Pat Buchannon just wrote a book about WW2. From what I gathered from the description he gave, if the British had gone after Stalin instead of Hitler, WW2 would not have taken place. I am no historian by any stretch of the imagination so forgive me if I get these facts wrong. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime minister (1937 to 1940) had given Poland the War Guarantee that the British would go to War with Germany if Poland asked them to. Poland wanted the German city of Danzig back from the Germans and based on that, they brought the British into the war with German. Apparently, Hitler had enormous respect for the British, so much so that he thought of them as the real master race. Buchannon is speculating (based on evidence) that Hitler wanted an alliance with the UK but was forced to fight and invade western Europe because of this War Guarantee. After WW2, Churchill himself is believed to have said, “We went after the wrong pig”, in reference to going after Hitler instead of Stalin. Buchannon also surmises that the Holocaust would not have taken place either. Regardless of what you believe, it’s an interesting story, I think I am going to pick up this book and give it a read.
cross word puzzles?
It was a thread about the above and what you thought but I forgot what forum I was on… 
why get the book you pretty much wrote one right here 
sounds interesting. the events leading up to and during WWII are always an interesting topic, there’s so much speculation about what could have happened and even some about what actually did. it’s always good to read another perspective about the events. do you know where he got his sources or is this book just pure speculation? i might pick it up just to see what it’s all about, sounds interesting. thanks for the tip.
Pat Buchannon besides being an x-politician is also a historian and has a genuine interest in history so I would take what he says as serious and legit.
I’m shocked you would consider reading anything from someone as far right as Buchanan. He make Bush look like a liberal.
Even I would read a book by him with a sceptical eye fearing that his rather warped personal views would slant his view on history.
It’s historical book so I doubt much partisanship goes into the text. I don’t agree with a lot of what Pat Buchanan says but his book peaked my interest.
But just think, all of those Democrats voted for him in Florida in 2000 :mad:god damn it that recount movie got me all fired up 
I didn’t watch it for the reason.
Your personal beliefs are always going to tint your opinion of history. Ask a Jewish person and a white supremacist to each write a historic document about Hitler and I bet they differ greatly. For anyone planning to read the book you might want to read a little bit about the author first so you can at least have his views as a reference if some things in the book seem questionable to you is all I’m saying.
Although I agree with your statement, I think when you have something that transpired 60+ years ago that was covered by all walks of life, opinions, etc and in addition to it being speculative (but based on facts), you read it and come away with just a compilation of someone’s analysis and opinion. Some things I agree with Pat on when he gives his analysis on MSNBC and other things I do not. I can’t see this being any different but it is a good point regardless.
The butter battle book by Dr. Suess. Think about it.
shut up and stop ruining fatmatt’s thread.
:mad:
Read Lone Survivor. Story of Operation Redwing. 4 Seals went into Afghan mountains to find a high value target. 4 goat herders stumbled upon them. Fearing media persecution and ultimately being charged with murder, the Seals let them go even though it was the wrong war/military decision. A short time later 200 Taliban are charging them. 1 survived, 3 died. A rescue chopper that went in to save them got shot down. Ultimately 19 Navy Seals died in one day. The one survivor crawled away and was rescued/saved by local villagers despite the Taliban’s demand that they release him. The Taliban couldn’t just take him because they need the villagers’ cooperation in order to exist.
It may “tweak” your views of modern war and the conflict we’re in.
There is evidence to suggest that Hitler had respected the British more than any of his other opponents. Not attempting an all out invasion and instead focusing his attention on Stalin backs that idea up.
As far as the holocaust is concerned forget it, Hitler was terrorizing Jews years befor the outbreak of the war.
ok good to know, i don’t know anything about the author so that’s why i was asking.
thanks for the heads up, i’ll keep that in mind when i read the book.
quoted for truth. there’s no such thing as a purely unbiased opinion or book, even ones that are based in fact. that’s part of why history is so interesting, at least for me.
I just got into “Atlas Shrugged” if you think you’re smart, pick it up, its got some amazing ideas about how society could work.
I’ve been meaning to read that before I play through Bioshock for the 2nd time since much of Rapture, Ryan’s underwater utopia in the game, was based around Objectivism.
I knew Bioshock was going to be a lot deeper in story than most games when the demo had Ryan explaining Rapture with this:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
No says the man in Washington, it belongs to the poor.
No says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God.
No says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone.