How About That Liberal Media?
Supposedly liberal network MSNBC pays Pat Buchanan as a political analyst. Pat Buchanan who believes this stuff:
According to Buchanan, Hitler’s invasion of Poland — which led to Britain’s declaration of war on Germany, and the start of World War II — was motivated merely by Germany’s desire to regain the city of Danzig, which had been given to Poland in the Versailles Treaty. Had Poland simply negotiated with Hitler, war could have been averted. In fact, Hitler wasn’t bent on world, or even European, domination. He would have been happy with just Danzig, Austria, and the Sudetenland, you see. Hitler “wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.” It was only thanks to the aggression of Britain, Russia, and the U.S. that the conflict was expanded. So, goes the implication, any deaths that occurred after 1940 — including the 6 million that comprised the Holocaust — are on the Allies’ heads.
You can read Pat’s brain droppings for yourself here.
Tags: MSNBC, Pat Buchanan
What Pat has done is essentially plagiarize an old revisionist standard: The Origins of World War Two by British historian A J P Taylor, whose last chapter is in fact titled, “War for Danzig”? Taylor wrote a highly regarded scholarly biography of Bismarck, but then–in financial meltdown from paying alimony to three ex-wives–dashed off Origins for a quick sale in about 3-4 months. The book created quite a splash and is still in print, being used in graduate historiography courses around the US and UK to this day. Taylor later noted that he never had problems paying his alimony again.
In the book, Taylor makes a variety of arguments that Pat apes: that Hitler was a “traditional” German statesman in the Bismarck mold, that Mein Kampf was political propaganda for the faithful and not an indication of his real ends, and that the war started because the Brits and Poles would not accede to Germany’s legitimate demands and miscalculated Hitler’s need (supposedly driven by internal German politics) to secure Danzig.
What Taylor lacked in his book were the overtly anti-Semitic and anti-Slav overtones of the Buchanan add-on.
The only reason for going into this depth is not only to point out that Buchanan is an ass, but he is one who didn’t even have an original asshat idea of his own. He had to steal it.
watergate criminal on Television. Have to love it.
so pat is suggesting that we negotiate and talk then? what an ass
Two points to make.
1) It’s been asked before, but I’ll ask it again. Just what the hell would Pat Buchanan have to say to get fired? And from MSNBC, no less.
2) The right really should do a better job of keeping their rhetoric in line. I mean, I thought Hitler was suppossed to be bad. So are all those Obama=Hitler signs really saying Barack is just misunderstood? I think a post like this would be more likely to get him fired from FOX than from MSNBC right now.
so pat is suggesting that we negotiate and talk then? what an ass
Based on his revisionist history becoming factual, sure.
Adam Sewer at Tapped wrote about this today, trying to summarize Buchanan’s thesis here:
Buchanan is a known anti-Semite, as is his sister. Everytime he opens his mouth, he causes pain to those of us who lost family in the Holocaust. He should burn in Hell.
“Everytime he opens his mouth, he causes pain to those of us who lost family in the Holocaust.”
That’s a bit hyperbolic, isn’t it? And, with all due respect, does this mean nobody can discuss the Third Reich in hisotical (or historiographic) terms because it will upset people who lost relatives in the Holocaust? If so, I disagree with you.
FWIW, Pat Buchanan has always been an old-style “no foreign entanglements” conservative. There are still a few of those around who opposed the invasion of Iraq. So it’s not surprising he would glom onto such a theory (thanks, STeve Newton, for the contextual comment).
Why does anyone care about what anyone speculates about why Hitler invaded Poland 70 years ago?
There were myriad ‘reasons’ for the ‘Polish invasion’ leading to WWII. Among them was Hitler’s fear (justified) of Soviet expansion into continental Europe. The 1938 ‘Munich Pact’ essentially divided Poland between the Soviets and Germany. Thus, Hitler was assured of a buffer, and that the battle for European hegemony would not take place (at least, initially) on German soil.
There were myriad ‘reasons’ for the ‘callerRick invasion’ of my ass. Among them was callerRick’s fear (justified) of his gay erection. The 1983 ‘Boy George effect’ essentially divided callerRick between gay and really gay. Thus, CallerRick was assured of butt hunger, and that the battle for my ass would take place (at least, initially) on German soil.
Thanks for the comments, Steve. Delacrat, I care because I want pundits who aren’t anti-semitic Hitler apologists.
Pat does not know what he is talking about.Hitler took Danzig because it was part of his promise to “Unite ” all the the german speaking people. He then took Sudentenland from checs, The Ruhr gebiet from the French,and then Austria. He did that without resistance. It was only then that he revealed his true purpose.
After that the marching song went like this: ” Heute gehort uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze welt….” Today we have Germany and tomorrow the whole world….” Any doubt as to his plans ? None
Not everyone in this country, however agreed to the invasion. Charles Lindberg led a very large peace movement at the time. His arguments were excellent. Look it up !
Steve, Pat didn’t plagiarize anyone. His book is fine piece of scholarship in that it is meticulously sourced. Are most of your ideas completely original with no influence from others? Even the ones that are will find like minds if one scours enough sources.
It is a fact that Germany was willing to end the war after taking most of Europe. The rest of the story is that they knew that if they could take Africa with Italy, ally with what is now Iran, have Japan take the Asian colonies, have a disarmed Britan as part of the truce, and hold Europe that they could build until they could take Britain and Russia. They would have most of the resources in the world. They could then strangle the U. S. Global domination was indeed the agenda.
What disturbs me is that some here would fire someone for legitimate academic discussions because they disagree. Trying to understand a war and its causes is a time honored tradition. It has been stiffed a bit with World War 2. I think that we can have academic debates about alternatives 70 years later.
On this one I think that the conventional wisdom is closer to right, but just understanding how alternative point of views played out enlightens our current debates.
Geezer, to belittle the Holocaust, as Buchanan and his ilk do, is immoral. And yes, it causes pain, even after 60 years. Actual historical discussion of the Holocaust is fine, but when it’s revisionist and anti-Semitic, that’s where I and millions of others draw the line. And Buchanan fits that bill. He’s what my late father would call a mamzer.
Wow, did David just agree with Pat Buchanan?
And that surprises you how, UI?
His book is fine piece of scholarship in that it is meticulously sourced.
David–you are full of it. Buchanan’s book is in fact very poorly sourced and ignores 70% of modern scholarship on the period he covers, and uses virtually no primary sources. His Dunkirk arguments are lifted from a variety of thinly sourced and just plain factually erroneous popular histories. His chronology of the holocaust is abyssmally wrong and ignores the operations of the einsatzgruppen in Poland, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Russia, and the Baltic States as if they did not exist. His wording in the chapter on Poland and Danzig is so close to AJP Taylor’s in some places that it could have come from no other source, and yet he does not cite Taylor in footnotes of those sections.
He ignored primary source evidence of the genocidal nature of Hitler’s pre-war planning for what would happen to Poland, in which he announced to his senior officers (many of whom took detailed notes and for which a partial official transcript survives) that it was his intention after the campaign in September 1939 to “liquidate” the Polish intelligensia and reduce the country to an agricultural sub-state wherein the Poles would only be allowed to learn to read enough to sign their names to labor contracts for their German overlords.
Pat Buchanan has forfeited any pretence of being historically objective through the distortion of sources to make an ideological point, and by ignoring well-established facts.
And yes, David, I do get ideas as a historian from other people. But if you ever bother to read any of my books you will discover something: when I get ideas from other people, I give them credit for it.
Boocannon is the GOP/Conservative – old, white, racist, crybaby suffering from bouts of pretzel logic and intermittent unjustified rage.
Yes, it does surprise me nemski. I thought everyone agreed that Hitler was a bad guy. I remember how wingnuts were screaming “Neville Chamberlain” about actually talking to Iran. I figured if you wanted a future career in politics you wouldn’t want to associate with a Hitler apologist.
There were myriad ‘reasons’ for the ‘callerRick invasion’ of my ass. Among them was callerRick’s fear (justified) of his gay erection. The 1983 ‘Boy George effect’ essentially divided callerRick between gay and really gay. Thus, CallerRick was assured of butt hunger, and that the battle for my ass would take place (at least, initially) on German soil.…anonii
Interesting display of projection…it might be time for psychotherapy, cupcake.
MSNBC pulls Buchannon’s article from their website.
They ought to just fire him.