Skip to main content

In a blog post today, noted crazy-person Pat Buchanan asks the simple question: Did Hitler want war?

The [British] war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative "to stop Hitler" after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

Buchanan spends the rest of the article pointing out strategic decisions made by Adolf Hitler showing that he was planning to stop military aggression in 1940:

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

The simple retort that Buchanan doesn't mention is that Hitler published a little-known book called Mein Kampf in 1925, where he outlines Germany's destiny to rule much of Europe and to occupy part of Russia (despite Pat's claim that "As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?")

What's worse is that Buchanan implies that the concentration camps (referred to simply as "the trains") were simply an afterthought of Hitler's, when he had been rallying against the evils of Judaism since the beginning of his political career.

It's truly baffling that a man with such a blatant disregard for history, coming to the defense of an indefensible figure, is not only taken seriously, but given plenty of TV time.

Originally posted to Bamos on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:34 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, he didn't want to rule the WHOLE world... (7+ / 0-)

    Just Europe and much of Asia... and parts of Africa, perhaps...

    That's not the whole world, so, technically, Buchanan is right...

    DARTH SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
    LANDO REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

    by LordMike on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:37:19 PM PDT

  •  One thing's for sure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MT Spaces

    Hitler didn't want to go to war with Britain, and tried to avoid it for as long as possible.  

  •  Wow, I saw the headline for this story (5+ / 0-)

    and decided to steer clear, but thanks for diarying the main points.  I'm with you- how in the hell someone who defends Hitler is still on TV is beyond me.  Maybe he wants to argue that WWII was just war of choice.

  •  I heard he begged Benito not to invade Greece (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, cfk, happy camper

    because Greece was neutral and Hitler was planning to invade Russia.  When Italy did invade Greece, and botched the job, they forced Germany to come in and finish the job, delaying the Russian invasion until winter.  And we all know what happens when you invade Russia in winter.

    Anyway, that's what I heard anecdotally.  

  •  Hitler was sworn-in as Chancellor on... (9+ / 0-)

    Jan. 30th, 1933, and the first concentration camp opened a few weeks later in March... Pat is a lying asshole for suggesting those were an afterthought.

    "There is no red America, or blue America, there is the United States of America." 2004 DNC Speech

    by BarackStarObama on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:39:14 PM PDT

  •  I can't believe this. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, cfk, satanicpanic, thebluecrayon

    Pat had better hit the books. Incidentally, after the US entered the war Germany did look into trans-continental bombers, I've seen the designs.

    •  It was incompetant planning (0+ / 0-)

      for the Nazis not to look into long range bombers early.  The US and UK did I believe because given geography the planners were thinking along different paths.  The Army Air Force was worried if the UK was conquered there was no way to attack Nazi territory.  That lead to the proposal that became the B-36 finished after the war.  I don't believe the German's had any air power visionaries (or at least none that achieved influence) like Billy Mitchell, Jimmy Doolittle or Hap Arnold.

      Also turf wars, not enough resources, and a capricious leadership (Hitler, Goering, etc.) were not good at long range technical planning and were prone to interfering in projects (for example Hitler insisting the Me262 jet fighter be turned into a bomber which delayed it's introduction by crucial months).  At the same time Washington had political and military leadership that could agree and/or compromise on resources as the situation warranted and on the R&D side planned ahead.  As an aside the story of the Japanese attempts for an intercontinental bomber were similar to the German attempts.

      For Buchanan claiming Hitler didn't want war other commentators addressed that well.  My $.02 is what he claims as "facts" are distorted.  Hitler's focus was east.  France and the Low Countries were beaten to avoid a repeat of a 2 front war from World War I.  The rest was trying to focus as many resources as possible against Russia.  North Africa, Greece, the Balkans all acted as distractions and diverted resources from Russia.

  •  That Pat Buchanan... (16+ / 0-)

    ..always standing up for the little guy.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:40:57 PM PDT

  •  Freakin' Unbelievable (6+ / 0-)

    Yes Buchanan is regarded as a mainstream voice, regularly included on the talk shows.  This guy should be ostracized.

  •  Hitchens does a nice job of tearing Pat a new one (8+ / 0-)

    link

    It's a review of Pat's nazi-apologist book from a couple years ago. Basically, he says Buchanan's understanding of history is about a quarter-inch deep. Newsweek.com has it up today for the Polish invasion anniversary.

  •  Disgusting (4+ / 0-)

    I would refuse to work with a bigot. Why do Keith and Rachel (two of my favorite people on the planet) accept working with this guy?

    A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.

    by raatz on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:42:21 PM PDT

    •  Everyone who meets him (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA

      seems to think he's very charming and likable on a personal level. Even Franken admitted that.

      •  I believe it -- a self deprecating sense of humor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaleA

        goes a long way.  He was very charming in a C-Span event aired a few years ago with him and Tom Daschle! You could tell Daschle was disarmed, and the audience was delighted.

        I forget what the heck is what about now; oh well ....

        "He's like any other president -- he's a politician and he's got to do what politicians do." Rev. Jeremiah Wright

        by PhillyGal on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:57:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  On the other hand, Ted Bundy was charming (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MT Spaces, wiscmass, charliehall

        and likable. Not to compare the two, but to show that charming and likable are of little value in determining someone's character and preoccupations.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:06:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not to invoke Godwin... (0+ / 0-)

        ...because I'm not actually making such a comparison, but Hitler was also apparently very charming and likable on a personal level, so long as you weren't Jewish, gay, communist, a Sinti/Roma, or from some other class of people he wanted to wipe off the face of the earth.

        Many of the most evil people in the history of the world have had a great deal of charisma. We still ought to be able to recognize them for what they are.

  •  Look, the man spent his life defending (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, mcfly, Paul Goodman

    Nixon and his legacy; what else is there to conquer for him but the ultimate - to defend Hitler. It's not working yet for me, but if Buchanan succeeds at raising Hitler's approval numbers, you gotta hand it to him, that's no easy task. Most likely, though, if Buchanan can't help Nixon's legacy it's pretty hopeless that he's going to change Hitlers. Pretty ballsy for trying though, in a demented sort of way...

    I'm in the pro-Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

    by doc2 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:42:31 PM PDT

  •  Al Franken hit the nail on the head years ago (7+ / 0-)

    as he had a chapter in one of his books (I think it was "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot) called "Pat Buchanan: Nazi Lover"

    The responsibility of a great state is to serve and not to dominate the world--President Harry S. Truman (April 16, 1945)

    by TomK002 on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:43:47 PM PDT

  •  Yeah Pat, Hitler was such a good guy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, Big Tex

    Why would we ever think he was a threat to the rest of the world?

    "Noted crazy person" is right.

    It's time MSNBC, it's actually way past time.  Pat needs to go.

  •  It is disgusting he never mentions the Holocaust (7+ / 0-)

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

    He makes it sound like these deaths just happened. He never explains there was any targeted attempts at genocide.

  •  I love (3+ / 0-)

    that one of the comments is "What's your beef with Pinochet?"

    Someone is wrong on the Internet! To the Kosmobile!

    by socratic on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:50:27 PM PDT

  •  Revolting. (7+ / 0-)

    But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

    I think it was when he said "Today Germany, tomorrow the world" that we got the kooky idea that he wanted to conquer the whole world.  Silly us...

    Nauseating.  Buchanan has a long and sordid history of pro-Nazi revisionism, but he's truly outdone himself.  Not only is he saying that Hitler didn't actually want to conquer the rest of the world, he's also blaming America and the allies for the fact that the war lasted longer than 1940 and in the process implicitly trying to shift blame for the Holocaust to America and the allies as well.  This is no better than Holocaust denial.

    -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

    by Big Tex on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:55:40 PM PDT

    •  All that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Big Tex

      Hitler wanted to do was to wander through the forest singing happy German songs, and, all day long, paint landscapes and portraits with his unique lack of feeling.

      That's all. I'm pretty sure it was the Blacks and Latinos in the US, mostly immigrants, who forced Hitler's hand.

      Oh, and the Gays and Liberals.

      --A future Pat Buchanan piece

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:22:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More future Buchanan: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P, charliehall

        Hitler was just a frustrated artist.  If the elitist liberal art establishment had just given his paintings the attention and praise they deserved, the Holocaust would never have taken place.

        What's really fucked up is, that's supposed to be snark, but it actually sounds like something that Buchanan would literally say, if he hasn't in fact already said it.

        -7.12, -7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

        by Big Tex on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:29:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Pat leaves out so much history. (6+ / 0-)

    And that's "leaves out" like it's impossible he doesn't know stuff

    1937 (IIRC) Hitler commissions the America Bomber. Early prototypes were to reach as far as Ohio (east coast ports and industrial base). The idea was first discussed in 1933 or '4.

    He gave speeches on his grand plans to his generals, written down in their diaries and memoirs. His grandiose diatribes given at dinner were recorded by stenographers. As FDR understood, America was down the line after the Russians and Brits were dealt with. He was kind to Britain (Dunkirk, peace feelers), in part, because he saw a German-British alliance as the best way to keep America down.

    Pat's full of shit.

    On a related topic:

    Some idiot some day might tell you that FDR let the Pearl Harbor surprise attack happen. The rationale is said to be that this way the American Public would demand a war with Japan, which would let FDR get his war against Germany.(?!)

    There's a lot of reasons this is nuts. But here's the axe at the root of the claim:

    So, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and the US is completely prepared. With no casualties of our own, we sink the entire Japanese fleet and down their associated aircraft.

    Do the American people want to press war with Japan? Or do they say, "We sure taught you a lesson! Now, whaddya say we just shake hands?"

    It is a very sharp axe, and not the only one.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 08:59:06 PM PDT

    •  FDR didn't want war with Japan (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, thebluecrayon, Kylopod

      he wanted war with Germany. But he couldn't get it. Note that the US did not declare war on Germany; to the contrary, Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11, 1941.

      All my IP addresses have been banned from Redstate.com.

      by charliehall on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:10:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But you understand it's this rube goldberg (0+ / 0-)

        "Pearl Harbor Conspiracy" I've debunked.

        The claim is further nuts because nobody expected Hitler to enter the war, not even his own military nor the Japanese. He was busy meeting defeat of his invasion and finding his army disintegrating for poor supplies in Russia at the moment. Further Japan and Germany had a Mutual Defense Agreement, not a mutual attack agreement. But then again, what's the value of any agreement Hitler makes? Ask Chamberlain. Ask Joe Stalin.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:27:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Real Crime (6+ / 0-)

    Is this delusional racist idiot will get invited on to umpteen television shows where his "opinions" will be treated with respect.  If a leftist gave some bullshit opinion about Stalin they wouldn't be able to get on your local cable access channel.  

  •  Buchanen is a fascist.& I don't say that often. (5+ / 0-)

    Plain & simple. That's all he is, nothing more nothing less & always has been.

    OK, I have called someone else a fascist plain & simple: Cheney.

    I mean it literally. They fit the definition.

    This is not what I thought I'd be when I grew up.

    by itzik shpitzik on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:08:57 PM PDT

    •  He isn't silly, he's a smarty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itzik shpitzik

      Pat would have joined
      The Nazi Party.

      This isn't news to any of us who've been watching the guy over the years.  Likes Nazis.  Jews?  Not so much.

      "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

      by mbayrob on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 11:18:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's amazing that the symbol tea baggers (5+ / 0-)

    Bring to their rallies is the swastika, the new symbol of the Republican party.They don't like the dinosaur too much.

    Hitler is Pat Buchanan's hero but people call the President Hitler.

    Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

    by kid funkadelic on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:09:51 PM PDT

  •  I wish we could HR Pat! (8+ / 0-)

    All my IP addresses have been banned from Redstate.com.

    by charliehall on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:11:10 PM PDT

  •  The Roma, The Queer, The Intellectual: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall

    The conspicuous absence of all three in Buchanan's short form rhetorical exercise, intended to turn their misery to the cause of Christian Dominionism and Hitlerian apologetic by simply subsuming their names and numbers is the larger total, really speaks for itself, doesn't it?

  •  Is that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markw, Azazello

    a recognized politician on the national level in the US? Like asking wheres the evidenc that Hitler wanted to conquer "the world"?

    the guy has no clue. None at all. Sounds like he has unsaid reservations about the US nuclear screen over Europe during the Cold War. Pray who would America have traded with if Europa had gone to the Soviets? Then the US defense line would really have been on its own very shores. This Buchanan guy would have liked that?

    >If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

    He would have, if he had had any strategic sense, which he did not; he did eventually begin when it was abundantly clear that that was the way to go but then it was too late, the Luftwaffe was already swept from the skies. This guy argues from hindsight with no clue about the real technological development of the time. (Does he know that the Germans actually had the most long range aircraft of the time and flew weather out to Labrador? It was dumbness, not peacefulness that prevented an early German strategic bomber.)

    >>Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
    no clue again. Hitler was scared shitless (along with many a german general) about the radical and unheard of (overextended) tactics of his ground commanders, and believed the vainglorious boasting of his Goering air commander and both led to a strategically stupid mistake at a time when Germany could not afford any mistake (while the allies could). It´s a bitter irony that this prime and early example of Hitler´s total failure as a military-operational commander is touted by Nazi exculpants as a sign for his allegedly benign intentions. Too dumb to be aggressive? would that that would have been true.

    >>Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

    Why does a bully offer a victim that it can make off alive after being robbed while he has his foot on their neck?

    >> Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, ...
    because H. had (different than the allies) no clue of even what to do with a fleet. Thats the guy who built battleships to have them either sunk on a show-off chase run round England or moored forever in Norway.  

    >>Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez?

    What does Buchanan actually know? German operatives were active there and were actively engaged in arab unrest up to the uprising in Iraq which the British had to put down - why does Buchanan believe the British invaded and conquered Syria and why does he think the British were resisted?

    >>Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

    Again, everyone knows that. An utterly needless creation of an opportunity for Britain at a time when H. was contemplating the attack on Russia of which even he understood that he´d need his last strength to have any chance at all.

    >>Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940

    So! did he? what surprise. I am sure that Japan would have liked to accept the remorseful peace negotiators of the US right after Pearl Harbor and the occupation of SE Asia. How dumb does this get? Hitler´s ending the war in 1940 was his only chance of victory.

    what I mean with all this is that even if one disregards the obvious reasons to resist Hitler and fight him that lie in the utterly ruthless nature of his regime, even if one looks at this purely "dispassionately" ("value free" if that were possible) from history, Buchanans questions show nothing else than his own cluelessness. How can this be taken as qualified for discussion on the national scene in the US?

    back in Germany this stuff is relegated to Neonazi circles which even today are shunned by self respecting citizens without exception.

    sorry for the length but even the thought of a Hitler apologete gets me fuming.

    Ici s´arrète la loi.

    by marsanges on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:35:14 PM PDT

  •  I can see Pat's arguement...IF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall

    Hitler and the Nazi regime did not have anything to do with the Holocaust.

    Basically, if the Holocaust NEVER was real or ever happened, Hitler not wanting war MIGHT make sense.

    Well, the holocaust DID happen.  Hitler didn't want to kill Jews to avenge the allies for declaring war on him or anything like that, he PLANNED THE SHIT IN ADVANCE.  If he planned for that, he planned for war in my opinion.

    How can one say that Hitler didn't want any war when he was responsible for such horrible and non accidental treatment of his fellow man?

    After the Holocaust, WAR seems like a normal thing.

    Pat is off base on this one.

  •  Since Pat loves Nazis... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall, Kylopod

    He needs to show Obama more love.

    I always get logic problems wrong, but I'll give this a shot:

    Pat is a wingnut.
    Wingnuts think Obama is a Nazi.
    Pat loves Nazis.
    Ipso Facto:  Pat should love Obama.  

  •  Springtime for Hitler (0+ / 0-)

    And Buchanan . . .

    My spiritual advisor is the Reverend Horton Heat.

    by Jaxpagan on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:12:27 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site