This is not my favorite book from Pat. I think his thesis is interesting: was WWII avoidable? Did bad choices made by British political leaders force the West to enter into a world war? What can we learn from this to avoid a future world war? Pat argues that WWII was "unecessary" and could have been avoided; yet, due to the "arogance" of England's foreign policy, we were thrust into a world war. The problem I found with his argument is that Pat never laid any of the blame for the onset of WWII on Germany, Hitler or Mussolini ... huh?

This book is not an easy read; a real drag in certain places. Overall, the book was overly lengthy and a bit boring at times due to the long quotes used to substatiate many of his claims. This is the main problem in Pat's book, he used secondary quotes to prop up his theory. This works in some places, but seems hollow in other. Pat may have done extensive research for this book, but his lack of primary sources undermines his argument and his "scholarly authority."

I recommend this book for the history buffs who have a lot of time on their hands to kill. I gave it a 3 star (average) rating because that's what this book is - average. Interesting thesis backed with few credible, non-second hand sources. I could get past that if this book was not such so slow, boring, and hard to get through in certain places. I believe that history can be exciting and compelling to read - but this my friends, is anythign but. I still love Pat though, and will continue to watch him represent the Right on MSNBC.

This is not my favorite book from Pat. I think his thesis is interesting: was WWII avoidable? Did bad choices made by British political leaders force the West to enter into a world war? What can we learn from this to avoid a future world war? Pat argues that WWII was "unecessary" and could have been avoided; yet, due to the "arogance" of England's foreign policy, we were thrust into a world war.

This book is not an easy read; a real drag in certain places. Overall, the book was overly lengthy and a bit boring at times due to the long quotes used to substatiate many of his claims. This is the main problem in Pat's book, he used secondary quotes to prop up his theory. This works in some places, but seems hollow in other. Pat may have done extensive research for this book, but his lack of primary sources undermines his argument and his "scholarly authority."

I recommend this book for the history buffs who have a lot of time on their hands to kill. And I still love Pat and will continue to watch him represent the Right on MSNBC.

Anyone who has read widely on the subject will be familiar with much of the historical material Buchanan uses.

Buchanan's contribution to how we view the tragic and fascinating history of this global cataclysm is his compilation of historical facts, lesser known to the wider public, in a way that prods us to reconsider engrained assumptions. The ghastly nature of Hitler's totalitarian regime is a given, so the book focuses on weighing the costs of the various lousy alternatives available to other powers, such as the UK and US, that were not directly in Hitler's line of march. In particular, Buchanan challenges the wisdom of Britain's 1939 war declaration. The justification of allied war methods, such as mass bombing of civilians, is scrutinized using the same standards for belligerents of both sides.

Most of the criticisms found in the reviews had been predictable. Buchanan anticipated and effectively addressed them point by point. They get repeated just the same, as if Buchanan never thought of them. Obviously he has touched a nerve.

My last relative who truly represented "the Greatest Generation" has passed away. I'm glad most vets of that war, justifiably proud, will be spared the necessary reassessment of the almost unchallenged "good war" mythology. I sympathize with those WWII veterans who view doubts about the war's necessity (from a US or British standpoint) as a challenge to their own noble sacrifice and ideals. That's certainly not what this book is all about.

As an infantry veteran of the Vietnam War, the cold shower of doubt about its political justification came after returning home in 1967. For many Vietnam vets, doubts came while they were there. For others who went later, the doubts were there before leaving home. Whatever, we have had plenty of time to get used to the idea that the war's potential benefit was not worth the cost in shattered lives and resources. The same may be true of many Iraq war veterans. To confront WWII vets at this late date to similar doubts about the necessity of their sacrifice might be cruel. But to everyone else, the thesis and array of events that Buchanan has assembled in this excellent historical review are necessary reminders of just how deceptive ostensibly clear moral choices can be when militarily intervening in far-away conflicts.

US intervention in WWII did not start on December 7, 1941; just as US intervention in the Middle East did not start on September 11, 2001. The chronology of escalating tit-for-tat violence is something we need to focus on a lot more than we have. Buchanan has done just that in this hard treatment of the comfortable black-white WWII legend.

One of England's first moves upon entering into WW1 was to cut the undersea communication cables that connected the European continent with the USA. They wanted to make sure that their propaganda would dominate and shape opinions in the English speaking world. For nearly a hundred years, it has. Imperialistic wars to preserve the wealth, power, dominance and privileges of a relatively small number of English-speaking white males have gone down in the establishment accounts as a struggle to preserve democracy, provide for the self determination of peoples, and combat both racism and aggressive wars of expansion. The hypocrisies and inconsistencies of this conventional narration of events by the victors are so blatant that an ever growing number of revisionist authors, from both the far right and left, have risen up to challenge the orthodoxy and present `the rest of the story'. This gem of a book provides a wonderful new synthesis of revisionist history based largely on the work of such respected authors as A.J.P. Taylor, Niall Ferguson and Andreas Hillgruber. Mix it with some books by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and you will have a much more balanced view of the world wars then you will ever get from school textbooks or the History Channel.

Many consider the central point of this book to be how the British guarantees to Poland in 1939 did nothing for the Poles, but, rather, served only to transform a local conflict over specific issues into a conflagration that devastated much of the world. This is a good point, to be sure, but it represents no more then a bastard child to that great mother of all English foreign policy blunders, namely, the decision by the English patrician class (and, by extension, their cousins in America) to answer the `German Question' with a policy of containment and confrontation rather then accommodation. By the `German Question', I. of course mean how the European balance of power, jealously guarded by England for so long, was shattered by the newly unified Germany that emerged, like Athena from the head of Zeus, as a result of the Prussian victory over France in 1871. By its mere existence, a unified Germany threatened to overwhelm its neighbors, either politically and economically, in times of peace, or militarily, in times of war.

To me, the great tragedy of the twentieth century, as revealed in this book, is how, in a supposed era of democracy, a cabal of imperialist-minded patricians could decide, against the expressed wishes of the common people, and for no better reason than fear of seeing their own power eclipsed, to throw the English speaking world into a winner-take-all conflict with the Germans. A conflict that would span over thirty years, produce both Hitler and Stalin, and claim the lives of over 80 million people. If this description of events strikes you as preposterous, consider the following conversation between the American ambassador Henry White and ex- prime minister Author Balfour, which was recorded by White's daughter in 1907 and is excerpted from this book;

Balfour (somewhat lightly): "We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade."

White: "You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder."

Balfour: "That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war."

White: "I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles."

Balfour (again lightly): "Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy."

To me, such insight into the backroom dealings of the brandy sipping, cigar chomping criminal class that Mr. Churchill exemplified is what makes history worthwhile! There is also a wonderful account of Churchill nonchalantly carving up Europe into `spheres of influence' during an informal meeting with Stalin. If you still have a hard time picturing Churchill as anything more then a patrician class gangster after reading this book then check out "Human Smoke" by Nicholson Baker. A little research will reveal more behind the scenes dirt on this scoundrel then the Oval Office tapes revealed about Richard Nixon.

How much imagination does it require to picture Neocons in New York or Washington D.C. having similar conversations about Iran and China today? Now that England has passed the baton of imperialism and world dominance on to us in America, will we choose a path of reasoned negotiation and accommodation with potential rivals? Or, like the English, we will pursue hegemony at all costs thru risky alliances and constant war?

Many of the other reviews of "Churchill, Hitler, And The Unnecessary War" are highly dismissive. I suspect most have never bothered to actually read the book. Is Mr. Buchanan `fair and balanced' (like Faux News, he, he!) heck no! He presents things from the point of view of an Irish-American with obvious anti-English and anti-Zionist tendencies. That's fine with me. How often do you get that perspective in the mainstream press? So many people in America seem to think they know all there is to know about the world wars when everything they have seen or read has been from the Anglo-American and Jewish perspectives. They know nothing of the wars from the perspectives of the people most affected by it, the Germans, Russians, Finns, Poles and other peoples of central and Eastern Europe. This book punches huge holes in cherished Anglo-American myths and is an important contribution to a better understanding of the central conflict that shaped our modern world.

Buchanan does a good job pointing out that we should always question our leaders. Beyond that this book is simply poor "history." Buchanan is not a historian, he ignores decades of historical record that would refute his claims in this book and only references those that support his theory. This is from a sound piece of historical writing.

Buchanan puts forth what he calls "historical facts" that can easily be refuted and disproved. For instance:

"Germany was not involved in any wars between 1871 and 1914, whereas Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan and the United States were. "

That is a very convenient time line. It has to start in 1871 because if it started a year earlier you would find Germany involved in the Franco-Prussian War. I assume Buchanan was referring to wars fought only on European soil; if not then that statement is utterly false because Germany was also involved in military actions in Africa while obtaining its colonies.

Buchanan opines that World War II was unnecessary and the holocaust would not have happened if the allies had not "caused" the war. This is a "what if" of history which can not be proven or discounted because of its intangibility. However, the historical record and Hitler's own actions and writings cause us living today to view World War II as a necessary war to stop a dictator who was hellbent on destroying the world.

Considering Pat's bizarre history of inflammatory rhetoric, regarding Jews, minorities, and anything that doesn't fit into his ideal white Anglo Saxon world, this gifted polemicist posing as an historian on WWII, with even less credentials than David Irving, was bound to offer a flawed premise with predictable results.


Would it have been incredible fortune if Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Soviets destroyed each other without the Allies ever getting involved in WWII? Sure. But for Buchanan to postulate that the NSDAP would have been thwarted from what they eventually wrought, whether the Allies got involved in the war, or not, or whether there even was a war in Europe, that is to say Poland and France just capitulated without any shot being fired and Britain remained neutral, defies all the evidence to the contrary, not to mention the predictions of Nostradamus, a Catholic, but whose family was Jewish. Ah, well, maybe Pat wouldn't count the Nos.

Here is a sampling of the cool and detached Buchanan regarding his favorite fascist dictatorship that he wished were still around.

"In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)

"Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction. Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)

"After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: "If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic, 10/22/90)

"Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90) During the Gulf crisis: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)

Since when has Pat Buchanan ever fretted about the Holocaust, aside from denying its extensiveness? Since Hitler's primary motive to obtain absolute power was to achieve a Jew-free Europe, which he just about accomplished while fighting a two front war, Buchanan fantasizes how this goal might have been totally accomplished had there been no second front. Does Pat actually say this? Of course not. He learned to be somewhat circumspect in his views on Jews/Israel/Holocaust since his 1990's columns. But those columns defending ex-Nazis, Arthur Rudolph, Karl Linnas, Kurt Waldheim, Klaus Barbie, John Demjanjuk, his anti-Israel stance, and his Holocaust denials, are legendary and inescapable. Even William F. Buckley in 1990 wrote a 20,000 word essay on Buchanan that concluded: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge" of anti-Semitism.

Many defenders of Buchanan, and his latest book of fiction, believe it is not only possible, but necessary, to separate the author's personal historical comments and positions regarding the crimes of Nazis Germany in order to fairly review this book. Had Buchanan written a book about butterfly collecting, this doctrine would have merit. Why Buchanan can't resist inserting himself into this period of history is a head scratch. Did he think the public's memory of his defense of Nazis, and Holocaust denials, that kept popping up in his 1980/90's columns was somehow erased? Did he, or his publishers, forget that his own words resulted in his views on WWII as permanently discredited ? Apparently so.



But let's go back to September 3 , 1939 when Winston Churchill addressed the Buchanon bilge about how G.B. could have avoided war with Germany.

"This is no question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man.

This is no war for domination, for imperial aggrandizement for material gain, no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war pure in its inherent quality, a war to establish on unimpeachable rocks the rights of the individual and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man."

To Buchanan, the militant isolationist, even the Revolutionary War could have been avoided if we just ignored no taxation without representation and learned to live under foreign monarchy rule. During his failed Presidential run, he quoted General Custer in New Hampshire, "Mount up everybody and ride to the sound of the guns." Apparently, Buchanan figured the Allies should have remained deaf and sat out WWII.

When it comes to choosing between the polemics of Pat Buchanan or the wisdom of Winston Churchill, only the benighted would side with the former.

Considering Pat's bizarre history of inflammatory rhetoric, regarding Jews, minorities, and anything that doesn't fit into his ideal white Anglo Saxon world, this gifted polemicist posing as an historian on WWII, with even less credentials than David Irving, was bound to offer a flawed premise with predictable results.

Since when has Pat Buchanan fretted about the Holocaust? His columns defending ex-Nazis, Arthur Rudolph, Karl Linnas, Kurt Waldheim, Klaus Barbie, and John Demjanjuk are legendary. Even William F. Buckley in 1990 wrote a 20,000 word essay on Buchanan that concluded: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge" of anti-Semitism.

Would it have been incredible fortune if Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Soviets destroyed each other without the Allies ever getting involved in WWII? Sure. But for Buchanan to postulate that the NSDAP would have been thwarted from what they eventually wrought, whether the Allies got involved in the war, or not, or whether there even was a war in Europe, that is to say Poland and France just capitulated without any shot being fired and Britain remained neutral, strains credulity. To Buchanan, the militant isolationist, even the Revolutionary War could have been avoided if we just ignored no taxation without representation and learned to live under foreign monarchy rule.

Here is a sampling of the cool and detached Buchanan regarding his favorite fascist dictatorship that he wished were still around.

"In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)

"Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction. Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)

"After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote: "If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him 'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic, 10/22/90)

"Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90) During the Gulf crisis: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)


But let's go back to September 3 , 1939 when Winston Churchill addressed the Buchanon bilge about how GB could have avoided war with Germany.

"This is no question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man.

This is no war for domination, for imperial aggrandizement for material gain, no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war pure in its inherent quality, a war to establish on unimpeachable rocks the rights of the individual and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man."

When it comes to choosing between the polemics of Pat Buchanan or the wisdom of Winston Churchill, only the benighted would side with the former.

The conventional picture most Americans and Britains have is that Winston Churchill saved Western Civilization and the free world. His courage, and determination rallied the confused, disorganized British people to resist the Nazi effort to conquer all of Europe.Small embattled Britain held the line until 'the New World came to the rescue of the Old'.
Now in a detailed effort at Revisionism Patrick Buchannan wishes to convince us that Churchill was a warmonger, that World War Two could have been avoided. He puts forth the thesis that had the Allies conceded certain , from his point- of- view, legitimate claims regarding ethnic Germans in Czechoslakia the war might have been averted. However as Daniel Mandel points out in a review of this book in Frontpage.Com Buchannan distorts the historical record, underplaying German aggressiveness and ambition. As Mandel writes,"Issues of self-determination led to world war not because, as Buchanan argues, Britain and France took an imprudent interest in standing by Poland's refusal to disgorge itself of German-populated territories, but because the dynamic aggressiveness of Nazi Germany made a stand at some point imperative." Buchannan's upside - down act, of taking the great hero of the struggle Churchill and making him the villain is a contemptible exercise in cynicism.

The items claimed to be fact in this book are incorrect. The responsibilities of characters examined are incorrect.
In general, this volume is so full of errors that it should have been categorized as fiction.
If you in anyway give creedence to the uninformed theories and misguided hypothesis of this book, then you need to read more history books to get the real facts that would show you that Pat Buchannan has not only misinterpreted history, but comes across as dangerously delusional to the point that it could be said this work is a piece of disinformation. It appears the author has purposefully falsified information and facts to create a set of incorrect conclusions.
This is not history or even theoretical history. It's disinformation.

The conventional wisdom surrounding Churchill and the war against Germany is that Churchill kept England in the war long enough to allow a very strong coalition to eventually develop and defeat Hitler. In doing this he is usually regarded as the "man of the century" for saving Western civilization from an otherwise certain Nazi victory.

I always viewed Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy as a reaction to the horror on the World War I battlefields. Buchanan, however, puts the emphasis on Allied guilt regarding the Versailles treaty. By the 1930s, Chamberlain and others began to regard the Versailles treaty as too harsh on Germany and were willing to make significant adjustments. It is in this light that Chamberlain refused to support the French when the Germans re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936. After all, they're only re-occupying their own territory was the British reaction. (Had the French resisted, the Germans would have quickly retreated and Hitler's government probably would have fallen.)

Likewise the incorporation of German speaking Austrians into the Reich in 1938 was allowed as was the annexation of the Sudetenland and its 2 million Germans later that year. Sudetenland was separated from Germany by the Versailles treaty to weaken Germany (a key French goal at Versailles). In hindsight this looked harsh to Chamberlain and he certainly didn't want to go to war over Czechoslovakia. (An interesting sidelight is that the top German generals, Beck and Halder were prepared to arrest Hitler to prevent a two front war at the time of the Munich conference but the Allies caved and the arrest order, already made out, was discarded.)

Only a few months after Munich, Germany seized the rest of the Czech Republic, embarrassing Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement. Hitler's claim that Sudetenland would be his last territorial demand in Europe was exposed as a lie, and Chamberlain concluded he could no longer trust Hitler.

So when Hitler subsequently demanded the Polish city of Danzig be returned to Germany (the Danzig population being overwhelmingly German), Chamberlain responded not with more appeasement but with a guarantee to Poland that England would go to war with Germany if Germany attempted to take Polish territory by force.

According to Buchanan, this was the biggest strategic mistake in British history. His view is that the British should never have given Poland a guarantee but rather should have strongly encouraged them to give in to German demands about Danzig. If this happened, he argues, Germany never would've gone to war with the Western European countries. Germany may have, in collusion with Poland, eventually gone to war with the Soviet Union, but never the West. (If Poles had not cooperated, Germany would have done what they did anyway which was sign a pact with the Soviet Union and divide Poland up with the Soviets.) Then, the two totalitarian dictators could fight it out while the rest of the world watched.

Regardless of the outcome of a war between Germany and the Soviet Union, the impact on the West would have been far less negative according to Buchanan. Hundreds of thousands of lives of European and American allies would have been spared. Western European Jews would have been spared. Britain would have retained much of their empire and would not have bankrupted themselves in the process of "winning" a war.

(Buchanan doesn't mention the War with Japan and I assume it would have happened anyway. After all, Japan attacked America even though the U. S. was at peace with Germany.)

In order to buy into Buchanan's analysis, you have to assume that Hitler had no designs on the West. After the fall of France in 1940, Churchill faced the real possibility of making peace with Germany. Hitler was making overtures which would allow the British Empire to remain intact. He even offered to guarantee the British Empire. Any other leading British politician, certainly Halifax, the most likely Conservative Party alternative to Churchill, or any of the Labour Party politicians would have taken the deal. But Churchill didn't believe Hitler's peaceful intentions toward Britain. He felt it Hitler would, in time, reduce Britain to a slave state and the British would lose their empire. Roosevelt had similar doubts. He basically believed America would have to fight Hitler sooner or later and he would rather do it sooner with Britain's help and on European territory.

(In actuality, this book deserves three and a half stars. My five star rating is merely a response to the simian chicken scratchers who, unable to read the book, posted one star reviews.)

Mr. Buchanan, pen in hand, appears once again ready to take on the world.

In this lively extended essay, he seeks to dismantle the idols of political orthodoxy with a wit and candor that is far to lacking in todays political discourse.

To begin, Mr. Buchanan admits his intentions, which are polemical. Not only is he questioning the victors history, he is seeking to promote controversy by administering a full frontal assault on the ubiquitous myths of World War Two. Which, by the way, are used to justify everything from the bombing of Serbia (after all Milosevic was another Hitler) to the obliteration of the petty dictator Saddam Hussein (who, strangely enough, was another Hitler as well.). His intent is to blitzkrieg the "Churchill Cult" which has developed around the "Making the world safe for Democracy" cabals who instigate wars for ideological purposes...typically equality, liberty and fraternity. Indeed, the twentieth century wars fought in the name of these egalitarian principles are responsible for more deaths than any King, thug, or religious figure in the history of mankind. We live in the age of the "You will be as equal as me, or I will kill you" political ethos which posits nihilism and death as a viable alternative to hierarchy and superior value. For Pat's attempts to discredit these less than human leftist pipe dreams....I say let the Panzers roll!

Mr. Buchanan offers an adequate history of World War One based primarily upon secondary sources (which is fine given the controversial nature of the work). He demonstrates aptly the non threatening stances taken by the Kaiser, and the Benny Hill like diplomatic follies of the Brits who like Churchill, were itching for a fight. Anglo Germanophobia and blatant imperial opportunism were the essential reasons for Britain jumping into a war that wasn't it's own. All of which led to an ignoble armistice that was forced upon Germany at the point of a gun, and through a draconian starvation blockade that would surely make Genghis Kahn wince with disgust at it's sheer barbarity. Oh yes, Adolph Hitler was "born at Versailles".

Of course, the main thrust of Buchanan's book is in it's treatment of British policy in the run up to the Second World War. Here, is where I believe he tries to walk on both sides of the line...desiring not to appear as a "Nazi sympathizer", but still wanting to poke imperial court historians in the eye. He rightly understands that the "Hitler-Baldwin Pact" was for all intensive purposes the end of Versailles (which Britain was content with.). He seems to understand that the French/Russian alliance was a violation of Locarno, and therefore put the Rhineland in play as a legitimate defensive territory to be obtained by Hitler. He consigns blame to Schuschnigg for his utter foolishness in calling a plebiscite to determine the fate of Austria, all the while maintaining open negotiations with Germany (an act dripping with sabotage). Yet later in the book he states that Hitler was "morally responsible" for the war. This is a textbook case of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too. If Hitler's actions were reactive as opposed to aggressive, cautious as opposed to dangerous, and understandable as opposed to the "actions of a madman"... then why should we look to Hitler as being "morally responsible"?

Perhaps this can be answered in Pat's account of Munich and Hitler's march on Prague, in which he disagrees with Taylor that Hitler was responding to a situation as it presented itself. Buchanan instead relies upon flimsy evidence that Hitler was seeking to subvert a vulnerable Czechoslovakia, so as to carry out some supposed long held plan to conquer the Czechs. This is nonsense. The facts speak for themselves. After Munich, Czechoslovakia was a neutered state. It started as an artificial nation of multi-ethnic states, composed of populations ripped from their historical fatherlands. Upon the return of these populations to their rightful places at Munich, their simply was no "Czechoslovakia". Add to this powder keg the proclamations of independence by Slovakia and Ruthenia...and you can see the impossible situation that President Hacha found himself in. Yes, it was he who went to Hitler seeking protection, and indeed, Hitler obliged. So, for entering into the boundaries of a fractured state, at the invitation of President Hacha, Hitler is accused of breaking his word at Munich. Hogwash! Hitler was moving to prevent a Hungarian advantage in the region, and established a protectorate over historical Bohemia. As Taylor says: "He acted only when events had already destroyed the settlement of Munich." In this instance, Mr. Buchanan can't see the forest because of the trees.

Chapter nine is the fulcrum of Buchanan's book. In it he states emphatically that the British war guarantee to Poland was not only a "Fatal Blunder", but a disgusting ploy used by the Brits to try and bluff Hitler into a peaceful settlement of Danzig. Knowing full well that they could not follow up on this guarantee, and therefore, providing a false sense of security to Jozef Beck that he need not negotiate with Hitler. Chamberlain essentially forced Hitler to play his hand, so he did. He took back the Germanic city of Danzig, while the Anglo's sat back and watched Beck get driven into the ground. Now, Churchill was going to get the war he wanted, on the back of dead Pole's.

This book is necessary despite its few short comings. It is the first book of its type to be directed towards a popular audience. This will hopefully provide a larger venue for historical views that aren't gleaned from bubble gum wrappers and the History Channel. It links false views of World War Two with the foolhardy diplomatic policies of today, and links the two fratricidal wars of WW1 and WW2 with the death of our Western civilization. All noble sentiments indeed.

In the end, I found the book satisfying, though wishing Buchanan would have taken the next step. Given the rise of the Communist beast that occurred after the war, how are those committed to our culture and heritage to view the rise of Hitler? I am interested in National Socialism and Fascism, not as viable political philosophies...but as historical movements that composed the last attempted "right wing" revolts against the leftist egalitarian regimes of the day. The democratic cabals destroyed what was left of order and tradition on the continent during WW1 when they devoured the ancient monarchies and aristocracies. They displaced the last vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire, and replaced it with shallow sentiments of democratic "rights". Which in the end, only served to severe men from their duties, and paved the way for the modern welfare state. Individuals like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were simply men called to restore a certain order to a Europe heading down the wrong path. Each in their own way. Franco, by maintaining the historic supremacy of the Catholic Church. Mussolini, through a "revived" Roman Empire based upon classically Pagan principles...and of course Hitler, by calling to the blood of his racial kinsman, to fight all alien peoples and influences which sought to destroy their way of life. I cannot help but wonder. What would have happened if these men of natural and supernatural order, were allowed the mantle of "defender of the West" that they desired. I cannot help but wonder if modern man would be so effeminate if these men of action had shaped our destinies...if our politics would be so ape like and pointless...if our culture would be so depraved and perverted. Like me, though in a different manner, Patrick Buchanan asks.....What if?

Fascinating book, fascinating author. He is sneered at by liberals, who dismiss his book on the grounds that Buchanan didn't vote for Clinton. This is where we are in America. How odd things are that this should be the case. Ideologically poised intellectuals dominate English universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, mainly from the left, some openly Communist, but they are embraced, praised and become part of the institutions where they teach. In America, only the soggy liberal middle are allowed to teach, pretending to teach the facts, the truth, the "definitive," while everything else is dismissed as fringe and nutty, reactionary and suspect. Buchanan would never be read in an American university, for fear the tender little liberals in the making might learn something.

Most reviews of this book are quite lengthy, so I will be brief.
For years, perhaps a decade or more, I have felt there surely must be another side to the Allied version of WWI and II. This book provides that in my mind. I find it well reseached. It highlights the most relevant points and shows quite clearly that we, the west, put both Japan and Germany in a box, with the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent deals, as well as the humiliating limitations put upon the Japanese in Washington in 1925. It becomes much more clear now.
Great job, Pat Buchanan.

In this book, Pat Buchanan has gone beyond his to-be-expected scintillating cultural commentary and has proven himself to be a top-flight historian. Agree with him or not, Mr. Buchanan's revisionist analysis of World War II is highly intelligent and erudite. He challenges us to think profoundly on, and to take a radically different perspective on, an extraordinarily fascinating and important historical episode.

The only negative is the editing, particularly in terms of some redundancies. Big deal. I say, and resoundingly, Bravo!

Buchanan raises some interesting questions about early twentieth century Europe. Some parts of this book are not too controversial. England could have stayed out of WWI, and this would have changed history. It is unlikely for either Hitler or Lenin to have risen to power, if England simply let Germany defeat France. Not only would England have been spared the carnage of the Somme and the Marne, the French and Germans could have avoided a bloody stalemate. Critics of this book quibble over details, but the idea that The Great War would have been minor without England, is quite plausible.

Buchanan's claims regarding the Second World War are more controversial. Partially, this is due to the truly detestable nature of Hitler and the Nazi regime. How could anyone be against fighting Hitler? Buchanan underestimates Hitler's Global ambitions. It is true that Hitler sought an alliance with the UK. However, Hitler's immediate plans for Central and Eastern Europe were insidious, and Hitler had long terms plans for war with the US. Hitler mapped out his long term plans for war with the US in his sequel to Mein Kampf (unpublished during the war, now available on AMAZON). Hitler saw the USA as the ultimate rival to German world domination, and planned for this fight. The Germans even designed a long range bomber, which they called `the America Bomber', and planned the construction of a fleet to rival the American navy. So Buchanan is a little naïve about Hitler's ultimate intentions. Of course, the fact that Hitler dreamed of war with the US and global domination does not mean that this would have happened.

What about the holocaust? Could anything have prevented this tragedy? The fact of the matter is that the Nazis permitted Jewish emigration up to the end of the Phony War, or Sitzkreig. Things changed after fighting broke out in May 1940, but Hitler was still looking at deporting European Jews to Madagascar after France fell. The British navy prevented this deportation. Many lives could have been saved, at least in Western Europe. Hitler would have invaded the USSR anyway. Tragically, Central Europe was doomed to either Stalinist or Hitlerean dictatorship. What would have happened to the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe had the English not declared War? England's declaration of war did not save Poland or any other part of Central Europe. Given that England was unable to help these people, the idea that it should not have tried is hardly implausible.

Most of the objections that I have read to this book seem to derive from nationalistic pride, the idolization of Churchill, or the misperception that Buchanan is somehow anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler. The fact of the matter is that the world wars wrecked European civilization, and England contributed to these catastrophes with many foolish mistakes. While I do not agree with everything in this book, it is mostly on target, and well worth reading. Also read `The Wages of Destruction' by Adam Tooze.

After 44 reviews (I'm #45) the only thing for me to add is this: I believe most people are far too reactionary over this book. Hot topics inside, indeed! But it is written well, and further, with respect for the subject. This publication is a review and analysis of the political decisions that led to war with a little academic 'what if..?' exercised. It is written from the political point of view, not the ethnic, social, cultural point of view. The book only wishes to discuss these areas within the greater political questions which arise from this history. Of course not everyone will love this book! Even I have some issues, but it is a success as a contribution to the WW2 buffs book shelf. Do not read books on potentially sensitive subjects that cover a great breadth if your emotions are centered to your own proclivities or you read to reaffirm your own beliefs. The book is decent and worth reading for it's different point of view alone!
To the people who are writing that the author is a Hitler apologist, you obviously never heard the saying," What you bring to the table helps determine what you take from it." To everyone who has yet to read it, do so without pretensions from these idiots. Any balanced person can see the book is not rooted in Nazi glorification, rather an attempt at political autopsy on a 63 year old body. If anything, the author has written a thought provoking book worthy of friendly discussion.

What a bad book. Don't waste your time with this. It's one thing to be provocative but to blatantly pick and choose historic soundbites for your story is dishonest.

So, England is really the culprit, and forced poor Germany into WWI? Buchanan barely mentions Germany's deliberate tearing down of Bismarck's allicance system, the agressive posture against England (fleet) and most of its neighbors.
Oh, and no mention of the idiotic Austrians who full well knew that Russia would come to the help of the Serbs, and the even more idiotic German guarantee towards Austria that almost all in itself triggered a major war in Europe.

Then German military doctrine that says you have to attack everybody at the same time and pre-emptively in order to survive??

But I guess England should have just sat by and watch one the European mad men take over Europe and trust that it would never effect the Empire. Thank God the English stood up and defeated Napoleon, Wilhelm II, Hitler, and helped contain Stalin after WWII.

May God bless the United Kingdom and prevent us from isolationism.

While one can quibble with the conclusion, the book's main points are reasonable, even mainstream. It is instructive that detractors sound like froth-at-the-mouth ideologues living in 1918 or 1944--I'm just reading Christopher Hitchens' review in Newsweek, (esp. p. 27-28) where Mr. Hitchens shows among else that he knows nothing about the history and historiography of World War I. A rebuttal of his boorish, Goldhagenesque article could go over several pages. In his rant, to demolish the contention that Versailles was the major prop that brought Hitler to power, he paints Germany as the archivillein of the ages, at the very least from Bismarck to Hitler in a straight line. For example, forgotten is that in 1870 France declared war against Prussia, and the Elsass and Lothringen had been German provinces (Old Reich) for much longer than French possessions, and in the Elsass still majority German-speaking. One can discuss about whether the decision to reunite was wise, but it is not a sign of mad imperialism. In the age of colonialism, when even Italy got some, only German colonialism becomes malevolent. The 1905 Morocco-Crisis (where Germany wanted to retain the status quo of an open-door for all Western powers and prevent the take over of the country by France) becomes instead an imperialistic German power grab, as does the backing of the Boers in 1898 as well (funny, most US newspapers backed them as well, by does Christopher not fulminate against the US under McKinley?), etc. So he tries to tell readers that Versailles was fair, and Buchanan's argument not only logically, but also morally flawed (no pity with those sniveling Huns!). Concerning World War II it is by now standard knowledge that Hitler's order to commit genocide came in 1941 (whether influenced by FDR's covert war since 1940, is disputed but in any case, the Holocaust was not planned in 1933, as Hitchens argues. For example, even Howard Zinn, hardly a "neo-fascist" argues that same point in his book On War. If detractors have to stoop to such a low-level of mud-slinging, then the author must be quite right.

Buchanan's book confirms almost exactly the conclusions that I reached many years ago concerning the two world wars.

I was shocked, but not surprised, by some of the revelations about Churchill.

Buchanan makes it clear that peace with safety and honor could have been had if not for Britain's unqualified guarantees to fight for France in 1914 and Poland in 1939.

Why then does Mr. Buchanan who has a better pulpit than most of us fail to apply this knowledge and publicly Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the Worldcondemn the unqualified promise of both presidential candidates and the media in general to go to war for Israel. That nation is far less important than France, in fact virtually unimportant, for our survival.

Why does he not cover the Hess flight and question the failure to reach a peace agreement to at least gain time to rearm when Hitler marched east.

Was there an organization like the AIPAC active in England at that time?Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

At first, one might be taken aback by the assertion Buchanan is making - that WWI and II could have been avoided if the western powers had made more sensible decisions for their own interests. Frequently, you hear that no other outcome could have occurred except for war with Hitler.

What lies at the foundation of Buchanan's argument is this: "What is best for my own nation?" If each leader had considered that question, they would have come to the right answers. Why didn't the French knock Hitler out of the Rhineland? Why did Britain give a war guaranty to Poland over Danzig? If these questions were considered in light of the interests of Britain, that nation would not have entered the war. Why did Britain and France leave Mussolini high and dry when he had serious problems with Hitler initially. "Because he was evil!" the Neo-Cons might chime in. And Stalin wasn't?

Buchanan's book serves to iron out which side we are on today. The Neo-Cons whine about how Hitler was evil, while Stalin goes unmentioned. "We did what we had to do!" Nope, I disagree, and Buchanan outlines the truth excellently.

Had Chamberlain considered why it benefitted Britain to give Poland a guaranty over Danzig, he might have been somewhat perplexed. This is Buchanan's point: when we fail to look after the long-term interests of our own nation, we lose our nations. The west lost its empires.

The vitriole in some responses is completely unnecessary, and it is clear that many who put "1" have not read the book.

It's not that I don't like revisionist history that challenges assumptions. I do. It's that I like it to be vaguely right. This old rascist/anti-semite/isolationist/germanophile/liar's "analysis" is a joke, and like the other Irish, Nazi loving, isolationist Joe Kennedy, he is a hypocritical piece-of-garbage (I kind of like the Irish btw, just pointing out the similarity). I particularly like his letting the Nazi's off light on the holocaust because, after all, they were at war.

This thug shouldn't be allowed to say the words "Winston Churchill." Oh, I guess he is, because society is free, because Pat's storm troopers aren't running it.

Pat, time to die old man, as you've lost your ability to hide your evil.

This is my first book by Pat Buchanan. While I disagree with Mr. Buchanan on some social issues ( I'm a secular humanist) this book is an outstanding example of the intelligence and uncommon sense that America needs.

Excellent research, easy to read and comprehend, this book presents the historical examples of why President Bush and the Neocons foreign interventionist policies are wrong, wrong, wrong.

As to the charge that Mr. Buchanan has dismissed the honorable service of the British, American, and Commonwealth soldiers, it is untrue. Many times, Mr. Buchanan has pointed out while various governments made major mistakes, the servicemen and women fought heroically.

The last chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

Congratulations Mr. Buchanan on a spell-binding, page turner. I will never look at foreign policy of any country the same way again.

I was an avid proponet of Mr. Buchanans ever since he wrote "Right from the Begining", however the older he gets the more off the rails he becomes.

To say World War II did not need to be fought and to accuse the Polish for bringing it to a head is breathtakingly naive. Any student of Hitler knew that Hitler had one goal and that was European domination. Fortunately the Poles had the backbone and said no more.

Instead of praising the Poles, Buchanan has the hubris to fault their bravery. He feels they should have conceded, just like the Rhineland, Sudatenland, etc etc was conceded.

He does not give credence to the fact Hitler had to be confronted eventually and the longer it was put off the stronger the Germans became. If WW II would have started two years later, the Nazi's would have obtained nuclear weapons beofore they were defeated.

Today would be a much different world if we would have had leaders like Patrick Buchanan.

In studying history one must differentiate between history as a "collection of facts" and historical analysis. History as a "collection of facts" does it best to present the flow of events from as unbiased a vantage point as possible. Complete freedom from bias is of course impossible, if only due to the reason that time and space constraints in the final manuscript force historians to select the facts that they deem the most important. Historical analysis on the other hand attempts to analyze the motives and goals of historical figures with the intent of shedding light on their characters and ethical standards. By doing so it is thought that the successes or mistakes made by these figures will serve as a lesson or guide for present decision-making. Historical analysis follows the dictum (or cliché) that one must "learn from history". Historians and historical analysts have a very important (even the most important) role to play in the modern world, and their importance has skyrocketed in recent decades due to the influence of individuals who want to rewrite or "deconstruct" history in order to reconcile it with their own personal philosophy or worldview.

This book should definitely be classified as historical analysis, for it takes a counterfactual stance as to the role of Great Britain in the two world wars of the twentieth century. Its author clearly has an axe to grind with respect to Winston Churchill, a figure who he believes was responsible for the unnecessary carnage that resulted from these wars. His analysis is compelling, thought-provoking, and very convincing, and perhaps without intent gives strong evidence for the view that an excess of veneration regarding Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and other world "leaders" encourages too much of a willingness to believe in their abilities and expertise, even though their decisions are leading the populace down a precipice. Churchill clearly has been venerated beyond rational measure, and the moral, political, and historical pedestal that he occupies needed to be knocked down. The author of this book has done this successfully, and has refrained from indulging himself in the vituperation that is characteristic of so much historical analysis of late.

But the book also includes very interesting historical facts and tidbits that some readers may be unaware of. Some of these include:
* Britain had an alliance with Japan before WWII and this was broken up by US demands.
* Kaiser Wilhelm II was a grandson of Britain's Queen Victoria.
* The Serbs referred the matter of the murder of the archduke to the International Court of Justice.
* Churchill was "buoyant" over the possibility of the First World War.
* Germany was not involved in any wars between 1871 and 1914, whereas Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan and the United States were.
* Churchill mined the North Sea and imposed a starvation blockade against Germany during the First World War.
* Woodrow Wilson believed that citizens were responsible for the acts of their government (his attitude reminds one of the philosophy of "collective guilt" that is adhered to by modern-day terrorists, who murder citizens who are "supporting" their government through taxes, etc).
* The United States Congress refused Herbert Hoover's request for food aid to Germany after the First World War.
* Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles under the threat that it would be invaded if it did not.
* Churchill thought it odd that Americans participated in the First World War.
* The German SS were launching terrorist attacks against the Austrian government before the Anschluss.
* Lloyd George of Britain compared Hitler's `Mein Kampf' to the Magna Carta.
* There were German officers before Munich that had planned to arrest Hitler, Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels.

There are many more of these facts, all of them fascinating, and which all of course must be checked as to their accuracy and their legitimate historical context. The author has provided an extensive list of notes at the end of the book for the skeptical reader who demands further details. Such skepticism is proper considering the loose propaganda that is sold as history these days.

The Second World War has been called the "people's war" and is one of the few that has been considered to be morally legitimate. This book, and a few others that have come out in recent years, has the effect, perhaps without intending to do so, of questioning this legitimacy. Considering the number of lives that were lost in both World War I and II, it is difficult to come to terms with the moral status of these wars. It makes one very uncomfortable to take a stand that those who died did so for no good reason. But to avoid future conflicts, every citizen should learn from the unintended premise of this book that an unquestioned excess of veneration for the world's leaders may result in death and destruction. We must deny the conservative premise that we respect our institutions and hierarchies, and we need to analyze their occupants with extreme skepticism. If we do not, we end up face down in a sandy or muddy battlefield, the victims of our sycophancy for world leaders, fighting a war with no sound moral foundation, and leaving these leaders and their families comfortable and alive and maybe grinning as to their ability to have manipulated us to do their evil bidding--to paraphrase Churchill: "to view us as being worms, but themselves as being glow-worms."

This book is the quintenessential wakeup call to those who blindly accept the, one might say, "Churchill cult". He should indeed be remembered and respected for the good he did and sought, but that does not mean we ignore the darker side of his actions and the consequences thereof.

Any honest historian, amatuer or professional, who has read the book has to admit that, at the very least, the follies commmited by British statesmen combined with Wilsonian nonsense helped pave the way for not only the rise of Hitler but of Stalin, who was an even greater danger to the West and the World at large.

I would reccomend this book for two reasons:

1. To provide a clearer perspective on the events and policies that led to both WWI, WWII and the rise of Stalin.

2. To compare the policies of Winston Churchill with those of American statesmen (on both sides of the aisle).

In studying history one must differentiate between history as a "collection of facts" and historical analysis. History as a "collection of facts" does it best to present the flow of events from as unbiased a vantage point as possible. Complete freedom from bias is of course impossible, if only due to the reason that time and space constraints in the final manuscript force historians to select the facts that they deem the most important. Historical analysis on the other hand attempts to analyze the motives and goals of historical figures with the intent of shedding light on their characters and ethical standards. By doing so it is thought that the successes or mistakes made by these figures will serve as a lesson or guide for present decision-making. Historical analysis follows the dictum (or cliché) that one must "learn from history". Historians and historical analysts have a very important (even the most important) role to play in the modern world, and their importance has skyrocketed in recent decades due to the influence of individuals who want to rewrite or "deconstruct" history in order to reconcile it with their own personal philosophy or worldview.

This book should definitely be classified as historical analysis, for it takes a counterfactual stance as to the role of Great Britain in the two world wars of the twentieth century. Its author clearly has an axe to grind with respect to Winston Churchill, a figure who he believes was responsible for the unnecessary carnage that resulted from these wars. His analysis is compelling, thought-provoking, and very convincing, and perhaps without intent gives strong evidence for the view that an excess of veneration regarding Churchill and other world "leaders" encourages too much of a willingness to believe in their abilities and expertise, even though their decisions are leading the populace down a precipice. Churchill clearly has been venerated beyond rational measure, and the moral, political, and historical pedestal that he occupies needed to be knocked down. The author of this book has done this successfully, and has refrained from indulging himself in the vituperation that is characteristic of so much historical analysis of late.

But the book also includes very interesting historical facts and tidbits that some readers may be unaware of. Some of these include:
* Britain had an alliance with Japan before WWII and this was broken up by US demands.
* Kaiser Wilhelm II was a grandson of Britain's Queen Victoria.
* The Serbs referred the matter of the murder of the archduke to the International Court of Justice.
* Churchill was "buoyant" over the possibility of the First World War.
* Germany was not involved in any wars between 1871 and 1914, whereas Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan and the United States were.
* Churchill mined the North Sea and imposed a starvation blockade against Germany during the First World War.
* Woodrow Wilson believed that citizens were responsible for the acts of their government (his attitude reminds one of the philosophy of "collective guilt" that is adhered to by modern-day terrorists, who murder citizens who are "supporting" their government through taxes, etc).
* The United States Congress refused Herbert Hoover's request for food aid to Germany after the First World War.
* Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles under the threat that it would be invaded if it did not.
* Churchill thought it odd that Americans participated in the First World War.
* The German SS were launching terrorist attacks against the Austrian government before the Anschluss.
* Lloyd George of Britain compared Hitler's `Mein Kampf' to the Magna Carta.
* There were German officers before Munich that had planned to arrest Hitler, Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels.

There are many more of these facts, all of them fascinating, and which all of course must be checked as to their accuracy and their legitimate historical context. The author has provided an extensive list of notes at the end of the book for the skeptical reader who demands further details. Such skepticism is proper considering the loose propaganda that is sold as history these days.

The Second World War has been called the "people's war" and is one of the few that has been considered to be morally legitimate. This book, and a few others that have come out in recent years, has the effect, perhaps without intending to do so, of questioning this legitimacy. Considering the number of lives that were lost in both World War I and II, it is difficult to come to terms with the moral status of these wars. It makes one very uncomfortable to take a stand that those who died did so for no good reason. But to avoid future conflicts, every citizen should learn from the unintended premise of this book that an unquestioned excess of veneration for the world's leaders may result in death and destruction. We must deny the conservative premise that we respect our institutions and hierarchies, and we need to analyze their occupants with extreme skepticism. If we do not, we end up face down in a sandy or muddy battlefield, the victims of our sycophancy for world leaders, fighting a war with no sound moral foundation, and leaving these leaders and their families comfortable and alive and maybe grinning as to their ability to have manipulated us to do their evil bidding--to paraphrase Churchill: "to view us as being worms, but themselves as being glow-worms."

This book can start a hundred conversations. It can surprise some that Hitler had no designs on Britain, and even cherished her existence and desired alliance with her even after the war. It can surprise some that Churchill could be a monster, the only happy man during his "delicious" Great War. How do nations best co-exist? By world government? Self-determination? Alliances?

The unmistakable impetus for the book are the events of this decade through which, thank God, pax Americans are starting to see. Mr. Buchanan doesn't offer excuses for Hitler, as some are suggesting. He is simply detailing the doomed path of poor statesmanship and unprincipled decision-making. They refused to deal with the right people, and so were forced to deal with the wrong one.

But what exactly went wrong? How do the contents support the premise of the title?

A word that appears over and over again is "blunder". Attempting at first to guide their way through events with principle, the Allies blundered to the point where events steered their principles. Theirs is a story of:

-Risking permanent principle for momentary peace: Months after Chamberlain proclaimed "peace in our time", he was handing out war guarantees to anyone east and south of Germany, "like a bankrupt handing out dud checks". Churchill, the West's most eloquent critic of Communism and long-time proponent of killing Soviet Communism in its cradle, began speaking of eastern Europe's security in being an anti-Nazi interest of Uncle Joe.

-Betrayed allies: Japan's naval might was a critical ally of the British Empire in Asia. Despite her sins, Japan was a trustworthy British ally. But Britain caved in to American demands to join a British-American-Japanese naval agreement, leaving Japan's navy outnumbered by her co-signers 10-3. Britain defied a proven-dependable alliance for an imaginary vision of friendship between two nations that had engaged in repeated conflict.

-Dishonorable alliances: Britain and France didn't need Italy after Versailles, but they did need her after Hitler's rise. Their anti-Germany entente put them in the position of having to defend Mussolini's cruel slaughter of Ethiopia. Joining the moral outrage of the League of Nations, they isolated their necessary ally and doused any fire he had against the Hitler whom he held in contempt.

-Lost aims: The point of negotiating with Hitler was to sustain European peace, French might on the continent, eastern European independence, and British supremacy. In the end, 50 million were dead, France had to be liberated, eastern Europe was in Soviet chains, and Britain sold off her massive empire and became a second to the United States. The independence of Poland, the final line crossed that started the war, was sold to the Soviet communists.

And we grew up being taught that this was the big win.

The book is rich in example, anecdote, and unfolding history, and is worth anyone's interest in this era of history. The book could have been reduced by 50-100 pages. It can be repetitive and slow at times: Mr. Buchanan repeats some quotes, rehashes things needlessly at times, and even spent several pages detailing the initial reactions to Chamberlain's peace guarantee. But Mr. Buchanan's forte is context, especially when historic decisions are analyzed, so the reader new to him should be prepared and patient. I promise he'll be rewarded.

This book represents some of the most self-aggrandizing and destructive Monday morning quarterbacking imaginable. It baffles me how Buchanan can be as knowledgeable as he is and yet still have no idea what he's talking about. ASSUMING every "mistake" he cites in this book was actually a mistake and ASSUMING the leaders in question hadn't made these mistakes and done what Buchanan believes would have been "correct" leads to the ASSUMPTION that everything would have turned out great. So after three layers of assumptions we arrive at the conclusion that Adolf Hitler either wouldn't have come to power, or if he had, he would have ruled happily and peacefully or maybe if he had taken part of Poland would have just stopped there.

It's this kind of revisionist history that dilutes the lessons we can learn from our past. Because as time goes by we lose more of the context of these lessons and those looking to recreate past errors in judgment for their own advantage can grab hold of nonsense like this to justify their claims and send us down these paths again.

Buchanan documents (in a very well documented and footnoted text), the errors made by European leaders in dealing with developing crisis leading up to both WW1 and WW2. He faults both the Allied (most notably Churchill) and the German leadership for mistakes, missed opportunities and the possible (probable?) self-destruction of the west. A hundred years later, we are still paying for bad choices.

The old adage: "If you don't know where you are going, you will never get there", is amply illustrated in this thought provoking book.

If you are familiar with history leading up to both world wars, you will appreciate this book, which defies conventional wisdom and offers new insights into events that still dominate European life.

Buchanan made me question the wisdom of our leaders as they feel their way towards a world strategy dealing with Russia, Iran and China. We know that our leaders are in a position of power, only time will tell if they are truly wise.

It is a universal truth that countries on all sides of military conflicts seek to propagate lies about their enemies. They also conceal their own flaws and misdeads. Sometimes they tell outright lies. Sometimes they lie by telling only part of the truth. Most people have little or no real knowledge of foreign relations. Most have no interest in such knowledge until war threatens. The knowledge they do get as war approaches or after war starts is propaganda, lies, and clever partial truths. Many years later, some of the actual facts come to light. I think it has taken from twenty-five to sixty years for part of the real story of World War I/II to come to light. Pat Buchannon is a hero to those who seek the truth. There will still be many who don't want to know the facts. Those will ignore or defame him. I thank him for being brave enough to tell the truth.

For too long, the comic book view of WWII and the events leading up to it have gone unchallenged. We always hear it was a fight for freedom, yet more people ended up under the yoke of tyranny than when it started.

It's generally accepted now that WWI was a senseless and needless war - Buchanan's book is a well documented argument that WWII was equally unnecessary and destructive as well.

As Mr. Poszepszynski before me, who called Buchanan's book "idiotic" I would call anyone who calls the book "historic", fresh view on world events, refreshing, engaging and who say it's worth reading I would call emotional and intellectual "morons"
The general premise of the book is "what if". What if England stayed put, and did not mess up with other European countries affairs? That may saved millions of lives and prevented WW II.
What lives? Americans? Maybe, but certainly not Polish, Russians, English, French, etc.
Buchanan claims that the declaration of war by France and England in respond to Nazi aggression of Poland set the stage for the WW II and the extermination of Jews. England actually stayed put until it was attacked in 1940. Have France and England intervened in 1939, keeping their promise to Poland and created second front on the west, that might have prevented the loss of millions of lives, Jews included.

Mr. Buchanan would have preferred Britain and France to have ignored Hitler in the 1930s. England and others compromised with Hitler by allowing him to take over Austria and, so-called by Germans, Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia). Then Hitler demanded "corridor" through Poland to Gdansk (Danzing), which he considered a German city and which at the time was a Free City State of Gdansk, created by Treaty of Versailles. Should've England compromised again?
He says this would have allowed Hitler to launch war eastward against the Soviet Union. Let me remind you that there was Poland between Germany and Soviet Union. Poland is a Slavic country and Slaves were regarded by Hitler as lower race deemed to be servants to Arians after ELIMINATION of all the Polish intelligentsia, clergy and establishment.
Concentration camp in Auschwitz was first built to group Polish prisoners from other camps in Third Reich and for incarceration of Polish intelligentsia as well as members of Polish underground movement. First who were poisoned to death by gas was a group of 850 Polish and Russians. Not until the construction of the second camp in Birkenau in 1942 extermination of Jews reached a bigger number. Among 2 million people murdered in Auschwitz-Birkenau camps were about 1 million Jews but also about 600,000 Polish. Poland lost about 6 mln. people in the war.

The "greater good" principle Buchanan is mulling over might have postponed the faith of France and the rest of Europe but would not prevent Hitler from implementing his goal of eastward expansion. The "Ribbentrop - Molotov" pact between Germany and Soviet Union secretly signed in 1939 says it all. (And the "corridor" was used only as propaganda tool for the West.) Buchanan not even mentions it, and I doubt if he even knew about it. If, on the other hand, he omits it intentionally, that says everything about his devious intentions and disregard to human (other then American) lives.

It's an old canard now that the real definition of "rascist" is anyone who is winning an argument against a leftist or a fool. The detracting reviews of PB's latest work unfortunately put truth to this. Pat makes a well written attempt to encourage the reader to take an honest look at the events of the first half of the 20th century without jingoistic blinders. More importantly, Buchanan tries to make the simple point that decisions made by British leaders and diplomats failed to protect the national interests of their nation. If London had approached the crises of 1914 and 1939 with cool heads and rational consideration, then millions of lives would have been spared and an almost immeasurable amount of wealth would have been saved for better purposes.

Unfortunately, some critics here can't be bothered to actually read the book or (god forbid) suspend their preconceived notions and consider the book's arguments on their own merits. More importantly, some people are just to emotionally or professionally invested in one particular version of history and are unable to reasonably discuss the stark, grey realities of the world wars. So instead of valid criticism or discussion we're getting a lot of reguritated slanders about anti-semitism and holocaust denial sprinkled with irrelevant references to grandad's heroism at Omaha Beach or Occam's razor. In short, a bunch of fools who are losing their argument (or lack one to begin with) are crying rascist.

Read the book and keep an open-mind. Maybe you'll agree and maybe you won't. Either way, you'll at least get some well-written and well-researched food for thought.

This is NOT a history book its a book that speculates without any basis on what MIGHT have been had Brittian and America not involved themselves in either world war. Pat neglects to mention some key facts the biggest being why Germany did not create a war with brittian and that is becuase the kaiser and Hitler both did not want to fight a war on two fronts and that is the sole reason it was a stratigic choice. If you want to know the history of the first world war please read The Guns Of August by Barbara Tuchman. Unlike Pats book it has no bias and was not written to try and push an agenda. Other Major flaws to this book include such overlooked facts as Germany would have controled all of France had Brittian not intervened, which would have certainly made Germany a powerful nation and the key player in europes destiny, Germany would have crushed the soviet union easily without having to fight the US and Britian and used its vast resources to turn against any states that treated jews and slavs as "equals", and the list goes on. Pats reason for writting this book is clear to make an argument for american non-intervention esp. iraq which is not history its an opinioun. Calling this book "history" is as much a dis-service to humanity as stating that the holocaust was fake. Just think

Pat Buchanon's latest work once again proves him to be one of the most impoortant and interesting politicians and political writers of the last twenty years. In A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny he argued for a return to paleo-con values and isolationism and in State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America he argued for a forceful immigration policy.

Here he has returned to an old theme, namely that the Second World War was avoidable and that it was not America's war. He has appended this with the argument, a new one, that the wars between England and Germany destroyed the British empire and is causing the death of the West. These arguments are interesting and his view that there is an unbrocken record of war and 'unnecessary' battles that were fought between 1914 and 1945 that harmed England and the West is original. However the proof and thesis is problematic at best.

Buchanan's argument hangs on his interpretation that sees a bullying England that played an active role in creating WWII. He sees a conspiracy in a 1906 plan by England to fight Germany. But England had a similar plan in the 1920s to defend Canada from U.S aggression but that does not prove there was a conspiracy to wage war against America. In addition Buchanan sees Japanese aggression in the Pacific as a 'response' to the 'isolation' of Japan. The book also argues that by allying herself with Poland, Churchill forced war upon Europe.

This interpretation of history puts all the blame on one side