countdown boutiques-francophones Beauty home Kindle Explore the Vinyl LP Records Store sports tools

Customer Reviews

3.9 out of 5 stars
3.9 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on October 7, 2016
Awesome book. The author aknowledge that Versailles and the great depression created Hitler. Also showed that containment could have been used against Hitler. What the author means is that England could have garantee the borders of contry that she could actually deploy troops on it. It was a mistake to gaurantee the borders of Poland when England could not have sent a single Tommy there. Also , using a counterfactual method, a Soviet -German war in 1940 would not have been a bad thing. What the autohr mean is that Western Europe would not have been destroyed as it would be in 1944-45. Buchanan show that Europe was the loser of World War two.

Also talks about World War one. Buchanan show the injustice the western powers in 1919 did to Germany. If f the British and specialy the French would have just done a peace deal instead of imposing a carthaginian peace on Germany things would have gone better. France wasn't considered a pariah state in 1815 at the Vienna Congress even if Napoleon was exiled and Paris occupied by a coalition. No allied soldier had set foot on Germany in 1918 and at Versailles Germany was considered a defeated state and made a pariah state. Buchanan show that injustice.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 17, 2011
I cannot make up my mind if Mr Buchanan is a genius or a crank. After completing my third read of this book I am inclined to think he is just a little of both. Buchanan's thesis, in a nutshell, is that it was the conduct of Britain in 1914 that turned what might have been a localized continental conflict into a world war, and that, in 1939, Britain was responsible for causing Germany to wage war in the West instead of looking just eastward. In developing this thesis, he puts much of the blame for these results in Churchill and argues that the ultimate effect of his influence was the demise of the British Empire. Having read the book more than once, I believe that some of what Buchanan has to say is quite compelling but I am still not yet entirely convinced.

Buchanan is a very lucid writer for the most part (although he does have a tendency to repeat points too often) but I also found some shortcomings in the book which gave me pause. First, he emphasizes, many times throughout the book, that the result of certain geopolitical actions was the subjugation or oppression of Christians (eg. the domination of the Polish first by the Germans and then the Russians). Is he suggesting that the brutal subjugation of a people is more tragic if they happen to be Christian as opposed to, say, Hindu? I am not sure what point he is trying to make with these constant references, but they certainly suggest that the author has issues which are affecting his objectivity.

I also found that when Buchanan discusses how Britain lost its Empire that he does so with wistful a sense of loss as though saying that, if Britain had acted less stupidly, the good old Empire would still be alive and kicking and wouldn't that be great? I think most people would agree that the Colonialism of the Empire is something best left to history and that Britain's present place on the world's stage is pretty much as it should be and was largely inevitable however it came about. I think Buchanan may well be right about how the demise was triggered but his opinions as to the 'rightness' of this are, I think, a bit off base. Ultimately, I am still pondering what the author has to say and will re-read the book a fourth and maybe a fifth time. I think that that, in itself, is accolade enough for a book and I recommend that others with a general interest in the issues take a look at what Buchanan has to say.
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon August 27, 2014
Too bad the "Back-Room Boys" prevented a Pat Buchanan selection as US President and leader of the "free world" since he shows a sense of history superior to that of the last four US Presidents. This book gives readers a different look at the causes of war in the last century. Well written, easy to follow, Pat shows us that we humans stumbled into two unwanted World Wars, lead by stubborn elite leaders on all sides. I expect as President he would have prevented the debacle we live through today by reining in the warmongers who took over recent US administrations as well as other administrations under US control.
Today are we moving towards WW111? This book should be required reading in schools and universities as well as required reading for politicians Left and Right, all over the world. Interesting that Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Patrick J Buchanan both served in the Reagan cabinet; three Canadian leaders, Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau need a lecture from Pat and Paul to prevent us from going blindly into WW111.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon October 15, 2009
This work combines meticulous historical research with Pat Buchanan's political agenda. The point of the book is that Winston Churchill, rather than being the indispensable Man of the Century and defender of the West was the man most responsible for the British involvement in World War I, World War II and the loss of the British Empire?

Buchanan highlights three monumental errors which lead to the Twentieth Century's Civil War of the West: The Treaty of Versailles which left Germany vengeful and receptive to Hitler's message, American pressure on Britain to abandon its alliance with Japan and Britain's war guarantee to Poland in 1939. Without those errors World War II may have been avoided or its destruction mitigated.

Buchanan challenges the conventional wisdom that German aggression against the West was inevitable and that Churchill alone focused the attention of the West on this mortal threat. He posits the idea that Hitler's ambitions were focused to the East and Southeast and that he tried to preserve the peace with Britain and France. Buchanan claims that Hitler reluctantly turned on the West only after it had declared war on Germany.

In contrast to many of our histories which present the story of the World Wars from the Anglo-Franco perspective, this one also includes the German one also. Buchanan makes the case that, as Europe tumbled toward war in 1914, it was the Kaiser who worked tirelessly to avoid war. Time after time during the inter-war years the West let opportunities to limit rising power of German or to channel its destructive path away from the West drift by. He proposes that Hitler did not have ambitions to conquer the world, but that he would have been satisfied to expand into Russia and leave the west alone. It was Churchill and likeminded Britons who forced conflict between the German and British people who shared so much. This book compares the Nazi atrocities with those of Stalin's Russia and asks the question of whether the defeat of Germany justified the Stalinization of Eastern Europe?

Churchill's motives are exposed as being hypocritical. After excoriating Chamberlain for not defending Czech freedom and insisting that Britain go to war to preserve Polish independence, Churchill meekly turned his allies over to Soviet tyranny. Buchanan contrasts the strong claim for alliance made by a democratic, industrial, militarily modern Czechoslovakia with that of a dictatorial Poland defended by an antiquated military. He presents 1939 as a reckless period in during which Britain gave war guarantees to countries, including Poland, in whom Britain had neither national interest nor the ability to defend. He contrasts the case of Belgium, whose shoreline was of vital interest to Britain, with that of Poland, in which Britain had never had much interest.

The depth of historical research which went into this book is staggering. That alone makes it a worthwhile read. Buchanan's conclusion advances his crusade against the use of American power in areas in which America has no vital interest. Although his political agenda drives this book, it is not totally outside the current of historical thinking. Although I have not read his work, I understand that British historian, Niall Ferguson, has advanced the theory that Britain made a horrendous mistake by becoming involved in World War I, a position which Buchanan seems to share. This book presents the reader with a viewpoint which forces one to rethink his or her own thoughts about the Great Civil War of the West.

Ultimately, this book, like so much of the history of the Twentieth Century, is tragedy. When we think about it we realize what terrible damage and suffering the West inflicted upon itself during this recent century. Books such as this make us stop to think that, maybe this half century of war and tragedy was not necessary. Maybe our leaders brought it upon us and maybe, just maybe, these self-inflicted wounds could have been avoided. Maybe the Decline of the West and Christendom was not necessary and, if so, that is the tragedy of the age.
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 23, 2015
Excellent written book. Well researched and documented. As an adviser to three American Presidents Mr. Buchanan had a lot of insight into what went on before WWII and what let to it. This book should be part of every history class to be used as a reference source. I hope that many people will read it to gain an objective view of history, a history which is often distorted.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 23, 2012
Coming from a small mono-ethnic town in Western-Europe I used to have no doubts about the truth as it was presented to me by all kinds of media at that time. It is still the truth for most western people: multiculturalism, interracial marriage, homo- and bisexuality, liberalism towards drugs are all cases that are fought for by honest intellectuals who want to create a better world. The so-called idealists.
Moving to a city to study at university I gradually began to see the other side of all these so-called achievements in practice: criminality, violende, divorce, explicit promotion of perversity, prostitution, large-scale heroin addiction etcetera. The strange thing is: West-Europeans have learned to find all this completely normal.

After being confronted with the other side of so-called liberal society, the thinking process starts. At first I tried to find the answer to the "why question" mostly in traditional rightwing politics. In Europe, unfortunately, the so-called rightwing does not differ fundamentally from the leftwing in fighting the excesses sketched above. In fact, it is all nearly the same! Except some so-called far-right parties, nearly every party in Western-Europe is pro gay-marriage for example! Living in the US nowadays I know that Republican and Democratic politics can differ to a much greater extent.

But to the point: by experience, reading and reconstructing I went on answering the "why question", but with Kevin MacDonald's book a lot of pieces from the big puzzle fell into place. I know that I'm not the only one who has experienced great feelings of guilt on the way to finding the truth about certain sociological phenomena.

From their youngest years most western people are subject to an ongoing stream of indoctrination that aims at forbidding to even think about certain facts or opinions. After reading this book nobody can deny that a lot of things presented as liberalism are just ways to divide and confuse Western man.

This divide and conquer liberalism has nothing to do with freedom. From my experience in Europe I can say that jews there have many high positions in government, entertainment and other large companies. A lot of these functions have to do with promoting multiculturalism and shaping a nationwide and international thought police that is mostly called anti-racism.

Although MacDonald's book is mostly focused on America, the presented theory holds for Europe as well.

The most striking aspect of the whole book is the organized thought control by institutions who see in certain opinions a conflict with Jewish interests.

This book is one of the biggest eye-openers available to everyone who is anxious to understand what exactly is going on in the Western world.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 11, 2015
This is one of the best book I ever read. One of the biggest myth of the 20th Century is broken down and the author is not a sympatizer of the Nazis. A must read!
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 1, 2009
WW2 is my favorite subject so I have read tons of stuff on the subject and this book is right on the money. Buchanan makes a very good case that Churchill dragged England and hence the US in to 2 wars that were unnecessary. It is well researched and draws logical conclusions from the data. If it is revisionist then so is "The Real Lincoln".
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 31, 2013
What an eye opener . Mr. Buchanan really has the situations with those two wars really figured out. How sad that tens of millions people had to lose their lives . For history buffs and people who want to know what really happened back then, this book is a must read.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 20, 2017
If an analysis of the past can be a guide to the future this book can be said to contain the essential principles for the conduct of US foreign policy from Jan 2017
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse