City Travel Guides
Home Page > Go back a page
Books : Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
Search Books - select a category
1 2
1 2
Rating: 
- A tough read for middle-aged Britons....but quite superb
Like the other reviewers here, I wanted to hate this book. I'm one of the many middle-aged Britons watching their country lose its identity and sink into third-rate obscurity, compensated largely by the notion that Churchill led us to greatness by making the world free. Buchanan does not disagree with this view at all - in fact, he points out what a great war leader Churchill was. But Buchanan's analysis of the consequences of the war are incontrovertible. It broke Britain financially, made America, and replaced a psychopathic dictatorship which enslaved and murdered throughout Europe with another that did just the same. Britain never lifted a finger to save the country - Poland - that she went to war for. Churchill was not a great statesman. He made very bad decisions about Russia and the US, which he admitted himself, and which severely disadvantaged Britain and made it a very costly victory.
Buchanan's argument is that unlike Truman, Kennedy and Reagan, who all recognised the reality of what they could and couldn't defend, Chamberlain's Britain issued guarantees that were worthless bluffs. Britain could never have hoped to save the Czech Republic or Poland. He ponders whether NATO is doing the same thing right now, and what will happen if Russia decides that it wants to re-incorporate one of its old Baltic 'provinces'. As I write this, and Russia is invading Georgia, until recently a NATO candidate, I wonder how many of us would be willing to enter World War 3 because of the foreign policy of Georgia, or Latvia.Truman did't take on Russia over the Berlin blockade, and Kennedy did a deal with Krushchev to avoid frying us all over Cuba.
Buchanan links together the whole of twentieth century very carefully, so the whole historical context becomes clear. The victors of WW1 had dismembered Germany, creating a crippled country with major populations living in hostile neighbouring countries. From Britain, with an almost football-team-supporters view of history, anything which challenges our poorly-informed and childishly simple view of the battle of good over evil is patently nonsense. But where my daughter lives today, in the Czech Sudetenland, things are not so cut and dried. There, a terrible price was paid in ethnic cleansing, only for that country, like all Hitler's targets, to be occupied for a further 50 years by an equally barbaric regime.
This is a thoughtful and wide-ranging book. Unlike most modern histories it is not narrative entertainment ("... meanwhile, in a cellar on the other side of the city,..."), but a well-researched, well-argued presentation that has policy implications today. If you're happy with simplicity, then go ahead and dislike it. But it's hard to fault the history...
Rating: - Good history at last
Buchanan argues correctly that both world wars were unnecessary, that the sainted Churchill was in fact flawed, that Britain as much as Germany provoked the wars, and that the consequence has been the decline of the West. It is refreshing to read some genuine history. He presents it well and generally argues his case convincingly.
I was a great admirer of Churchill and Roosevelt until I recognised some inconsistencies in the official histories and - horrors - to resolve them started reading contemporary accounts and declassified papers. I swiftly developed a distaste for these two charlatans, such that I now rate them about as amoral as Hitler. But after all, I must confess that I am a cynical sort - I cannot think of a single political 'world leader' of the last 65-years that I would have felt honoured to shake hands with.
Buchanan is in the vanguard of the process of dismantling the myths that the sycophants and Court historians have fed us. His analysis brings a greater grasp on the reality of the past to the wider public.
Read Buchanan if you are open minded and can bear uncomfortable truths. I personally think that he has not been as forthright as he could be; but that is understandable in this politically correct world.
Rating:
- Interesting but not convincing
Buchanan's brief history of WWI is excellent and the reader cannot fail but cringe at the stupidity by the leaders of both sides (pre and post War). His analysis of WWII however is far weaker.
Delving into Hitler's "intentions" is impossible. Buchanan argues: Hitler had no intention of attacking England, therefore the English should have kept out. Many retort: "he would, if he could". Had he won the East and become master of continental Europe, how long before England became the next morsel for his ambitions? Could a gambler and supreme opportunist, such as Hitler, resist the temptation? Not a wise bet to make.
If England had stayed out and Germany won in the East, would Nazi rule over all of continental Europe been better than the actual outcome, Soviet rule in Easter Europe? Europe's key states (France, West Germany, England) remained free democracies. Enfeebled but free. As to the colonies (British and French) WWII was a major bonus: It ensured their liberation soon after.
Buchanan's view that Churchill was greatly over-rated and a war monger is more in tune with reality. Contemporary biographies (such as Alan Brooke's, Chief of the Imperial Staff) are equally dismissive of his judgement and abilities. Nonetheless, his rhetoric and will power kept the country together in the first, darkest hours and his appointments of commanders and people at the levers of power, were excellent. For that he deserves full credit.
Rating: - Lessons of History
Churchill once said "History will be kind to me. I know that because I intend to write it myself." And write it he did. Our understanding of the twentieth century has become Churchill's version of history, written in service of Winston himself. Pat Buchanan's book is a welcome challenge to Churchillian myths and it is a good thing that Americans are thinking about the world in a way that will prevent them messing it up to the same degree that England did when it was the master. Buchanan describes well how much of the problems of the world and its devastating wars are attributable to England's statesmen and particularly Winston. A great and interesting read, well argued.
Rating:
- takes its place beside...david irving
Anyone who blames Winston Churchill for WWII has, by definition, to be a revisionist, not to mention foolishly off on his facts. David Irving, the holocaust denier, attempted the same in Churchill's War, before it was banned and its author sent to prison. Buchanan, like Irving, does not hold Hitler responsible for atrocities but his henchmen. By the way, Pat Buchanan is about the further thing from a "neo-con." His is a strictly isolationist policy, as evidenced by this book.
- A tough read for middle-aged Britons....but quite superbLike the other reviewers here, I wanted to hate this book. I'm one of the many middle-aged Britons watching their country lose its identity and sink into third-rate obscurity, compensated largely by the notion that Churchill led us to greatness by making the world free. Buchanan does not disagree with this view at all - in fact, he points out what a great war leader Churchill was. But Buchanan's analysis of the consequences of the war are incontrovertible. It broke Britain financially, made America, and replaced a psychopathic dictatorship which enslaved and murdered throughout Europe with another that did just the same. Britain never lifted a finger to save the country - Poland - that she went to war for. Churchill was not a great statesman. He made very bad decisions about Russia and the US, which he admitted himself, and which severely disadvantaged Britain and made it a very costly victory.
Buchanan's argument is that unlike Truman, Kennedy and Reagan, who all recognised the reality of what they could and couldn't defend, Chamberlain's Britain issued guarantees that were worthless bluffs. Britain could never have hoped to save the Czech Republic or Poland. He ponders whether NATO is doing the same thing right now, and what will happen if Russia decides that it wants to re-incorporate one of its old Baltic 'provinces'. As I write this, and Russia is invading Georgia, until recently a NATO candidate, I wonder how many of us would be willing to enter World War 3 because of the foreign policy of Georgia, or Latvia.Truman did't take on Russia over the Berlin blockade, and Kennedy did a deal with Krushchev to avoid frying us all over Cuba.
Buchanan links together the whole of twentieth century very carefully, so the whole historical context becomes clear. The victors of WW1 had dismembered Germany, creating a crippled country with major populations living in hostile neighbouring countries. From Britain, with an almost football-team-supporters view of history, anything which challenges our poorly-informed and childishly simple view of the battle of good over evil is patently nonsense. But where my daughter lives today, in the Czech Sudetenland, things are not so cut and dried. There, a terrible price was paid in ethnic cleansing, only for that country, like all Hitler's targets, to be occupied for a further 50 years by an equally barbaric regime.
This is a thoughtful and wide-ranging book. Unlike most modern histories it is not narrative entertainment ("... meanwhile, in a cellar on the other side of the city,..."), but a well-researched, well-argued presentation that has policy implications today. If you're happy with simplicity, then go ahead and dislike it. But it's hard to fault the history...
Rating:
- Good history at lastBuchanan argues correctly that both world wars were unnecessary, that the sainted Churchill was in fact flawed, that Britain as much as Germany provoked the wars, and that the consequence has been the decline of the West. It is refreshing to read some genuine history. He presents it well and generally argues his case convincingly.
I was a great admirer of Churchill and Roosevelt until I recognised some inconsistencies in the official histories and - horrors - to resolve them started reading contemporary accounts and declassified papers. I swiftly developed a distaste for these two charlatans, such that I now rate them about as amoral as Hitler. But after all, I must confess that I am a cynical sort - I cannot think of a single political 'world leader' of the last 65-years that I would have felt honoured to shake hands with.
Buchanan is in the vanguard of the process of dismantling the myths that the sycophants and Court historians have fed us. His analysis brings a greater grasp on the reality of the past to the wider public.
Read Buchanan if you are open minded and can bear uncomfortable truths. I personally think that he has not been as forthright as he could be; but that is understandable in this politically correct world.
Rating:
- Interesting but not convincingBuchanan's brief history of WWI is excellent and the reader cannot fail but cringe at the stupidity by the leaders of both sides (pre and post War). His analysis of WWII however is far weaker.
Delving into Hitler's "intentions" is impossible. Buchanan argues: Hitler had no intention of attacking England, therefore the English should have kept out. Many retort: "he would, if he could". Had he won the East and become master of continental Europe, how long before England became the next morsel for his ambitions? Could a gambler and supreme opportunist, such as Hitler, resist the temptation? Not a wise bet to make.
If England had stayed out and Germany won in the East, would Nazi rule over all of continental Europe been better than the actual outcome, Soviet rule in Easter Europe? Europe's key states (France, West Germany, England) remained free democracies. Enfeebled but free. As to the colonies (British and French) WWII was a major bonus: It ensured their liberation soon after.
Buchanan's view that Churchill was greatly over-rated and a war monger is more in tune with reality. Contemporary biographies (such as Alan Brooke's, Chief of the Imperial Staff) are equally dismissive of his judgement and abilities. Nonetheless, his rhetoric and will power kept the country together in the first, darkest hours and his appointments of commanders and people at the levers of power, were excellent. For that he deserves full credit.
Rating:
- Lessons of HistoryChurchill once said "History will be kind to me. I know that because I intend to write it myself." And write it he did. Our understanding of the twentieth century has become Churchill's version of history, written in service of Winston himself. Pat Buchanan's book is a welcome challenge to Churchillian myths and it is a good thing that Americans are thinking about the world in a way that will prevent them messing it up to the same degree that England did when it was the master. Buchanan describes well how much of the problems of the world and its devastating wars are attributable to England's statesmen and particularly Winston. A great and interesting read, well argued.
Rating:
- takes its place beside...david irvingAnyone who blames Winston Churchill for WWII has, by definition, to be a revisionist, not to mention foolishly off on his facts. David Irving, the holocaust denier, attempted the same in Churchill's War, before it was banned and its author sent to prison. Buchanan, like Irving, does not hold Hitler responsible for atrocities but his henchmen. By the way, Pat Buchanan is about the further thing from a "neo-con." His is a strictly isolationist policy, as evidenced by this book.