which, contrary to some of the commentators here, had a clear Polish majority, as did the other Polish territories that had been part of Germany before Versailles.)
To join the Anti-Comintern Pact. Privately he was also demanding that Poland join in his future war with the USSR.
Poland was willing to make some concessions on points one and two but not accept them fully. It had no interest in three, not because it had any liking for the Soviet Union, but for the same reasons it was not interested in an alliance with the USSR against Germany – it would mean large numbers of enemy troops stationed on its territory.
September 5, 2009 at 10:04 am
JPool
Nathan is here to defend the honor of both Pat Buchanan and fascist insects.
They need love too.
September 5, 2009 at 10:15 am
Gary Farber
“Thanks for the grammar lesson.”
Punctuation is not, in fact, “grammar.”
“Too bad you’re not a stickler for human decency to the extent you are for punctuation – saying things like ‘Death to the fascist insect’ pretty much sums up why liberals are hated by the majority of Americans and have been electoral poison now for nearly half a century.”
Google is, or can be, your friend. So can irony, if you take lessons. As it turns out, the Symbionese Liberation Army was not a “liberal” group.
HTH. HAND.
“…why liberals are hated by the majority of Americans and have been electoral poison now for nearly half a century.”
And why we now have a Democratic majority Congress and President. Such poison!
I do accept credit for for providing cause for all liberal-hating in America, though. It’s all my fault. I just can’t help myself.
September 5, 2009 at 10:16 am
dana
why liberals are hated by the majority of Americans and have been electoral poison now for nearly half a century.
I’m not sure what this makes conservatives recently, but I think it has to be at least “mildly radioactive.”
September 5, 2009 at 10:25 am
Gary Farber
Dana, you clearly haven’t learned the truth that conservatism, like communism, never fails, but only is failed by false practitioners.
There are no True
ScotsmenConservatives who have ever served as president. There have ever only been Crypto-Liberal Faux-Conservatives. Thus it shall always be.The exception is the Mythological Ronald Reagan, the one who never tried to eliminate all nuclear weapons, raised taxes, was once okay with abortion, believed in Gorbachev, and sold weapons to Iran.
If a Democratic President ever sold missile parts to Iran and had an envoy present a cake to the representative of the Supreme Leader of Iran: treason!
But the Mythological Ronald Reagan never did that, and neither did heroic Oliver North. They were patriots.
And conservatism cannot fail; it merely isn’t properly implemented by true conservatives.
September 5, 2009 at 11:06 am
DaKooch
Is it possible that ol’ Pat is merely trying to make a case that our extremists (fascists) are not as bad as “your” extremists (communists)?
September 5, 2009 at 11:12 am
bitchphd
I think at some level the young Pat Buchanan was taught by his priests (a) to hate the Godless Russian Communists, and (b) that the Jews were the Christ-killers.
I wish to god my father-in-law were alive today. He was a WWII-era German Catholic who fought in the war and spent ten years afterward in a Soviet prison before returning to Germany to get his phd in political science. He was brought to teach in the US by the state department in part because his work was absolutely anti-communist and pro-America (he had also been spying for us in Berlin right after the war, which is how he ended up in prison).
Anyway, so the man pretty much fits DeLong’s description of Buchannan to a T. Except he had a couple of qualities that Buchannan clearly lacks, the foremost of which was intellectual honesty. I *guarantee* you that my f-i-l would have found this crap as offensive as the rest of us. Buchanan’s upbringing is no fucking excuse.
(I also feel like I have to add that my f-i-l was not, when I knew him, anti-semitic in the least.)
September 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Gary Farber
I make a metacommentary response post.
With video and laughs! Fun for the whole family, and anyone who enjoys the genre of mocking der Führer!
September 6, 2009 at 11:56 pm
j
Again, Nathan, I’m not calling Pat an anti-semite; I’m saying that his history is egregiously wrong, so wrong that I simply must speak up. To not do so is an insult to the victims of the Nazis and the brave men and women who fought in that war. So many of them–my father, most of my uncles, my neighbors–have passed on and they can not defend themselves. It is offensive to blame the people who had to go to war to stop Hitler for the war. It’s offensive to see an apology for Hitler from the first line “When Germany crossed the Polish frontier”–when Germany INVADED Poland
Now, Hitler was an anti-semite who blamed the Jews for the war up through his last testament,
September 8, 2009 at 11:51 am
Anderson
while D.C. Watt’s book on the start of the war (mentioned above; best on the immediate years before) is at 1.9 million
And I bet there are no awesome reprints of David Low cartoons in the Buchanan book, either.
September 9, 2009 at 7:53 am
Mumon
What’s amazing is that Mein Kampf is on line, and Hitler himself refutes the Nazi-loving bile spewed by Buchanan.
September 9, 2009 at 10:30 am
Tom
why liberals are hated by the majority of Americans Confederates and have been electoral poison now for nearly half a century.
Fixed.