Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States on May 29, 2008
What is it about popular opinion that ossifies the mind making it impervious to view points that do not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy. Buchanan has been vilified here and elsewhere for daring to suggest that in order to understand the calamities of the 20th century one must revisit the World War I.
He has dared to suggest that the Hun may not have been exclusively guilty for World War I and that the costs of World War II can be attributed to the titanic political failures of British statesmanship throughout the first 40 years of the 20th century. He does not exonerate the Germans, merely points out the other side of the story.
No one comes under more scathing criticism than Winston Churchill who has long been one of my heroes (I felt for instance he should have been named man of the century by Time magazine). Churchill, when his country was careening towards the precipice of WWI was positively giddy with excitement overwhelming cooler heads in the Cabinet at the time.
For daring to suggest an alternative perspective Buchanan has been smeared as an anti-Semite, a Germanophile, a Holocaust denier, a hater, a bigot, a racist - you name it, the left has pulled out the stops to discredit him.
But, despite being a great admirer of Churchill, I believe this is an important book that should be read by anyone interested in this period of history. Buchanan writes clearly and engagingly. Even if you don't agree with everything Buchanan says, I certainly do not, this book is certain to shake up your thinking.
Buchanan asks at the beginning of the book why European world hegemony was destroyed over 30 years at the beginning of the 20th century. Throughout the book he reminds us of the costs in lives, treasure and cultural confidence of the European 30 year war (World Wars I & II).
Buchanan does enjoy the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and exploits that advantage relentlessly. I also am of the opinion that Buchanan gives short shrift to the "other side of the argument." He is also not above a little distortion. For just one instance, Churchill made the comment that WWII was "an unnecessary war" and Buchanan uses that comment to buttress his argument that the war was unnecessary which is not at all what Churchill was saying. Churchill was saying that had we intervened EARLIER that the war could have been avoided. Also, had the Allies addressed the legitimate grievances raised by the Versailles Treaty we could have eliminated the seething resentment of the German people.
Buchanan never suggests that Hitler was not an odious despicable creature or that he should have been allowed to dominate the European continent but rather that the Allies, through their alliance with Poland created a "trip wire" that served only to undermine the interests of Britain, France and the United States. Instead, Germany should have been allowed to dissipate her energies to the East with the dual scourges of the 20th century destroying one another. Buchanan is not a Hitler apologist, but simply suggests that there were better ways to deal with Hitler than the diplomatic choices that were made.
From the book: "Thus did the British government, in panic over a false report about a German invasion of Poland that was neither planned nor prepared, give a war guarantee to a dictatorship it did not trust, in part of Europe where it had no vital interests, committing itself to a war it could not win. . . . In the Great War, Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and the United States put together almost failed to prevent Germany from occupying Paris. Now, without Russia or America, and with Japan and Italy hostile, Britain and France were going to keep the German army out of Warsaw. . . . Britain a half-year earlier had resisted going to war for a faraway country with democratic institutions, well-armed military forces, and strong fortifications (Czechoslovakia), now promised to go to war for a dictatorship with less-than-modern armed forces and wide-open frontiers."
I recommend this book very highly despite it's controversial perspective. This book manages to flesh out the geopolitical complexities of dealing with Hitler giving context to diplomatic actions taken by Britain during this period. My only suggestion is to avoid the temptation to "pile on" and pigeon hole Buchanan as a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. For the record, neither, in my opinion, is true.
He has dared to suggest that the Hun may not have been exclusively guilty for World War I and that the costs of World War II can be attributed to the titanic political failures of British statesmanship throughout the first 40 years of the 20th century. He does not exonerate the Germans, merely points out the other side of the story.
No one comes under more scathing criticism than Winston Churchill who has long been one of my heroes (I felt for instance he should have been named man of the century by Time magazine). Churchill, when his country was careening towards the precipice of WWI was positively giddy with excitement overwhelming cooler heads in the Cabinet at the time.
For daring to suggest an alternative perspective Buchanan has been smeared as an anti-Semite, a Germanophile, a Holocaust denier, a hater, a bigot, a racist - you name it, the left has pulled out the stops to discredit him.
But, despite being a great admirer of Churchill, I believe this is an important book that should be read by anyone interested in this period of history. Buchanan writes clearly and engagingly. Even if you don't agree with everything Buchanan says, I certainly do not, this book is certain to shake up your thinking.
Buchanan asks at the beginning of the book why European world hegemony was destroyed over 30 years at the beginning of the 20th century. Throughout the book he reminds us of the costs in lives, treasure and cultural confidence of the European 30 year war (World Wars I & II).
Buchanan does enjoy the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and exploits that advantage relentlessly. I also am of the opinion that Buchanan gives short shrift to the "other side of the argument." He is also not above a little distortion. For just one instance, Churchill made the comment that WWII was "an unnecessary war" and Buchanan uses that comment to buttress his argument that the war was unnecessary which is not at all what Churchill was saying. Churchill was saying that had we intervened EARLIER that the war could have been avoided. Also, had the Allies addressed the legitimate grievances raised by the Versailles Treaty we could have eliminated the seething resentment of the German people.
Buchanan never suggests that Hitler was not an odious despicable creature or that he should have been allowed to dominate the European continent but rather that the Allies, through their alliance with Poland created a "trip wire" that served only to undermine the interests of Britain, France and the United States. Instead, Germany should have been allowed to dissipate her energies to the East with the dual scourges of the 20th century destroying one another. Buchanan is not a Hitler apologist, but simply suggests that there were better ways to deal with Hitler than the diplomatic choices that were made.
From the book: "Thus did the British government, in panic over a false report about a German invasion of Poland that was neither planned nor prepared, give a war guarantee to a dictatorship it did not trust, in part of Europe where it had no vital interests, committing itself to a war it could not win. . . . In the Great War, Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and the United States put together almost failed to prevent Germany from occupying Paris. Now, without Russia or America, and with Japan and Italy hostile, Britain and France were going to keep the German army out of Warsaw. . . . Britain a half-year earlier had resisted going to war for a faraway country with democratic institutions, well-armed military forces, and strong fortifications (Czechoslovakia), now promised to go to war for a dictatorship with less-than-modern armed forces and wide-open frontiers."
I recommend this book very highly despite it's controversial perspective. This book manages to flesh out the geopolitical complexities of dealing with Hitler giving context to diplomatic actions taken by Britain during this period. My only suggestion is to avoid the temptation to "pile on" and pigeon hole Buchanan as a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. For the record, neither, in my opinion, is true.
