Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan

A lot going on hereby USC73

Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings

August 15, 2009: What do say about a book where "poor" Adolf Hitler is just a mere pawn of Churchill and Stalin, especially the latter. While the author makes an interesting argument regarding Britain's guarantee of war to Poland, it is hard to determine what the real point Buchanan is trying to make. Is it that it would have been best for Britain to ignore the invasion of Poland and then standby and watch the Nazis and Soviets fight? Assuming Germany had won, the author states that Hitler's intent was to ensure a blockade would never hurt Germany again and he would have had the grain and oil riches of Russia. France and England time would have come next and it is questionable if they would have been any more ready. Or, then may England should just let Hitler right the wrongs of 1918 and let him take back Belgium and parts of France. It is a historical fact that Stalin brought down his reign of terror to Eastern Europe after World War II. The question Buchanan should ask himself is what if Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1940 (through a conquered Poland) and Stalin had won? Would Poland's fate been any different? Might all of Germany come under his wing instead of a portion? No need for a Berlin Airlift.

Then there is Czechoslovakia. Hard to know what the author was suggesting. It seems that the Sudetenland germans should have been given to Austria or Germany (which they were never part of). What was the point of Czechoslovakia anyway afterall the Czechs represented only 47% of the country, which had never been a country before (gee, Pat ever study American History?)? At the same time, he speculates that it would have been better for the British to stay out and let the Germans try the Czech defences. Then, again, as Buchanan points out the Czech wouldn't have fought (confused yet?)

Buchanan also ignores the history of Japanese imperialism starting from the late 19th Century and instead blames the U.S. and Britain for disrespecting Japan (he also seems to forget that Japan attacked the U.S. first and that Hitler, not Roosevelt declared war first). Japan had its eye on China before, during and after its alliance with Britain and it had the means to push Britain out of Asia when it chose (Singapore? Hong Kong?). Buchanan also ignores native movements against colonialism and imperialism in regions such as India, IndoChina, China. Mao may have been a butcher, but he was not put into power because of Stalin or his army but by the Chinese people(Stalin wanted Mao to cut a deal with Chiang Kai Shek when Mao was ready to take all of China).

In his discourse about the U.S. not directly confronting the moves by the "communist monolith" perhaps he has conveniently forgot about Korea and Vietnam.

In the end, this book states the age old premise: What if the West had just let the Soviets and Nazis go at it. Would the world be a better place? Assuming someone would win (there was no mercy on the Eastern Front), who knows which devil The West would have to deal with, but the West would have had to live or fight with one or the other. At least the British Empire would have been saved, right?