WW2 - the Brits fault

[SteveF]

Apparently WW2 was our fault and if it weren't for that dumb Mr Churchill, the Holocaust would never have happened. At least, thats what Pat Buchanan says in his revisionist new history of the second world war:

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl...dp/030740515X/

Will be interesting to read the critical response. It certainly goes against conventional thinking here in the UK (and most other places I suspect).

[Crow]

<Sarcasm>

Heck no, it wasn't necessary.

Everyone could have sat on their hands. Yay for appeasment!

Volkswagens for everybody!

I like Italian food.

I hear that German is a very easy language to learn.

Heil Hitler!

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[Kelp]

Just an aside, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term "revisionist history" in a neutral sense of academic reexamination of long held views of history; rather than referring to a self-serving fabrication like holocaust denial.

That doesn't seem to have caught on much on this side of the pond (outside academia).

[SteveF]

Just an aside, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term "revisionist history" in a neutral sense of academic reexamination of long held views of history; rather than referring to a self-serving fabrication like holocaust denial.

That doesn't seem to have caught on much on this side of the pond (outside academia).

Yeah, revisionist does get used in a fairly neutral fashion over here (I've read revisionist histories of the "dark ages for example"). However, it's probably fair to say that there are some slight negative conotations associated with the phrase, particularly when we are talking about the events of the 20th century.

Interestingly, in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Buchanan's revisionist take on things has some overlap with that more notorious "revisionist" David Irving. IIRC, Irving blamed Churchill for quite a lot of stuff. Not that I'm saying that Buchanan is a Holocaust denier, just that there is the potential to get into murky waters here.

[One Bad Pig]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

[Philosophickle]

He explains himself on Colbert:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/021405.html

Btw, it was Jaltus' fault.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

Wasn't it mainly the French who were pushing the punitive measures, as they had more to fear from a strong Germany and were punished during the war more than England? And wasn't it the French who failed to march when the Rhineland was re-militarized, and even Hitler admitted that had the French done so he would have been finished?

I know, it was the Italians fault. Mussolini was the only pre-war leader to ever check Hitlers ambitions, but he fell down on the job when it really counted because of his greed for glory. The Italians also destroyed the League of Nations by walking out of Versailles and later by invading Ethiopia.

[Paintbucket]

I blame the French for WW2.

[historic salve]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

I agree. The rivalry between France and Germany that persisted at least from WWI is due a lot of the blame. The French insisted on strict terms of surrender in WWI. Britain can only really be blamed for getting into the war too late, because their prime minister favored appeasement.

[Tladatsi]

I'd grant that the Treaty of Versailles was not calculated to engender German feelings of good-will toward the victors, but it seems a bit unfair to pin all the blame for that on the British.

WW I was very simple, Britain owned the world and Germany wanted it. The rest is details. WW II was the same as WW I, squared.

[Stabbytheclown]

So Stalin's true ambition was to be invaded by Germany?

[the_eliot_one]

• 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

World war 1is no more Britains fault than it was anyone elses. All parties in that war were guilty, Russia declared war on Austria Germany on Russia and France and Belgium, Britain on Germany. It's hardly Britan alones fault WW1 happened.

• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler

Britain wanted to be far lighter on Germany than we in fact were, blaiming that on us is hardly accurate. Besides Germany would have recovered and was recovering if not for the economic depression.

• 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

American was a better ally then Japan was. The alternative would have left America hostile towards Japan anyway. America kept america alive during WWI it made economic sense to be friendly with them, even if it was at the expense of our alliance with Japan. There was nothing to suggest WWII would have been caused by this at the time.

• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler

Please, Mussolini himself stated the sanctions meant little to Italy because America refused to join. He was already an expansionist faccist reigieme that sympathised with Hitler.

• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War

Or else would have left Hitler running rampant taking over the eastern block countries one by one. We'd have had to deal with Hitler sooner or later, if we had not defended Poland it would have been later and he'd have been stronger.

• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

... Stalin tryed to start WWII eariler. THe Nazi-Soviet pact was a result of appeasment of Germany and the Wests refusal to deal with him earlier. It seems he took the policy of since no one will help me beat him, I better join him before he sets his eyes on my country. I agree appeasment was a bad idea, but HItler was to blaim for WWII and everyone involved to blaim for WWI. Not just Britain.

[Tladatsi]

So Stalin's true ambition was to be invaded by Germany?

Not at all. I do not follow.

[Augustine2004]

Buchanan defends his book against Victor Davis Hanson's attack
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan85.html

[Augustine2004]

William S. Lind reviews Pat Buchanan’s new book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind142.html

. . . genuine history. At present, most Americans know only a comic-book version of history, one in which Germany deliberately started both World Wars as part of a drive to conquer the world, a drive stopped when valiant American armies defeated the German army. And, oh yes, some Brit named Churchill beat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Thanks to the victories of the freedom-loving allies, we now live in the best of all possible worlds, where everyone can be a "democracy."

Lind also writes that leaders such as FDR and Churchill had been imprudent. Unfortunately neocons are following them.