Infinite Monkeys

I don't feel a particularly passionate need to defend Pat Buchanan, but I think his point was simply that the Holocaust was an undesirable side-effect of Europe's choice to confront Nazi Germany rather than lie down and let them play out their desires for expansion and dominance.

Look at his other examples for context - the exhaustion of Western European resources in fighting Nazi Germany, along with the choice to ally themselves with the Soviet Union, certainly were instrumental in "the Stalinization of 11 nations of Eastern Europe."

World War II itself was not the only "cause" of the Holocaust. Arguably, World War I and specifically the Treaty of Versailles were a more significant "cause" of the democide against Jews, but it's still about "war" in the broad sense.

Describing causal relationships in human events is inherently imprecise, but I don't think Buchanan's statement is either inaccurate or particularly insensitive.

Well, wait a second. The Treaty of Versailles didn't cause the Holocaust, and certainly the "choice to confront Nazi Germany rather than lie down and let them play out their desires for expansion and dominance" didn't cause the Holocaust. It's not difficult to be precise here: evil caused the Holocaust, and the failure to confront that evil prolonged it.

So Hitler's Mein Kampf didn't mean anything, and the concentration camps only began because England and France belatedly joined the fray when Hitler invaded Germany? But for England and France going to war with germany, the Holocaust would not have happened? I think that is what Pat is saying,, and it's insane. I cannot imagine that WWII in any way contributed to the Holocaust.

[sigh]

How did I let myself get sucked into defending Pat Buchanan?

"Evil" does not exist, ontologically. Evil is not a mysterious force with the power to cause real events ex nihilo. Evil is a judgement of real actions, events, and motives. These actions, events, and motives have very complex causal relationships. Something like the Holocaust cannot be judged to be caused by one single thing.

Mein Kampf would, most likely, never have been written were it not for World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. This is not a judgment against either the war or the treaty, simply an observation that Hitler himself defined a "struggle" that was shaped very strongly by those two events. No struggle, no Mein Kampf. Without Mein Kampf, more than likely Hitler would have never ascended to power, started World War II, and ordered the extermination of Jews.

There are no judgments in these statements, just observations. But the decision to engage in war requires consideration of these consequences. Buchanan enumerates these consequences, and although he fails to make any explicit judgment himself, certainly brings up an example that most readers would judge to be "worth it." I fail to see how you can find this offensive.

Oh, it's easy to find it offensive. First, Buchanan is suggesting that war is a bad idea--and let's be frank, he's never quite been fully won over to the position that the heroes of his youth were wrong, and America should have entered the war in Europe.
Second, and more relevant, is that Buchanan knows better, just as he knew exactly what he was doing when he said Israel was being "un-Christian."
He should say what he means, and stand by his beliefs, not play word games that show his contempt for his readers' intelligence.