Scan barcode
fredcthulhu's review against another edition
4.0
A very important and much needed look at how England's foreign policy actions contributed to the start of both World Wars. The start of wars no matter how immoral and "evil" one side is never black and white. Buchanan puts forth the idea that Britain's foreign policy to be Europe's main power is a leading factor to the start of WW1. He also argues that Britain's war guarantee of Poland is one of the main reasons for the start of WW2. He argues Britain should have let Hitler's Germany have Eastern Europe and let Russia and Germany fight over it and then let Britain take care of the winner instead of fighting Nazi Germany and then conceding Eastern Europe to and equally bad if not worse Stalin. In both mistakes he casts Churchill as the main villain. Buchanan's paleoconservatism really shines through when he posits that the "European Civil War" is the downfall of the Western world and that the US is now making the same mistakes that Britain made in the first 40 years of the 20th century.
ethannorwoodbooks's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
donasbooks's review against another edition
3.0
I found CHURCHILL, HITLER, AND "THE UNNECESSARY WAR" by Patrick J. Buchanan on the Libby app. Check for your local library on the app and read great books for free!
simonmee's review against another edition
1.0
The Unnecessary War is a book about how Britain went and did bad in both World Wars, and in doing bad, fatally undermined the gifts of Western Civilisation Europe had bestowed on various natives:
When the British arrived in Africa, they found primitive tribal societies. When they departed, they left behind roads, railways, telephone and telegraph systems, farms, factories, fishe…”
… [b:etcetera|40961621|King Leopold's Ghost|Adam Hochschild|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1532716127l/40961621._SY75_.jpg|937922], [b:etcetera|34185892|Inglorious Empire What the British Did to India|Shashi Tharoor|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1490075230l/34185892._SY75_.jpg|53206311], [b:etcetera|15797509|The Inconvenient Indian A Curious Account of Native People in North America|Thomas King|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1357136064l/15797509._SY75_.jpg|21520410]
History?
Buchanan’s done his research, sort of. He has his favored books that support his basic contentions. He also sprinkles extracts from sources that help with specific points but not generally.
This is fine… …in the sense that I don’t care. It is sterile to try to “debunk” Buchanan detail by detail. If he wants to treat the statements of the Kaiser or Hitler as reliable sources on their face, sweet as. If he writes the High Seas Fleet only sortied once in World War One, whatever. If the Great Depression is an irrelevant topic with no impact on the narrative, cool.
The Unnecessary War is a political manifesto, not history. The plot is how Buchanan would have reacted to a series of semi-fictional events according to his methodology. The book would work the same way if he were writing about whether the Avengers should have intervened in Sokovia.
Buchanan believes in power and the retention of it.
World War One
Buchanan’s counterfactual on World War One comes down to this:
Britain would have best preserved its world position if it had not declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Belgium.
Running a bit short on sources, Buchanan leans heavily on Niall Ferguson’s Pity of War, which presupposes that a German victory would have resulted in a primordial European Community/customs arrangement. For Buchanan, that would be a good thing and no threat to Britain’s position.
The likelihood or preferability of that occurring is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Buchanan grasping at it reflects:
- Buchanan’s analytical weakness in that he grabs the first published counterfactual scenario he can find; and
- that Buchanan accepts a scenario involving a supernational organization (or at least one country intervening in the affairs of others).
This is a guy who once gave a speech stating he was an economic nationalist and that:
Look at the nations of Europe that are today surrendering control of their money, their immigration policy, their environmental policy, even defense policy - to a giant socialist superstate called the EU
...yet that result in 1914 would be perfectly fine to Buchanan from the perspective of Britain. Global superstate for thee, so long as it is not for me. For Buchanan it is about retention of power, no matter what other nations he throws on the dumpster to get there.
World War Two
Much of the book is Buchanan Monday morning quarterbacking about the interwar period and whether the rise of Hitler could have been averted or tolerated rather than belatedly resisted.
There’s no point in trudging through Buchanan’s analyses of Versailles, the Anglo-Japanese alliance, the Stresa Front or the Munich Crisis. The main points are these: Big is good, little countries shouldn’t “provoke” big ones, or even allow big ones to imagine the little ones were being provocative, and was Nazism all that bad if it wasn’t going to hurt me? Even when criticizing earlier decisions in the interwar period, Buchanan appears to be aware that Britain (and France’s) options were constrained by political and strategic realities.
So again, it comes down to this:
Britain should not have guaranteed the independence of Poland.
Buchanan’s position was that Germany should have been permitted to reorder the affairs of Eastern Europe, after which they definitely would have turned against the evil evil Bolsheviks, leaving Britain and France to build up their ramparts. It is clear from the context of the book Buchanan did not expect either country to have undertaken offensive operations later.
Buchanan’s best result is two apparently equally awful ideologies (in parts he roots for Nazism) bashing away for dominance of most Europe. When Buchanan cries crocodile tears that Churchill signed away one hundred million Christians to Stalin's terror, it is hard to see how Buchanan’s own best-case scenario is any better.
ReAlPoLiTiK
“Debunking” Buchanan might be sterile, there’s a sterility in Buchanan’s own analysis.
Buchanan is about retaining power at all costs, even if Buchanan’s own scenarios promote the rise of globalist (World War One) or authoritarian (World War Two) powers. Perhaps costly wars are avoided, or at least ameliorated for your country, but there is no reaching for some utopian resolution or at least a reduction in tension. It is survival from moment to moment with no overarching goal. For a country without the resources to resist… well, tough luck in Buchanan’s world.
Is Buchanan at least a consistent non-interventionalist and The Unnecessary War reflects that?
Well, Buchanan repeatedly refers to Britain’s loss of empire as a bad thing. Not only did Britain intervene in the affairs of others to create its empire but its continuing interventions also maintained it. Where it suits Buchanan, he is happy for white nations to play the robber-baron, for all his apparent wailing against ethno-nationalism.
It’s been done before
It is also important to remember Buchanan served under Nixon, the archetype administration of power politics. When India intervened to stop the Pakistan’s genocide in (now) Bangladesh, the United States encouraged China to mass on India’s borders, in mockery of Buchanan’s reference in The Unnecessary War to Mao’s tyranny. Then there was September 11… …1973 where the United States determined Allende’s milquetoast socialism necessitated a military dictatorship. Buchanan’s own words suggest he supported both, which hardly suggest he was a non-interventionalist.
The point is that Buchanan is not a particularly trustworthy person. We can cynically see him as an explicit example of the reality that countries put their own interests first. I have my suspicions that apparent selfishness is not a recipe for a successfully run country. Buchanan hardly distanced himself from that other famous event of the Nixon Administration – Watergate.
What worries me is that when this 82 year old man shuffles off this mortal coil we will read epitaphs about how he was a principled conservative, that there was honour in that he stood for something. At least in respect of foreign policy, there would be no truth to those statements.
When the British arrived in Africa, they found primitive tribal societies. When they departed, they left behind roads, railways, telephone and telegraph systems, farms, factories, fishe…”
… [b:etcetera|40961621|King Leopold's Ghost|Adam Hochschild|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1532716127l/40961621._SY75_.jpg|937922], [b:etcetera|34185892|Inglorious Empire What the British Did to India|Shashi Tharoor|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1490075230l/34185892._SY75_.jpg|53206311], [b:etcetera|15797509|The Inconvenient Indian A Curious Account of Native People in North America|Thomas King|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1357136064l/15797509._SY75_.jpg|21520410]
History?
Buchanan’s done his research, sort of. He has his favored books that support his basic contentions. He also sprinkles extracts from sources that help with specific points but not generally.
This is fine… …in the sense that I don’t care. It is sterile to try to “debunk” Buchanan detail by detail. If he wants to treat the statements of the Kaiser or Hitler as reliable sources on their face, sweet as. If he writes the High Seas Fleet only sortied once in World War One, whatever. If the Great Depression is an irrelevant topic with no impact on the narrative, cool.
The Unnecessary War is a political manifesto, not history. The plot is how Buchanan would have reacted to a series of semi-fictional events according to his methodology. The book would work the same way if he were writing about whether the Avengers should have intervened in Sokovia.
Buchanan believes in power and the retention of it.
World War One
Buchanan’s counterfactual on World War One comes down to this:
Britain would have best preserved its world position if it had not declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Belgium.
Running a bit short on sources, Buchanan leans heavily on Niall Ferguson’s Pity of War, which presupposes that a German victory would have resulted in a primordial European Community/customs arrangement. For Buchanan, that would be a good thing and no threat to Britain’s position.
The likelihood or preferability of that occurring is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Buchanan grasping at it reflects:
- Buchanan’s analytical weakness in that he grabs the first published counterfactual scenario he can find; and
- that Buchanan accepts a scenario involving a supernational organization (or at least one country intervening in the affairs of others).
This is a guy who once gave a speech stating he was an economic nationalist and that:
Look at the nations of Europe that are today surrendering control of their money, their immigration policy, their environmental policy, even defense policy - to a giant socialist superstate called the EU
...yet that result in 1914 would be perfectly fine to Buchanan from the perspective of Britain. Global superstate for thee, so long as it is not for me. For Buchanan it is about retention of power, no matter what other nations he throws on the dumpster to get there.
World War Two
Much of the book is Buchanan Monday morning quarterbacking about the interwar period and whether the rise of Hitler could have been averted or tolerated rather than belatedly resisted.
There’s no point in trudging through Buchanan’s analyses of Versailles, the Anglo-Japanese alliance, the Stresa Front or the Munich Crisis. The main points are these: Big is good, little countries shouldn’t “provoke” big ones, or even allow big ones to imagine the little ones were being provocative, and was Nazism all that bad if it wasn’t going to hurt me? Even when criticizing earlier decisions in the interwar period, Buchanan appears to be aware that Britain (and France’s) options were constrained by political and strategic realities.
So again, it comes down to this:
Britain should not have guaranteed the independence of Poland.
Buchanan’s position was that Germany should have been permitted to reorder the affairs of Eastern Europe, after which they definitely would have turned against the evil evil Bolsheviks, leaving Britain and France to build up their ramparts. It is clear from the context of the book Buchanan did not expect either country to have undertaken offensive operations later.
Buchanan’s best result is two apparently equally awful ideologies (in parts he roots for Nazism) bashing away for dominance of most Europe. When Buchanan cries crocodile tears that Churchill signed away one hundred million Christians to Stalin's terror, it is hard to see how Buchanan’s own best-case scenario is any better.
ReAlPoLiTiK
“Debunking” Buchanan might be sterile, there’s a sterility in Buchanan’s own analysis.
Buchanan is about retaining power at all costs, even if Buchanan’s own scenarios promote the rise of globalist (World War One) or authoritarian (World War Two) powers. Perhaps costly wars are avoided, or at least ameliorated for your country, but there is no reaching for some utopian resolution or at least a reduction in tension. It is survival from moment to moment with no overarching goal. For a country without the resources to resist… well, tough luck in Buchanan’s world.
Is Buchanan at least a consistent non-interventionalist and The Unnecessary War reflects that?
Well, Buchanan repeatedly refers to Britain’s loss of empire as a bad thing. Not only did Britain intervene in the affairs of others to create its empire but its continuing interventions also maintained it. Where it suits Buchanan, he is happy for white nations to play the robber-baron, for all his apparent wailing against ethno-nationalism.
It’s been done before
It is also important to remember Buchanan served under Nixon, the archetype administration of power politics. When India intervened to stop the Pakistan’s genocide in (now) Bangladesh, the United States encouraged China to mass on India’s borders, in mockery of Buchanan’s reference in The Unnecessary War to Mao’s tyranny. Then there was September 11… …1973 where the United States determined Allende’s milquetoast socialism necessitated a military dictatorship. Buchanan’s own words suggest he supported both, which hardly suggest he was a non-interventionalist.
The point is that Buchanan is not a particularly trustworthy person. We can cynically see him as an explicit example of the reality that countries put their own interests first. I have my suspicions that apparent selfishness is not a recipe for a successfully run country. Buchanan hardly distanced himself from that other famous event of the Nixon Administration – Watergate.
What worries me is that when this 82 year old man shuffles off this mortal coil we will read epitaphs about how he was a principled conservative, that there was honour in that he stood for something. At least in respect of foreign policy, there would be no truth to those statements.
neilmlfd16's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.5
michaelhold's review against another edition
4.0
This book describes why World Wars Were Unnecessary and that they could (and many thing did ) End Western Civilization.
Explains why England Has entered War. In instance of attack on Belgium, not necessarily France. And even when Britain and Germany Where good Friends since Napoleonic Period.
After The War However, rules depended on peaceful intentions of Hitler and Mussolini. As Germany has quite good opinion till taking Czechs by armed forces.
So Second World War became inevitable from moment of security Guarantees given By Chamberlain to Poland. In times of Hitler who was desperately in need of appreciation from People, losing it towards other politicians who has taken credits for his "success".
With Churchill there is one part that is not the greatest, that before war he was all in one, against Communists but in war years and with yalta conference, he appreciated help of Stalin. Almost As he was overwhelmed by odds of reality.
Explains why England Has entered War. In instance of attack on Belgium, not necessarily France. And even when Britain and Germany Where good Friends since Napoleonic Period.
After The War However, rules depended on peaceful intentions of Hitler and Mussolini. As Germany has quite good opinion till taking Czechs by armed forces.
So Second World War became inevitable from moment of security Guarantees given By Chamberlain to Poland. In times of Hitler who was desperately in need of appreciation from People, losing it towards other politicians who has taken credits for his "success".
With Churchill there is one part that is not the greatest, that before war he was all in one, against Communists but in war years and with yalta conference, he appreciated help of Stalin. Almost As he was overwhelmed by odds of reality.
strong_extraordinary_dreams's review
5.0
Intense, clear, important. Like reading a vast novel. There's some vast stuff here, including the slaughtering of a herd of sacred cows . . . and one cow in particular.
More...