This defender of Nazis is a prominent pundit on the “liberal” MSNBC.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Pat Buchanan: Allies Forced Hitler Into War
September 2nd, 2009
38 Comments
Holy crap I thought you were joking. But thinks for linking to a link about Buchanan’s crazy; I don’t think I’d have been able to stomach the actual article.
I hope whenever he back on TV to blab about something, the other person will respond, “But you actually defended Hitler.”
Pryme, you act like this is something new. Obviously you don’t know much about Buchanan.
He’s always had a soft spot for the Nazis. It’s just sometimes the mask slips a little. In the past few years, more and more.
J>
He’s always had a soft spot for the Nazis. It’s just sometimes the mask slips a little. In the past few years, more and more.
Republicans, man.
You know, he makes a good point. If people had just minded their own business and let Hitler take over the world, there wouldn’t have been a war. I mean, what was the poor guy supposed to do when the Allies started retaliating? It was self-defense, pure and simple.
And of course, if all those German Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other undesirables had been thoughtful enough to commit suicide in shame, there would have been no need for those unfortunate concentration camps.
I hope whenever he back on TV to blab about something, …
That should never happen again, as far as I’m concerned.
Kinda answering your own question a bit there, Pat.
Felix, you beat me to it.
Buchanan is like a coelacanth – a living fossil remnant of the 1930s, when – as history shows – there was a strong, nativist pro-fascist right-wing faction in this country. There was also a strong, internationalist pro-communist left-wing faction, but that, oddly, has been painstakingly well-documented in the last sixty-odd years.
I just finished “The Entity”, a reasonably well-documented history of the Papal espionage services during the last five centuries. The so-called ‘Vatican ratlines’ that spirited hunted Nazis out of Europe had a very practical goal – when the Soviets started pouring through the Fulda Gap, the Church would have a whole passel of ‘experienced’ anti-Communists ready and waiting to be recalled to duty. Their utility in defending civilization against godless Marxism outweighed any consideration of what they’d done previously. Buchanan would, no doubt, have applauded this reasoning.
And, just to state what should be obvious – Fascism was not a leftist political ideology.
I don’t agree with what Buchanan writes, but Ethan Porter needs to look up what the word “revisionism” means because Buchanan wasn’t engaging in revisionism but rather “what if” scenarios.
What is laughable here are the simplistic comments drawn from Porter’s poorly written blog entry. Buchanan has touched on this issue in his book, “Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War.”
As somebody that loves WWII history, I’ve read this book and while it is certainly provocative, it is hardly a defense of Hitler, nor does Buchanan show any kind of sympathy towards the Nazis.
Ironically, what he argues about World War I and World War II is extremely similar to the arguments many on the left were making in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Buchanan argues that WWI and WWII were certainly avoidable and came about as the result of poor political decisions by western powers, most notably, Great Britain. He says it was those policies and Churchill’s imperialistic tendencies that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
Immediately after 9/11, how many people on the left said the United States needed to examine it’s policies in the Middle East? How many on the left said the United States was responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda and particularly Osama bin Laden? How many on the left accused Reagan, Bush and Bush of being imperialistic and therefore responsible for much of the jihadist terrorism around the globe?
What Buchanan is doing is no different. Maybe the left should think about that the next time they engage in “blame America first” idiocy.
Maybe the left should think about that the next time they engage in “blame America first” idiocy.
Jay, translated: Behold! My colossus of straw is no match for my arguments!
He says it was those policies and Churchill’s imperialistic tendencies that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
Which is an argument I’ve heard on the left as well. The difference is that Buchanan takes it one step further and becomes an apologist for Hitler, arguing that Hitler would have left Western Europe alone if we had just let him have most of Eastern Europe. Thus saving the white race from … what I’m not exactly sure.
he difference is that Buchanan takes it one step further and becomes an apologist for Hitler, arguing that Hitler would have left Western Europe alone if we had just let him have most of Eastern Europe.
No, it is not apologia. His theory is that Germany and Russia would have engaged in war which would have ultimately saved millions of lives. The totalitarian nations would have engaged in a long war, while the western democracies would have had a chance to rearm and become stronger relative to a beaten Germany and a weakened Russia.
Controversial? Yes? Realistic? We’ll never know (though I doubt it). But merely writing off what Buchanan wrote as nothing but Nazi sympathy or Hitler apologia is very simplistic and quite honestly, the intellectually lazy and easy thing to do.
Stay classy, Republicans.
Controversial? Yes? Realistic? We’ll never know
So it’s lke a time-travel plot for a cheap TV movie, where if we could go back in time and shoot Churchill in 1938, Hitler never considers invading France, he decides he likes Jews, and the war on Russia had some other result because who knows who else would have been drawn in and the Latvian never invents an a-bomb…
Wait. I forgot. Why are we bothering to make wild-ass historic conjectures in order to make Hitler look even a TEEEENY bit better than he does from this perspective? We could just as well be using the exact same energy to demonstrate that under different circumstances, George Washington would have been an asshole. Wishing things had been different 70 years ago is not a productive philosophy at best, but wishing so desperately for a better historic view of HITLER borders on sociopathic.
Buchanan is every bit the apologist for Hitler. When he argues that, “Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps,” he implies that the Holocaust would not have happened had Britain signed a treaty with Hitler in 1940.
Wishing things had been different 70 years ago is not a productive philosophy at best, but wishing so desperately for a better historic view of HITLER borders on sociopathic.
Yes, except for the fact that nowhere does Buchanan “wish” for things to be different. He suggests how things might have been different had different policies been followed by Churchill and other western leaders. It’s not about making Hitler look any better or worse, but criticizing western leaders, particularly Churchill for engaging in policies that set the stage for war.
And as I said, he basically follows similar thinking left wingers offer up when suggesting US policies in the Middle East gave rise to extremist Islam and subsequently, terrorist attacks and those policies needed to “re-examined” in light of the terrorist attacks.
Now one can agree with Buchanan or disagree. I happen to disagree, but it’s just idiotic to simply suggest that Buchanan is looking for a reason to somehow make Hitler look better. Then again, look who I am talking to.
Buchanan is every bit the apologist for Hitler. When he argues that, “Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps,” he implies that the Holocaust would not have happened had Britain signed a treaty with Hitler in 1940.
So anybody that suggests the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred had US policy in the Middle East been different, is doing nothing but being an apologist for terrorists, right? That’s the only conclusion one could reach, following your line of thinking.
How many on the left accused Reagan, Bush and Bush of being imperialistic and therefore responsible for much of the jihadist terrorism around the globe?
Who needs “The Left” for that?
Ask a Kurd, Lebanese, Iranian, Iraqi or Tunisian. While you’re at it, ask a Salvadoran, Nicaraguan, Honduran, Panamanian, Angolan or Guatemalan about terrorism.
-Highly likely you’ll get answers that can’t be shoehorned into your beliefs.
he basically follows similar thinking left wingers offer up when suggesting US policies in the Middle East gave rise to extremist Islam and subsequently, terrorist attacks and those policies needed to “re-examined” in light of the terrorist attacks.
Not at all, but thanks for the predictable attempt at, “Look, the left does something that might have meaning, and it’s the same as this bogus crap!”
So speculation on what MIGHT have happened if some other things didn’t happen and some other things did is EXACTLY the same as an analysis of why what actually DID happen took place.
I do not believe that even you take that premise seriously.
So anybody that suggests the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred had US policy in the Middle East been different, is doing nothing but being an apologist for terrorists, right?
No. Taking responsibility for contributing to a problem does not equate to making excuses for the problem’s agent. Look, fact is, a great deal of American cold war policy DID contribute to the growth of radical Islam, specifically in Iran and Afghanistan (and British Policy in Palestine/Israel). Owning up to that is not the same as saying the terrorists are off the hook, there’s a nuance in there you’re skipping over.
“he basically follows similar thinking left wingers offer up when suggesting US policies in the Middle East gave rise to extremist Islam and subsequently”
What utter bullshit.
Not to mention the fact that America basically made the Taliban as a way of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The term is “blowback.”
Oh, and we gave shit-tons of cash and arms to Saddam Hussein during the 80’s as well, not to mention any other dictator who said they weren’t a Communist.
Color of Change and the ADL ought to organize a boycott call on Pat. I doubt he’d last as long as Beck has.
Matt: Beck’s a Johnny-come-lately who seems perpetually on the verge of a Howard Beale-style on-set meltdown. His schtick is not sustainable. Buchanan, on the other hand, is part reptile. He’s been around since the cretaceous, he’s wily and ruthless, and he’s got that Mike Huckabee knack of sounding and looking perfectly reasonable while spewing the most outrageous nonsense. He knows how to keep his shit together. I wouldn’t write him off so easily.
Jay “No, it is not apologia. His theory is that Germany and Russia would have engaged in war which would have ultimately saved millions of lives. The totalitarian nations would have engaged in a long war, while the western democracies would have had a chance to rearm and become stronger relative to a beaten Germany and a weakened Russia.”
This right here is enough to show you have no idea what you’re talking about. Where in Hell did you get this silly bullshit? It wasn’t from any kind of accurate history book OR analysis.
So speculation on what MIGHT have happened if some other things didn’t happen and some other things did is EXACTLY the same as an analysis of why what actually DID happen took place.
Dude, wtf are you babbling about?
No. Taking responsibility for contributing to a problem does not equate to making excuses for the problem’s agent.
Yes, I know Parthenon. That’s the point Buchanan is making as well. He states (and he’s not alone in this) that it was the policies of Great Britain and other European nations that allowed a madman like Hitler to be able to rise to power.
But instead of people actually looking at that, it’s much easier to go the simpleton route and parrot “Buchanan loves Nazis!” drivel.
Where in Hell did you get this silly bullshit? It wasn’t from any kind of accurate history book OR analysis.
Yes moron, I know it’s not from a history book because it’s not “history” as it happened, but rather a look at what could have happened in the wake of different policies had taken place.
You people act like this never happens. Apparently, none of you read enough to know there are thousands of books that offer up theories as to what “could have happened” had leaders and/or politicians made different decisions.
Read Gar Alperovitz book, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” In it, he argues that Harry Truman didn’t have to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Japan and presents a case of what “could have” happened had Truman gone a more diplomatic route. I don’t agree with the book, but it was interesting reading. The way you people are reacting, you’d start saying that Alperovitz “Pearl Harbor attack sympathizer” or some other nonsense. Try a little critical thinking please.
He states (and he’s not alone in this) that it was the policies of Great Britain and other European nations that allowed a madman like Hitler to be able to rise to power.
An analysis I would agree with to an extent, except that Buchanan does not stop there. You conveniently ignore the rest of the article. You know, the part where he goes on to imply that Hitler really wasn’t such an unreasonable fellow, only wanting to bring ethnic Germans back into the fold. He didn’t really want war with England or France, and he only killed 6 million Jews (along with countless homosexuals, Gypsies, commies, and other “enemies”) because the nasty Brits wouldn’t give him a treaty after six years of war.
Dude, wtf are you babbling about?
Tell me which words confuse you and I will define them for you.
I know it’s not from a history book because it’s not “history” as it happened, but rather a look at what could have happened in the wake of different policies had taken place.
Did he speculate on what would have been different if a meteor had hit Arles, Francs at 2:18 a.m. on August 13, 1938?
Why not? After all, if you are going to speculate on SOME of the crap that didn’t happen, don’t you have to speculate on ALL the crap that didn’t happen?
How many commentators read Buchanan’s article before passing judgement? My guess is, perhaps one or two other than me and Jay.
What PB is saying makes perfect sense. It is not about nazi “apologetics”. People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that it is our collective actions that lead to such destructive events like the world wars.
Blaming Hitler and Germany for WWII is easy. Understanding why it happened takes a little more work.
I did read his article. It nauseated me beyond belief. Please refer to my comment posted above.
IMNSHO, people who attempt to defend Hitler and what he might have intended to do should be treated exactly as JayTea, Ann Coulter and their ilk treat Marxist college professors who still defend Stalin (assuming any such still exist in the real world).
How many commentators read Buchanan’s article before passing judgement?
I did, Dave. What, exactly do you think Buchanan meant to imply with his statement that the “trains didn’t roll” until after 1940?
I see, we get to just make shit up. Never mind.
Once again we get a nice illustration of Jay’s very flexible standards of argumentation.
Just a day or two ago, citing CPO Nance, a SERE instructor, on the subject of waterboarding was an “appeal to authority” a logical fallacy that invalidated his first-hand experience.
Today, however, we have Jay referencing Mr. Buchanan’s speculative history which, for some reason, Jay finds completely defensible.
Interesting, ain’t it?
Stand by for “That’s entirely different!”
Jesus has given Jay superpowers, goddammit!
Lindbergh/Buchanan 2012!
‘Immediately after 9/11, how many people on the left said the United States needed to examine it’s policies in the Middle East? How many on the left said the United States was responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda and particularly Osama bin Laden? How many on the left accused Reagan, Bush and Bush of being imperialistic and therefore responsible for much of the jihadist terrorism around the globe?’
And how many of those accusations have been proven unfounded?
‘What Buchanan is doing is no different. Maybe the left should think about that the next time they engage in “blame America first” idiocy.’
What Buchanan is doing is opining that Hitler’s ambitions for world domination were driven by the opposition of morally balanced people everywhere who sought to stop his aggression, and that somehow this was responsible for forcing the Nazis into a corner, where their only option was to try and destroy the planet.
And you want to DEFEND this opinion?
Jesus.
‘Blaming Hitler and Germany for WWII is easy. Understanding why it happened takes a little more work.’
Who invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland again?
Read Pat’s column, not his book. Much of what he writes is wrong
“On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier.”
What Pat should have written: “When Germany invaded Poland”
or
“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?”
Utter nonsense: Hitler’s victims were far in excess of Pinochet or Castro, even by 1939. The Nazis had already established concentration camps and made arrests, 250,000 Jews had already fled the country, with the rest living under the laws that denied them citizenship, and more than 10,000 opponents of the regime had already been killed, in various ways, up to that point.
Likewise, the scope of the war is not in question; Hitler and the Nazis did intend to launch a war of aggression.
Buchanan’s tactical/strategic analysis is little better: Germany built 2-engine bombers for tactical support of tanks and infantry during the blitzkreig attacks (an attack style first developed by the Germans at the end of in WW I).
Buchanan’s analysis ignores history and is an insult to the brave men and women who fought against the Nazis, and who spent years bringing them to justice.
As for those of you claiming that liberals blamed America for 9-11, for shame. As you have been asked before I’m sure: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”