“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?”

Who invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland again?

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.

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?

I did, Dave. What, exactly do you think Buchanan meant to imply with his statement that the “trains didn’t roll” until after 1940?

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).

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.

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?

Tell me which words confuse you and I will define them for you.

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?

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.

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.

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.

What utter bullshit.