His latest — a pro-Nazi apologia entitled "Did Hitler Want War?":
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?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.
As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Some of these I can answer (How could Hitler invade Russia, Pat? By conquering Poland which lay between. Duh.) ….professional historians can correct Pat on other issues.
But basically, Pat's article boils down to this logic:
World War II totally decimated Hitler's Germany, so why would Hitler want to enter that war in the first place?
It's a profoundly dumb question, because Hitler didn't expect to be challenged (when he invaded Poland), and when he was challenged, he didn't expect to lose. Remember, he believed in the master Aryan race.
Pat, of course, premises his entire article on the premise that Hitler was a military genius and a sane reasonable man armed with a crystal ball that looks into the future. Hitler was precisely the opposite, and that's how the wheels come off Pat's wagon from the very beginning of the article — he starts with the premise that Hitler reasoned this all out.
But what is the underlying point that Pat is trying to make? That Hitler didn't want to create a Third Reich through military expansion? Well, yes I suppose that might be true, but even a meglomaniac like Hitler didn't expect that other countries would simply hand themselves over to him.
Hitler started the war. He used the military to expand the geography and power of Germany. Did he "want" war? Probably not, but he certainly wasn't detered from provoking it. And that's pretty much all that matters.
It's perhaps one of the stupidest articles Buchanan has ever written, and that's saying something.