Buchanan draws a distinct line between history as a science and politicians manipulation of historical facts in order to serve their aims.

Was Britain's guarantee of Poland in 1939 heroically cynical or imperially suicidal? Why did the pacifist Chamberlain, who had no means of aiding Colonel Jozef Beck and Poland against the Germans, commit the UK to Poland's defense (encouraging Beck to spurn negotiation on Danzig)?

Did victory over Hitler (six years later) preserve the British empire or sacrifice it on an altar of vanity? Did the victorious UK, laden with debt and obligation to the US (which took full postwar advantage) fall irreparably to third world status? Did England (Churchill) amorally welcome an equally evil regime (Stalinism) into east Europe?

Such questions are pondered in this book. Was Churchill the mythic hero routinely disinterred and used by neocons to plan new wars, or was he a complex opportunist with a history of strategic blunders and (later) switching sides on same issues?

Though some may say this is artful advocacy, this work raises many valid issues and is well worth reading. Churchill was indeed as human as the rest of us, and dear old England made some fatal choices in the mid-20C. Those choices (ultimately) led to the sacrifice of a grand empire that benefited the few at the expense of the many (readers may want to read Ian Kershaw's `Making Friends with Hitler').

If there is a flaw in this book it's the author's allusion to the Britain's continental `balance of powers' policy and subsequent failure to examine this policy in detail (after all, Chamberlain merely followed two centuries of successful policy in picking continental underdogs to urge them to kill off each other).

It's surprising (and laudable) the author didn't cite Rudolf Hess's 10 May 1941 enigmatic mission to the Duke of Hamilton as proof of spurned peace. Or the attempts of Lord Londonderry (Churchill's cousin, a WWI veteran with an annual income of £100,000 and little connection to those that actually worked for him and maintained his income, who thought Hitler wonderful).

Perhaps most lamentable is the author's omission of the price France (as the underdog in British policy, immobilized by communists and apologists like Lord Londonderry) paid. France lost over 1.4 million men in WW1 (1914-18) - more men than the United States - a much larger nation - has lost in it's entire history (1607-2008).

Clemenceau uttered a gem when confronted 20 May 1919 ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?) "What do you expect when I'm between two men- one of whom (Lloyd George) thinks he is Napoleon and the other (Wilson) thinks he's Jesus Christ? Both (Lloyd George and Wodrow Wilson) had no personal stake in the war - they had the luxury of academic interpretation and philosophy (they got France, under the `balance of powers' policy to do the hard lifting).

Clemenceau's nightmare materialized within six weeks in 1940: France lost another 90,000 men and 200,000 wounded (the US, wisely, sent it's best wishes).

This book is well worth reading, but incomplete. The warning it sends on imperial mistakes is timely, and I take that to be the real message. Certainly the past few years routine disinterment of Churchill to aid foreign adventures advocated by a few `poly-sci' ideologues is warning enough.

This one is typical PB. Well researched and carefully thought out thesis. A little too dense for me, but the illumination of historical events alone is worth the price. I cannot accept Pat's conclusions, however and feel that, for the first time, he is dangerously off course with this one.

As interesting as any fiction you might read, except, it is history and you know what is going to happen, but you find yourself wanting to know what happens next!

Buchanan's work is not a Macro view of the war, it is an adventure into the microcosm of world leaders who determined the outset of WWII. He'll take you to the beginning, WWI, and lead you down the path into the how's and why's of WWII. But from a fresh perspective. From the perspective of world leaders, there quotes, there actions and there blunders that lead us to WWII.

It is not a yawn of a history book, it has the feeling of history with the excitement of fiction.

Cons:
No book is perfect and from time to time, Buchanan would reiterate topics repeatably or in long winded form.

I also think it would have been a plus to dedicate a small chapter on how Hitler started the war machine.

Overall I found Mr. Buchanan's effort well worth reading. However, there seemed to be far too much repetition in the text, almost as if a filler was needed to reach a specific chapter's word count.

As my bias, I would have preferred the scope of Mr. Buchanan's book to have included America. An expansion of America's purpose in having the British end the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, for example. And then the role that FDR and his administration played in the march to "The Unnecessary War." The tale of the SS St. Louis, the American "commitments" to the Poles, to the French, ..., etc., all would provide a broader context to our understanding and beliefs now these sixty-plus years on.

While the references an author has used can always be pointed to as their holding a bias, from strictly an American perspective, in addition to Bailey, Chamberlin, and Tansill, I would have also liked to see Sanborn's "Design for War: A Study of Secret Power Poltitics 1937-1941" and Beard's "American Foreign Policy in the Making 1932-1940" also referenced.

As to "What-ifs" - No Undeclared War in the Atlantic, No Lend-Lease, ... No commitment by America to the British and Dutch to fight for their colonies against the Japanese, ... Many, many "What-ifs."

But then, the American "Arsenal for Democracy" really was the jobs program that ended the American "Great Depression" and began a multi-generational debt obligation.

"Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War," demonstrates just how dangerous a good writer can be when he is in possession of bad ideas. Patrick Buchanan, the well-known television pundit and former Presidential candidate, is essentially exploiting the current discontent with the Iraq war to revive the isolationist arguments of the largely pro-German, anti-English "America First" movement of the 1930s and 1940s in a radical and misguided effort at historical revisionism, recasting World War II as somehow just as "unnecessary" as the current quagmire in the Middle East. All the usual suspects are here: the "perfidious Albion" obsession, which sees England's every move as an attempt to lure its allies into armed conflict, the supposedly needless decision of Britain and France to draw a line in the sand at Hitler's invasion of Poland, the imponderable and unlikely "what-if" thesis that Hitler would have turned his attention to defeating Soviet Russia had the western allies let him have his way, and on and on. In the hands of a more reasoned and less polemical writer - Nial Fergusson, in particular, from whom Buchanan borrows all too freely - these ideas would at least have sufficient historical context to make them worthy of reasoned consideration. But Buchanan is a debater by nature and profession, trained to stake out extreme positions, advocate them ceaselessly, and never cede an inch of ground to intelligent counter-arguments. Basically, any book that paints Winston Churchill as one of 20th-century history's greatest villains while casting Hitler merely as a potentially useful bulwark against Communism cannot be considered as anything more than an attempt to garner attention through provocation, albeit skillfully done by Buchanan, whose gift for words could really be put to better uses.

Pat Buchanan's masterwork: CHURCHILL, HITLER AND THE UNNECESSARY WAR is one of the two finest works I have ever read on the 1910-1945 pre-war and wartime period. I have read and studied this period and the related histories of the US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Austro-Hungary, and felt comfortable in what I "knew" even though I had suspicions of much else. Mr. Buchanan's magnificently researched and footnoted book not only confirmed much that I did know but also provided an abundance of new data and revelations that were both startling and saddening.

The book reads like a novel but is some of the most carefully crafted historical explanation I have ever read and should be required reading in the schools of the countries mentioned (though I'm sure they'd resist the exposure tooth and nail.) I look forward to re-reading this book in the near future and I have recommended it to numerous acquaintances. This is a "must read" book and one that will forever cause you to see the two world wars and their tragic aftermath in a new and, unfortunately, humbling light.

I never thought I would be writing a favorable review of a book by Pat Buchanan but, as that infamous Catholic theologian Martin Luther once said, "Heresy, so be it. It is still the truth."

Buchanan has written a masterpiece. Built on the foundation set down by the late great British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, Buchanan's book contains much that is new, is meticulously and exhaustively documented, and extremely well written. Whatever else he may or may not be, Buchanan has established himself as a scholar and a major historian of the twentieth century. He of course has also demonstrated great moral and intellectual courage.

Buchanan shows in detail that WW 11, far from being a "good" war, was, as his title says, a truly unnecessary war that resulted from an endless series of bad intelligence, bad policies, bad decisions, and bad moral behavior by the "best and brightest" i.e. the leaders, of all of the major powers over a period of 30 years, from 1914 to 1945. Never was the faith, trust, and fate of so many, so mismanaged by so few.

In 1914, the Kaiser may have briefly dreamed that Germany might become the dominate power in Europe. Hitler was even less ambitious. He dreamed that all Germans in central and Eastern Europe who wished to, would be reunited, and that Germany would dominate Eastern Europe. He probably intended eventually to invade Soviet Russia. We know Stalin certainly intended to eventually invade Eastern Europe and Germany.

Meanwhile the British, French and the Americans meanwhile drove their WW 1 allies, Japan, and Mussolini (who hated Hitler) to Hitler. The line in the sand which the British drew that actually triggered the war, and was prompted by Churchill, was a pledge to defend the corrupt, anti-semetic, military dictatorship of Poland's and it's refusal to even discuss it's two decade subjugation of more than two million ethnic Germans who wanted only to become again part of Germany. Instead Poland lost six and half million dead, and became subjugated to Soviet Russia for fifty years.

Actually the book gets better and better as it moves along and his concluding discussion of the causes, and the results of the war, is absolutely masterful, especially his frank discussion of the holocaust which some still believe was a cause OF WW 11 but which in fact actually caused BY the "good war."

The Unnecessary War will change forever the level of discussion about "The good war", and that is a welcome development and a great advance in the study of twentieth century history for which we can all be grateful to Mr. Buchanan.

I would also recommend Thomas Flemming's THE NEW DEALERS WAR, as a companion book. It deals specifically with FDRs responsibility for the "Good war."

I never thought I would be writing a favorable review of a book by Pat Buchanan but, as that infamous Catholic theologoan Martin Luther once said, "Heresy, so be it. It is still the truth."

Buchanan has written a masterpiece. Built on the foundation set down by the late great British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, Buchanan's book contains much that is new, is meticulously and exhaustively documented, and extremely well written. Whatever else he may or may not be, Buchanan has established himself as a scholar and a major historian of the twentieth century. He of course has also demonstrated great moral and intellectual courage.

Buchanan shows in detail that WW 11, far from being a "good" war, was, as his title says, a truly unnecessary war that resulted from an endless series of bad intelligence, bad policies, bad decisions, and bad moral behavior by the "best and brightest" i.e. the leaders, of all of the major powers over a period of 30 years, from 1914 to 1945. Never was the faith, trust, and fate of so many, so mismanaged by so few.

In 1914, the Kaiser may have briefly dreamed that Germany might become the dominate power in Europe. Hitler was even less ambitious. He dreamed that all Germans in central and Eastern Europe who wished to, would be reunited, and that Germany would dominate Eastern Europe. He probably intended eventually to invade Soviet Russia. We know Stalin certainly intended to eventually invade Eastern Europe and Germany.

Meanwhile the British, French and the Americans meanwhile drove their WW 1 allies, Japan, and Mussolini (who hated Hitler) to Hitler. The line in the sand which the British drew that actually triggered the war, and was prompted by Churchill, was a pledge to defend the corrupt, anti-semetic, military dictatorship of Poland's and it's refusal to even discuss it's two decade subjugation of more than two million ethnic Germans who wanted only to become again part of Germany. Instead Poland lost six and half million dead, and became subjugated to Soviet Russia for fifty years.

Actually the book gets better and better as it moves along and his concluding discussion of the causes and the results of the war, is absolutely masterful.

The Unnecessary War will change forever the level of discussion about "The good war", and that is a welcome development and a great advance in the study of twentieth century history for which we can all be grateful to Mr. Buchanan.

I never thought I would be writing a favorable review of a book by Pat Buchanan but, as that infamous Catholic theologoan Martin Luther once said, "Heresy, so be it. It is still the truth."

Buchanan has written a masterpiece. Built on the foundation set down by the late great British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, Buchanan's book contains much that is new, is meticulously and exhaustively documented, and extremely well written. Whatever else he may or may not be, Buchanan has established himself as a scholar and a major historian of the twentieth century. He of course has also demonstrated great moral and intellectual courage.

Buchanan shows in detail that WW 11, far from being a "good" war, was, as his title says, a truly unnecessary war that resulted from an endless series of bad intelligence, bad policies, bad decisions, and bad moral behavior by the "best and brightest" i.e. the leaders, of all of the major powers over a period of 30 years, from 1914 to 1945. Never was the faith, trust, and fate of so many, so mismanaged by so few.

In 1914, the Kaiser may have briefly dreamed that Germany might become the dominate power in Europe. Hitler was even less ambitious. He dreamed that all Germans in central and Eastern Europe who wished to, would be reunited, and that Germany would dominate Eastern Europe. He probably intended eventually to invade Soviet Russia. We know Stalin certainly intended to eventually invade Eastern Europe and Germany.

Meanwhile the British, French and the Americans meanwhile drove their WW 1 allies, Japan, and Mussolini (who hated Hitler) to Hitler. The line in the sand which the British drew that actually triggered the war, and was prompted by Churchill, was a pledge to defend the corrupt, anti-semetic, military dictatorship of Poland's and it's refusal to even discuss it's two decade subjugation of more than two million ethnic Germans who wanted only to become again part of Germany. Instead Poland lost six and half million dead, and became subjugated to Soviet Russia for fifty years.

I never thought I would be writing a favorable review of a book by Pat Buchanan but, as that infamous Catholic theologoan Martin Luther once said, "Heresy, so be it. It is still the truth."

Buchanan has written a masterpiece. Built on the foundation set down by the late great British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, Buchanan's book contains much that is new, is meticulously and exhaustively documented, and extremely well written. Whatever else he may or may not be, Buchanan has established himself as a scholar and a major historian of the twentieth century. He of course has also demonstrated great moral and intellectual courage.

Buchanan shows in detail that WW 11, far from being a "good" war, was, as his title says, a truly unnecessary war that resulted from an endless series of bad intelligence, bad policies, bad decisions, and bad moral behavior by the "best and brightest" i.e. the leaders, of all of the major powers over a period of 30 years, from 1914 to 1945. Never was the faith, trust, and fate of so many, so mismanaged by so few.

After reading this book, you'll probably realize that everything you ever knew about World War II was wrong. Controversial, to be sure, but it's well documented and presented in a credible and highly readable manner.

Highly recommended.

By Prof. Ivo Cyprian Pogonowski,

Buchanans false image of Hitler in to the "Unnecessary War"


Patrick Buchanan presents a false picture of Hitler's rationality and intentions in his book Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War." There are few people that would question the opinion that Hitler was a disgrace for Germany, and brought calamity known as "Gotterdammerung," to German people, by his foolish notions of German superiority, and his lack of education and command experience. Buchanan seems to be unaware of Hitler's Parkinson's Disease, which was contracted after his gas-poisoning on the western front during WWI.

In a German military hospital, after difficult recovery and a bout of blindness, caused by the gas poisoning, Hitler contracted meningitis and suffered an other attack of blindness, and wound up with permanently trembling left hand, as well as, personality change, which made him more cunning than he was earlier. Hitler was from then on worried about his own longevity and during his political career he was a man in a hurry, which fact was well described by professor M. Kamil Dziewanowski in his book "War at Any Price."

Hitler thought that he was "Germany's man of destiny" and that only he could accomplish his conquest of "Lebensraum" for the next German millennium. In fact the essence of the policies of the Hitler's government, at all times, was the implementation of the doctrine of Lebensraum, or "German living space."

The aim of Hitler's government was to size the lands inhabited by others, who were to be enslaved or exterminated and replaced by "racial Germans." These aims were to be realized by a series of wars. Each time Germany was to launch a quick, victorious campaign against w weaker, unprepared, and isolated enemy, whose resources were to help prepare for the next war.

This sequence was to lead to the conquest of the great agricultural lands of the Slavic two-thirds of Europe, and eventually to Germany's hegemony over the entire world. These lands, located mainly in the Soviet Union and Poland, were to become German Lebensraum during Hitler's lifetime. Hitler did not want to hear such warnings as that the American steel making capacity was the largest in the world and that USA, located between two oceans, enjoyed a uniquely strong and advantageous strategic position.

Hitler hoped that the German "Aryan" population would double under his rule, thanks to earlier marriages and larger families, while Germans with hereditary defect were to be sterilized. In fact eventually, Hitler's government kidnapped some one-half million blond children from occupied Poland to be brought up in Germany as "racial Germans."

Hitler believed that the Jewish minority was the main enemy of internal German racial purity and an important focus for consolidation at home in preparation for expansion abroad. Hitler felt that the wars for German Lebensraum represented an inevitable life-and-death struggle between races for the "survival of the fittest." Hitler was willing to let Germany perish in his attempt to implement the doctrine of lebensraum, rather than turn back and be "disgraced forever."

The fact that Hitler lacked education and preparation for the task he set for Germany, under his rule, is evidenced during Hitler's writing in prison in Bavaria of his "Mein Kampf" program. There Hitler was visited and given eight lengthy lectures on by major general, professor of geopolitics, as well as editor of "Zeitschrift fuer Geopolitik," Karl Haushofer (1869-sicide in 1946). The cell mate of Hitler, Rudolf Hess, was a student of Haushofer and he arranged for his visits with Hitler in prison, in order to help Hitler formulate a strategy, for which task Hitler was not prepared either by schooling or experience.

Hauhoffer taught Hitler that the defeat of the Soviet Union was of fundamental importance and that the control of the Soviet and Arab oil would put Germany in position to gradually acquire British and French colonies by blackmail. without fighting a war. "Germanic Britain" was also to be junior partner of continental German-Nazi power. This notion caused Hitler to treat "gently" the British on the battlefield and during escape to England from France in 1940, in comparison to the atrocities ordered by Hitler in Poland beginning in 1939.

Hitler believed that his own intuition and eight lectures by Haushofer, qualified him to be the "Germany's commander in chief." Hitler learned from Haushofer that Germany lost WWI because of insufficient food and manpower and therefore should form a strategically and numerically superior anti-Soviet alliance of Germany, Japan, Poland and other countries in order to destroy the Soviet-Union in a simultaneous attacks from east and west, without having to fight on a western front. For this purpose Hitler formed the "Anti-Comintern Pact" which according to Buchanan, Poland should have joined and thereby "saved the world" from an "Unnecessary War."

Patrick Buchanan seams to be oblivious of all the facts mentioned above, and the real history of Hitler's efforts to persuade Poland to join the Anti-Comintern Pact, which were described among others in the book "Diplomat in Berlin, 1933-1939" by Józef Lipski, Polish Ambassador to Germany during Hitler's administration. Soviet fear of a two-front war, simultaneously against Germany and Japan, is well described by Pavel Sudoplatov, an NKVD general under Beria, in his book "Special Tasks." The attack on the Soviet Union from east and west was "Hitler's best case scenario" supported by the German military commanders.

Poland was in hopeless situation being located within Hitler's Lebensraum and considered a spoiler of grandiose Lenin's plans for "Communist World Revolution," because of the Polish spectacular victory over the Red Army, in the Polish-Soviet war of 1920. At that time the commander of the Red Army, Mikhail Tukhachevsky's order of July 4, 1920 was: "To the West, over the corpse of "White" Poland, on the road to the worldwide conflagration."

Hitler's fury against Poland was caused not only by Poland's refusal to join in the German-Japanese attack on the Soviet Union; but also by being an obstacle to German access to the Soviet territory. Poland's resolve to defend itself, actually derailed Hitler's strategy and drove him to betray his Japanese allies who were fighting the Siberian Soviet army since 1937.

Thus, the Japanese considered Hiller a traitor, never to be trusted again, but to be used in the coming Japanese-American war. Japan not only lodged a formal protest in Berlin against the "Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact," but also started cease-fire negotiations with the Soviets after extremely heavy losses in the battle on the Kalka River at Kalkhim-Gol. A Soviet-Japanese cease-fire was signed on September 15, 1939, it was put in force the next day, on Sept. 16th and on September 17th 1939, the Red Army, freed of the hostilities against Japan, joined the Germans in the invasion of Poland.

Note: Books by Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
Jews in Poland - A Documentary History
Hippocrene Books, January 1998; 432 pages
ISBN: 0781806046
Poland - An Illustrated History
Hippocrene Books (2000 - First Printing; 2003 - Second Printing; 2008 - Third Printing);
282 pages
ISBN: 0-7818-0757-3
Poland - A Historical Atlas
Hippocrene Books, New York 1987 - First Printing; 1988 -Third Printing;
320 pages
ISBN: 0-87052-282-5

I once was so infuriated by the stupid things that Pat Buchanan had to say that just the sight of his name on the cover of a book would have made me turn apoplectic. But for some reason, as the year's have passed by, and I've watched him regularly on the McLaughlin Group and listened to what he has had to say, I've suddenly begun to find him less antagonistic and much more of a realist, almost to the left of center in some of his thinking... Notice I say "some", not all.

So when I saw this book with his name on it I flinched slightly, but then I saw what the title was and what the topic was and gave it a second look. I bought it, read it, and I've got to say, I was really impressed by his analysis of the events and the theory that he puts forth as to what it all meant.

Too often historical events written about in books are looked at in a vacuum... plucked from the ongoing stream of history like individual happenings, as though nothing that preceded the events had anything to do with them. Personally, I think that World War II tends to be looked at that way. I never was really aware of what the average German citizen endured after the travesty known as the Treaty of Versailles. The inflation, the Bolsheviks, the starvation, etc. In this book Buchanan takes the reader back, way back, to a time and a place before even World War I, and lays out a timeline of history that is not one you tend to find played as the accepted storyline of European history.

Through the use of ample, documented, secondary sources, Buchanan shows us Germany for what it was, a highly industrialized nation, with an economy that was about to make it the economic powerhouse of Europe, surrounded by petty, jealous, warmongering countries who couldn't stand the fact that Germany was doing so well. Chief among those countries was Great Britain, Master of the Seas, and head of a global empire on whom the sun never set. A country that was constantly positioning themselves to make sure that they always stayed on top, even if it meant signing treaties with centuries-long enemies over signing treaties with blood relatives.

From that point on, with war hawks like Churchill shaking their fists and sreaming for pre-emptive strikes to take out Germany before it could overpower them economically, the course was set that would ultimately lead Germany and the German people to Adolph Hitler and then to the Iron Curtain. The fact that Great Britain was just watching and waiting for an opportunity... any opportunity... to confront Germany, even if it meant "manufacturing" reasons as to why they were doing it (poor little Belgium), and then using Churchill's own words from an over 50-year period of time to back up his assertions, is what makes this book so unbelievable to someone really reading much of this information for the first time.

And please, do not mark me an apologist for Hitler or for the German people, however I defy anyone who reads this book seriously to ever quite be able to look at the entire sweep of European history from the time of Queen Victoria's death to the beginning of the Cold War the same ever again. The Nazi atrocities were terrible, but so were the things that led up to them and gave birth to the Nazi's. The British and the French, after reading this book, will never come across like innocent victims to you again.

And the most significant thing about this book, and the thing that Buchanan saves for the reader till the bitter end, is the fact that his long storyline of history basically serves as a preamble to reminding us of the old adage that history truly does repeat itself. All you need do is compare what you have just read in the book about Britain's fumbles and foolish mistakes, and their loss of empire and loss of control of the seas, and its near fiscal insolvency after the war, and compare it to what we've allowed the current administration to do to this country today, if you want to really understand where we will end up tomorrow. It's a sad, sad, cautionary tale, but unfortunately one we are already looking in the rearview mirror at. Brace yourselves because history really does repeat itself.

A brave and insightful manuscript. The realistic review of Churchill and the British tragic errors cost millions of lives for the egocentric gratification of one man. The US should relearn the lesson our first president (George Washington) taught us many years ago. This book should be required reading in all of our colleges and universities.

Mr. Buchanan doesn't surmise why Hitler chose to declare war on the United States. Did it give Hitler more legal rights and freedom to act?
Or was it only to honor his ally, Japan?

Some alarmists have dissed this book as excuse-making for Hitler, the holocaust, etc.

But the point of this book isn't really that earth- shattering, and doesn't tell us much we don't already know.

WWI was avoidable, and had WWI never happened, there would have been no Hitler an no Holocaust.

Yes, there are many details, but is that not the basic point of the book?

Is that not true, and has it ever been a secret?

As a twenty three year old university student educated through the brilliant and wonderful California school system, I looked at Buchanan's book at first as sacriledge to the cult of FDR and Churchill. Yet, as I delved deeper and deeper within the sources that Buchanan used, along with several readings of William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I came to the bitter conclusion that not only are the arguments posed by Buchanan correct, but that indeed the praise that I had so long assigned to Churchill, was indeed unwarranted.

The Tragedies of WWI and WWII will be discussed endlessly until the extinction of man. One thing however, is clear from this book and history. The true winner of WWII was "Uncle" Joseph Stalin. Communism, that wretched ideology that has killed more people than any other religion or ideology, won WWII. Buchanan makes an excellent point that while Nazism was a violent and perveted ideology, it is not an ideology that is capable of sowing seeds across nations. Nazism was embodied within the figure of Adolf Hitler. When he died, Nazism died with him (at least true nazism and not the few fringe groups that claim to be Nazi). Communism on the other hand, was not embodied within Stalin but indeed spread like a plague across the globe. Indeed, while Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths, the untold numbers that perished under Mao and Stalin far outweigh the victims of Hitler (that is only two of the numerous communist dictators of the bloody 20th century).

Buchanan laments that the West, specifically the English Empire, made such a tragic decision in facing off against Nazism when indeed Hitler never intended, nor wanted, war with the West. Read Mein Kampf (if you can get through the ravings and rantings) and you see the obsession of Hitler's was Lebensraum or the land of the East. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the east of Hitler's dreams was the Soviet Union and a clash between the two dictatorships was inevitable. Sadly, instead of having these two dicatarships bleed against each other, the Soviet Union, supported by the capricious Churchill and foolishly idiotic Rooselvelt, helped assist "Uncle" Joe in dismantling and occupying the balkans, Eastern Europe, and part of Germany. Hence, the making of the Cold War and the subsequent tyranny which we played in making over half of Europe, was partly the responsibility of the democracies which hypocritically strove to protect, but betrayed behind the scenes.

In the end, no matter what is said about this book, many will not like it. I have seen at universities, among fellow students, among too many professors, a professed admiration of the Soviet Union and Communism in general. It pains me to see students wear shirts of Che Gueverra despite the fact that he was a mass murderer. It is pitiful and disgusting the brazen teaching of many professors who only focus upon the crimes of Nazism, and not the far more cruel and longer crimes of the communist dictators of the 20th century. Perhaps most distressing, is the fact, that while Nazism is long gone and dead (for the better), Communism, hiding behind the facade of democracy or light socialism, is popular, alive, and kicking. The wretched institutions that claim to be the lights of free speech and liberty, are indeed the beacons of suppression that they preach against. Buchanan is right in his book, and I for one, give him kudos for the eloquent arguements that he has made, along with thanks for this excellent reading material. Read this book for it will give you awareness of the deception that is being wrought upon the descendants of those who suffered under the tyrannies of those who oppressed.

Buchanan takes most of the good ideas from Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" -- you would be better off to read them in the orginal there rather than Buchanan's cribbing and twisted views. Also, Ferguson's views are highly controversial and shouldn't be taken as consensus views from historians. The entire book is based around the idea that both world wars were "unnecessary" -- in the sense that if they hadn't happened nothing terrible would have happened to the British Empire. Forgetting the fact that maybe it was a good thing for the British Empire to go away (Mr. Buchanan should ask his Irish ancestors just how good it was), all of these arguments assume that a German dominated Europe wouldn't have been a bad thing. This is a huge unknown. There is plenty in Germanies behavior in the West in 1914, Bethmann-Holland stated German war aimes, multiple violations of neutrality (Belgium, Luxemborg, Romania in the Great War and almost everyone in WWII), and the general German brutality in the WWII. Buchanan really needs to think more about what Germany did and consider some criticism from Ferguson's books.

To the victor belong the spoils of history. Buchanan poses some hard but vital questions about that received orthodoxy and he's shouted down as anti-Semitic. In the end he merely wants to know when is war necessary, what justifies the horrors of war, then and now, and at what cost individually and nationally. Why was war "necessary" to stop Hitler but "unnecessary" to stop Stalin? Of course Nazism had to be stopped. And "for their crimes, Hitler and his collaborators, today's metaphors for absolute evil, received the ruthless justice they deserved" (xxi). Communism had to be stopped too. And the Cold War was won at a fraction of the cost of the World Wars. Today Buchanan fears we have forgotten our history and are thus doomed to repeat it: why was war "necessary" to stop Saddam Hussein but "unnecessary" to stop Kim Jong-il? And what price might yet be paid? Surely these are necessary questions!

Most of the other positive reviews here regarding Mr. Buchanan's use of reputable secondary sources are accurate. This book doesn't claim to be a work of groundbreaking new research. It is a book that takes already published material and forms it into a controversial perspective. In short, it makes you think.

This book re-tells the story of the first half of the 20th century, albeit from a slightly different perspective than the norm. Mr. Buchanan's theme is that the Europeans committed suicide by engaging in two world wars and that these world wars were not inevitable. He puts most of the blame on Churchill for destroying Europe's power and status in the world. Churchill's jingoistic attitude during 1914 and his rabid hatred of Hitler in the 1930's helped propel Britain into war against Germany twice, even though Britain had no vital interests at stake. He also criticizes Churchill for giving Stalin all of Eastern Europe (much more land than Chamberlain ever gave up to Hitler).

In the past I have always thought of Churchill as the hero of 1940 (and to be honest, I still do). After reading this book though, Churchill is brought back to Earth and shown to be what we all are: human. Churchill made mistakes. Even though this book challenges the premise of Churchill's greatness, I still enjoyed it because it opened up my eyes to another perspective that I didn't see before and has thus given me a clearer picture of the period.

Overall I found it an interesting read and it held my attention throughout. The book gives a good run down of the period examined and the bibliography led me to other good books to read (such as a work on Versailles). I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in international politics during the early 20th century.

Patrick J. Buchanan is probably the most fearless author and commentator alive in America today. Who else, even if they believed the thesis of this remarkable book, would have the personal courage and intestinal fortitude to publish it...especially in their own real name? Fearful of crossing Bill and Hillary Clinton, columnist Joe Klein authored "Primary Colors," but published it anonymously. (His identity as the author was ultimately revealed).

Mr. Buchanan has waded into far more dangerous waters than those swirling around the former U.S. president and first lady. The overwhelming consensus of both professional historians and laypersons is that Winston Churchill was a brilliant and gifted individual who, with the aid of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, saved the world from certain destruction at the hand of Adolf Hitler and Third Reich Germany. There are so many shibboleths in that single sentence that it boggles the mind that anyone would deign to undo not simply one, but all of them.

But that Mr. Buchanan does, and does remarkably well. The book is written by a commentator, not a trained historian, and so it is somewhat dependent upon secondary source material. However, Mr. Buchanan makes a compelling case for his controversial thesis. He amasses great amounts of evidence and marshals it to prove an absolutely irrefutable case, point after point after point.

Many who do not like Mr. Buchanan question his interest in the Second World War, asserting that he is an apologist for Hitler and the National Socialists, or even that he is a closet anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is Mr. Buchanan's single-minded commitment to truth that causes him to write controversial books advancing unpopular theses.

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it," a sage once said. If Mr. Buchanan's book achieves the wide circulation it so richly deserves, perhaps increasing numbers of Americans will learn that the unintentional -- and unnecessary -- consequences of "the Good War" should be kept in mind when considering contemporary foreign policy and military decisions.

Read this cover to cover in two days: captivated by how easy it was to deceive an entire population of Anglo-Americans for nearly 50 years by chanting the magic word "Winston." What would happen if this book was required reading for a high school history class? I'm not sure if the US is ready for such savvy citizens. Not the five stars I award anything written by Flemming but an easy read with compelling arguments. For instance, Chamberlain may have acquiesced but I never thought him a pacifist (the period of appeasement coincided with huge strides forward in aircraft design, production etc which were decisive in the BforBritain) and so I think some of the arguments set forth in this book are at several points (um) skewed/not developed enough beyond the point to merely titillate the reader. It helped me understand how America's focus is always lured toward the Western when our real economic interests were in the Pacific and the REAL killing went on in the Eastern European theatre. Partially explains why the West didn't play their cards right and let the Facists and the Soviets grind each other to a pulp. Pity England had to stumble over a half century of Churchill because the real boogeyman might have been strangled in the crib. Are our American Ivy Leaguers (the guys holding the reins now) as inbred/inept/insane as the British "good old boy" counterparts that made up their Foreign Service? Heaven help us.

This book is well researched and will expand your understanding of WWII considerably. Buchanan punctures the Churchill myths respectfully, but conclusively. The book's only fault is that it becomes repetitive as it goes along, as if the author expected readers to skip around -- perhaps it's a stylistic fault Buchanan has that comes from having written so many political books.

You can't say say you fully understand WWI and WWII until you've read it. Great stuff.

Some background on Pat Buchanan is needed to understand this book. Buchanan first came to prominence in this area defending a former concentration guard. Why should we persecute someone just because he killed and tortured several thousands Jews Buchanan reasoned arguing the guard was confused with another who had only committed murders in the hundreds. His campaign to help former Nazi guards attracted attention and his book is not surprising given that background.

His thesis is simply this- if England had let Hitler continue with his extermination plans in Austria, Czechoslavaki and Poland and said- murder as many women, children and men as you want, fire up the gas chambers to your content as long as you don't bother us, war could have been avoided. Why would a country want to go to war simply because a despot was murdering Jews, gypsies and handicapped if one could simply give him what he wanted Buchanan inquires.

The book should be given short shrift except when one wonders why Israel is sometimes skeptical given people like Buchanann who assign the lives of Jews children no value on his assessment of world history.

I have never received the book and no correspondence as to why it has not been sent.

Buchanan has stepped far over the line. This whole "bankers' plot" financial theory-mongering is just another shade of ignorance and paranoia. 1300 footnotes? Who cares? Do readers have any idea the volume of information available concerning World War 2, or World War 1? This book could easily have had 13 million footnotes, artfully arranged to prove any number of theories. Unfortunately for Buchanan and those who bizarrely love him, the diplomatic history, as well as the longer-ranged political, social and military histories of all the principal countries involved, is more than clear. Nothing could be more clearly demonstrated by the obvious and public pronouncements and well-documented political maneuvors within Weimar Germany than that Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP was dedicated to exactly the project of the Second World War from its inception. Britain's policy of preventing a European hegemon was centuries old at the time of World War 1 or 2, and it redounded not only to the interest of Britain but of the multitude of European peoples. Churchill's reputation is secured by his numerous public speeches - as is Hitler's. You people are scum for believing this crap, and Buchanan is worse for writing it.

"The Unnecessary War" makes a good case: namely, that Churchill's bad political decisions and character flaws were largely at fault for making the European war between Germany and her neighbors into a world war. Furthermore, disastrous political decisions both before and during World War II ensured that the post-war world would be dominated in large part by the Soviet Union. Although it is a very interesting and compelling read, Buchanan does occasionally lapse into repetitious arguments, reminiscent of journalistic style. His comparison with more recent U.S. policy is also worth considering, although he doesn't spend much time developing this argument (at least in the present book). Highly recommended for its stimulating presentation of certain oft-neglected facts of twentieth-century European history.

Patrick J. Buchanan has put together a book in which Winston Churchill is the bad guy and Hitler not the most evil man in history. After having read this book, I have to ask myself, why was it necessary to write it? Seemingly, Buchanan argues that the Holocaust was a result of Britain declaring war on Germany. He doesn't pay much attention to Mein Kamph and Crystal Night. If you read some of his responses to criticism of this book you'll see that he contradicts himself because in the book, he acknowledges that Hitler was out to get rid of both Jews and Bolsheviks but he doesn't clearly state whether it's just in Germany and Eastern Europe or the entire world. What's the difference anyway? That's nice Mr. Irish Catholic Guy with a reputation for being hard on Israel. So that's nice that you wished that history would have been different and that I, a Jew, would be dead. I hope you really get creamed on this one in the media and that Conservatives and Liberals alike shun you for this stinker of a book.

This book is very well done. The web of politics and history is developed to the last detail. I gave this book a 5-star rating. I started to give it a 4-star, but then realized that the weakness was my own Achilles heel in history. I think from my standpoint the only thing that would have made it better would be if there was a glossary of the "cast of characters" in the back. I kept trying to refresh myself with Who's Who. But again, I gave it 5-stars because that was probably my own fault

This book is an eye opening look at a subject most people think they know all there is to know about. While not excusing any of the monstrous evils of the Hitler regime, Patrick Buchanan demonstrates that Churchill and other British politicians were just as responsible, if not more so, as the German politicians for the outbreak of World Wars I and II and all of the attendant horrors. Buchanan also exposes the bloodthirty side of Winston Churchill. Churchill, for example, was the architect of the starvation blockade of Germany during World War I and advocated bombing civilian targets in Germany and the use of poison gas against Iraqi rebels during World War II. As for Hitler, Buchanan portrays Hitler not as a maniacal ideology-driven warmonger bent on world conquest but as an opportunistic nationalist politician who badly miscalculated and blundered into a war he very much wanted to avoid. Finally, Buchanan illustrates the tragic consequences of what many call "the good war." Buchanan notes that the war destroyed what was left of the British Empire, and left a brutal Soviet tyranny in control of virtually all of eastern and central Europe. The war also set in motion a series of events that would lead to communist tyranny and atrocity in China and other parts of Asia. Churchill, far from the farsighted statesman he is generally portrayed as, comes off in this book as a mendacious, ego-driven and erratic bumbler. As for World War II, rather than an inevitable and necessary war, Buchanan demonstrates how even as late as the fall of 1939 catastrophe could have been avoided. Commenting on the outbreak of World War I, Winston Churchill once said, "The terrible 'ifs' accumulate." Indeed.

Once again Pat has gotten it right. To think that so many Americans were called upon to surrender their lives or years of their lives to help a Soviet regime achieve hegemony in Europe.
Britain was basically done after World War I. To suck so many other nations into a war that was inevitably a Germany - Russia conflict was the height of selfishness and immorality. Even if Hitler had defeated Stalin, how would the Germans been able to control such vast expanses of territory? Germany would have been exhausted and would have crumbled from within.
I think the height of British duplicity was the guarantee of Poland. As Pat points out it was sheer idiocy. But, if Britain was sincere, why did she declare war on Germany alone. Stalin also attacked Poland. Why didn't the Brits declare war on Russia? Or was the guarantee selective.
Britain and the forces within her government and those that had the power to influence her government were fixated on Hitler. That myopia caused several horrible tragedies--World War II, the enslavement of eastern Europe and most of Asia, the cold war, the decline of the West and the ubiquitous Nazi phantasmagoria that has debased our laws and culture.

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 "unnecessary" and could have been avoided; yet, due to the "arrogance" 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 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 anything 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