 | Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
Cover
|
|
 2008-11-18 - Tough Questions. Few Answers.
They say war makes strange bed-fellows but WWII had some of the strangest. Buchanan has tackled a thorny subject- and once you start asking the sort of questions he asks, it's hard to stop. Could someone tell me why Russia was allowed to invade Poland and Germany was not? Why would 'racist' Hitler ally himself with 'yellow' Japan? Why would Hitler declare war on the U.S.? Why were the Nazi death camps not bombed? Why would Eisenhower allow Berlin to be taken by the Soviets (an indescribable slap in the face to Great Britain)? Why would the Allies join with the Soviets, who had there own death camps, there own violent expansionist policy and a dictator who was more psychotic and power-hungry than Hitler? Why were the civilian targets of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasake bombed for no other reason than cold-blooded revenge? (people still perpetuate the myth that Japan was unwilling to surrender before the A-bombs were dropped). Why, why, why...
2008-11-17 - An important book that needs to be read and understood
Pat Buchanan has written an important book, a book that needs to be read and understood by all those who are comfortable in their assumptions about the causes of World War 2. The main thesis of Buchanan's book is simple: Hitler did NOT want a world war, he wanted a war against the Soviet Union ONLY. It was the British government who sparked off the 'unnecessary' global war by offering an unconditional guarantee to Poland.
Of course, those who view Hitler as some kind of inhuman, satanic monster, will consider this argument as heresy, but cool, rational thinkers will be persuaded by the weight of the evidence presented in this book. Appeasement, contrary to what is generally believed, was not an ineffective policy when dealing with Hitler. Initially, it worked. The reason it did not work in the end is because the British government had no clear idea of what 'line in the sand' should be set for Hitler. Forsaking Czechoslovakia and backing Poland made no sense. You either backed both or neither. For what possible reason was Poland more important to Britain than Czechoslovakia? Surely the 'line in the sand' should have been drawn in the West, where British and French military power could make a difference, not in Poland, where the Western powers would not be able to intervene? This shows the utter muddle of British policy towards Germany in this period, vacillating between supercilious disinterest and outraged harshness. There was never a clear consistency. And inconsistency in foreign policy often leads to disaster.
Chamberlain proved himself to be a weak leader, not because he failed to resist Hitler, but because he failed to resist Churchill and the 'war party' in the House of Commons, who were bent on war with Germany regardless. Even in 1939 Hitler manifestly had no intention of invading Poland; he wanted Danzig and the 'corridor' area, where large numbers of ethnic Germans resided, not Poland itself. Hitler had stated repeatedly in 'Mein Kampf' and numerous speeches that his life's objective was the destruction of 'Bolshevism'. Polish recalcitrance on Danzig was actively encouraged by the British guarantee, which removed any reason for Poland to back down. War was the result.
Would peace in Europe have been safe without the British guarantee to Poland? Almost certainly not, but that is not the point. It would have bought Britain time to better prepare herself for war, and allowed Germany and the Soviet Union to fight each other to exhaustion. Perhaps more importantly, it would have given safety to the Jews of Western Europe, who would not have perished at the hands of the Nazi regime. There was nothing the Western powers could have done about events in Eastern Europe anyway.
Buchanan's thesis is not new, much the same has been written by historians like John Charmley and even AJP Taylor, but it is unfortunate that in the lionisation of Winston Churchill it is often forgotten that he was one of those politicians who were willing to plunge Britain and other Western countries into a war that was disastrous for them.
2008-11-16 - Great book to read
I have been reading about the war and W.S.Churchill for some 30 years and I must say this is one of the most facinating book. It really shows the different options Britain had before the start of the second world war. I could not put it down.
 2008-11-16 - Buchanan: No Anglophile
Patrick J. Buchanan's book "The Unnecessary War", Proports to shed new light on the folly of British appeasement and blunder leading up to World War II. Beginning with Churchill's appointment of First Lord of the Admiralty during the Great War and eventual leadership of the British government during the second world war. Buchanan asserts that Churchill was a duplicitous war hungry politician. What is earth shattering about that? Historians with a greater pedigree than Buchanan have written extensively on Churchill and his manipulations. That Churchill was playing "Realpolitik" with the leaders of Europe and America are well documented. What I found to be somewhat shocking is Buchanan's near apology for Hitler and the terrors he unleashed. Buchanan states that Hitler was badly mistreated on the diplomatic front by the western powers and all he wanted was "Living space" for his poor Germanic peoples. Buchanan comes close to blaming Great Britian and the allied powers for forcing Hitler into war. Revisionist excrement. The book is repleat with repetition of marginal points of fact stated in previous chapters. Reagan-esque jingo of hate against "The Evil Empire" burble and bubble to the surface as it relates to "Uncle Joe" Stalin and the USSR. Yawn. What would have been worth the price of the print would have been a look into the war crimes of American Industry and banking in supporting Nazi Germany. There is plenty "Unnecessary" about this book.
 2008-11-10 - absolutely and totally insane
This book is essentially the old pro-axis view of the world circia 1940. It adopts the German arguments of the 1930s that the priority of the British should be to preserve their empire while giving germany a free hand in europe. That a world war with germany would "doom" the British empire. Why anyone would choose to make these particular highly discredited arguments now is beyond comprehension.
The historical arguments made in the book are basically naive (being generious) garbage. He proposes total appeasement of Germany, Japan and Italy in the run-up to the second world war. And he is just shy of suggesting a British-German alliance against the soviet union.
The root problem with all this nonsense is you have believe that the axis countries in world war 2 had limited satisfiable moral objectives. Buchanan sees it somehow but I sure don't.
The material on the first world war is even worse. The author is basically unfailiar with events, personalties and basic history of the era. The British-German alliance was destroyed not by British actions, it was destroyed by the combination of the German's building the high seas fleet and invading belgium. Its been fundemental to british policy for centuries that no hostile power with a large navy will be allowed to dominate the belgian/neartherlands coast.
This book should have never been written. Its crazy-talk.
|
| Other Search Links for ISBN-10 030740515X | 
| |
|
|
