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

In this excellent piece, Pat Buchanan makes some excellent points which conflict with the conventional wisdom about some of the most important events of the Twentieth Century. Many readers will disagree and perhaps even be offended by Buchanan's analysis. However, the author rigorously annotates his points, not just in footnotes but quotes of primary sources in the text of the book. Most readers have doubtless made up their minds about the causes of World Wars I and II. This book will, at the very least, challenge most readers to re-examine many of their opinions. While I do not accept all of Mr. Buchanan's arguments, they are worthy of respect, and can shake up one's settled beliefs.The first theme that Mr. Buchanan challenges is the notion that the First World War was essentially the product of German and Austrian aggression against the reluctant Allied Powers. While Austria is seen as the unwise bully that it was, Mr. Buchanan points out that in his 25 years as the German Kaiser, neither Kaiser Wilhelm or his nation had been involved in a single war. Britain, by contrast, had fought ten wars during this period including the bloody and recent Boer War. France had been involved in numerous bloody colonial wars as well. Buchanan provides copious evidence that the Kaiser was trying to avert war even at the eleventh hour, and that Britain could, and should, have averted war by simply refusing to commit to a war in continental Europe.Regarding this first theme, Winston Churchill comes in for savage criticism by Buchanan. Buchanan's theme is that Churchill's appetite and ardent desire for war was pivotal in causing England to guaranty Belgium's defense, which guaranty very likely made war inevitable.Buchanan documents in depressing detail the utter fecklessness of European diplomacy both before and after the First World War. Those who feel it necessary to take heed of the opinion of the elites of these countries would do well to study this component of the book. Buchanan documents, as have others before him, that both the First and Second World Wars are primarily the product of wretchedly incompetent management of international relations on the part of Britain, France, Germany, and others.Buchanan's main themes continue unto the Second World War. His main thesis is that it was Britain's guaranty to go to war if Germany attacked Poland that triggered the global war. He makes a strong case that this guaranty put the question of global war into the hands of a Polish government which immediately became intransigent once it received this guaranty. Buchanan believes that Hitler would have accepted terms over the question of Danzig and the Polish Corridor that Poland otherwise could, (and, he says, should) have found acceptable. Danzig was, after all, formerly a part of Germany until the Versailles Treaty, and its inhabitants almost to a person desired to be part of Germany. Given the facts that at the time Britain had only two battle-ready divisions, a minuscule air force, and that its Navy could not influence any German-Polish conflict in a meaningful way, Buchanan argues that the guaranty was essentially inexplicable.Once again, Buchanan savages Winston Churchill, who was again instrumental in causing Britain to make the guaranty that Buchanan believes triggered "the unnecessary war."Most readers, myself included, will not buy all of Buchanan's arguments. Regarding the fecklessness of European diplomacy, and the causes of the First World War, I think that Buchanan is on solid ground. Other researchers before Buchanan have found the First World War to have been an avoidable tragedy that the European states should have been able to avoid. Buchanan's Second World War arguments are somewhat more problematic. There is little evidence that any country anytime ever had much luck negotiating with Hitler, and it is far from clear that Britain's guaranty caused the German-Polish conflict or that its absence would have prevented it. Hitler seemed willing to invade neighboring countries on almost any pretext and with a complete disregard to ordinary Western standards of decency. Notwithstanding that fact, Buchanan makes a pretty good case that Hitler was an opportunist, and that he was not without justification in seeking return of the Sudetenland and of Bohemia. Had he stopped there, and negotiated return of Danzig without war (which Buchanan says would have happened absent the British guaranty) we might be living in a very different world. Who can say?Personally, I still think that Hitler was determined to fight a bloody war against Russia and persecute the Jews and other nationalities and ethnicities that he hated. Ultimately, it seems that Hitler was bound to fight such a war, but Buchanan makes some case that the world might have been better had Germany and Russia fought their war without the Western Allies being involved. Each reader must decide for him or her self. I don't accept this thesis.Mr. Buchanan's most insightful analysis is at the very end of this piece. He argues, as discussed above, that inept European diplomacy in which Great Powers went to war for non-vital reasons, was the cause of the World Wars. He then contrasts this with US diplomacy from World War I to the end of the Cold War. During this time American leaders refused to be easily drawn into conflicts and joined the World Wars only in their latter stages (particularly the First) thereby avoiding in significant degree, the horrendous casualties that many others suffered. Even more significantly, once America became the leading world power, American diplomacy repeatedly avoided war-starting confrontations by refusing, not without anguish, to fight wars for non-vital interests to America. Hence America's refusal to fight wars over Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, or even the Cuban Missile Crisis. The contrast between the success of America in winning the Cold War without a World War (albeit with some sizable errors such as Vietnam) and European fecklessness in managing to start two world wars in 25 years, is stark. This is a truly fascinating insight which in my opinion is the major contribution of this book.This book is interesting, readable, and provocative. It will cause most readers to at the very least re-examine what they think about the causes of the two great wars of the Twentieth Century. For that, this one merits five stars. Highly recommended. RJB.

I am no fan of Pat Buchanan, considering him to be just another blow hard. I was impressed by his opposition to Gulf War II (unlike John Kerry and Hillary Clinton), and his pungent statement after the war was over, "Well, Mr. President. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?"On a blog site I was doing my usual thing of defending Chamberlain from the charge of appeasement when I was attacked as being under the influence of the ideas in this book. Having not read the book, I thought why not? It was only $1.99 on Amazon.Buchanan is no historian, but he has read a lot of history. This book is logical, well written, and well referenced.About 2/3'rds is a well written account of the diplomacy of the world wars, or better said, the mistaken diplomacy which led to those wars, and their unhappy aftermaths. I have read quite a bit about this, and what he writes is consistent with what I have read elsewhere. This is a nice account though with many details I had overlooked or forgotten.I highly recommend this book for that alone.The other 1/3rd is a critique of Winston Churchill. It is quite negative. Thus, this book has been highly criticized. The negative reviews I have read are essentially attacks on Buchanan, not on anything he actually says in his book.Very briefly, Buchanan puts the blame on England for the global nature of what would have been wars confined to the European mainland. I did not know that England had no treaty to come to the aid of anybody in Europe if they were attacked prior to WW I. What existed was a small clique of English and French politicians and military people (Churchill was very prominent in this clique) to come to the aid of France in case of war. Nobody else knew this. They used the excuse of the violation of Belgium neutrality to come into the war, but that would not have mattered in any event.Germany would have defeated France if not for English intervention, and the war dragged out for four bloody years. The upshot was the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the coming to power in Russia of the Communists.The Versailles treaty was an abomination. Nobody disputes that today.When Hitler came to power, he demanded revision of that treaty. Nobody could dispute the merits of his arguments. The treaty had unfairly penalized Germany and all German ethnics, millions of whom had lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.The demand that all ethnic Germans should be incorporated into a modern German state was in complete accordance with Wilson's principles, but only the Germans were denied this opportunity, and Hitler pushed it. The big mistake was allowing the Germans to re-militarize the Rhineland, which could have been easily prevented. Anyhow, after incorporating Austria and the Sudetenland, without firing a shot, he demanded the Polish corridor through eastern Prussian be given up to Germany. It was Germany territory. The Poles at this time were ruled by a military junta. They balked. Hitler threatened. It is claimed, and there is ample documentation, that Hitler had no intention of going to war over this. He wanted Poland as an ally against Russia, and up until now he had gotten what he wanted by bluffing. Out of the blue, England offered Poland a guarantee of its "independence." The Poles hadn't asked for it and gave nothing in return. This promise morphed into an unconditional promise to come to its aid if attacked. The Germans were astounded. England had just made the same error the Kaiser had made in giving Austria a blank check to handle its Serbia problem. So, Poland refused to discuss the Polish corridor, Hitler attacked, thinking that England would be crazy to honor its promise. Hitler had made it very clear that he wanted no war with England.England then dragged in its Empire into the war, and WW II, which could have been confined to Eastern Europe, became a global war. Otherwise, Hitler would have kept going East and finally gotten into a war with the Russian Communists.At the end of WW II, Germany was destroyed, tens of millions were dead, 19 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe, Communist USSR controlled all of Eastern Europe, and China fell to the Communists. Polish independence was a joke, and millions of Poles had died in the war. And, the English Empire was destroyed.There is a MUCH, MUCH, more. Read the book if interested in this period of history.Churchill played a prominent rule in pushing England into both these wars. When Churchill got into English politics in about 1901, the English Empire was at its zenith. When he left politics in 1955, the English Empire was no more.This is the basis for the harsh critique. The fact that by today's standards he was a complete racist and imperialist just adds to the irony.The supreme irony is that Hitler was a supporter of the English Empire. He offered England a peace deal which was very generous to England. FDR and Stalin both wanted to see the English Empire destroyed.Today we say that WW II is justified by the Holocaust. Keep in mind that the Holocaust, in 1939, was still in the future. That would be like the Japanese saying that they were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor because we bombed Hiroshima. The fate of the Jews in Europe played no role in the march to war nor in the conduct of the war. And, it is clear, that the Nazi's used the war as a cover for their Final Solution.

Sic: “When deterrence [against Germany] failed, Britain was faced with an obligation to declare a war it could not win, to honor a war guarantee it should not have given, on behalf of a nation [Poland] it could not save”.A very readable, well argued case that the British, French and US war with Germany could well have been avoided, leaving the fascist and communist totalitarian states of Hitler and Stalin to fight each other to a standstill. From the British standpoint we would have avoided 400,000 deaths and the bankruptcy of our nation.Churchill rightly said: "History will be kind to me, for I shall write it".Buchannan's book portrays a history of events leading up to WW2 very different to Churchill's own "Gathering Storm" and, frankly, far more convincing.As a patriotic Briton, and hitherto a staunch admirer of Churchill, I found Buchanan’s book a painful read.Buchanan portrays Churchill as a serial exerciser of poor judgment, with an intense personal lust for the excitement of military conflict. The consequent question is whether Churchill did everything possible to avoid WW2 or whether his enthusiasm to declare war against Germany was an act self-indulgence.I unlearnt a lot.Highly recommended.

This book reinforced my views on Britain's declarations of war in 1914 and 1939, providing facts which cannot be refuted. Those who blindly claim that we had to "fight fascism" and that "we won the war" should, upon reading Buchanan's book, if not change their minds, at least ask themselves uncomfortable questions and take an objective rather than an emotional view.

The first thing that attracted me to this book was - perhaps self evidently - the title, but particularly, The Unnecessary War.! The subject is interesting for me as an Englishman because it involved my parents who were there at the time, along with millions of others, and luckily, survived. It comes across as a safety net for all who believe that Churchill was not the "Hero" he is usually portrayed as - though neither is he portrayed as a villain, at least, not entirely. There were occasions when he was a hero; also occasions when he was considered a bumbling fool. This comes across in many fascinating ways with quotes and written articles. The book does what it says and tell the story of how Britain "lost" her empire - though it has little to say about how many parts of that empire remained to form the commonwealth. The book also agrees that neither the Kaiser, nor Hitler really wanted a war with Britain - though they were both quite willing to fight one. In the case of the Kaiser, he would be fighting his mother's country, and his grandmother's empire; and all because he wanted to impress with his army and equal with his navy the Royal Navy which so impressed him. As for Hitler, he always admired the empire and the way it was administered by Britain; he saw the British as natural allies. His plans lay in the east. But his miscalculation was when the British fought for Poland, which, as the author points out, was an agreement the Brits could never hope to keep and they never did. This meant that along with the French, the Brits could fight him from the west as the Russians ultimately fought him from the east. The author rightly points out that the end result was that Britain was bankrupt and her empire had to look elsewhere for allies - though the empire remained in the form of a Commonwealth. It is also pointed out, rightfully in my opinion, that America chose to stay out of the war until the Brits were in trouble and almost begging for help - selling off the family silver, so to speak. And it was in this way that Roosevelt "Took over" where Britain had left off, but without anyone accusing America of empire building. The impression I get is that Britain could see Hitler as the bully boy, and was prepared to stand up to him; America was happy to wait until Hitler was weakened, to a small extent, then deliver the fatal blow, and take the spoils - though on the opposite side to Stalin.! The author says that Britain stood up to Hitler and went to war for Poland, which was a mistake that President Eisenhower and Kennedy were not prepared to make - though Kennedy made back door deals with Kruschev. The impression one gets....I believe quite rightly .....is that America stays away until a kill is certain. The only fly in that ointment is Vietnam, which America, no matter how you dress it up, lost. Britain certainly learned lessons. When America wanted British help in Vietnam, it was refused - and rightly so. America has its own empire nowand is prepared to fight for it - if the pay-off is enough.

If you are interested in the causes of World 1 & 2; the potential for alternative responses to the events at the time and potentially different resulting outcomes, and, you have an open mind, you will probably enjoy this book. Buchanan has a clear take on the issues: Britain should have stayed out of the conflicts that became WW1 & WW2; and, Churchill was a poor statesman who bears a significant level of responsibility for Britain entering both wars. In my opinion Buchanan makes a good case. However, he fails to fully explore the logic of his arguments and therefore ignores the dangers that would have arisen had Britain followed his line. For example, if Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union one would expect them to go onto develop atomic weapons just as the Soviets did. Would this be a better outcome than what actually happened? Over time the Nazi regime, with its cult of war and aggression, armed with nuclear weapons, and in control of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union would be a very dangerous adversary for Britain, France and the USA. Buchanan also claims that Nazi Germany was the lesser evil when compared to the Soviet Union. He does this by citing the many deaths that occurred as a result of communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cambodia. Whilst these were truly appalling events, he either ignores, or does not know of the Nazi plans for the mass starvation of the Soviet population after the war, which may have caused 20 million additional deaths to those the Nazi's actually caused. Following on from achieving this "goal" it is quite possible that the Nazi's would then go on to commit other atrocities against the remaining populations of Eastern Europe whom they also regarded as being sub-human. Buchanan also states a preference for Nazism over Soviet communism as Nazism was a national movement that was purely concerned with its own country whilst Soviet Communism was an international movement that threatened the world. However, Buchanan ignore the evidence of Nazi Germany being involved in fermenting/supporting right wing/fascist governments in Austria, Spain, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia (before being invaded), Bulgaria and Finland. It must be very naive to assume that if Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union that it would not then seek to broaden it's influence and infiltrate the politics to other countries including Britain, France and even the USA? In conclusion a thought provoking read that will be of interest to many people who wish to think beyond the "standard version" of this part of history. However, casual or new readers on this subject should be wary of Buchanan's conclusions as there are many other viewpoints out there!

I’ve been recommending this book to everyone. Really worth reading.I will say that the author clearly went in with a worldview and omitted everything which contradicted that worldview. But if you’re a critical reader, that shouldn’t be an issue.Churchill ruined the west, who’da thunk?