PAT BUCHANAN: KNAVE AND FOOL
In case you missed it, here is my latest PJ Media column that was published yesterday. It’s on Pat Buchanan’s wretched column from September 1 in which he seeks to absolve Adolf Hitler of most of the blame for starting World War II.
A sample of Buchanan’s ignorance:
What follows are just a few of the more jaw-dropping errors of fact that Buchanan has included in his article, as well as the answers to some of the many questions that he should have known before even asking them.
After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts. The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. …
How could they wish to return to a place that in the entire thousand-year history of that enclave had never belonged to Germany in the first place?
From the 13th century on, the Sudeten Germans (making up about 25 percent of the population of the Sudetenland) had been ruled by the Habsburg Empire. The old Austria-Hungarian province of Bohemia claimed most of the land, and when the empire disintegrated following World War I, the Sudetenland was annexed by the new nation of Czechoslovakia.
Churchill tried without success to get Chamberlain to stop referring to the “return” of the Sudetenland to Germany in order to refute Nazi propaganda which was claiming otherwise. In effect, Buchanan is parroting the Nazi party line on the Sudetenland by claiming that Germany was only threatening war because they wanted their territory back.
It’s not that Buchanan is playing at revisionism that I object to. There has been much scholarship in recent decades that has shed light on pre-World War I British moves against Germany that were to have profound consequences for Europe for much of the rest of the 20th century. That kind of revisionism enriches our understanding of history and can be argued on the basis of fact.
Buchanan’s thesis is without merit because he fails to contextualize his arguments, placing them in a vacuum where the actions of Hitler can be examined without reference to any other events that were occurring simultaneously or in the past. It’s a clever manipulation of chronology - not serious analysis: A writer’s trick and not reasoned argument.
It’s a rather long piece and by no means a complete takedown. Buchanan asks too many rhetorical questions for that. But I think I captured the most egregious errors of fact and logic in Mr. Buchanan’s sad attempt to excuse one of the greatest mass murderers in history his foul deeds.
My understanding is that Hitler deliberately left some Germans in the post-Munich Czechoslovakia so that they would act as a fifth column. That way he could still make noises about unfulfilled objectives for Germany.
Comment by Quiddity — 9/5/2009 @ 12:33 pm
Most people talking about this subject haven’t read ‘Mein Kampf’ where Hitler basically says what he thinks. The Germanic people did indeed come from Asia (the Caucasus) and he believes they should reconquer the land to have more space (Lebensraum). In his view they have a right to do that because they are superior and stronger (just as the Americans took the land here). The Jews in his mind are the enemy of the Germans because they pollute their minds etc etc. That wasn’t an uncommon view in Europe and the United States (Henry Ford) at the time.
So altogether The Nazis did actively work for a war from day one. They probably would have preferred to wait a year or two more but when they got the deal with Stalin both sides went for Poland. England and France did the honorable thing and declared war knowing full well they could be wiped out. I just like to point out one thing as a German. I find it really ridiculous when Americans (especially some conservatives) make fun of the French. The French fought just as hard as anyone else in WWI and when the German army came (illegally) through Holland in 1940 there was no army in the world that could have stopped them.
Anyway, Rick you have the facts right.
Comment by funny man — 9/5/2009 @ 12:38 pm
Quiditty,
No, no! Post Munich or post Versailles? Bohemia always had a mix of people so there was no need to engineer anything.
Comment by funny man — 9/5/2009 @ 1:11 pm
Funny Man,
I’m not aware of anyone making fun of the French per say. They did fight bravely in WWII and they were there long before the Americans even thought about getting involved. There is no question about this.
What some people are concerned about is the here and now not about what happened in WWII. Some of us believe the French could have and should have helped us more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, some people have percieved the French as trying to undermine us. This may or may not be fair. What does seem clear is the French put their economic interests ahead of America’s national security interests and this has some people upset.
The French have the right to act in their economic interests. I’m sure we’ve put our economic interests ahead of the security of others at some time in the history of our country. The French certainly did not do any thing that others have not done, nevertheless, it has left some Americans disappointed at France and with a bad taste for the French in general. Some people have expressed frustration at French actions but I’m not aware of anyone making fun of the French.
Maybe some have made fun of the French. Some times they and Europeans in general seem to act like the Americans are inferior to them. This has been extremely disappointing to some people so perhaps, as a reaction to being belittled some folks have reacted by “making fun” of the French.
Comment by B.Poster — 9/5/2009 @ 2:28 pm
RICK, All i can say is G-D Bless you and the way you write.
I have called ol’ Pat on the carpet for many of his viscous anti-semitic comments going back to his “amen corner” but what you have done is to simply destroy him. Believe me, Rick, this bum is not a fool, and knave is too mild a word to describe him. What is clear is that each and every rave of his concerning ISRAEL or the JEWISH people could just as easily come out of the mouth of GOEBELLS. I try to monitor his performance every day but he is a total bore most of the time. What i am waiting for is for him to just die, and be interred; at that point i will buy up the adjoining plot and set up something like a lemonade stand:
I AM NOT ASHAMED TO SAY IT I WILL CHARGE $5.00 TO ANYONE WISHING TO PISS ON HIS GRAVE.
Comment by MANNY JAKEL — 9/5/2009 @ 2:42 pm
As a conservative, I will admit to reading and enjoying Buchanan’s provocative views on occasion. I credit him as being one of the first to describe in 1992 the “culture war” between the political left and right.
But his view of Hitler and World War II makes no sense whatsoever. (If Hitler only wanted to reunite German speaking peoples, why did he invade Russia?) An ardent nationalist, Buchanan seems to be an isolationist and an admirer of the “America First” movement. That kind of thinking served America well up to about a hundred years ago.
Comment by Doug King — 9/5/2009 @ 7:12 pm
I reread the piece by Buchanan and there are some more ‘rhetorical’ questions that Pat knows better. Like why did he not destroy the British Army in Holland. Indeed, he wanted to have Britain as an ally because he had no interest in the empire (plus they were Anglo-Saxon brothers in his mind) but rather wanted to conquer the East. That is precisely why he attacked the Soviet Union against all sensible military advise. Stalin did match Hitler in ruthlessness and brutality (little known fact in the US: Stalin reimprisoned his own POWs upon their return to the SU) and ultimately that broke Germany’s back. However, the way Buchanan speaks of their sacrifice (30 million dead), only talking about Red Hordes etc is pretty offensive. Now again, I know this war was fought with a bestiality on both sides that is hard to imagine here because on the Western front rules of war were largely kept not so on the Eastern front (millions of slave laborers, rape on a grand scale, easily over a 100000 at the fall of Berlin etc) but then Hitler did start it. I don’t know what got into Pat to write this article, what is his point?
Comment by funny man — 9/5/2009 @ 10:55 pm