Just how crazy is Pat Buchanan?
Pretty goddamn crazy.
Despite his current position, as a friendly sparring partner with Rachel Maddow and in-house winger on MSNBC, the guy has been a very-thinly veiled fascist sympathizer for decades. And in his column this week, he all but removes that veil.
Available here, the column is titled “Did Hitler Want War?” Buchanan believes the answer to be no. He pins the blame for World War II on Poland, and Britain’s guarantee of protection to it. As evidence, Buchanan points to a string of inexplicably dumb decisions made by Hitler–so dumb that, to Buchanan, they negate the myths about the war and the man thought by nearly all sentient beings to be its instigator. Buchanan writes:
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
This is one of those instances in which the obvious answer is the correct answer: Hitler tried to conquer the world without the requisite equipment because he was a mad man who was also a pisspoor military strategist. Yet Buchanan would have it that Hitler’s ambitions of domination have been overstated; that, while he might not have been a peacenik, he did not want war. The Furher, you see, has gotten a bad rap from history.
That, my friends, makes Pat Buchanan the very definition of a fascist sympathizer.
In fact, Buchanan goes so far as to blame the horrors of the Holocaust on the Allied powers that fought Hitler. “Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps,” he writes. I get it: if only we’d stayed home, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. This is revisionism that comes perilously close to denial.