|
|
Tarfumes.com - Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
|
List Price: $29.95
Our Price: $19.77
Your Save: $ 10.18 ( 34% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Crown
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Binding: Hardcover
Dewey Decimal Number: 940.5311
EAN: 9780307405159
ISBN: 030740515X
Label: Crown
Manufacturer: Crown
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 544
Publication Date: 2008-05-27
Publisher: Crown
Release Date: 2008-05-27
Studio: Crown
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
Were World Wars I and II—which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction—inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.
Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:
• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France
• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo- Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler
• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War
• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.
Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: historical content
Comment:
Buchanan draws a distinct line between history as a science and politicians manipulation of historical facts in order to serve their aims.
Customer Rating:
Summary: He stirs the pot!
Comment: From all of the other reviews I have read on this book it is certainly obvious that the author has hit a hot button issue and stirred the pot.
This is the first book I have ever read by Pat Buchanan, and it has a very impressive premise. It is filled with over 1200 notes, and has a vast bibliography. Does the author have a point of view? Obviously, but then what author/historian does not wish to interpret history in their own way.
While many reviewers give much time to WW II, the real issue is WW I and the resultant Treaty of Versailles. Such a pathetic war, such a pathetic treaty, one that was so bad even the US Senate refused to ratify it, and other diplomats knew all the Treaty did was ensure another war in 20 years. The dismantling of the old Empire/Monarchy system led to many of todays bastardized countries. Countries that contain people with no common language, culture or background.
And, if you wish to criticize the premise, just look what recently happened with the Georgian invasion by Russia, and now we have US giving its own "Polish Guarantee" for missle defense. The book definitely shows that there were other views with regard to Churchill and the two World Wars, and Buchanan comes down on the side of those who feel that the wars were unnecessary. It has been over 60 years since the WW II has ended, we have seen the files, seen the paperwork and correspondence from that era, and people are now properly wondering if that war was fought for the wrong reasons. Buchanan certainly points out all the atrocities that Hitler and his Generals ordered to happen, but to me the basic premise was that Hitler could have been avoided had their been a better and more civilized peace to end WW I.
The book did take me a long time to read, but that is due to the numerous details and notes that are in the book. The author makes a very fine defense of his premise, a premise that can never be proven correct or incorrect since those decisions are always subject to personal opinion. Being married to a woman who came from Romania I can tell you that the horrors and hardship that their country had to deal with under Communism, as well as other Eastern European countries that were dominated by Communism for over 40 years, were certainly not worth the sacrifices made to rid the world of Hitler. Again, these become personal reasons and are hard to quantify to someone who has not lived in those conditions.
Definitely a stimulating read, and from all the comments I think the author has certainly brought a very relevant issue to the fore, the repercussions of which still need to be debated and studied.
Blaine DeSantis
Customer Rating:
Summary: History Rewritten
Comment: The premise of the book is that Hitler was a rational even reasonable person, and thus is was unreasonable to "obsessively" oppose him. Reading this account of the war one is drawn to conclude that Hitler was forced into the war by Churchill. That Churchill was unreasonable and obstinate in the face of a situation that should have been quietly accepted.
This account flies in the face of every bit of historical fact. Numerous first source accounts of Hitler's character are available to guide us. But more importantly - what the man himself said, wrote, and did should be plenty of evidence on which to base Judgment.
Criticizing Churchill's moral character for dealing with Stalin while at the same time applauding Hitler's supposed consistency in seeking peace is truly a breathtaking maneuver. Seems that the moral course according to Mr. Buchanan is to appease the worst of tyrants at the expense of millions of lives, to cast aside friends and allies when inconvenient, as long as that course keeps one's own interests unharmed.
I found it hard to read these pages without frequently wondering what possible motive might lie behind so unusual an attempt to circumvent history.
Customer Rating:
Summary: The Only Lincoln This Buchanan Should Come Before Is a Speeding Navigator
Comment: PB&J was once considered for the position of ambassador to South Africa. Ford squashed that proposal since he had no wish to exceed the embarrassment of Joe Kennedy's ambassadorship to Britain. While PB&J's indelicate remarks regarding the non-Irish Catholics of the world and his condemnation of Stalin's perfidy, that even surpassed the National Socialists, how can his supporters, particularly his 5-star book reviewers, countenance his admiration for ex-KGB chief Putin's perfidy.
The coiner of the "pusillanimous pussyfooters" has become the essence of his own phrase. Once the hard-liner, whose take-no-prisoners comments made him the odd man out in the Reagan Administration, PB&J now defends Russia's actions in South Osettia. This is an odd position for a guy who said after leaving the Reagan administration: "We are better off with 574 missiles that can land on the Soviet Union than we are with a damn treaty."
During the Cold War, he advocated "peace through strength" and supported the funding of freedom fighters in the Middle East. Today, he seeks to pull U.S. forces back behind Fortress America. Papa Bill's America First Committee is now the go-to foreign-policy prescription no matter how anachronistic it is in the complex world of the 21st century. PB&J has bear hugged Whittaker Chambers geopolitics, "The problem isn't with our enemies. The crisis in within ourselves -- in Western Civilization."
South Osettia may not be the Danzig of 2008, but PB&J would still rather side with the ex KGB chief than with the U.S. supported Georgians. Could we expect anything less from the guy who blames the holocaust on GB and Churchill?
"... It was the war guarantee that guaranteed the war that brought down the Empire, and gave us the Holocaust, 50 million dead and the Stalinization of half of Europe..." P. Buchanan June 4, 2008
The Americans who died in surrogate wars with the Communist since 1945 is about 100,000. Considering that the Germans lost 3.5 million fighting the Soviets in WWII, we fared a whole lot better. Why would PB&J not want the Georgians to resist the Russians?
In PB&J's alternative universe book, we are treated to his whimsical side when he replays the sour notes of Lady Astor:
Where was Hitler born?
"At Versailles," replied Lady Astor.
Even though PB&J has long become circumspect in his praise for all things supported by National Socialism, he could not resist quoting the virulent anti-Semitic, pro-Hitler appeaser, Nancy Witcher Langhorne. Why include Lady Astor's quote to buttress his arguments? Because her uncomplimentary remarks regarding British soldiers, her disdain of the Czechoslovakian refugees, and general racist attitudes fit perfectly into PB&J's own weltanschauung.
Factual Errors in The Book:
1) PB&J S. Credits Maj. Gen. C. F. Robinson as the author of a 1947 U.S. War Department report about Germany's military strength in 1939. It is actually Francis Neilson's The Churchill Legend, whose source is a 1948 New York Times article written by Hanson W. Baldwin. The text quoted by Buchanan is the New York Times reporter's assessment of the report; it's not part of the actual report. Buchanan quotes the text as though it came directly from the report, because his source, The Churchill Legend, does the same thing.
Buchanan contends that Hitler's military strength in 1939 shows that Hitler was not out to conquer the world. The truth is that Hitler's army was designed to fight the paltry defenses of his neighbors. The quick, one-month campaigns against single countries were the underpinnings of the Blitz Krieg. The problem was Hitler never planned on being confronted by a group of countries. If history took PB&J's advice, Hitler's strategy would have realized the desired goal. Of world domination. But on the bright side, maybe Bill Buchanan could have been Gauliter of D.C.
2) What Did Churchill Mean by "Unnecessary War"?
The totality of Churchill's writings make it clear that he felt the war had been unnecessary only on the grounds that he felt it could have been prevented by standing up to a then weak Hitler in 1936, which would have humiliated the Nazis and perhaps even led to a change of government or at least a sort of containment of Nazism. And note Churchill's choice of word "perils." Churchill did not think, as implied by Buchanan, that Hitler was any less evil than Stalin, only that the Red Army and the resources of the Soviet Union gave it the potential to become far more dangerous than a much smaller Nazi empire.
In Churchill's own words, not taken out of context by PB&J:
"...President Roosevelt one day asked what this War should be called. My answer was, "The Unnecessary War." If the United Stated States had taken an active part in the League of Nations, and if the League of Nations had been prepared to use concerted force, even had it only been European force, to prevent the re-armament of Germany, there was no need for further serious bloodshed. If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages, even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil, and a chance would have been given to the sane elements in German life, which were very powerful especially in the High Command, to free Germany of the maniacal Government and system into the grip of which she was falling.
Do not forget that twice the German people, by a majority, voted against Hitler, but the Allies and the League of Nations acted with such feebleness and lack of clairvoyance, that each of Hitler's encroachments became a triumph for him over all moderate and restraining forces until, finally, we resigned ourselves without further protest to the vast process of German re-armament and war preparation which ended in a renewed outbreak of destructive war. Let us profit at least by this terrible lesson. In vain did I attempt to teach it before the war..." WINSTON CHURCHILL
3) Errors of omission:
PB&J never mentions the Kaiser's plans for Britain before WWI began. Germany was conspiring to throw Britain out of India as early as 1913. Wilhelm Wassmuss used Persian exiles to incite a holly war against the British and pave a way for a German empire in the east. Nor does PB&J mention the German sabotage at Black Tom Island, Manhattan in 1916 when the U.S. was still a neutral country.
Buchanan's source for the information on Churchill's "Starvation Blockade"
is Francis Neilson The Churchill Legend. PB&J rehashes the theme that the world wars could have been avoided and Churchill was not as great as history leads us to believe.
PB&J adopts the same selective editing in 2008 regarding Churchill's success of "his" blockade remarks to the House of Commons after the 1918 armistice that Neilson made in his 1954 book. PB&J and Nelson erroneously state Churchill "ignored appeal after appeal about the conditions produced by the blockade," that were sent to his office. Of course anyone reading the full text of the very speech would have a much different impression.
"...It is repugnant to the British nation to use this weapon of starvation - which falls mainly upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped - one moment longer than is necessary to secure the just terms for which we have fought...." WINSTON CHURCHILL
4) The conspiracy theorist connoisseurs of "false flag" operations never seem to mention the overwhelmingly documented "false flag" operation that was Danzig. I guess factually proven German "false flags" are not as exciting as sci-fi Pearl Harbor and 911 "false flag" operations.
Convicts disguised as Polish soldiers code-named Tin Cans were ordered to storm a German radio station near the Polsuih boarder and start broadcasting Polish nationalist music. Then the "Tin Cans" were shot by their SS minders and the Nazi news service announced that Polish Army had attacked the Reich. At 4:30 a.m. on the morning of September 1, 1939, the first shots were fired near Dirschau, and the battleship Schleswig-Holstein, began firing on Polish positions in Danzig. Then 15 German divisions and 1500 aircraft violated the boarder from the north, west and south. With Einsatzgruppen "moping" up behind ther Wermacht. The Soviets invaded on the 17th and by the end of the month, Poland ceased to exist.
But of course, none of this would have happened had Churchill not been born. From the moment Hitler consolidated power in Germany in 1933, until Prime Minister Chamberlain declared war on Germany on September 3, when Chamberlain then invited Churchill into the cabinet making him First Lord of the Admiralty for the second time, Churchill was in the political wilderness in Britain. He was completely irrelevant to the ruling party during this period and he was not even permitted to make speeches over the BBC airwaves. So exactly what did Churchill have to do with the polices of the British government that "forced" Hitler to turn Europe into a graveyard?
To suggest that Britain would have been better off allowing Germany a free hand in Eastern Europe could only sound rational to someone who would have preferred a German victory in WWII. When Hitler did invade the Soviet Union, in June 1941, he was almost assured of achieving the victory that eluded Napoleon. Had Britain not been in the war at that point, had Hitler been fighting Stalin alone, there is good reason to think that the Wehrmacht would have been in Moscow by the end of the year. At that point, of course, it would have been truly suicidal for Britain to declare war on Germany, and Hitler would have been free to concentrate on invading the British Isles or starving them into submission. Only by getting into the war when it did, even if it was too late to stop the tyrant before he got started, did England at least assure its chance of ultimate survival if not its colonies.
Contrary to those whose mantra is that the Allies joyously gave Stalin all of eastern Europe to do with as he pleased, Germany was not divided at the boarder that FDR originally mapped out in 1943 on the U.S.S. Iowa. The American and Russian occupation zones met at Berlin with the American zone occupying northwest Germany, including Hamberg, Bremerhaven, Lubeck, and Rostock. The Soviets were to get a fraction of the eastern portion of Germany that they eventually got. FDR wanted the Allies to take Berlin, but Ike never followed this policy preferring the Soviets to loose 600,000 soldiers taking the capital. We are never given any suggestions how the U.S. and Britain were going to deny the Soviets from keeping the lands they occupied by may, 1945.
Well, that isn't completely true. PB&J surmises that had Britain and the U.S. stayed out of WWII, Germany would be occupying these lands and the world would be better off today. Of course PB&J never concedes that Germany would also invade and occupy France (the country they blamed for the severity of the Treaty of Versailles), Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Egypt, Libya, Greece, and of course Great Britain, and eventually the United States. For PB&J to admit the obvious would be tantamount to denying his raison d'être.
PB&J's book is not based on facts, rather the contradiction of them. It does not even contain any new information, or any new theories. It doesn't even offer any new arguments to bolster the retread theories. Even the dedication in the book isn't. well, kosher. It was supposed to inoculate PB&J from appearing as an unabashed cheerleader for Germany's parlous policies. We now know that PB&J mother's four brothers fought for their country in WWII, the "unnecessary war." Other than the Confederates fighting the union in the Civil War, exactly what war was "necessary" in PB&J's estimation? But where was PB&J's dad, William Baldwin Buchanan, during WWII? Bill was only 37 at the time of Pearl Harbor. Could he not spare any time away from his "American First Committee" meetings for work in a defense plant if not military service? Proving the sour apple does not fall far from the tree, PB&J used his "trick knee" to avoid military service in Southeast Asia.
Customer Rating:
Summary: In-Depth but Off Target
Comment: This one is typical PB. Well researched and carefully thought out thesis. A little too dense for me, but the illumination of historical events alone is worth the price. I cannot accept Pat's conclusions, however and feel that, for the first time, he is dangerously off course with this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
