Posted on 05/21/2008 6:49:34 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Last week we noted the bizarre arguments of Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, who tried so hard to defend Barack Obama against President Bush’s “appeasement” speech that he actually ended up defending Hitler for annexing Austria. His exact words were: “What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable.”
If you think that’s an ahistorical pretzel of monumental proportions, though, you ain’t seen nothin’ — because here comes Pat Buchanan. According to old Pat, not only was the Anchluss not a problem, Hitler’s invasion of Poland was also perfectly understandable, given the Poles’ refusal to negotiate.
Those darned stubborn Poles were responsible for starting World War II, according to Pat: Bush Plays the Hitler Card.
German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.
Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.
But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.
From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.
The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.
Think what way? What point do you think Pat was actually making? Please back this up with an exact quote from his article.
You apparently disregard the fact that Hitler’s word was worthless, and noted in the excerpt that I provided.
The part about “...in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points...” is pretty absurd all by itself.
We all know that. What does that have to do with Pat's point?
"What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?"
Poland was caught between two dictators. Did their actions make them more secure? Did the talks of Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan make us more secure?
So, Pat thinks that if only the Poles had given up Danzig, Herr Hitler would have tended his garden quietly, painted some water colors, and stood as a bulwark against Bolshevism?
Obviously, Hitler would not have done that. He wanted lebensraum in the East at the expense of the Slavs and he was going to try to get it no matter how much appeasement the West attempted. His seizure of the rump of Czecheslovakia was proof of that. The same was true of Japan in China.
Anyone can see that. Anyone except modern day appeasers and crypto-Nazis.
“I don’t like Buchanan myself, but he’s not totally off base here. “
Agree with him or not, I have found Buchanan usually knows what he is talking about when he talks about the second world war, in terms of facts, and usually knows far more than the vast majority of his critics.
“[and Hitler never betrayed a country allied to him until they did him].”
Not being sarcastic - this is distinct from countries he simply made non-aggression or other neutrality-type pacts with (like the USSR)?
“What did I expect them to do after losing a war they started and then getting the raw end of the deal in the post-War (Versailles) treaty, you ask? Well, to not start another (far deadlier) World War, for one. And to not slaughter tens of millions of innocent civilians in an attempt to compensate for their battered egos, for another. “
You need to read more history. Neither of these expectations was realistic, though the second did get taken to serious extremes in this case.
“Then for standing up to Hitler they got rewarded by being occupied by Stalin. “
This is sure to give some here fits, but I do recall Buchanan making this very point on Matthews show some years ago, with his comment being that Churchill had betrayed Poland.
Looking at the end outcome for the Poles after depending on the Anglo-French declaration, it is hard to disagree.
I believe Pat has finally gone totally off the tracks because he is tortured by the belief that WWI and WWII precipitated the end of Western civilization which we are now witnessing in the supine demographic and cultural takeover of Europe by the Muslims. In his mind, it would be better to let Hitler rule then let Europe sink into its suicidal decline. It's crazy but given the context of his last set of books, it makes sense (to him).
“But Hitler’s defeat by the Russians was inevitable either way “
Would Poland joining the axis have sped up the timetable of Barbarossa? So many variables, (were the winters mild in any year preceding the actual invasion of the USSR?), would the US have sent material support to the USSR much earlier than they had, as the US wasn’t in the war until 1942 effectively?
That’s a great explanation. I think you’re right.
“However, this whole “Pat is a Nazi” thing is silly. Pat’s making a reasonable argument(that people can disagree with, but it’s still reasonable) in support of his greater argument, that negotiating with monsters can yield positive results and *not* doing it can be disastrous. “
I think this is a combination of many (but not all, some disagreeing know a good bit as is shown here) posters being historically ignorant of anything beyond ‘germany bad’ analysis of WWII, and a fair amount of anti-buchanan sentiment, no matter what he writes. If he writes ‘sun may rise tomorrow,’ the responses would include limited unequivocal agreement at best.
“I think you misunderstand Pat. Pat doesn’t have any moral compass, he could care less about what is “right”. The only thing that goes through Pat’s head is “Does this action help or hinder the objectives and culture of the United States?”. Pat, Karl Rove and Liddy are all products of the Nixon White House. When you view it through that lens it makes a lot more sense. “
Is this realpolitik?
Thank you so much for bringing an informed historian’s voice to this thread.
Interesting. Well, given European history fcrom 1945 on, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Western Civilization lost in WWII, given the overwhelming victory of totalitarianism of another kind. First Communism, now Islamism. But to think that Germany’s victory would have been better for the West, sounds as insane as the official history’s myth of the great victory over Great Evil.
“
And yet the cynical alliance stood until June 1941, despite the realization of both leaderst that the other wanted war on his own terms. “
Not despite, but BECAUSE both leaders realized this. It appeared to serve the interests of both parties, though I am not sure what sort of information Stalin was actually getting, with his extensive and insane purging of his officer corp as well as anyone who actually seemed to succeed and draw attention to themselves.
Finally, a voice of reason from (presumably) the heart of Marin County, U.S.A. Like, OMmmmmm, dude!
“because he is tortured by the belief that WWI and WWII precipitated the end of Western civilization “
The world wars were certainly Europe’s suicide dance, and I certainly agree the 2 were a tremendous blow to western civilization (from which it never recovered) which has changed the map and political character of the entire world today.
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.