Posted on 05/21/2008 6:49:34 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Flat out you say. Really? Where?
Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate...
Their hatred for Pat is so great their minds were made up before they even read the article.
It's been posted at least three times already:
"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."
What's clearly being said is that if the Poles rolled over and negotiated away Danzig that maybe all the death and destruction that followed might have been avoided. Given Hitler's prior adventures how could anyone believe such a thing unless they're a fool or an apologist? Pat is smart enough to know what he's saying and also capable of coming up with better analogies when discussing how American administrations should deal with their enemies so why doesn't he?
In stating this we have no more "justified" the murder of the girl than Pat has the rape of Poland? Stating that either girls or foreign governments might, backed into impossible corners, have a chance at survival through negotiation, does not "justify" what happens either. Both might likewise question the actionability of absolute guarantees from police, local or international.
Pat says this where? His only conclusion is that negotiation could not have worsened Polland's position as it suffered the worst possible outcome without negotiation.
The parallel that I think Pat is trying to draw, however, in raising the case of Polland is over the issue of relying on absolute 3rd party guarantees. In this repsect there is a clear parallel between the position of Poland then and the position that Israel might be in, today, as a consequence of Iran flexing its muscles. A foolish person might read Bush's statements as an absolute guarantee to Israel just as Poland foolishly took Chamberline's futile promises as a guarantee.
This knee jerk hyperreaction to all of their perceived enemies is the downfall American conservatism. While conservatism is reasonable and defensible, many of its adherents are totally unreasoning, and bring such scorn upon themselves that the cause has become repulsive to many. I am not here to save Pat Buchanan whom I think about not once every two years. I am here to save the habit of reason upon which conservatism depends.
And yours is the kind of logic upon which the conservative cause is supposed to depend?
No, I conclude from Pat's language...
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.
...that Pat blames Poland for the war. If only they had negotiated, the tanks would never have rolled. That Pat thinks they deserved what happened.
Do you agree with Pat's "logic"?
Option 1: Stand intransigent and rely on Chamberlain's guarantees. Outcome 1: Chamberalain's word was worthless, Poland was devastated, its population decimated or worse, the country was divided, and suffered 50 years of communist oppression.
Option 2: Recognise we are in an untenable position and try to negotiate something. Outcome 2: Historically unknowable since we took option 1, which turned out to be the worst of all possible worlds.
None of that analysis is moral absolution or justification of Hitler.
Again Pat states these conclusions exactly where?
Since when did FReepers put knee-jerk emotion over facts and logic?
He's wrong about WWII. The Czechoslovakian experience showed that it was impossible to negotiate with Hitler.
I can certainly understand the desire to avoid piling on, but wrong is wrong, even if everybody else says the same thing.
Again Pat states these conclusions exactly where?
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.
The war came because they refused to negotiate. That led to the millions of dead. All because they refused to negotiate. If only they were as smart as Pat, WWII wouldn't have begun.
Never said it was. Pat blaming Poland for the war is not the same as Pat saying Hitler was justified.
Magnificent! Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight by an appeal to the simple facts of history.
It is most unfortunate that there are still, and perhaps always will be, elements of the "right" that are so reflexively anti-Jewish that they will defend Hitler (mach shemo!). And is it not very ironic that so many of these defenders of Hitler are "libertarians?" I suppose that makes as much sense as "anarchists" who defend Stalin and Mao.
Unfortunately, I don't think you will get a straight answer, much less change any minds. To some people the defeat of Hitler was "the defeat of the West" just as Israel is the "vatican" of the "new world order."
Again my friend. Try logic:
Option 1. Refuse to negotiate. Consequence: 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
Option 2. Negotiate. Consequence: We don't know. But it could not have been worse than option 1.
Pat only states that Poland made a choice and it had a consequence. It is no different from stating that the girl made the choice not to negotiate with her rapist and as a result of this refusal she was murdered. She made a choice and a consequence followed. It is a simple statement of logic and consequence an is not a moral judgement on either party.
Who anywhere near here has defended Hitler's abominations, where and how?
But in hindsight we along with Pat can know what Option 2 would have meant for Poland given Hitler's barbarism in other parts of Europe long after Poland had fallen. Look at what he did to Holland after they surrendered.
Having said that Option 1 was the only tenable choice they could make after watching how Hitler had behaved with Czechoslovakia. Pat only compounds his silliness when he then exclaims that had Poland given in there might not have been a war at all.
It's ludicrous on its face and while I do like Pat if he keeps up this kind of reasoning his credibility, what's left of it is going to go down faster than the Luftwaffe did in the Battle of Britain.
Who is apologising for Hitler? Where did Pat or anyone else say that Hitler's demands were reasonable? Do you seriously think that British and French ecouragement of the Poles was reasonable given their compete inability to actually do anything. It is like our encouragement of Hungarian dissidents in 1956. We did nothing could have done very little more than the nothing we did do, and a lot of unfortunate people died and were hauled off to prison as a consequence of our immoral encouragement.
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.