Pat Buchanan's latest

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
How timely. We went off on several rabbit trails in a couple threads concerning WWII. Pat Buchanan's latest just happens to deal with one of our points of discussion.


http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/090831_hitler.htm

70 Years Afterâ€"Did Hitler Really Want War?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland's rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn't want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany. (snip)
 

Charles Martel

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
8,484
Hitler should not have sent the troops in so quickly. He should have been patient, waited and negotiated, and the part of the Polish corridor that had a majority of Germans would eventually have been returned to Germany.

Hitler's solution was always to take the offensive, to invade. He placed too little value on the lives of his brave German soldiers, never hesitating to sacrifice them.
 

referendum

Mentor
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,687
Armed with Britain's guarentee (only in the case of a German attack, not a Russian one by the way) the Polish leadership under Beck and Smigly Ridz was not likely to change its stance anytime soon. They had visions of Polish cavalry riding on Berlin.
Hitler still had options however. On day two of the invasion, Sept.2, England and France still hadn't declared war, because France was showing signs of hesitation. France would have agreed to go to a conference, a second Munich if you will, but England insisted that Germany withdraw all its troops to its borders before agreeing to such a plan. Tragically, Hitler would only agree to a ceasefire, not to withdraw his troops from conquered territory. Had he done so, he would have called the British bluff, and the likely result of any conference would have been the return to Germany of Danzig at the very least, and the return of the corridor region would have been very likely.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Interesting piece. I know I have heard a few WWII vets talk about how the war was a waste. The last line of Pat's was the best, imho.
 

jared

Mentor
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
721
Location
Texas
I like Pat Buchanan and I do think his argument about WWII has some validity but one passage from that article really struck me:

"But if Hitler was out to conquer the worldâ€"Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australiaâ€"why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? 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?"

I'm not sure where Pat got his info but almost the entire surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine had been launched by 9/1/1939. The Bismark, Tirpitz, and Prinz Eugen were not commissioned yet but every other capital ship was. The Germans had 2 battleships, 2 pre-WWI dreadnoughts, a dozen cruisers and many destroyers when they declared war on Poland.
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,383
Location
Minnesota
Great article. I'm convinced that there was nothing Hitler could have done to avoid war short of giving control of the state back to the Jewish extremists and end all talk of an Aryan nation. He was targeted and WWII was started for one reason only - he pissed off the Jews. Everything outside of that undeniable fact means nothing. We can talk about pacts, international relationships, ethnic independence, strategic military moves, diplomatic overtures - all of it means nothing. There is only one reason WWII happened.

David Duke has a commentary on this article posted today:

"Precommentary by David Duke â€" The actual record is clear. When the war with Poland broke out in September 1939 Hitler did not think that it would evoke a wider war. When the news came that England and France declared war on Germany Hitler reportedly turned to his generals and said, "What do we do now?"Â￾ As Buchanan says, there is not a shred of evidence that Germany planned war with France or England much less "world conquest."Â￾ That is all part of the nonstop Jewish extremist media propaganda that still goes on to this day. What he sought was the freedom of Germans who had been severed from their own people by the evil Versailles Treaty. On one hand Wilson and the allies endorsed "self-determination,"Â￾ but on the other they kept more than a million Germans who voted over 90 percent for reunification with their country from simply being reunited with their own homeland of a thousand years. For twenty years after the First World War Germany sought the return of German land and these German people to their own nation. If there was any right and wrong in this initial conflict, it was the war-hawk allies who insisted that a million Germans be held in bondage by a foreign state. It became a "world war"Â￾ only after England and France declared war, and both these nations refused to go to peace table even though Germany offered complete withdrawal from Poland and simply the reunification of the German people and homeland taken by Versailles. A peace treaty would have avoided the subsequent death of over 50 million and the terrible suffering of hundreds of millions more. Buchanan asks the question, "Did Hitler want war,"Â￾ but he does not in this article show who really wanted it. The answer is, of course, the Jewish extremists who had so much influence in the media, finance and governments of Britain, France and America. These were the antecedents of the same gaggle of Jewish extremists who have led us to support the genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and murder of the Zionist state of Israel and that have led us to a catastrophic war for the Iraqi people as well as the American people in the insane war in Iraq. It never ending war for Israel that Obama (and his top Jewish extremist bosses such as Rahm Emmanuel) are now expanding in Afghanistan." â€" David DukeEdited by: Kaptain Poop
 

Solomon Kane

Mentor
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
783
I can recommend Pat's entire book on the subject, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War". It's really more of a fine compilation of the work ofrespected historians like AJP Taylor, etc. than an original work. I suspect it also makes use of David Irving's books (though he doesn't cite him, probably out of fear of diverting from the point at issue to "the holocaust"). In any event, it's clear that we've been fed a cartoon version of WW2 for 70 years. "Hitler wanted to 'take over the world"!!!" Yeah right.
 

Bronk

Mentor
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
962
Location
Texas
Has anyone here ever read Viktor Suvorov's book, Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Kaptain Poop said:
Great article. I'm convinced that there was nothing Hitler could have done to avoid war short of giving control of the state back to the Jewish extremists and end all talk of an Aryan nation. He was targeted and WWII was started for one reason only - he pissed off the Jews.

Well, Pat Buchanan is feeling the heat now. Seems his article pissed off the Juden. His article was not approved by the Kosher Nostra, so it must be discredited and tossed down the memory hole. It is the way they always operate.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0909/Buchanan_column_removed_from_MSNBC_site.html

MSNBC removes Buchanan column from site

Pat Buchanan has received a lot of criticism recently for his column marking the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, where the conservative pundit questions whether Hitler has gotten a bum rap.

By extension, MSNBC, where Buchanan is a commentator, has taken heat for promoting the column on its website. In the revisionist piece -- "Did Hitler Want War?" -- Buchanan argues that other countries, such as Poland, should be held responsible for the invasion, and later escalation of World War II. Hitler, he claims, wanted peace and wasn't out for world conquest.

David A. Harris, President of the National Jewish Democratic Council, condemned MSNBC's promotion of the "deplorable" column and urged that it be removed from MSNBC.com.

Well, now the network has pulled it. (Indeed, the old link is dead).

Harris, in second statement, said that "MSNBC took the responsible action and removed Pat Buchanan's column," while adding that "no worthy news organization should employ and promote a commentator who engages in such vile fiction."

An MSNBC spokesperson issued a statement to POLITICO: "An editorial decision was made to remove the column from msnbc.com. Pat is a contributor to MSNBC, his syndicated column does not speak for the network or represent the views of MSNBC"
MSNBC removes Buchanan column from site
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Typical cultural Marxist media. Can't have any truth out there. Gotta cover it up before it starts to make another dent in their already shaky system. No tolerance for Truth. They are all hypocrites, liars, and are among the lowest scum on earth.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
MSNBC is just another Globalist Elite controlled, cultural Marxist controlled propaganda outlet.
smiley21.gif
 
Top