Buchanan last night suggested Appeasement was the correct thing in 1939

[Bandit]

He said WWII was easily preventable (an "Unnecesary war")if we had only let Germany have Poland but not France. Said it was the same thing as the US allowing China to "have" Tibet. We will not go to war over Tibet and he says we should not have gone to war over Poland. He said that in fact Churchill was the one to coin that expression "An Unnecessary War". Are we indeed Appeasing China by allowing it to keep Tibet and Taiwan?

[jakem]

1. we are appeasing china on tibet because there is more money in it for us if

we look away while china rapes tibet.

it is one more cultural genocide we have chosen to overlook.

shameful.

[babylonsister]

2. Talking points from his new book. Here's a review, and it's not pretty:

From Pitchfork Pat to Brownshirt Buchanan

In the latest issue of The American Conservative, the Old Right magazine founded by Taki Theodoracopulos and Pat Buchanan, historian John Lukacs reviews Buchanan's latest book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (yes, it's actually called that). The review is absolutely devastating, and the least that can be said of Buchanan is that he would exemplify the sort of editorial freedom in which a writer could compare him unfavorably to David Irving within the pages of his own magazine (that Buchanan might fancy a favorable comparison to Irving is beside the point). I know few editors who would publish a harsh critique of a book authored by someone on his masthead.

Lukacs begins his review by pointing out the historical amnesia required to make the claim, as Buchanan does, that an American "empire" was inaugurated under the watch of George W. Bush. America's status as a superpower began with the simultaneous end of World War II, the fall of the European powers, and the rise of the Cold War. Buchanan appears to contradict himself here, as he has been ranting about American "empire" at least since 1999, with the publishing of his isolationist tome A Republic, Not an Empire.

More important, however, is Lukacs's take down of Buchanan's most sinister argument, which is that not only was the Second World War "unnecessary," but the fault of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, chiefly, Winston Churchill. Lukacs writes:


Here I arrive at the main theme of this book. How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World is only its subtitle, its main title being Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. This emphasis accords with what is—and has been for a long time—Buchanan’s view of history. The Second World War was an unnecessary war; a wrong war, especially involving Europe; it was wrong to fight Hitler; and Churchill was primarily, indeed principally, responsible. A man has, or more precisely chooses, his opinions. The choice, ever so often, depends on his inclinations. In this review it is not my proper business to speculate about Buchanan’s inclinations. I must restrict myself to questioning his arguments.

more...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/06/04/allow-me.aspx

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Buchanan is okay with the Holocaust happening?

He's a dipshit...:eyes:

[LeftinOH]

4. We didn't 'let' Germany 'have' Poland.. we didn't have anything to do with it

until more than 2 years later -and then it was only via Japan's unsubtle invitation. As for Tibet.. we're over 50 years too late to have any say about that; Taiwan is officially recognized by the US as a part of China. He doesn't make any sense.

[Zambero]

5. So he really is a Nazi?

No surprise here.

[bunkerbuster1]

7. No, he's an anti-anti-Nazi

verrry differnt!

[Wapsie B]

9. No, in his mind it's the liberals who were the Nazis in Germany in WWII.

That's a very common rwing talking point.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Thom Hartmann had him on...

Per usual, Hartmann did an excellent job of giving a nutcase enough rope to hang himself.

Audio's here:

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SANFRANCISCO-CA/KKGN-AM/Hartmann%201%20060208.mp3

[El Pinko]

8. A. Mainland China does not "have" Taiwan, and if they were to take it, we might have to act.

As for Tibet, China took it decades ago, so the time to do something about it passed long ago. If we start going after China, why shouldn't other countries go after us for illegally annexing Hawaii (or most of the 50 states for that matter)?

[On the Road]

10. Tibet Has Been Part of China for Over 700 Years

The British just stole it for a few decades. Taiwan and the PRC both agree that they are part of the same country -- they just disagree about who should be in control.

[jakem]

11. you are completely wrong on this point.

tibet was independent and acknowledged as such a long long time ago.

_____

Although the history of the Tibetan state started in 127 B.C., with the establishment of the Yarlung Dynasty, the country as we know it was first unified in the 7th Century A.D., under King Songtsen Gampo and his successors. Tibet was one of the mightiest powers of Asia for the three centuries that followed, as a pillar inscription at the foot of the Potala Palace in Lhasa and Chinese Tang histories of the period confirm. A formal peace treat concluded between China and Tibet in 821/823 demarcated the borders between the two countries and ensured that, "Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China."

---

In the course of Tibet's 2,000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the 13th and 18th centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record. As the ambassador of Ireland to the UN remarked during the General Assembly debates on the question of Tibet, "for thousands of years, for a couple of thousands years at any rate, (Tibet) was a free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after it own affairs than many of the nations here."

From a legal standpoint, Tibet has not lost its statehood. It is an independent start under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation by the PLA has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier.la the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty, or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the 13th and 18th centuries.

(Michael C. van Walt van Praag practices international law. His publication include The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law (Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., Wisdom Press, London, 1987) and numerous articles in book collections and magazines.) http://www.tibet.com/status/statuslaw.html

[On the Road]

12. It May Depend on How Independence is Defined

and Tibetans and Chinese may have different memories or attitudes toward the past. The decade before the British took over, the September 1903 issue of National Geographic described the government this way:

“ Since the fifteenth century all power, civil and spiritual, has been nominally in the hands of the Dalai Lama, but China maintains a Manchu resident and an army. Until the Dalai Lama’s 22 year, the government is in the hands of a regent appointed by the Emperor of China. In order to avoid strife in selecting a Dalai Lama, the electoral council places three strips of paper with the names of three boys in an urn, and the Manchu resident removes one with a small staff. The dalai lama’s council, in whose hands is the actual power, embraces four so-called “Galons” appointed by the Emperor of China. <5> ”

The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica traces Chinese dominion over Tibet to Mongol-ruled China i.e. the Yuan Dynasty, continuing to the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty:

“ Kublai Khan conquered all the east of Tibet...Kublai invested Phagspa with sovereign power over (1) Tibet proper, comprising the thirteen districts of U and Tsang, (2) Khalil and (3) Amdo. From this time the Sakya-pa lamas became the universal rulers of Tibet... subdued Tibet proper and Kham… and with the approval of the court of Peking established a dynasty...When the Mongol dynasty of China passed away, the Mings confirmed and enlarged the dominion of the Tibetan rulers, recognizing at the same time the chief lamas of the eight principal monasteries of the country…During the minority of the fifth (really the third) Dalai Lama, when the Mongol king Tengir To… intervened in the affairs of the country, the Pan-ch'en Lo-sang Ch'o-kyi Gyal-ts'ang lama ... then applied for help to the first Manchu emperor of China, who had just ascended the throne...The Chinese government in 1653 confirmed the Dalai Lama in his authority, and he paid a visit to the emperor at Peking. The Mongol Khoshotes in 1706 and the Sungars in 1717 interfered again in the succession of the Dalai lama, but the Chinese army finally conquered the country in 1720, and the present system of government was established...<6>

The 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia states that

“ During the eighteenth century the Chinese Emperor, K'ien-lung , began to establish his supremacy over Tibet; already in 1725 two high Chinese commissioners had been appointed to control the temporal affairs of the country, and in 1793 an imperial edict ordered that future Dalai Lamas were to be chosen from the names of children drawn from a "golden urn". ”
“ The secular administration of Tibet includes a council (ka hia) of four ministers (kalon or kablon) of the third rank of Chinese officials, elected as a rule by the Peking government, on presentation by the Chinese amban...there are six military commanders (taipêng), with the fourth degree of Chinese rank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate#cite_ref-Bri_5-1

Tibet had certain kinds of autonomy. Pro-indpendence people often quote trade missions, negotiations, and separate dealings with states like Nepal. These kinds of things, though, are limited to what would be expected from an autonomous region.

[jakem]

13. Tibet is culturally, linguistically, and historically distinct from China

and, if we are nit-picking over history, Tibet has in the past ruled over great geographic areas of China.

The systematic murder of over a million Tibetans, and the resulting ongoing cultural genocide in itself denies any claim China has over Tibet.

[On the Road]

14. It Doesn't Sound Like Nitpicking to Me

When you first posted, I was afraid I had my story wrong and read a few pro- and anti-indpendence sites. The anti was much more thorough and compelling.

"Culturally, linguistically, and historically distinct" is true of many of the ethnic minorities in China. It's not a very strong claim for independence.

The solution to human rights violations is respecting human rights.

On Edit: Here's a pdf by a journalist with a historical bent that is an interesting take on more recent decades.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/weai/documents/LEHMN2b.pdf

Takes awhile to develop a good feel for what's really going on.

[SergeyDovlatov]

15. WWII was bound to happen (groundwork was done by versailles treaty )

Maybe he means US/British involvment in WWII was unnecessary.
I don't think WWII itself was avoidable.

Germany and Japan wanted to gain some colonies / resources / territories and would have started the war (irrespectively of whatever Britan / US was doing). Not interfering in WWI, might have prevented German participation in WWII, but not Japan's.

With respect to China / Tibet:

China / Tibet
Serbia / Kosovo
Russia / Chechnya
US / Confederation

you can list a lot of conflicts where a part of the country wants to break away and then a war fought to prevent it.

UN Charter article 2.4 says:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Thus intervining in war of independence violates section 4 article 2 of UN charter