This is the first installation in a five part series that takes a closer look at Patrick J. Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the "Unnecessary War" released in May of 2008. Further analysis of Buchanan's book can be found here.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... ybook1.php

The war was unnecessary. They should have let Germany be and run all of Europe, and let us pwn the shit out of Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor and be done with it.

If ever there was a time to take over the world, World War II was in reality, the best possible chance for anyone. The Weapons wouldn't have caused a global war, hell I think Germany was close to a nuclear bomb, but how many other nations were real close?

There would have been little or no radiation deaths or poisoning by not using atomic bombs and I am pretty sure that viral weapons weren't being used at the time.

It'd bve nuts to see a map of how the world would have turned out if we took over Japan and didn't engage in a war with Germany.

Germany was nowhere close to having a nuclear bomb. The only technology that the Germans were using toward building a nuclear reactor was heavy water. To make a single nuclear reactor, the Germans would have needed approximately five tons of heavy water. The Germans would have then needed ten reactors to produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon. In four years of production, they had only half a ton of heavy water.

Hitler saw no value in the research needed to build that type of weapon that he wasn't sure would work. Instead, he put all his money into advancing guns, tanks, planes, and rockets, which yielding an immediate result.

I assume you're not serious...

Then why is it on the History and Discover Channels they've stated countless times Germany would have been about 5 months from successfully detonating a nuclear bomb?

They aren't text books from notable authors but I dont think they would lie that much.

Don't believe anything you see on TV. They were either wrong or perhaps you misunderstood them. There's no way that Hitler was 5 months from detonating the bomb. That would have put him just a few months behind the bombing of Japan. America spent years, assigned hundreds of scientists, and spent a small fortune to put together the technology for the atom bombs. Hitler had half a ton of heavy water. That was it.

Mr Manning, interesting article. I look forward to the other parts.

I read Mr Buchanan's book last year and came away gravely concerned about some of the stuff I read. Honestly, the first portions of the books were hard to get into since I'm not very familiar with pre-World War I politics and diplomacy. I think the most shocking thing that first stuck out to me was Churchill's "starvation blockade" that you have shown did not truly belong to Churchill. I'm hoping that some of the other shocking statements by Buchanan will be addressed in your later articles.

Question for you, Mr Manning. Why has Buchanan written this book? The last book I saw authored by him was concerning illegal immigration. I don't recall him being the sort of person to argue against war that often save for the current Iraq War.

Thank you.

Triple, our view on why Buchanan wrote it was to bolster his arguments against the Iraq War. He seems to believe that America is following the same path the British followed in the early part of the 20th century, and that it must inevitably lead to our downfall as a world power.

Who cares if we are a world power, we have tons of nukes if it came down to nuking everybody when we'd most all be dead anyways. I'd rather have a peaceful country, lower crime, better economy and more jobs and homes for american citizens. Its time to take pride in our country not because we have a bigger dick than another country, but by how great we are as a nation in terms of other assets not just our "freedom."

TripleTime97, in addition to what Brian said, Buchanan has opposed U.S. military involvement in every instance since the Gulf War. This even includes the attempts to stop genocide in the Balkans during the 1990's. The guy doesn't want America involved in any foreign conflict. During that time, people have thrown Hitler and World War II in his face as examples of when American involvement was necessary. Then they point to Churchill as someone who was willing to confront Hitler when no one else would. I think he's just tired of arguing about it.

Kids, do we seriously believe that the neutrality of Belgium was worth it for Britain? They lost millions of people, millions more wounded, and spent four years wasting time in a war.

You're asking the wrong question. Was it worth it for Germany? Both Britain and Germany made the commitment. Germany was the one that broke it. In an ideal world, Germany and Austria would have aided Britain to preserve Belgium, but no one foresaw the very powers that guaranteed Belgium's existence being the ones that would violate it.

This second installment looks at Buchanan's efforts to portray Churchill as absent, weak, and wrong on the Rhineland, Austrian, and Munich crises.

Churchill, Buchanan, and the Unnecessary Book Part II