Replies

I did read the article, thank you. While I never could endorse every post on FR, I am not discussing other posts, I am talking about the (very low) quality of Pat Buchanan’s “thought” and not what any particular FReepers may say about him.

Look, to write about the Danzig and Sudetenland issues without even acknowledgement that Hitler himself PROVED he was up to much more than simply uniting German-speakers with the Fatherland is preposterous (naturally PB fails to interest himself in the fates of all the millions, both German-speakers, and non-German speakers, who did NOT want to be absorbed into Hitler’s Germany). To fail to confront the fact that Hitler invaded and annexed Czechoslovakia far beyond the Sudetenland in March 1939 proves that PB is either too ignorant or too dishonest (or both) to be taken seriously.

PB tries to pretend that “oh, if only they’d given Hitler the Sudetenland and Danzig, there would have been no WWII”

The March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia proves how idiotic PB’s position is, so of course he does not confront that obvious stunning counter-example.

The 1930s “appeasers” at least had the excuse that they could (pretend to) not see what Hitler was up to, even though he had laid it out in “Mein Kampf” and Churchill had discussed it extensively in his writings and speeches. PB has NO EXCUSE after the fact for being such a pitiful appeasement-monkey and ignoring major facts such as the fate of Czechoslovakia AFTER they’d already given up the Sudetenland.

Is PB dishonest or incompetent? Take your pick..... I’ll say both.

I believe you missed the entire thrust of the article because you disagree with what might have potentially been the outcome of negotiations with Poland about Danzig. This is not what the article is about. The real issue is whether it makes sense to talk with, or negotiate with, our enemies. Some seem to think the very idea of this is appeasement. I and Buchanan, along with Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy and many others disagree. The appeasement comes from what you agree to, or don't agree to, not from the mere act of talking.

Chamberlain was a fool not for talking with Hitler but because he, possibly because of his naivete, made foolish agreements. I, and many others, fear what someone like Obama might do not because of who they might talk with but because of what foolish agreements they might make. I feel almost the same way about McCain who has shown a certain naivite with his stands on GITMO, interrogation techniques, rights of enemy combatants and even global warming.

I don't have any doubt that President Bush was making a political point in his speech about negotiating with terrorists and I don't have any problem with his political statement. However, history has shown, as Buchanan was pointing out, that negotiating with your enemy is only foolish when you are ignorant and/or naive and make agreements that benefit your enemy instead of your own Country. Chamberlain did this, Reagan did not. Bush expended a lot of time and energy negotiating with Hussein, it didn't work out. He also has spent a lot of time and energy on diplomatic efforts with Iran and "palistinian" leaders. They haven't worked out. It doesn't change the fact that talking and negotiating with our enemies is often worthwhile as long as foolish agreements are not entered into.