The Real German Warning for Cold War II (Pat Buchanan)

The American Conservative ^ | March 7, 2014 | Pat Buchanan

[Colonel Kangaroo]

In assessing the motives and actions of Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton compared them to Adolf Hitler’s. Almost always a mistake. After 12 years in power, Hitler was dead, having slaughtered millions and conquered Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. And Putin? After 13 years in power, and facing a crisis in Ukraine, he directed his soldiers in the Crimea to take control of the small peninsula where Russia has berthed its Black Sea fleet since Napoleon. To the Wall Street Journal this is a “blitzkrieg.”

But as of now, this is a less bloody affair than Andrew Jackson’s acquisition of our Florida peninsula. In 1818, Gen. Jackson was shooting Indians, putting the Spanish on boats to Cuba and hanging Brits. And we Americans loved it.

Still, there are parallels between what motivates Putin, a Russian nationalist, and what motivated the Austrian corporal. Hitler’s war began in blazing resentment at what was done to Germany after Nov. 11, 1918. The Kaiser’s armies had defeated the Russian Empire, and the Italians at Caporetto, and fought the Western Allies to a stand still in France, until two million Americans turned the tide in 1918. When Berlin accepted an armistice on President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, not a single Allied soldier stood on German soil.

But, at Paris, the Allies proceeded to tear a disarmed Germany apart. The whole German Empire was confiscated. Eupen and Malmedy were carved out of Germany and given to Belgium. Alsace-Lorraine was taken by France. South Tyrol was severed from Austria and given to Italy. A new Czechoslovakia was given custody of 3.25 million Sudeten Germans. The German port of Danzig was handed over to the new Poland, which was also given an 80-mile wide strip cut out of Germany from Silesia to the sea, slicing her in two. The Germans were told they could not form an economic union with Austria, could not have an army of more than 100,000 soldiers, and could not put soldiers west of the Rhine, in their own country. Perhaps this Carthaginian peace was understandable given the Allied losses. It was also madness if the Allies wanted an enduring peace. Gen. Hans Von Seeckt predicted what would happen. When we regain our power, he said, “we will naturally take back everything we lost.” When Hitler came to power in 1933, he wrote off the lands lost to Belgium, France and Italy—he wanted no war with the West—but set out to recapture lost German lands and peoples in the East. He imposed conscription in 1935, sent his soldiers back into the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, demanded and got the return of the Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. He then sought to negotiate with the Polish colonels, who had joined in carving up Czechoslovakia, a return of Danzig, when the British issued a war guarantee to Warsaw stiffening Polish spines. Enraged by Polish intransigence, Hitler attacked. Britain and France declared war. The rest is history.

What has this to do with Putin? He, too, believes his country was humiliated and shabbily treated after the Cold War, and sees himself as protector of the ethnic Russians left behind when the Soviet Union came apart. Between 1989 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev had freed the captive nations of Eastern Europe, allowed the Soviet Union to dissolve into 15 nations, and had held out a hand of friendship to the Americans. What did we do? Moved NATO right onto Russia’s front porch. We brought all the liberated nations of Eastern Europe into our military alliance, along with three former Soviet republics. The War Party tried to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, which was established to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia. Had they succeeded, we could have been at war with Russia in 2008 over Georgia and South Ossetia, and today over Crimea.

Now we hear new calls for Ukraine and Georgia to be brought into NATO. Are these people sane? Five U.S. presidents who faced far more violent actions by a far more dangerous Soviet Union—Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Reagan—refused even to threaten force against Russia for anything east of the Elbe river. These presidents ruled out force during the Berlin Blockade of 1948, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the smashing of Solidarity in Poland in 1981. Yet, today, we are committed to go to war for Lithuania and Estonia, Obama is sending F-16s to Latvia where half a million Russians live, and the War Party wants Sixth Fleet warships moved into the Black Sea.

If there is a Cold War II, or a U.S.-Russia war, historians of tomorrow will as surely point to the Bushes and Clintons who shoved NATO into Moscow’s face, as historians today point to the men of Paris who imposed the Versailles treaty upon a defeated Germany in 1919.

[Alas Babylon!]

...corrupt, antisemitic entities in Europe ...

That would be about ALL of the Europeans and 95% of US democrats...

[Olog-hai]

The US never exercised interventionism in Europe until the war in Bosnia.

World Wars I and II, the US was dragged into; the former via Wilson’s weakness (re-elected on the campaign slogan “He Kept Us Out Of War” even two years after the Lusitania was sunk!) and by Germany declaring war on us in 1941 for no reason at all.

The destruction of “Made in USA” is thanks to our liberal fifth column, who have been working tirelessly to sap the moral fortitude of the USA as well as its physical ability to wage war since the end of WWII. The only hope for the nation right now is to turn to God in repentance, because it’s evident that divine protection has been withheld thanks to our moral decline; and the Bible says that the next step is God actually fighting against us, which we simply cannot survive.

[nathanbedford]

You do know that Putin’s actions are more of a provocation towards the USA and testing its mettle than any other entity on the globe, I hope. Certainly not the European Union, whom they don’t regard as a threat (yet). That’s an incursion on our national interests.

Putin is occupying portions of Ukraine, not the USA or any known treaty partner of the USA with whom we have an obligation to defend. It is the European Union, if anybody, who has been provoked. Their putative deal with Ukraine was subverted by Vladimir and Ukraine is part of Europe, not North America.

My little village just finished spending a lot of money which it has because we happen to be sitting on huge caverns filled with Russian gas. The provocation may be directed to Germany and those countries in Europe which will freeze next winter if they don't get the gas. I burn a lot of wood and America has its own gas.

I do not understand America to be provoked by Vladimir Putin after Obama has humiliated us in the eyes of the whole world and made us seem a pushover for Putin. I count national interests on a more profound scale.

[Jeff Chandler]

I am talking about Republican candidates: Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain. Romney.

.

.

When you think about their track record since Nixon . . .

.

.

[Olog-hai]

The humiliation is the impetus for the provocation. And all that has been done in response is more humiliation.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your conclusions about Poland as an example; Obama was flat wrong to renege on a commitment to supply Poland with anti-ballistic missiles. Poland is a treaty partner of the United States, a member of NATO, and a member of the European Union and therefore stands on a whole different footing than Ukraine.

Furthermore, Poland is an effective ally, committed to capitalism and democracy as opposed to Ukraine, or would be one, if Obama had not screwed the pooch. Poland is also geographically closer to central Europe and historically it has been hostile to Russia whereas the Ukraine has a mixed relationship.

I view our national interests to be served by arming Poland and drawing them into the Western trading block and supporting their democracy. Those goals are also desirable for Ukraine but much less likely to be obtained and far more risky.

[nathanbedford]

The humiliation is the impetus for the provocation.

Is this a time warp, are we back in 1914?

Are we really going to base foreign policy and the risk of thermonuclear war on a humiliation?

[nathanbedford]

I'm sorry, I have to run out the door. As always, it is a great exchange with you.

[Marguerite]

“Between 1989 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev had freed the captive nations of Eastern Europe, allowed the Soviet Union to dissolve into 15 nations, and had held out a hand of friendship to the Americans. What did we do? Moved NATO right onto Russia’s front porch. We brought all the liberated nations of Eastern Europe into our military alliance, along with three former Soviet republics. The War Party tried to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, which was established to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia. Had they succeeded, we could have been at war with Russia in 2008 over Georgia and South Ossetia, and today over Crimea.”

“Vent my folly!” - William Shakespeare

After the fall of Soviet Union, US and NATO believed that it owned the world and acted accordingly, in a ruthless way; it destabilized the whole planet Earth.
And here they stumbled upon a tough bone they can’t chew at - V.Putin. They can’t make war to him - he has nukes. They can’t use the gimmick UN against him, he has veto power. They can’t blackmail him, he keeps Europe by its energy needs’ balls. They can’t ruin him, Russia’s soil being filthy rich, with only 10% of this richness exploited. Wait until Putin industrialises Siberia. Besides , he’s got on his side the rising economy stars India and China.

I see the end of NATO and of the European Community in a near future.

[Olog-hai]

Putin certainly has.

[ansel12]

Was Reagan the, or one of the presidents you served under?

[Shery]

Actually, Buchanan makes some pretty good points, and he is historically correct, as well. The US has some explaining to do. Had we not intervened in WWI we’d not extended the war. It WAS coming to a close when we intervened. Then the austere sanctions on Germany drove Germans to worship Hitler because he WAS a hard-driving, take no prisoners type of guy that they fully believed would bring the glory days back.

As for WWII, we cannot claim any glory. We sent boatloads of Jews to their certain deaths. We did NOTHING to damage the tracks that were carrying Jews by the thousands daily to Auschwitz, and other death camps. We did not intervene on human rights issues at all. We blitzed heavy civilian areas, and I understand why, but still the same, we have blood on our hands. The twentieth century was a wash for America and we are paying for our sins, I really believe. Morally and fiscally we are washed up. We have little to be proud of, even in our churches, which mirror the culture exactly. Not saying that all churches are the same, but an honest look at the very best shows deep decay. What’s more, people DON’T really know or understand history so we repeat it over and again, but the stakes get greater and greater. They could not be higher today, but honestly, how many churches are calling for repentance, for people to fast and pray, to return to God again? So few that we might as well say NONE.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

"Isolationism was tried in both previous world wars,"

WWII was a failure of Versailles, not of isolationism. And FDR's actions on behalf of China that provoked Japanese attack were hardly isolationist. Nor should we forget that isolationism, in the imperfect manner that it was followed, gave us the tremendous advantage of being the last power in the war, an advantage totally ignored by today's Washington tough guys who seem to have a policy that we are to enter any life and death contest bloodied and bankrupt.

[Olog-hai]

When it comes to WWII, we had a lot of catching up to do. It was the war that got us out of depression after over a decade; we were ultimately not as prepared as we ought to have been. Not an advantage of isolationism, as evidently the aggressors came looking for us.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The aggressors came looking for us bloodied and already involved with other enemies. Being last to fight was a huge advantage and one that our geographical separation should guarantee if we had prudent leadership.

[ansel12]

It’s been a couple of hours since I asked you about your military service under Reagan, what’s the deal?

[BuffaloJack]

At least with an active cold war going on, the snoop agencies (CIA, FBI, DHS, TSA, ...) will have something other than American citizens to focus their efforts on.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Though I don’t see any relevance, I wasn’t in the military.

[central_va]

Doesn’t anybody play Risk anymore?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I’ve always thought we ought to buy the Washington crowd video games so they could play conquer the world with electronic warriors instead of flesh and blood Americans.