Comments on: Patrick J. Buchanan—Pseudo-Historian, Very Real Dissimulator

By: carscratchremover.com

carscratchremover.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:04:55 +0000

Yeah bookmaking this wasnt a bad decision outstanding post! .

By: Edmund Contoski

Edmund Contoski — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:46:40 +0000

Patrick Buchanan’s Sept. column on the 70th anniversary of the start of WWII–in which he blames Poland for WWII–and his column in April, 2010 following the plane crash that killed the Polish President and 94 others on a flight to commemorate the Katyn Massacre–which he claims was also Poland’s fault–must be answered. He has more historical inaccuracies, incorrect assumptions, omissions and faulty analysis than I can list here. Instead go to my article “Pat Buchanan’s Apologia for Hitler” at http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html and scroll down to Sept. 14.

Also, see my article on the Forces International News Network at http://forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_viewer.php?id=685 “Pat Buchanan is Blaming the Victim–again!”

By: John Koster

John Koster — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:56:12 +0000

A small corrections: (1) France, not Prussia, declared war in 1871. The French also invaded German territory first, as they had invaded Mexico during the U.S, Civil War, but lost all the battles except the first skirmish. Napoleon III expected to win….Worth noting also — Bismarck was not at all anti-Semitic by the standards of his time. He once said “Jews can do whatever they want in Germany except to rule…” Kaiser Wilhelm II had two Jews in his wartime cabinet, Albert Balin and Walter Rathenau, and thousands of Jewish officers in his army. Projecting back from Hitler into previous generations or centuries to view Ariovistus and Arminius as proto-Nazis should be beneath the dignity of any historian.
A small observation: conservations with Eastern Europeans today indicate that those who are not Jewish hate Russians far more than they hate Germans, though they don’t like either group evry much. This is especially true of the Poles and most of all the Ukrainians. The Hungarians have a “Terror Museum” in Budapest which gives the Gestapo and the NKVD-KGB equal time. That’s the right perspective — attempts to whitewash Hitler are junk history. Attempts to whitewash Stalin, numerically a far worse murderer and a U.S. ally, are also junk history.

By: tiger tim

tiger tim — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:34:39 +0000

—Populist Pat lost us when he started offering flagrant
cover for the awesome US fold down and sellout to the staggeringly
genocidal Red Chinese regime. For all the ‘conservative’ posturings
—Pat remains very much in the pocket of discredited Skull n’ Bones
“Daddy made the fortune in Chinese opium’ school of guilt, enmeshment
and enabling denial that has so dangerously distorted American perceptions
of Asian reality —for centuries now.

BTW –are we the ONLY ones noticing that the 60th Anniversary of the
epically, urgently relevant KOREAN WAR has, once again, been ‘mysteriously
overlooked’…?

By: Ernst Friedel

Ernst Friedel — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:01:01 +0000

The opinion that Germany is a war-loving nation is often broadcast by politicians,the media and even taught in our schools and universities. However, when research is done the results are showing the opposite. The American scientist and author Professor Philip Quincy Wright (1890 – 1970) writes in his book “A Study of War” University of Chicago Press, 1942 the following:

From 1480 to 1940

278 wars involving European countries where fought.

Below is a breakdown (in %) of the European nations that were involved in these wars.

England: 28%
France: 26%
Spain: 23%
Russia: 22%
Austria: 19%
Turkey: 15%
Poland: 11%
Sweden: 9%
Holland 8%
Germany/Prussia: 8%
Denmark 7%

Professor Philip Quincy Wright is a very respected scientist who, in 1970, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Price. Read his Biography at: http://tripatlas.com/Quincy_Wright

Ernst Friedel

By: Wm Belts

Wm Belts — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:31:29 +0000

Here is a great example of an ad hominem fallacy.

“In dealing with Mr. Buchanan, one must accept at the beginning two caveats. First, as is his style, he will always resort to ad hominem attacks in lieu of an argument. Thus note at the very beginning his sneering ‘court historian of the neoconservatives.’
Second, Buchanan unfortunately is neither a reliable journalist nor an historian, and thus simply cannot be trusted to report accurately what is written.”

The ad hominen fallacy wrap up in an allegation of some one else employing the ad hominen fallacy.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:55:03 +0000

It’s pretty rich to read Hanson whining about ad hominem attacks coming from Buchanan after reading this piece. Sorry, but the modern NR, including Hanson, has been ridiculous in its ad hominem assaults on Buchanan for well over 15 years, as well as any other traditionalist conservative who dissents from a) the view that while both great evils, Nazism was the greater threat than Stalinism, b) Lincoln was a political messiah who “saved” the Union, c) at least a dozen other interpretations of different historical events that can only be read one way or you must be a racist, a xenophobe, an anti-Semite, a lunatic, etc. I haven’t read Buchanan’s book yet, though I look forward to doing so, so as far as I know it may be greatly flawed. But the ridiculous canard that PB is some sort of raging anti-Semite is ALWAYS the standard neocon “argument” about anything he ever writes about anything. Hanson’s conservative credibility is hanging by a thread; after writing a whole book about the destruction open borders immigration is reaking on CA and the whole republic, he now spends his days on NR’s blogs telling everyone and anyone who will listen how they must support the biggest globalist presidential nominee in Republican history, otherwise the end is near. For “conservatives” like Hanson, the Leftist influenced ideology of democratism imposed by America is all that matters in conservatism today. Sorry, Victor, but a “neoconservative court historian” is not an ad hominem; it’s an accurate label for you and your current positions.

By: Matt S

Matt S — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:24:34 +0000

From VDH’s rebuttal to comments in this forum:“Once Hitler invaded Poland, the last chance to prevent a global conflagration would have been to launch an immediate invasion in the West, to cross the Rhine with well over 100 British and French divisions.”-VDH

Wrong. The last chance to prevent the global conflagration came on September 3 when Britain declared war on Germany. Germany had not declared war on Britain, nor did it intend to. Germany’s interests were in Eastern Europe, recovering German lands amputated at the Peace of Paris (Danzig and the Polish Corridor), and eventually confronting the Soviet Union over the other weak states of the region who had since ancient times been ruled either by Romanovs, Hohenzoellerns, or Hapsburgs. By inserting Britain (and thus France and later the United States) into this battle between two ruthless dictators, Chamberlain, Halifax, and Churchill guaranteed the destruction of their empire as well as condemned many more millions unnecessarily to death.

Why not just leave Germany and Russia to fight it out, weakening each other and coming to some eventual stalemate? I know that would have outrightly condemned Eastern Europe to rule by dictatorship by one of these two men, but was the result of the war any better for these people who suffered under 50 years of rule by the “foul baboonery of Bolshevism”, in the words of Churchill in a more sane frame of mind.

Not excusing these murderers, I think Hanson’s idea of sending in 100 divisions,(where were these warriors when France was overrun in a matter of days in 1940?), is utterly ridiculous and shows a judgment perhaps clouded by the politics of western interventionism. It was this very intervention by the West, arrogantly assuming that we knew better and could structure the world according to our own ideals, that threw the gas on this regional struggle and exploded it into the global conflagration Hanson decries.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:15:16 +0000

For Bskb- Could you please tell us exactly how Buchanan is a joke? Ed Mahmoud- could you inform me how Pat is an anti-Semite? c.kupfer- could you please enlighten yours truly about why you feel his book is stupid?
I don’t agree with Mr. Starr or P. Ami but at least they are providing reasons why they believe the way they do. I guess it’s just more fun to engage in childish name calling …correct?

By: bskb

bskb — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:32:59 +0000

Buchanan is a joke. I don’t say this lightly, because he gets so much media play, but try to imagine an individual on the political front who has been marginalized less than him.

Just the same, he uses his so call “political authority” to justify his abilities as a historian. Quite frankly, I’d rather trust Alan Keyes to teach me how to build a nuclear submarine using objects found around the house.

The fact that any media has embraced such a public figure only speaks to the quality of the train wreck we are witnessing, not the quality of the train itself.