Let's face it, like what's said by one commentator, Churchill continued war against Germany and sent British lives through hell because he loved playing war.
It is always sad to read so many derangements about Hitler, how the Holocaust was a response to the 'invasion' by Britain, or his Foreign policy was 'moderate'.
Hitler had by the mid 1930s violated the bulk of the terms under the Versailles treaty, militarized Germany, invaded Czechoslovakia, Austria, and then Poland. How is invading three countries moderate?And how does Germany's invasion of Poland amount to an invasion of Germany?Many idiots need to learn some history.
This Buchanan guy is retarded. Britain's guarantee to Poland did not mean anything to Hitler. He was going start a war regardless. He may have been a bit startled by the news, as he expected that he was going to get a free hand given Chamberlain's previous attitudes, but he knew war was an inevitability. So whether Britain did nothing or not, war was going to happen. Now Britain could have remained neutral, but that would not have been acceptable to the public.
3:50- Hanson is a warmongering creep. Britain invaded Germany to keep Germans under Polish rule.
5:08 Hitchens is an idiot. You do not 'give Hitler everything he wants', you do what should have happened when Germany was run by democrats: allow self-determination and reverse Versailles.
8:07- The Holocaust happened in RESPONSE to the British-French invasion. The Holocaust was a war crime; no war, no Holocaust.
@PeterMayer The Holocaust was in response to WWII, it was a war crime. No war, no Holocaust. In 1939-9, Hitler's death toll was less than 200, while Stalin's was over 10 million. Compared to Japan and Russia, Germany had a moderate foreign policy. You are promoting warmongering, comic-book history.
@qwertypoiu4321 Everything you've written suggests you have a latent admiration for the world's worse dictator, Hitler, and want to try and distort history to put a moderate veneer on his legacy.If Hitler's Holocaust was a response to WWII, then why as they said jeopardize winning WWII on trying to kill them? why start killing jews from all parts of the world in the middle of a war in the first place? One law in 1933 said jews were 'pollution'. Its obvious you are very ignorant and mentally ill.
@spader49 No British-US invasion, no genocide reaction; that is what Hitler said 1939-1-30.
The Versailles declaration of war enslaved millions of Germans to foreign rule; if Britain would have reversed that in the 1920s there would have been no Nazi/Hitler rule; if Britain would have reversed that in the 1930s there would have been no WWII.
@qwertypoiu4321 Hitler said that 'basically national-socialism and marxism are the same' in November 1939, and then invaded USSR in 1941. He also said in 1938 at Munich that he would make no further territorial claims after sudetenland, and then invaded prague etc. What he said what not always indicative of what he did or believed. Hitler had also broken most of the Versailles terms by 1936. Also Versailles was not as harsh as the 1917 treaty of Brest-litovsk the Germans imposed on the Russians.
Germany invaded the SU as the only possible war measure to take out the only potential west ally they were capable of. The mangled Munich policy was forced on Germany, still leaving millions of Germans under foreign rule, the main problem that if avoided would have dissolved Nazi's and WWII. The Versailles declaration of war was illegitimate, and this chopping up and putting under foreign rule millions of Germans was many *times* worse than unrelated BL from WWI.
@qwertypoiu4321 you constantly point out how many germans became minorities in other countries after WWI, how does that justify putting millions of czechs under german rule? how does it explain the fascist imperialism? The subjugation of a non-german people. Its absurd to think that the allies would enable a 'greater germany' to emerge after 1918, a merger between austria and germany, given that they had not fought a war with them just to make them stronger.
@qwertypoiu4321 your main error is that you think that Germans under foreign rule, 'enslaved' as you put it, is a justification for Germany invading that country. There were Germans in the Baltic, in Russia, in the UK etc, was germany entitled to all the world due to that? Under the BL treaty, the Russian Empire lost 1/4 of its entire population to German rule btw. And it was only the Nazis who made slaves out of Europeans: forced labour and murdered millions, 3000 per day in Poland 1939-45.
3:30- The German-Rhineland was remilitarized after France entered and anti-German pact with Russia; Hitler never passed the maginot line. The Austria situation happened after Halifax went to Germany and said Germany was in the right on German-Austria, German-Sudetenland and German-Danzig. Schuchnigg violated his agreement with Hitler and called for a psuedo-plebiscite, causing Hitler to go into Austria. The German-Sudetenland was stolen from Germany, as was the German-Danzig. Hanson is a fool.
3:30- The German-Rhineland was remilitarized after France entered and anti-German pact with Russia; Hitler never passed the maginot line. The Austria situation happened after Halifax went to Germany and said Germany was in the right on German-Austria, German-Sudetenland and German-Danzig. Schuchnigg violated his agreement with Hitler and called for a psuedo-plebiscite, causing Hitler to go into Austria. The German-Sudetenland was stolen from Germany, as was the German-Danzig. Hanson is a fool.
3:30- The German-Rhineland was remilitarized after France entered and anti-German pact with Russia; Hitler never passed the maginot line. The Austria situation happened after Halifax went to Germany and said Germany was in the right on German-Austria, German-Sudetenland and German-Danzig. Schuchnigg violated his agreement with Hitler and called for a psuedo-plebiscite, causing Hitler to go into Austria. The German-Sudetenland was stolen from Germany, as was the German-Danzig. Hanson is a fool.
0:16- The two major empires caused the worst war in human history, murdering over 40 million civilians, causing the stalinization of half of europe, generations and generations of the horrible cold war, laid the groundwork for Mao and guaranteed US involvement in Korea and Indo-China to combat a German regime with a moderate foreign policy and a death toll as of 1939-9 in the hundreds, empowering Stalin who as of 1939-9 had a death toll of 10 million.
if u have read Buchanan's book, you would know what he's trying to tell us especially to Americans. its not just a WW2 history book. its a political analysis of war diplomacy. literally it says "WE CANNOT FUCKED UP LIKE THE BRITISH WHO JUMPED AROUND EVERYWHERE TRY NOT TO RUIN HER EMPIRE BUT FAILED." BTW Hitchens is a big fan of David Irving, the brilliant WW2 historian bravely tries to seek the real truth of Adolf Hitler. Buchanan for WW2 diplomacy, Irving for finding out about Hitler, go for it
I strongly agree with Mr. Hitchens most of his opinions on religion, Iraq War, feministic issues(?) and so on...but strongly disagree with him on the analysis and the opposite oppinions against Mr. Buchanan. Victor Davis Hanson is the oldest school of WW2 history-the guys like him wrote the history textbooks 'for the government'- and Mr. Hitchens unlike his style, stick to the old stuff based on the myths like only Hitler ruined every military operations..and Buchanan tries to deceive us? WTF?
The war was forced upon the Third Reich by the allies after Germany managed to free itself from the jewish banker tyrrany and debt enslavement. When Germany were trading goods world wide the international Jewry tried to internationally boycott all German products, the German responded by boycotting domestic jewish products in Germany, that event is known as the Crystal Night. There are thousands of examples like that that explain the truth about WW2 and why it happened.
Yeah, it was a good war. Communist controlled all of eastern Europe after the war Churchill wanted to save Poland? Were the Poles happy with Soviet occupation?Patton had the right idea.
@bran988 Churchill and FDR were controlled by the same Jews who financed the Bolshevik revolution. The red army raped as many as 2 million German women, incuding girls as young as 8 years old. The red army also raped Polish woman. Illya Enrinburg made rape official policy of the red army. Illya Enrinburg invented the 6 million lie to cover up their own war crimes. Hitler made some big mistakes, but he did try to defend Europe from Bolshevism.
I find Buchanan's book (the one under discussion here) to be utterly disgusting. It is an outrageous Orwellian lie. Churchill's description of WWII as The unnecessary war" was meant to denounce the policy of appeasement. Buchanan inverts it advocate yet further appeasement. If the West had backed up Czechoslovakian democracy as they did the military dictatorship of Poland, there would have been no war at all. The Czechs would have been a far better ally.
Victor Lepanto, and exactly how would the West do that?? If they cannot defend the military dictatorship of Poland by force of arms, what makes you think they would of been any better at defending Czechoslovakian Democracy?? What military assets could any of the Western powers have called upon to enforce their treaty??
@suryavajra: Are you kidding? The Czechs had a superb arms industry before WWII. They actually had a contract to manufacture Messerschmitts. That is commonly considered to be the best fighter of the early part of WWII. They would have used this against the Germans. Most likely, the Czechs would have shared this technology w/ the Western allies. The mountainous defensive lines of Czechoslovakia were far superior to Poland's. That is why the Nazi really wanted the Sudetenland, for the Czech forts.
@suryavajra: Who cares. The Czechs were entitled to an effective defense. Using a few scatters settlements for robbing a nation of the region where all their mountainous border defenses are located is absurd. The West should have given the Sudeten Germans some limited autonomy under Czech sovereignty, or made minor adjustments to the borders. The changes should have been made incrementally to allow the Czechs to adjust & also they should have been compensated.
@suryavajra: The Czechs only acted as they did under considerable pressure from the West. The Czech were simply told by their supposed Western allies that they would have to face the Germans alone, no one would help them. Yes the Czech gov't would have granted autonomy to the Sudetenlanders. That would have probably been the best solution. Basically like Swiss cantons only controlling the boundaries of their towns. The borders & country remaining in Czech hands.
VictorLepanto, I also remember hearing about how the Slovaks also wanted to secede at this time. But yes, some kind of federal system would of been for the best for all involved.
A friend of mine who is Czech would always get angry when she talked about the British and the French. I suppose that that many Czechs believe that they were abandoned and stabbed in the back?
@suryavajra: There are many historic differences between the Czechs & Slovaks. They have very different geographies, histories & languages. Also the economic situation of the two nations are different. This hardly meant that the Slovaks were eager to become vassals of the Nazis.
Your friend gets angy b/c they indeed were betrayed by the Western powers. Both abandoned & stabbed in the back
By the way, I am descended from Slovaks on my father's side.
@suryavajra: Czechoslavakia was annexed after the loss of the Sudetenland. They were defenseless then. This is what finally woke even stupid Chamberlain up. A puppet regime was imposed on the Slovaks after the invasion. There are alwasy quislings in every society. The Nazis found plenty everywhere they went.
In many ways the old Austro-hungarian order was preferable to what befell most of these territories for most of the 20th cent. But every people should be allowed self determination.
See VictorLepanto, what if the Czechs and Slovaks and the Slaves in general had been given the same kind of deal in the Austro-Hungarian Empire as the Magyars?? You think that it would of been a strong and powerful order in Central Europe with a liberal tradition with the strength to stand up to both, the forces of fascism on one hand and the forces of communism on the other?
VictorLepanto, going back to Buchanan's Book, I am not personally offended at all. His basic premise is that the West sacrificed itself to save the nations of Eastern Europe from one dictator only to watch helplessly as they lost those nations to another one just five years later. I don't think he called for appeasement. But what he advises is that nations know what their limits are, and what they can safeguard, and what they cannot.
@suryavajra: Scummy Buchanan is basically repeating his premise in A Republic Not An Empire. I read that book, & I became utterly disgusted w/ Buchanan. Yes, he is advocating continuing to appease the Nazis. At the expense of the Poles & Czechs & all too. He would have left Hitler in charge of Eastern Europe to complete the Holocaust. Damn the treasonous Nazi bastard Buchanan.
Look i think Buchanan basically has a pessmisitc outlook with Eastern Europe. Either it is left to the orbit of Germany or the orbit of the USSR and eventually it would come to a power play between the two. So Buchanan seems to imply that the West should of stayed out and allowed the two to fight each other....
@suryavajra: Czechoslovakia was already in the orbit of the West. I am convinced that Buchanan is slyly admitting to a basic underlying Nazi sympathy. That is right, I say it straight out, he is a neo-nazi. He wishes Hilter had won WWII. Stalin would not have allowed himself to be destroyed by Hitler. He would have cut a deal w/ Hilter, as Lenin had done w/ his German patrons.
Keep in mind that while Buchanan was quite hands off when it comes to Europe, in the Americas he is very anti-communist and supported Pinochet of Chile, or atleast supported the Nixon Administration's policy vis a vis Pinochet.
@VictorLepanto Sorry, but I disaggree with you on Buchanan's sympathies. He's already called a racist by lot's of people and too controversial on a variety of other topics to turn around and conceal a secret admiration for Nazism. I'm reading his book now, and the picture he paints of Hitler is NOT a pretty one. According to Buchanan, Hitler was petty, vindictive, murdered allies and was loathed and ridiculed by Mussolini. He just doesn't paint Hitler as the raving lunatic that others do.
@TheCanine2: He conceeds some points so his ultimate point will seem less radical. He is definitely soft on Hitler. He is like David Irving, as Irving conceeded bad things happened to the Jews, he ultimately denied the Holocaust happened. He attempting a rehabilitation by half measures. Buchanan is attempting a similar thing, he saying that some kind of deal should have been made leaving Hitler in power. Abandoing Eastern Europe to Hitler rather then Stalin. Both propositions are horrible.
In retrospect the best possible course of action would have been to let Stalin and Hitler grind each other into nothingness then sweep in and finish off the remnants of both sides.
Not very practical, but as long as we're engaging in revisionist fantasy, that'd be the path I choose.
British politician Archibald Ramsay wrote a book based on his memoirs during the era before WW2 started. It is from the horses mouth and is recommended reading if you would like to know whom actually Wanted and Planned War. The book is aptly titled 'The Nameless War'. The truth shall prevail.
Going to war with Hitler because he was going to attack the Bolsheviks would not be sufficient grounds. Stalin, if anything, was even worse than Hitler when it came to human rights. The reason Britain and France went to wqar with Germany was because Hitler had violated a peace agreement, and was invading an ally of Britain and France.
As for the US, we went to war with Nazi Germany because we were declared on. The choice element had been taken entirely out of our hands at that point.
The bottom line being, Hitler was always going to invade poland and other lands to the east. War with the west would become inevitable as german an italian expansion conflicted with england and france's empires. The idea Poland giving up land to germany then hitler becomes a good neighbor afterward is beyond moronic. That war was going to happen, Hitler was telling his generals to be ready for it, he even told the navy not to expect war b4 1945.
He signed a treaty with Pilsudski in 1934 for Poland to join his "Anti-Cominterm Pact." Maybe if the Polish government could have sent representatives to discuss the Danzig/Polish Corridor issue, maybe Hitler wouldn't have invaded. The Polish never once sent a representative, and they were having meetings discussing this issue beforehand. Hitler even called off his invasion for a week to schedule for peace. Let me ask you, would you have supported a war guarantee against the USSR?
Yea, and maybe Bruce Campbell could have stopped WWII all together had be been alive in the 30's (bruce appeases no one). Spare me your hypothetical maybe scenarios because they are all as retarded as any scenario involving giant robots with lasers. Hitler was going to invade eastward PERIOD. Appeasing fools simply gave him more land he would have had to have faught for other wise. Not let a smooth talking author overide even your limited experience with human nature,
I don't doubt that he would have moved east and fight the Bolsheviks. They could have both destroyed each other, or at least weaken each other. If by appeasement you mean Munich, then you are mistaken.
Note Hitchens around the 6 minute mark. Classic leftist ploy - call Buchanan a fascist in a roundabout way and you've won the argument. No need to debate the fact when you have ad hominem polemics on your side
Hitches is correct in calling Father Coughlin a facsist. He could also have said he wasa friend and early supported of FDR policies. Which would have been the same thing.
I've read Buchanan's book it says that while war was inevitable it wasn't for the west. If Hitler continued to move eastward it would have been a German-Soviet war.
Nazism didn't pose a threat to the US unlike the USSR. Poland feared Stalin more than Hitler because at the time Stalin had killed millions while Hitler had only killed a few thousand.
Thanks for posting this. Everyone should e-mail Peter Robinson to get these guys back and debate Christianity. I've heard enough of Hitchens debating religious figures for one lifetime, but I've heard VDH make vague references to our debt the West owes to Christianity and its scholarship, and I think it'd be worthwhile to get these two to go head to head on the program. Hitch can usually win a debate through sheer bravura. Hanson would be a fine opponent.
He hasn't been a Trotskyite because they don't call themselves Trotskyites anymore. Hitchens is the same thoroughly depraved "intellectual" he was thirty years ago..
With your name, I'm going to assume you are a confiscationist far-leftie. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm of the opinion that government programs like retirement insurance for 70 year olds doesn't create much moral hazard. Neo-cons oriented the conservative movement in such a way as to make it more politically viable with the realities of the modern state.
Is your hatred based on their internationalist foreign policy? Frankly, that question was settled in the 1940s in the US.
A Trotskyite and a Neocon (redundant, I know) providing a lecture on morality. This would be hilarious if it didn't account for the whole of mainstream "conservative" thought, as brought to us by MSM outlets, now including NR thanks to Bill's sellout decades ago to Podhoretz and Co.
So instead it's just disgusting in both micro and macro paradigms.
The Trotskyite warmongers like Hitchens hate European Christian mores, and yet this is what we have for a "conservative" outlook. Terrible.
I can't say I disagree with that. His defense of Adolf Hitler is nothing short of disgusting, and his views on immigration are just shy of racist. His brand of conservatism should have died with Robert Taft, in my opinion.
As Hitchens rightly points out - in passing - Hitler's "deal" for Brits was to keep their India and for him to get the whole of Europe. (A) France included. (B) Britain were to support his war on the Soviets. (C) the deal for Poland was to become nazi satellite, like Hungary.
The inevitable result - genocide of Jews of Poland/Ukrain/Russia just the same.
Thus the central selling point of Pukeanan is a LIE and he knows it.
Brits were to become a fascist empire in the process too.
We already know what would have happened if a socialist faction like the Nazis survived. Two did - the Maoist fascists in China and the Bolshevik fascists in Russia. Over 100 million people were killed by socialist fascists in the 20th century, even if one ignores the contribution of the national socialists of Germany.
JohnR22926: Most, if not all, true neoconservatives (I distinguish them from the nationalists who've formed a temporary alliance with neoconservatives-- eg, John Bolton, McCain, Cheney, etc.) are former radical Leftists. Look it up. They believe in permanent revolution, and despise authentic Burkean conservatives. In fact, in many regards neoconservatives are still today "well left-of-center."
JohnR22926: Most, if not all, true neoconservatives (I distinguish them from the nationalists who've formed a temporary alliance with neoconservatives-- eg, John Bolton, McCain, Cheney, etc.) are former radical Leftists. Look it up. They believe in permanent revolution, and despise authentic Burkean conservatives. In fact, in many regards neoconservatives are still today "well left-of-center."
renaldo: You'll have to provide refs for Bolton/MC/Cheney. To me, a radical Leftist is a marxist or communist...not a liberal Dem.
However, I'll agree that many neocons, including founding members Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were radical Leftists in the 50s/60s. And I also agree that when they shifted to the far anti-communist Right and created the neocon movement that they retained the most dispicable aspect of their ideology...a belief in utopianist solutions...like preemptive war.
Having Buchanan on to debate would be akin to Ahmadinejad visiting Columbia; the big difference being, that Columbia is more open and tolerant than the NR staff who continually bleat about "academic freedom" until that rhetoric, like so much else, no longer suits them (always sloughing the skin these Trots...oh, wait, neocons).
Not to mention, Buchanan is much easier to take on through state television-like smear tactics rather than logical debate.
They're their own totalitarian island, which as far as private enterprise is fine, but not when considering their agenda -- which is to extend to and through the whole of American or Western thought.
Or else...your life will be destroyed in a hail of epithets, and thusly epitaphs, all dedicated to "anti-semitism".
They target and bullseye so many others, it's amazing that Buchanan hasn't been snuffed out.
best interviewer ever
PoetsLight 2 weeks ago
Let's face it, like what's said by one commentator, Churchill continued war against Germany and sent British lives through hell because he loved playing war.
TKKTism 1 month ago
It is always sad to read so many derangements about Hitler, how the Holocaust was a response to the 'invasion' by Britain, or his Foreign policy was 'moderate'.
Hitler had by the mid 1930s violated the bulk of the terms under the Versailles treaty, militarized Germany, invaded Czechoslovakia, Austria, and then Poland. How is invading three countries moderate?And how does Germany's invasion of Poland amount to an invasion of Germany?Many idiots need to learn some history.
spader49 5 months ago
This Buchanan guy is retarded. Britain's guarantee to Poland did not mean anything to Hitler. He was going start a war regardless. He may have been a bit startled by the news, as he expected that he was going to get a free hand given Chamberlain's previous attitudes, but he knew war was an inevitability. So whether Britain did nothing or not, war was going to happen. Now Britain could have remained neutral, but that would not have been acceptable to the public.
PkayerZxz2 8 months ago
Buchanan is a stupid dick.
FMOlszynaa44 1 year ago
3:50- Hanson is a warmongering creep. Britain invaded Germany to keep Germans under Polish rule.
5:08 Hitchens is an idiot. You do not 'give Hitler everything he wants', you do what should have happened when Germany was run by democrats: allow self-determination and reverse Versailles.
8:07- The Holocaust happened in RESPONSE to the British-French invasion. The Holocaust was a war crime; no war, no Holocaust.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Your take on everything here is laughable. The Holocaust was in response to what? Gimmie a break.
PeterMayer 1 year ago
@PeterMayer The Holocaust was in response to WWII, it was a war crime. No war, no Holocaust. In 1939-9, Hitler's death toll was less than 200, while Stalin's was over 10 million. Compared to Japan and Russia, Germany had a moderate foreign policy. You are promoting warmongering, comic-book history.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 I am German you wanna be. Hitler had a moderate foreign policy. He built good roads too. Nehmen Sie Ihren Kopf aus dem Arsch!!!
PeterMayer 1 year ago
@PeterMayer Hitler was not going to expand west, never mind take over the earth. That is a myth.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Everything you've written suggests you have a latent admiration for the world's worse dictator, Hitler, and want to try and distort history to put a moderate veneer on his legacy.If Hitler's Holocaust was a response to WWII, then why as they said jeopardize winning WWII on trying to kill them? why start killing jews from all parts of the world in the middle of a war in the first place? One law in 1933 said jews were 'pollution'. Its obvious you are very ignorant and mentally ill.
spader49 5 months ago
@spader49 No British-US invasion, no genocide reaction; that is what Hitler said 1939-1-30.
The Versailles declaration of war enslaved millions of Germans to foreign rule; if Britain would have reversed that in the 1920s there would have been no Nazi/Hitler rule; if Britain would have reversed that in the 1930s there would have been no WWII.
qwertypoiu4321 5 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Hitler said that 'basically national-socialism and marxism are the same' in November 1939, and then invaded USSR in 1941. He also said in 1938 at Munich that he would make no further territorial claims after sudetenland, and then invaded prague etc. What he said what not always indicative of what he did or believed. Hitler had also broken most of the Versailles terms by 1936. Also Versailles was not as harsh as the 1917 treaty of Brest-litovsk the Germans imposed on the Russians.
spader49 5 months ago
Germany invaded the SU as the only possible war measure to take out the only potential west ally they were capable of. The mangled Munich policy was forced on Germany, still leaving millions of Germans under foreign rule, the main problem that if avoided would have dissolved Nazi's and WWII. The Versailles declaration of war was illegitimate, and this chopping up and putting under foreign rule millions of Germans was many *times* worse than unrelated BL from WWI.
qwertypoiu4321 5 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 you constantly point out how many germans became minorities in other countries after WWI, how does that justify putting millions of czechs under german rule? how does it explain the fascist imperialism? The subjugation of a non-german people. Its absurd to think that the allies would enable a 'greater germany' to emerge after 1918, a merger between austria and germany, given that they had not fought a war with them just to make them stronger.
spader49 5 months ago
Comment removed
spader49 5 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 your main error is that you think that Germans under foreign rule, 'enslaved' as you put it, is a justification for Germany invading that country. There were Germans in the Baltic, in Russia, in the UK etc, was germany entitled to all the world due to that? Under the BL treaty, the Russian Empire lost 1/4 of its entire population to German rule btw. And it was only the Nazis who made slaves out of Europeans: forced labour and murdered millions, 3000 per day in Poland 1939-45.
spader49 5 months ago
3:30- The German-Rhineland was remilitarized after France entered and anti-German pact with Russia; Hitler never passed the maginot line. The Austria situation happened after Halifax went to Germany and said Germany was in the right on German-Austria, German-Sudetenland and German-Danzig. Schuchnigg violated his agreement with Hitler and called for a psuedo-plebiscite, causing Hitler to go into Austria. The German-Sudetenland was stolen from Germany, as was the German-Danzig. Hanson is a fool.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:30- The German-Rhineland was remilitarized after France entered and anti-German pact with Russia; Hitler never passed the maginot line. The Austria situation happened after Halifax went to Germany and said Germany was in the right on German-Austria, German-Sudetenland and German-Danzig. Schuchnigg violated his agreement with Hitler and called for a psuedo-plebiscite, causing Hitler to go into Austria. The German-Sudetenland was stolen from Germany, as was the German-Danzig. Hanson is a fool.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3:30- The German-Rhineland was remilitarized after France entered and anti-German pact with Russia; Hitler never passed the maginot line. The Austria situation happened after Halifax went to Germany and said Germany was in the right on German-Austria, German-Sudetenland and German-Danzig. Schuchnigg violated his agreement with Hitler and called for a psuedo-plebiscite, causing Hitler to go into Austria. The German-Sudetenland was stolen from Germany, as was the German-Danzig. Hanson is a fool.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Comment removed
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
0:16- The two major empires caused the worst war in human history, murdering over 40 million civilians, causing the stalinization of half of europe, generations and generations of the horrible cold war, laid the groundwork for Mao and guaranteed US involvement in Korea and Indo-China to combat a German regime with a moderate foreign policy and a death toll as of 1939-9 in the hundreds, empowering Stalin who as of 1939-9 had a death toll of 10 million.
Sounds like a "good war".
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 moderate foreign policy? Who the F are you kidding? Yes, he wanted a "united" Europe.
PeterMayer 1 year ago
Why is Buchanan not part of the discussion to defend himself and his positions?
AresRoar 1 year ago
if u have read Buchanan's book, you would know what he's trying to tell us especially to Americans. its not just a WW2 history book. its a political analysis of war diplomacy. literally it says "WE CANNOT FUCKED UP LIKE THE BRITISH WHO JUMPED AROUND EVERYWHERE TRY NOT TO RUIN HER EMPIRE BUT FAILED." BTW Hitchens is a big fan of David Irving, the brilliant WW2 historian bravely tries to seek the real truth of Adolf Hitler. Buchanan for WW2 diplomacy, Irving for finding out about Hitler, go for it
IloveUSA1941 1 year ago
I strongly agree with Mr. Hitchens most of his opinions on religion, Iraq War, feministic issues(?) and so on...but strongly disagree with him on the analysis and the opposite oppinions against Mr. Buchanan. Victor Davis Hanson is the oldest school of WW2 history-the guys like him wrote the history textbooks 'for the government'- and Mr. Hitchens unlike his style, stick to the old stuff based on the myths like only Hitler ruined every military operations..and Buchanan tries to deceive us? WTF?
IloveUSA1941 1 year ago
I love VDH but I loathe Hitchens. So unfortunately, I think I'll pass on this.
7beers 1 year ago
The war was forced upon the Third Reich by the allies after Germany managed to free itself from the jewish banker tyrrany and debt enslavement. When Germany were trading goods world wide the international Jewry tried to internationally boycott all German products, the German responded by boycotting domestic jewish products in Germany, that event is known as the Crystal Night. There are thousands of examples like that that explain the truth about WW2 and why it happened.
Isleifur90 1 year ago
@Isleifur90 ah yes, ze Chews brrought it on to zemselves!
PeterMayer 1 year ago
Yeah, it was a good war. Communist controlled all of eastern Europe after the war Churchill wanted to save Poland? Were the Poles happy with Soviet occupation?Patton had the right idea.
foxrat123 1 year ago
Hitler did not want war with Great Britain. Churchill ordered bombings of German civilians to provoke Hitler.
foxrat123 1 year ago
@foxrat123 *buzzer noise* wrong.
bran988 1 year ago
@bran988 Churchill and FDR were controlled by the same Jews who financed the Bolshevik revolution. The red army raped as many as 2 million German women, incuding girls as young as 8 years old. The red army also raped Polish woman. Illya Enrinburg made rape official policy of the red army. Illya Enrinburg invented the 6 million lie to cover up their own war crimes. Hitler made some big mistakes, but he did try to defend Europe from Bolshevism.
foxrat123 1 year ago
@foxrat123 He didn't try to "defend" Europe. He took it over, plain and simple.
PeterMayer 1 year ago
Some polish fought alongside Germans against the Red Army.
foxrat123 1 year ago
What about the massacre of 58,000 German civilians in Danzig prior to Germany's invasion of Poland?
foxrat123 1 year ago
These are really insightful and interesting videos. Thanks for posting them all.
AllenbysEyes 1 year ago
I find Buchanan's book (the one under discussion here) to be utterly disgusting. It is an outrageous Orwellian lie. Churchill's description of WWII as The unnecessary war" was meant to denounce the policy of appeasement. Buchanan inverts it advocate yet further appeasement. If the West had backed up Czechoslovakian democracy as they did the military dictatorship of Poland, there would have been no war at all. The Czechs would have been a far better ally.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Victor Lepanto, and exactly how would the West do that?? If they cannot defend the military dictatorship of Poland by force of arms, what makes you think they would of been any better at defending Czechoslovakian Democracy?? What military assets could any of the Western powers have called upon to enforce their treaty??
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: Are you kidding? The Czechs had a superb arms industry before WWII. They actually had a contract to manufacture Messerschmitts. That is commonly considered to be the best fighter of the early part of WWII. They would have used this against the Germans. Most likely, the Czechs would have shared this technology w/ the Western allies. The mountainous defensive lines of Czechoslovakia were far superior to Poland's. That is why the Nazi really wanted the Sudetenland, for the Czech forts.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
Hello VictorLepanto, well you bring up another point. Did the Sudeten Germans really want to be part of Czechoslovakia??
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: Who cares. The Czechs were entitled to an effective defense. Using a few scatters settlements for robbing a nation of the region where all their mountainous border defenses are located is absurd. The West should have given the Sudeten Germans some limited autonomy under Czech sovereignty, or made minor adjustments to the borders. The changes should have been made incrementally to allow the Czechs to adjust & also they should have been compensated.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
VictorLepanto, how can the West give autonomy to the Sudeten Germans?? I thought it was for the Czech government to grant them autonomy.
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: The Czechs only acted as they did under considerable pressure from the West. The Czech were simply told by their supposed Western allies that they would have to face the Germans alone, no one would help them. Yes the Czech gov't would have granted autonomy to the Sudetenlanders. That would have probably been the best solution. Basically like Swiss cantons only controlling the boundaries of their towns. The borders & country remaining in Czech hands.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
VictorLepanto, I also remember hearing about how the Slovaks also wanted to secede at this time. But yes, some kind of federal system would of been for the best for all involved.
A friend of mine who is Czech would always get angry when she talked about the British and the French. I suppose that that many Czechs believe that they were abandoned and stabbed in the back?
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: There are many historic differences between the Czechs & Slovaks. They have very different geographies, histories & languages. Also the economic situation of the two nations are different. This hardly meant that the Slovaks were eager to become vassals of the Nazis.
Your friend gets angy b/c they indeed were betrayed by the Western powers. Both abandoned & stabbed in the back
By the way, I am descended from Slovaks on my father's side.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
I see.....
But didn't the Slovak state ally itself to Germany during the War?? Also what do you think of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire?
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: Czechoslavakia was annexed after the loss of the Sudetenland. They were defenseless then. This is what finally woke even stupid Chamberlain up. A puppet regime was imposed on the Slovaks after the invasion. There are alwasy quislings in every society. The Nazis found plenty everywhere they went.
In many ways the old Austro-hungarian order was preferable to what befell most of these territories for most of the 20th cent. But every people should be allowed self determination.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
See VictorLepanto, what if the Czechs and Slovaks and the Slaves in general had been given the same kind of deal in the Austro-Hungarian Empire as the Magyars?? You think that it would of been a strong and powerful order in Central Europe with a liberal tradition with the strength to stand up to both, the forces of fascism on one hand and the forces of communism on the other?
suryavajra 2 years ago
VictorLepanto, going back to Buchanan's Book, I am not personally offended at all. His basic premise is that the West sacrificed itself to save the nations of Eastern Europe from one dictator only to watch helplessly as they lost those nations to another one just five years later. I don't think he called for appeasement. But what he advises is that nations know what their limits are, and what they can safeguard, and what they cannot.
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: Scummy Buchanan is basically repeating his premise in A Republic Not An Empire. I read that book, & I became utterly disgusted w/ Buchanan. Yes, he is advocating continuing to appease the Nazis. At the expense of the Poles & Czechs & all too. He would have left Hitler in charge of Eastern Europe to complete the Holocaust. Damn the treasonous Nazi bastard Buchanan.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
VictorLepanto,
Look i think Buchanan basically has a pessmisitc outlook with Eastern Europe. Either it is left to the orbit of Germany or the orbit of the USSR and eventually it would come to a power play between the two. So Buchanan seems to imply that the West should of stayed out and allowed the two to fight each other....
suryavajra 2 years ago
@suryavajra: Czechoslovakia was already in the orbit of the West. I am convinced that Buchanan is slyly admitting to a basic underlying Nazi sympathy. That is right, I say it straight out, he is a neo-nazi. He wishes Hilter had won WWII. Stalin would not have allowed himself to be destroyed by Hitler. He would have cut a deal w/ Hilter, as Lenin had done w/ his German patrons.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
VictorLepanto
Keep in mind that while Buchanan was quite hands off when it comes to Europe, in the Americas he is very anti-communist and supported Pinochet of Chile, or atleast supported the Nixon Administration's policy vis a vis Pinochet.
suryavajra 2 years ago
@VictorLepanto Sorry, but I disaggree with you on Buchanan's sympathies. He's already called a racist by lot's of people and too controversial on a variety of other topics to turn around and conceal a secret admiration for Nazism. I'm reading his book now, and the picture he paints of Hitler is NOT a pretty one. According to Buchanan, Hitler was petty, vindictive, murdered allies and was loathed and ridiculed by Mussolini. He just doesn't paint Hitler as the raving lunatic that others do.
TheCanine2 1 year ago
@TheCanine2: He conceeds some points so his ultimate point will seem less radical. He is definitely soft on Hitler. He is like David Irving, as Irving conceeded bad things happened to the Jews, he ultimately denied the Holocaust happened. He attempting a rehabilitation by half measures. Buchanan is attempting a similar thing, he saying that some kind of deal should have been made leaving Hitler in power. Abandoing Eastern Europe to Hitler rather then Stalin. Both propositions are horrible.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
In retrospect the best possible course of action would have been to let Stalin and Hitler grind each other into nothingness then sweep in and finish off the remnants of both sides.
Not very practical, but as long as we're engaging in revisionist fantasy, that'd be the path I choose.
TBlake34 2 years ago
British politician Archibald Ramsay wrote a book based on his memoirs during the era before WW2 started. It is from the horses mouth and is recommended reading if you would like to know whom actually Wanted and Planned War. The book is aptly titled 'The Nameless War'. The truth shall prevail.
NSW2101 2 years ago
This is crap!
Three guys with the same opinion sucking each others dicks!
Whatever happened to debate?
DEZZIELIGHTBULB007 2 years ago
Going to war with Hitler because he was going to attack the Bolsheviks would not be sufficient grounds. Stalin, if anything, was even worse than Hitler when it came to human rights. The reason Britain and France went to wqar with Germany was because Hitler had violated a peace agreement, and was invading an ally of Britain and France.
As for the US, we went to war with Nazi Germany because we were declared on. The choice element had been taken entirely out of our hands at that point.
DrCruel 2 years ago
We should of guaranteed the safety of France not Poland. Poland wasn't even a democratic state.
This is boring get Buchanan on the panel too!
Belegaer 2 years ago
Buchanan obviously didn't thumb thru Mein Kompf
snowboredsnj 2 years ago
Did you? Of course not.
jimj122680 2 years ago
Didnt thumb thru it, i read it. I've got an autographed copy even.
snowboredsnj 2 years ago
The bottom line being, Hitler was always going to invade poland and other lands to the east. War with the west would become inevitable as german an italian expansion conflicted with england and france's empires. The idea Poland giving up land to germany then hitler becomes a good neighbor afterward is beyond moronic. That war was going to happen, Hitler was telling his generals to be ready for it, he even told the navy not to expect war b4 1945.
snowboredsnj 2 years ago
He signed a treaty with Pilsudski in 1934 for Poland to join his "Anti-Cominterm Pact." Maybe if the Polish government could have sent representatives to discuss the Danzig/Polish Corridor issue, maybe Hitler wouldn't have invaded. The Polish never once sent a representative, and they were having meetings discussing this issue beforehand. Hitler even called off his invasion for a week to schedule for peace. Let me ask you, would you have supported a war guarantee against the USSR?
Chainedorlo 2 years ago
Yea, and maybe Bruce Campbell could have stopped WWII all together had be been alive in the 30's (bruce appeases no one). Spare me your hypothetical maybe scenarios because they are all as retarded as any scenario involving giant robots with lasers. Hitler was going to invade eastward PERIOD. Appeasing fools simply gave him more land he would have had to have faught for other wise. Not let a smooth talking author overide even your limited experience with human nature,
snowboredsnj 2 years ago
I don't doubt that he would have moved east and fight the Bolsheviks. They could have both destroyed each other, or at least weaken each other. If by appeasement you mean Munich, then you are mistaken.
Chainedorlo 2 years ago 2
Note Hitchens around the 6 minute mark. Classic leftist ploy - call Buchanan a fascist in a roundabout way and you've won the argument. No need to debate the fact when you have ad hominem polemics on your side
cmloz 2 years ago
why don't they debate pat? very little rebuttal by robinson.
MONTYB1229 3 years ago 2
Exactly, a big circle jerk between two warmongers is pointless. We have our history books to do that for us.
Chainedorlo 2 years ago
Hitches is correct in calling Father Coughlin a facsist. He could also have said he wasa friend and early supported of FDR policies. Which would have been the same thing.
stanleythughes 3 years ago
I've read Buchanan's book it says that while war was inevitable it wasn't for the west. If Hitler continued to move eastward it would have been a German-Soviet war.
Nazism didn't pose a threat to the US unlike the USSR. Poland feared Stalin more than Hitler because at the time Stalin had killed millions while Hitler had only killed a few thousand.
contaminatingurwrld 3 years ago
Citation? I'm not refuting your point just looking for a citation so I can read your information. Thank you.
DarkMurmillo 2 years ago
the u.s.a intercepted a message asking mexico to join the war and attack the u.s.a and it was sent by germany
jasonnepoose 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this. Everyone should e-mail Peter Robinson to get these guys back and debate Christianity. I've heard enough of Hitchens debating religious figures for one lifetime, but I've heard VDH make vague references to our debt the West owes to Christianity and its scholarship, and I think it'd be worthwhile to get these two to go head to head on the program. Hitch can usually win a debate through sheer bravura. Hanson would be a fine opponent.
DammitSteve 3 years ago
He hasn't been a Trotskyite because they don't call themselves Trotskyites anymore. Hitchens is the same thoroughly depraved "intellectual" he was thirty years ago..
AgrarianReformist 3 years ago
"AgrarianReformist" an interesting name for a youtuber.
The great insight of the neocons is transforming the conservative movement of English-speaking countries from being anti-statist to anti-left.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
Yes, and that is why they are to be despised. Although I would put "great" and "insight" in quote marks.
AgrarianReformist 3 years ago
With your name, I'm going to assume you are a confiscationist far-leftie. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm of the opinion that government programs like retirement insurance for 70 year olds doesn't create much moral hazard. Neo-cons oriented the conservative movement in such a way as to make it more politically viable with the realities of the modern state.
Is your hatred based on their internationalist foreign policy? Frankly, that question was settled in the 1940s in the US.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
Also thank you for posting these videos.
AgrarianReformist 3 years ago 7
My pleasure.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago 2
I'm fairly certain that Hitchens ENJOYS lying. His whole demeanor is a dead giveaway. What a neocon douche bag.
AgrarianReformist 3 years ago
go watch zeitgeist you idiot
JeffBeck13 3 years ago
nazigassings(dot)com
AgrarianReformist 3 years ago
What a joke!
A piece criticizing revisionism but with no revisionist historians to defend it!
Talk about democratic debating!
Tercariol 3 years ago
Totally agree, how is this a fair and proper debate, its just a book review by three critics.
Danni4815162342 3 years ago
A Trotskyite and a Neocon (redundant, I know) providing a lecture on morality. This would be hilarious if it didn't account for the whole of mainstream "conservative" thought, as brought to us by MSM outlets, now including NR thanks to Bill's sellout decades ago to Podhoretz and Co.
So instead it's just disgusting in both micro and macro paradigms.
The Trotskyite warmongers like Hitchens hate European Christian mores, and yet this is what we have for a "conservative" outlook. Terrible.
lakerfiend 3 years ago
And people say the internet - and, namely, youtube - is full of rubbish.
Thanks for adding this, I learned a lot.
cancerparty 3 years ago 10
Hanson wrote an interesting book on the Pelopponesian War. Good read.
MalteseFalcon786 3 years ago
Pat Buchanan used to be my political idol.
Then it became very clear to me that he's an anti-Semite. A nice guy and very bright, but he hates Jews. His views on WWII are positively surreal.
AU88 3 years ago
I can't say I disagree with that. His defense of Adolf Hitler is nothing short of disgusting, and his views on immigration are just shy of racist. His brand of conservatism should have died with Robert Taft, in my opinion.
AllenbysEyes 3 years ago
As Hitchens rightly points out - in passing - Hitler's "deal" for Brits was to keep their India and for him to get the whole of Europe. (A) France included. (B) Britain were to support his war on the Soviets. (C) the deal for Poland was to become nazi satellite, like Hungary.
The inevitable result - genocide of Jews of Poland/Ukrain/Russia just the same.
Thus the central selling point of Pukeanan is a LIE and he knows it.
Brits were to become a fascist empire in the process too.
aoeaoae 3 years ago 2
Hell, i'm a conservative, and even I know that Pat Buchanan is a goddamned moron. Good for VDH and Hitchens.
holt2k 3 years ago
what could be more conservative than worshiping Lenin and Trotsky?
NRO, standing athwart! What a joke
lakerfiend 2 years ago
We already know what would have happened if a socialist faction like the Nazis survived. Two did - the Maoist fascists in China and the Bolshevik fascists in Russia. Over 100 million people were killed by socialist fascists in the 20th century, even if one ignores the contribution of the national socialists of Germany.
DrCruel 3 years ago
JohnR22926: Most, if not all, true neoconservatives (I distinguish them from the nationalists who've formed a temporary alliance with neoconservatives-- eg, John Bolton, McCain, Cheney, etc.) are former radical Leftists. Look it up. They believe in permanent revolution, and despise authentic Burkean conservatives. In fact, in many regards neoconservatives are still today "well left-of-center."
renaldo999 3 years ago
JohnR22926: Most, if not all, true neoconservatives (I distinguish them from the nationalists who've formed a temporary alliance with neoconservatives-- eg, John Bolton, McCain, Cheney, etc.) are former radical Leftists. Look it up. They believe in permanent revolution, and despise authentic Burkean conservatives. In fact, in many regards neoconservatives are still today "well left-of-center."
renaldo999 3 years ago 3
renaldo: You'll have to provide refs for Bolton/MC/Cheney. To me, a radical Leftist is a marxist or communist...not a liberal Dem.
However, I'll agree that many neocons, including founding members Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were radical Leftists in the 50s/60s. And I also agree that when they shifted to the far anti-communist Right and created the neocon movement that they retained the most dispicable aspect of their ideology...a belief in utopianist solutions...like preemptive war.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Bheanue, throwing out accusations like "bigot" without support is not the sign of someone willing to have an open and frank discussion.
Nothing that Hitchens has said about Catholic complicity and cooperation with fascism is untrue.
The truth hurts.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
Hitchens is an ex-Trotskyist, and is not anti-catholic, but anti-religion in general, he has no favourite religion to hate.
Buchanan's intellect? The man is a right wing racist nut job.
jp2007ms 3 years ago 2
What kind of "discussion" is this? You have two neoconservatives who agree on every point!
renaldo999 3 years ago 2
1) The video is titled "In Defense of WW2"
2) You're part of the discussion - go watch related videos
SubZep 3 years ago
It's National Review -- i.e. neocon central.
Having Buchanan on to debate would be akin to Ahmadinejad visiting Columbia; the big difference being, that Columbia is more open and tolerant than the NR staff who continually bleat about "academic freedom" until that rhetoric, like so much else, no longer suits them (always sloughing the skin these Trots...oh, wait, neocons).
Not to mention, Buchanan is much easier to take on through state television-like smear tactics rather than logical debate.
lakerfiend 3 years ago
They're their own totalitarian island, which as far as private enterprise is fine, but not when considering their agenda -- which is to extend to and through the whole of American or Western thought.
Or else...your life will be destroyed in a hail of epithets, and thusly epitaphs, all dedicated to "anti-semitism".
They target and bullseye so many others, it's amazing that Buchanan hasn't been snuffed out.
lakerfiend 3 years ago