Skip to main content

It's not every day that a major media personality decides to defend Hitler, but Pat Buchanan is old, cranky, anti-semitic, racist, and has a permanent cot in the MSNBC green room. So apparently, he doesn't give a shit anymore.

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The 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 [...]

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

It was Poland's fault, and the UKs for instigating an unnecessary war. And those concentration camps?

[W]hen 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.

Heck, he even employs this bit of rhetorical sleigh of hand to try and minimize the Holocaust:

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished.

If you only do the math (and everyone has the "6 million Jews" figure ingrained in their heads), you can see that it was the CHRISTIANS who took the brunt of the conflict, the very conflict that Hitler really, really, really wanted to avoid and had no choice to fight because of those damn Poles and Brits. It wasn't his fault he had to invade neighbors and murder Jews.

But why didn't Hitler adequately prepare for his effort at world domination? One obvious reason:

Hitler tried to conquer the world without the requisite equipment because he was a mad man who was also a pisspoor military strategist. Yet Buchanan would have it that Hitler’s ambitions of domination have been overstated; that, while he might not have been a peacenik, he did not want war. The Furher, you see, has gotten a bad rap from history.

We already know that Buchanan is a crazy anti-semitic racist who can write or say nothing to get him off the air at MSNBC. But defending Hitler and pinning the Holocaust on the allies? That might be too crazy for even Glenn Beck.

Update: The Simple Canadian in the comments distills Buchanan's argument:

Give me Austria. I don't want war.
Give me Sudetan Land, i don't want war.
Polland, I don't want war, Give me Gdansk.
No, Gdansk is ours.
Give it to me damn it. I don't want war...

Oh, that means you want war. I will come and take it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:40 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

  •  Is this really news when Buchanan (26+ / 0-)

    defends Hitler? But if Obama is Hitler, then isn't Buchanan defending Obama? Does not compute!

    "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." --Jebediah Obadiah Zachariah Jedediah Springfield, 1795.

    by Aspe4 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:41:38 PM PDT

    •  Buchanan Definitely Is Making It Plain Now (14+ / 0-)

      you have to realize most people who read his columns (and that's not many) or see him on MSNBC aren't following him closely. This is pretty apparent.

      What's funny is, MSNBC knows they could give him the ax and conservatives wouldn't really care that much. Buchanan = bubkiss to middle-aged boomer and Gen Xer conservatives, who don't watch MSNBC for most of the day, anyway. The network does this out of loyalty, as with Scarborough, who've been on their network for ages.

      Well how much more obvious does it need to get? Does he need to get caught in his bedroom in Nazi regalia?

      These clowns claim to admire him [Cronkite] but do not wish to emulate him - GUGA

      by Nulwee on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's really not all that surprising... (13+ / 0-)

        Hitler 101:

        ...I do think it is fair to say the Nazis under Hitler were Germany's version (at that time) of America's Republican Party.  It's an important distinction.  First, the similarities between the Nazis and America's Republican Party...

        The Nazis were the German equivalent of the Republican Party because---generally speaking---both parties appealed to the same 'constituencies.'  (Important: it may be true that the majority of America's [nigger-hating] racists identify with the Republican Party, rather than the Democratic Party, but it is not fair to suggest that the Republicans, as a whole, are racist.)

        To understand the political position of the Nazis during the 1930's, you merely need to understand the kind of people who supported them financially and who voted for them in the elections.  The Nazis' Number One Constituency: anti-Communists.  Generally speaking, the Germans who put Hitler into power were the wealthy conservatives who feared Communism more than anything else.

        The Nazis may have included the word 'socialist' in their party name, but there was nothing socialist about the Nazis agenda.  Political parties in Germany at the time liked to use the word 'socialist' to express their ideal of "one people" united in their sense of community.  For the Nazis, of course, the community they had in mind was the Aryan community.

        They did not call themselves 'socialists' because they wanted the German economy to be run by the German government.  Quite the contrary.  According to Albert Speer, Hitler's economic czar, Germany was one of the last of the major belligerents to fully mobilize their economy via government dictates in order to optimize war production.  Heck, by the end of 1942, America's economy was far more 'socialist' than Nazi Germany's economy had ever been during the previous years of Nazis rule.

        At the time of Speer's accession to the office, the German economy, unlike the British one, was not fully geared for war production. Consumer goods were still being produced at nearly as high a level as during peacetime...Few women were employed in the factories, which were running only one shift. One evening soon after his appointment, Speer went to visit a Berlin armament factory; he found no one on the premises.

        During the war, Hitler was so conservative, he preferred that German women stay home and raise children rather than help to fight Germany's enemies.  He may never have been all that religious himself, but he like to present himself as the Christian church's protector from the godless Communists and the Jewish liberals who supported them.  

        Hitler was a patriotic, conservative guy who suggested the 'implicit goodness' of the Nazis (in the minds of his followers) through his constant condemnations of those who were not part of his virtuous group. You know, the people who threatened all that was good about German society?  It is the same political tactic that the Republicans use.

        Like the biblical Pharisees, the Republicans define themselves as 'virtuous' [in the eyes of their followers] through their constant condemnations of the 'sinners' they see all around them, who are not part of their virtuous group.  You know, like those liberal Democrats.  And so Hitler presented himself as the guy who would stand up to all those who threatened the precious conservative values that German society was based on.  

        That is why Hitler enjoyed the political and financial support of Germany's upper crust.  That is why the Nazis were Germany's equivalent of the Republican Party.  It was conservativism, patriotism, and love of country.  The German army never had it in their minds that they were the bad guys when they were sent into battle; they were always nobly protecting values that were good from the bad guys that threatened The Good.

        In the waning days of the Third Reich, when ultimate defeat was becoming more and more obvious, members of Hitler's inner circle would exclaim that the Americans and British just didn't understand...they were taking on the evil Communists directly; the Allies should be helping the Nazis to defeat the Communist threat.  That is how they saw themselves...

        So how are the Republicans different from the Nazis?  Well, obviously their behavior and rhetoric has not quite reached the level that ultimately consumed the Nazis, but it does seem as though they are continuing to move in that direction...

        So why wouldn't Buchanan defend Hitler?

        •  So, should we go after MSNBC's advertisers? (3+ / 0-)

          Have them opt out of any ads on programs that give air time to one Pat Buchanan...?

          It seems to be working well with Beck and Fox.

          The top tax bracket should be 90% for all types of income over $1,000,000.

          by atheistben on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:53:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Party Platform Was Very Socialist (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zonk, QuestionAuthority

          The Nazis may have included the word 'socialist' in their party name, but there was nothing socialist about the Nazis agenda.

          Actually, the 25 Points of the Nazi Party, issued in 1920 or so, were extremely socialist. I don't believe the party ever explicitly dropped these founding points, even if they did not actually act on some of them.

          See http://www.fordham.edu/... or http://www.historyplace.com/...

          Specifically:

          1. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
          1. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
          1. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
          1. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
          1. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
          1. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

          I think a lot of this was faux-socialism designed to reel in members who would otherwise have gone to the communist or true socialist parties of the time.

          •  Right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            charliehall, QuestionAuthority

            Just because people like Buchanan and Jonah Goldberg lack the intellectual heft to see things in anything other than black and white doesn't mean we should all be tricked into playing on their muddied field.

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:13:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In fact politically connected Nazi industrialists (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            QuestionAuthority

            got spectacularly wealthy off the war. It was as Socialist as is the People's Republic of China is today. But don't tell Jonah Goldberg.

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

            by charliehall on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:15:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes... (3+ / 0-)

            I think a lot of this waws faux-socialism designed to reel in members who would otherwise have gone to the communist or true socialist parties of the time.

            There is no disputing the fact that the early Nazis sought to attract some of the working class away from the appeals of the Communists.  But it is also undenible that the Nazis could not have been as emphatically opposed to the Communists without feeling a shared identity with the industrialists who ended up financing Hitler's ultimate political triumph.

            •  Hitler and the Nazis where the hope of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              QuestionAuthority

              the Western capitalist Nations to go to war to stop the Russian Communist but he stabbed them in the back by joining with Russia to crave up Poland and go after the one Nation that he hated more than the Communist Soviet Union that being France but had he only controlled that hate and made a defence pack with Poland and then attacked Russia the West would have supplied him and made him a hero until he used his gains in conquering Russia to attack the West.

          •  Quite right about a socialist element (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            QuestionAuthority

            in early Nazi party thought. And the key proponent of this socialist strain was Ernst Roehm. Roehm's force within the Nazi party was the SA, an organization of street fighters that was to grow to several million strong. SA members fought Communists and attacked and intimidated Jews. Hitler made use of this street force to cement his power, but when the time came to implement Roehm's ideas, Hitler and the SS purged the SA leadership, killing them in the Night of the Long Knives and later having Roehm shot. Hitler's true allies were the conservative elites and industrialists. He had no interest in socialism.

            "'Tubs of slaw' -- 'Gimme two!' -- 'Sorry, only one tub per family'"

            by Geotribe on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:49:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think that's mostly correct (3+ / 0-)

          As much as people like Jonah Goldberg are too stupid to understand context, cause, and effect -- it's not exactly true that there was no 'socialism' in the Nazi's national socialism.

          To a degree, there were what can honestly be called socialist policies in 1930s Germany... extensive public works programs to achieve universal employment (unless, of course, you an undesirable), direct payments and benefits to citizens, etc.  The problem is - first and foremost, I don't consider socialism a particular dirty word.  It's simply a tool, a policy.  In the right hands, such policies can be pursued to the benefit of the citizenry.  The Nazis pursued them simply because 1)they needed broader public support -- the Nazi's never won an outright majority in any election, and 2)they were hell bent on a massive military build-up - along with the infrastructure to support it - and direct government control was the fastest way from point A to point B.  I just reject 'socialism' as solely being an ideology... Monarchies, republics, dictatorships, democracies - you won't find any system of government that hasn't employed some degree and manner of socialism.

          However - it's quite correct that people like Pat are so wrapped up in their hatred of communism that they honestly see a fascist system, even one as despicable as Nazism, as preferable to it.

          It's quite correct that in terms of pure numbers killed - Stalin outdid Hitler several times over.

          But here's the thing - there's nothing in the communist ethos that called for the elimination of a race of people based on who they inherently are.  All of Stalin's pogroms and purges were born of his personal paranoia and insanity - not of communist theory.   Sure, sure - you can pick and choose plenty of lines from the writings of Marx or speeches from Lenin that talked prophetically of blood being spilled and what not... but Lenin himself was born of the very bourgeois class he sought to overthrow.  You were hardly marked for death by your blood, but by your allegiances and actions (not that that's a good thing, either).

          Nazism, on the other hand, had as its very backbone the idea of the master race -- and the elimination of the undesirables based on blood, race, and lineage.

          Pat, like most racists who claim they're not really racist, hates communism beyond all else because it fundamentally conflicts his view that there IS a natural order, that birth and heritage should be the prime mover in where we end up in life, or at least -- what road should be traveled to reach it.  They can wrap it up bleatings about 'hard work' and 'earning it' all they want - but they have deep-seated distrust of any system that refuses to accept what their parents, or great-grandparents, or most of all - great, great, great ancestors did up to the point of their birth.

          It's ultimately why Pat really is a crypto-Nazi - he may truly not be inclined to murder millions in ovens - but he fundamentally thinks there IS a natural order and that it's based on lineage.... and given a choice between a system completely at odds with that line of reasoning, and one that takes it to a murderous extreme -- he'll take the murderous extreme.

          I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

          by zonk on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:11:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If MSNBC keeps him after this then they agree (0+ / 0-)

        with him and those who run MSNBC are "Fuhrer Lovers" also.

      •  Buchanan channeling Mel Brooks? (3+ / 0-)

        Hitler just wants peace!:

        "I don't want war! All I want is peace...peace...peace...!

        A little piece of Poland,
        A little piece of France,
        A little piece of Austria
        And Hungary, perchance!
        A little slice of Turkey
        And all that that entails,
        And then a bit of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales!

        http://www.youtube.com/...

    •  that article is hallowing... (17+ / 0-)

      Give me Austria. I don't want war.
      Give me Sudetan Land, i don't want war.
      Polland, I don't want war, Give me Gdansk.
      No, Gdansk is ours.
      Give it to me damn it. I don't want war...

      Oh, that means you want war. I will come and take it.

      I live in the Tyranny that is called Canada. Where the socialists and oligarchs run our lives...

      by The Simple Canadian on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no (5+ / 0-)

      I thought Hitler was an artist and thus a liberal.  Its always our fault.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:51:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But wait! If Obama=Hitler and Hitler=Good, (9+ / 0-)

      therefore Obama=Good! But Obama=Bad, so he must not be Hitler, but he so obviously is....

      Doesn't the circular reason get exhausting?

      "Right wing freak machine" General Wes Clark

      by Tracker on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:51:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still figuring out where Chamberlain fits in (5+ / 0-)

        to this dreck.

        Apparently still awful, but I guess you can't call him an appeaser. Whch makes him good. or bad. Or something.

        Thirty seconds analyzing Pat Buchanan's thoughts and I've already lost four IQ points. I gotta stop.

        Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

        by RickMassimo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:06:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Chamberlain agreed to give Hitler the Sudetenland (3+ / 0-)

          which was a part of Czechoslovakia that contained lots of Germans, but guess what?  Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia.  When they met at Munich to make this deal with Hitler, they never bothered to invite the Czechs or the Russians who had a treaty to defend Czechoslovakia.

          •  No, I know that. (4+ / 0-)

            I'm just saying that only in the right-wing mind can Chamberlain simultaneously be a weakling who appeased evil and a bully who pushed a nice little dictator into war.

            But I guess they figure that if someone isn't like Bush* they can say whatever they want about him.

            * (And yes, I know that in fact Chamberlain and Bush were alike in many important ways) (I also know that they try to pretend that Bush never existed, but since they haven't come up with anyone else to champion and have never renounced one iota of Bush/Cheneyism I'm going to continue to hang that albatross around them.)

            Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

            by RickMassimo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:36:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Right and wrong and complicated (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickMassimo

            Buchanan talks a lot of BS but where he is right is that it is all a lot more complicated than the simple post war Myth of HITLER BAD. EVERYONE ELSE GOOD.

            1938 Czechoslovakia a country is having real internal problems, there is a large German minority on the border which wants to join Germany, there are significant minorities of both Czechs and Slovaks who want to split the country in two, there is a Hungarian minority which wants to join Hungary and a tiny Polish minority which wants to join Poland.

            Hungary and Poland are both Military dictatorships, and if Germany attacks Czechoslovakia they would side with Germany and help in the dismemberment of Czecholovakia.

            Stalin is offering to help Czechslovakia but would have to move troops across Poland or Rumania or both to get to Czechoslovakia. Both are adamently opposed to Red Army Communist troops crossing their territory.

            France is still worried about the ongoing civil war in Spain with German and Italian troops in Spain.

            Britain and France do a deal with Hitler that lets him have the Sudtenland territory on the promise that he will not want anything else, the post war myth that was obviously a bad thing to do forgets that the other alternative is fight a war with Germany without soviet support and probably lose, or fight a war with Soviet support and win but end up with the Red Army overthrowing the regimes in Poland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and Germany i.e pretty much what happened in 1945.

            A solution without Stalin occupying Berlin was what was wanted and in 1938 or 1945 it was not on offer.

            The deal barely lasted 6 months from late 38 to March 39 when over the course of a few weeks the Poles, Hungarians and Germans invaded Czechoslovakia which was also dissolving itself. So the glorious Poles of October had stabbed the Czechs in the back only 6 months previously.  

            •  In defense of Poland (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RickMassimo

              The lands they occupied after the Munich agreement were disputed territory - Poland had some claim to them already.  If Poland hadn't occupied that territory, another foreign government, probably the Germans, would have done so itself.  The occupation was therefore as much defensive as offensive - and it was over territory that Poland had laid claim to since the creation of Poland and Czekoslovakia.  

              Poland had been trying to arrange an attack on Germany with the West since the early 1930's, so I do not know why you think they would ally with the Germans.  Poland knew who its main enemy was.

              Finally, the idea that had the Allies fought in 38 they would have probably lost is absurd.  Germany had all of its forced on the Czek border, and only paper forces on the border with France.  If the Allies had shown some spine, Hitler would have been forced to back down, or else would have quickly lost.

              •  Poland and the Red Army (0+ / 0-)

                Happy to accept that Poland had been claiming the territory since 1919 but it also had border disputes with Germany, Soviet Union, and Lithuania.

                Germany invades Danzig with German population and support of population is bad.

                Poland invades Tschen, with mixed population and some support and some opposition is OK because Poland is a friend is not a way to run the world.

                Poland was a Military dictatorship which did not support democratic Czechoslovakia but stabbed them in the back, when Britain and France considered backing Czechoslovakia Poland did not proudly announce it would support the allies it variously kept silent looked the other way or made loud noise about the fact that if the Red Army crossed their frontier to support the Czechs they would fight the Red Army, by default in that war Poland would have by the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" would have found themselves allied to Germany in the same way Finland did later in the real war.

                Poland was in a difficult position between two evil dictators both of which had designs on the country but it also was extremely anti communist and had ambitions of recreating not a Poland for Poles but a Poland to the maximum of the Polish-Lithuanian confederation which meant taking large parts of the Baltic states and lots of modern Ukraine.  

                In 1938 Poland stabbed the Czechs in the back and sabotaged efforts to bring in the Soviet Union as an ally against Germany by at least some in both France and UK.

                In 1939 Poland was stabbed in the back by the Soviet Union and let down by allies UK and France which had led it to expect more than they were able to deliver. They did discuss sending support via the Black Sea and Romania to a Polish army holding out in South Eastern Poland, they had not planned for the Hitler-Stalin agreement and the area were the Polish troops were supposed to hold out was over-run by the Soviets long before they had even realised the consequences of the new situation.

        •  Pat's entire argument (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RickMassimo

          isn't a defense of Hitler per se it's an argument that we should have appeased him.

          We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. - FDR 1936

          by AndersOSU on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:24:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is also an argument that: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickMassimo

            either Stalin was worse or Stalin was just as bad depending on what mood Pat is in!

            His view is Hitler v Stalin should have been encouraged and Britain and US should have stayed out. If that result could have been engineered it would not have been that bad a result but it was not easily on offer.

        •  Chamberlain was indeed an appeaser (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RickMassimo

          and his predecessors, Baldwin and MacDonald, even more so.

          As was French PM Daladier.

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

          by charliehall on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:15:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  First of all, I know ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... I'm just making fun of the rhetorical hornet's nest Buchanan has stirred up - or would have, if anyone actually read and thought about him.

            Secondly, isn't there some question as to how and whether Britain really COULD have stopped Hitler any earlier than they entered the war?

            Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

            by RickMassimo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:13:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  British Military Situation in 1938 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RickMassimo, QuestionAuthority

              The British began a serious re-armament program in 1937, to be completed in the summer of 1939.  It was essentially a defense strategy, based on adding the modern Spitfire and Hurricane fighters to the Royal Airforce, training pilots, building a more modern bomber fleet that could reach Berlin and return, and deploying their newly developed Radar network, and organizing their air defense that integrated the Radar System, making the fighter squadrons effective.  It simply was not in British National Interests to go to war until these systems were deployed and tested, and in 1939 the projected date of completion was July 1, 1939.

              Chamberlain was certanly aware of the state of British Defenses when he negotiated at Munich.  Appeasement was simply a way to serve British Interests by gaining time to deploy those defenses.  

              I am surprised no one thus-far has noted the actual status of Danzig in 1939.  It was a "free City" at the head of the "Polish Corridor" -- an international trade concession that allowed land-locked Poland access to the harbor, shipping facilities and the like.  To the east of the Corridor was East Prussia, which had voted in 1920 to remain part of Germany.  To the west of the Corridor were lands taken from Germany at Versailles, Parts of Pomerania, and attached to Poland.  While it had Baltic exposure, it did not have a harbor -- thus the set-up with the free city of Danzig.  

              The British and French commitment to Poland derives primarily from guarentees made at Versailles, which took lands from the Russian Empire, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and the German Empire to reconstitute Poland, which had not existed for more than 100 years.  

    •  Hell, Saturday Night Live was doing jokes about (9+ / 0-)

      the stench of Godwin that floats around Pat Buchanan back in the '90s, on a McLaughlin Group spoof.

      "What third party candidate failed to achieve even X% of the vote in his first election? PATBUCHANAN!"
      "Um, me?"
      "WRONG! The correct answer was Adolf Hitler, Pat. Next question! Will Pat cry?"

    •  lol (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, wonderful world

      No doubt.

      "I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law" -Obama

      by heart of a quince on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonderful world

      Pat is putting fear into Beck. He want's his job and this is par tof his CV!

      "Hey Joe, could you check his bearings. Again!"

      by allmost liberal european on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:45:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm starting to think that the election of an (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Devilstower, Matt Z

      african-american POTUS was some sort of mental catalyst that turned a switch off in the brains of the conservatives, one related to the ability to tell right from wrong (and not merely left from right).

      And sadly, I don't think anything is too crazy for Glenn Beck.  

      However, there have been recent studies into human behavior which may be pointing to a genetic root for political polarization.  Meaning that there may be an inborn reason why some of us are liberal and others are conservative (when the evidence may make liberals wonder if conservatives have simply lost their minds and are hiding from the truth).

      This study showed "the desire to vote or abstain from politics might largely be hardwired into our biology".

      Another study The Big Five @ University of Oregon.  The Big Five are five broad factors (dimensions) of personality traits. This study found

      "It's pleasurable for liberals to think more. They gravitate toward art, to things that are not as concrete," says Carney. "Conservatives have a need for order, for there not to be ambiguity. There you see that expressed by being more orderly, having more cleaning supplies, needing to have everything lined up and organized so that one feels one's environment is predictable and therefore safe."

      Conservatives see the same as safe and different as frightening.

      This strong desire for predictability and stability in the conservative mind is likely why this crazy line from George W Bush didn't cause any waves when he said,

      "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

      So is it any wonder that I'm coming to the conclusion that there is actually some sort of blood-chemistry 'switch' that is activated by, perhaps, a certain amount of fear or other endocrinal-related emotion?  A switch that allows otherwise rational people to believe all sorts of nonsense, so long as the nonsense is related to their core personality-type alignment?

      For conservatives, two wars and increased racial diversity (rising percentage of latinos in the population and a Black President - both Big Changes), appear to have been the catalyst to evoke some fairly easy to recognize fight-or-flight tendencies.  Those townhall blowhards and ingnoramouses may simply by the 'victims' of their own body-chemistry.

      The irony?  If it's' true, Big Pharma will never develop a medical drug to combat this response in conservatives - they'd be cutting their own throat by 'curing' the base that votes for the politicians who legislate in their favor.

    •  It's not that it's too crazy (0+ / 0-)

      It's that Beck is an idiot with, at best, a child's understanding of history. He could never write this.

      "unless you have what's called the single payer system... you're probably not going to reach every single individual"--BHO

      by just some lurker guy on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:42:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WTF?? (23+ / 0-)

    I can't keep this all in my head!

    One moment they're saying Obama is Hitler, and in the next they're saying Hitler wasn't "that bad".

    ARGH!!!  I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:42:53 PM PDT

    •  "I can't keep this all in my head!" ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smallgal

      Detach your self from reality
      and enter into the spin zone .
      Its a wild world where
      up is down
      war is peace
      death is good for profits
      and morans rule .

      "In Switzerland, only nonprofit insurers may participate."

      by indycam on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:07:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It helps if you have a translation (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bellatrys, Matt Z, smallgal

      Original Text: "Obama's national service plan is fascism!"
      Translated: GRAARGH!  UNNNNG!!  HRRRAAAARRRR!!

      Original Text: Health care is an evil plot to undermine the nation!
      Translated: EEEEEEEYYYARRR!!! GRAAAAAARRR!  HWWWWUURRRRR!!!

      Original Text: We have to do whatever is necessary to terrorists, including any and all "enhanced interrogation".
      Translated: AAARRRRR!!! WREEEAAAAGGHHHH!!  UUURRRGH!!!

    •  You want consistency, that costs extra (5+ / 0-)

      Actually, the problem is conflating different wingers. I think Buchanan is one of the few that hasn't compared Obama to Hitler (unlike my favorite winger, Orly Taitz, who alternates calling Obama a Nazi and a Communist).

      And in my reading of Buchanan's article, it seems he is criticizing Britain's entry into the war, which is not the same thing as defending Hitler. Just as our criticism of the US entry into war with Iraq is not a defense of Saddam Hussein.

      What's really silly about Buchanan's article is that he mentions Churchill's comment that World War II was unnecessary as if it was in agreement with him. If I'm not mistaken, Churchill thought the war was unnecessary because Hitler should have been stopped much earlier.

  •  So who are his advertisers? (7+ / 0-)

    Shouldn't we be giving them a call and asking why they're supporting these crazed claims?

  •  Race to the Bottom (6+ / 0-)

    To out Weird Beck

    Bachman is slitting her wrists
    and
    Now Here's Pat

  •  "Seit 5h45 wird zurueckgeschossen!" -- (5+ / 0-)

    ah, der Buchananator, historically revisionating for the Nazis.

  •  Most people don't know this, but (13+ / 0-)

    the Furher was a terrific dancer.
    Buchanan on the record with any comments on the LaRouche-bots' Obama mustache posters?

    Russ Feingold: cooler than Batman.

    by yojimbo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:09 PM PDT

  •  I'm Sure He's Done This Before (6+ / 0-)

    Crediting Hitler with this or that at various times.

    I'd be willing to bet that a lexis/nexus search of buchanan+hitler, however it's structured, would turn up a few hits before now.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:11 PM PDT

  •  Holy shit (5+ / 0-)

    This is what the right has come to.

  •  Why is he on MSNBC? (5+ / 0-)

    He is full of crap.

    Btw, i would like to make this claim:

    Hitler wanted peace!

    (After killing the jews, gays, opponents..millions) so he was a good guy!!

    Who the hell defends Hitler? Come on now Pat!

    "Hey Joe, could you check his bearings. Again!"

    by allmost liberal european on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:17 PM PDT

  •  Beck is smacking his forehead right now... (19+ / 0-)

    "fuck, why didn't I think of that?'

    "24" is to torture what "The Archies" were to Rock n Roll...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:19 PM PDT

  •  And you know what's funnier.... (5+ / 0-)

    He'll be on Hardball in the near future or Mourning Joke, and they will go "Hardy har har" at Uncle Pat or Pat, The Cool Old Guy.

    Laughs abound.

  •  Wow (4+ / 0-)

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:39 PM PDT

  •  he wrote a book about this... (15+ / 0-)

    did you know that?
    Amazon product description:

    In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.
    http://www.amazon.com/...

    Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

    by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:44:52 PM PDT

    •  I took a class with a Hist. professor who had (6+ / 0-)

      to write a review of that book.  He is a great admirer of Winston Churchill too.  Needless to say, I don't think he took it easy on Pat in his review.

      I publish, therefore I am.

      by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:49:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't doubt (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sean oliver, Matt Z, gooners, jtb583

        Because for all his puffery and Jonah Goldberg-esque treating 'facts like dirt clods' -- he seems almost entirely bereft of any real knowledge about Hitler, Germany, and Europe in the 1930s.

        More than France and and England abandoning the Czechs - it was probably the Wehrmacht staff that prevented war before Danzig.   There are plenty of diaries and observations from people who were there that paint Hitler as being sullen and disappointed in the Munich accords because he very much preferred to get the shooting started.

        Pat's about as stupid and twisted as Hitler (who never understood why England didn't ally themselves with Germany, either) if thinks it was British diplomatic missteps that led to WWII rather than the irreconcilable fact that Hitler saw the whole of eastern Europe all the way to the Urals as Nazi farmland, and at his very core -- was ultimately more interested in genocidal elimination of Jews than he even was in territorial conquest.

        You don't even need 20/20 hindsight to see that if all had worked out as Pat apparently wishes - and Germany had led some fanciful western European alliance against the evil Bolsheviks - would have just meant millions more dead in concentration camps and a better chance that the madman wouldn't have ultimately been defeated.

        There was plenty wrong with Versailles and there were plenty of bad decisions that led to the first world war - but anyone that thinks there was a reasonable peace to be had with a Nazi-led Germany once Hitler became chancellor is simply too fucking stupid to even take part in the discussion.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:32:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          Bingo

          I publish, therefore I am.

          by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:49:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Secret to Buchanan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          Pat Buchanan's father was one of the leaders of the American First Movement.  He hasn't changed his politics a drop since he sat on his Daddy's lap.  

          There were many elements in America First, and one needs to be discriminating in understanding it.  On one hand, it was a Pacifist Outfit -- early on the Quakers cooperated with it.  It expressed Mid-Western based progressive isolationism.  You might want to look at the work of Gerald Nye of North Dakota -- the Nye Committee in the House in particular from whence came the Neutrality Acts.  But there is also strong evidence it was financially supported by the German-Nazi Government, and it drew in the German-American Bund.  It contained many anti-Semitic elements (polling in the late 30's shows about 40% of Americans held anti-Semitic Attitudes of one degree or another,) it was strongly anti-immigrant.  The spokesperson for American First was Charles Lindberg, who had been decorated by Hitler (Iron Cross, second degree), and even though many requested he send the medal back, he refused.  

          Pat's Father's attachment to American First went along with his equally strong alliance with Father Coughlin, the Radio Priest -- who also took money from Hitler, and eventually it was J. Edgar Hoover's ability to make that connection, and show it to the American Catholic Hierarchy, that got Coughlin silenced by his bosses.  This has to be understood as an American-Irish Catholic thing, which largely stemmed from strong objection to the British-American relationship.  It should be remembered that there were connections between Joseph Kennedy Sr. and the Coughlinites during this period.  Old Joe Kennedy was Roosevelt's Ambassador at the Court of St. James, he was hanging out with the Appeasement Clan -- Nancy Astor and her Clievden Set -- but at heart he was a scrappy Irishman, who didn't much love the Brits.  FDR kept Joe Kennedy in London till October, 1941, so as to keep him out of the Domestic American First Movement.  

          All this is what Pat learned sitting on his Daddy's lap, and he hasn't re-evaluated many of his basic assumptions since that time.  

    •  I was gonna bring that up (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gorette, gooners, second alto, dkeep1

      You beat me to it, gooners. Yes, this is a pet project of Buchanan's.

      I figure it's that Pat likes being a contrarian. Something seductive about the idea that you're right and everybody else has it wrong.

      Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

      by The Raven on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:49:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Whole Story (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      Buchanan wrote that book and has been out pimping it all year. And every time his nazi face appears on TV, it's selling those books. But for only one brief dismal moment was his Nazi apology book mentioned, when I saw it early on. Yet every Buchanan appearance since then has therefore featured a Nazi apologist - without ever mentioning it.

      Buchanan's book is the kind of insane lie that used to get the crap kicked out of you in America. But that was when we were a country that at least didn't celebrate torturing random people we'd kidnapped just because it pretended we weren't a nation of cowards and sadists. The people who trot Buchanan out on TV every day should be forced to scrub the WWII museums and old concentration camps on their knees with a wad of their own hair. And Buchanan should have to read his book aloud every night in a neighborhood synagogue, with special guests anyone else who wants to kick the crap out of the old nazi.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:07:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the same (13+ / 0-)

    crap that was peddled to U.S. people by the "Christ centered" evangelicals right after the war.  I know this because I am reading Jeff Sharlet's excellent book, "The Family".

    It's the same thing all over again, the idea that Hitler was at first just trying to defend his people and then went crazy later (if you're not a holocost denier, that is).  And that white males have some God given destiny to make sure that everything is how God wants it.

    Scary with a capital "S".

    Where did the rest of the elves go?

    by thepothole on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:45:05 PM PDT

  •  Right wing GOP says: Hitlers good, Obama's Hitler (6+ / 0-)

    So Obama is good?

    It is interesting that the neo-Nazi, right wing GOP admires Hitler (anti-black, anti-labor, anti-equal rights...what's not to like) yet calls Obama Hitler.

  •  Isn't Pat Buchanan the chief of the tinfoil hat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley, wonderful world

    wearing wingnuts?  It's no wonder he's defending this.  I'll be surprised if he doesn't file an amicus brief in the Carrie Precum case.

    Have you forgotten about Jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

    by uc booker on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:45:21 PM PDT

  •  how long until Mika BRZEZINSKI (14+ / 0-)

    apologizes to Pat and Adolf on behalf of her fellow Poles?

  •  wow of all the fucked up things I've ever heard (9+ / 0-)

    from Pat Buchanan this tops the list.

    The song remains the same

    by polticoscott on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:45:23 PM PDT

  •  He's not an anti-semite (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, Matt Z, wonderful world, Kylopod

    he just opposes Israel (snark).

    "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." - J.S. Mill

    by dmsarad on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:45:24 PM PDT

  •  Time for Rachel and Keith to stand up (6+ / 0-)

    ...and tell MSNBC that they will quit the network if Buchana is not fired.

    Keith did far more against Don Imus over less.

  •  And yet... (4+ / 0-)

    ... his obituaries will be so very respectful. It'll make the Novak notices look hard-hitting.

  •  Six years later, four hundred trillion Christians (13+ / 0-)

    Jews, and insects had perished.

    Really puts things in perspective.  Thanks Pat.

  •  Molly Ivins is correct again. (24+ / 0-)

    Everything Pat says sounded better in the original German.

    "No, it's all right," said the prospective diner. "The slugs have formed a defensive ring." -- Moving Pictures. Terry Pratchett.

    by wonderful world on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:46:43 PM PDT

  •  Don Imus (yeah, that guy) told a joke about (15+ / 0-)

    Buchanan losing a relative at Auschwitz (said he got drunk and fell off his tower) when he had him on his show once...Buchanan wasn't at all offended.

    It's often said that life is strange. But compared to what? --Steve Forbert

    by darthstar on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

  •  Turn off MSNBC <n/t> (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratador, miss SPED

    "What has science DONE!"-Dr.Weird

    by jds1978 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:46:55 PM PDT

  •  "Why are you making me hit you??" n/t (10+ / 0-)

    Medicare: Government-run Health Care since 1965

    by Egalitare on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:47:01 PM PDT

  •  It's not too crazy for Glenn Beck (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheMomCat, Matt Z, JeffW

    Since the 1930's the Republican party has been riddled with Nazi sympathizers and Nazi apologists. Knowing Pat Buchanan's record, there is nothing remotely surprising about this.

    The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

    by beltane on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:47:03 PM PDT

  •  I think it's "sleight of hand"... n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    "They got the guns but we got the numbers..."

    by danktle on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:47:13 PM PDT

  •  Clearly this will be his end (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Matt Z, Floande
    Yes?

    Never forget: it's a slippery slope from providing all citizens with affordable health care and exterminating 6,000,000 Jews.

    by Scott Wooledge on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:47:26 PM PDT

  •  I hope that someone will petition MSNBC to get (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, Matt Z, JeffW

    this guy off the air.  I just signed one that Media Matters is circulating about Lou Dobbs.  At least Pat doesn't have his own show like Lou Dobbs, but giving these fringe elements a voice in the media allows what they say to become mainstream.  

    •  Rachel and Keith could do it tomorrow. (0+ / 0-)

      WE shouldn't have to be doing jack shit. If Rachel and Keith have a shred of decency in them, and I assume they do, tehy will go to the President of the network as tell him that either Pat Goes or they do.

      Seeing as how they are the two sdtars of the network, I think Pat Buchana will get the ole heave ho.

      And, it will also send a message to Joe Scarborough too.

  •  Worst Person? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley, jds1978, Matt Z, JeffW, miss SPED

    I'm curious if Keith will step up and name him worst person - which would still be underplaying the story.

  •  This isn't really a surprise (13+ / 0-)

    Buchanan has always had a major hard-on for the Nazi and has previously been a Hitler apologist and, while he hasn't gone and full out denied the Holocaust, he has tried to downplay it (once stating that the infamous Treblinka death camp couldn't have produced enough carbon monoxide to kill anyone). So this is just Pat being Pat.

    Seriously, though, I don't care how likable or charming Pat is or how the MSNBC guys think of him as like the crazy old uncle who says nutty things; the man is utterly loathsome. He's a racist, an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a homophobe and to top that off, he's a Nazi-lover. Get rid of him already.

  •  I guess the 100 Panzer divisions (13+ / 0-)

    and field testing Stuka dive-bombers in the Spanish Civil War, and a raft of secret rearmanent don't count as preparations for war.

    I guess Krystallnacht never happened either, according to Buchanan.

    Oh, and yet it did

  •  I read Shirer. (9+ / 0-)

    Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

    This is false.

  •  Buchanan has praised Hitler before. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, mungley, Matt Z

    Seriously.

    "ENOUGH!" - President Barack Hussein Obama

    by indiemcemopants on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:48:52 PM PDT

  •  Christians and Jews (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley, bablhous, Matt Z, JeffW

    Yeah -- Gay Christians.  

    Buchanan is a dumbass.   Lucky for him he's preaching to dumber asses.  

    •  And Gypsies, who I believe tended to be Catholic. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, JeffW, ruscle

      Same for Slavs (Catholic or Eastern Orthodox).

      You want weapons? We're in a LIBRARY. Books - the best weapons in the world! Arm yourselves. - The (10th) Doctor, Doctor Who, "Tooth And Claw"

      by The YENTA Of The Opera on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:00:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And godless communists (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dansmith17, ruscle

      About 25 million of the WWII deaths were Soviets.

      Then there were quite a few non-Christians: 10-20 million Chinese, about 3-4 million Muslims in the Dutch East Indies, about 2 million in India (mostly Hindus I assume) and another 4 million in other parts of Asia, including Japan.

      Total American war deaths btw, slightly over 400,000.

      (Estimates from wikipedia, which has total casualties at 62-78 million, not 50.)

      The FOX is a common carrier of rabies, a virus that leaves its victims foaming at the mouth and causes paranoia and hallucinations.

      by Calouste on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:32:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, he wanted to take over the world slowly. (0+ / 0-)

    Then slowly murder everyone he found distasteful.
    The allies pushed him into the whole world war thing.

    Buchanan is downright insane.

    I wasn't sure how to spell "hypocrisy" until I started blogging about Republicans.

    by mungley on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:49:12 PM PDT

  •  My how far the MSM has fallen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, miss SPED

    that they give a forum to this vile man. I long ago stopped watching these programs, such a waste of electrons.

    "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes" Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"

    by TheMomCat on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:49:50 PM PDT

  •  Not to defend Pat... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooners

    But I think there is some historical evidence that Hitler was primarily interested in expansion to the east and making the Slavic people the slave race of German industry.  If he managed to defeat the Soviets, he probably would have then turned back to the West, which is where his "we should have left Hitler alone" crap falls apart.

    Mike

    •  would he have defeated the soviets? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gooners

      He seemed to have no problem reliving Napoleon's biggest mistake.

      You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

      by DawnG on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:57:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Without the benefit of hindsight, it is not at all clear that the Soviet Union would have been able to hold back the Nazis.

        There are multiple contingencies that played out to ultimately allow the Soviets to win at the cost of millions of lives. Japan, for instance, could have invaded from the east instead of just giving the US two theaters. The British could have failed to escape at Dunkirk or otherwise withdrawn. It was not a foregone conclusion that U.S. Lend-lease Aid was forthcoming.

        There's not law of nature that states you can't invade Russia and win. The Nazis had Moscow in their sights and Hitler did a lot of things Napoleon never did.

        But this doesn't help MBunge out. The same "evidence" he refers to, which I presume is Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches, show that even if he had never attacked the West, he would have most likely enslaved or killed Slavs and still instituted the Wannsee Protocol to kill off the Jews.

        ...and long before Hitler invaded Poland, his thugs had begun instituting Nazi racist policy within Germany. Is what he did within Germany suddenly OK just because it was in Germany? I don't think so.

        Poland or not, Soviet Union or not, the West or not, the man was a murderer.

        Live from the ochlocracy of California.

        by Attorney at Arms on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:24:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think Mbunge, (0+ / 0-)

          Pat Buchanan, or anyone else is arguing that Hitler would have turned out to be an OK guy if only we'd given him Danzig.

          There's an argument that can be made that Hitler would have never attacked France if he had been allowed to expand eastward as far as he wanted.  Obviously lots of bad things would have happened to lots of innocent people under an unrestrained Nazi rule, just like lots of bad things happened to lots of innocent people under an unrestrained Soviet rule.

          There's a lot of interesting thought experiments you can get into from here.  Would Hitler have turned on Stalin had he been allowed dominion over the slavic and baltic states?  Would Stalin have gone on the offensive without an alliance with the west?  Would Hitler have decided he wanted the low countries after all?  And then, what I think is the most interesting question of all, what would the cold war have looked like if Hitler and Stalin eventually agreed on borders in eastern Europe and signed a peace treaty?

          Very briefly, Stalin probably wouldn't have watched the Balkans being divided without trying really hard to get a port he could use more than three months a year.

          We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. - FDR 1936

          by AndersOSU on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 10:30:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  that is Pats argument, (0+ / 0-)

      Hitler kills godless Bolsheviks, if Hitler loses well at least he killed lots of Communists, if Hitler wins he killed lots of Bolshiviks even if he wins he is now much weaker as he will have lost most of his army fighting communists.

      Who cares what happens to the populations of Eastern Europe, Germany or Soviet Union they are not us.

      the assumption of if it had happened and if Hitler had won he would have turned west is actually a big assumption. No one can know what would have happened if there is no Anglo French guarantee to Poland, Hitler and Stalin divide Eastern Europe as in our history but then one of them attacks the other in 1940, with Britain and France keeping out, with Britain and France at peace Japan is not tempted to stab them in the back by grabbing Indo-China and Singapore so instead moves North into Siberia.

      A world were Germany, Japan and Soviet Union fought each other for several years in the 1940's but Britain France and US stayed out of it would be a very different world, the Holocaust would still happen but would it be more or less then 6 million no one can know.

  •  I'm getting an error when I click on the 1st link (0+ / 0-)

    I had to go to Ethan Porter's article and use that link.

    -8.50, -7.64 "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that there was within me an invincible summer." - Camus

    by croyal on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:50:28 PM PDT

  •  Before the trains started rolling to the camps? (13+ / 0-)

    Jesus Christ, what the hell?

    Does anyone really think they weren't all going there anyways? Does he happen to know what year Kristallnacht occurred in? Does he happen to think that was just a big costume party where everyone dressed up as SS Stormtroopers for the hell of it?

    Furthermore, I'm Canada and I'm demanding that the US surrender Detroit, MI because there are a bunch of Canadians who live there. Does anyone think we would have ever done that? No. So why should we hold Poland to a different standard.

    Hitler said he was done when he reinvaded the Rhine. Then, Hitler said he was done when he took over half of Czechoslovakia. Then he took over the rest of the country. Then he invaded Poland. At what point should we have stopped appeasing a madman? Should the Brits have surrendered during the Battle of Britain?

    Patrick J. Buchanan was a brilliant speechwriter at one point in his life. He was at least as good as Bob Shrum, and maybe as good as Ted Sorenson. He managed to make Sprio Agnew sound smart. I think his sanity has officially left the building.

    •  Rec for the last sentence. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, JeffW
    •  I believe that there were camps in 1933. EOM. (0+ / 0-)

      You want weapons? We're in a LIBRARY. Books - the best weapons in the world! Arm yourselves. - The (10th) Doctor, Doctor Who, "Tooth And Claw"

      by The YENTA Of The Opera on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:01:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There were labor camps... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, opoponax

        As early as the mid-30's. Some of those camps would eventually become the concentration camps. The wheels for this were in motion for a decade before the "Final Solution."

        Anyone who doesn't know that or see it with just a cursory revisiting of history is an idiot.

        •  Wannassee Conferance was 1942 (0+ / 0-)

          Until then there were Labour Camps and lots of Anti-Jewish discrimination but there was not outright extermination.

          There is a debate as to was that always coming or would a combination of mass expulsion and second class status for those that remained been the original plan.

          kristalnacht was a mass pogrom and was terrible but was not in the same category as later horrors, remember most of the planets population was occupied by foreign colonial authorities and the African American population were not exactly facing reasonable conditions. The Hollocaust was one of the most terrible crimes in history but anti Jewish discrimination in Germany say 1937 was no worse than other discrimination in other countries in the 1930's it was not obvious at the time that things would go as far as they did.

          •  Mass exterminations began in 1939 in Poland (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bellatrys

            Jews were rounded up from Polish cities and towns and shot. This continued in 1941 after the invasion of the Soviet Union.
            The large-scale camps started in 42-43.

            Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

            by sean oliver on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:01:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  The Pole in me wants to curse him. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, JeffW, rja
    But I see it is too late.

    Ben Masel for Senate-2012

    by kjoftherock on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:50:57 PM PDT

  •  Greece (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, bablhous, jds1978, Matt Z, Calouste

    Hitler had no soft spot for Greece.  He begged Mussolini not to attack Greece because he knew that there were bigger fish to fry if he were to become hegemon of Europe.  He needed the Axis to focus on priority targets, not take the shotgun approach.  As it happened, Mussolini's attack on Greece took resources away from Hitler's campaigns elsewhere, and arguably turned the tide in the War.

    Buchanan's analysis of history is too clever by half.

  •  "a permanent cot in the MSNBC green room" (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Big Tex, Matt Z, miss SPED, rja

    ROFL-- Markos, you are funny!!

    I was looking forward to seeing you on "Countdown" last night, so I hope you're on tonight instead.

  •  ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME??? (0+ / 0-)

    I'd better make sure my Polish husband doesn't see this.

  •  So Chamberlain was right! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnG, slapshoe, Treg, Matt Z

    We just needed to appease Hitler a little bit more, if we had just given him that one little town...

    •  LOL! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      that's another one!  They mock Obama as being an appeaser and then turn around and say Hitler SHOULD have been appeased.

      GRRRR!!!!  I feel like I'm turning into Lewis Black.

      You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

      by DawnG on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:58:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The thing about Chamberlain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      that conservatives always forget is that he was much closer to being one of them than one of us. He was a very conservative politician who was committed to building up the defense of the UK but who put no stock in alliances and didn't believe the UK could face down the Nazis alone. From his Wikipedia entry:

      By 1939 Chamberlain's government was devoting well over half of its revenues to defense. Chamberlain's policy of rearmament faced much domestic opposition from the Labour Party, which favored a policy of disarmament and until late 1938 always voted against increases in the defence budget (afterwards Labour merely switched towards a policy of abstention on defence votes). Labour repeatedly condemned Chamberlain for engaging in an arms race with Germany, and instead urged that Britain simply be disarmed out of the expectation that this example would inspire all of the other powers to do likewise. Throughout the 1930s, Labour frequently disparaged Chamberlain as a crazed war-monger who preferred high levels of military spending to high levels of social spending

      From what I've read of him, he wasn't particularly likeable and I don't agree with all his policies (after all, he was a conservative, although not a crazy one) and I certainly don't agree with his policy of appeasement, but that's all too easy to say in retrospect. Nevertheless,  he not only wasn't a liberal, he also wasn't the soft and weakminded fool he is constantly portrayed as in the popular media.

      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
      --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

      by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:11:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chaimberlain was afraid of a war win or lose. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leftist vegetarian patriot

        Lose is terrible but he and they French realised they could not win without Russian help and so winning would likely see Red Army in Berlin at least and his real fear was social revolution in UK and France.

        So memories of WWI were terrible but also he even feared a war we won as it risks Communist revolution.

        •  I hadn't read or heard that before (0+ / 0-)

          and would be interested in your sources (not that I'm trying to cast doubt, I just like reading about history and trying to evaluate conflicting versions). What I'd read was (more or less) that he didn't have sufficient faith in the ability or will of any of England's allies to fight a difficult and sustained war, so figured it was better to build up England's defenses while trying to postpone any conflicts. Again from Wikipedia (but seemingly well sourced):

          A major problem for Chamberlain was that Britain lacked the industrial infrastructure and financial strength to win an arms race with Germany, Italy and Japan at once. Provided that one or two of the Axis states could be persuaded to re-align themselves from the Axis, Britain could win the arms race with the remaining members of the Axis. Hence, Chamberlain attached great importance to detaching either Germany or Italy (Japan was considered to be hopelessly intransigent). Chamberlain was indifferent to whether Italy detached from Germany, or Germany from Italy, just as long as the list of potential enemies was shortened to enable Britain to win the arms race with the remaining members of the Axis. In a letter written in June 1937, Chamberlain summed up his views when he wrote: "If only we could get on terms with the Germans I wouldn't care a rap for Musso [Benito Mussolini]"[20]. Later, Chamberlain was to write in his diary in January 1938: "From the first I have been trying to improve relations with the two storm centres Berlin & Rome. It seemed to me that we were drifting into worse & worse positions with both with the prospect of having ultimately to face 2 enemies at once"[20]. Further reinforcing Chamberlain’s initial determination to focus on attempting to win over potential enemies as opposed to building alliances that might augment British power was a pessimistic assessment of potential allies. Chamberlain was consistently advised by Britain's top military experts that the Red Army was a fighting force of dubious value, which led him to place a low value on the Soviet Union as a potential ally[21]. The series of Neutrality Acts passed by the American Congress in the mid-1930s had the effect of convincing Chamberlain that no help could be expected from the United States in the event of a war.[22] As part of an effort to engage the United States into world politics, in October 1937, Chamberlain instructed the British delegation being sent to Washington to negotiate an Anglo-American free trade agreement, that for "political" reasons, it was critical to reach a free agreement with the Americans no matter what[23] Even before the talks began, Chamberlain had ordered the British delegation to accept the American "essentials" as the U.S. deemed certain pre-conditions[24] The tendency of Sir Eric Phipps, the British Ambassador to France to offer a highly negative assessment in his dispatches of his host country led to a downgrading of France as a potential ally.

          My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
          --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

          by leftist vegetarian patriot on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:38:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wiki pretty simplistic version (0+ / 0-)

            A good source for the immediate pre war period and what went wrong is Michael Carley 1939: The alliance that never was and the coming of WWII.

            France and the Soviet Union had signed a Mutual assistance pact in 1935, with a pledge to support each other in war and both had separately signed treaties to defend Czechoslovakia, but the Soviet one was signed with the proviso that they would support the Czechs if the French did, i.e. from the beginning they were worried about being abandoned to fight the Germans alone.

            Poland at this stage had signed a non-aggression and trade treaty with Germany in 1934.

            France then swung hot and cold about actually instituting the pact and planning which troops would do what in an actual war, they offered talks at general staff level but then delayed and delayed and when they eventually started never got into any details.

            When the Czechs were threatened the Soviets were prepared to fight but to get to Czech territory had to cross Poland or Romania which despite also being allies of France were not prepared to agree to that prospect and in the end France did a deal signing away the Sudetenland without the Czechs. The Poles sided with the Germans and took the opportunity to grab a bit of Czech territory.

            In 1939 the talks started again and the British and French sent delegations to Moscow to plan for war, the Russians feared they were not taking it seriously as they had sent relatively low level delegations, had sent them by slow Merchant ship rather than by faster warship or even better flying, had not provided them authority to do a deal and had still not got authority to discuss Soviet troops crossing the Polish or Rumanian borders to engage the Germans. The final round of talks started in Moscow on 12th August, as late as 23rd August the Poles would only go as far as agreeing that in the event of war with Germany

            "some form of co-operation with the Soviet Union was not entirely ruled out"

            , hardly a glowing agreement. By then it was too late, Stalin had lost patience and did a deal with Germany on 24th August, Hitler invaded Poland within a week, on the 1st September, Stalin invaded from the East on the 17th and all fighting was over before the month was out.

            In the October after Poland had fallen there was lots of talk in London and Paris about how in the end only Soviet Union would benefit from the two Capitalist alliances fighting to the death with revolution at home still a fear.

            In November Stalin invaded Poland and there were mass Anti-Communist campaigns in the press in Paris and London and plans to send armies to aid the Finns or to bomb the Soviet oil in Baku despite the fact they were at war with Germany and were not at war with the Soviet Union. A British Foreign office official in Paris is quoted as late as March 1940 as confirming that Chamberlain

            "did not want Germany too badly beaten up as it would open the way to Bolshevism".

            Again in March 1940 French PM Daladier is offering the Finns 50,000 men to help fight the Red army and talks about the

            elements of the French upper classes who wanted to make peace with Germany before she is too badly beaten due to their fear of Boshevisim.

            The problem of the British and French politicians of the era is they are part of a 3 sided negotiation and they wanted both of the other sides to lose, they would not make an alliance with Hitler against the Soviets but would not commit to an alliance with Stalin against Hitler either, and of course in the some ways the fear was right despite winning the war they were then faced with the Red Army in Berlin for the next 50 years.

  •  Rachel to hand Uncle Pat his a$$ in 5, 4, 3... nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Matt Z, ratador, MiscastDice
  •  Why does Buchanan write this ? Why Now? (0+ / 0-)

    Well his article is sort of beyond crazy.
    Its not really so difficult to pick holes
    in the historical record, the facts, the reasoning-

    To get at what is the meaning of this, why
    would he write such a thing, is there some new
    right wing kook meme inserting itself?

    This notion that 'Hitler wasn't so bad'  seems
    to clash with the 'Obama is as bad as Hitler' theme.

    Is maybe Buchanan just losing it, just getting a
    bit old and confused and whacked out ?

  •  They should have "Albatross of the Year" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slapshoe

    (scratch that: better "of the month") award on all the networks. Of course, it would get awfully boring with the same names on time after time.

  •  wow (5+ / 0-)

    absolutely revolting.

    MSNBC - I'm officially totally done. as long as you employ Pat Buchanan, I will watch no Hardball, no Countdown, no Rachel, nothing.

    I love my Countdown, but I can't do anything that remotely supports paying the salary of a soul-less ghoul like Pat Buchanan.

    What carpet-man doesn't understand is; if carpet-man don't dance, carpet-man don't eat! - Bob Fossel (The Mighty Boosh)

    by itsbenj on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:52:45 PM PDT

  •  We are not defending Saddam Hussein (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    jtb583
    Hidden by:
    MiscastDice

    when we say war with Iraq was wrong. So I don't know how you can say that Buchanan is defending Hitler when he criticizes Britain's entry into war with Germany.

    •  Saddam is not Hitler... (0+ / 0-)

      no comparison in the two.

      Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

      by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:59:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He is basically saying that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, sawgrass727

      the conflict over the city of Danzig is what caused the Germans to go to war with Poland and that if the Poles would have just given Hitler what he wanted, war could have been avoided.  

      He thinks that Stalin and the Soviet Union was the greater evil over Hitler, and that Britain and the west should have never given the guarantee to Poland that they would come to her aid if Germany attacked.  

      I guess Buchanan thinks it would have been better to have the Nazis and the Soviets fight on the eastern front with no intervention by the west.  So I guess, he would have been perfectly happy with a Nazi regime existing in Eastern Europe as long as there was no Soviet Union in existence.

      So in the end, he is defending Hitler by arguing that his regime could have peacefully coexisted alongside France, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, etc.  

      I publish, therefore I am.

      by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:02:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Saying he could peacefully coexist (0+ / 0-)

        doesn't sound to me like a defense. Pol Pot didn't try to take over the world, but I've never heard anyone suggest that makes him a good guy.

        I should clarify that I think Buchanan's thesis, that Britain shouldn't have invaded, is indefensible. And his invocation of Churchill is particularly laughable, if you read in context what Churchill really said. I just don't see that Buchanan's comments add up to a defense of Hitler.

        •  Well, saying that (0+ / 0-)

          Hitler was the one acting rationally instead of Britain and France with their guarantees, and that Hitler, deep down, did not want war or Lebensraum, sounds like a defense of the man.  I think Buchanan is, if not outrightly defending Hitler himself, defending his actions.

          I publish, therefore I am.

          by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:27:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "acting rationally"? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jtb583

            I must have missed the place where Buchanan said Hitler was "acting rationally". Maybe the reason we're disagreeing is that Buchanan is making so little sense in his article that it can be interpreted different ways. He clearly is saying that events did not suggest that Hitler wanted to keep expanding, which is completely different from the facts. I don't see that as a defense of Hitler, since that wasn't the worst thing about him. But I guess I can see that, in the sense of subtracting one of his crimes, one could interpret it as a partial defense.

        •  Pol Pot was an evil son of a bitch (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bellatrys

          but the Saint Ronnie Raygun sold him weapons and provided Special forces support and supported him in the UN for a decade after he was overthrown by the Vietnamese as it was seen as the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

          Sickening but it happened.  

          Pat was all in favour at the time.

    •  Your username. . . (0+ / 0-)

      so very, very apt.

      And I fuck the impossible.

      by MiscastDice on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:19:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's been saying this stuff for decades (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansmith17, Kylopod

    Nothing new here.

  •  Pat is part of the 'Good Ole Boy, KKK racist club (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Big Tex, JeffW, miss SPED

    at MSNBC.  If it weren't for Keith & Rachel, I would not watch MSNBC because of this asshole.

    Dems=Majority now. Pass HCR because excuses are like assholes, everybody has one.

    by jdmorg on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:54:28 PM PDT

  •  Pimping for Hitler (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    occams hatchet

    wasn't that an early 80s punk band?

    "Just relax and let the hooks do their work." -- Ned Flanders

    by Pangloss on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:55:13 PM PDT

  •  There is a very real difference between (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, slapshoe, gooners

    Buchanan and Beck that we all must keep in mind.

    Beck is Batshit Insane.

    Buchanan is Bug-Fuck Crazy.

    They are very different psychological problems, but don't ask me to explain the details of the unexplainable.

  •  Assume all Buchanan says is true. How . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, sawgrass727, occams hatchet

    . . . does that get Germany off the hook?

    Did Germany invade just Danzig? No, it invaded all of Poland.

    Assume Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940 (which is not a crazy idea; see link below). Does that mean he had to slaughter Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people between then and 1945? Of course not.

    And by mid-1940 Hitler was occupying Poland and much of France. Does Buchanan think the Brits should have acquiesced in that?

    BTW, here's a fascinating book on how Churchill's leadership in May 1940 steered Britain away from negotiating a peace deal with Hitler, which some in British govt wanted to do: http://www.amazon.com/...

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:55:51 PM PDT

    •  Well, Hitler went out of his way to make (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey

      a whole bunch of other excuses for invading Poland, the so-called "Gleiwitz incident" being the main one.

      Back in my day you didn't recommend somebody, you called them an asshole. - sparks, DKos sage

      by occams hatchet on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:30:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. You'll like these . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        occams hatchet

        This is the kind of horrendous drivel that would embarrass a crazy uncle spouting off at a family reunion as everyone stands by awkwardly and shuffles their feet. It is the historical equivalent of speaking in tongues: the syllables, accents, rhythms, and pauses of actual speech that, when actually heard, dissolve to gibberish. Buchanan strings together his events from the past in a coherent narrative; coherent but absolutely disconnected from reality. Somewhere in this world, a rabbit in a waistcoat is looking at his watch, muttering about lateness. Buchanan has no worries on that score; he is well down the hole already.

        http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/...

        That whole invading Poland thing was clearly just a big misunderstanding. He didn't want war, he just wanted to arbitrarily annex whatever part of Europe he felt like having -- the response was clearly overblown, and maybe even a little rude.

        http://www.prospect.org/...

        Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for those links:
        http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 06:21:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder if Keith Olbermann (5+ / 0-)

    has the balls to declare Pat Buchanan the worst person in the world.

    For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die. -- EMK

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:55:57 PM PDT

  •  The deceased owner of the Cincinnati Reds, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhp, Big Tex, Matt Z, JeffW, samantha in oregon

    Marge Schott, was suspended by Major League Baseball for two years for making favorable remarks about Hitler.  If a sports league has the appropriate sense of outrage over this, why does a progressive TV news network tolerate Pat Buchanan's Hitler-apologist crap.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:56:50 PM PDT

  •  This is the most Bizarre (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooners

    thing ive ever read. First.. he's repeatedly incoherent. Setting that aside though he just seems to randomly mix shit up, rewrites history, and ignores everything (read: most of the events of thetime) he wishes to. Added to that he makes it obvious he knows nothing about Germany or warfare. His claims re the german navy are positively whacked. The only reason germany eventually needed or built a navy was to  stop US supplies going to Britain. Other than that the german navy was a complete waste of resources.

    BTW when someone tells you "racism is over!" etc etc? Point out that the MSM sees no problem with putting people like Buchanan, Duke, and savage on the air. While at the same time shrieking in terror at the million man march.. all those black folks in one spot made the villagers wet their panties.

    •  German navy... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdreid

      I always thought that Germany didn't have much of a Navy because they don't have much of a coastline.

      Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

      by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:00:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Navies are all about projecting power (0+ / 0-)

        around the world.  If it wanted to achieve its long term goals, it would have been absolutely necessary for Germany to have a large navy.  They even had a plan to build it up during the 30s and 40s (Plan Z).  The problem for them was, Hitler decided to start WWII about five years too early for the Kreigsmarine's liking.

        I publish, therefore I am.

        by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:05:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You need to look (0+ / 0-)

          up close at the german/european geography. Unless youve already taken all of europe , china and the old soviet union a navy is near pointless.. especially considering how incredibly easy it is to bottle the german navy up and destroy it. In fact if you do a little study you'll find out that the brits did just that on a couple of occasions.

          •  Okay, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooners, Melissa J

            but if I am a German strategist and I realistically want to conquer Europe, then I will need a navy in order to blockade Britain either with submarines or with a surface fleet.  Or, I will need a large enough navy so that if I want to invade Britain, my landing craft crossing the Channel will not be sunk on their way to the beaches.

            I publish, therefore I am.

            by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:17:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  right, but Pat is talking about... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cdreid, jtb583

              building up a navy before the war. He says the fact that Germany didn't do that show Hitler had no intentions of a world war. But he ignores Germany's lack of coastline and ports. Germany has never been a naval power. Buchanan compares Hitler's navy to Great Britain's, which at the time was the largest in the world. GB never would have let German build that many ships. They didn't like anyone squeezing in on their territory.

              Hitler wouldn't have been able to go after Great Britain for a while because of the lack of naval power -- he probably didn't count on them fighting for so long, and probably didn't count on the United States. So he could have most definitely intended to take over most of Europe without a navy.

              Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

              by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:24:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lots of debate over what Hitler's genuine (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooners, dansmith17

                intentions were, and what strategy he decided to adopt because of developing conditions.  From what I know, he did not see Britain or France as natural enemies but rather wanted to shore up his western boundary while he went for his ultimate goal of the Soviet Union.

                Probably a little too off topic for a political blog.  But yes, he was hoping Britain would want to make peace.

                I publish, therefore I am.

                by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:35:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Buchanan is wrong there then (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cdreid, gooners, jtb583

                (as with almost everything else). Germany invented the "pocket battleship" to get around the limitations put on the tonnage of the warships they were allowed under the treaty of Versailles.

                The FOX is a common carrier of rabies, a virus that leaves its victims foaming at the mouth and causes paranoia and hallucinations.

                by Calouste on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:40:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Which i stated in my original post (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooners

              the Only reason for germany to build a navy is to stop supplies from reaching Britain. You may note that in his bizarred revisionism he also seems to flop time and history on its' head at will.

              Hitlers naval program was also yet another of Germanies collossal, braindead mistakes in the war. Britain waited til Germany built its prize ships, trapped them and blew them to hell on a semiregular basis.

              •  I think their mistake (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cdreid, gooners

                was starting the war too early because I think if they did build up their navy it would have been a bit different in the Atlantic.

                But I think I will call it a day with this issue.  Thanks for the discussion.  

                I publish, therefore I am.

                by jtb583 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:41:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  it was largley due to.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooners, Melissa J

        resources - hitler needed tanks, guns and planes for blitzkrieg. there was no way he would have time to build a navy that could outstrip Britains so the Germans resorted to building a u-boat fleet that could conduct "guerilla" style raids on British shipping. it worked better for them than having a ship based navy anyway. you cant capture moscow with a cruiser.

        McCain = world meltdown

        by mb6578 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:29:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that makes much more sense.... (0+ / 0-)

          than Buchanan's interpretation.

          Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

          by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:40:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They had a plan for a big navy (0+ / 0-)

          Pan Z included Carriers and Battleships but would not have delivered all the parts of the build up till around 1948 for a 1938 plan and obviously other things intervened.

          •  Hitler ignored Versailles Treaty Restrictions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid

            . . . almost from the start of his regime in 1933.  The Brits tried to get German naval expansion under control in a 1935 treaty, conceding to German demands for a larger navy.  Hitler still wasn't satisfied.  You are right, Plan Z in 1938 envisioned a very large navy.

            Poor Pat may have been led astray by Hitler's abandonment of the idea of a surface fleet after 1940.  Hitler was deeply dissatisfied with the performance of the German surface fleet in the Battle of the Atlantic.  He shifted the focus to submarine warfare, which had achieved spectacular results in the first years of the war.  German submarine forces expanded their attacks to American vessels after December 1941.  Few people realize that German submarines sank dozens of American ships literally within sight of the east coast of the United States.

            Only the willfully ignorant would believe that Hitler did not intend war from the start of his rule.  Hitler pretty much lays it all out in Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch.  The case for Hitler as a warmonger is ironclad.  There was a German military buildup starting in 1933.  German pride made France a primary target of future German aggression, Germany's defeat in World War I had to be avenged.  Hitler's weird racist longing for "growing room" in the East was on display in his writings.  The inhabitants of Poland and much of European Russia would be exterminated except for a few, who would act as slave labor for German colonists.  There is no argument here, there can't be, the evidence is overwhelming.  Hitler got the wars he wanted.  Because of his parochial misconceptions about Britain, Russia, and the USA, he started wars he couldn't win.  This stuff isn't in the secret archives of the Masters of History, it's available on the internet, easily accessible using google or wikipedia.  Like I said, willfully ignorant.  

            "It was like that when I got here." - Homer Simpson

            by rbird on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:35:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  also the fact that.. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cdreid, Matt Z

              Hitler only managed to salvage Germanys destroyed economy by building up Germanys armed forces.

              I heard an interesting story once about the christmas truce in 1914 (if you dont know about it you can look it up in detail on wikipedia) where the Brits and the Germans had a truce over christmas and met in no mans land, drank and played football together. apparently there was one man who refused to join in and sat in the trenches for three days lamenting about how his comrades should be killing the opposition troops - his name was Adolf Hitler.

              The man was haunted by a young age about the possible connection between his family and judaism. In the twenties he wrote mein kampf and by the thirties he ruled Germany. Anyone who believed that Hitler wanted nothing but peace is an idiot. The British Commonwealth and France may have declared war on him. But the U.S, Russia, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands and Luxembourg did not.

              McCain = world meltdown

              by mb6578 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:48:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I couldn't help but think of this...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wonderful world

    When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. --Jonathan Swift

    by Teaberry on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:58:21 PM PDT

  •  I've been boycotting Hardball ever since Buchanan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, wonderful world, second alto

    made those racist remarks a few weeks ago. Any show that uses him, like Matthews, will not be viewed in my home. Not until they put him off for good. I let Matthews know that.

    But Chris won't care until lots more boycott him. He hasn't put him off the show yet. I refuse to ever listen to the creep Buchanan again.

    I really don't understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. - John Cole

    by Gorette on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:58:37 PM PDT

  •  Pat Buchanan (3+ / 0-)
    I've been listening to Pat Buchanan spew his bile on the McLaughling Group for over 25 years. He always has said that the United States should have joined with Hitler to attack the Soviet Union instead of the other way around.

    Not wanting to seek Republican approval for everything Democrats do means you're "The Left of the Left".

    by William Domingo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:00:26 PM PDT

  •  That's simply ridiculous. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, wonderful world

    Is Pat Buchanan going through early stage dementia on while our nation watches?  This man obviously has some peculiar ideas, and I'm not sure that logic is something he would recognize anymore.  From the paranoid fantasies to the cantankerous posturing, I think this man is deteriorating mentally.

    "We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob."-FDR

    by electricgrendel on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:00:42 PM PDT

  •  It is on days like this I am thankful that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, JeffW, wonderful world
    both my parents Father RAF - (Burma '39-45), Mother WRNS (with SHAEF - '40-45) have passed on.

    Reading something so ugly, so diametrically opposed to their actual experience, would have sent them into great and unsubsiding tides of anger. That it is written by someone who was but one year young when hostilities broke out would have been seen as no excuse.

    no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

    by ItsSimpleSimon on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:02:59 PM PDT

  •  Dear Pat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    occams hatchet, Matt Z

    I was going to ask if the commies, the queers, the Roma, the unionists, and the intellectuals who died were Christians or Jews, but then I read the speech in the original German and discovered that you really think that those godless secular perverts were lower than either the Christians OR the Jews, and they got what was coming to them.

    Of course, my German is rusty, so I'm hoping for a clarification, because that list of people I'm supposed to hate is so long that I'm having more and more trouble keeping track of them all.

  •  Well technically it was Christians that bore (0+ / 0-)

    the brunt, assuming most of the millions of Soviets that died in the war were Christian. Estimated at nearly 10,000,000 military dead... not including civilians.  Other than that, Buchanan is insane.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:04:45 PM PDT

  •  He's sort of right about Danzig, in the abstract. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sawgrass727, sullivanst, jtb583

    The Allies shouldn't have taken such an historically German city and given it to another country (witness that all the land around it remained German), even in service of the laudable goal of giving Poland a seaport.  A peaceable German government would have been within its rights to ask that Danzig be given back.

    For Hitler, of course, it was nothing more than a justification for what he really wanted to do, but in the abstract, I mean.

  •  He must have had Hitler sppech memorized (0+ / 0-)

    almost word for word Hitler used to justify his invasion of Poland at the time.... <sigh>

    •  hey wasn't there a bit of a story (0+ / 0-)

      about appeasement a little while ago?  I seem to remember something with Tweety - something about WHAT DID NEVIL CHAMBERLAIN DO?.

      Remind me, did Pat take sides on that?

      We have always known that heedless self interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. - FDR 1936

      by AndersOSU on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:21:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I worked with a man who believed just that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dougymi, Matt Z, sullivanst

    I had mentioned that my great uncles died in Normandy on D-Day in a conversation we had somehow gotten into, and suddenly the man unleashed the whole thing - very similar to the above. The war was all the liberals fault. I remember asking him if he though the concentration camps should have just been allowed and he laughed and said I was avoiding his "facts".

    This guy ran as a GOP candidate for congress in the Bay Area when I knew him and got about 7% in the primary, mostly from WW2 vets and their wives in nursing homes where he spent most of his campaign time.

    This was the same guy, by the way, that refused to eat vegetables because he hates "Mexican farmworkers". He will one day be a bad guy in one of my books.

    I was paid to post this comment by my cat, but he's a deadbeat.

    by decembersue on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:05:29 PM PDT

  •  Changed their tune, I guess. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kovie, Matt Z, sullivanst

    One of my most striking memories of childhood was when my blonde, blue-eyed classmate (we were in second-grade, I think) said Hitler wasn't so bad because he "only killed Jews." Even in second grade I saw the problem there, and it gave me major creeps. Friendship didn't really carry on much after that.

    Which is it? Lots of Christians or just Jews?

    And why on God's green earth does anyone feel a need to defend Hilter? We can argue some historical figures based on their time and place, but he was pretty much just evil.

    Maybe Pat will take up the cause that if only he'd been allowed to pursue his painting, the whole thing would have gone better. I mean, being denied your art can be upsetting.

    •  When/where was your childhood? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      If you'd rather not say, that's fine. I'm just curious how recent and nearby this was. Growing up Jewish in the US (albeit in heavily Jewish NYC, and going to Hebrew school until high school) in the 70's and early 80's, I rarely encounted such deeply culturally ingrained anti-Semitism, although I realized that it was out there.

      And, clearly, it's childhood when this takes hold, since kids instinctively believe what they're told and rarely think to question it. And by the time that they've developed some skeptical abilities and tendencies, it's usually about other things. Scratch your typical "Obama is Hitler" teabagger, and you'll likely find someone who grew up and lived with such idiocy their whole lives, and takes it as a given.

      Yet another reason for why we need to have and enforce reality-based national educational standards and gradually destroy this regional and sectarian bigotry.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." - Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:14:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was in a suburb of Pittsburgh. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kovie, Matt Z

        And this would have been the late '70s.

        While I had/have some relatives I'd consider anti-Semites and certainly some racists, I couldn't believe anyone would say anything that horrible out loud. Not even in second grade. I mean, it's at worst a soft racism where "I wouldn't vote for that sort" rather than "Oh, and it's great to kill them." Bad enough, but still a difference.

        My mom, though, would have smacked me if I'd said anything like that. She has her own prejudices (suppose we all do), but you don't defend Hitler or torture or genocide. I remember going home very upset. There are a few times in my life where my jaw dropped open, and this was distinctly one of them.

        •  I've heard similar things said (0+ / 0-)

          towards other groups, from people that I know. None are close friends, or friends at all, really, just relatives that I can't help but have, and friends of friends or relatives or other people that one can't help but meet in life. When I see a point, and think the other person isn't a bad or stupid person, just someone who sometimes says bad and stupid things without realizing it, I try to oppose such statements and knock some sense into them. When I don't see a point, because the other person is clearly a bad person and/or fool, I tend to say nothing, as experience has shown me that it's futile. Unless it's really egregious, in which I take my chances and speak my mind.

          I think that in most bigots' cases it's mostly due to a combination of stupidity, cultural isolation, laziness and pent-up frustrations, than true malice. But there are malicious types out there, of course. Both need to be opposed, and called out when necessary.

          Like Buchanan.

          "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." - Alexander Hamilton

          by kovie on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:59:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll echo... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            the comments of Magenta...
            You have to remember that the KKK had a strong presense in the more rural parts of Penn. and NY for a very long time.
            To this day, the racism that I hear in this area is astounding.
            That's why many of us call it "Pennsyltucky".

    •  It's kind of funny (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raboof

      I'm a fair-haired, blue-eyed WASP. My wife is Jewish as are many, if not most, of my close friends. Yet of all the people I know, I'm the only one who had a grandparent executed by the Nazis - my maternal grandfather was very Prussian and was disgusted by the Austrian Catholic and his Bayerischer rabble. He wanted the Kaiser back. Unfortunately, he was too outspoken about that and was found floating face-down in the Elbe one morning.

      Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

      by milkbone on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:10:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a circle jerk (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Seriously, the reason that establishment media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc., for all the good journalism and commentary that they sometimes do (and they do--e.g. Engel, Maddow, Olbermann, Logan, Amanpour), allow assholes like Buchanan to keep spewing his crap and Tweety to keep trashing the left, is because they see themselves as being part of one big exclusive club, a male-dominated, frat boyish, backslapping, self-referential, circle jerk of a club in which everyone has everyone else's back, and it's us vs. them, them being us, the public, the unwashed masses who need to shut up and listen and admire their unassailable greatness. When in reality, the club is set up to hide and protect the utter mediocrity (at best) that most of them are. They're only allowed to go on because they look good and can handle themselves well in front of a camera, and keep those clueless centrist types who fancy themselves political experts watching. It's a put up job from start to finish, for egos and ratings. Period.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." - Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:05:42 PM PDT

  •  'Did Nazis slaves build the 3rd Reich, Pat?' (0+ / 0-)

    !White Men Built This Country

    There is a historical thesis that the Iroquois Confederation was the inspirational source for the American Constitution, and at the very least were influential in shaping the political scientific thinking of 'founding father' Benjamin Franklin. Add to that the labor and ingenuity provided by the original black colonists, who also constructed the Capitol, and whose labor made Cotton the King in the south, and White Men recede a little further in the distance. Then, consider the contribution made by Hispanic,and Asian settlers and arrivistes and 'this country' begins to take shape. No one can deny that black folks gave America the form of music known as The Blues, and Jazz, which have gone one to create a great wealth of culture both in and out of America. I could go on and on, but library shelves full of books document the contributions that persons who are not white males have made to build this country.
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...

  •  just wait... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    decembersue, Matt Z

    beck and fox  news (especially o'reilly who has his own nazi apologist baggage, i.e. malmedy) will be calling buchanan a "liberal" who works for the "liberal" cablenet MSNBC and it'll be reinforced by the cnn/wapo media critic howard kurtz. kurtz will, of course, not come out and call buchanan a liberal, but he'll happily describe buchanan as a commentator on the "liberal" network, MSNBC.

    buchanan's stance will get spun as a liberal position,  just wait and see.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:07:04 PM PDT

  •  Racist Buchanan is tanking Chris Matthews show (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, OleHippieChick

    I won't watch Hardball any more - why?  Because I'm pretty appalled and repulsed by the overt racist by skinhead white supremacist Pat Buchanan.

    Sure, he's an old crotch but that does not give him license to actively ramp up his maniac sense of racism at every turn.

    Thanks to Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews is losing viewers and is tanking among progressives.

  •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MiscastDice

    and has a permanent cot in the MSNBC green room.

    It's in the MSNBC men's room.

    Hit the Easy Button:
    Medicare for All Americans!

    by OleHippieChick on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:07:56 PM PDT

  •  I think to really understand ALL of the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sullivanst

    groups involved in WWII, specifically Germany, you need to go way back, and broaden your study quite a bit. It's obvious this phony historian has not done so. Apparently the word Lebensraumdid not register with Buttcannon at any time during his research. Did he not read from the Eastern Front notes about how all of the Slavs should be taught enough German just to read road signs? Has he not looked at the huge oil deposits and facilities in the Caucus? Or the massive agricultural possiblities of the Ukraine and the Steppe?

    And claiming Germany was the "most powerful nation in Europe" in 1940 is simply stretching it. The allies had more and better equipment, but simply employed them stupidly.

    This does not even qualify as revisionist history, because most historians are inclusive and expansive, not exclusive and myopic of established documents.

    Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation. George Carlin

    by gereiztkind on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:08:48 PM PDT

  •  He was also against the Iraq War. (0+ / 0-)

    He was also against the Iraq War.

    Just sayin'.

    •  Broken clock theory (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      His opposition to the Iraq war stems from a combination of a hatred of Israel and an old-school isolationism probably arising at least partly from white supremecism.

      In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

      by sullivanst on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:22:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  buchanan.org/blog is down... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, larkspurlane

    Did anybody grab a screen shot????

    •  Blog down? Pat should be out of a job, too (0+ / 0-)

      It's time for Buchanan to go.  Let's face it:  He's old, tired, bigoted and doesn't have enough sense to come in out of the rain.  

      Buchanan's "america" is something out of the 1940's and this Hitler rant has "outed" him as a "nazi sympathizer".

      Pat Buchanan is the scum of the earth.

    •  The only thing to understand is "racism" (0+ / 0-)

      Pure and simple.  Dirty old white men are losing ground and their egos which are connected by viagra to their penis' are becoming diminished.

      There's no other reason for this rampant racism and hate speech.

      Buchanan's been impotent (in all ways) for a very long time.

  •  Spainish Civil War (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bellatrys, John Gannon, Matt Z, sullivanst

    Yeah well what about Hitler giving millions of dollars and hundreds of aircraft to Francisco Franco to overthrow the Demoractically elected government of Spain? That was all the way back in 1936 and it was a civil war that killed over 1 million people!

  •  I am sick of this unamerican bigot named Buchanan (0+ / 0-)

    It's time to let MSNBC know that despite the fact that they have some stellar shows on their staion like the "truth triumverate:  Ed, Olberman & Maddow", it's time to give Racist Pat Buchanan the heave or lose progressive viewers.

    Let's begin a petition to MSNBC (NBC, the parent company) to remove Pat Buchanan from their network.  

  •  "That might be too crazy for even Glenn Beck." (0+ / 0-)

    Yeah, might be, but you can bet that Glenn would look at Kos' headline and think that PB is sorry for Hitler.  

  •  1935 was the time to stop Hitler (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Gannon, Matt Z, gooners, sullivanst

    when the Germans re-occupied the Rhineland.  They had a ragtag army, and France had armoured divisions on the border.  All France had to do was send them in, and it would have caused a coup in Berlin.  Munich, in 1938, was too late.  People had fresh memories of the horrendous carnage of World War I, and the British government would do almost anything to keep the peace.  Hence the slogan, "Peace in our time".

    •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, gooners, RockyLabor

      The French Army outnumbered the Germans almost 20 to 1.  The Germans had so few troops actually when they marched over the Rhine, they quietly left overnight, and did it all over again for the next couple of days to make it look like there were more of them.

      Back in Paris, the French leadership had its head up its ass worried that if they did anything Paris might be bombed.

      Only one somewhat lowly Lieutenant named Charles DeGaulle pleaded for his superiors to take action.

      No one listened.

      ======

      "Sick Around the World"

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

      Watch it, sent it along to all you know.

      by oxfdblue on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:15:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There was also a somewhat understanable (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, dansmith17, oxfdblue, RockyLabor

        view that maybe the treaty clause wasn't worth enforcing - I mean, it's hard to get that enthusiastic over going to war because a country put their own troops in their own territory.

        Of course, in hindsight we know it would have been worth it because it was about testing the Allies' resolve. It may even have been possible to foresee that at the time, but I'm not sure anyone did.

        In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

        by sullivanst on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:29:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Buchanan is correct in stating that (6+ / 0-)

    Hitler would have liked to avoid a destructive war. If only all of the countries in Europe as well as the Soviet Union had peacefully surrendered and accepted total Nazi domination, there would have been no need for hostilities. Then they could have voluntarily deported all of their Jews, Romani, gays, socialists, etc. to Nazi concentration and death camps. The slavic peoples could have also willingly accepted their future as slave laborers for the Third Reich. Yes, yes, the ugliness of WWII could have been completely avoided if only everyone had cooperated with Hitler's "peace" plan. Why didn't I see this before? Hitler was pretty much like Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr. rolled into one. Now will Buchanan right a column condemning America's Greatest Generation for their war of oppression against Hitler, man of peace?

    •  oops, "write a column" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, DynamicUno
    •  sounds like Buchanan doesn't just wish... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treg, Matt Z, DynamicUno

      they had cooperated, but that they had collaborated. I get the sense that he mourns the Anglo-German global dominance that could have come out of it if only.

      Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

      by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:14:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent point. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, gooners, DynamicUno

        There was significant sympathy for the Nazi government among the British ruling class. Hitler would have welcomed an alliance with Great Britain. Of course, he would have turned on them eventually as he did with the Soviet Union.  

        •  And the American ruling class... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treg

          you can see the appeal of that world to some one like Buchanan.

          Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

          by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:26:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There was a lot of sympathy here, too. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treg, Matt Z

          German-Americans are a large component of the fabled American melting pot, as are Irish-Americans (no friend of the English at that time). American heroes like Lindburgh were avowed fascists. It could easily have tilted the other way.

          I'm not certain Hitler would have turned on England. I feel his objective was always to get at the Russians; splitting Poland between them brought Russian forces out of their native land and gave Hitler an excuse to build up massive force dispersals directly on the new Russian border inside Poland. Without Allied intervention, the Russians and Germans may have simply fought their own great war.

          It saddens me to say it, but once hypothetical Hitler triumphed over Russia, even finding out about the Jewish slaughter may not have mobilized the world to step in after the fact (think Darfur).

          On the other hand, Japan would still have attacked the US (our oil embargo essentially ensured it) and who knows if a Russo-German war would have prevented Hitler from honouring his Axis obligations and declaring war on the US. A worried Englad and France may have jumped on the opportunity to declare war on the entire Axis alliance regardless after seeing Germany bent on wiping Russia, or they may have let it slide with the thought that Russia and Germany might wipe each other out.

          All of the above is COMPLETE and aimless speculation, mind you. :)

          •  Take speculation further... (0+ / 0-)

            Japan in our time faced oil embargo as it had occupied French Indo china as France could not stop it as was just finished losing war to Germany.

            If UK, France and Netherlands are not occupied by war in Europe Japan is going to be a lot less likly to look south beyond it's war with Japan, much more likly to strike North and take Siberian Oil from a weakened Soviet Union.

            The issue that amuses me is the hypocrisy of so many of the posters, if Chamberlain was weak in 38 and should have fought then for Prague, and was of course right in 39 and obviously had to fight then for Warsaw. Where is the condemnation for FDR for not being willing to intervene in either case?

        •  In fairness, remember that hindsight is always... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Treg, Matt Z

          20-20.

          There were a lot of Americans who thought Hitler had "saved" Germany. When he first came to power, Germany had been laid waste, especially economically, by WWII and the reparations it had paid. Hitler, like so many tyrants before him, got the economy going, raised the Germans spirits by telling them that they hadn't lost the war, they'd been stabbed in the back (damn Jews!) and that Germany was the most cultured, civilized country in the world. Sounded good to a lot of people, even those here and in England....to start.  

          One really, really ironic story about his being made Chancellor?  The German industrialists basically struck a deal with President Hindenburg, who didn't like Hitler, to get him that job. They thought once they got him in to power, they could "control" this weird little corporal and get everything they wanted in the way of cooperation from the government.

          Hitler was more than happy to go along. He knew  freedom wasn't a priority with these people and as long as he gave them free rein, they'd support him....until suddenly, he had all the power and they were literally working for him.  

    •  Yes if only the Europeans had compromised! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PoliMorf, Treg

      (Republican definition of compromise)

      In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

      by sullivanst on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:30:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, why would England not trust Hitler? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Treg

      He'd said he'd "only" annex Austria to protect ethnic Germans there and had no more wish for further territorial expansion.

      Then he just "had" to go into Czeckoslovakia's Sudetenland to "free" the Germans there. But he really, really wouldn't grab any more territory, honest.

      Poland? England had the truly bad manners to not believe the Chancellor of Germany's guarantee that this really, really was the very last time......

      But Pat Buchanan thinks England should have looked away while Hitler grabbed Danzig...and Poland....and the rest of Europe....

      Increbile.

  •  Leave Pat Alone! His family suffered too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, nomorerepukes

    Come on, give Pat a break.  Some of his relatives also died at a concentration camp!

    Yes, they fell from the Guard Towers.

    ======

    "Sick Around the World"

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

    Watch it, sent it along to all you know.

    by oxfdblue on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:12:16 PM PDT

  •  Hitler and Buchanan in the bunker: (6+ / 0-)

    HITLER: It's over, Pat. We've lost.

    BUCHANAN: Don't look so down, Dolph! Look, no matter what, you killed six million Jews! No one can take that away from you!

    HITLER: Yeah, I guess you're right...

    BUCHANAN: And you killed a shitload of Polacks, too!

    HITLER: I did, didn't I?

    BUCHANAN: And the Russkies?

    HITLER: That's another 23 million...

    BUCHANAN: You bet!

    HITLER: So maybe it wasn't all for naught.

    BUCHANAN: Of course, had you listened to me on military strategy...

    HITLER: What?

    BUCHANAN: You know, the whole "invading Poland" thing could have been handled better.

    HITLER: Are you criticizing the Fuhrer?

    BUCHANAN: Well, no, I'm just saying--

    [CRACK! of PISTOL SHOT, THUD! of BODY]

    HITLER: Get this dummkopf out of my site! Where's Eva? Eva! Come here! Am I the smartest man you've ever met? Eva! Eva!

  •  That scheme to dress prisoners (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    occams hatchet, Matt Z

    up in German and Polish uniforms, then shoot them and leave them near the Polish border, that was absolutely conclusive proof of how much Hitler didn't want a war with Poland. Uhhuh, it was all about Danzig. Entirely, completely, didn't want a war. Yeah. Right.

    What the fuck does he have to do to get fired? Hmm?

    In America, 60% of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, and 80% of those people had health insurance

    by sullivanst on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:12:32 PM PDT

  •  I'm tired of the WW2 revisionist history (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bellatrys

    And what's with not covering the alliance of the Germans and the vampires?

    If it wasn't for the British werewolf commandos, we would have been screwed.

  •  Buchanon=Racist (0+ / 0-)

    This guy needs to retire or move to another country. His views are full of hate. Boycott him now!

  •  He's avuncular, is all (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bellatrys, Matt Z

    He has a fine old gravelly voice and a first-rate set of crinkles around his eyes and a fine domed brow that looks like it has brains in it. That is all that is necessary to make a tremendously good showing in life. With such attributes you can be wrong about everything and spout the most tremendously contemptible repulsive garbage 24/7, and you will still be admired and quoted.

  •  Let's just get this moron off the air! (0+ / 0-)

    How Tweety tolerates him is beyond me.  I've given up watching Hardball now for months since Pat is a regular.  I've banned it from my household as well.

  •  Does this mean it's OK (0+ / 0-)

    to resume my passionate love affair with Neville Chamberlain?

    "Just relax and let the hooks do their work." -- Ned Flanders

    by Pangloss on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:15:07 PM PDT

  •  Imagine the worldview of Buchanan....yuk! (0+ / 0-)

    Can you just imagine some of the more enlightened world powers when they see this old senile idiot rant on and on in a hate-filled diatribe against race?  I'm appalled to be in the same american 'tribe' as this man.

  •  Don't be stupid ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikeatuva, Matt Z, Darmok

    Be a smartie. Come and join Buchanan's party.

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:15:18 PM PDT

  •  I am always amazed at that screaming maniac (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rbird, sherijr

    Pat Buchanan.  He appears with Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and he used to  appear with Rachel Maddow as her "uncle," which I found very strange.  He is always shrill.  His voice becomes higher as he spews (an overused term, but in this case it is exactly correct) extreme right wing and racist viewpoints on everything from affirmative action to the president, to the Supreme Court, to Teddy Kennedy and universal healthcare in the US.  He is an extreme right winger,  a Roman Catholic conservative like Robert Novak (which means a distortion of the gospel of Jesus Christ - not the gospel of throwing the money changers out of the temple, but a rejection of a compassionate church that helps the poor and advocates for charity and kindness over greed and abundance for the chosen few).  He is a bizarre and 19th century oriented person who has no clue about younger Americans and the rest of the world.  Why oh why oh why is he everywhere on MSNBC?  It has always puzzled me as to why he is a 24/7 constant personality on MSNBC.  I cannot imagine how he is even understood by anyone under 50 yrs old.  God, I am older and I do not understand his outlook on life and politics in the US.  As far as I am concerned, he could disappear tonight and that would make MSNBC a much better place.

    •  Frankly, I've wondered who he must (0+ / 0-)

      be related to.. that he not only got a job with MSNBC.. but keeps the job and is obviously one of the 'loved' on the network.  Either or that or he certainly is representing the views of somebody high up at MSNBC.  Because with his views, which have been long long known.. he should have been unemployable in the field of an honest media.

      Because our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation.. Barack Obama, 5-25-08

      by sherijr on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:20:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  See I'm getting our racists confused.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, second alto

    Pat loves him some Hitler.. Beck, Rush, Crazy Bachmann Overdrive, etal.. hates Hitler because "Obama is Hitler"..

    Can they not get their hates/loves sorted out please and stop trying to confuse us.  

    silly racists...they're just sooo complicated. Not.

    Because our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation.. Barack Obama, 5-25-08

    by sherijr on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:16:29 PM PDT

  •  Ummm (0+ / 0-)

    Mein Kampf, anyone.

    Perhaps Pat thinks that Hitler's blueprint for the future was ghost-written (as are many political bios today) (nb. to many of my English teachers:  I used "as" rather than "like", even though I never heard or saw the ad you insisted was diminishing our language).

    Surely der Führer understood the consequences of his actions.

    Isn't that understanding the basis of conservatism.

    Ooooooh....now I get it.

    i luv the sound of silence

    by rvdee on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:17:00 PM PDT

  •  Ads by Google make me giggle (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, DynamicUno, sherijr

    I don't know if it is just me, but the ads by google - Stop ObamaCare, Attend the National Tea Party- are making laugh my ass off.

  •  Adolf Elizabeth Hitler? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newjeffct, mikeatuva, Matt Z, sherijr

    Maybe he was Pat Buchanan's illegitimate father.

  •  Pat Buchanan's next topic ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bellatrys, Matt Z, sherijr

    "You know, Beelzebub gets a bad rap ... "

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:18:02 PM PDT

  •  "It was better in the orginal German." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, dansmith17

    Oh Molly, how we miss you.

    Herr Buchanen, er ist ein großer Scheiße-Kopf.

    F the right wing whiners. I don't care about them any more they can all F themselves for all I care.

    by UndercoverRxer on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:18:25 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps he failed History (0+ / 0-)

    A refresher course beginning with Shirer's classic Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is perhaps in order - it would certainly expose those ridiculous lies about Hitler not wanting war in Poland.

  •  Keith & Rachel can & should force him out (0+ / 0-)

    They should, simply, refuse to work with a bigot.

    Who's MSNBC going to choose?

    A liberal is a conservative who's been hugged.

    by raatz on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:19:11 PM PDT

  •  Leave it to Buchanon to rationalize Hitler. (0+ / 0-)

    You can read the entire column (as I just did) and never guess that Buchanon knows that Hitler's Germany invaded Poland over that little dispute over a city "about the size of Ocean City, Maryland, in the summer."

    By the same logic, I can only assume Buchanon supports Russia's recent invasion of Georgia.  There are Russians in South Ossetia, after all, and Georgia, like Poland, won't give them back to the big military power on its border. Pat must've applauded Russia's bold action. Right? Oh, wait. He actually did.

    Pat Buchanon. Apologist for bullies everywhere.

    Of course, Buchanon's true purpose is more than mere romanticization of bullies and genocidal maniacs.  His real agenda peeks out when he says that 1940, when Hitler "wanted to end the war" was "almost two years before the trains started rolling to the camps," by which he apparently means the trains to the Holocaust death camps.  In Buchanon's tiny mind, poor misunderstood Hitler never would have let the death trains roll if only evil Britain hadn't gone to war over a city "the size of Ocean City Maryland, in the summer."

    Yes, if not for Britain's war, there can be no doubt that in 1940 Hitler would have been satisfied with his work so far: merely stealing the Jews' property, depriving them of their rights, segregating them into ghettos, and setting his Brownshirts on them to beat, torture, rape and murder with impunity. But no death trains! Those were Britain's fault.

    I'm asking you to believe not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours. -- Barack Obama

    by Simian on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:20:02 PM PDT

  •  It's Springtime for Hitler ... and Germany! (0+ / 0-)

    ... Winter for Poland and France ...

    Maybe Pat was the one who wrote that?

  •  Refresh My Mind... (0+ / 0-)

    MSNBC FIRED Imus because of what... but the let a HITLER LOVING BUCHANAN stay on board?

    Poland wanted nothing to do with Hitler!  No country did.  HITLER was the one who invaded Poland.

    And Buchanan - HE DIDN'T STOP THERE!!!

    Scarbourgh had better start introducing Buchanan with a HIEL PAT.  

    I'm sure Mica's father would "enjoy" that intro with Hitler Loving Buchanan on the set!!!

    To The White House, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: "Lead, Follow, or Get Out of The Way."

    by hopalong on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:20:42 PM PDT

  •  I read his book (0+ / 0-)
    just to see how dumb he could be. Now I don't claim to have his apparent knowledge of the minutiae of European diplomacy between 1920 and 1935, but there is no doubt that Poland refusing to discuss Danzig with Hitler is a reason for war--in the mind of any sane person.

    Here again if you watch what someone does, not what he/she says, you get a better understanding of his/her character, e.g. Bush is pro-life but executed lots of people, some of whom were undoubtedly innocent.

    And how likely was it that all those old Jewish voters picked Pat in Florida in 2000?

    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters -- Goya

    by ceratotherium on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:22:03 PM PDT

    •  Hitler hated the Slavic people (0+ / 0-)

      and planned to build a greater Germany by marching East and taking Poland and the rest.  He wanted to get even for WWI and the Treaty of Versailles and was also nuts.  It wasn't only Danzig that he wanted.  Obviously, after he so easily and quickly broke his word on the Sudetenland and took all of Czechoslovakia, the British and everyone else had proof that he could not be trusted at all and that he had big ambitions.  They also knew about his army, so they had to draw the line at Poland, an eastern European people who had strong ties with the West, especially with France.  They also gave promises to protect Rumania, Greece, and Turkey, all of which are strategically located.  

      •  The Polish people paid... (0+ / 0-)

        ...more heavily than any other European nation. If you look at the totals of dead, these poor people really took the brunt of Hitler's hate.

      •  Franco-Polish Relations Rocky in the 1930s (0+ / 0-)

        Diplomatic ties between the French and Poles were pretty strained during the 1930s.  The French actually had a treaty with Czechoslovakia which they abandoned under British urging during the Sudetenland Crisis in 1938.  Only British twinking to Hitler's real agenda when he unilaterally abrogated the 1938 agreement prompted the British to offer an unconditional guarantee to the Poles.  If war came in 1939, however, it was the French who were going to have to cash that British check in French blood at a much higher price than they would have had to pay in defending the Czechs in 1938 and the French had minimal interest in doing that.  The French grand strategy called for a long war of attrition, with no offensive really possible for perhaps three to four years after the start of a new war.

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:27:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Oh nonsense! (0+ / 0-)

      Hitler wanted war. Not just with Poland, he wanted to conquer and colonize all the countries dominated by Slavish people, turn them into a slave race (minus the Jews and the educated elite, who'd be exterminated), and plunder their resources. That was a key part of Nazi ideology. And they never made a secret about that either. Sheesh!

      An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

      by brainwave on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:51:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't that what I said? (0+ / 0-)

        He wanted to take all of Poland AND THE REST.  He wanted to build a Greater Germany at the expense of the Slavic people whom he hated.  He also wanted to get even for WWI, the Treaty of Versailles, and everything else.  His actions were an extreme reaction to the loss of WWI.  It was easy to blame everyone else for Germany's problems, because the Versailles Treaty was in fact a poor treaty and the good parts, such as no rearmament for Germany, were never enforced.

  •  And we have to listen to his opinions why? (0+ / 0-)

    Must be nice to make up your own version of history.  I didn't have that option growing up as the granddaughter of four Holocaust survivor grandparents.  No matter how great their postwar lives were, they always grieved for their family members who were murdered by the Nazis.  Buchanan should go back and read the actual historical record, but that wouldn't fit his own anti-semitic and racist self interests.  It is so obvious that he looks up to Hitler's ideas of a pure race and would probably prefer a more dictatorial type of government.  MSNBC needs to wake up to the fact that this isn't the voice of reasonable opposition.  

  •  Didn't China & Russia lose (by far) the most (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooners

    people? I doubt most of the Chinese that perished were Christian? I'm sure there were some Christians in Russia, but the country was officially atheist since the Communists took over, no?

    So, 50 million died, but tens of millions likely were not Christian or Jewish.

    Sorry Pat.

    "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

    by newjeffct on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:25:51 PM PDT

    •  he's not talking about Chinese... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newjeffct

      he's only talking about the white people. Read the article, it is absolute in its Euro-centrism.

      Ho, their flower power is no match for my glower power!

      by gooners on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:27:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooners

        but, 50-70 million people lost during WW2 is the amount the entire world lost - not just Europe.

        World War II casualty statistics vary greatly. Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million.[36] The sources cited on this page document an estimated death toll in World War II of 62 to 78 million, making it the deadliest war ever

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        "I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

        by newjeffct on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:31:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There is an economic argument about this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DynamicUno

    I forget the exact details, but Hitler's assertiveness on the world stage were preceded by downturns in the German economy. I think Hitler was a tool of the German right, myself, but the German right used the defense spending to make the massive turnaround. The problem was instead of trucks and toasters they made tanks. If there was no more demand for tanks, the economy would tank again. (Pun intended.)1938/1938 the German economy was collapsing again or was at the precipice of collapse because demand for new tanks was all used up. Germany went to war to restart demand for tanks.

    This line of reasoning is used to explain Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

    Other than that, can we send Pat Buchanan's address to Mossad or something? Thats probably inappropriate.

    •  Versailles Treaty was a failure. (0+ / 0-)

      First, it wasn't really a good or fair treaty, and then, the West never bothered to enforce it and stop Germany from rearming.  Then the Great Depression hit and the German economy was destroyed.  Hitler wanted to get even for Versailles, and blamed all of Germany's problems on its "enemies."  They had agreed to an armistice to stop the fighting in WWI because they thought they had been promised lenient treatment if they agreed to do this.  Instead, they were severely punished and forced to pay reparations to everyone for a war that they were all responsible for starting and that Germany was forced to admit causing.  Of course, that doesn't excuse the insanity, inhumanity, nationalism, and lunacy of Hitler, nor does it excuse the German people for allowing it to happen.  WWI was a tragic and probably most stupid war ever started.   It set the stage for what followed, so after WWII, the West studied what had gone before and instead of continuing to punish Germany and Japan, they decided instead to rebuild them and remake them into allies.  It worked.

  •  Hitler was better looking than Churchill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, dhshoops, DynamicUno

    He told funnier jokes.
    He was a better painter (he could do an entire apartment in one afternoon---TWO COATS!!!)

    and most of all

    HE COULD DANCE THE PANTS OFF A CHURCHILL!!!!

    Churchill.... with his cigars and his ROTTEN painting, ROTTEN!

    He couldn't even say "Nazis"!  He said "Nahh-zeees".  Vee vasn't "Nahh-zees", ve vass "NAZIS"!!!!!!

    Dulce bellum inexpertis [War is sweet only to those who have no experience of it].

    by Fatherflot on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:32:14 PM PDT

  •  It's time (0+ / 0-)

    for Pat to head for the 'Old Talking Head's Rest Home'.

    I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member--Groucho Marx.

    by DaveS002 on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:40:40 PM PDT

  •  Holy crap, he's finally lost his marbles! (0+ / 0-)

    Now the question is will his career outlive the last vestiges of his reasoning powers? That will be the test for MSNBC!

    An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

    by brainwave on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

  •  Disappointed with lack of analysis Kos (0+ / 0-)

    I think that Buchanan doesn't ignore the deaths of the Jews simply because he said "50 million dead Jews and Christians."

    Are the deaths of young soldiers swept into a jingoistic frenzy worth less than the lives of a people swept into tyranny? After all, conscription is also involuntary. Or what about all the people bombed in Britain and Germany?

    I am not saying WWII wasn't justified. But to say that grouping all of the human cost means you are ignoring the Holocaust is just rhetorical posturing.

    I also thought that Buchanan does make a good point about British intent and Danzig. The West has historically acted quite hypocritically. I still think Hitler would have continued his land-grabs though. And he would have still stepped up his anti-semitic rhetoric and tyranny.

    Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral laws are written on the table of eternity. -Lord Acton

    by Imperial on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:45:50 PM PDT

    •  You're the one who's not analytical enough (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      verso2, Darmok

      The only rhetorical point of the "Christians and Jews" line was to dilute the Jewish component.  Obviously if Buchanan had no such agenda he would have said "50 million people" and we could have an interesting discussion about appeasement vs. war.  But Buchanan pushes every button in defense of a particular agenda, which is, amazingly, the rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler.

      Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

      by Rich in PA on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:55:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

        But I still don't think that it was an intentional "dilution". It seems to me that for Buchanan tying religion into anything would be the ultimate moral argument, especially considering his social conservative trend.

        Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral laws are written on the table of eternity. -Lord Acton

        by Imperial on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:22:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You. Do. Not. Know. What. You're. Talking. About. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      verso2, Darmok

      The Nazis had been planning for the conquest and colonization of Eastern Europe since long before they seized power in Germany. The Danzig issue was nothing but a propaganda fig leaf. If it wasn't Danzig they'd have found another reason to invade - the plans for the invasion had been drawn up years before the start of the war. It's sad that even now 70 years later people still fall for Nazi propaganda memes, even here on a progressive board.

      An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

      by brainwave on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:58:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You misunderstand (0+ / 0-)

        I said what you said that the Nazis woulda done a land grab anyway. I don't know why you are picking only what you want you want to knock down.

        But it was a good point that Danzig was mostly German and ripped away by the Treaty of Versailles. It should be apparent by now that the Treaty of Versailles was the root or a catalyst of many problems that have surfaced in the modern world (IE, WWII and beyond) depending on the siuation.

        It is a shame that people don't critically analyze the people who critique them, instead allowing themselves the satisfaction of an echo-chamber. Even here on a progressive board.

        Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral laws are written on the table of eternity. -Lord Acton

        by Imperial on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:18:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Buchanan sits around watching Nazi newsreels (0+ / 0-)

    on the History channel.
    Wow..the Furher is really cool!

    Buchanan's got an authoritarian personality--basically he worships displays of power.

    Here ya go, Pat!
    Triumph des Willen
    http://www.youtube.com/...

  •  Providing cover for white supremacist (0+ / 0-)

    PB has consistently argued that the United States is a white, Christian nation and that everyone else are unwanted leaches who suck the virtuous blood out of the nation. As many will recall, he stunned Rachel Maddow with his unreconstructed erasure of all contributions to the nation made by people of color.

    The election of Barack Obama has sadly energized the white supremacist sect of the US body politic. The may be a declining movement but they still have a critical mass. Buchanan is trying to help this reactionary movement along with this latest pro-Hitler screed.

    What PB and his racist minions don't seem to grasp (fortunately) is that they are most effective when staying under the national radar. So, let him defend Hitler. What will the whacked right wing do with all those Obama as Hitler signs though?  I am not sure Obama as Felicjan Sławoj Składkowski (the Polish Prime Minister in 1939) will mobilize the hate brigade.

  •  Pat " Herman Goebbels" Buchanan (0+ / 0-)

    F*cking Jew hating racist Buchanan. Does anyone know why we're still being subjected to this smirking Neo-Nazis prick?

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 01:53:16 PM PDT

  •  That's hardly fair. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure Beck will be sufficiently crazy in time!

  •  Hitler didn't want war with the U.K. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sean oliver

    He was in fact dismayed when Britain declared war.  There is a first-hand account from the German translator who delivered Britain's ultimatum to Hitler personally, and that the Fuhrer's reaction was one that made it clear he was unhappy with the development.  Apparently Von Ribbentrop had been utterly convinced that Britain would not honor its alliance with Poland because they were just too afraid of going to war.  Hitler's reaction to the news was to was to give an accusing stare to Von Ribbentrop and ask him, in essence, "Well, now what do we do?"

    If true, of course this was horrendously stupid naivete on Hitler's part.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:01:30 PM PDT

    •  And your point? (0+ / 0-)

      Hitler didn't want war with Britain because the Brits were so co-mingled with the Germans that it bothered Hitler's sense of racial solidarity.
      That, and he knew that war with the Brits would eventually drag the Americans into the fight.
      The problem with Hitler is that he did not remain mentally constant. His growing insanity really made him difficult to understand month-to-month and year-to-year.

      •  There is a misconception that Hitler's goal (0+ / 0-)

        was to militarily conquer the world, which simply is not borne out by the facts.  He wasn't quite so insane as to think that possible.  What he wanted was a German-controlled Europe, and in that sense war with the U.K. wasn't productive to his aims.  You're right that he saw the English as racial brothers to the Germans and believed--rather naively--that the U.K. would accept a co-existence with a German-run Europe rather than risk another huge war.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:56:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hitler didn't "want" war with UK but he did (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boris Godunov

          "want" to invade Poland!

          More accurately, Hitler did not think the Allies would actually declare war on him over his invasion of Poland. Hitler thought they were bluffing.
          When the Allied did declare war, Hitler was quite surprised, and didn't know what to do about it. Hitler's strategic myopia continually got him in trouble.

          Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

          by sean oliver on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:43:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that Hitler didn't "want" war, (0+ / 0-)

        it's that he didn't think Britain and France would declare war on him because of his invasion of Poland. But they DID declare war on him, which he did not expect. That is not the same thing as saying "Hitler didn't want war".

        Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

        by sean oliver on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:57:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Total idiotic nonsense (0+ / 0-)

      Hitler admired the British Empire as a symbol of Aryan superiority, but thought it's government (all of whom were aryans) was controlled by 'Jews'.
      And he warned those 'Jews' that if there was a war he'd kill all the 'Jews' in Europe.

      People forget how popular Hitler was with the upper classes like the Duke of Windsor, Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford.  They wanted Hitler to beat just Russia, but Hitler outfoxed them by signing a pact with Stalin a month before and thus avoid a two front war.

      Hitler may have been crazy but he wasn't stupid.

      If you believe Hitler's feigned dismay, you must be an idiot.

      •  I'm not sure why your tone is as it is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sean oliver

        But your post here is utter nonsense.  First, Hitler had no reason to feign anything, as he was in a room with his top Nazi officers.  Why bother faking it just for the benefit of a lowly translator?

        Besides, Hitler had said many, many times that he did not want war with Britain and even viewed the British as racial brothers.

        Hitler would have to be stupid to think that Germany could successfully wage war against Britain and France while simultaneously conducting the war he fully intended to wage in the east.  In fact, it was only the incomprehensible delay through the first year of action on the part of the Allies that allowed Germany to successfully invade France and push the British forces off the continent.  Had Britain and France mobilized immediately in Sept. 1939 and dispatched forces to invade Germany from the west, the war would have been over by 1941, probably.  

        Hitler knew full well that war with Britain was an unwelcome turn, and there's no reason to think he'd want it, if indeed he wasn't stupid.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:49:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actions speak louder than Hitler's (0+ / 0-)

          facial gestures. Why you are trusting a psychopath or his adorning groupies?

          You say Hitler didn't want a war with the UK and France but he secured his back with Stalin, who was the Enemy. Also after the attack the British and French gave a 48 hours ultimatum  for Hitler to withdraw from Poland or there would be war--so why didn't Hitler withdraw if it was all a terrible mistake?

          Pat..er Boris, you need to do some research.

          Hitler was always claiming self-defense (in Romania for example).

          •  You seem to be under the mistaken impression (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sean oliver, Darmok

            for some odd reason that I am agreeing with Buchanan or sympathizing with Hitler.  Nothing I've said, however, support that idea.

            I've only said something that I think is true based on first-hand accounts and by Hitler's own stated goals (a reading of Mein Kampf shows he did not have a belligerent view towards Britain as well).  And that is that Hitler gravely miscalculated that the British would not declare war when he invaded Poland, largely because of the pact with the USSR.  He reasoned that without the guarantee of a Russian front, the U.K. would be unwilling to commit to a large-scale war.  Of course, he also had Chamerlain's previous weakness at Munich to bolster this notion.

            That I believe he so grievously miscalculated is not in any way saying he is not wholly responsible for the consequences of said miscalculation.  He illegally invaded Poland without a casus belli, and the he is entirely to blame for the resulting global conflict.  Does that help your comprehension?

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:06:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And why he didn't withdraw is obvious (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sean oliver

              He had staked his rise to power on the restoration of German pride and prestige, particularly as regarding her military power.  His popularity largely rested on this notion.  To launch such a large scale invasion, and then turn tail and run like a whipped dog at ultimatums from France and the U.K., would no doubt have been seen by him as a disastrous display of weakness.  He had let out the Nationalist genie from his bottle, and it wasn't something he was going to be able to put back.  

              Also, if he did so, there would be little doubt that the Soviets would take advantage of the evident weakness and move over all of Poland themselves.

              That was part of the gamble with the invasion--Hitler knew that he was tossing the dice and hoping that, just as with Czechoslovakia, he'd get away with it while the Allies cowered.  He was quite wrong.

              I finally put in a signature!

              by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:10:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The flaw in your illogic. (0+ / 0-)

              The British didn't know of his SECRET treaty with Stalin so Hitler would have no reason to think that the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty was a deterent to UK entering the war.

              By the way here's a reminder of how a psychopath 'negotiates'.

              In the evening of 14 March, Hitler invited Czech President Hácha to the Reich Chancellery in Berlin. Hitler deliberately kept him waiting for hours, an ordeal he referred to as "Háchaizing". Finally, at 1:30am on 15 March 1939, Hitler saw the President. He told Hácha that as they were speaking, the German army was about to invade Czechoslovakia. All of Czechoslovakia's defences; barbed wire and pillboxes, were now under German control following the Munich Agreement in September of the previous year. The country was virtually surrounded by Germany on three fronts. Hitler now gave the President two options: to cooperate with Germany, in which case the "entry of German troops would take place in a tolerable manner" and "permit Czechoslovakia a generous life of her own, autonomy and a degree of national freedom..." or face a scenario in which "...resistance would be broken by force of arms, using all means". By four o'clock, and after suffering a heart attack induced by Göring's threat to bomb the capital, Hácha contacted Prague, effectively "signing Czechoslovakia away" to Germany.[2] French Ambassador Robert Coulondre reported that by half past four, Hácha was "in a state of total collapse, and kept going only by means of injections".[3]

              •  This is absurdly wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sean oliver

                The British CERTAINLY knew about the pact with the USSR!  It was announced with great fanfare, when talks with Britain and France collapsed, that Von Ribbentrop was going to Moscow to meet with Molotov.

                What was secret was the agreement to partition Poland.  But the 10-year Non-aggression treaty was entirely public.  It was certainly in all the papers.

                Any more history you care to get very, very wrong?

                I finally put in a signature!

                by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:33:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So your point is that the UK should have (0+ / 0-)

                  surrendered Poland when the 'non-aggression pact'(not a defensive alliance) was announced even though the Poles wanted to fight Germany (alone) in the East creating an eastern front in theory. Also the Baltics states Latvia and Lithuania were contiguous to Poland.

                  Wouldn't it have been more effective pressure to announce the joint action as Germany and Russia had Poland completely surrounded.  

                  Besides the Treaty was announced on Aug 24th just a week before the actual invasion. That's not enough time to unilaterally change a whole joint French-British policy. If Hitler wanted to win thru diplomacy he would have waited.

                  What you are saying is just stupid Nazi apologetics, Pat.

                  •  Ok you're just not getting this. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sean oliver

                    So your point is that the UK should have
                    surrendered Poland when the 'non-aggression pact'(not a defensive alliance) was announced

                    Where did I ever say any such thing?  Or even implied it?  I've not said one thing about the U.K. being wrong to declare war!  Why are you inventing arguments in your head that I'm not making?

                    And where am I apologizing for anything the Nazis did?

                    You don't seem to be reading what I actually write, but rather just responding to some argument someone else has made (i.e. Pat Buchanan).

                    The only thing I've said is the fact, based on accounts and documentation, that Hitler very badly misjudged his invasion of Poland, thinking Britain and France would not have the balls to declare war. He was decidedly (and fortunately) wrong.

                    As for your assertion that the week's time frame wouldn't be enough to "change" French-British policy--that doesn't even make sense.  It would only take a few minutes for French and British leaders to realize the effect of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression pact, and therefore they could have easily decided, had they really not had the nerve, to hold off on a declaration of war.  They had been to the brink in 1938, after all, and stood down very quickly.  Based on Czechoslovakia, it was entirely reasonable for Hitler to believe that they wouldn't actually pull the trigger.  Fortunately the French and Brits had wised up at this point and rightly concluded no more quarter could or should be given.

                    I finally put in a signature!

                    by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:50:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wrong again, Pat (0+ / 0-)

                      As for your assertion that the week's time frame wouldn't be enough to "change" French-British policy--that doesn't even make sense.  It would only take a few minutes for French and British leaders to realize the effect of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression pact, and therefore they could have easily decided, had they really not had the nerve, to hold off on a declaration of war.  They had been to the brink in 1938, after all, and stood down very quickly.

                      First of all Czechoslovakia was not surrendered at Munich, the Sudetenland only(20% of the land area of Czeckoslovakia) and English/French-Hitler negotiations took +two weeks  from 9/16/38 to 10/1/38, not one week.

                      http://airminded.org/...

                      Your expectation that France and the UK could surrender a whole huge country like Poland in faster time than Munich is nonsense.

                      Here's another Furher anecdote,

                      A British diplomat in Berlin was informed by reliable sources that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as "an impertinent busybody who spoke the ridiculous jargon of an outmoded democracy. The umbrella, which to the ordinary German was a symbol of peace, was in Hitler's view only a subject of derision".[2] Also, Hitler had been heard saying: "If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers".[3]

                      •  Would you bother to read what I write this time? (0+ / 0-)

                        You're verging on complete lunacy because it's obvious you're not reading what I write, but making up and argument in your head.

                        First of all Czechoslovakia was not surrendered at Munich, the Sudetenland only(20% of the land area of Czeckoslovakia) and English/French-Hitler negotiations took +two weeks  from 9/16/38 to 10/1/38, not one week.

                        I never said Czechoslovakia was "surrendered" at Munich.  You're categorically missing the point here, that Britain was on the brink of a war declaration then, but stood down on the matter pretty quickly.  And what did Hitler do afterwards?  He broke the deal and took all of Czechoslovakia, and Britain and France did nothing beyond verbal tutting.  Why wouldn't he think they'd do the same for Poland, provided he neutralized the possibility of a Soviet front?

                        Two weeks vs. one week is hardly a big difference, considering they were well into the age of the radio and telegraph.

                        Your expectation that France and the UK could surrender a whole huge country like Poland in faster time than Munich is nonsense.

                        Again you're very confused, as this is not my expectation.  I would have hoped that the U.K. and France would have declared war in 1938 when Hitler illegally conquered all of Czechoslovakia, in violation of the Munich accords.

                        But given British and French transegence over Czechoslovakia, and the re-militarization of Germany, and the occupation of the Rhineland... I think it's entirely reasonable that the arrogant Hitler didn't really expect them to.

                        Now, can you please read this a couple times and get it through your apparently very thick skull that I'm not "apologizing" for anything the Nazis did, but in fact stand opposed to everything they did?  Please?  Dare I hope?

                        I finally put in a signature!

                        by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:29:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  You're totally mistaken. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Boris Godunov

                    Do you understand the history that is being discussed? Because you don't seem to understand anything Boris has said. You accuse him of being a nazi apologist when, in fact he has been the exact opposite.

                    Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                    by sean oliver on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:52:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's rather odd (0+ / 0-)

                      that I'm saying the Nazis were not just criminals, but criminals AND stupid, yet I'm being accused of being an "apologist" for them.

                      Weird.

                      I finally put in a signature!

                      by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:02:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your theory is that Hitler would have avoided war (0+ / 0-)

                        with Britain and France if he hadn't been mislead or miscalculated the diplomacy.
                        I think Hitler lied because he had told the High Command and Goering that this was going to be another Munich, and that war wouldn't happen.

                        So my way, Hitler is a liar and your way Hitler is stupid, deluded. Which sounds more plausible?

                        Actually what 'caused' the war was the signing of a French-British-Polish mutual aid agreement of March 31, 1939 (outmanuevering Hitler).
                        It was formalized on August 25, 1939 in Polish-British Common Defence Pact sign after the announcement of the R-M non-aggression pact.

                        Previous to that Hitler had tried to arrange a German-Polish military alliance with the object of a joint attack on Soviet Russia.

                        The result of the F-B-P mutual aid was that now Ribbentrop approached Stalin for a non-agression treaty with the object being to allow an attack on Poland.

                        Beck played a decisive role in the evolution of the rapidly deteriorating political situation in Europe during the months preceding the start of the Second World War, through his refusal of Germany's proposal concerning the Free City of Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) and for a German extraterritorial highway to run across Polish Pomorze (Pomerania) to East Prussia, two concessions on Poland's part which would be compensated through the extension of the 1934 nonaggression pact for a period of 25 years, the inclusion of Poland in the Anti-Comintern Pact directed against the Soviet Union, and a formal guarantee of the country's borders.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                        It is clear that the F-B-P military pact isolated
                        Germany and that it was impossible that the UK could have avoided war without stabbibg Poland in the back.

                        http://www.spiegel.de/...

                        Goebbels' diary

                        August 23,1939
                        Yesterday: the announcement of the non-aggression pact with Moscow proved to be a global sensation. The balance of power in Europe has been shifted. London and Paris are stunned. The Poles are full of bravado, but that makes them look ridiculous. It was a brilliant move by the Führer. Let's see how the world reacts.

                        September 1, 1939
                        Yesterday: At noon the Führer issues the order to attack [Poland] at about 5 a.m. It seems the die is cast now. [Hermann] Göring remains sceptical. The Führer doesn't believe the English will intervene. Excitement has reached a maximum level. At home, work. I put finishing touches to the proclamation to the people and the Party. I work on propaganda posters for Poland. We are prepared.

                        It sounds as if Hitler had dismissed the sceptics like Goering and probably the High Command  with a statement that Chamberlain who he despised
                        wouldn't fight for Poland.

                        By the way, this thread is very active over at freerepublic so I wonder if you are a freeper.

                        •  OK, that's enough. (0+ / 0-)

                          By the way, this thread is very active over at freerepublic so I wonder if you are a freeper.

                          You are, simply put, an idiot.  A quick look at my diary history and my posting history would show this is not the case.  I've been an active member at Dkos since 2004.

                          What's going on here is so ridiculous I can barely believe it.  There is a disagreement here over a historical nuance--did Hitler intend to go to war with Britain and France when he did, or was he surprised they declared war on him?  We obviously have different opinions on this, but instead of disagreeing civilly over something that really isn't that important, you have:

                          1. Accused me of being a Nazi apologist, despite the fact I haven't "apologized" for anything the Nazis did.
                          1. Childishly call me "Pat" as if I am agreeing with Buchanan, which any simpleton could see I am not.
                          1. Now accuse me of being some sleeper freeper.

                          You are a prime example of the belligerent internet asshole who spoils for fights where none need be and make enemies out of people just because you can hide behind internet anonimity.  When it's pointed out that you've lost the thread of the argument, you resort to challenging the motives of your opponent because you're incapable of civil argument.

                          Enjoy life in your parent's basement.  Good-bye.

                          I finally put in a signature!

                          by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:20:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  And one more note. (0+ / 0-)

                          Posting wholesale paragraphs from other sources that you don't bother to mark as quotes makes it look like they are your words, and you're therefore engaged in plagiarism.

                          Note that Goebbel's diaries completely contradict the idea that Hitler expected England to declare war.  You've just proven my case, largely I suspect because you cut-and-paste without actually reading what it said.  You seem to not read things carefully alot.

                          But I look forward to your next accusation that I'm some sort of Nazi apologist, which is very rich considering I'm the kind of person they would have exterminated, for several reasons.  Do you have any idea how obnoxiously offensive you're being?

                          I finally put in a signature!

                          by Boris Godunov on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 07:57:11 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I was a little hard on you, Boris (0+ / 0-)

                            But Pat is ressurecting the argument that Hitler wasn't a dangerous psychopath because all he really wanted to do is fight communism.

                            That is simply not true IMHO as the examples showed.

                            Hitler was thirsting for revenge against France and the Jews even though the Army (and even Goering) were frightened at the idea of WW2.

                            In case you haven't noticed freepers do visit this site and even post diaries. If I find one, I try to refute his propaganda.

                            I suggest you carefully read the Der Speigel link I posted to see what the attitude of the German public was at the idea of a Second World War in 1939.

                            Hitler was using the myth of Munich appeasers as an argument with his power structure. IMO he was hell bent on war.

                          •  Not quite an apology (0+ / 0-)

                            But I guess it's the best I can expect.

                            I think Hitler was a psychopath, too.  Hell, it's impossible to deny it.  I categorically reject Buchanan's belief that Hitler was somehow treated unfairly by the U.K. and that they shouldn't have declared war.  If anything, the war declaration came several months later than it should have, as Chamberlain should have brought the hammer down over Czechoslovakia in March 1939.  

                            But whatever Hitler's grand designs for the future, I think the evidence still shows he did NOT expect the U.K. to declare war over Poland, and Goebbel's diaries back that up.  Hitler would have no reason to lie to Goebbels on this matter (it would only make him look foolish to his subordinates), and Goebbels would have no reason to lie in his private diary.

                            I finally put in a signature!

                            by Boris Godunov on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:49:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was reluctant (0+ / 0-)

                            to put in Goebbels diary because he was a total suck-up (and liar too) but the observation about Goering scepticism I think is true and the opposition of the Wehrmacht to starting the war is pretty well known which is why I think Hitler acted
                            surprised when his (weak) bluff failed, destroying his mantra that England would fold like at Munich.

                          •  See link. (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            Is there any actual evidence to support the idea Hitler was "bluffing," other than just a hunch?  Your own link says Hitler didn't expect the U.K. to declare war--in fact, all the sources you quoted say it.  So until I see actual evidence beyond supposition that soundly refutes the actual first-hand accounts of others who where there, I see no reason to doubt that Hitler was indeed not really anticipating Poland to spark war with Britain.

                            I finally put in a signature!

                            by Boris Godunov on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 04:04:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  From the Der Spiegel link. (0+ / 0-)

                          I hope you can again see my frustration that you seem to be posting links that support what I'm saying but claim it's countering it.  From your own link:

                          In this situation, Beck accepted the surprising British and French offer of a mutual assistance pact, "between two taps of his finger against his cigarette," as a British diplomat wrote, describing the scene.

                          Hitler was furious when he heard the news. Beside himself with rage, he banged his fists against his marble desktop in the Reich chancellery and cursed Great Britain with such ferocity that a flabbergasted eyewitness told a confidant: "I have just seen a madman. I still can hardly believe it."

                          Hitler's rant ended with a threat: "I shall brew them a devil's drink."

                          A few days later, he signed the orders approving the operation known as "Case White" -- the invasion of Poland. The Wehrmacht was to be prepared to attack Germany's eastern neighbor by no later than Sept. 1, 1939.

                          Courting the Soviet Union

                          In light of anti-Polish sentiment within the population, as well as among senior diplomats and military officials, Hitler could depend on his plans being met with approval. For many Germans, Poland was "an illegitimate child" of the hated Treaty of Versailles, in the words of British historian Richard Overy. In July 1939, Eduard Wagner, who would later become the quartermaster-general of the German army, noted: "We hope to take care of the Poles quickly and, frankly speaking, we are looking forward to it." Now the ball was in the Western powers' court.

                          Hitler was full of confidence. The British and the French, he reasoned, would ultimately accept an invasion of Poland. "The men I met in Munich will not enter into a new world war," he said. He was so convinced that this was true that he did not even order preparations to be made for a campaign against France. Indeed, Germany lacked the ammunition, tanks, bombers, ships and trained soldiers to do so. Initially, Hitler planned to attack Poland, and Poland alone.

                          I'd say that's rather unequivocally supporting my point, that Hitler's war ambitions did not at the time include a war with the U.K. and France.  

                          I finally put in a signature!

                          by Boris Godunov on Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 02:54:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  Extremely suspicious story... (0+ / 0-)

      Hitler cleared the way for war with France and Britain by securing the way to conquer 2/3s of Poland when he signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact on Aug. 28, 1939. He hoped that victory in the west would strengthen him in his ultimate goal, the march to the East to win "lebansraum" in the USSR and elsewhere in eastern Europe. His "leniency" with regard to the French fleet and his overtures to Britain post Dunquerque are of a piece with this strategy: he thought he could win the conservative ruling classes of western Europe to join him in an anti-Communist crusade against the USSR. Pat Buchanan is exactly the kind of politician whom Hitler, with good reason, thought would ally with him.

      The Poles could never have appeased Hitler no matter what they did. Hitler did have a place for quisling allied regimes--Hungary was an example. But Hitler believed that the Poles were racially inferior and deserved no fate other than death or slavery.

      The conservative Churchill actually addressed the question of which regime was worse, Nazi Germany or the USSR. He said that as time went on, Nazi Germany would become ever more barbarous and dangerous (which is precisely what happened), while he thought the USSR had the chance of moderating as time went on. History has proved Churchill right on this point; and Pat Buchanan profoundly wrong.

      •  There's nothing suspicious about it that I can (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sean oliver

        see.  It's a first-hand account from the man who was there.  Why would he lie about it?

        Hitler may have been naive about British resolve in this matter, but I don't believe he was strategically stupid enough to think he could successfully wage war against Britain and France in 1939.  The fact that Germany had such huge success against them a year later was due to something he simply couldn't have foreseen--the utter failure of the Allies to take advantage of the German military's being occupied in the east and launch a swift attack into Western Germany.  Instead, Britain and France sat on their asses for a year, which gave Hitler the breathing room he needed to greatly build up the military, which in Sept. 1939 was rather paultry compared to what the Allies had available (esp. the French forces, which outnumbered the German army 10-1).

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:53:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the reference--I did take a look at it (0+ / 0-)

          I don't have time for further research, but I can point out that this account paints Hitler as a gambler (true enough) whose bluff has been called, and implicitly suggests that had (legitimate) German demands been met, war (and disaster for Germany) could have been averted. (Why, oh why, could not France and Britain see that they should ally with us in an alliance against the Reds?!!) So ... possibly a bit of a retrospective whitewash of the German leadership by someone who, after all, must have been a committed Nazi.

          Gerhard Weinberg's A World at Arms paints a different picture (p. 947n43: "German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsacker concludes for the day with 'So now we again face war. R [ibbentrop] goes home beaming."

          Weinberg remarks, "Italy was not prepared to join Germany, and Hitler's expression of willingness to fight England and France if they supported Poland in no way reassured Mussolini... No appeals from prospective neutrals could move Hitler. He not only would not put off war for one day, he was in such a hurry that he gave the orders for hostilities hours earlier than the German military timetable required." (pp. 42-43)

          •  I don't have time to go in depth either (0+ / 0-)

            but bear in mind that Weinberg was the one who initially authenticated the "Hitler Diaries" as being authentic, when in fact they were rather blatant forgeries.

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:01:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

              I did not know that, and I will bear it in mind. However, I think the account he gives of the runup to WWII seems based on established public records, including those made at the time, rather than after-the-event accounts such as that of the translator, which I think should be read with the politics of West Germany and the Cold War in the early 1950s in mind.

              •  I wouldn't say that is so (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sean oliver

                without being able to see his sources.  If anything, the account of the translator might be more a reflection of the real mindset of the Nazi leadership, rather than the "bright face" men like Goebbels put on to reassure the public.

                Think if it this way--*if* you had expected Britain and France to stand down, but instead they declare war, and if you thought that it would be very difficult to fight a war with them, would you br broadcasting your doubts to the public during a time of war, or would you publicly claim it was planned all along and project confidence in victory?

                I see the translator's account as being more damning of the Nazi leadership.  Not only did Hitler engage in an illegal invasion, he foolishly miscalculated the resolve of the Allies.  I'm not really willing to give him the credit some are for being an evil mastermind.

                I finally put in a signature!

                by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:01:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So Hitler as (vicious) opportunist (0+ / 0-)

                  rather than monster, to use the shorthand of the Trevor-Roper vs. AJP Taylor debate.

                  However, the rush to war rather than allowing time for the possible wearing down of Britain and France speaks against this particular facet of the debate. Mussolini, for one, would have been glad to facilitate another Munich; as would Henderson and other figures in the UK and France.

                  Another problem is that the Nazi-Soviet Pact, while clearing the way for the attack on Poland, also undercut the appeasers, who were attracted by Germany as a bulwark against Bolshevism (Chamberlain is reported to have thought Hitler a "nasty little man" who was nevertheless not a Red). One would think that characters like Von Ribbentrop would have understood the implications, but people do get caught up in their own mythologies and schemes and do things without thinking them through, even at the level of grand strategy.

                  •  I think far too much credit is given (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sean oliver, Matt Z

                    to Hitler and the Nazi leadership as being brilliantly Machiavellian, when in fact their apparent military successes were based largely on luck and on the brilliance of the non-Nazi military command staff.  The true history of the Nazi upper echelons shows that there was tremendous disorganization and intra-party warfare amongst the leaders.  Goering hated Himmler who hated Goebbels who hated...they spent more time fighting amongst themselves than focusing on fighting the war, it seems.

                    Some portray Hitler as some grand puppet master who brilliantly played them off on one another, but I think the truer picture is that he was largely unaware of the scheming, or if he was, it was still something out of his control and he simply didn't have the power to stop it.  Read, for instance, the history of how the Gestapo was created and organized and you'll see all the messy politics on display.

                    Personally, given the incredible arrogance displayed by most of the senior Nazis, I would not be a bit surprised at them being caught off-guard by the war declaration from Britain.  

                    And I don't like to refer to the Nazis as monsters.  That's not for their sake, but rather for ours.  I believe the tendency to label such people "monsters" can be more an attempt to distance ourselves from their crimes.  "Oh, nothing like that could happen here--they were monsters and we're not!"  No, they were human beings, which makes what they did all the more awful and horrific, to me.

                    I finally put in a signature!

                    by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 05:59:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I pretty much agree (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Matt Z

                      with what you've said here, and especially with your point re distancing ourselves from the capacity for evil that the Nazis evidenced and that all humans ignore at our peril.

                      For me, the two main political points are:

                      1. Hitler did intend to go to war against France and Britain; there is debate about whether he wanted that war to occur in Sept. 1939 or later. In any case, he hoped to use appeasers in those countries, who saw the Nazis as perhaps uncouth or distasteful, but nevertheless useful against what they saw as the greater menace, the communist movement and the Soviet Union.
                      1. Buchanan is squarely in the tradition of the right-wingers who temporized/appeased/apologized for Hitler because of their rabid anticommunism. (Somewhere there's a Reagan quote from a speech he made to far-right-wingers in the 70s in which he says that the US "fought on the wrong side" during WWII--I saw the citation some years ago and can't now lay hands on it, but it expresses the Buchanan position pretty well.

                      All this should tell us what Buchanan's political commitments are, and what would likely happen to us should he come to power (fortunately a remote possibility).

                •  Boris - your analysis is similar to my (0+ / 0-)

                  thinking about Hitler too. He was a typical right-winger; myopic, dishonest and incapable of successful strategizing. He miscalculated almost every step of the way, from the day he "took office" to the day he blew his brains out 12 years later.
                  His blunders were numerous and they got worse over time.

                  Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

                  by sean oliver on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:09:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The real brains behind the Nazis (0+ / 0-)

                    was Martin Bormann, who is oddly overlooked when people think of the most odious of the Nazi leaders.  If Hitler hadn't had Bormann, I don't think he'd have lasted nearly as long as he did.

                    I finally put in a signature!

                    by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:14:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Wish That It Were True (0+ / 0-)

          "...The fact that Germany had such huge success against them a year later was due to something he simply couldn't have foreseen--the utter failure of the Allies to take advantage of the German military's being occupied in the east and launch a swift attack into Western Germany.  Instead, Britain and France sat on their asses for a year, which gave Hitler the breathing room he needed to greatly build up the military, which in Sept. 1939 was rather paultry compared to what the Allies had available (esp. the French forces, which outnumbered the German army 10-1)."

          Unfortunately, what caught the Western Allies by surprise was the speed with which the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement was concluded.  Stalin and Hitler wrapped up the whole deal in about four weeks and Hitler conceded every point Stalin demanded to reach it.  Of course, the war started only a few days after the agreement was reached, which left even less time for the Western Allies to consider the implications of the agreement.

          The Western Allies were never going to be able to launch an immediate attack on the Germans in 1939, no matter how much anybody would have liked that to be the case.  Britain still had a very small army in 1939 and the French were working their ways through the hollow years of low numbers of potential draftees because of the losses in 1914-1918.  The French Army, for a variety of reasons, needed at least two months to fully deploy itself to the borders while also establishing what was called the couverture to protect the homeland.  France was in no position to launch some half-assed massive human-wave assault on prepared German positions across from the Maginot Line in 1939.  That was particularly true when it was clear by the end of the first week of war that Poland was being dismembered like a cooked turkey by the Wehrmacht, despite having an army almost as large as Germany's.  

          The French and British did not have anything like a 10:1 advantage in 1939, even with the Poles thrown in.  It was more closer to 1:1.  Remember, a quick rule of thumb is that you need about 3:1 advantage in the sector you are attacking, but the Germans and the French both knew where that sector would lie, so the French could never gain a 3:1 advantage.  The French debacle in the spring of 1940 stems from a quirk of fate which would pit probably the weakest French units in 1939 against the best veteran mechanized forces in the Wehrmacht.  Even then it was close run thing during those dark days of May 14-18, 1940.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:08:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have to disagree with you assessment. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sean oliver

            The French did launch sorties into Western Germany, and met little resistance.  German commanders were in fact quite alarmed that Hitler seemed unconcerned about these, as they believed all the best resources were tied up in Poland and that any significant push by the French and British would result in disaster:

            http://www.angelfire.com/...

            Combat between the British and French began immediately after their declaration of war, although it was in limited engagements. For example, on 4 September, two German Bf-109 E-1s shot down a pair of British Wellingtons near Brunsbüttel. The ground war also began quickly, but very little became of it. On 7 September French General Maurice Gamelin advanced the 3rd, 4th and 5th Armies into the Cadenbronn and Wendt forests near the German industrial region of Saarbrücken. By marching across the French/German border in "Operation Saar," the French attempted to pierce the Germans’ Siegfried Line, although eerily there was no German response. Simultaneously the British Expeditionary Force made their first WWII appearance in France and debated on what steps to take. Both sides had trouble coordinating their plans and since the war was just days old, they seemed to shy away from the aggressive actions that would later define the Second World War. The following day, 8 September, the first western front fighter plane battles took place as the French took down 27 German planes at a cost of 8 of their own. Back in Germany, the OKW was alarmed at the French advance into German territory, but Hitler made no attempt to counter the French yet because he wanted to see how his Western Wall (or "Siegfried Line," as the Allies nicknamed it) could hold up to an attack, and saw the potential to use the French advance as an excuse for future German attacks on France.

            Hitler's casual attitude disturbed Gamelin, who mistakenly thought Hitler was plotting a secret counterattack, so he ordered his men away from the German defenses and told them to prepare for a quick retreat should they be attacked. As a result the French did not advance more than 5 miles into Germany and were held up at the slightest form of resistance, such as minefields or German snipers. When the Soviets invaded Poland on 17 September, the French realized that their forces in that part of Europe were accomplishing nothing and called off the advance on 21 September as they retreated to their Maginot Line. Many French commanders saw this as a mistake because this withdrawal gave the Germans ample time to strengthen their western forces, as the French slowly withdrew their forces during the first 2 weeks of October 1939. Soon after on 16 October the Germans launched their first western offensive, using General Erwin von Witzleben's 1st Army, which merely harassed the French but allowed the Wehrmacht to occupy a portion of French territory. This heralded the onset of the "Phony War," or the months in between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of the Low Countries in May 1940, when the Allies and Germany were at war yet relatively few military actions were taken.

            The squeamishness about launching a large-scale attack seems to me to have cost France and Britain a huge advantage they would have had in establishing a front in Western Germany before Hitler had a chance to wrap up what was going on in the east.

            The German army totaled about 800,000 troops in 1939, of which 600,000 were involved in the Polish invasion in the east.  Meanwwhile the French had 900,000 regulars and 5 million reservists.  Together with the British forces, I think it's fair to say that, had they launched an aggressive attack, they would have had a huge numerical superiority over the Germans.  

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:29:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Problem Boris (0+ / 0-)

              The problem with the hypothetical in this instance, is that the British, French and Russians totally failed in the last years of peace to take diplomacy to the level of having Military to Military talks with each other.  You don't create an alliance without such talks.  No matter the size of an existing army, or the potential in the reserves, if you don't have a common strategy as to how you will use them, you simply do not have anything useful.  

              During 1937-38, the Soviet Mantra was "Collective Security" -- a kind of invitation to the French and British to send to Moscow military representatives.  That proved to be impossible for either the French or British, given the public revulsion at the Purge Trials then underway.  Both the British and French Ministerial Papers have been open for a decade or more, and they reveal that neither government felt it politically possible to talk with Moscow.  But they also didn't really consult with each other, and thus the defenses of France were patched together in 39-1940 without much prior strategic consultation.  

      •  You can read the account yourself. (0+ / 0-)

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:07:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He was stunned that Chamberlain (0+ / 0-)

      finally grew a backbone.

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

      by charliehall on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:13:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pretty much (0+ / 0-)

        Von Ribbentrop had convinced him that the French and British were too gutless to act, and Munich had only reinforced that idea.  The Non-aggression pact with the USSR was, they thought, going to seal the deal.  While Britain would be willing to fight for Poland if they knew Russia would also fight from the East, Hitler miscalculated and believed that with Russia not on their side, the Allies would not be willing to risk another large-scale war.

        Hitler certainly wanted war, just not with all the counties with which he ended up at war...

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:37:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  German Neo-Nazis are going to have a field day (0+ / 0-)

    ... over this.

    Fortunately, most American politicians have long before realized that their words and actions have a impact, a big impact, outside the US too.

    Ever wondered why, besides in countries in the middle east of course, most people in the world have such strong opinions about american politics inside and out: It affects them, either way!

    "[...] mustn't eat lockets!" Stanley Inchbridge in 'Wildest Dreams'

    by imprimatur on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:18:18 PM PDT

  •  to quote Mel Brooks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trinite, Matt Z, liberal shopper

    HITLER: I don't want war! All I want is peace...peace...peace...!
    A little piece of Poland,
    A little piece of France,
    A little piece of Austria
    And Hungary, perchance!
    A little slice of Turkey
    And all that that entails,
    And then a bit of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales!"

    -To Be Or Not To Be

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:27:21 PM PDT

  •  Pat and Ahmedinejad, two fascists in a pod. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall
  •  So this means Pat was OK with the USSR (0+ / 0-)

    and all of South and Central America having a pact?

    Bwahahhahahahah.

    Good old senile Pat.

    I guess as long as you're a fascist and not a communist, taking over a continent is all fine and dandy as long as you call it a pact.

  •  Molly Ivins (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    as usual, was waay ahead of the curve on this.

    The only newscaster on Fox that you can trust is Kent Brockman.

    by Van Buren on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 02:51:31 PM PDT

  •  We only invade (0+ / 0-)

    because we want peace

    our peace
    not your peace

    so sit down
    stfu
    and be peaceful already
    before we make you

    "a lie that can no longer be challenged becomes a form of madness" -Debord

    by grollen on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:05:26 PM PDT

  •  Talk about an "Inglourious Basterd"! (0+ / 0-)

    I read this column a couple of days ago and could not believe it got published.  It is unbelieveably dumb, ignoring both actual history and basic logic.  

    Buchanan:  "Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory (for Danzig) in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue."

    If Pat is right, and all Hitler wanted was Danzig, all he had to do was take it.  Hey Pat: that's not what he did.  

    Pat never explains why Hitler, instead, took half of Poland (giving Stalin the rest).  He never explains why Hitler invaded France and a bunch of other nations the next year -- and Russia the following year.  Heck, he never explains why Hitler declared war on the US after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  All he wanted was Danzig?  

    Pat's version of WWII is vastly more fanciful than Quentin Tarantino's.  Talk about an "inglourious basterd"!

  •  How does Godwin's law apply here? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

    by nwjake on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 03:59:35 PM PDT

  •  "Fuhrer Lover" Buchanan has "Crossed the Line" (0+ / 0-)

    the size of the Grand Canyon.Pat has just tried to justify Hitler's actions and to ignore all that Hitler dreamed of doing.

  •  Buchanan Missed An Easy Target (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sean oliver

    I'm surprised that Buchanan didn't address Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939-1940 as the reason for all of the war dead in Eastern Europe.  Hitler had decided by the fall of 1940 to back off pursuing the war against the British because he was losing and because Nazi ideology had always focused on gaining living room in Eastern Europe for the German "race."  Stalin's failed war against the Finns merely reinforced Hitler's push to switch the war effort against the Soviets because of the Soviet's total incompetence against the Finns.  The demonstrated incompetence led to the comment about "kicking in the door and the whole rotten structure will come down," referring to the Soviet government.  Perhaps the Germans wouldn't have been so eager for war in the Soviet Union if the prospects for easy pickings hadn't appeared so good.

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:17:26 PM PDT

  •  Buchanan has lost it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    not that he ever had it.

    And don't call me Shirley.

    by burana on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 04:36:19 PM PDT

  •  He maybe wrong, but I still prefer Pat Buchanan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mb6578

    I still prefer reading and disagreeing with Pat Buchanan than those other brain dead know-nothing republicans. At least he lays out the facts and his reasons. He maybe wrong, but he is still a formidable intellectual of the right. I am sad to see him go out on this disgraceful note.

    •  This Note? (0+ / 0-)

      I am sad to see him go out on this disgraceful note.

      You talk as if Buchanan's Nazi apology is some kind of recent deterioration. But he wrote a whole book of this crap defending the Nazis. And he's been helping push America as close as we can get to Nazi Germany for decades.

      His facts are lies, his reasons insane. He's not an "intellectual" just because he crafts bullshit. And since so many people don't actually evaluate his bullshit, his conclusions are more widely accepted. Which makes him more dangerous than the current batshit crazy Republicans, who are losing more and more ground and popularity. Buchanan's style helped keep Republicans in power for decades, marching us ever more steadily to a Nazi beat.

      I will dance on his grave. The sooner the better.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:17:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amazing (0+ / 0-)

    ...but I have to wonder what makes Pat Buchanan relevant to anything anymore. Maybe that's why his inner Nazi is speaking more forcefully. What's he got to lose?

    I suppose a few people who might have in the past denied that he's basically an out-and-out Nazi and anti-semite or (shudder) actually voted for him might be embarrassed.

  •  America Was Wrong to Enter WWII (0+ / 0-)

    Buchanan's ultimate point was that the US shouldn't have entered WWII. He wrote an entire book about this subject, which that column is simply selling to a continuing audience. He says we should have let Hitler take France and a little of the rest of his neighbors, and he'd have been satisfied. And the US would have had a unified Europe with which to trade.

    Of course, Buchanan is thereby also defending the Soviet Union, protecting it from the 20 million people killed during the war, because that war (in his demented revision) would have just ended quickly, before the Hitler-Stalin Pact was broken.

    But the big picture for Buchanan is that the US was wrong to enter WWII. Buchanan is a fascist. And though long deserving to be called a "nazi", he has now proven that he is a full-fledged Nazi, with a capital "N".

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:12:27 PM PDT

  •  So very little shocks me these days...yet... (0+ / 0-)

    my jaw absolutely dropped when I read Buchanan's column just now.

    This is so sick it's difficult to even know where to begin.

    I hope this finally gets him knocked off MSNBC. This is so far out there it makes birthers look like they have some of their marbles.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:15:07 PM PDT

  •  While Buchanan is antisemitic Holocaust-denying (0+ / 0-)

    scum, I don't quite get your comment:

    Heck, he even employs this bit of rhetorical sleigh of hand to try and minimize the Holocaust:

    "Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished."

    Excuse me? How is that minimizing the Holocaust? The emphasis on "Christians" is bullshit, of course (how the old idiot would know they were Christians?), it is more correct to say "n million people had perished". But surely here Buchanan is much more correct than those who can only remember the Holocaust victims among the WWII victims.

    So where's all the outrage against anti-atheist bigotry?

    by skeptiq on Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:49:23 PM PDT

  •  Old Pat has an opinion on evrything (0+ / 0-)
  •  Old Pat has an opinion on everything (0+ / 0-)

          Old Pat has an opinion on everything, but opinions are like A holes everyones got one. His aren't worth much more than anyone elses.
          Just think had people voted for Him He could have been President. Where would we have been then?
          They have Him on all the shows because He has an opinion on everything. If asked why do flies go to dead things, He could give a half an hour answer, but probably would say the Democrats had something to do with it.
          He is just another Republican diguised as a human being, with not much more than a mouth with legs.

  •  My company's spam filter (0+ / 0-)

    won't let me click on the article because it identified the web site as violating the rule against "intolerance and hate".

    Hmmmmm....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site