In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen - Winston Churchill first among them - the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe's central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.
Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:
Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War" is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.
©2008 Patrick J. Buchanan; (P)2008 Books on Tape
This book took quite some courage for me to listen to, because I am an admirer of Winston Churchill. And I simply was not looking forward to a tirade on Churchill, or tolerating another typical doggone liberal revisionist "history." I was born in Britain a long, long time ago, I should explain, so I have a deep prejudice in Winston's favor.
Mr. Buchanan has written a kind of meta-analysis of World Wars I and II that should be a milestone history of the World Wars of the 20th century, where 50,000,000 people died. By meta-analysis, I mean he summarizes histories by, yes, Winston Churchill, Barbara Tuchman, AJP Taylor, George Kenon, and quotes Churchill's contemporaries so they do not seem quite the dolts that Churchill and his biographers characterize them as.
In fact, if I were a history major again, I would never accept a professor who had not read this book and who claimed it was "nothing." Because this book shows that the history books on these wars were written upside down.
I cannot begin to summarize this book (it has 1300 citations, by the way). But Churchill's part in these wars (understanding WW I got us WWII) began with a secret agreement to bring England to war in defense of France (so secret in fact that only Edward Grey knew of it on England's side). Winston usurped his own government's prerogative! (Sorry for the excitement.) To simplify, thus World War.
This book is an eye opener. I recommend it. You might be shocked when you listen to/read this book. Read some of the reviews on Amazon.com.
A lengthy and modern discourse on the history of modern Europe leading into WW2. It is said that the victors of any war write the history as they want it remembered and certainly the allies did that after both world wars. Buchanan is prepared to contend with British propaganda and thank Heaven for that. However he does not go as far as he ought. He discusses causes in terms of political cowardice, dishonesty and hype but he fails to consider the imperatives of oil, economics and finance that interested Churchill. Nor does he question the role of Churchill and his allies in white anting Chamberlain and his accord with Hitler, making it impossible for the accord to work. There is still a great deal more history to be disclosed. Nevertheless, Buchanen gives us a good and wide ranging discussion that is very easy on the ear and enriches the stories we already know by his willingness to bark at sacred cows.
In this account of the tragedies of the first and second world wars, Buchanan tries to point blame at Churchill and ends up confusing the reader. Below I list some examples of this:
1) The title of the book, in part, 'The Unnecessary War' is a reference of Churchill's assessment given to WWII. In covering Churchill, who was the First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI, the back drop of this book is both wars.
2) Churchill is implicitly found culpable for WWI because he is in a happy state of affairs during this time. This is an annoying point especially when you think of George Patton or Robert E. Lee in the American Civil War, to only name a couple.
3) Whenever Buchanan is on the verge of making a so-called courageous point of the guilt of Churchill, he backs down and quotes notables such as Barbara Tuchman or John Keegan, often siting the evils of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany, or Hitler - in other words, coming to no conclusion at all.
4) Buchanan is unable to keep Churchill at the center of his narrative and pulls in Gray, the members of the house of commons, and England herself so that he confuses the reader on the point he is attempting to make, rendering sections of his book incoherent.
5) In the context of this narrative, Hitler's name in the title is irrelevant and may as well have been the Kaiser, or the Nazi, etc.
I enjoy fresh perspectives on 20th century events, the characters, and the tragic consequences but believe that in terms of an historical account this book is not salvageable. There are simply too many events, too many factors, too many people involved in the first and second world wars to point the finger at anyone person (although I would admit you could get away with this in blaming Hitler for WW2 and Germany's bizaare desire for a pure race). This account was too trivial and unfair, and it did not add anything to my understanding of the tragedies which befell mankind during this hellish period in our history.
I like contemporary history especially when the author uses letters and quotes from other historical figures close to the subject.
This book is not only an interesting subject but the whole book is a setup for the last chapter that unfortunately explains how we are repeating the same mistakes made in earlier times by other governments.
The reader is one of the best I have heard and communicates the book in a clear and pleasant manner.
This is almost an unbelievably twisted view of history. It is almost a pure apologist book for German actions that led to war and makes it seems like they were forced into the war by Allied actions(Hitler's contention, of course) This is David Irving at his worse. He picks and chooses aspects of history that only show the German view. His denigration of Churchill,Roosevelt,the UK and the US is shameful.I think it was written just to be contentious and to sell more books that way. Even David Irving is a deeply knowledgeable historian, Pat Buchanan is a joke as an historian.
Well documented and interesting listen. It gives a different perspective on the causes and backgound of WW II.
I am a documentary film producer from Los Angeles.
Buchanan at his best. While I dont agree with all the conclusions, I have learned a lot. A great guide for the future also.
Very accurate and well referenced alternative to the constant war propaganda that is normally fed to the ignorant masses.
You may not agree with all of Buchanan's conclusions, but his historical facts are unimpeachable.
The one thing to take away from this book is to be very aware that articulate politicians are not the best thinkers or leaders.
For Buchanan to accuse Churchill of being a raceist is interesting. Perhaps Buchanan should look at his own words, and his website.
This is an important book. Unlike the guns of August Mr. Buchanan not merely presents history but also interprets and thinks deeply about it.His concepts are important. Although Mr. Hitler was a monster, Mr. Stalin was an even greater monster. One the west destroyed, the other was embraced. Mr Churchill and Mr. Chamberlain permitted the reoccupation of the Rhineland, Austria and Czechloslavakia; the treaty of Munich; and the alliance with Poland that forced World War II.They may have been as culpable as the Germans. All of this could have been avoided with more judicious leaders on both sides. I found it impossible to believe that such a well researched, well written, thoughtful tomb could have come from Mr. Buchanan.
"interesting in spots but ultimately unconvincing"
This is a revisionist polemic rather than a balanced work of historical research. Buchanan begins with a premise and then doggedly and relentlessly sets out to prove it, marshalling an impressive but selective array of quotations along the way. His premise is that Britain had no real need to participate in either World War and that by doing so transformed each war into a world-wide rather than a contained European conflict. Britain?s actions (largely brought about by the demonic influence of Winston Churchill in both instances) led to the deaths of millions, the destruction of the British Empire, and the Cold War between the two super-powers left standing after the shooting had stopped.
The book has some interesting sections. The detailed criticism of the iniquities of the post-World War I Versailles Treaty is particularly devastating, and is probably the best part of the book. Buchanan comes across as a passionate captain of a debating team who is only interested in advancing his own arguments while minimizing or suppressing the counter-arguments of his opponents. As a result, the book ultimately fails to convince.
There is no original research and all sources are secondary, i.e. borrowings from the works of others, and selected borrowings at that. Among the writers cited are Barbara Tuchman, George Kennan, Churchill himself, William Shirer, Neil Ferguson, Richard Evans, Ian Kershaw, and several dozen others. A visit to some of the works of the historians cited will show that their authors came up with conclusions rather at odds with those of Buchanan. Oh well, never mind. As a former speechwriter for others and then a politician in his own right, Buchanan probably enjoyed himself tremendously while writing this book. Since he merely had a bash at the Brits (primarily Churchill) and didn?t do anything really dangerous such as denying the Holocaust, he will probably get away with it. The bad part is that some gullible people might actually believe him!
"Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War"
From the moment I read the provocative cover, until I finished listening..I was completely spellbound. I had not connected the author as the hard right american presidential nominee who opened Bushs(senior)'92 republican congress. I thought I was listening to a Leon Trotsky refusniks analysis,. Hindsight is 20/20 vision but that does not mean we shouldn't take a cold hard look. Spanning both conflgrations the depth and breadth of the scholarship is impressive but the conclusions incendiary! Most hagiographies of Churchill concede his love of cordite and gunsmoke at the expense of a more measured strategic response. Buchanan asserts the heresy that Churchill was the wrong man at at the wrong time. Buchanan makes the argument that it could all have been different if Hitler (as the Soviet union was post WW2) could have been contained and his eastern expansion would have been checked by that other monster Stalin at great expense to both tyrants. Most standard WW2 histories will acknowledge the irony that the democracies were saved by communisms mercilous prosicution of the eastern war. Buchanan asserts that the war in the west was the wrong war at the wrong time for the western democracies. Britain went to war for Poland, and subsequently abandonded her to a monstrous communist regime (the Katyn forest, to mention one maasacre) under the guise of realpolitik (which wiould have been better employed in '39. Buchanan's analysis of Hitlers designs on Checkoslovakia and Danzig and Memel in will surprise many and were regarded at the time as reasonable territorial claims(though not the methods). Listen, be infuriated, perplexed, the starkness of the heresy and its legacies to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Uncomfortable, fascinating, illuminating, unmissable.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content