It's the anniversary of the Nazi/Soviet invasion of Poland , so of course Pat Buchanan has reverted to his normal bilge about how Hitler was just misunderstood.
You can always expect the Beltway's own Gruppenführer to go off the reservation when anything remotely concerning Jews or Nazis is concerned.
According to his narrative, Hitler never wanted war with Czechoslovakia or Poland, (William L. Shirer, Alfred Krupp and a number of others who were there beg to differ, not to mention the Nazi's own archives), the Final Solution for the Jews didn't start until 1942 ( half a million Jews were murdered by the Nazis in Poland alone before mid-1941) and Hitler 'let the British Army go at Dunkirk" ( news to the men on the beaches who were trapped there and barely got away with their lives).
The other historical distortions in this piece don't even rate a serious discussion. And to top it off, he deliberately lies by quoting Sir Winston Churchill out of context. While Sir Winston indeed referred to WWII as an unnecessary war, Churchill's point was that Buchanan's hero Hitler could have been stopped years before war broke out by forceful action in places like the Rhineland - not that Hitler needn't have been fought at all. Anyone who read Churchill's monumental history of the Second World War knows that, as it is the entire framework he uses for his volume on the lead up to the war, "The Gathering Storm" .
It never ceases to amaze me that this bitter old fossil continues to be received politely in a number of so-called conservative circles. They should be ashamed.
Among his other notable achievements, William F. Buckley can take credit for pushing most of the anti-Semites out of the mainstream conservative movement. He had no problem calling Pat Buchanan a Jew hater. Nor do I.
To be fair, ol' Pat probably wouldn't really have been a Gruppenführer, because he lacks the basic honesty. No, he would have been one of those 'good Germans' who looked the other way and didn't see anything amiss when the Jews were dragged off to Dachau and points east, perhaps spending his days doing his duty to the Reich educating the Volk in Herr Goebbel's Ministry of Information.
Simply crazy, and in a really bad way. They don't hardly make 'em like Pat Buchanan any more.
1 comment:
This may be a bit off topic but recently there has been much talk about how Israel stole the land from the Palestinians and essentially how Israel exists on "stolen land" and as such the state should be dismantled. I have to say I don't like the precedent that would set. After all, aren't most if not all nations of the world located on land that someone else once lived on. The current inhabitants of all lands pretty much either took it by force or the previous inhabitants moved on or some combination.
If Israel is forced to give back land that it won in armed conflict, what kind of a precedent does this set. Will America next be forced to give back land it took from Mexico during the Mexican/American War? Will America be forced to give back land that was once lived on by the American Indian? Will Russia be forced to give back land that it gained during the reign of the Czars to the people who once lived there?
I know I for one DO NOT think America should give back land to Mexico or the American Indians. If Israel is forced to surrender land based upon this precedent, where will it need? Probably America would be the next target, meaning it would be forced to give up land that it currently has.
Who comes after Israel and America? Who is the next target? I'm not sure right now. Perhaps it will be Canada. After American Indians once lived in Canada, as I understand. The nations of earth might want to think carefully before they start setting precedents like this.
Post a Comment