Recently heard about the removal of a column by Pat Buchanan from MSNBCs website which extend from his current book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unneccessary War, because of an uprising of condemnation from various organizations. As Michael Calderone states from Politico.com:
"Pat Buchanan has received a lot of criticism recently for his column marking the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, where the conservative pundit questions whether Hitler has gotten a bum rap.
By extension, MSNBC, where Buchanan is a commentator, has taken heat for promoting the column on its website. In the revisionist piece -- "Did Hitler Want War?" -- Buchanan argues that other countries, such as Poland, should be held responsible for the invasion, and later escalation of World War II. Hitler, he claims, wanted peace and wasn't out for world conquest. David A. Harris, President of the National Jewish Democratic Council, condemned MSNBC's promotion of the "deplorable" column and urged that it be removed from MSNBC.com.
Well, now the network has pulled it. (Indeed, the old link is dead). Harris, in second statement, said that "MSNBC took the responsible action and removed Pat Buchanan's column," while adding that "no worthy news organization should employ and promote a commentator who engages in such vile fiction." An MSNBC spokesperson issued a statement to POLITICO: "An editorial decision was made to remove the column from msnbc.com. Pat is a contributor to MSNBC, his syndicated column does not speak for the network or represent the views of MSNBC"
By extension, MSNBC, where Buchanan is a commentator, has taken heat for promoting the column on its website. In the revisionist piece -- "Did Hitler Want War?" -- Buchanan argues that other countries, such as Poland, should be held responsible for the invasion, and later escalation of World War II. Hitler, he claims, wanted peace and wasn't out for world conquest. David A. Harris, President of the National Jewish Democratic Council, condemned MSNBC's promotion of the "deplorable" column and urged that it be removed from MSNBC.com.
Well, now the network has pulled it. (Indeed, the old link is dead). Harris, in second statement, said that "MSNBC took the responsible action and removed Pat Buchanan's column," while adding that "no worthy news organization should employ and promote a commentator who engages in such vile fiction." An MSNBC spokesperson issued a statement to POLITICO: "An editorial decision was made to remove the column from msnbc.com. Pat is a contributor to MSNBC, his syndicated column does not speak for the network or represent the views of MSNBC"
While I've had an opportunity to read the column in question (it is available on Pat Buchanan's blog site, which is linked with the title, but who knows how long) - I thought there were interesting points and can see while Buchanan calls Hitler a beast, his questions have made many uncomfortable that they are even questions, and there were many areas that I had to disagree with, particularly the points that give you the impression that Hitler was "forced" to attack, and didn't want world domination at all, which I disagree with strongly, having read all the historical texts, and Mein Kampf itself. What I found most fascinating were the comments after the column - removing the absolutists who condemned Buchanan because he dare mention Hitler in any non-negative light, and those who found conspiracies other either the Germans or the Jews or (fill in the blank) to blame for all the world's ills, I recommend reading the more knowledgeable comments presenting info allowing us to debate and make our own decisions.
I personally feel Hitler was truly a madman of epic proportions, so vile in his attempt to create and preserve the master race, that all in his way must be destroyed, for him to truly feel success, and world domination was definitely on his mind, as he felt a german "motherland" including all of europe, including Russia, that no conquest would be unfathomnable - that having been said, I have a concern about censorship - any kind of censorship. Reading his article, allows us to read the comments and discussions after having read it, rather than the debate from hearing snippits or self-determined summaries of what may/may not have been said.
It's interesting, that we seem to come together when it comes to Government censorship (for the most part) but when it's a ideology, whether left or right, that is pushing for censorship, we turn the other way, ignoring the outcome. That's sad, because that is usually the most insidious of them all, and before you know it, we'll censor everything that may offend or question, or even (gasp) make someone think - and we wouldn't want to have that, would we???
No comments:
Post a Comment