Pat Buchanan On Antiwar Radio Part 1 of 5

[belinda2118]

Yes I agree with person below me.

[Torgo1969]

Nice use of Iron Maiden in the intro, but I find it hard to listen to "Aces High" while knowing what the UK did to Germany (and to themselves) because of their criminally stupid leadership.

[GeorgeVreelandHill]

Thank you for posting this.

George Vreeland Hill

[IloveUSA1941]

the way Buchanan decribe Hitler is disgusting and he keeps talking about '6 million jewish holocaust' in his book! WTF? Buchanan made excellent points of war diplomacy in his book but as a biography of Hitler and critique of the National Socialism, he's another dying old school. 'the Unnecessary War' is not a history book but it is another Buchanan's political argument using WW2. as we know, he has never written a history or WW2 history book! He's a political commentator!

[westnblu]

Pat Buchanan forgets japan, they invaded china and had xpanionist ambitions in the far east years b4 hitler invaded poland. It was japan that brought the US into the war not hitler .So how was this avoidable? The US should have remained neutral even after pearl harbour? This is wot Pat Buchanan means by an unnecassary war? i dont get it

[dipshit5]

Pat make several good points. I wish he was our president (USA). The British Empire should not have been sacrificed for the Soviet Union's dominance of Eastern Europe. Britain went to war for Poland. Poland was invaded by USSR . What went wrong ?

[UserUK201]

Pat Buchanan is a imbecilic pedant, whose hilariously idiotic book would be an excellent comedic work if it weren't so insulting, both personally and intellectually.

[jy768]

Go stuff a menorah up your ass loser.

[UserUK201]

I'm not a jew

[EpidosisBiou]

Claiming that Hitler "knew" Britain would declare war is a very strong claim. In fact, Hitler was confident Britain would not intervene, given the remoteness of Poland to British interests.

Furthermore, even had Hitler known for sure that Britain would act, Britain was at fault to begin with for handing out a war assurance it could not back up. In 1939 there was nothing Britain could have done, just as there was nothing Truman could do when the Soviets took Poland years down the road.

[EdwardRommel]

Couldn't back up...tell that to the failed Operation Sea Lion and all the Luftwaffe pilots who spitfires and hurricanes shot down over Britain.

Hitler was a gambler but he also knew Britain's history of backing up there word. They fought Loui X1V, Charles of Spain, Napoleon Bonaparte over Belgium and Holland...Bismarck was warned by Gladstone in 1870 to stay out of Belgium.

Then in 1914, the Kaiser thought he could somehow be different from the prior list and just invade Belgium..wrong!

[EdwardRommel]

In 1939 Hitler was trying to abrogate the Versailles Treaty and Britain and France had allowed him to make some changes...remilitarization of the Rhineland, union wth Austria and Sudetenland.

But then he went into Non-German speaking Bohemia and moravia and revealed he was an imperialist.

Loss of Prussian Poland was just punishment for starting WW1. The Polish people wanted to keep their freedom.

[AntiCominternPakt]

Don't worry, EdwardRommel is a proven liar, he cares not for human suffering or atrocity. He celebrates the nuclear attacks on Japan, and he is openly racist even though on his profile he says he's "Anti racist"

[EpidosisBiou]

"Revealed he was an imperialist"? Even if I granted this characterization of Hitler, which I do not, what would that have meant in interwar Europe? Britain and France were both "imperialist" countries. The British Empire long since had a legacy of brutal subjugation of peoples.

[EdwardRommel]

The British Empire had open trade polcies..meaning that foreign products were allowed to be sold anywhere within the British Empire with no tarriffs. Britain collected no taxes fromt he empire. Any taxes collected in the colonies were spent in the colonies

Germany did not have open trade policies either in ther colonies or within Germany. Germany charged tariffs

Jan Smuts, leader of the Boers was so happy in the British Empire that during WW1 and WW2 he supported Britain

[MvonRichthofen1918]

the claim that jan smuts was "so happy" is borderline ridiculous.

he had little choice in the matter. the formerly independent states of the transvaal and orange free state had been forcibly annexed into the british empire out of diamond and gold lust. though they resisted rather spiritedly, the boers were beaten.

smuts recognised this, and realised that further conflict with britain would only bring more killings and concentration camps.

[EdwardRommel]

jan Smuts did not have to actively support the British war effort in WW1 or WW2. He did not have to work on the Versailles Treaty commission or involve himself in the League of Nations or the United Nations. Nobody made him do that. He did it because he came to enjoy the security and wisdom of British rule in South Africa. The boers held no grudge obviously and they never supported the Germans in either WW1 or WW2....why?...Why did the Irish not support Germany in WW1 or WW2?

[MvonRichthofen1918]

FACT: colonial empires mobilize native troops to fight for them.

I will not dispute that the british empire had its desirable aspects. but you should read wikipedia's 'excellent article' "jan smuts and a british transvaal" to actually understand the context of smuts's support.

"ireland". read up on your irish history! another 'excellent article': "timeline of the irish revolution".

[EdwardRommel]

I recently finished reading Sir Edward Grey's book from 1925 called "Twenty five years 1892 to 1916"...

He says that the Portuguese were running low on money and had never properly developed their colonies...and that the british Govt. had agreed that if the Portuguese desired to sell their colonies to the Germans...the British would not oppose the plan.

So the Germans could have gotten more colonies by peaceful measures...they did not have to covet the French and British colonies.

[MvonRichthofen1918]

if you look at ww1, the germans were not the ones to invade others' colonies. tat dubious honor belongs to the entente. in fact, the german colonial officials often tried to maintain neutrality in the beginning. this is why togoland fell so quickly.

the german motivation was not so much getting colonies, rather, it was gaining dominance.

[EdwardRommel]

They were at war...any German military base was fair game silly boy.

They only tried to maintain neutrality because they knew they were badly outnumbered in Africa by the British and French.

They definately wanted colonies...that's why Admiral Dewey had trouble with a German admiral trying to enter Manilla bay during the Spanish-American war.

They also wanted the Panama Canal.

[MvonRichthofen1918]

yet despite the fact that they were outnumbered, the germans still did very well. kamerun survived for 18 months despite being largely cut off from germany. and east africa is the only theatre of war which is regarded as an overall german victory.

germany wanted more strategic colonies. this is why they accepted two corridors in central africa in exchange for giving up claims to morocco, so that kamerun would have more river access. the borders of modern namibia are also a result of this.

[EdwardRommel]

Buchanon's dead wrong...Britain never declared war on Germany...britain only fulfilled its legal obligations to Belgium(1914) and to Poland(1939)....a country has to keep its word.

[MySillySounds]

being a historian myself i believe that Britain did have a series of "blunders" that meant that ww2 was inevitable but lets not forget

.Woodrow Wilson limited knowledge of Europe and its borders during the signing of the treaty of Versailles and took much land from the Germans

.the french Priminister during the treaty of Versaille that Wanted to see Germany crumble and annexed land from Germany in the treaty

EdwardRommel response is the best so far

i will answer any and all Questions =]

[EpidosisBiou]

Learn your history, Rommel. Britain did indeed, along with France, declare war on Germany, on Sept. 3, 1939.

Regarding Britain's war assurance to Poland, well, Britain didn't have to give that. Poland was not part of the Empire.

Not only was Poland not part of the British Empire, it was not vital to the Empire. Of course, as Buchanan points out, what was the point, ultimately, if Poland was just going to be under Stalin's boot?

This war was a tragedy for the West.

[EdwardRommel]

In 1914 Germany declared war on Britain by violating Belgian neutrality, Germany knew would require Britain and France and Belgium to fight Germany.

In 1939 Germany invaded Poland, which Germany knew would cause war with Britain..so essentially Germany declared war on France and Britian in both WW1 and WW2

[MvonRichthofen1918]

fulfilling obligations in 1939? yeah right.

passive declarations of war do not count as "fulfilling obligations". because of british (& co.) impotence, poland suffered nearly six years of nazi horror and nearly a half century of soviet domination.

that's hardly "fulfilling obligations"...

[EdwardRommel]

German apologist...you always have to put the burden on the British and French....they were either too harsh(Versailles Treaty) or they were too easy with appeasement. There is no pleasing people like you. You always have a scapegoat...someone to blame other than the Germans...because you have some German blood in you...so you can't admit for one minute that they started WW1 and WW2

[MvonRichthofen1918]

I put blame where blame is due. I have FREELY admitted that germany had a big hand in the causation of ww1, what I take issue with is your puerile assumption that they were SOLELY to blame. furthermore, I HAVE admitted that germany is to blame for ww2, but I also posit that this was greatly helped by stalin's enabling of hitler.

I never say that germans bear no blame, you are just too stupid to not think in terms of black and white.

moderation is key.

[EdwardRommel]

There is a fallacy in your logic however. Unless the Germans were solely to blame for WW1...the Versailles treaty "blame clause" is not supportable and neither are many of the punitive measures of the VT. so by denying full blame for WW1...you open a door to question the VT 's fairness...and that is exactly what enabled Hitler to come to power, to persecute the Jews, to rearm, to piece by piece dismantle the VT.

That was a disservice to Germany to deny full guilt for WW1.

[MvonRichthofen1918]

you base your assumptions on the childish notion that everything must be simple in explanation.

FACT: germany was rearming as early as the 1920s, with the help of those nice communists in the soviet union.

FACT: the nsdap was not the only group which wanted to undo the vt.

FACT: right-wing radicalism was a 'logical reaction' to the bloody communist revolutions which occurred at the end of and right after the war.

[RPenta]

A question to ask the Republocrats, the Hannity's Limbaughs and their alter ego's on the liberal side--has the United States ever fought an UNJUST war or fought a war unjustly?

Now some idiot is going to ask me: so what if it did?

[highonhayek]

Woodrow Wilson: Second. Worst. President. Ever.

[Craigmin]

"highonhayek",

Who's #1 on your list?

[highonhayek]

FD Roosevelt.

[Craigmin]

Ah! Not a bad pick...

Who's your #3? ; )

[highonhayek]

Abraham Lincoln.

I take my #2 back. It's Abe. #3 is Wilson. #4 would probably be Lyndon Johnson. He pretty much demolished the economic development of poorer Americans, blacks especially, with his welfare initiatives, which FAILED by the way.

[Craigmin]

"I take my #2 back. It's Abe. #3 is Wilson. "

That's more like it!

[MachineLegion]

I'd say Abe was the by far the worst. He was the first one to trample the constitution as far as I know.

[RedShirtArmy]

Really great stuff. Y'all cover a whole ton of topics. Well done. I love Pat - he's a true warrior. Take it easy