Then let's just say Pat's credibility is going down faster than the Luftwaffe did when it met the P51 Mustang:
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.
War breaks out.
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
Add to that all the millions of non-Poles who died. All because the Poles didn't negotiate.
First a minor bit of historical correction. The Luftwaffe did not go down fast in the Battle of Britain. It went on for quite a while and a lot of brave airmen died in fending them off. Hitler gave up and moved on to other things, with the Luftwaffe remaining quite a potent force for a long time after that.
Nowhere does Pat say WWII would not have happened but for Poland's intransigence. The only conclusion is that it could not have gone worse for Poland and might have gone better.
You’re the one weak on logic. You seem to have forgotten that Germany and the USSR already had Poland “partitioned” at the time of the the “negotiations.” Further, the Nazis had designs on Russia, anyway - which required access through Poland.
So, no matter what, the consequences would have been the same.
At least, by not negotiating, the Poles were not humiliated and got to take a shot at the Krauts before they went under. And the Free Poles made good contributions to the war effort, too.
Of course your logic is incomplete. Under the second option the world still would have gone to war, but the consequences for Poland could not have been worse than they were under Option 1.
The quote by Pat that's been posted several times does state that the tanks wouldn't have rolled had Poland negotiated on Danzig. Without tanks moving there's no war right? The only logical conclusion to make from those remarks is that the war was Poland's fault.
Now I realize he's trying to draw an analogy to modern day events but not only is it an inaccurate one but it is insulting to our intelligence and silly. Hitler and only Hitler started WW2 and everybody else who suffered because of it were his victims.
So, you conclude, based upon my language, explaining why the rapist murdered the girl, that I have justified the rapist.
Hitler tried to get the girl to put out, from March until August, but she just wouldn't. So Hitler got his buddy and they raped and killed the girl and her family. If only she had put out, none of the unpleasantness would have happened.
Is that your logic?
Then let's just say Pat's credibility is going down faster than the Luftwaffe did when it met the P51 Mustang:
I actualy believe you are serious.
Oh for goodness sakes, for several hundred years Vienna was the de facto capital of the German nation. The Hapsburgs were the elected Emperors almost continuosly from the beginning of the 15th century until 1806.
Excuse me. I should have said "defended Pat Buchanan's idiotic views of history (influenced by his own anti-Jewish attitudes)." There. All better.
I take it then you've completely demolished ever point made by Enchante?
Nope. But then you were never very good at logic.
What point? Other than misconstruing every one else's argument his only real point was to add that not only did the British make promises to Poland they did not keep but so did the French. That does not change the fundamental argument about whether it is improper ever to negotiate with a mortal enemy.
What they did in Holland was not pleasant at all, but it paled in comparison to what Hitler did in Poland, not to try to put a fine a point on degrees of inhumanity.
Oh . . . I don't know. Maybe the one about where the Poles had learned from Czechoslovakia that Hitler was a liar who intended from the beginning to conquer the whole country and only used the Danzig Corridor as an excuse (contrary to the lies of Buchanan).
Okay. That's enough for me to understand where you're coming from.
Go back to your "American Opinion Bookstore" and fight the "money power" and stop pinging me. I never pinged you.
Except Danzig was never a Polish city in the first place.
(There are plenty of historical references on the web that you can look up yourself.)
Dang, I never had time until now to actually read futher that the first few posts on this thread and react to the responses to my own comment to post 15. My hat is certainly off to you on this exceptionally intelligent and gutsy read.
You write this biggotry and expect to get away with it. No one is defending Hitler, Buchanan certainly did not, in this article anyway, and I cannot imagine what part of libertarianism you think has anything to do with fascism or anti-semitism.
Congratulations.
I’ve been here quite a while and don’t recall anyone holding up Molly Ivins’ opinion as either correct or even entertaining before.
Times they are a changing .
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.