Wow.
Seriously. Wow.
Pat Buchanan has been pimping his new book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, and making some interesting arguments. From CNN’s The Situation Room:
BUCHANAN: I’ve read and studied Hitler. One thing he did not want was war with the British Empire. He admired it. He respected it. He never wanted war with it. He wanted to make an ally of it. Had Chamberlain at the goading of Churchill not given a war guarantee to Poland, Britain would not have had to go to war on behalf of Poland. It’s because Britain declared on Germany that Germany came west. That’s the reason Germany had basically hostages of everybody in Western Europe from the —
BLITZER: Hitler had plans of exterminating the Jews in the ’30s, a lot earlier.
BUCHANAN: Wolf, I have not seen any plans of extermination. Hitler went genocidal after the invasion of Russia was broken down in Russia, after he declared war on the United States, and he was looking to defeat in the face. It was at that point that the Wannsee Conference was held, Wolf. As you know, that was in January of 1942.
BLITZER: What about all the anti-Semitic laws, all those Jews who were rounded up starting in the 30s in Germany?
BUCHANAN: Look, there’s no doubt Hitler was anti-Semitic from the time even before he wrote camp. What we’re talking about, when you mention the Holocaust, for heaven sakes, is genocide. You’re not talking about anti-Semitism. It was anti-Semitism in Poland in those years. There’s no doubt that Nuremburg laws were in 1935. They were dreadful. As a consequence, half the Jews had left Germany before November 1938. Another half fled after that. They were outside Germany with the curtain fell.
What Hitler did was a monstrous crime, Wolf. It was a war crime. Had there been no war, there would have been no holocaust in my judgment.
First, one point on which Buchanan is correct is that the decision to institutionalize the genocide of European Jews was not formally made until the Wannsee Conference. However, to assert that events would not have unfolded as they did, had Churchill not declared war on Germany is absurd. Systematic extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany was nor more avoidable than was the tortures inflicted on Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, or on supposed “witches” during the Salem witch trials.
German anti-Semitism finds much of its genesis in Martin Luther, particularly through his book, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (The Jews and Their Lies) and the evolution of German Lutheranism up through the mid-1800s. German composer Richard Wagner, a notable anti-Semite, found much support amongst his fellow Germans, not in spite of, but because of his anti-Semitism. By the turn of the century, anti-Semitism was fairly well-rooted in Germany and merely awaited the emergence of someone who could exploit that sentiment into all of its ugly potential. It is at this point that Adolph Hitler emerges onto the stage.
For Buchanan to state that genocide of the Jews was not contemplated until it was necessitated as a response to Britain’s declaration of war against Germany is willful ignorance. Hitler, in a speech to the German Reichstag in Sep. 1935, following the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws, states that the Jewish question will only be ultimately addressed via a “final solution.”[1] And lest there be any ambiguity about what was meant by the “final solution,” Hitler stated to the Chief Physician of the Reich that “the euthanasia problem would be taken up and solved” under the cloak of war.[2] Another source states that Hitler spoke of euthanizing European Jews as early as 1931.[3] Germans, particularly the German Reich, fully understood as early as 1935 that the “final solution” was the operative euphemism when discussing the extermination of the European Jews.
The enactment of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 only served to encourage and further German anti-Semitism. Leading up to 1939, it was commonplace for German authorities, the SchutzStaffel (SS), and the Wermacht to summarily execute Jews for the slightest of infractions. In 1933, a Jewish cemetery in Saarbrücken was vandalized with graffiti that declared the death of the Jews would end locals’ misery.[4]
Regardless, Neville Chamberlain did not sign on to the Sudetenland peace treaty (”The Munich Agreement“) with Germany until October of 1938, less than a year before Hitler invaded Poland. As a result, Buchanan’s claim that Hitler wasn’t interested in the genocide of European Jews until after 1941 falls apart entirely. The Holocaust had nothing to do with Britain entering the was against Germany (that didn’t happen until after Germany invaded Poland in 1939), and had nothing to do with Churchill’s predecessor, Chamberlain. Hitler intended, well in advance of the Wannsee Conference (as early as 1931), to do what he could to exterminate the whole of European Jewry.
And if there is any remaining doubt about how idiotic Buchanan is, one need only look to the decline of the Reich through late 1944 and early 1945. Buchanan makes the claim that Hitler did not contemplate genocide of the Jews until after he knew defeat was inevitable following the U.S. declaring war on Germany, and the stalled offensive into the Soviet Union. He supports this claim by arguing that the Wannsee Conference took place in Jan. 1942. Indeed, it did take place in Jan. 1942, but it had originally been planned for early Dec. 1941, and was postponed following Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Soviet counteroffensive, both in early Dec. 1941.
Did Hitler know in Jan. of 1942—or in the summer of 1941—that defeat was inevitable? It’s doubtful, at best. Up until Apr. 1945, Hitler still felt that the Germans would rise up and defeat the invaders of Germany. Memoirs from those in Hitler’s bunker during the last days portray clearly that Hitler did not want to know the meaning of defeat and would not accept it under any terms.
And from reading through Buchanan’s argumentation, I can conclude that he is no less delusional.
[Personal footnote: If Pat Buchanan has "studied Hitler" as much as he claims to have studied him, this book never should have been published. Which makes me curious as to what Buchanan's been studying.]
[1] N.H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, I. London, 1942, pp. 731-732.
[2] Goldhagen, D.J. (1996). Hitler’s willing executioners. P. 162. New York: Vintage Books.
[3] Ibid. n93, p. 534.
[4] Ibid. p. 124.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Teresa // May 29, 2008 at 14:57 pm
*blink*blink*
Two questions: For what reason did he think this book even needed to be written, and what the FUCK?!
2 Clint Hutchison // May 29, 2008 at 15:26 pm
Buchanan is definitely not an idiot, but I agree he is being too irrational in favor of Hitler’s better intentions it sounds like. I really don’t know what he said because I haven’t read the book.
I see you are an agnostic. Question; are you agnostic about reindeer flying? As in; do you hold on with childish optimism that there is doubt for reindeer to pull Santa’s sleigh? Or do you have a sure feeling that unless disproved, reindeer cannot fly.
Agnostics and Theist alike seem to me, to have not thought things out entirely.
Have fun.
3 Becca // May 29, 2008 at 16:53 pm
@ Teresa: I believe the primary aim of Buchanan’s book is to make the argument for American isolationism and non-intervention. At least that’s what I’ve been able to gain from listening to what he’s had to say about it.
But yeah, WTF?
4 Becca // May 29, 2008 at 17:00 pm
@ Clint: My comment isn’t directly targeting anything that may be in the book. It’s a response to the idiocy Buchanan uttered on CNN.
I’m not really agnostic. I think that label is wholly insufficient. I classify myself as an atheist-agnostic, which means that I’ll allow for the possibility and if I’m presented with some incontrovertible, concrete proof, I’d be more than happy to become a believer. However, (a) that doesn’t mean disengaging the rational brain, and (b) in lieu of that, I don’t see the argument for the existence or non-existence of God as being a 50-50 proposition.
The current case for the existence of God is pretty much some feel good emotions and an emphasis on faith (belief without proof). There are residents of the local psych ward who fall into the same category.
5 odanny // May 29, 2008 at 22:40 pm
Good analysis Becca. I find it remarkable that someone would think, like Pat does, that Britain not declaring war on Germany in would have not led to the Holocaust. What a preposterous statement
However, ignoring the one noble thing done by Britain, considering its imperial past and use of its military to subjugate colonial “citizens”, it is indeed “willful ignorance” to believe for a second that not confronting Nazi aggression would have led to no Holocaust, when the intentions were clearly known aqnd events were long ago in motion to murder Jews enmasse.
Truly, Buchanan has a gem here, much like Jonah Goldberg’s book.
6 EinsteinRosenbridge // Jun 5, 2008 at 16:55 pm
Terrific response to Buchanan’s book. Well footnoted. Buchanan conveniently ignores multiple facts including Hitler’s own writings in Mein Keimpf and remarks about the Armenian Genocide
7 Anonymous // Jun 11, 2008 at 19:00 pm
Most people are missing the most bizarre Buchanan remark…
Buchanan said: “There’s no doubt that Nuremburg laws were in 1935. They were dreadful. As a consequence, half the Jews had left Germany before November 1938. Another half fled after that. They were outside Germany with the curtain fell.”
Let’s see … one “half” plus “another half” equals one whole, right? So Buchanan said that all the Jews escaped Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, and Wolf Blitzer didn’t question this. What the heck???
8 Becca // Jun 14, 2008 at 8:53 am
@ Anonymous: I noticed that, but figured he just didn’t articulate his point correctly. Because yeah, if all the Jews left before 1939, there wouldn’t have been any to exterminate.
You must log in to post a comment.