Buchanan's Hitler Apologia

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | September 3, 2009 at 04:42 am
622 views | 43 Recommendations | 30 comments

Photos

_MG_8397

_MG_8397

see larger image

uploaded by elphesadente

Having read a great deal of conservative Pat Buchanan's writings,  I have long known he is an apologist for Hitler.  But I am reminded once again this morning in one of my favorite  blogs,  in which blogger Orac reveals:  (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/pat_buchanan_hitler_apologist.php)  ( Note:  It is interesting that TS Eliot and Ortega y Gasset had their own defenses of fascism  -  although both had proclaimed its evil during WW II  -  and certainly Buchanan is not alone in his revisionist thinking:  )

If you're Pat Buchanan, of course, you never let a little thing like history stop you from a good opportunity to try to paint Hitler as being on OK guy and to explain how Adolf Hitler didn't really want war and he was just a poor, misunderstood guy forced to fight by those nefarious Allies, who were unreasonable and wouldn't give him what he wanted. Sadly, Buchanan never misses an opportunity to try to convince people that Hitler was really not interested in war, and the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland provides him with yet another opportunity to do just that--again--with an article entitled Did Hitler Want War?After slapping down a particularly stupid Holocaust denier the other day, I hadn't planned on writing about Holocaust denial again for a while. Little did I know that I'd end up seeing the big macher of Hitler apologia launching into another of his nonsensical and ahistorical tracts:



On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

Gee, I get the feeling that Buchanan is about to argue that World War II wasn't worth the sacrifices it took to destroy the Third Reich, don't you? Also, note the clever way he describes the people who perished. He doesn't say "50 million people had perished." Rather, he said "50 million Christians and Jews [emphasis mine] had perished." It's a non-so-subtle ploy among those who don't much like Jews to try to remind people that, you know, Hitler killed Christians, too. In fact, given that Hitler "only" killed six million Jews, that means Christians must have taken the brunt of Hitler's fury. In terms of sheer numbers, there's no doubt that most of the dead were Christian. However, as a percentage of prewar population, the number of Jewish dead far outstrips any other group, mainly because Hitler meant what he said when he proclaimed the Jew the mortal enemy of the Reich and promised a war of extermination. No doubt Pat would say I'm being unfair, but I don't think so. If he didn't mean to minimize Jewish suffering during World War II, why did he make such a point of saying "Christians and Jews" instead of just "people"?

Consider the context, as well. Buchanan goes on to describe how Danzig was a flashpoint of conflict between Germany and Poland leading up to the war. He apparently can't understand the difference between what Hitler said was the reason for his invasion of Poland and what was really behind the invasion. Here's Buchanan's highly one-sided version of the Danzig conflict:

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland's rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn't want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Apparently Pat never read Mein Kampf. Either that, or, more likely, he did read it but, as so many fundamentalists do with the Bible, decided to ignore the bits he didn't like. While it is true that Hitler fantasized about an alliance with Britain, which he admired, Mein Kampf laid out a stepwise progression for Germany's return to power. This was referred to by one of the translators of Mein Kampf as the Stufenplan (stage-by-stage plan). The first step was to form alliances with Britain and Italy; the second step was to wage war on France and its Eastern European allies, the most prominent of which was Poland; and the third step was to invade destroy the "Judeo-Bolshevist" regime in Russia and thereby obtain Lebensraum("living space") for the German volk.

It also just so happens that I'm in the midst of reading Richard J. Evans' magisterial three volume history of the Third Reich. Here is a telling passage from the second volume, The Third Reich in Power, describing the buildup to war in Poland:

On 23 May 1939 Hitler told military leaders, including Göring, Halder, and Raeder, that "further successes cannot be won without bloodshed."

"It is not Danzig that is at stake," he went on. "For us it is a matter of expanding our living-space to the east and making food supplies secure...If fate forces us into a showdown with the West it is a good idea to possess a largish area in the East. It was necessary, therefore, to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. Hitler conceded that Britain and France might come to Poland's aid. "England is therefore our enemy and the showdown with England is a matter of life and death." If possible, Poland would perish alone and unaided. But in the longer run, war with England and France was inevitable. "England is the motive force driving against Germany." It was to be hoped that such a war would be short. But it was well to prepare, he said, for a war lasting ten to fifteen years. "Time will decide against England." If Holland, Belgium, and France were occupied, English cities bombed, and overseas supplies cut off by a maritime and airborne blockade, England would bleed to death. However, Germany would probably not be ready of the conflict for another five years he added. German policy in 1939 therefore had to isolate Poland as far as possible and to ensure that the coming military action did not lead immediately to a general European war.

Indeed, by March 1939, Hitler had already mostly decided upon invading Poland. He had even set the date for August or September 1939. Then he cleverly set about trying to isolate Poland. The most cynical part of his strategy was the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, which was negotiated and signed in August 1939. Part of that pact was a secret protocol whereby, if Stalin didn't interfere with Hitler's conquest of Poland, he would get the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and Poland was to be divided between the two nations along the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers. Thus, when Hitler invaded on September 1, 1939, the Soviet Union did nothing; nothing, that is, until September 17, when it invaded Poland from the East.

But in Pat's world, Lebensraum means nothing. Hitler's proclamations, dating back to the 1920s, that Germany needed Lebensraum in the East mean nothing. No, it was those nasty Poles' fault for not turning Danzig over to Hitler, and it was those horrible Brits' and Frogs' fault for being pissed off at having been played the fools at Munich a year earlier and therefore not wanting to give in to Hitler any more. How unreasonable! It couldn't possibly be that Hitler used Danzig as one (of several) pretexts for invading Poland, at least not to Pat! It couldn't possibly have been that the Nazi Party in Danzig had been staging incidents and violence for propaganda value, could it? Perish the thought! It couldn't possibly be that Goebbels had grotesquely exaggerated stories of oppression by the Poles, in which Poles were allegedly murdering ethnic Germans or even shooting at random passers-by, were fiction, could it? Not to Pat. Pat apparently can't believe that Hitler would never lie about such things. Or anything, for that matter, apparently.

After all, Hitler had been such a nice guy to Czechoslovakia. Pat tells us so:

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary's ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

One can  argue about the many causes of World War II and what led to Hitler's rise to power. 

The Versaille Treaty, which was signed in a railway car in 1918, followed by German economic collapse created the conditions for Hitler's rise to power.  He was a great orator and found a common enemy.  Hitler along with his Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels, was able to brainwash the German people.

Buchanan has always been controversial with his remarks and would be seen by some as a wing nut, with good reason.

Had Buchanan seen the aftermath of World War II and also visited some of the former Concentration Camps he might change his tune.

Hitler was just plain evil. 

3
Karen Hatter

Based on Patrick Buchanan's long history of apology and denial of the actions of Hitler and the actions of the Third Reich, Cowpoke, I personally would be hard pressed to think visiting any of the concentration camps would have made much difference.

In a 1990 article written by Mr. Buchanan for the New York Post, entitled Dividing Lines, he points to what he says is "unreliable" testimony from camp survivors suffering from their experiences, citing medical papers written on  "The Psychological and Medical Effects of the Concentration Camps on Holocaust Survivors." 

In the NY Post article, Mr. Buchanan argues the innocence of John Demjanjuk, the man said to have been "Ivan the Terrible" , the alleged butcher of Treblinka. 

0
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

Having seen the aftermath of World War II as a child and also having been to Concentration camps, as a visitor, he can be in denial as long as he wants to be.  His view just shows me that Pat Buchanan is either in denial or totally ignorant of what has transpired.  

Pat Buchanan also believes that Canada is a Communist country.  I rest my case. 


1
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yes,  I really like Buchanan,  but his extremism not always,  and  Hitler,  nope.  H. was probably no more evil than many others,  but the circumstances allowed for certain of the expressions and actions of evil, and  highlighted it.  Buchanan sees the need to be contrary to popular opinion:  In some aspects he does well to be a contrarian,  but not so with this particular subject!

2
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

Hitler had a complex.  If you read Mein Kampf you will note many of his prejudices that were formed during his formative years as a fledgling artist in Vienna. 

His employment as a runner in a headquarters during World War I gave him allusions of grandeur.  It.s amazing that he overruled plans by his General Staff based on his experience as a Corporal. 

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yes, he certainly did not produce his ideas in a vacume,  and yes,  his ideology was formed in his youth, and unfortunately was echoed by tens of thousands of others.  Amazing what a taste of power can do to some. 

1
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

Interestingly enough, all of this could have been avoided had Britain and France met their obligations with Poland.  The annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland was also ignored. Hitler's biggest GAF was the ignoring of the non-aggression pact with Russia. 

1
Grace H

Even further it could have been avoided if Britain and US had refused to let Frace arbitrarily take back the land they lost in the Prussian Wars. Also, if they had not been so set on recovering money were there was none and understood that they were all responsible for WWI. Revolution led to Nationalism. Nationalism to Imperialism. Imperialism to Military buildup. Military buildup to Alliances. All of it was sparked when a Serbian national murdered the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yes,  the history behind it all is odd.  There is a tangeld causality,  and Jung points out that none of it happened in isolation.  Of course,  Jung was a huge apologist for Hitler himself.  At least in the sense that he believed Hitler was only a symbol for most of Europe's unconscious.  The comparisons some on the right are drawing between Hitler and Obama are very odd:  Obama sure is not living up to it. lol

4
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

Some people need to tone down their rhetoric.  LOL

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Agreed. ;)

5
Babel-Fish

Pat Buchanan, is a anti-Semite, that Nixon says he is not. If any one could wear a brown shirt with ease Pat's the one that can.   Not a very nice person

2
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

He is flaky.  He thinks Canada is a Communist state.  He is a waste of good airwaves.

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yeah,  he is pretty open about it,  too!  Proud of it.  

1
Wedding Invitation Boxes

In some ways I am an apologist of Hitler, but don't get me wrong, just in some ways. A.H. had some great ideas and others like the KZ where disaterious and horrible in deed. He wanted to own the world, if you want to own the world the world must love you and not just some brown followers.

2
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Hitler had some philosophical intelligence.  Who the h*ll are "some brown followers",  what on earth are you speaking of?????????????

1
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Roy,  egads,  you are right,  and I recall being  pleased with Buchanan when he spoke against W and Iraq.  Buchanan does indeed have noble ideas,  and noble purposes ,  and many of his ideas about "the end of the west" , indeed,   are on target.  Hitler is not,  in my opinion,  the singular evil,  the epitome of evil.  I think evil takes forms more subtle,  more crafty and hidden.  I have always felt that putting the black hat soley on Hitler is a moral trap:  It prevents one from seeing other forms of evil,  just as pernicious .  I felt that way about Jeremiah Wright, as well:  NOT a smoking gun in my book. 

2
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yes,  you see this is my problem: Philosophically,  evil is a great problem and a mystery of eternal aspect to essentialists.    I know Buchanan makes incendiary remarks, and I am against that,  but his historical knowledge in the wider scope is subtle and profound.  He like many is a mix of good and evil.  I am not certain the secularists deny evil:  I would say that they might see it only in certain places.  And think they can fix it.  I do NOT think Obama falls into that camp,  though,  he is made of the good stuff,  far better than Clinton,  let us say.   I do not like some of what Buchanan says,  but the Hitler thing has been surpassed in ways people do not grasp.  There is worse in the world than Hitler. I always felt others of a certain anonymoty  had far more subltle evils visted on them,  slower and more consistant.  Samuel Johnson I believe said he was both a conservative and an advanced radical, which I identify with mightily. 

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Thanks for your remarks.  and I meant Samuel Butler,  not Johnson,  my memory is slipping, grrrrr......I would like to discuss this heirarchy sometime, but  most likely would be better in PM, as  it may be long-winded, ha! Your reading methods are correct, inside out to the comprehension.........

1
lounsbury

I don't think that Obama will be a military mad man, so you can't compare Hitler to Obama in that respect.

However, I do think that Obama is laying down a lot of very dangerous tracks by individuals surrounding him that will someday rise to power if Obama is not stopped. I can't even imagine a United States that ends up being everything Obama wants it to be, run by the folks he has surrounded himself with as a second wave of neo-communists decended upon the burning ashes of a post Obama Republic.

The similarities between Hitler siezing internal (to Germany) political power and how Obama operates scare me to be perfectly blunt.

1
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Yet look how passive he is!  Look at how weak he allows himself to appear.  Unless he is faking while biding his time,  he seems the least scary and most innocuous of all Presidents.  There may be some who are actually growing weary and bored of Obama,  because he is NOT doing anything new,  not transforming anything,  not taking chances,  not to be feared:  In short,  same old business as usual.  Please show me where I am wrong,  it might wake me up out of this dull boredom I am in.....

7
Karen Hatter

Patrick Buchanan is a straight up bigot, having made anti Jewish, anti gay, anti women, anti Black/African American, anti just about anything statements about everything with which he has found great displeasure.

He's even made some rather interesting remarks defending obvious anti democratic behavior.

From Fair.org :

In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan suggested that "quasi-dictatorial rule" might be the solution to the problems of big municipalities and the federal fiscal crisis: "If the people are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government." (Washington Times, 1/9/91) He has written disparagingly of the "one man, one vote Earl Warren system."

In Right from the Beginning, Buchanan refers to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco as a "Catholic savior." He called Franco, along with Chile's Gen. Pinochet, "soldier-patriots." (syndicated column 9/17/89) Both men overthrew democracy in their countries.

Buchanan devotes a chapter of his autobiography --
"As We Remember Joe" -- to defending Senator Joe McCarthy. He advocated that Nixon "burn the tapes" during Watergate, and he criticized Reagan for failing to pardon Oliver North over Iran-Contra.

 

 

4
a211423

Karen

Amen

I try to take a fair position in admonition of opposing ideologies, but seriously Pat Buchanan does not deserve it.

Thank you for furthering the argument.

3
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

Your last paragraph says everything about the character of the man, particularly the part of defending Joe McCarthy.

4
Grace H

No better way to put it. The ocassional connections that canbe streached between his unacceptable beliefs and phiosophy are suspect at best. I have a friend from Chile who would especially disagree about the Pinochet comment as nearly all of his family was murdered by the tyrant.

1
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Ugh.  I agree,  Karen,  those things are bigoted and not good.  Very Newt Gingrich,  also anti-democratic. Yes,  nothing is ever simple;   nothing can be dismissed easily.  As soon as something seems clear,  the facts come in to muck it up.  Thanks for posting that,  I cannot argue in favor of those things,  certainly not.....I can say that some of those things have been counter-balanced on the other side,  but two wrongs,  then,  do not ever amout to a right.  Thanks again......

1
Barry ORegan

Bloated flaccid armchair historians always enjoyed regurgitating historical verbal diarrhea in hope of being seen s relevant to the American people,and the  Media are only too happy to print the babblings of a moron.

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Uh,  yep.  Think you are right.  :(

2
jkc

I too am in the middle of reading Evans and was struck by that very quote in response to this shameful nonsense from Buchanan.  Thank you for bringing it forward

0
Susan Marie Kovalinsky

Thanks jkc for your comment and kind words!

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
First Flagged at 4:55 AM, Sep 3, 2009 by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke
These members have powered this story:

Most Recommended Stories in Culture

Recommendations (43)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from