TYT: Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler

Run time: 06:43 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5csB6QGw4U   Posted on YouTube: September 03, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 03, 2009 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 3378

 
Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com


Pat Buchanan: Hitler wasn't a threat to U.S.

On CNN's 'Situation Room,' Pat Buchanan tells Wolf Blitzer that if Britain hadn't aligned itself with Poland, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srwk5WwroXY

How much of a following does this Nazi apologist have within the CONservative movement? First they call Obama Hitler and now they are Hitler apologists? I'm finding this very difficult to get my head around.

Since these jackasses have no sense of history, this will only further confuse them...

:shrug:

Or they see the name "Hitler" and (stupidly) unrec apparently not realizing it's critical of Buchanan (and Hitler, but that's so obvious I shouldn't have to say it).

n/t

Why does this fuck have a job, on msnbc no less !

Belongs on FAUX...

Who we write to to get him off MSNBC, NBC....etc

beliefs. Neonazi skinhead, jack-booted thug beliefs. That's what happens when the right wing goes too far right. Aryan Nation type of thinking. Very reactionary. True lunatic fringe material.

Take out 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust and you have 44 million.

The Soviets lost around 24 million, the Japanese lost around 3 million, the Chinese lost around 10 million, and India lost around 2 million. That's 39 million from countries with a low percentage of Christians. We're left with 5 million with a potentially high percentage of Christians in the mix.

So not only is Pat a Hitler apologist, but he chooses to frame the casualty figures in a way to downplay the Holocaust that is factually dishonest. 44 million just became <5 million.

Was he honouring the anniversary of the invasion of Poland? Seriously, what could inspire this apology for Hitler at this time.

Weird.

One of the first things that happened, considered a mistake, was Britain's PM declared there was nothing to fear from Hitler. That doesn't sound like warmongering.

Most of what Hitler did with respect to other nations was strategy, for instance, allying with Russia only to avoid a two-front war.

If the U.S. mainstream media, people of the UK, France, Russia, Poland and Israel let these remarks to go unchallenged I think I will be sick. This is a well established mainstream media pundit completely dismissing a historical Adolph Hitler. There must be repercussions for his words. MSNBC should curtail all appearances by Pat Buchanan. His remarks should be universally condemned. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow should blow up on this asshole. Hell, the Pope should challenge his words.

Hitler didn't want a war? Bollocks. He spelled it out in Mein Kampf that he wanted a war of conquest in the East, a war for Lebensraum that would destroy Bolshevism and enslave what remained of the Slavic race to serve good ethnic Aryans.

He was frustrated when he wasn't able to take over Czechoslovakia by force. He was itching to try out his new toys - the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe. Britain and France at that time still felt the Versailles treaty was unfair to Germany - it's very difficult now to make a case that it wasn't - and that the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anglo-German naval treaty, the Anscluss with Austria and the takeover of the Sudetenland were seen as justifiable ways to remove causes of tension and lead to peace in our time. They would have treated any other German leader in the same way. There is also a case for saying they were buying time for rearmament.

Hitler didn't want a war with Britain and France (don't forget that the French declared war about six hours after the British) because he saw Britain in particular as a force for civilisation in the world and didn't want to see the fall of the British Empire. He convinced himself and some of his closest entourage that he wouldn't get involved in a general European war (I can recommend Guido Knopp's excellent biography of Goering for anyone wanting to do further reading on this). He wanted a war with Russia. No doubt. His natural ideological enemy and occupier of the lands he coveted in the East. Also a rapidly industrialising economy that was threatening to overtake Germany.

He didn't demand the French fleet because he was still clinging to the hope of making Britain see reason - a significantly swollen German fleet would have threatened Britain's supply lines and made the British determined to win or go down fighting - anything rather than rely on Hitler's word. As it was the British solved the question of the French fleet themselves.

As for the Holocaust, we will never know if it would have developed in the way it did if Britain had not declared war in 1939 (or made peace in 1940), but it is certain that Hitler viewed Jews as subhuman vermin who were a threat to society and that he saw poison gas as a means of dealing with his enemies (see again Mein Kampf).

Britain and France fought to try and prevent Europe being dominated by Fascist militarism and Pat Buchanan's views are historical revisionism of the shallowest and most juvenile sort.

... but thank you for your support. :-)

a perfect typist.

but ire sounded like I was unreasonably angry. I'm angry. God, I'm angry, but I don't think it's unreasonable. :-) And thank you again for your positive feedback. It's always nice to know someone read it.

logic then if Mexico were to invade Texas we should give them the southern part of the state because it is mainly Tejanos living there. History is not the simple thing that Buchanan thinks it is and Danzig was a city of many cultures caught between and betwixt. If the rationale had any truth then bombing it into submission makes even less sense.
I think the man has an advanced dementia and should be relegated to the softest couch at the most remote nursing home that can be found.

It's Rachel's decision and it's inexcusable.

In 1936 Hitler ordered, that the Wehrmacht should be ready for a major war starting 1940.

So if he was not out for a war, why prepare 4 whole years for it?

It's true that Hitler didn't desire war with Britain and France, but Buchanan's implication that Hitler would have been satisfied with Poland is crackpot-ville on its face.

how disgusting

They seem to have a thing for Hitler and the Nazi Party, along with Christianity, as well. What a twisted group of people.

"The family" doesn't consider Catholics to be real Christians. What Pat is is an outright fascist Hitler apologist.

Come on, the pigman Limbaugh say Obama is just like Hitler, Limbaugh who needs to lie, anything to trash left-wing progressives & democrats.

The pigman tells his idiot ditto-heads that Obama's policies are just like Hitlers....

But Hitler was an admitted right-wing fascist, no truer words ever spoken and all would agreed with it, Hitler was indeed a fascist, in anyone's book.... So then, that would make Obama a what, right-wing, a republican fascist?

Fascism is on the right side of the political spectrum, the same side of the political spectrum as republicans.

Obama is NOT a left-wing liberal democrat as the pigman and the republicans have claimed, but instead a right-wing republican fascist?

Hmmmm.....Amazingly, the pigman Limbaugh's idiot listeners eat this stupid analogy up along with his other constant bullshit he spews each day.

:wow:

Hmmm... who would've thought? :shrug: