Talk:Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War

Potential issue with article length
There is probably a prima facie argument that this article is too long, but that is compounded by the fact that the summary section is so long as to possibly be cheating Mr. Buchanan of his intellectual property rights. Does anyone else see this as a concern? Chicken Wing (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is great, not too long - it is called DETAIL and DEPTH. And the authors give a fair paraphrase of the book, which is not easy. But there is one small problem - verb tense, especially with the perfect tenses, difficult in English. There are numerous instances of 'had' used where it should be 'have.' I am not computer-savvy enough to do the editing, but I invite the author, or authors, to edit it themselves, after going over carefully the conventions or rules of usage. Either the authors are not native speakers of English (though they do it very well, and in no instance is the meaning lost) - or they did it too fast.

The truth is that i am too lazy to do this small task myself. It is enough that I point out it needs to be done.

I am, as 'user,' CathDavFre —Preceding unsigned comment added by CathDavFre (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be called detail and depth, but it might also infringe upon Mr. Buchanan's intellectual property rights. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a valid point, though some reviews can be lengthy this one might be in need of a little trimming. Thing is, who is going to roll up their sleeves and do it?--BSTemple (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any issue with intellectual property, but the synopsis is grossly inaccurate in many points and it appears to be almost a random selection of points rather than an accurate summary of Buchanan's arguments. I've started to clean it up and I'll do more as time permits.


 * There is no intellectual property problem, but the article is ridiculously long and detailed. It clearly needs to be condensed and optimized. As it is, you need an enormous amount of effort and time to learn what it could impart with far less effort. I actually agree with Buchanan's arguments, and I may indeed want them re-enacted in full detail here, rather than summarized, but that's just not a valid format for the article. Worse, it's so long and wordy that it actually deters people getting the point, instead of helping.--Kaz (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the points above. This is really overdone.   Will Beback    talk    21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading the book itself, I came to this article to find it nearly as long. I'll try to condense it over the course of the next few days. Allegro ma non troppo (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this really an "anti-war" book?
Why is this book and A Republic, Not an Empire listed in the Category "Anti-war books"? As far as I can see, Buchanan only advocates isolationism for the US in these books, not pacifism, non-violence or anti-militarism. Nor does Buchanan take issue with the militarism of Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany in C,H & TUW. I find it hard to see how these books could advocate a genuine "anti-war" position. 176.61.94.25 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a valid point.Historian932 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Pat really write it?
I know oftentimes "celebrities" have ghostwriters, has he actually claimed penmanship for it?Historian932 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't he have written it? The notion that the two world wars were disastrous for Britain and France is hardly new. The Suez Crisis in 1956 proved Buchanan was right. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:4802:4FAA:5812:3708 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120151750/http://www.redcounty.com/bookclub/2008/07/churchill-hitler-and-the-unnec/ to http://www.redcounty.com/bookclub/2008/07/churchill-hitler-and-the-unnec/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004065625/http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/deflating-the-churchill-myth.aspx to http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/deflating-the-churchill-myth.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)