But still. It goes without saying the Buchanan does not "defend" Hitler. And they use the usual "Ransom Note" attack on him, as follow:
Buchanan has called Adolf Hitler an "individual of great courage." He also questioned whether World War II was "worth it" and wondered, "[W]hy destroy Hitler?" That wasn't 40 years ago; that was just four years ago. Just last year, he wrote that the Holocaust happened not because of Hitler, but because of Churchill."
Notice not one sentence quoted in full. Buchanan column as I stated before, overstates the case, but for the most part tells the historical truth, to whit:
1) Hitler didn't want war with UK or France in 1939 (USSR maybe)
2) Didn't think Uk/France would declare war in Sept 1939 after the Nazi-Soviet pact.
3) Wanted Poland as an ally (like Romania or Hungary)
4) Wanted Peace with UK in 1940. ( On his terms of course)
5) Probably would have been satisfied *in 1939* if Poland had given in and transferred Danzig and the corridor back to Germany.
6) Was a man of great courage (as were Mao and Stalin and other great 20th Mass Murders)
And Buchanan's main point, expressed in his book, is also correct. Great Powers shouldn't give guarantees to small countries that they can't honor, Also they give the small country the power the plunge the Great Power into war.
Chamberlain' s guarantee to Poland was foolish since it couldn't be honored except through an Alliance with the USSR and because it gave the Colonels the power to start WWII -- whether GB was ready or not.
The result was not only WWII, but Hitler coming within an Ace of conquering all of Europe.
The only hope in 1939 was an alliance with Stalin, no matter how distasteful. Another interesting point is, what if UK/France had stood by and let Hitler have Poland, what then? Its hard to see where Hitler could have gone after that. He could gone after USSR in 1940, but that's doubtful with the UK/France at his back. Funny, this is never written about.
Added: Here's the Pat Buchanan quote on Hitler which although over 32 years old (!) is still being used by his enemies:
"Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as a caricature…Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
So, lets see. Per Pat, Hitler was a racist, anti-Semite, murderer and genocidal dictator - words of praise indeed. He then says Hitler 'had great courage" and was a "soldiers Soldier" and a good speaker- true enough. Evil men can be courageous, charismatic, with have high IQ's - to think otherwise is childish. As for his "genius" - Hitler *did* have an "intuitive sense" about the leaders of France/UK/Italy etc. that helped him play a diplomatic game which allowed Germany to rise from a powerless country in 1934 to dominating Europe (excluding the USSR) in July 1940.
I think the whole problem is that most people don't know history, so when anyone doesn't attack Hitler at every level - but just makes an objective truthful comment, people go crazy.
Here's another thing about Hitler - he loved Dogs and Oatmeal. So, if you like those - watch out.