Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

I just finished the book. It's a long read, perhaps too long, but it goes fairly quickly. The book is quite engrossing. It is, by far, the most thoroughly documented book I've ever seen. Buchanan painstakingly cites the world-shaping statesmen and diplomats of that era.

It is absolute paranoid nonsense to suggest that Buchanan treats Hitler as a rational, even sympathetic, character in this book. (Such an accusation is usually leveled by Jewish intellectuals, and quasi-intellectuals, who incessantly whine that Buchanan is anti-semitic.) Buchanan has been slandered enough by such people. Buchanan's thesis is, and always has been, that Hitler is the greatest force of evil in the 20th century. He does show Hitler as an opportunistic and prescient leader, however....and that's no crime because it's true.

You can reject this book's thesis. But you can't argue with the fact that Buchanan quotes, and quotes, and re-quotes, the most prominent leaders of the day to support his views. I don't know where Buchanan found the time to write this thing. It is so darned well-researched, it is utterly infallible.

If your are looking for someone to name Winston Churchill a great man, do not approach Patrick J Buchanan. In his heavily researched tome, Buchanan indicates that World War II was more the product of a warmongering Churchill and a naive Neville Chamberlain than anything coming out of Berlin. Maintaining that Hitler sought neither world domination nor war with Britain, Buchanan explains the steps that led Europe to encounter both. The final fruit of this, which he lays in the lap of Winston Churchill is a divided Europe under Communist oppression and the loss of the British Empire.

Buchanan, outside of the stereotype of the conservative, was never for the Iraq war. He contends that USA replaced the once great British Empire and is now walking down the same path.

Buchanan acts as Monday Morning quarterback to the events of the 20th Century which he calls one European civil war. The book is a fascinating read and leads one to question what might have been had what he calls the great blunder not happened.

This certainly is a great book to give a less western view of the Twentieth century and an alternative view to those whom many consider the hero of the Allied Forces--Winston Churchill.

But further, what many may easily forget, Buchanan, a veteran of the Nixon administration and a conservative was vehemently against the Iraq war that continues to rage. He also warns of the problems with fighting a war on two fronts as the US now does. He clearly holds "W" in the same light as he holds Churchill.


I am happy to have bought and read the book.

Buchanan draws a distinct line between history as a science and politicians manipulation of historical facts in order to serve their aims.

From all of the other reviews I have read on this book it is certainly obvious that the author has hit a hot button issue and stirred the pot.

This is the first book I have ever read by Pat Buchanan, and it has a very impressive premise. It is filled with over 1200 notes, and has a vast bibliography. Does the author have a point of view? Obviously, but then what author/historian does not wish to interpret history in their own way.

While many reviewers give much time to WW II, the real issue is WW I and the resultant Treaty of Versailles. Such a pathetic war, such a pathetic treaty, one that was so bad even the US Senate refused to ratify it, and other diplomats knew all the Treaty did was ensure another war in 20 years. The dismantling of the old Empire/Monarchy system led to many of todays bastardized countries. Countries that contain people with no common language, culture or background.

And, if you wish to criticize the premise, just look what recently happened with the Georgian invasion by Russia, and now we have US giving its own "Polish Guarantee" for missle defense. The book definitely shows that there were other views with regard to Churchill and the two World Wars, and Buchanan comes down on the side of those who feel that the wars were unnecessary. It has been over 60 years since the WW II has ended, we have seen the files, seen the paperwork and correspondence from that era, and people are now properly wondering if that war was fought for the wrong reasons. Buchanan certainly points out all the atrocities that Hitler and his Generals ordered to happen, but to me the basic premise was that Hitler could have been avoided had their been a better and more civilized peace to end WW I.

The book did take me a long time to read, but that is due to the numerous details and notes that are in the book. The author makes a very fine defense of his premise, a premise that can never be proven correct or incorrect since those decisions are always subject to personal opinion. Being married to a woman who came from Romania I can tell you that the horrors and hardship that their country had to deal with under Communism, as well as other Eastern European countries that were dominated by Communism for over 40 years, were certainly not worth the sacrifices made to rid the world of Hitler. Again, these become personal reasons and are hard to quantify to someone who has not lived in those conditions.

Definitely a stimulating read, and from all the comments I think the author has certainly brought a very relevant issue to the fore, the repercussions of which still need to be debated and studied.

Blaine DeSantis

The premise of the book is that Hitler was a rational even reasonable person, and thus is was unreasonable to "obsessively" oppose him. Reading this account of the war one is drawn to conclude that Hitler was forced into the war by Churchill. That Churchill was unreasonable and obstinate in the face of a situation that should have been quietly accepted.

This account flies in the face of every bit of historical fact. Numerous first source accounts of Hitler's character are available to guide us. But more importantly - what the man himself said, wrote, and did should be plenty of evidence on which to base Judgment.

Criticizing Churchill's moral character for dealing with Stalin while at the same time applauding Hitler's supposed consistency in seeking peace is truly a breathtaking maneuver. Seems that the moral course according to Mr. Buchanan is to appease the worst of tyrants at the expense of millions of lives, to cast aside friends and allies when inconvenient, as long as that course keeps one's own interests unharmed.

I found it hard to read these pages without frequently wondering what possible motive might lie behind so unusual an attempt to circumvent history.