opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
5 Feb 2016
The Remainderman

Donald Trump won more votes in the Iowa caucuses than any Republican candidate in history. Impressive, except … Read More.

2 Feb 2016
Is a New Era Upon Us?

Whoever wins the nominations, the most successful campaigns of 2016 provide us with a clear picture of where … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
The Civil War of the Right

The conservative movement is starting to look a lot like Syria. Baited, taunted, mocked by Fox News, Donald … Read More.

Was the Holocaust Inevitable?


"What Would Winston Do?"

So asks Newsweek's cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.

Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill's career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.

That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War" seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book "stinks."

Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.

Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.

We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. "The Kaiser's policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe."

Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.

From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.

Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?

As for the Kaiser's bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.

In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish "blank cheque" to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.

Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking "the dominion of the world," conceded, "History should ... acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War."

What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.

Yet consider.

Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.

Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain — a war he never wanted.

If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.

Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?

If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?

That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. "Mein Kampf" is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.

Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.

That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.

And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.

Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.

"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"

Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.

The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.

Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.

The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, "Mankind cannot bear much reality."

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at



8 Comments | Post Comment
The British today are a wonderful people with a wonderful nation and with only a few exceptions (C Hitchens) produce wonderful famous folk.

That being said, their history is loathesome. All too often their leaders took steps backwards rather than forwards in their mindless pursuit of profit.

Greed was their god. the one in the bible never had a say in most of her decisions.

The Irony as I see it is, yes Pat is mostly right in his analysis, but he is also an ardent free-market capitalist generally (his nationalistically driven protectionism aside) and it's that element that made the UKs history so dark and sorded.
Comment: #1
Posted by: jonathan seer
Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:46 AM
Sir; There is a reason why Britain got shed of Empire like France, and others. And I do not want to turn your green soul red; but read VI Lenin on the subject. Empires are expensive to maintain, but if a few individuals profit from them it is the people who bear the cost. Sure the locals are exploited and miserable, but the amount of profit that can be squeezed out of primitives is slight. On the other hand, the cost of defending and capitalizing and buying the products produced abroad actual results, in every case, in an acceleration of national wealth from poor to rich. We are paying in a multitude of ways for the oil we get, and it was cheaper before. They are paying in Iraq for our thirst for oil, but we are paying twice. We pay once for the strong arm that make the theft of oil possible, and we are paying higher prices because no one wants our money which is growing more worthless by the minute. And again, worhtless money to people on fixed income only means more wealth for the wealthy. Winston Churchill realized that the price of empire was too steep. It almost cost them their freedom, so survival without empire is better than extinction with empire. They were also going against yankee traders who wanted open shores to trade upon. And again, trade costs nothing so long as you have a product to sell. When people refuse your goods because they don't like you politics you have to send gunmen to them. And then the price becomes greater than the market can bear. Thanks.
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:40 AM
this article is a mixture of the truth and a fairy-tale. i am sure, mr buchanan knows this very well. there are many sources out which tell the whole story. i concede it is not flattering for the allies. as it is to-day, it was just an other war orchestrated and fought for foreign interests. the price as high as usual. just about 60 million people. so you can buy everything in the world. it is just a matter of the price.
Comment: #3
Posted by: claus doehring
Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:32 PM
A way I like to put it is, "The Holocaust was caused by the entrance of the US into the European war." That entrance was a project of Churchill and Roosevelt, goaded on by world Jewry.
Had the US not entered that war, Russia might have fought Germany to some kind of stalemate. Eastern Europe would NOT have fallen into communist hands. No doubt, the British Empire would have crumbled, like all the other colonial empires of that day. Germany and Britain would have bombed each other as long as they could build bombers and make bombs and fuel for them. The US today would have a population around 400 million and be far richer than it is (per capita).
And there would have been no Holocaust.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Jett Rucker
Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:54 PM
Pat B is rarely wrong, but he does make one serious error.
He believes that the Wanssee conference set the stage for mass murder of the Jews.
I refer you to Nurnburg document NG 3933
It consists of interoffice memos between Bielfeld and Radamacher.
Dated Feb. 10 (or so) 1942 shortly after the Wanssee conference.
One informing the other that in view of the recent conquests in the east ( russia ) ... that Madagascar would
no longer be needed for the FINAL SOLUTION.
From the context it is VERY CLEAR that final solution meant forced emigration... NOT EXTERMINATION.
Comment: #5
Posted by: jo berger
Sat Dec 1, 2012 12:24 AM
Buchanan can spin it all he wants to appease the Jews and not get hit by Jewish lightning (he will anyhow) but the truth is that France and Britain were FORCED to decalre war on Germany for a quickly settled border dispute and he knows it. Pat, grow up already, e a man and tell the truth.
Comment: #6
Posted by: David Baillie
Sat Dec 1, 2012 7:49 PM
If you read any of HItlers later writings you will discover that he was losing most sleep over his fear that Stalin would attack Germany before he could attack them. There is no doubt that Hitler's attack on Russia was pre-emptive. German intelligence was well aware of Stalins intention to invade Germany soon after the spring of 1941. KGB defector Victor Suvarov confirms this in great detail. Google him.
Comment: #7
Posted by: jo berger
Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:00 PM
Mr Buchanan is getting real close to the truth and I appreciate that he travels so close to the Jewish line of anti-semitie accusations.

However, the truth is that there was NO Holocaust. It is the greatest hoax of our time and is the very catalyst for what Israel and her murderous thugs do right now.

If not for that bald faced lie, where there is ZERO forensic evidence that intentional gassings ever took place, or that there was ever a plan to "exterminate" Jews, Israel (Jews) could not extort from us, control,us, and are given carte blanche to do any craven, murderous actions they so want.

The time is now to tell the whole truth.
Comment: #8
Posted by: BuelahMan
Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 7 Feb 2016
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 7 Feb 2016

22 Apr 2013 Did the Brothers Tsarnaev Fail?

2 Jan 2007 End of a Year, End of an Era

6 Sep 2007 Buenas Noches, America