Buchanan's obsession comes from his own anti-war (pro-isolationist) standpoint. When he pushes his views that America should not have Invaded Iraq in 2003, or stopped the genocide in the Balkans, or kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, he is forced to listen to the "infallible" examples of World War II, Churchill, and Hitler -- World War II was worth fighting, Churchill was a prophet in the wilderness, and Hitler was an evil man bent on world domination.
To combat these concepts, he has taken the standpoint that Hitler was forced into a position where he had no choice but to conquer Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, France, and half of Russia. In this latest article, you see a glimpse of it - "But Hitler was out on a limb with Danzig and could not crawl back." It's a stretch and it it requires that Buchanan distract readers from the whole picture and examine each action of Hitler in a vacuum. That's a summary, but as usual when it comes to the first-half of the 20th Century, Buchanan's concept is wrong. The war was unnecessary, because the Western Democracies allowed Hitler to rise without confrontation until it was too late. Even still, Hitler (not Chamberlain) made the choice to conquer Poland with the belief that France and Britain would cower, Hitler (not Churchill) conquered France with the belief that Churchill would cower, Hitler (not the Western democracies) conquered half of Russia with the belief that Britain would lose hope, and Hitler declared war on American, becuase he thought he was invinsible. World War II was unnecessary and could have been prevented if Hitler was confronted between the years 1933-1938. After that, war was inevitable. Scott Manning Philadelphia, PA http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/ On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Anthony Calabrese <[email protected]>wrote: > > Sorry for wasting precious electrons, but has anyone read Buchanan's > latest? > > http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-march-madness-1939-1489 > > What exactly is his obsession of late with Churchill? > > One thing I find interesting is that he states that Hitler had no designs > westward. It is true that Hitler had some admiration for the British Empire > and saw Britain as a potential ally. But in his unpublished "Second Book" > Hitler stated that he saw his successors would (by 1980) fight a war against > the United States. And considering how advanced German physics was in 1940, > one can really argue that for the US, WWII was really a preemptive war > against a rouge regime building weapons of mass destruction. > > Anthony > > > > My Blog <http://thecatholiclibertarian.blogspot.com/> > "Towards the government I feel no scruples and would dodge paying the tax > if I could. Yet I would give my life for England readily enough, if I > thought it necessary. No one is patriotic about taxes." -- George Orwell, > Wartime Diary, September 8, 1940. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it > out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChat?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
