Pat Buchanan: Knave and Fool
September 1 marked the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War II. The day was marked with solemn remembrances from governments and survivors. They recalled the unprovoked German invasion of Poland that led to Britain and France honoring their defense guarantees, which plunged the planet into its second great conflict in as many generations.
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan acknowledged the day a little differently.
“Pitchfork Pat” wrote a column in which he reiterated his long-held contention that Adolf Hitler did not want to start a general war, that he was only trying to unite the German-speaking peoples of Europe, and that he was generally misunderstood in his intentions toward France and Great Britain.
He has also insisted over the years that we’re missing something about the Holocaust. What we’re missing is that the whole thing was just a big mistake. The Nazis didn’t mean to kill millions of Jews; it just kinda happened accidental-like:
The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.
And then there’s this monumental dishonesty about the Final Solution:
Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table. That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.
What Buchanan fails to mention — or more likely is just plain ignorant of — was that the SS was already all over Poland and eastern Russia by the fall of 1941, with death squads (the dreaded Einsatzgruppen) who were conducting mass executions of Jews. They had even been inventing a special truck that would direct the exhaust into the rear of the vehicle that the SS would stuff to overflowing with Jews. The means of genocide had not been perfected yet, as it took too long for the victims to die and it wasted precious fuel in the process. The poison Zyklon B, which was used to gas death camp inmates, was a few years down the road from being suggested.
The simple point: the Holocaust may not have been a “cause” of World War II, but Hitler’s obsession with Lebensraum was. His plans were to enslave the Slavs and murder the Jews. This was proven at Nuremberg as the “big fish” Nazis were convicted of coldly planning “aggressive war” against humanity in the 1930s.
What was the proof? Millions of documents were found after the war in salt mines, caves, and other hidden enclaves that contained the whole shocking story. Nazi party archives, Wehrmacht files, personal papers of Hitler subordinates — an unprecedented event in world history (and a godsend for historians) where the secret deliberations of a government’s workings were known in a near contemporaneous time frame. Nothing like it happened again until the archives were thrown open when the Soviet Union collapsed. And nowhere near the access was granted when that occurred.
Pat Buchanan’s faulty, ludicrous notions of the history of that time are bad enough. But it is his curious, depressing revisionism of Adolf Hitler’s motives for starting the conflict that make him stand out from other revisionists, some of whom have added substantially to the debate over the origins of World War II. There have been thoughtful reassessments of the role the British played in the tangle of European politics prior to World War I that have enriched our understanding of the century’s two great convulsions. But Buchanan’s analysis of British motivations and especially Winston Churchill’s role in history have not added much value to the discussion.
Buchanan’s anniversary piece is chock full of rhetorical questions, many of which he tried to answer in his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. In that book, the polemicist tried to play historian and was roundly criticized for his effort. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in his thumbnail review of the book in Newsweek, Buchanan’s thesis about German innocence in starting World War II depends entirely on ignoring most of the rest of history of that time:
[I]n order to believe his thesis one has to be prepared to argue that Hitler was a rational actor with intelligible and negotiable demands, whose declared, demented ambitions in Mein Kampf were presumably to be disregarded as mere propaganda.
If ppl can still claim with a straight face that hitler was right wing why can’t he claim another far fetched idea….
Millions of teachers world wide in every country still teach hitler’s ideas… worse still believe in them…
Socialism, collectivism, racism just to name a few of the classic leftwing traits. Even obama believes and has hired as czar ppl who believed as hitler did…
The simple fact is hitler was a hero to the leftwing for over a decade and his teachings are still being taught across the world. Frankly i’m a little more worried about colleges and high schools that rewrite history to cast hitler as right wing and socialism as good instead of one guy that wants to whine about it.
Also does anyone find the irony between the mexican/illegal debate and this “ideal”.
“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?”
It is true irony that opens borders nutters and so forth use very similar reasoning…
Silly revisionism by Buchanan there. Hitler wanted war all along, he wanted war in 1938 but did not get it because the allies just gave in to all his insane demands. Since the more realist army generals knew the Wehrmacht was not ready there were even serious plans for a coup in ´38 should he start a war. But after his success in Munich he became so popular that in ´39 the generals did not dare a coup.
True is that the hard conditions of the Versailles treaty made his rise to power possible, but the majority of germans back then did not want a war. It was Hitlers war, he wanted -as the author correctly states- to kill the jews and enslave the slavic people.
Thats why he offered peace to England by the way. He had nothing to gain from a war with England. The goal was eastern Europe, not england.
Is he defending Hitler or setting the record straight?
It seems that the principle criterion for telling history is that it must be flattering. So someone comes along and tells an unflattering truth and that threatens to undo the entire artifice of history that has been construed. Naturally, that’s going to upset some people.
Why anyone still takes Pat Buchanan seriously is beyond me.
Pat Buchanan has made it crystal clear over the past decade that he fully shares Adolf Hitler’s foul belief system regarding the so called Master Race as well has Hitler’s murderous hostility towards the Jewish People. I cannot understand how Pat Buchanan continues to be published in any serious internet forum, nor can I understand how any decent and moral person of any religion or positive belief system can associate with him in any way.
The Lebensraum ideal was to create a ideal world. People live in small agrarian, deindustrialized communities with organic food, noble leaders and one big town germania in the center with a good leader.
Just a pity that mother earth doesn’t have that much space, so you need to do a little selection.
Pol Pot had a similar dream and killed half of the cambodians.
From distant memories, Enstzgruppen were not an exclusively SS thing. There were plenty of “good germans” (aka Werhrmacht) in them and there were no sanctions for refusing to join Einsatgruppen or resigning. I don’t know if there was a such thing as a good SS but there were plenty of evil men in the Wehrmacht.
I thought it was universally understood a long time ago that Pat Buchanan is a whack job on such matters.
Pat Buchanan also argues that the United States’ alleged belligerence is responsible for Japan’s military aggression. His attempt to turn Adolph Hitler into some sort of victim is laughable. The Fuhrer was brutally blunt concerning what he planned for the Jews and the rest of the world in Mein Kampf published in 1925. The sad thing is that Hitler could have been easily marginalized in the early to mid 1930s. He thought, for instance, that the end was imminent after ordering German troops into the Ruhr in 1935. Hitler literally ordered these soldiers to pull back immediately if they met with even the slightest resistance! The odds were overwhelmingly against him. Alas, France and the other western powers let him get away this major violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler only got bolder and more reckless. WW II, needless to add, started a few years later.
What George Gilder calls the “Israel test” now confronts American conservatives:
“Israel is the pivot, the axis, the litmus, the trial. Are you for civilization or barbarism, life or death, wealth or envy? Are you an exponent of excellence and accomplishment or a leveling created of troglodytic frenzy and hatred?”
So far, I think we are passing it, but the prominence of a figure like Buchanan leaves me unsure. What do others think?
Why is Pat Buchanan defending Adolf Hitler?
BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH HIM!!! Duh!
Buchanan is a Fascist, not in the “person winning an argument with a Liberal” sense of the word, but in the Generalisimo Franco sense of the word, though he is probably more anti-semitic than Franco was.
Pat is no better on world history than Obama is, but you have to admit, at least this time he’s politically correct since he agrees with Muslims that Hitler wasn’t all that bad. He hasn’t gone the way of Rev. Wright and all true Muslims who completely deny that there even was a holocaust. Give him time, though, and he’ll decide that it was really nothing but a little misunderstanding.
I think Pat when off his meds about 1993 and probably started snorting Viagra, something that deepens is unmedicated imbalance by keeping sufficient blood from getting to his brain.
Regards
Pat Buchanan was a regular on Fox News, until he wrote that ridiculous book. Since then he’s vanished completely. I remember him appearing on a show talking about his book and all those revisionist ideas in it. It was almost surreal. Like he’d suddenly completely lost it. Then he never appeared again.
Peter Robinson did a series of “Uncommon Knowledge” videos with Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens on National Review Online last year about WWII revisionism, including Buchanan’s troubling defense of Hitler.
YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDkG9fY5pZQ&feature=video_response
Why does anyone give Pat Buchanan a platform anymore except the left to excoriate the right with this increasingly daft clown.
He’s been an anti-semite since a teenager when (as Bay writes) he and his Irish buddies used to go around bashing the Jew kids.
He poisons the right’s messages. Ignore him.
The extreme right (Buchanan, jihadists) and the extreme left (communism, national socialism)have at least one thing in common, Jew hatred.
Pat has long been clever enough to hide his true beliefs under a thin veneer of respectibility. Now that he is getting older and needs to get the message out. How it must have galled him all of these years to listen to everyone talk about the defeat of his poor misunderstood Nazis as if that were a good thing.
Why you ask?Because hes a left-over from a by gone era of conservatism.A racist jew hating era of conservatism.Im a representation of a new generation who isnt a racist, anti-semetic,jihadist loving citizen.
The noise coming out of leftist hollywood now about pledging allegiance to Obama is complete BS.
Hollywood-”You are betraying the very founding principles on which this country was founded.It is an attack on its very soul.”
The founding fathers of America were wise beyond their years.The Constitution is the perfect defense against Communism,Fascism,and Jihadism.
Buchanan is MSNBC’s idea of a “conservative”.
Buchanan is a kook who conservatives ought to denounce at every opportunity. Instead, I still hear him occasionally on talk radio (I think it was Laura Ingraham, maybe, where I heard him last).
I seem to recall that W.F. Buckley Jr. once said about Buchanan that he was a bit of an anti-semetic.
Think Pat needs to re-read Hitler’s (toned down by the publisher due to radical content) ‘Mein Kampf’. Hitler absolutely wanted to unite all German speaking (and looking) peoples, and enslave or wipe out those who weren’t.
Thank you. Someone needed to expose Buchanan for the knave he is. He is also a fool, of course, because anyone who builds their understandings on the ground of untruth commits the ultimate act of foolishness. But Buchanan has always been a knave, as well, and a particularly odious one. Somewhere, long ago, he imbibed the toxic poison of anti-Semitism, and ever since he has proactively been figuring out ways to legitimate that vicious and pernicious animus. His books and articles are examples of his twisted understandings, and his commentary on anything which even remotely touches on Jews or Israel is a travesty of the truth.
WTH is wrong with the PJM posters? The personal attack on Buchanan is ridiculus, put up an argument to rebut his or STFU! Oh and anything Rick Moran writes is, w/o argument, idiotic!
Pat is an anti-semite so whatever he says is a lie.
The Nurembourg trials were completely just and fair.
Iraq has WMDs.
Of course there were death squads in eastern Europe in 1941. People looked at the Germans initially as liberators against the Bolsheviks. And the truth is many of the worst Bolsheviks were Jews and people turned them over to the Germans.
http://www.ukemonde.com/zhydy/jewsandcommunism.html
The majority here are getting the cause and effect backward. Buchanan didn’t seek an excuse for antisemitism and Hitler rehabilitation, he’s just following the logic of his neo-isolationism to it’s logical end. When he went neo-isolationist/protectionist a couple of decades ago, he had to turn history upside down in order to make the pieces fit.
Beware Ron Paul for the same reason. He’s also a neo-isolationist. He may be smart enough not to go around denying one of the main lessons of WWII, but the logic of his doctrine inevitably leads there.
“The personal attack on Buchanan is ridiculus”
Rick Moran is not engaging in a personal attack on Pat Buchanan. I have actually read, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Buchanan clearly states in his book that Adolph Hitler was treated unfairly by the Western Powers. Nobody is taking him out of context.
Man, after we went through all that trouble commissioning Jonah Goldberg to write that Liberal Fascism book to help us distance our modern American gay hating, liberal hating, union hating, communist hating, Jew hating, minority hating, immigrant hating conservative right-wing movement from Hitler’s gay hating, liberal hating, union hating, communist hating, Jew hating, minority hating, immigrant hating right wing Nazi movement, Pat Buchanan has to come along and ruin it all by exposing how close our right wing movements actually are!
Jonah….I think we’re gonna need another book!!
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non interventionist free trader.
As for the Moran, when you start quoting an unrepentant Trotskyite like Chris Hitchens your entire article goes out the window.
I actually agree with PJB that Hitler ‘did not want war’ with Poland. As long as any leader can bully/bluster their way into what they want (Kim Jung Il anyone?), why even fire a shot? The responses to the conquest of Czechoslovakia and annexation of Austria are the prime examples.
As I see it, the appeasement of Hitler was the main cause or origin of WWII. If the signatories to the treaty of Versailles, however harsh/unfair it may have been, would have enforced its provisions then Hitler would have never been able to even form his offensive forces. He would have been stopped in the very beginning of external portion of the plan he laid out in “Mein Kampf”. Therefore, the blame for WWII lands squarely upon 1) Hitler, 2) Chamberlain, and 3) the rest of the leaders of the signatory countries to the treaty of Versailles.
For PJB to continue to advocate his revisionism merely relegates him to ridicule and irrelevance.
#7 JFM – The Schutzstaffel (SS) were 70 – 80% Austrian.
After the anschluss, many Austrians wore the death head insignia for fear of being ‘second class German.’
For being born in Germany before the anschluss was to be a true believer in National Socialism and Adolf Hitler.
It’s a sick thought, but as far as I know he (Hitler) did not kill a soul with his own two hands. That is perhaps the most frightening fact of all.
Why do you expect him not to defend Adolf Hitler?
What exactly in his past behavior has led you to believe he will ever stop doing so just because a bunch of people who thought he was on their side tell him that is wrong?
Why do frogs keep expecting scorpions not to sting them when the get halfway across rivers?
Somewhere deep inside Pat Buchanan are a series of linked equations, crippled by on fatal flaw:
Marx = Jew
Jews = Communists
Communist = Soviet Union
Hitler = Anti-Soviet
The Enemy of My Enemy = My Friend
Reagan = Anti-Soviet
Reagan = Hitler = Anti-Soviet = Anti-Semitic
Praise Reagan = Convince Frogs to Carry Me Across the River to Political Legitimacy Over and Over Until I Can Sting Them Yet Again
Maybe if you stop letting Pat Buchanan wrap himself in the Shroud of Reagan you will stop having to ask why he does what he does on a regular basis.
Of course, I am far from a Reaganite. If those who are, or those Ron Paul Libertarians, or Fulani-Newman “Independents”, have no problem with Pat Buchanan coat-tailing on them, then it certainly takes nothing away from me for them to indulge it.
Your ultra-fringe ally and welcome to him.
Well neither did Charles Manson, Lynn.
Pat confirming again that cognitive dissonance is no exclusive to leftists. The statement that Hitler wanted the war to end in 1940 is outrageously false. Hitler was doing preliminary planning for war with the Soviet Union before the invasion of France was complete. I suggest a read of Heinz Guderian’s ‘Panzer Leader’ as great starting point for anyone wanting to take a look at Hitler’s mind-set in relation to the war. Guderian was both a high-ranking German officer and not a NAZI party member.
I’m guessing Pat never read it.
Rewriting history to say that WW II wasn’t Hitler’s baby is just intellectually ignorant at best or dishonest at worst.
Hitler wanted Germany to be the greatest country on earth. He looked at the US and came away with the idea that only by getting land and resources equal or greater than the USA was Germany going to be able to compete on the world stage. The only land he saw as available was Poland and Russia. The entire war in Europe was about Germany acquiring that land. Of course the inhabitants would have to go, either by being worked to death or chased farther east. War was inevitable as long as Hitler was in power.
Hitler would not go to war without allies or at least neutrals to either the east or the west. He knew that Poland might bring war so he courted England and France first since he held a grudging respect for the British but he couldn’t get a deal. Stalin became a strange ally when Stalin thought war was coming and believed it a good idea that the western nations destroy each other. That pact between Hitler and Stalin allowed WW II to happen.
The Jews were the scapegoats on which Hitler blamed all the difficulties of Germany and its people, an enemy to unite the German people. Europe has had a long history of anti-Semitism that was ready made to take advantage of.
All the effort, manpower and money expended for the death camps are not something that accidentally happened. It was one of the cornerstones of the Third Reich.
I am sure Reagan, Nixon and others in power that he knew would avoid all connection with Buchanan now that his senility has shown itself. Bill Mahar, someone whom I generally strongly disagree did get it right with Buchanan –
‘If Pat isn’t a Nazi, why does he go to Dennys and order Lufwaffles
#34
Facts: Stalin was worse than Hitler. Buchanan isn’t making any excuses for Hitler
Jews played a major role in the Bolshevik revolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691119953
Stalin’s Brother-n-law Lazar Kaganovich who personally claimed to be responsible for 20 million killed, stood atop the rubble of a Christian church proclaiming, “Mother Russia has been cast down, we have torn away her skirts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Kaganovich
Buchanan’s thesis is that Hitler didn’t want to fight France and Britain and his real goal was Russia.
Instead we get a bunch of people with the usual BS. Antisemitism Jew hater etc etc. Pitiful.
37 Michael Hitler had not more respect for the Brits, just that UK didn’t enter in his frame of a great german empire, based on continent
Buchanan is an isolationist. And in my experience most people who carry isolationist viewpoints tend to have extreme views because of it. Ron Paul being another good example. He’s probably worried about the inevitable large scale war in Israel will drag us into a regional conflict. And he probably thinks the neoconservative hawkish lobby is full of Zionist Jews who will get us into more middle eastern conflicts. Also some Catholics dislike Jews for some reason. They blame them for killing Jesus. Mel Gibson comes to mind. And sometimes when you dislike someone so much you sympathize with and defend their enemies. And Hitler is the ultimate enemy of the Jews. That’s my best guess. Also some people are simply anal about accuracy and don’t like people being overly demonized. Including someone as evil as Hitler.
Paul Unslaskan said:
The Schutzstaffel (SS) were 70 – 80% Austrian.
Could you give a source please? I have read a history of the Wafeen SS and it sys nowehre that SS were mostly Austrian.
Pat Buchanan was a regular on Fox News, until he wrote that ridiculous book. Since then he’s vanished completely. I remember him appearing on a show talking about his book and all those revisionist ideas in it. It was almost surreal. Like he’d suddenly completely lost it. Then he never appeared again.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that the former reject their black sheeps as sooon they discover them while liberals whitewash theirs be they Reverend Wright, Ayers, Ted Kennedy, Senator Loth (D-KKK)
“Michael Hitler had not more respect for the Brits, just that UK didn’t enter in his frame of a great german empire, based on continent”
The Brits were, according to Nazi ideology, also considered mostly racially pure Aryans. The House of Windsor was previously known as House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Many of England’s leading citizens were sympathetic towards the doctrines of Hitlers. They advocated policies of appeasement instead of confrontation. The Fuhrer was greatly assisted by these not always naive individuals.
33. Lynn:
“It’s a sick thought, but as far as I know he (Hitler) did not kill a soul with his own two hands. That is perhaps the most frightening fact of all.”
Charlie Manson too.
[43.] JFM, don’t forget the venerable ex KKKlansmen and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.
Which is why so many Jews embraced Bolshevism, and so many to this day still embrace the new-age variant of that. Anything to oppose the old order.
This enemy-of-an-enemy stuff has got to stop. Right now, new-age liberal Jews are embracing their Palestinian enemies out of some sort of visceral hated of western civilization that their Israeli cousins psychologically represent.
Most people from Buchanan to Dershowitz to Chomsky are just acting out roles without even realizing why.
“It’s a sick thought, but as far as I know he (Hitler) did not kill a soul with his own two hands. That is perhaps the most frightening fact of all.”
The irony is that Adolph Hitler also may have never killed anyone in WWI! He was a very brave soldier—but often he was used as a message runner. Hitler didn’t even pull the trigger on Ernest Roehm. Someone else performed the murderous deed.
I found Pat’s book to be fairly good and added to several gaps in the the official history. Reading the history, I doubt that Hitler was ready for the war that started with the invasion of Poland. But the explanation the Pat gives for the invasion is better than any official version. But consider this, if the British and French were so intent on maintaining Poland, why didn’t they declare war on Russia when they invaded two weeks after Germany? WWII was just an extension of WWI brought about by the French stupidity. The murder of the Jews was a consequence of the war and could have come about due to the inablity to transfer them to Africa after the war started. As to the murder trucks, they started much earlier than the start of the war when the Germans executed the retarded with this method. Before you become alarmed over this, consider that the Kennedys were doing bad things to their relatives because of their retardation. Another thought, have you ever known any camp surviours? I have and they were patients so we talked about their experiences. It turns out that the Jews were helping to exterminated each other with as much input as the Germans. Then their is the case of the French who started the practice after the war started and the Vichy government was started. Then consider that the Jews represent only a small number of those put to death by all sides.
Mr. Moran:
“Why is Pat Buchanan defending Adolf Hitler?”
I’m not sure even Pat Buchanan knows. This is so pathetic.
to answer Pat’s queries:
“But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?”
Because Corporal Hitler had been a very good soldier in the German defensive trench warfare of World War 1, so he was familiar at first hand with the inheren strength of a well-prepared dug in position.
“Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?”
His experience above was his weak point in naval affairs. He had utterly no appreciation for what a robust fleet culd do for you. IOW, he hadn’t read his Mahan.
“If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?”
A few reasons, chief among them that Hitler had an uncommonly good tactical mind, a fair operational one,(with some strikingly good support from the General Staff, when he lisened to them), and utterly no strategic appreciation.
He was doubtlessly warned umpteen times not to get into a two-front war. He yet managed to get himself into at least a 3-front ground war.
As to the 4th front, the Air war, he can perhaps be forgiven because when he was building up his arsenal, the ideas of Douhet were only really held by some cranks like Spaatz and LeMay, and Harris.
Hitler and his staff designed his war machine to be victorious on a static battlefield like WW1′s, and gave no thought to what it would do after winning a single battle.
This condemned the Wehrmacht to having to fight and win battle after battle after battle, but never being able to fight and win campaign after campaign after campaign.
(Yes…there’s a difference.)
“Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?”
See above re: tactical vs, operational. Also, his tanks had run out of gas,his troops were tired, and he had no fleet that could stand against the Royal Navy.
“Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?”
Breathing room to rest, re-equip and consolidate his gains.
He signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin, and then promptly attacked the Soviets as soon as the ink dried.
Politically, the man did not bargain in good faith, and Churchill suspected it all along.
Events proved Sir Winston correct.
I’m not a professional military man, but as a fairly well-read hobbyist, it astounds me that someone of Buchanan’s former stature would have written a book which asks these most easily answered questions.
A more cogent question is what benefit accrued to the Germans at spending the logistics to identify, collect, and transport 6 million Jews, and several million other persons across the European continent to be murdered?
To do such a thing, say, to identify and incarcerate all native New Yorkers in the US East of the Mississippi River and transport them to camps in Arizona and New Mexico would be a logistical nightmare with today’s technology during peace-time.
To have actually accomplished this with early-1940′s technology while fighting a 3 front ground war and while their transportation infrastructure was being bombed is a feat that beggars the imagination.
And the even more mind-boggling consideration was that it did them no military good whatsoever.
Blackwater (41) brings up some good points.
Isolationist. Well, what is that? The America First movement, from which Pat B. is the most intellectual and succesful living heir has a history.
Gerald Ford and many other prominent members were in their ranks as were the German-American Bund. There is also a branch of the Roman Catholic community who weighed out in favor of the Nazis as less threatening than the Soviet Communists. No disrespect from me to Roman Catholicism. We all have our criminals, mistakes, and whackos. Both evils were eventually defeated at great cost.
Which devil do you wish to side with? I like that you brought up Mel Gibson. Great actor, I am thinking of watching one of the Mad Max movies today as I am home with a flu. What happened to him was that the drink loosened his tongue one evening.
For Pat Buchanon the same thing has happened as his very succesful career is reaching its end. He must now speak his mind.
When exposed thus, near all of us, liberal, conservative, libertarian or collectivist, recoil in horror. The beast is now out in the open.
We are past left and right. We cannot reconcile what happened and the price it took to defeat it with anything but the simple phrase “never again”.
I am Jewish and the season is upon us now. The day of atonement nears. We should focus on our own deeds and misdeeds. Whatever we want to say about him, Nietzche had some talent:
“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you”
Spindok
“Reading the history, I doubt that Hitler was ready for the war that started with the invasion of Poland.”
That is the understatement of the century. Adolph Hitler took it for granted that the Western powers were not going to do anything about Poland. He preferred waiting for a few more years. Thank God that his hand was forced. WWII started with Germany only having roughly fifty U-boats. Hitler would have probably easily won had there been one hundred.
“But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?”
Either Mr Buchanan is an ignorant or he is deliberately lying. 99% the latter
First of all because a fortified line allows you to lightly guard your west border, concentrate on the enemy east of you, crush it and then turn to the other one.
Second: The Siegfried line was not hugely expensive. (BTW the far stronger Maginot line was just a fraction of the cost of Germany’s panzer force). Hitkler didn’t want to expend Germany’s limited resources on defensive lines: he wanted offensive weapons and the Siegfroed line was built on the cheap.
It was just a few strong fortifications mostly built for the purpose of being visited by French and British spys (I know at least a case where the Germans deliberately feigned to ignore a person was a spy and deliberately had her visit one of these strongholds so she could report to the French that the Siegfried line was very strong) and the rest were just a few bunkers and concertina wire. Nothing who could have stopped the French for more than a couple days had they attacked in September 1939 when they outnumbered the German forces in the West 3 to 1. And it was a relatively minor expense compared to what Germany was spending in tanks, planes or U-Boots.
“But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?”
France’s military until the late 1930s was much stronger than that of the Nazis! Adolph Hitler had much to fear if the French leadership decided that he was a threat to their nation. Please note my previous comments regarding Germany’s militarization of the Ruhr in 1935. Hitler was virtually crapping in his pants. He took it for granted that French troops could have easily defeated the ill prepared German soldiers.
I agree about Mel Gibson and he said that Jews were the cause of ALL the problems in the world which to me echos the thinking of the leaders of the world today and yesterday. The Jewish Question seems to occupy them endlessly and the Jewish Question always seems to be a sticky sticking point in any ‘peace’ talks.
The drink loosened Mel Gibson’s tongue perhaps because of the Catholic conflict that Jesus is a Jew which leads one to wonder are the Jews a problem or a solution? If they are a problem, what is it? They interfere with Marxism, Socialism, Nazism, Secularism, all the isms? They prosper in Capitalism? and the solution…To annihilate which seems would satisfy a certain of the population or not to annihilate which seems would satisfy another certain of the population. And others wish they didn’t have to think about it or think they shouldn’t have to think about it at all.
Hitler was and yet he still is here in a way and it seems the world is still divided. It also seems that when one people announced that another has the right to exist it causes the world to call for their extermination also. At one time did Hitler attempt to win over the Jewish People and was rejected? Is it true that he had Jewish blood in him?
Sometimes the more one tries to make sense of something the less it makes sense.
I am rather let down that Pat B. said things like this. Both he and people like Ron Paul are held in very high esteem where I come from. Early in my military career I actually respected these kinds of people. Over the years the severe right has let me down. Long on Ideology, short on reality. Pat B. got it wrong if he said things like that and if he did, I hope he retracts it.
I’ve never been a fan of Buchanan and held a grudge since he pushed Reagan’s last big speech off prime-time in the ’92 convention with is stupid ramblings.
But I will take issue with article’s last example. “The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. …” The author points out that they were never part of Germany.
Of course they were never part of Germany – Germany didn’t exist until 1871. The Sudetenland was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire – which was certainly “German ruled” – for centuries.
Good idea, bad example.
Gassing vans, huh?
Tell me, did they ever find that one man portable gas chamber disguised as a telephone booth that was mentioned at Nuremberg?
Buchanan only follows the facts. Facts, of course, are an anthema to neo-Cohens.
41. Blackwater:
“Buchanan is an isolationist. And in my experience most people who carry isolationist viewpoints tend to have extreme views because of it. Ron Paul being another good example. He’s probably worried about the inevitable large scale war in Israel will drag us into a regional conflict. And he probably thinks the neoconservative hawkish lobby is full of Zionist Jews who will get us into more middle eastern conflicts. Also some Catholics dislike Jews for some reason. They blame them for killing Jesus. Mel Gibson comes to mind. And sometimes when you dislike someone so much you sympathize with and defend their enemies. And Hitler is the ultimate enemy of the Jews. That’s my best guess. Also some people are simply anal about accuracy and don’t like people being overly demonized. Including someone as evil as Hitler.”
Lets see what the media in Israel said about it.
White man’s burden
By Ari Shavit
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
41. Blackwater:
“Buchanan is an isolationist. And in my experience most people who carry isolationist viewpoints tend to have extreme views because of it. Ron Paul being another good example. He’s probably worried about the inevitable large scale war in Israel will drag us into a regional conflict. And he probably thinks the neoconservative hawkish lobby is full of Zionist Jews who will get us into more middle eastern conflicts. Also some Catholics dislike Jews for some reason. They blame them for killing Jesus. Mel Gibson comes to mind. And sometimes when you dislike someone so much you sympathize with and defend their enemies. And Hitler is the ultimate enemy of the Jews. That’s my best guess. Also some people are simply anal about accuracy and don’t like people being overly demonized. Including someone as evil as Hitler.”
Lets see what the media in Israel said about it.
White man’s burden
By Ari Shavit
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
53 JFM
belote et rebelote !!!
“Where are the Brits ?” were saying the Maginot line Guards
exterp from the “phony war” :
“as the weeks went on, the autochtone males happened to show off more “reserved”. Time will not be very long until the Brit soldiers will be reproached not to be numerous enough, and not placed where they should, though where they were, they were overwhelming. Despite its efforts, the Information Office has more and more hard time to hide the brit “wimped” participation to the strategic organisation.In February 1940 only 10 divisions stayed on the french soil, instead of the 25 promissed at the end of october 1939. Then again these divisions camped far from the german borders, in the north, Normandy, and on the Atlantic coast. The joke among the troops at the Maginot line was “Did you see any Englishman ?”, afterword translated by the german propaganda : “the Brits offer their “machines”, the Frenchs their chests” or in the french paper “Paris-soir” ” the Brits will fight until the last French”…
There is more pernicious, the “passe-droit” and privileges that the expeditionnary Brit corps took for granted, that irritated the Frenchs, that was echoed in all the population strates. On the belgian border the brit commandment allows habitation tickets to its troops without even referring to the local mayors. In Wanquetin, near Arras, the “tommies” live in individual houses, while the french soldiers must sleep in barns. Fightings each others are regular in cities where both troops have to stay : in Lille, the Mecca for the Brits that are off, where they invaded dancings, abused beers, tighten too narrowly the local girls, all that ended in boxing parties with the “continental gitanos”… Anglophoby starts to overpass Anglophily. The Frenchs can’t stand anymore the insolent contempting and overwhelming Brits, enough is enough with saccage, roberies, brigandage…”
Patrick Buisson
1940-1945
Années érotiques
Pat Buchanan speaks to the anti-semitism that is still to be found in the Church of Rome. The jewishness of Jews are held against the Jews. Why? Because part of the jewishness of Jews provides competition to the Church of Rome.
Plus, there is the aspect that whatever results in distinctions is suspicious.
Like it or not, there is diversity in the world, especially when the philosophy of the logos is compared with the Tao (for instance), but that is
not allowed by some. In the end, they wind up cheating themselves and those who go along with them.
54 David Thomson
now about 1936, one can argue indefinitly with “if”, the fact was that Germany debt was already paid since 1930, and as the Versailles treaty conditions were a bit severe, France felt that opposing Germany in 1936 would be too much to add into the bill, and only protested with UK, (also the non aggression alliance from the Poles and Germany of 1934, weakened their pression, seemed that Sudetednland was seen as an inner german “business” .
Besides, Leon Blum, our socialist prime minister was harvesting the benefits of the “front populaire” and had other things in mind, though he should have been worried as a Jew. None knew what was the real Hitler intentions, or just one, De Gaulle, he warned many times about what was going on in Germany, but unfortunately he wasn’t listened.
and as far as the US, they washed their hands :
“By the mid-1930s, events in Europe and Asia indicated that a new world war might soon erupt and the U.S. Congress took action to enforce U.S. neutrality. On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act prohibiting the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” from the United States to foreign nations at war and requiring arms manufacturers in the United States to apply for an export license. American citizens traveling in war zones were also advised that they did so at their own risk. President Franklin D. Roosevelt originally opposed the legislation, but relented in the face of strong Congressional and public opinion. On February 29, 1936, Congress renewed the Act until May of 1937 and prohibited Americans from extending any loans to belligerent nations
The Neutrality Act of 1937 did contain one important concession to Roosevelt: belligerent nations were allowed, at the discretion of the President, to acquire any items except arms from the United States, so long as they immediately paid for such items and carried them on non-American shipsthe so-called “cash-and-carry” provision.”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/99849.htm
Interesting: “Our over-reaction to September 11th.”
The declaration of war was merely an attempt to topple the country into a state of anarchy, calm down people. They were so close too. That plane in Pennsylvania just a missed landing. It’s all so clear now.
Funny, I thought that Iraq was thought out and Afghanistan would have been rash. It seems to me the enemy wanted us to enter the latter and were enraged we went in to the former.
Saddam Hussein was giddy with his power handing money out left and right to those who’s committed their children to suicide and death, playing a cat and mouse game with our being the mouse. Osama serene in the knowledge that Afghanistan would be our maze we could never find our way out of.
Now back to Hitler…oh yes, the same thing the terrorists want, annihilation for all that oppose and he seemed to have quite a following.
“France felt that opposing Germany in 1936 would be too much to add into the bill”
“None knew what was the real Hitler intentions”
Nope, I’m not buying this argument. The French opted to lie to themselves. They wanted peace at all costs. A good size number of them even favored Hitler’s strong man response to the challenges of the day. Also, their anti-Semitism discouraged them from getting involved in the Nazis handling of the Jewish “threat.” Hitler made his intentions quite clear in Mein Kampf. He was not even slightly subtle—and the book was widely available. One did not have to spend an enormous amount of money and effort to obtain a copy.
Buchanan craves attention and is going down the David Irving route to get it. Most sensible people on the right give the jew-hating ole’ codger the wide birth he deserves. Just wish that some on the right would look into the jew-hatred (however hidden) coming from certain other “isolationists” on the right.
Marie Claude
Your grand father’s collection of “Je suis partout” is not a reliable sourrce of information. Instead I suggest you look at a map and you will see the British forces holding a portion on the front. In fact, po,e who was expected to be a hot one. They weren’t behind the French
There is a Spanish saying who tells: “The thiefs ever thinks everyone is like him”. Same thing for collabos accusing the British of cowardice.
Thank you Rick – an excellent article to questions I also found also to be simplistic and leading.
The British and the French were afraid. The horror of WW I was still fresh in their minds. Half the men of that generation were dead on the battlefields of France.
America came in and tipped the balance against the Germans at the end however we should remember that the French and British had days when as many of them died as all the Americans died during the entire war. That kind of carnage leaves a deep and lasting scar.
Unfortunately that scar led them to try too long to placate the monster that would wreak havoc on the next generation of Europeans and Americans. He was a monster who at the end said that the German people had failed and deserved to die. A monster.
“Nope, I’m not buying this argument. The French opted to lie to themselves. They wanted peace at all costs. A good size number of them even favored Hitler’s strong man response to the challenges of the day.”
this is too simpist, but unfortunately the usual discourse that I read from persons that are persuaded that they know the whole plot
my arguments are in archives, I am too lazy to pick them back tonight
“Also, their anti-Semitism discouraged them from getting involved in the Nazis handling of the Jewish “threat.”
Nope, all the european states were more or less living in an ambiant antisemistism, even your praised FDR didn’t bet on the Jews, read some of your epoque papers, you’ll see that Jewish people in the US experienced some brimades too
But it ‘s funny that some pefidious persons refer to the French as if they were the only antisemits, we killed them all and we invented the volkish ideology too
we created concentration camps… a french idea of course !
Hitler made his intentions quite clear in Mein Kampf. He was not even slightly subtle—and the book was widely available. One did not have to spend an enormous amount of money and effort to obtain a copy.”
tell me when did you read mein Kampf ? in 1933, 1936, 1940, 1970, 1990 ?
and tell me who had the “chance to read it in the thirties (apart you of course), only a few germans intellectuals did, and naturally the Hitlers’sbires
so, the average population couldn’t imagine what was going on, beside very few could read german, De Gaulle did, but your people didn’t like him, and made all possible tricks to eliminate him of the resistance program.
Yyyyyyeah. And that “Mein Kampf” thingy didn’t mean anything. Nope. No way to have any clue…
ça se corse !
“Buchanan is an isolationist.”
Likewise. Only, you can’t be an isolationist when you’re in the middle of a war.
First, destroy the terrorists, and state sponsors of terrorism, THEN we can start doing stuff like pulling out of the U.N. and NATO brnging our troops back home from Europe and Asia, etc.
At least, that’s what I’d do.
Jean-Pierre Richardot, journaliste à la retraite et historien, vient de publier un livre retraçant les combats de l’armée française en mai-juin 1940. Comme l’avait fait Roger Bruge avant lui, il rend hommage à ces soldats qui se sont beaucoup mieux battu qu’une légende, inspirée de la propagande nazie puis vichyste, le laisse souvent croire. En 47 jours de bataille, 100.000 d’entre eux sont morts. Mais surtout, l’armée allemande a perdu 2.000 hommes tous les jours (tués, blessés, prisonniers, disparus) durant ces combats. Preuve s’il en était besoin que l’armée française et ses alliés n’étaient pas composée que de fuyards…
Le 18 juin, une bataille oubliée s’est déroulée sur le canal de la Marne au Rhin. Jean-Pierre Richardot a bien voulu raconter cet épisode pour les lecteurs de ce blog : “Le 18 juin est l’anniversaire de la grande bataille du Canal de la Marne au Rhin. Les derniers chars français valides sont rassemblés et lancés contre les Allemands dans une contre-attaque sur un front de 125 kilomètres entre Nancy et Sarrebourg. Les Allemands ne croyaient faire qu’une bouchée des Français, mais ils sont très surpris en perdant dans cette seule journée du 18 juin plus de 2000 tués. Il y a environ mille morts du côté français. La veille, 17 juin midi, le maréchal Pétain, nouveau chef du gouvernement, a déclaré sa volonté d’arrêter le combat. Son allocution n’a aucune influence sur la volonté de lutte des soldats du 18 juin : troupes de forteresse, coloniaux, grenadiers polonais. Européens et Africains se
battent avec la rage du desespoir. Ils n’ont pas connaissance de l’appel du 18 juin, qui ne sera diffusé de Londres que le soir. Ces combattants sont en quelque sorte gaullistes avant l’heure officielle. Nos soldats éétaient partisans de la poursuite du combat, partout où cela était possible, et tout particulièrement dans les airs, sur mer et en Afrique du Nord. J’ai découvert des sacs de courrier postal montrant que de nombreux civils des différentes provinces ont cru jusqu’à la demande d’armistice au mythe d’une nouvelle bataille de la Marne, comme en 1914 ”
Jean-Pierre Richardot “100.000 morts oubliés” Le Cherche-midi
Mr bias propagandist, your repeating Göbels , that had interest to let know to the resistance, to the brits, the the future Ddayists, that the French weren’t fighting, you perfectly know that tis was a lie, of course that the anglo-saxons makers of legend don’t like to mention.
UH, see where hollywoodian legends of heros are driving you, the Brits, and the US, you’re not in a movie anymore, the enemis changed, and they are likely not embracing your legends of invincible heros with big machine and guns, tell me which country resist the best to sharia rules at the moment ?
Calvin when did you read mein Kampf ?
73. Dave Surls,
The UN is a den of terrorists. NATO is a solution in search of a problem. They’ve been somewhat useful in the WOT, but only somewhat. I’d bail on the UN now, and have one foot out of NATO’s door, pending developments.
But we still have to make sure that anyone who wants to go to Allah goes, and the ones who really don’t want to have a good reason not to try.
coincidence, on FR3 channel a report on the declaration of 1939 war, right now
JFM, connect your satellit
http://bit.ly/5waMQ
Pat Buchanan is a Jew hating bigot. He has turned in to a hyper-Catholic leftist. Its a weird animal.
Herr Buchannan seems to have long ago lost his battle with what ails him and to depend for any extension of his fifteen minutes upon his principle primary purpose as permanent poster person for Early Onset Korsokoff’s Syndrome.
But even so, this nattering nabob of negativity’s National Socialistic similarities shouldn’t surprise any one whose read any of the rantings he’s ever put together for himself — rather than for money — and/or who has listened to what he’s ever said.
Brian Richard Allen
Lost Angels Califobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad
So many people straining to prove my thesis!
“Facts: Stalin was worse than Hitler. Buchanan isn’t making any excuses for Hitler”
Yes, Stalin was worse than the Hitler.
Does that make the people murdered by the Nazis less dead than the people murdered by the Soviets?
Buchanan, and you, are doing nothing but making excuses for Hitler with statements like that.
“Jews played a major role in the Bolshevik revolution.”
And?
That means all those Jews in Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were somehow vicariously guilty as well?
So murdering them was . . . what? “An understandable consequence”?
And even if they were part of the Soviet Union, does that make the murder of all those Russian, Ukranian, and Belorussian Jews “okay”?
And even when you manage to justify that to yourself, how exactly does it explain away the mass murder of Romany, other religious groups, homosexuals, political opponents and the like? Were they all complicit in the Bolshevik Revolution as well?
Stalin was Georgian. Does that mean it is okay for us to stand by and nod approvingly as Putin wipes Georgia out of existence today?
“Buchanan’s thesis is that Hitler didn’t want to fight France and Britain and his real goal was Russia.”
And?
Are all the Russians slaughtered by the Nazis any less dead than the ones slaughtered by the Soviets?
Not to mention casually overlooking that the Nuremburg Laws were passed in 1935, well before Chamberlain pandered at Munich, or let Churchill “force” him to give a guarantee to Poland.
Or, since you have already condemned all Jews because of Trotsky and Zinoviev, perhaps you need to be reminded that the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring was passed in 1933, even if it took a full war to being the euthanasia program full force.
“Instead we get a bunch of people with the usual BS. Antisemitism Jew hater etc etc. Pitiful.”
See above. Remove the anti-semitism and you still need to explain away all the others Hitler murdered. How will you manage that?
And being unable to, how will you next seek to pretend Pat Buchanan’s anti-Semitism is merely the imagination of others?
62. David W. Lincoln:”The jewishness of Jews are held against the Jews. Why? Because part of the jewishness of Jews provides competition to the Church of Rome.”
Get serious! The Catholics in their wildest paranoid fantasies have never seen the tiny, almost microsopic, non-evangelical Jewish community as any kind of competition! Competition for what?
To Marie Claude;
France 2? That is the network who broadcasted the fake Al-Doura death? The network who through it caused the death of Daniel Pearl and Ilan Halimi the jewish guy tortured in a French banlieue); not to mention a number of terrorists who confessed that the Al-Doura thing was fundamental in their recruiting?
You really should stick to “Je suis partout”: they were more reliable than France 2.
Hi, everybody,
Here is a quick rough translation of Marie Claude’s post #74:
Jean-Pierre Richardot, retired journalist and historian, comes [has come?] to publish a book retracing the combats of the French army of May-June 1940. As has done Roger Bruge before him, he gives homage to these soldiers who battled as much as, and better than, a legend inspired by Nazi and Vichy propaganda which is often believed. In 47 days of battle, 100,000 of them died; but overall, the German army lost 2000 men all those days (killed, wounded, captured, missing) during the battles. Proof – if it is needed – that the French army and its allies was not composed of cowards [deserters].
On 18 June, a [now-] forgotten battle unrolled along the canal from the Marne to the Rhine. Jean-Pierre Richardot has much wanted to tell this episode for the readers of his blog:
“The 18th of June is the anniversary of the great battle of the Marne-Rhine Canal. The last working French tanks are assembled and launched against the Germans in a counterattack over a front of 125 kilometers [about 77 miles] between Nancy and Sarrebourg [Saarbrücken?]. The Germans did not believe it was only a handful of Frenchmen, but they are very surprised, losing in this single day of 18 June more than 2000 dead. The day before, 17 June, Marshal Pétain, the new chief of government, had declared his wish to halt the combat. His speech had no influence at all on the will of the soldiers to do battle on 18 June: [garrison / defense] troops, colonials, Polish grenadiers, Europeans and Africans battled with the rage of despair. They had no knowledge of the appeal [summons] of 18 June, which would not be broadcast from London until the evening. These combatants were Gaullists of a sort before the official hour [when De Gaulle was recognized by London as the leader of the Free French?] Our soldiers were partisans in the pursuit of combat, every place where it was possible, and particularly in the air, on the sea, and in north Africa. I have discovered the sacks of postal carriers showing that numerous civilians of different provinces have believed – up to the demand for an armistics – in the myth of a new battle of the Marne as in 1914.”
Jean-Pierre Richardot, “100,000 forgotten deaths” Le Cherche-midi
Hi again,
I forgot to mention that I have read Mein Kampf at least twice, the first time in 1964 when I was 20. I grew up in the shadow of the war, my dad was a sergeant in the U.S. Army, and I have about 250 books on my shelves about WWII. It shaped my parents, and through them, shaped me.
The word twisting and use of euphemisms is a left wing Socialist/ NAZI thing. to try and get you to think they are such innocent cuddly guys Buchanan obviously swallowed the BS hook line and sinker. Just think back to the 1930 when we were introduced by the NAZI’s to
Resettlement…………….DEPORTATION to death camps.
Final Solution……………Mass genocide for Jews , Homosexuals, Gypsy’s and undesirable Political opponents
Mercy killing…………….Euthanasia for the old and infirm and mentally retarded
And who can forget the most cruel lie of all written above the Concentration Camp gates ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ Work Gives Freedom.
The Obamanation and all the ‘libtard’ moonbat DEMS and their apologists is leading you down this path America wake up before its too late.
Mr. Buchanan, has, unfortunately, lost it. Yes, there are left-wingers galore with equally bizarre arguments, but that does not excuse him. I don’t recall his always having made such preposterous errors in judgment, but there is no way to defend his current positions, one must dismiss them as rants. Fortunately, I don’t think anyone of any importance is taking him seriously. This is a sad episode in a life which could have been much better.
The history of Hitler’s rise and fall is important, it shouldn’t be trivialized. Nor should vacuous comparisons be made by either side of the current debates.
This may be a little off-topic, but raise your hand if you find Pat Buchanan beyond tedious. I get dead-tree mailings from him hyping his posts in a newsletter decrying Obama and pathetic conduct.
If I remember correctly, it was Buchanan who threw Bush under the bus and gave juicy butt-smooches to the current Pantload-for-a-POTUS.
Not saying that Bush was all that great, but for a guy like Buchanan to ask me to fork over loot for his prescient writing, one would expect him to anticipate the trail of tears we are now wandering along. You know, the little things like savaging our economy, spending almost a trillion dollars and cultivating 9.7% unemployment while prostrating himself before the world in an epidemic of apologia.
The guy is, as far as I am concerned, one of those old freeze-dried codgers sitting out on the park bench on an grey, October day, feeding the pigeons and drooling all over his frayed sweater-vest.
Let’s dispel some myths about the Treaty of Versailles
1) Economic reparations were deserved. Germany had thoroughly destroyed every factory and mine in Belgium and in one of the most important industrial regions of France. In other words German products would be free of French and German competition for several years. In ase you still don’t get you, picture a competitor hiring some thugs to set a fire in your comany and then coping the market while you are rebuilding it. I am sure you would require that in addition of paying for damages your competitor being prevented of takijng advantage of your absence of the market.
2) Their amount wasn’t uinreasobale: 30 dollars per person and per year. If anything they were too light. Specillay if you consider that while pressuring France to forgive its reprations to Germany, UK and United States were pressuring France to pay its war debts NOW.
3) the 1923 German inflation was largeley staged in order to make US and UK to pressure FGrance aboutr reparations. Once Germany got what it wanted, that massive infmation disappeared in weeks.
4) It was not the 1923 inflatin who brought Hitler to power: by early 1929 the number of Nazi voters and militants was in free fall. It was the crisis in 1929
5) It was the political and military clauses not the economic ones who brought WWII
-Germen eperors had no direct authority outside of Prussia. Now Germany had central stater whose governement had far power then either the imperil or the post WWII governement
-The fall of the multi-ethnic Austrain empire meant that german-speaking Austrians had no longer a counterweight to German tendencies to baosrb it
-The smal states South of Austria would be unable to contain Germany
-As long as Germany and Russia had common bord’r they were natural enemies, once Poland was created they became natural allies. Against Poland.
6) Militray cause were both tough and failed to weaken Germany. Given that the Allies hadn’t set foot on German soil they were perceived as unfair. That was the reason Churchill insisted in unconditional surrender in WWII: not ahving again the Germans cam they hadn’t been defeated. But in fact these clauses allowed Germany to have an amry who was small but were mere privates were officer material and who would provide superb cadres for the future Wehrmacht. Also while their Allied counterparts were busy teaching basic military skills to their soldiers the Geram ones were develping new tactics.
JFM put your glasses on
D’ya know your bad faith ain’t giving you the promise land, what do you think you’re are gaining with your information distortions ?
your mind is twisted and corrupted with hate
and you’re too old for changing
BTW “je suis partout” was rather your favorite “reading”, cuz it wasn’t diplayed in our countryside, apart among your parisian elite
BYSTANDERS – FRANCE
by ALEXANDER KIMEL (a true” witness and a survivor of the era)
France fell to the Germans in 1940, the Germans occupied part of France and in the un-occupied part the Germans installed a puppet government, the Vichy Government, with the hero of France Marshal Petain as its president. In order to gain favor with the Germans the Vichy Government adopted voluntarily indigenous anti-Semitic policies; it set up concentration camps for the “foreign” Jews, it proceeded with the “aryanization” of Jewish properties, dismissed Jews from government service, excluding them from professional life, etc. The conditions in the French concentration camps were not better than in the German Concentration camps.
The Vichy regime, enjoying popular support, adopted anti-Semitic policies, to use Jews as scapegoats for the saving of the French national honor – they were blamed for the defeat of the 1940. The Vichy regime linked national revival with anti-Semitism; Jews were officially blamed for all ills of the society, from high prices to food shortages. When the Final Solution began, the Vichy government volunteered to round up and hand over to the Germans all the foreign Jews from the Un-occupied Zone of France. The anti-Semitic policies of the Vichy government, the identification of the Jews, stamping of the ID and the ration cards with the word Juife (Jew), the internment of Jews, the extensive use of French police in roundups, helped the Nazis in the Final Solution.
As the atrocities of the Germans became known, the scenes from the deportations moved the conscience of the French people, limiting the vigor of the French help. This change was brought about by the openly condemnation of the German bestialities by the French clergy.
First to raise his voice in the defense of the Jews was Monsingnor Jules-Gerard Saliege, the partly paralysed arch-bishop of Tolouse:
That children, that women, fathers and mothers be treated like cattle, that memebers of a family be separated from one another and dispatched to an unknown destiantion, it has been reserved for our own times to see such a sad spectacle. ….the Jews are real men and women. Foreigners are real men and women. . . Theyt are a part of the human species. Theyare our brothers like so many others.
The pastoral letter issued by the bishop of Montauban was no less resounding:
I give voice to the outraged protest of Christian conscience, and I proclaim that all men, Aryans or no-Aryans, are brothers,because created by the same God; tha all men, whever their race or religion, have the right to be respected by individuals and by states.
France was one of the countries controlled by the Germans at the early stages of war, but it had a high level of democratic tradition of Liberte, Fraternity and Egalite. In France about 75000 Jews perished out of a population of 350,000, about 70% survived. Many factors contributed to the relatively high survival rate, the most important factor was the attitude of the silent majority, who made it difficult of the Germans to identify and catch the Jews. Even the local police cooperated only reluctantly with the Germans, Jews were provided with false identification papers, given shelter and moral support. Jews also participated massively in the resistance and at the beginning stages about 33% of the resistance fighters were Jewish.
the Versailles Treaty
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html
Reaction of Britain, France and the USA
Most people in Britain had wanted revenge and so had gained some satisfaction. Lloyd George was satisfied that Britain had gained most of Germany’s colonies, so that after 1919, Britain could recover its wealth and power.
France, however, was not satisfied that Germany hadn’t been weakened enough. Marshal Foch of France said in 1919: ‘This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty-one years’. By this he meant Germany had not been weakened enough and would rise again in twenty-one years. He predicted Germany’s rise correctly. Britain and America promised help to France should Germany threaten her in the future.
Most remarkable of all, America refused to ratify the treaty. Wilson was a Democrat. The republican part in America opposed Wilson’s involvement in Europe, and in the autumn of 1918, the Republicans had a majority in Congress. Congress refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles because:-
Republicans were against Democrats
Republicans wanted ‘isolation’
http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/2.html
BRIAN: “… hes a left-over from a by gone era of conservatism.A racist jew hating era of conservatism”
How sweet. Conservatives really need a troll like you.
I’m old enough to have been through ALL the so-called conservative movements started by the grandson of a jewish tinkerer from Arizona, Barry Goldwater.
You may be a former lib, whatever, but you’ve bought the misinformation line and hook. You must be talking of Nelson Rockefeller Country Club Republicans (and todays Dem Rockefeller).
I thought Pat Buchanan after watching him on an NBC station, was actually too comfortable with his far left of center opinionaters to be a true righty, in fact I thought he was actually a Lefty with an infectious laugh
Perhaps his views found a more cozy home with them and he decided to move into their neighborhood while they still thought he was a nice guy. Welcome to the dark side Pat.
Old Bob, thanks for your attempt :
Mais surtout, l’armée allemande a perdu 2.000 hommes tous les jours
but overall, the German army lost 2000 men all those days
you made an error “tous les jours” means : each day, it’s not “tous ces jours”
Les Allemands ne croyaient faire qu’une bouchée des Français, mais ils sont très surpris en perdant dans cette seule journée du 18 juin plus de 2000 tués. Il y a environ mille morts du côté français.
The Germans did not believe it was only a handful of Frenchmen, but they are very surprised, losing in this single day of 18 June more than 2000 dead
idem
The Germans believed they could eat the french soldier in one mouthful, but they are very surprised that during this alone 18 of june day 2000 of them died, while about 1000 french soldiers died too
#80. Sam:
I was responding to Moran’s article. Long before the Nazi holocaust Stalin was murdering millions of Kulaks. The Ukrainian holocaust doesn’t ring a bell? As I pointed out when the Germans initially invaded eastern Europe they were looked upon as liberators and gladly turned Jews over to the them. Why did they do that? Because some of the worst communist were Jews.
http://www.ukrainianholocaust.org/
And if you read Buchanan’s book you’d know his thesis, Hitler didn’t want to fight the British or French.
Reading the great majority of comments from these enlightened bloggers bashing Buchanan, squawking like parrots the race card talking points dictated by the ADL, AIPAC and the whole Jewish Cabal, I understand now why we have this communist despot usurper in the White House.
Keep your hostility to uncooperative reality and to inconvenient truth, repeating inane canned talking points, thinking yourselves as smart conservatives and in a couple of years anybody questioning the Jewish agenda or doubting the Holocaust will end up behind bars doing hard time just like in Europe.
But these legitimate questions are still unanswered:
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France?
Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines?
How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet?
Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Marie Claude, thank you for your corrections. Of course I was wrong and you are right. My French is “school” French of many years ago, and there are many little things I get wrong.
#96 Incitatus:
“But these legitimate questions are still unanswered”
I answered Buchanan’s challenges, in my #50 posting.
RTFM.
“Reading the great majority of comments from these enlightened bloggers bashing Buchanan, squawking like parrots the race card talking points dictated by the ADL, AIPAC and the whole Jewish Cabal, I understand now why we have this communist despot usurper in the White House”
Is your problem with Jews or with Communists?
Or do you recognize no distinction between the two?
To answer the two quibbles you appended:
“Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet?”
The Brits didn’t give them the chance. A palliative for your ignorance:
http://library.thinkquest.org/15511/data/encyclopedia/oranbattle.htm
“Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez?”
Because the Italians had already taken Syria, so his ally had the bases already. And in 1940, he was more concerned with the problem of putting his troops across the English Channel and taking London than putting them across the Mediterranian and seizing the Suez.
“Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?”
Because he correctly held to the common opinion that Mussolini’s armed forces was a very hungry wolf with very bad teeth. As events turned out, Mussolini’s adventure in the Balkans and Greece turned into a quagmire for him. The British Army there and the Partisans were not Ethiopian or Syrian tribesmen.
Hitler had to send a considerable amount of assets to pull Il Duce’s “cannoli” out of the hornet’s nest he stuck it into.
You and Pat Buchanan, military-speaking-wise…you two are like THIS!
You need to do quite a bit more historical research before posing questions that even a rank layman like myself can answer off the top of my head.
Incinatus
you’re a bit confused
Hitler’s plan A for France
2 zones, one ccupied by German troops and Gestapo, the other with a relative autonomy lead by a puppet government : Vichy which still was allowed to hold colonies
Plan B (already in his drawers in 1940)
As soon as an attempt of rebellion of the french nationals in Metropole, and or an overlanding from alliees would be tempted in colonies –> anhilation of the 2nd part of France, usually known as “free France”, Germany would invade it, and it did happen at the end of 1942 when american troops landed in Algeria, that means that the whole country was controlled by Gestapo where only Vichy police did it before.
This is how Klaus Barbie made a big deal with torture in Lyon (Jews and resistants)
and in the others left regions by other german butchers
#42 JFM -
I remember reading this at the Air Force Academy. I’ll research further..
To 98, Bilgeman:
Actually, I have absolutely no problem with anybody. The burden of proof is not on me.
There is hardly any recognizable distinction between a Jew and a communist.
Mr. Bilgeman’s answers on #50 are “..easily answered..“ because they are personal assumptions and very speculative but weak on historical evidence.
One must give credit to Mr. B. He writes a great game and has the art of sophism down pat.
-The fall of the multi-ethnic Austrain empire meant that german-speaking Austrians had no longer a counterweight to German tendencies to baosrb it
-The smal states South of Austria would be unable to contain Germany
check the applausses in Vienne !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyLSRxKQqao
UK and United States were pressuring France to pay its war debts NOW.
which ones ?
the debts that you contracted towards us in the war of your independance and that it took you more than one and a half century to re-pay back ?
http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/ros6-2e.htm
“the 1923 German inflation was largeley staged in order to make US and UK to pressure FGrance aboutr reparations. Once Germany got what it wanted, that massive infmation disappeared in weeks.”
find clear responses here
http://tinyurl.com/mubutd
“Did Hitler Want War?”
“Creators Syndicate – On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier”
I’d say Pat pretty much answers his own question in the first line of his piece.
Of course, Hitler wanted war. That’s why the German army crossed the Polish frontier. Sending fifty divisions across the Polish frontier isn’t exactly a peaceful act.
Silly article by Buchanan. Or, at least a silly headline.
#102 Incitatus:
“Mr. Bilgeman’s answers on #50 are “..easily answered..“ because they are personal assumptions and very speculative but weak on historical evidence.”
I see.
Well, I would perhaps attempt to defend my position, but I suspect that in your particular case, such an undertaking would be a complete and utter waste of my time.
You see, when you make as blanket and very speculative statement as this:
“There is hardly any recognizable distinction between a Jew and a communist.”
which is gob-smackingly weak on historical evidence,btw, I conclude that having any kind of intelligent discussion or even a vigorous debate is the furthest thing from your mind.
Stirring up the worst sort of ethnic and racial sh*t is.
“One must give credit to Mr. B. He writes a great game and has the art of sophism down pat.”
Yes, quite…
Here’s your hat, sir, and if I may presume to speak for the proprietors of this fine blog, I’m sure they would greatly appreciate it if you used the less-public “servants’ entrance” for your immediate exit.
We may be quite a bit “right of center” ’round these parts, but YOUR apparent brand of mouth-breathing bigotry is counter to the tastes of the clientele here.
Perhaps you would find “Stormfront” more to your liking.
In #102 Mr. Bilgeman writes: “Stirring up the worst sort of ethnic and racial sh*t is.”
That is (TWJB) Typical Whining Jewish Behavior. When running out of rational arguments, whine, snivel and play the race-bigotry card so all issues become irrelevant.
Then he offers the sophomoric “We may be quite a bit “right of center” ’round these parts, but…”
That amateur pretext fools no one, the tone and hostility of Mr B’s writing yanks this fellow traveler’s mask away.
Gradually Mr. B. ( or Mr. “Tolerance”) begins to unravel with a Typical Overbearing Jewish Behavior (TOJB) and he demands: “I’m sure they would greatly appreciate it if you used the less-public “servants’ entrance” for your immediate exit.”
And through all that salvo of salivary foamy composite of personal attacks, Mr. T (tolerance) barely makes it to spew: “Perhaps you would find “Stormfront” more to your liking.”
That is a stellar example of TWJB. Not being accustomed to being challenged, when done, the true colors of authoritarian and absolutist response show very bright and clearly in a hunnish way. TOJB
#108 Incitatus:
“That is a stellar example of TWJB. Not being accustomed to being challenged, when done, the true colors of authoritarian and absolutist response show very bright and clearly in a hunnish way. TOJB”
If I were offensive and/or whining I’d have bluntly told you to take your slimy Nazi sh*t the f*ck on outta here.
But I did not. I politely suggested that you would find barren soil for your particular…ummm….ideas hereabouts.
Now then, take your slimy Nazi sh*t the f*ck on out of here.
Buchanan is, after all is said and done, right about one thing, the Holocaust was caused by the outbreak of hostilities when England and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. They both started World War I, too, when they declared war on Germany in 1914. Churchhill, that warmonger, and his ilk were not as innocent as you’d like to think. In any event, too much blather here about Hitler’s motive, to get rid of the Jews. Let’s reason together. In peacetime Hitler would never have dared to gas six million Jews. It was only under cover of war that he could get away with it. He probably would have settled in peacetime for expelling Jews from Europe, to Palestine, for instance, or Siberia, wherever. Buchanan’s correct point is that England and France starting World War II by declaring war on Germany was the ultimate, if not the immediate, cause of the Holocaust. There I’ve said it.
And the alternative to declaring war was allowing Hitler to run roughshod over any nation he wanted. The war was going to happen anyway, the question was whose timetable would it be fought on.
Bilgeman
“Because the Italians had already taken Syria, so his ally had the bases already. And in 1940, he was more concerned with the problem of putting his troops across the English Channel and taking London than putting them across the Mediterranian and seizing the Suez.”
Mussolini didn’t invade Syria but Lybia
“Italy, under Hitler’s fellow Axis dictator, Benito Mussolini, invaded British Egypt from Libya and Greece from Albania. Mussolini’s campaigns were not totally successful and Hitler was forced to send troops to help secure those areas”
Also he invaded Greece, for the same raison like in Lybia, he had to be assisted by german troops
Incitatus, all of your questions are straw men. Hitler had no ambitions to conquer the world. His eyes were always on the east.
And the notion that Bolshevism was a Jewish creation, or was dominated by Jews, is pure fantasy (which Hitler immersed himself in), which you also apparently subscribe to.
What Buchanan fails to mention — or more likely is just plain ignorant of — was that the SS was already all over Poland and eastern Russia by the fall of 1941, with death squads (the dreaded Einsatzgruppen) who were conducting mass executions of Jews. They had even been inventing a special truck that would direct the exhaust into the rear of the vehicle that the SS would stuff to overflowing with Jews.
Actually, Buchanan knows all about the Einsatzgruppen. He’s denied that diesel exhaust can kill people.
I say, fine Pat, how about testing your thesis yourself?
The Nazis were more committed to killing Jews than winning the war. They were using material vital to the war effort to kill Jews right up till the very end of the war. Goebbels said that if Germany lost the war it would be worth it if they destroyed the Jews.
The only funny thing about Incitatus is that he thinks his mouth-frothing actually convinces anyone of anything other than his own lack of worth.
Finally in #109 all that phony wordiness and scholarly livestock excreta that Mr. Bilgeman started with, pontificating in # 50 from the little soapbox has gone down the toilet, proving Incitatus right about the hopelessly boorishness and viciousness of the Typical Vulgar Jew (TVJ)
When rational, coherent and civilized arguments fail, tap on the repugnancy of your own culture to throw a mad tantrum to bully dissent uttering profanities in the safety of our Constitutional Republic.
In Europe 66 years ago that brave TOJB wasn’t nowhere to be seen. It had simply disappeared and turned into utterly cold despair with the only reliable warmth of excrement and urine between the legs.
Only in America.
#110 deremes:
“Buchanan’s correct point is that England and France starting World War II by declaring war on Germany was the ultimate, if not the immediate, cause of the Holocaust.”
Buchanan is NOT correct. Hitler’s Germany started World War II by invading Poland. Poland and the UK and France all had mutual defense treaties, and Hitler knew this.
Emboldened by the no-shows of opposition in the Saar and the Rhineland, the success of the Austrian Anschluss, and most of all the shameful appeasement of the Allies at Munich, he gambled that the West would renege and sell out Poland, too.
He lost the wager.
“Churchhill, that warmonger, and his ilk were not as innocent as you’d like to think.”
Interesting observation, but it was the Chamberlain government, not Churchill’s, that declared war on Germany.
And let us not forget that after Poland, the Germans attacked and conquered Denmark and Norway.
Where do these two nations fit into Mr. Buchanan’s peculiar reckonings?
Do they not count?
And what benefit accrued to the Germans by declaring war on the USA?
None whatsoever. But by this time, Hitler was intoxicated with his successes and thought himself a genius, no matter how abysmal his ignorance on any subject.
You can see THAT in “Mein Kampf”, where he goes on at some length about America…despite his never having ventured further west than Belgium at that point in his life.
“In any event, too much blather here about Hitler’s motive, to get rid of the Jews. Let’s reason together. In peacetime Hitler would never have dared to gas six million Jews. It was only under cover of war that he could get away with it. He probably would have settled in peacetime for expelling Jews from Europe, to Palestine, for instance, or Siberia, wherever.”
Y’know, you seem to think that Hitler was some great statesman-like figure who had some overarching goal or ideal. Other than his psychopathic anti-semitism, he had none.
All his blather about pan-Germanism was just that…propaganda to make him popular with German-speaking people.
What he WAS was a common thief.
Every country the Germans occupied was systematically looted of it’s wealth and it’s resources. There was no “investment” or “development”, or any kind of outreach to the natives…what one would expect from a conqueror playing the grand old game of “color the map”.
His “lebensraum” conquests were nothing more than armed robbery writ large.
And he learned that trade by first taking advantage of latent and not so latent anti-Semitism and robbing the Jews.
Everyone with a mind to could get a cut of their swag…just report them.
(Right, Mr, Soros? That’s how it worked at street level, was it not?).
At the Evian Conference of 1938, the world basically turned it’s back on the Jews of the 3rd Reich, even as it decried what was being done to them.
Hitler and his gang saw it for what it was.
They made some abortive attempts at expelling the Jews to Madagascar, (of all places), but that would have COST them money…and the whole idea behind the policy was that those who did manage to leave would possess nothing more than the clothes on their backs.
Once the Brits finally got rid of Chamberlain,(and the way it was done, the Norway Debate, was truly Parliament’s finest hour of the 20th century), any expulsion fantasy that required sea travel was put to rest.
No, the cheapest and most profitable thing for the Nazis to do was what they did…steal from them, imprison them, and work to death those who were capable while murdering those who were not, and then stealing the gold from their teeth.
“There I’ve said it.”
And there, I’ve rebutted it.
#112 Marie-Claude;
“Mussolini didn’t invade Syria but Lybia”
You are correct, thanks.
I misspoke.
incredible, Roosevelt is talking french and announces the operation “Torch”
here a video of BBC Londres in french
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMzmW9XULHM
uh he seems to love “le peuple français en entier”,
and la “France éternelle”
I’m gonna change my mind about him
#115 Incitatus:
“In Europe 66 years ago that brave TOJB wasn’t nowhere to be seen.”
This ain’t Europe, and it ain’t 1939.
Had some balls been shown about 76 years ago, there likely would have been a whole lot of innocent people who would have lived out their normal span of years.
Including, in case you’ve failed to include them in the tally, several million Germans.
“Only in America.”
If that’s what it takes.
You’re still here?
Ma chère Bilgeman
“Emboldened by the no-shows of opposition in the Saar and the Rhineland”
oh that’s an euphemism ! But was mon nouvel ami Frankin Delano disposed to show his support if we did make the show, and quit his isolationism ?
It’s not what he let us understand in his discourses. BTW I saw his discourse of the 3rd september 1939 (I believe) today at the infos (I must find the video), he was still professing isolationism, though that’s not what promissed us Woodrow in the early twenties, “Britain and America promised help to France should Germany threaten her in the future”
Alright, we weren’t yet attacked, but according to the “Braves”, we ought to have attacked Germans then, er hmmm, that would have ment that we started the hostilities, thus being exposed to condamnations from the founding fathers of the SDN (former UN), and to the ire of the Braves, with a boycott at the key !
You have a point with the “return”, but just one correction.
Germans in Sudetenland were under Habsburg rule since 1620, not 13th century.
In 1620 European Catholic crusaders came to Bila Hora near Prague and crushed Hussite Bohemia. And from 1620 Germans were living under Habsburg monarchy.
So the Sudetenland wasn’t annexed on any means. It was integral part of historical land of Bohemia and even Habsburgs respected that, when they didn’t make special regional unit out of the Sudetenland.
Western Czechoslovakian borders were drawn in 1918 with respect to the historical region.
The answer to your last question is so simple it answers itself:
Pat Buchanan hates Jews.
That’s all there is to it. And to search for a deeper meaning than that is to give him far more than is his due.
Ma chére Bilgeman
“Had some balls been shown about 76 years ago”
you mean that the american balls need some viagra to be ready only in 1944 ?
Also I think that “Blitzkrieg” employed by Hitler’s Army, was as if it were a massive army. And to understand Hitler’s ability to strike hard strike fast and, leave no building standing, no people resisting, allowed the “victory through terror” to gain much needed territory as a buffer so that the “great war machine” could stand up and begin it’s industry.
I think that we might think of our being attacked on September 11th as a type of “Blitzkrieg” after shorter attacks on foreign soil. The enemy was able to penetrate our soil and advance a coordinated fast attack that would destroy our infrastructure and cause a collapse. This would lead to our weakening especially overseas where the enemy could then strengthen their defenses etc. and go after other country’s infrastructure, England, and Spain for instance.
I think the difference here might be the enemies ability to wait, continue to plant the seeds of anarchy and division. And also they are not squeezed into one state, one country, or one government, they are spread throughout a whole region, in fact the whole world and among ordinary citizens. This is what Israel and our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan deal with every day. Fast attacks, and to fight back they must penetrate into civilian populations where the enemy hopes that civilians will be killed because that is another tool in their arsenal.
This one will be harder to defeat, it will take longer, and I think it would be important for them that the west continue to bicker with each other, and continue to be divided, so that they can regroup and strike again. One of the weaknesses of the Blitzkrieg was the fact that it had too much territory to cover once it’s enemies began to fortify and fight back. It seems that with this enemy borders mean nothing as it has no state.
I also think that it is very important to realize that Hitler was a figurehead for a for more important goal of many more people than he. To concentrate our thoughts and eyes on Hitler would be like thinking that once Osama Bin Laden is gone, the war would be over. It is obvious to many that with Hitler dead, his philosophy is not and that is why, I think that Islam-ism if even more dangerous. It does not seem to need one human to represent it, it seems to have a life of it’s own.
#123 Marie-Claude:
“you mean that the american balls need some viagra to be ready only in 1944 ?”
In 1936, when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, France had the largest army,(with shoes,that is…get lost Soviets!), on the Continent, Britain had the Largest navy in the world.
The US was across the Atlantic Ocean, with an Army, IIRC, the size of Portugal’s.
No matter…not enough people anywhere were willing to draw a bayonet, let alone point it at Hitler.
#114 Bozoer Rebbe,
You fail to mention that what preceded the German invasion of Russia and the work of the Einsatzgruppen was the entry of American capital and industry and the body politic of Washington into the war in the spring of ’41 by way of the Lend-Lease Act. When Roosevelt got that passed, Hitler knew that his only hope was to deliver a knock out blow to Russia. Since there were going to be a lot of casualties, he felt obliged to put some on his main nemeses, the Jews. That is rather unflattering to us, so we teach our children that Hitler was a madman and he killed all those people for no reason.
Bilgeman darling,
possible but :
“In October 1925, Germany was allowed to enter the League of Nations”
all concocted by your fellahs !
then we would have been the AGGRESSORS
http://tinyurl.com/mubutd
#127 Marie-Claude:
““In October 1925, Germany was allowed to enter the League of Nations”
all concocted by your fellahs !
then we would have been the AGGRESSORS”
I’m not sure where you are going with this.
In 1925, Germany was the Weimar Republic, and Hitler was an ex-convict in Bavaria.
Germany shouldn’t had been allowed to become part of league of Nations, she was the aggressor in 1914.
Germany being part of the Club, that means that we couldn’t overpass the agreement of the whole assembly if we wanted to start a war against another member of the League, be sure that Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Russia, also Poland (1934 pact germano polish of non aggression)… the majority of the League Nations would have opposed a veto, and probably UK and the isolationnist US too
Sacrebleu Leon Blum wasn’t Hitler, he wouldn’t have like to pass the gentlemen rules under the bus !
and in 1945, she wasn’t allowed to join UN
“Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet?”
Because Hitler was not stupid: if he had demanded tghe fleet this would have fled to Great
The French had agreed to surrender but they hadn’t fallen so low to betray their former ally. when the French sued for armistice the very first thing their negotiator was asked his government was “What about the fleet” and when Petain told teh bad news to the French one of the first things he said “there are no dishonoring clauses (fir the French) in the German conditions”. Also Admiral Dralan, Vichy’s strong man (the bad, eeeeeevil collaboerationist Darlan) ordered the French fleet to scuttle if the Germans tried to seize it and (secretly) that ulterior counterorders had to be ignored
You see Hitker, who was much smarter than you Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, preferred a disarmed French fleet than demand it and face the British and the French fleet whose Richelieu was superior to the Bismarck.
Marie Claude
You are beyond help. In case you haven’t noticed I was defending France aginst IMHO erroneous and unfair opinions Americans due to the thorough brainwashing they had at the ahds of the infamous John Maynrd Keynes. I also think it was evident that I disapprove, actually loathe those pople who asked France to forfeit Germany’s debt while demanding to be paid.
Also could you please skip your jokes about Americans getting ready in 1944; we both know teh composition of Free French forces: colonials and Spsnih republicans who did all teh fighting and dying at Cassino, at the landings in Provence, at Paris liberation with the real Frecnh laughing off their asses about those poor bastards (and those poor American bastards in Normandy) stupid enough to die in their place and that it was only on May 7th, 1945 that the True Frecnh were to be seen at the front. Except for a few honorable exceptions like Raoul Magrin-Verenery aka Monclar. May his name shine forever.
http://www.droit.univ-nantes.fr/labos/cdmo/centre-droit-maritime-oceanique/cdmo/neptunus/nept/nep0/nep0_1.pdf
“Also Admiral Dralan, Vichy’s strong man (the bad, eeeeeevil collaboerationist Darlan) ordered the French fleet to scuttle if the Germans tried to seize it and (secretly) that ulterior counterorders had to be ignored”
Il faut tout d’abord préciser que juste après l’armistice du 22 juin 1940, Darlan avait fait parvenir des ordres
secrets à ses amiraux.
- Ceux-ci sont en date du 24 juin 1940, c’est dans le cadre de ce message que figure I’obligation pour les
amiraux de la flotte de prendre des précautions secrètes de sabordage pour qu’ennemi ou étranger s’emparant d’un navire par la force ne puisse s’en saisir. Donc des mesures depuis Juin 1940 avait été prises pour que les
navires ne tombent pas intacts entre les mains de l’ennemi.
jusque là you’ve been fair, but I would add that no french navyman who respect himself would give up his ship, that explains the tensions between English and French, who up to then were enemis and concurrent.
The Navy men have one word, if they promissed to scuttle, they will make it, and they did
- Mais la date la plus importante pour la Marine française de cette époque, c’est le mois de novembre 1942, ou du
fait de la violation de l’armistice et l’invasion de la zone libre, la flotte française regroupée au port de Toulon est
contraint de se saborder pour éviter de tomber aux mains allemandes.
in prime Darland wasn’t against working with the Alliees, but he wanted to remain MASTER of his BABY, the NAVY, and Mersel Kebir provocated the failure, and he definitly opted for the french Vichy
Mais c’est l’affaire de Mers el Kébir, qui va entraîner une indignation en France, et va engendrer un
sentiment général d’anglophobie dans la Marine, et va contribuer au rapprochement de certains amiraux
français à l’Allemagne Nazi et réduire le ralliement de marin français à la France libre de De Gaulle.
- Mais ce type d’affrontement entre Marines française / anglaise fut parfois éviter, ceci tient notamment à
Though, mon nouvel ami FDR wanted to recuperate him when the alliee commandmant was created in Algeria, and Darlan was assassinated by the Gullist resistant, who couldn’t suffer that “collaborator” would be “perdonned” ; the rules in Resistance were military organised, betrayors were executed.
JFM
You are beyond help. In case you haven’t noticed I was defending France aginst IMHO erroneous and unfair opinions Americans due to the thorough brainwashing they had at the ahds of the infamous John Maynrd Keynes. I also think it was evident that I disapprove, actually loathe those pople who asked France to forfeit Germany’s debt while demanding to be paid.
umm it’s bizarre, rather,you gave me the impression that I was “je suis partout” scuse me that the French were surrender collaborators
Then you’re incoherent,you stigmatise us with evil intentions, and the minut after, you want to repear your emotional statment, uh, I am still coherent in the defense of my country, may-be that’s you who need some help !
Also could you please skip your jokes about Americans getting ready in 1944;
alright, I apologize
but, again this impusion, you can’t help, you want to see us as villans, lazy, that mock everyone, and racist of course !
we both know teh composition of Free French forces: colonials and Spsnih republicans who did all teh fighting and dying at Cassino,
in Monte cassino, thenorth african army was there, Patton too, with “negros” that were hired for the intendance of the white army, the true heros !
But no spanish republicans, they were fighting in Toulouse region and Pyrreneas borders
at the landings in Provence, at Paris liberation with the real Frecnh laughing off their asses about those poor bastards
This one of your typical insults
why would the French mock them, the Leclerc guis have proven that they were brave, and as speedy as the Patton’s ! that is why Eisenhower send them at the eastern borders, Patton in Lorraine, Leclerc in strasburg !
(and those poor American bastards in Normandy) stupid enough to die in their place and that it was only on May 7th, 1945 that the True Frecnh were to be seen at the front.
funny Americans were seen there too, oh, and RUSSIANS, how comes ? only Americans and Brits were fighting, merde alors !
Except for a few honorable exceptions like Raoul Magrin-Verenery aka Monclar. May his name shine forever.
pourquoi lui, et pas un autre résistant ?, tiens, for exemple, Mitterand ? you know him, he got american subventions for organising his channels to make prisonners escaping !
JFM, you’re definitly a psycho, don’t tell me it’s becuz of PTS, you haven’t been at fronts, but only at your PC’s !
Marxists want to destroy western civilization. They are using endless mass immigration and multi-culturalism as their weapon. The citizens of the western world are allowing themselves to be destroyed because of collective white guilt over the Nazis.
This thread is an example of that collective sense of guilt with everyone trying to blame someone else for the Nazis – whether it’s the Germans, the French, the British, the Catholics, the Protestants, middle class, working class etc. Everyone must point the blame because everyone *feels* the blame.
There are always Hitlers. They rarely gain power. Hitler gained power in Germany because between 1917 and 1933 communists murdered millions upon millions of people in Soviet Russia and ordinary decent people were scared of what would happen if the same communist filth took power in their country. Fascism was a natural reaction to that single simple fact.
That single simple fact has been actively suppressed for 60 years by marxist filth in media and education and that great lie at the heart of post-war western politics has led to all sorts of strange mental contortions – including Buchanan views on Hitler.
I agree with #134 and think that fear tends to cause humans to reach out for some type of totalitarianism, whether nazism, communism, islamism, socialism, capitalism, nationalism, etc.. All or nothing, seems to be our tendency, and one or another. Once it becomes powerful it also becomes fearful of losing power so tends to use force to keep people under it’s control.
It was that crack that exposed the nut Hitler and his believers. They became fearful of people turning away from nazism so therefore had to control more and more of the people, because they knew that if given freedom, many would turn away from their system of government.
I often hear that to find out which form of government is for the betterment of people, would be if all the gates of all the countries in all the world would open, and which country’s people would leave and which county’s people would stay.
I believe that after a time the Nazi’s had to STOP people from trying to leave. That is a very good indication of failed ism’s.
I think that is one of the problems that Islam faces. In order to stay strong it must stop people from leaving it, at the same time it is enticing people to come to it. It is divided, and once freedom becomes it’s enemy it can not stand.
I watched a show on the military channel yesterday and it showed Hitler and his cronies. One was rubbing his hands together round and round in gleeful anticipation, like a fat man looking at a juicy turkey first in line for his share.
Something else I read about today, A life unworthy of living. Who decides that? Allowing the destruction of life unworthy of living by Binding and Hoche. It seems there are plenty of volunteers for the job.
The hole gets deeper and darker.
pourquoi lui, et pas un autre résistant ?, tiens, for exemple, Mitterand ?
Marie Claude, it is incredible how funny you can be. We both know what kind of resistant Mitterrand was.
What Paddy is saying is, if only Dolfie had been more like me, things would have been different.
Mr anti-frenchitude
Mitterand was faithful to his relations, be them of the Vichy government, among them, the famous Bousquet, and the Americans that he met there.
Isn’t funny that Israel hods him in high esteem, even knowing that.
I guess he was useful somewhere
He also followed american policies, in opposition to de Gaulle
Also as the minister of armies, he decided to move on “pacification” in Algeria
the contrary of an appeaser,
though he used the twisted ways of doing politics to stand as the harshest de Gaulle opponant, even though they had the same goals
you can’t label Mitterand as antisemit, he brother in law is Jew
No Paddy is saying that the United States forced Hitler to kill all those people.
you can’t label Mitterand as antisemit, he brother in law is Jew
So what? Goebbels had a Jewish girl friend. OK, this is off topic, let’s return to Mitterrand I wasn’t telling Mitterrand was an antisemite only that he was one of those resistants who joined the Resistance only when it was evident that Germany was going to lose the war. Now there were others who were still slower. But Monclar saw the light June 17th, 1940 and it wasn’t an isolated feat: all his life reads like an arturian legend.
Whether it’s the racist thing or the sexist thing or the fascist thing, you conservatives just can’t help yourselves. You’ve lost blacks and Hispanics, most of the Jews, young people, and most of the women. You do a great job of riling up the hard-core right wing extremist base. Hope that’s enough, because that’s all you got.
JFM
what an Israeli net friend told about Mitterand in a discussion I had with him, and where I was also doubting about Mitterand opportunism and his apparently “late” adherance to the resistance official organisation :
A former Vichy man and sympathizer… amazing. Mitterrand was one of the French resistance’s spymasters. He was Vichysto-résistant, having formed a vast network with other former POW’s who had actually went out to fight the German invasion and survived the captivity – you never heard of the ORA? The Germans knew Mitterand by his cover name – François Morland.
He’s actually famous for refusing to hand over his network to De Gaulle’s direct control, which infuriated De Gaulle to no end. Mitterand kept control of his already formed spy hierarchy as the war progressed.
And he had a plan to liberate the POW and concentration camps – Operation Viacarage
His war activities were secret, so when his past in the Vichy government structure was revealed it stirred up quite a controversy in the 50’s. And then there’s the fact that he arranged for wreaths to be placed on Pétain’s grave… but then, this was something De Gaulle did as well. Pétain was once France’s great hero of WWI, even if he did betray the nation later down the line.
To name a couple of examples, Franz-Olivier Giesbert’s and Pierre Péan’s historic works tend to cover Mitterrand in great detail – they don’t give him a “heroic aura” or something of the sort, but they do show that he was a very important man in his time and position for the French resistance.
Again, I am not entirely sure how his good will matters one way or another. Compared to his contemporaries, at least he was doing something useful for his country, and risking his life for it. If it had an ulterior motive, so be it – the world is full of useless idealists who talk a lot fail miserably when the time is for action, sometimes making matters a whole lot worse in the long run.
So Mitterrand was a sneaky bastard? Good for him. That’s the kind of person you need as a spy and spymaster. It’s not the kind of person you need to *like*, on the personal level, but without people like him France might have been quite a lot deeper in Germany’s pocket, and possibly would have been lost altogether.
Spies are never appreciated by honorable men – that’s because spies are not honorable. Spies are sneaky and treacherous bastards who’d sell their own mother if given half a chance
well Monclar was a “Legionnaire, this has a lot of positive qualities for you
According to Buchanan WW2 was the allies fault. In other words hitler should just have been allowed to conquer countries and slaughter millions at will. This is the same mindset of those who defend muslims today. Those who fight back against muslim aggression are the ones accused of waging war, not the jihadists. This is a perverse way of looking at the world.
137 “What Paddy is saying is, if only Dolfie had been more like me, things would have been different.”
Agree. He’s prohecting, without realising it, what he would have done in Hitler’s place i.e aim to destroy Bloshevism without doing the rest.
He’s missing out that Hitler equated Bolshevism and Jews and also that, for strategic reasons, it made sense for Hitler to want to try and secure his western flank first before attacking the Soviets.
The reason it’s on his mind, and also why he blanks out some of the logic that doesn’t fit, is he can see his version of America being deliberately destroyed by stealth marxists and how for 60 years they’ve used the “Nazis = white original sin” theme as a tool to achieve this destruction.
I am happy to see that very few actual conservatives even attempt to support Buchanan’s nonsense just because he has some conservative beliefs… This is one of the things that differentiates conservatives from liberals.
“Now And Then” 141, while I realize it is your job to troll here, that was less comprehensible than usual. Other than “blah blah blah… conservative bad” I couldn’t seem to relate it to — well, anything.
Yes, caestal, I am glad you have noticed that too. The far lefties will march with just about anyone to pretend they have a large group of supporters. They will often look around in a daze if this is pointed out to them, shrug their shoulders and continue with their comrades.
To them it doesn’t matter what you are for, it matters just that you are against the same thing they are and even that becomes unclear when in a discussions with them.
JFM
if you can get the DVD of these six documents series about the WW2 global conflict, with no partisan eye, but original documents, it is very instructive (comments in french, but it’s not a problem so far for you). They are from Daniel Costelle, an historian, and Isabelle Clarke, who directed the mise en scene of the documents. They appear with the label,”Dossiers”, program under the responsability of the journalist, Marie Drucker
http://tinyurl.com/nu8ugg
today, was 1940, the collapse of France, somethings I knew, somethings you could also tell, and somethings we both ignored
http://tinyurl.com/l2ap85
–Haven’t ANY of you caught on to what Buchanan’s ‘pacifist revsionism’
is REALLY about?
FACT IS ‘Populist/America Firster/Right Winger’ Pat is very, very
much acting the ‘Conservative’ frontman, blindside and apologist
for our disastrous, decades long biz-nihilist sellout and suck-up
to history’s –MOST– awesomely genocidal regime -bar none!
–ACROSS the Pacific.
In this, he’s reading from exactly the same playbook as the lowest
mercenary sleaze in our PC franchise slum Hollywood and media.
“The Americans came just like a whore,
all dressed up and knocking at our back door–”
-Chou En Lai
Nixon/MAO Summit
—PAT was on board! —and NEVER stepped off!
MEANWHILE, millions continue to suffer and die in SILENCE;
the staggeringly vast ‘peacetime’ genocide done decades AFTER WWII
in our ‘fave’ mass market regime continues to be avoided;
and the 60th Anniversary of the astoundingly relevant
—indeed, STILL unfolding, KOREAN WAR
is once again ‘mysteriously overlooked’ by one and all.
-NEED WE SAY MORE?