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.
Concur. Given what we knew about the Germans it indeed wasn't realisitic to expect them not to slaughter countless innocents. Should've seen it coming.
And who are you accusing of being modern day appeasers and crypto-Nazis. And since the utterance of this would be defamation unless you can demonstrate the truth of the assertion, where exactly did said alleged appeasers and crypto-Nazis make a statement that demonstrates the truth of what you are calling them.
What I said is obvious. If the glove doesn’t fit, don’t try to wear it.
What is obvious is that you are trying to backpedal your way out of your scurrilous slander as fast as you can.
It’s my belief that without the massive military and economic aid that the US supplied the Soviet Union along with the relentless American and British bombing of strategic targets in Germany itself they very well could have lost. As it was and despite the aid the war in the Eastern front lasted a good four years, with several of them in a bloody stalemate. But even with Poland allied with Hitler at gunpoint I still don’t think ultimately the outcome would have been much different though as you rightly stated there are so many variables to take into consideration I guess we’ll never really know.
Are you one of those?
Conducting negotiations with someone who has no intention of keeping their word is pointless.
Yes he most certainly is "justifying" Hitler's behavior.
Mr. Buchanan seems to think that it's the Poles' fault that Hitle "had" to invade.
Somehow, Hitler's only option was to team up with the Soviets and invade, once those nasty ol' Poles' failed to "negotiate" (i.e., give in to Hitler's demands).
Essentially, he's asking, "what other choice did Hitler have?"
Well, Hitler could have, oh ... not invaded? Not teamed up with that other noted mass murderer, Mr. Stalin?
To blame the Poles is to ignore Hitler's ambitions. Pat does that a lot.
But ... if we are to accept Pat's logic ... how are we to explain Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941? What nefarious "failure to negotiate" caused that?
Oh ... and did the Jews and Ukrainians and Gypsies and Russians and Slavs and all those others who were killed by Hitler's minions ... with whom did they fail to negotiate? Are we to lay their bodies at the feet of Poland, too, even if most of them were killed long after Poland had been conquered?
There are no two ways about it: Pat is a f*cking loon, a Nazi apologist, and he has been for quite some time. Beyond that, his behavior and writings suggest that he's hated -- hated -- the Bush family for years. So, in addition to being a loon, he's further addled by BDS.
Where does Pat excuse Hitler for the moral culpability for his abominations?
Right here:
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.
So you see, if Chamberlain hadn't guaranteed, and the Poles had done the right thing and given in ... Hitler wouldn't have done any of that other stuff! And neither would the Soviets! Aren't those Poles horrible?
Pat's insane.
A statement of fact of the form "A threatened B if B would not comply with A's unlawful demand; B refused to comply with A's demand; A killed B." is not a statement of justifiable homicide, but rather the factual statement on which a prosecutor can seek conviction for premeditated murder. In this case A is Hitler and B is Poland.
Pointing out that had B negotiated with A his murder might not have been a forgone conclusion does not relieve A of indictment for first degree murder. It is merely analyzing B's possible moves in a game theoretic sense.
You see, because of your blind rage every time you see the red flag of Pat Buchanan’s name you have deferred all the finer descriminations of the rational mind, such as a simple difference between the meaning of “explain” and “justify.” The difference between saving a rape target’s life and convicting a rapist of felony assault and murder rest on the fine difference in meaning between those two words.
He does precisely that, by blaming the horrors that followed on the Poles' failure to negotiate: "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."
It's a historically silly position that Hitler would have played nice, except for the Poles' intransigence, but that's what Pat is saying here.
Hitler wanted “Nieu Ostpolitik.” But whereas the German princes largely encouraged colonialization-by-settlement in eastern Europe, Hitler wanted all areas under direct German control prior to settlement, with the natives being enslaved, and the settlers encouraged to multiply. Lebensraum (”living space”) was a more direct (and brutal) update on Ostpolitik.
Buchanan states:The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead
Now let us consider the parallel I starated to raise. In a rape prevention and response training class, suppose we take girls through an exercise where we EXPLAIN that the consequence in a specific case of a certain victim refusing to acceede to the demands of her assailant at knife point was that she was stabbed to death. Suppose before she expired in the hospital she had explained that she had relied upon statements from the Chief of police that she could always rely upon the police to protect her, but the police had not heeded her calls. Suppose we explain that the victim had an alternative, that she might have tried to negotiate and might be alive today.
Have we JUSTIFIED the rapist/murderer in the case we reviewed? Can these statements be used by a defense attorney to get his rapist muderer off? Instead, haven't we simply EXPLAINED to some young girls that relying on the promises of the police can be foolish, and that you might have an option of survival in negotiating with your assailant as opposed to near certainty of being murdered if you don't comply.
This is really not so hard if you try to understand the clear difference between justify and explain and put your mind to what Pat actually says in his own words and not your corrupt efforts to paraphrase and interpret and put your own meaning into his words.
Fine. Let's play your game. Then we can say that Pat "justifies" Hitler's invasion on the basis of liberating the "95% German" population of Danzig:
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.
We can certainly credit the Treaty of Versailles with helping to ensure a second world war. Nevertheless, Wilson's 14 points were not law in any sense of the word.
(BTW: it's rather preposterous to see Pat Buchanan -- that stout rejector of "Wilsonianism" -- using that hated strategy to justify his screed.)
Nor had Hitler been so concerned about "self-determination" when he undertook the Anschluss the previous year. And Pat somehow forgets to consider the "why" of dismantling Prussia, of which Danzig had once been a part.
But the Beyond that, Buchanan most certainly does justify the invasion of Poland, by implying that Hitler had no choice, given the Poles' reluctance to "negotiate" over Danzig.
And he likewise "justifies" Hitler's dismemberment of Czechoslovakia on the same basis.
There's no need for a lecture on the difference between "justify" and "explain." Pat is attempting to "justify."
Pat's a fool.
Since Pat has written out a clear indictment of the Nazi's for not playing nice I don't see how you can interpret anything Pat says in this article as claiming that the Nazi's were or would have played nice.
Stop trying to put your own words in Pat's mouth. You can take him to task for something he actually said, but not for something you imagine him to have said.
There clearly is since you still don't get the difference.
But the Beyond that, Buchanan most certainly does justify the invasion of Poland, by implying that Hitler had no choice,
Like I said, you cannot resist imagining what Pat said, putting the words in his mouth, and then berating him for them.
Where does Pat say or imply Hilter had no choice.
Pat's a fool
Based on your indictment based on words that he did not say, but which you, wanting to make Pat out to be a fool, fantasize that he said.
LOL! Pat says flat-out that none of the unpleasantness would have happened at all, but for those awful Poles' unwillingness to negotiate about Danzig.
Stop trying to put your own words in Pat's mouth.
I'm using Pat's own words -- I've justified my comments with direct quotes! You just won't admit that's what Pat's really saying (and has been saying for years).
Which says about as much about you, as it does about Pat.
Have a nice life, Andy. I have no more time for your twaddle.
Those were not "Pat's own words" bu yours, r9etb's own words, put into the mouth of Pat Buchanan to get around the fact that you yourself cannot comprehend words as they are actually written or chain together a set of sentances in logical fashion to reach a logical conclusion.
Pat's conclusion in this article is that the consequence of refusal to negotiate with a mortal enemy can be your own destruction. Pat neither suggests, and it would be a logical fallacy to infer the conclusion that negotiation promises that you will survive. He only points out that it is an option, despite Bush's assertions, and further it is an option that has been taken many times, with some success, in the past.
Furthermore, look at this from Israel's side. This administration ends in 6 months. Will the next administration honor Bush's implied guarantees of Israel's future, regardless of how intransigent Israel might be? It is merely the obvious game theoretic question that Israel better be asking itself a question that arises out of Pat's history lesson.
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.