Posted on 10/31/2011 9:36:59 PM PDT by WilliamHouston
The GOP deserves to be trashed when it puts idiots like Michael Steele in charge of the GOP and selects John McCain as the Republican nominee.
Only a fool would have read that book and arrived at that conclusion. We have been governed by fools for so long than many people are unable to tell the difference.
In what sense did Britain win the Second World War? In what sense did Poland win the Second World War? Both countries lost the war.
As for America, it was FDR who foolishly got us involved in the U.N. and NATO, and who mired us in a thousand conflicts which are none of our business, and which have sapped our strength as a nation.
There is nothing whatsoever “anti-Catholic” about Pat Buchanan. He is one of the most serious Catholic conservatives around.
What’s your definition of “conservative”?
Is a conservative someone who opposes diversity, opposes multiculturalism, opposes abortion, opposes gay marriage, supports gun rights, opposes third world immigration, opposes affirmative action, takes the culture war seriously, who is serious Christian, who knows a thing or two about history and tradition, and who consistently puts American interests first in foreign policy and economic policy?
If that is conservatism, then Pat Buchanan is a conservative.
OTOH, there are “conservatives” (aka liberals) who believe in civil unions for homosexuals, who change their position on abortion, who support open borders and comprehensive immigration reform, who believe it is a good idea to create “democracies” in places like Libya and Egypt, who support multiculturalism and amnesty for illegal aliens as a means to “reach out” to Hispanic voters.
All of Pat Buchanan’s books are great.
Buchanan is a fool. His "facts" about Danzig either show he is completely uneducated or he's a bald-faced liar.
‘Will America Survive to 2025...’
Probably not.
Wow, way to come up with something irrelevant. Poland may not have "won" WWII. But that is not evidence that the USSR and Nazi Germany were just. Nazi Germany murdered many Polish, including a huge number of priests. Russia came through and did the same thing. (Karol Wojyla was saved by a mere accident) Now does the fact that Poland was in a rather unfortunate position after WWII somehow make those two facts somehow benevolent? That is a bizarre accident.
Furthermore, it's major logical flaw to somehow conclude that any stupid actions FDR may have undertaken, somehow vindicate Stalin or Hitler.
“Did you read the book?”
Yes, I have it right here.
“His idea is that the Poland should have been divided up by Nazi Germany and the USSR and the Poles murdered by them.”
No, Buchanan’s idea was that Poland should have ceded Danzig (a German city anyway) to Germany, and Britain shouldn’t have given its foolish war guarantee to the junta that ruled Poland.
If Britain and Poland had done that, then Hitler wouldn’t have invaded Poland and wouldn’t have forged a strategic alliance with the USSR, and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union wouldn’t have carved up Poland and millions of Poles and Jews wouldn’t have died and Poland wouldn’t have lost its independence until the 1990s.
In what sense was the British war guarantee a good idea? It turned out to be a worthless guarantee and Poland’s death certificate. It was also Britain’s death certificate as a great power as that stupid war guarantee turned out to be the occasion of the Second World War.
“He advocated the kidnapping of Pius XII by Hitler.”
I don’t remember coming across that one. Buchanan has never been anything but stridently pro-Catholic and I have been reading him for ten years now. That is clear from his latest book and his latest column which happens to be about anti-Catholic bigotry.
Sorry, no deal. Buchanan is neither Catholic or conservative. (He may be a baptized Catholic, but he is apostate) You may want to check out the writings of Eugenio Pacelli, who was Papal Nuncio to Germany in the 20s, and followed Germany in the 30s, and later became an important figure in the Church. His writings completely contradict everything Buchanan wrote, which may be why Buchanan collaterally approved of plans for his kidnap and murder. (Buchanan never says so much, but he approves of the plans which were to result in that.) Not too mention Buchanan's unapologetic support of communism.
“Buchanan is a fool.”
No, the fools were clearly the governments of Britain and Poland, whose actions resulted in the worst case scenario for both countries. The worst case scenario for Poland was the lost of independence for half a century, communist rule, and the death of millions of people.
“His “facts” about Danzig either show he is completely uneducated or he’s a bald-faced liar.”
Hmm.
So what you are saying is that Danzig wasn’t a German city and it wasn’t part of Germany prior to being stripped away and given to Poland after WW2? Buchanan is a “bald faced liar” and “uneducated” for stating the consensus view within Germany from across the entire political spectrum that Danzig was a German city?
“Sorry, no deal. Buchanan is neither Catholic or conservative.”
Define conservatism. I would like to hear your definition. This should be interesting. How in the world is Wilsonian liberal internationalism conservatism?
“His writings completely contradict everything Buchanan wrote, which may be why Buchanan collaterally approved of plans for his kidnap and murder. (Buchanan never says so much, but he approves of the plans which were to result in that.)”
In other words, having just said that Buchanan said that Hitler ought to kidnap the Pope, he really said no such thing in the book.
“Not too mention Buchanan’s unapologetic support of communism.”
I’ve never seen Buchanan defend communism anywhere. Where does Buchanan defend Marxism and communism?
D
In the world of nickcarraway ...
(1) It is irrelevant that millions of Poles lost their lives and that two countries, not one, ravaged Poland, and that Poland lost its independence for fifty years, and that the British war guarantee that was the occasion of the whole conflict was worthless, and that FDR and Churchill acknowledged the demise of Poland at the Yalta conference.
(2) Buchanan never argues anywhere in the book that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were “just.”
(3) Buchanan argues that it was the British war guarantee, which happened to be worthless, that caused the war.
(4) As Buchanan points out, it was the British war guarantee that inspired Hitler’s alliance with Stalin.
(5) A rather unfortunate position! Quite an understatement, don’t you think?
Once again, the worst case scenario unfolded in Poland - the death of millions, the annihilation of its cities, the murder of its elite, the loss of independence for half a century - because of the foolishness of its own leaders and the foolishness of the British government.
(6) No one is trying to “vindicate” Hitler or Stalin except in your own imagination. Winston Churchill was a warmongering fool who destroyed the British Empire. That’s the argument.
Poland would have been better off if it had never taken that stupid war guarantee and if it had ceded Danzig to Germany. How many millions of Poles would be alive today if Poland’s leaders had chartered a wiser course? How many Germans? How many Europeans?
How could Poland have ceded Danzig to Germany, when DANZIG WAS NOT PART OF POLAND!!! Is Buchanan a liar, or merely uneducated?
Hmm.
(1) Why did Germany invade Poland? What was the issue between those two countries that necessitated a war?
It was the question of whether Danzig - a city that was 95 percent German, which had been torn away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty - would be incorporated into Germany, right?
(2) You have your facts wrong.
- First, Germany demanded the incorporation of Danzig into Germany, as Danzig was a German city. The Poles refused to cede Danzig. The British, stung by Munich, gave a war guarantee to Poland.
- Second, the Poles refused to back down over Danzig. Germany declared war.
- Third, Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around, because of the stupid and worthless war guarantee to Poland.
- Fourth, “Czechoslovakia” was a tyranny that was hated by the Germans, Slovaks, Poles, and Hungarians that had been forced to live under Czech rule.
The Poles and Hungarians also invaded “Czechoslovaka.” The Slovaks declared their independence. They didn’t want to live under Czech rule ... and rejected “Czechoslovakia” again in the Velvet Divorce.
- Fifth, it was Britain that dragged the United States into the war, after Britain was dragged into the war by the worthless war guarantee.
(3) Buchanan never argues that England was “evil” for giving the war guarantee. Unwise, yes. It was undoubtedly one of the most foolish decisions ever made by any empire in all of world history.
Britain didn’t have the resources or capability to ensure Poland’s independence. It surely had no real interests either in a poor country in Eastern Europe anyway.
(4) Saying that the “Nazis” were “aggressive” for demanding the annexation of the Sudetenland and Danzig is like saying that America is “aggressive” for refusing to cede Seattle, Portland, and Boston to foreign powers.
All of Germany - liberal, socialist, conservative, Nazi, communist - agreed that Danzig was a German city that had been unjustly torn from Germany. That was not a “Nazi” position. It was mainstream view within Germany for obvious reasons.
(5) Why was there a “Free City of Danzig” in the first place? Because after WW1 a punitive treaty - one that America rejected in disgust, which caused America to turn its back on Europe - was imposed on Germany by Britain and France which was designed to cripple the country and keep Germany in thrall to Britain and France.
(6) There is plenty of logic to Buchanan’s argument: the worthless Polish war guarantee was the cause of Polish brinkmanship which was the cause of the German invasion which was the cause of the Soviet invasion which was the cause of Britain and France declaring war and the cause of the Second World War.
That worthless war guarantee resulted in the worst possible scenario for Poland - enslavement, the death of millions, the ruin of the country, the obliteration of its cities, communist and fascist rule, the loss of independence for fifty years - and by extension it also destroyed Britain as a world power.
There is nothing in the least bit “communist” about Buchanan’s argument. On the contrary, it was Churchill who in his “naughty document” ceded Poland and much of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Greece) to Stalin at the Yalta Conference.
It was Winston Churchill who abandoned Poland.
So if you and Mr. Buchanan are intellectually honest, you believe that any U.S. city which has a population of more than 50% Mexican should be immediately ceded to Mexico. And if the United Stated doesn't immediately do that, and hostile actions taken by Mexico are the fault of the U.S.?
“How could Poland have ceded Danzig to Germany, when DANZIG WAS NOT PART OF POLAND!!! Is Buchanan a liar, or merely uneducated?”
Because the whole issue between the two countries was the status of Danzig, which was the “Free City of Danzig,” in spite of having a 95 percent German population, and Poland vowed to go to war with Germany rather than to consent to the annexation of Danzig by Germany.
Danzig was the cause of the war between Germany and Poland. The cause of the refusal of the Poles to cede their rights to Danzig was the British war guarantee.
Danzig was a free city, not part of Poland, and it was undemocratically controlled by Nazis after 1933. You might as well asked why Poland didn't cede control of Jupiter.
Since Nazis already controlled Danzig in 1939, when they invaded Poland, it was obviously a nonsensical pretext to invade Poland. Don't you get that? They were taking Danzig, which was already controlled by an nonDemocratic Nazi government, they were taking Poland.
“So if you and Mr. Buchanan are intellectually honest, you believe that any U.S. city which has a population of more than 50% Mexican should be immediately ceded to Mexico.”
Laughs.
That’s an absurd analogy. There are millions of Mexicans in the Southwest because Washington has allowed them to move there. Buchanan has already pointed out how Mexico has de facto control over parts of California, Arizona, and Texas.
In contrast, the Versailles Treaty was a farce that was designed to cripple and punish Germany, Austria, and Hungary. Danzig was only one example of German territorial cessions to foreign countries.
Germany and Austria were also forced to cede territory to Belgium, Italy, France, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark. Germans were placed under the rule of foreigners to cripple Germany.
Surely, that’s what the demilitarization of the Rhineland was about, the loss the Saar valley, putting the Sudeten Germans under Czech rule to given “Czechoslovakia” (a country that had existed before in all of history) a defensible border, as well as rewarding Poland with Danzig and the Polish corridor.
It was such an obvious and disgusting attempt to cripple Germany that America, let’s remember, rejected the Versailles Treaty and signed a separate peace and for the next twenty years had little to do with Britain or France.
“And if the United Stated doesn’t immediately do that, and hostile actions taken by Mexico are the fault of the U.S.?”
A more accurate analogy would be a war between the United States and Britain that resulted in putting Boston and New England under the rule of Canada and Louisiana under the rule of France.
Then you would sit here and cry about “American aggression” in attempts to take back New England and Louisiana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.