“…you are missing the point of Buchanan’s book, if you have even read it. The point is that Britain made the blunders which dragged the rest of the English speaking world into an Eastern European conflict between two ancient rivals. ”

“Buchanan’s point is that the war was a bad decision for the British Empire. It led to the loss of its overseas power, bankruptcy, and relegation to the status of an American protectorate.
…
America, already deeply indebted to China (just as Britain was deeply indebted to us) is making the same mistakes in fighting foreign wars. This cannot go on indefinitely”

and

“Pat Buchanan’s deranged thesis has nothing much to do with WWII. It has to do with appeasement, alright, but not appeasement of Nazi Germany. Instead, it has to do with Pat’s perceived need to appease one of the Nazi’s direct heirs and progeny–the Ayatollahs of Iran.”

“This is not to play down Jewish suffering prior to the outbreak of war. The discussion is whether war made things better or worse, for the Jews and for Brittan. Buchanan makes a good case in arguing that both would have been better off – not well of – had Britain avoided the war.”

In sum, there are three issues: Is Buchanan historically accurate when he makes his point - which is intended to question present middle east policy - are his conclusions drawn from those facts reasonable, and is he an anti-semite.

I don’t know the answers - but there are certainly enough questions about accuracy raised by VDH to make me wonder about whether Buchanan’s issues are initiated by his anti-semitism. To be honest, I wasn’t even aware of this issue before, so now I am. I’ll definitely view him with more skepticism after this. I was surprised by the antagonism shown in the comments against VDH as well.

I agree that “those who disdain history are doomed to repeat it” but then neither are things ever identical.
I’m going to save the quotes I copied and pasted because I think they’re something to consider, but I recommend folks take the time to read them all if they’re interested. And if you don’t have time, I’ll email them to Book - but of course, my choices may not be those you’d choose!

Just right click on the title of blog post and it will provide you the perma link, expat.

http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/

and scroll way down because there is also a wonderful post on the French and line dancing.

Here is the full archive site

http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/signs-and-wonders-the-emergence-of-a-pro-israel-left-in-germany/

While I tend to think that’s true, it’s all water under the bridge. By the time Hitler had risen to power, Germany’s entire destiny had changed course and essentially sacrificed everything that had gone on before WWI.

It all went down the tubes, so it is not as if talking about what ifs concerning Kaiser Wilhelm’s well intentioned but non-Bismarck and disastrous policies will do anything now to change Hitler’s history.

Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.

Hitler didn’t give a damn for returning Germany to their former glory. That was all just a useful device for getting useful idiots working for Nazism.

Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain

He already had an alliance with Stalin. There was no room for anybody else. And even if there were, he would have betrayed them sooner or later.

If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet?

His submarine admirals had planned on a few more years to build up the u-boat fleets, but Hitler started the ball early cause he was encouraged by Western decadent idiots.

Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered?

Cause it was more economical to use Petain, and thus the French fleet, to fight the Americans down in Africa. Given that France was now working for Hitler, why the heck would Hitler want their fleets under his personal command or destroyed?

Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?

Cause Hitler was a neurotic, unstable, idiot. He was always trying to have things one way or another. As for original history, I don’t actually have an explanation for the “Western Wall”. That never came up in my studies.

If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?

Why do the Palestinians keep offering cease fires after successfully killing Israelis?

As for capitalists, it is true that capitalists will sell you the rope that you will use to hang them with, Book.

I suspect at least part of the problem is that we - too many of us - just simply don’t know the history. Shame on us. Me too. It seems like when we studied history, we got to the post 1900 period about the end of the year and just sort of skipped over it. I’m constantly surprised by the History(All Nazis All the Time) Channel about how much I don’t know about WWII.

I believe all would be interested in this take down of Buchanan by my favorite historian.

This pattern of behavior against anyone Hitler deemed unworthy, and especially against the Jews, accelerated at an exponential rate throughout the 30s — again, before the war. Recall that one of the camps (was it Dachau) was already in use as a place of horrible imprisonment and torture long before the war began. (I had an uncle on the non-Jewish side of the family who was murdered in one of the “camps” before the war started because he was a schizophrenic.)

Also, keep in mind that Hitler began his process of aggression before England was involved, with Austria and the Sudetenland. Had England done nothing, Hitler would still have gone forward with his megalomaniac plans, only there would not have been anything to slow him down — ever.