I'm not much of a war buff, obviously because I don't like war and don't have a fascination with tanks, bombs, fighter planes etc. The older I get the more attracted I am to science, economy and history, less inclined to death and destruction. But lately I've become interested in Pat Buchanan's new book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War", as well as "Human Smoke" by Nicholson Baker. Both have received a lot of attention at LewRockwell.com where I hang out all the time. I know there were some WWII threads here, but this approach is pretty different. Pat's position is that if not for continued bungling by the British, WWII could not have happened. No holocaust, no reorganization of Europe and no end to the British Empire. Christopher Hitchens (the bad Hitchens brother, sic semper tyrannis) has challenged Buchanan on his dissection of history. This is interesting because Hitchens is very intelligent, but also a gatekeeper for state power, lies and history. Buchanan through careful analysis seeks to prove that most of what people believe about WWII is inaccurate, and the other book I mentioned, Human Smoke, is a compilation of speeches, news, articles and interviews from the period, which also tell a different story than many people seem to believe today. Here are some of my favorite articles regarding both books. It would be interesting to read the comments of WWII enthusiasts on this forum, to gain a broader perspective. Human Smoke A New Look at How World War II Happened Inconvenient Facts About World War II Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War Was It 'The Good War'? Churchill’s Colossal Blunders Man of the Century Munich, 1938 The 'Good War' and the Terrible Peace Was the Holocaust Inevitable? Morality – Trotskyite vs. Christian ~
Churchill became prime minister following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain on 10 May 1940. However as First Lord of the Admiralty prior to World War I and in the post war period, Churchill agitated against Germany. The second world war was not inevitable. Germany has lost almost 10% of it's terrority and millions of Germans were living on the land given to France, Poland, Italy, Czechoslavakia, Holland, and Lithuania. German scholars at the time believed that Germany had 4 choices 1) Do nothing 2) Make a place in the world for Germany economically 3) Limited war to regain some lost terroritories - favored by Prussion military class 4) War of revenge - favored ny the nazis However the German losses after WW2 were worse. Approx. 1 million Germans were killed in the ethnic cleasing of Poland, Czechoslavika, and former Eastern Germany (Western Poland). The Germans were too beaten to retaliate. Additionally there were occupied for 50 years to ensure that there would not be a WWW III.
I like both Buchanan and Hitchens. Not that I agree with either all the time, or even most the time, but they're both really bright guys with interesting points of view. I'll try to read this stuff if I get time during my breaks of trying to tame the YUI library.
You would have better luck getting W to pronounce "terist" properly! Christopher Hitchens brother (whose name eludes me right now), is the good Hitchens. He's an excellent writer as well, although much less controversial.
Don't have time to read this stuff anytime soon. Don't understand how Britain could be at fault for the Holocaust. Hitler did it, he's responsible.
No one is saying Britain is responsible for the holocaust (that I am aware of). It's that the holocaust may not have happened if not for the blunders of Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. But Buchanan tells his perspective and sources best. There is a link in the OP that makes his case.
Its delusional to think that had Britain not declared War on Germany, the Holocaust would of not happened, In fact the effects of the Holocaust might of been worse since Hitler would of had more resources available to ship and murder the people in the concentration's camps instead of trying to maintain wars on two fronts. One rational theory of preventing the holocaust would of been to declare war on Hitler and Germany prior to it going on the offensive while the country was rebuilding its military illegally.
To me this was the biggest blunder. Without Mussolini and Italy, Hitler was isolated. Germany would not have been able to absorb Austria and later enter the war in Spain. And later expand German influence into the Eastern European satellite states of Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria. In effect put a dagger at the heart of Czechoslovakia. In addition to Poland, Hungarian troops poured into the carpatho-ukraine as well.
Britain sat around and basically gave Germany the green light to invade. Chamberlin is at hoe with his "peace at honour" crap while Hitler is writing up plans to bomb most of Europe.
This is just another indication that Pat Buchanon is, well, kuckoo. I've heard alot of revisionist history in my life, but, please, just step back for a second... Winston Churchill is responsible for WWII??? A-hahahhahhahahhahahahhahahhahhahahahahha!!! This is an example of folks who really, down in their very bossom, are so afraid to fight thinking this will placate a bully, that they even go back in history to accomodate savage murderous madmen. This is the Stockholm syndrome boiled all the way down to a 108 proof shotglass. It's bold, and in your face, and steals your very breath away. It's borderlinie naked cowardess even to suggest. Who was it said, and I paraphrase, All evil needs to perpetuate is that good men do nothing. THIS is why WWII happened, because of cowardess and lack of initiative, not courage, LMAO... Oh, what a world... thank God I'm old!
It's not fiction. If you read his essays, he's incredibly well sourced and informed on the topic. Human Smoke is almost entirely composed of media clippings from that time and draws some similar conclusions. Before drawing a conclusion that Churchill caused WWII, please read a little. We have lots of jerks and knee-jerk posters in this forum. You can aim to be something better and I will support you in that.
WW2 began in 1864-1871. The zero-sum game of empire could not handle a unified, and industrialized, Germany, clamoring after the same material resources previously enjoyed solely by the early empires - a clash of naval titans, the coming Dreadnought, an inevitability, a lone Serbian national with a pistol or not. The nature of late, rapid, intensive industrialization engendered by German national unity made class mobilization and strife a real thing in Germany, whereas it wasn't so in France, England. Coalitions and corporatism were the field of play at the collapse of the monarchy, making Weimar a non-starter, really, from the beginning; a tinder box, ready to be split irrevocably asunder, or lit alight. Add the woefully shortsighted, draconian Versailles treaty (understandable as it was, especially from the point of view of France, over whom all the western world danced), and Germany was ready for the right coalition-builder to harness the loose idea embodied by the "stab in the back" of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles. Hitler's genius was in just this - tapping the right vein, and building the right coalition. My point - stupid to look for the "trigger" in one man, or two, in creating such a historical event as Nazi Germany. It began over half a century earlier.
The Anglo-German Naval Race lead by Tirpitz put Germany and England into conflict. Churchill was appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty in response in 1904. The Naval Race also led to the English-French Entente and set the stage for WW1/
I don't see why people think Churchill was a nice man? He led the country through a war, he was in charge of sending people to their deaths. To make those kinds of decisions, you have to think of the bigger picture, if 500 people being killed will boost morale, be a good propaganda story and show people that they're fighting for a reason, then so be it. You need to be the definition of ruthless, you need to be a heartless, tempered, bastard. Also, if we hadn't have used and lost our Empire during the war, there's no way we would have it today. How could Britain still keep control of India and force influence over Canada, Australia and other places in the todays world? It wouldn't happen. Some might argue that we lost our Empire rather peacefully, if the war hadn't have occurred, it's likely that there would've been a lot more violence with colonies. Instead, we have a good relationship with former colonies and countries who are now in the Commonwealth (Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, ect). The outcome could've been very different.
I see WWI as inevitable, given the geo-political engine in place, and the zero-sum game it had become. When you say the Anglo-German race, led by Tirpitz, I cannot ascribe it to something "led" by Tirpitz, as much as Germany carving out for itself something the other powers had long had. Chicken or egg dilemma, I guess - but I'd say the "race" was just a structural outgrowth of the timing, and intensity, of industrial development among the western powers. In other words, Germany, late industrialized and unified, required - in the span of a few short decades - what had been gained by slow accretion by Britain, for one, material power on the seas. I see the issue of "prestige," though without a doubt an element, as secondary to this geo-political "pump." Regardless, Sarajevo was only the trip switch - WWI was inevitable, given the structure of a unified Germany over what had previously been a kind of flexible state-system of principalities, pawns for trade; and the geo-political fight for empire's material wealth. Agreed?