Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler

The BBQ Pit
1

This column has to be read to be believed. Apparently poor misunderstood Hitler never really wanted war. He was only interested in repatriating the unfortunate Germans living outside the Reich. That business about conquering Europe … all a stupid misunderstanding brought about by the warmongering English. If they’d just been reasonable and given Der Fuhrer what he wanted, all the subsequent unpleasantness (including the Holocaust) could have been avoided.

Buchanan seems, stunningly, to be utterly ignorant of the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact. Why is this man a nationally-respected political commentator again?

2

Because he’s a main stream Republican, not one of those whacky fringe guys.

3

Didn’t some guy named Chamberlain suggest that very theory?

4

Pat’s entirely correct. He just left out the fact that Hitler had a beard in the Mirror Universe.

5

Grr … and I’m ignorant of spelling. Ribbentrop.

6

Exactly. I mean, Churchill (and totally not the French, who were also, on paper, allied with the Polish) totally outmaneuvered Hitler into getting him to invade Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium before taking aim at France. Hitler just wanted to conquer Europe, not the world! Silly rabbit. Oh, and North Africa too. And possibly the Middle East, through the Caucuses.

7

I’ve read a lot of books about WWII the last couple years. One common thread: Hitler wanted war. He wanted revenge for the Versailles treaty. He know invading was a provocation, and had little doubt that it would bring about the war he sought.

Buchanan’s an idiot.

8

The books you read were obviously written by revisionist Zionist historians.

9

Shouldn’t the title of this thread be Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler Again? It’s not like he hasn’t done this before.

10

Uh, I might just be exposing my ignorance here . . . but is there any other kind?

11

Hitler felt Germany was too small to become a world dominating superpower. He wanted war, not just as revenge for WW1, but also to carve out a greater Germany in the east. I wish I could say Buchanan was an idiot, but I think he’s a smart guy whose made a decent living pandering to fellow anti-semites.

12

Yeah, there are also Zionist revisionist historians, Masonic revisionist historians, Masono-Zionist revisionist historians, Jew historians, kike historians, communist historians, Jew communist historians, and liars.

13

Does this mean that Buchanan is an Obama supporter now?

14

Is it possible that Buchanan is Hitler? I mean, has anyone seen Hitler’s body?

15

Splitists!

16

I’m not a historian, but Pat lost me at “Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished.”

Hmm. The death toll for WW2 is usually pegged at around 50 million total, including (from the cite):

10,000,000 Chinese
2,350,000 Japanese
37,000 Indians

Adding up to something more that 12,000,000 people who were likely to be neither Christians nor Jews. Guess they don’t count for Pat.

And here’s the other thing. Why does Pat identify the dead by their religion anyway? What does that add to the piece?

17

Ah, the Republican Party. Always had it’s share of nuts (every political party does), but now completely gone over to them. Kinda doubting that there’s any way that they’ll recover at this point. The smart conservatives are going to be better off forming a completely different party and letting the wackos know they’re not welcome.

18

And creationst young-earth flat-earth biblical literalists - but unlike all the above groups, these guys are right.

19

No he’s not. He’s an all-purpose bigot, white supremacist, and apologist for genocide.

20

Just FTR, I don’t think Pat’s that much of a Republican. He ran for President as a Reform Party candate, and he strongly opposed the Iraq war. He had very few nice things to say about GWB. He’s really an old school right-wing populist. He hates the financial sector. (To be fair it is full of Jews.) Calling him a Republican is like calling Ralph Nader a Democrat.