have been brought up never to involve myself in American domestic politics. However, the nonsense advanced by Patrick Buchanan in his recently published book ''A Republic, Not An Empire'' impels me to break the rule of a lifetime.
Buchanan criticizes Britain and France for challenging Hitler in 1939, claiming that he was headed east toward Russia and therefore posed no threat to Western Europe.
Indeed, he quotes Hitler as saying, ''Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. '' That, of course, was a blatant ploy designed to disarm the hostility of Britain and France and to sow doubt and discord in the ranks of the democracies. Who but a political innocent would, with the benefit of hindsight, accept Hitler's word at face value?
Buchanan further attacks Winston Churchill for leading the crusade against Nazi Germany in 1940 and for the fact that the war bankrupted Britain and led to the loss of the British Empire.
Why an Irish-American should be so concerned by Britain's loss of its empire, I am at a loss to understand. Buchanan even states that, had Britain remained aloof from the conflict, Hitler would have allowed Britain to retain its empire. Well, it is very nice to have the reassurances of Herr Hitler and Mr. Buchanan on this point, but Churchill's concern was less for the retention of the British Empire than to defend Britain's freedom and to liberate the nations of occupied Europe.
Buchanan puts himself forward as a proponent of the doctrine of isolationism and the concept of ''Fortress America.'' He believes that his policies should be tried by the America of today. In so doing he conveniently overlooks the fact that these policies have indeed been tried, and with disastrous effect: They led to World War II, in which tens of millions of lives were lost and from which, ultimately, even America could not escape.
Somebody should tell Buchanan that adopting the posture of an ostrich by sticking one's head in the sand is not only inglorious; it makes you appear ridiculous and places you in a highly vulnerable position. The premise that by standing aloof from commitments in the wider world America can avoid being dragged into conflicts is false.
It was specifically because the United States turned its back on Europe as soon as World War I was won - with the Senate repudiating President Woodrow Wilson's proposal for a League of Nations - that led Hitler to believe that a rearmed Germany could go on a rampage with impunity.
The League of Nations, without US participation and commitment, proved toothless and ineffectual in restraining the aggression of Mussolini against North Africa and Ethiopia, of Japan against Manchuria, and of Hitler against his neighbors. Likewise the main democracies - Britain and France, without the backing and support of America, proved powerless against Hitler's aggression.
Not only was World War II the direct outcome of such doomed and feckless policies, but ultimately there proved to be no hiding place even for an America deeply committed to isolationism, as was made starkly clear by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and Hitler's declaration of war against the United States immediately thereafter.
Thus, against its will, America found herself dragged again into a world war, the winning of which was to cost some 235,000 American lives.
There is little doubt that had America not pursued the disastrous policy of isolationism, World War II could have been avoided. It was not for nothing that Churchill called it the `Unnecessary War,' for he was convinced that, at least up to 1936 - possibly up to 1938 - resolute and united action by the democracies, including America, could have stopped Hitler in his tracks without a shot fired.
One need only look at the success achieved in the postwar years by the US policy of engagement - the direct antithesis of isolationism - to see the contrast.
The United States, by its creation and active leadership in a strong NATO alliance, successfully prevented the threatened occupation of Western Europe by the Soviet Red Army in the wake of World War II and saved a Third World War, which almost certainly would have been nuclear, by neutralizing the Soviet threat.
Furthermore, by its forward policy it won the Cold War, bringing about the downfall of the ''Evil Empire'' and securing the liberation from totalitarian rule of the nations of Eastern Europe. All this was achieved without a shot being fired thanks to America pursuing the path of courage, which proved to be the path of both prudence and peace.
Had America in the postwar years pursued instead the policies of isolationism, can anyone doubt that it would have led as directly to disaster and another world war, probably nuclear - from which the United States would not have been able to stand aloof, in the same way that those identical policies pursued in the '20s had led to World War II.
So, as we stand on the brink of the new millennium, what are the lessons that we should learn from the terrible experiences of previous generations this century?
Quite specifically and directly, that isolationism leads to war, while a policy of active engagement with other democracies and America's allies provides the surest path to peace. So long as America espouses the path of courage and together with its allies continues to keep its defenses and the NATO alliance in good repair, those who wish to see American values of liberty and democracy triumph across the world need have little to fear.
Winston S. Churchill is a former member of Parliament and the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.
