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.
The author of this hit piece recaptions it "Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler's Invasion of Poland" and quotes a portion of the article out of context.
I mean Waaah?????? Are Freepers turning senile. Back in '98 no one would have fallen for this dodge. The didn't even fall for it from Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, when they produced a good fake but real hit piece. Now Freepers are falling all over themselves because of a typical liberal smear job.
Ok, I know it's Pat and all that. He isn't my favorite either, but still, what gives?
Which silly statement? Oh did even worse happen to Czechoslovakia than happened to Poland? Tell me. What was it. According to Wikipedia "Czech losses resulting from political persecution and deaths in concentration camps totaled between 36,000 and 55,000. The Jewish population of Bohemia and Moravia (118,000 according to the 1930 census) was virtually annihilated. Many Jews emigrated after 1939; more than 70,000 were killed; 8,000 survived at Terezín. Several thousand Jews managed to live in freedom or in hiding throughout the occupation." While it is morally repugnant to make fine gradations about murderous thugs, Poland's experience was far far worse than this.
Is this realpolitik?Yup.
Bradley, go to Poland sometime. (
Poland amounts to this. The historically German areas like Olstyn, Gdansk, Wroclaw are the Polish eqivalent of First World. The Polish areas administered for hundreds of years by the Germans, Cracow, Poznan etc. are Second World. The Polish areas historically administered by Russia ( the capital excepted) are third world. This remains true even after half a century of total Russian control. The Poles made a very very very very bad choice in 1939.
I presume that you know nothing of game theory including what is called the "Prisoner's Dilemma." When you have studied it get back to me and tell me how stupid you think I am being - that is presuming that you are smart enough to understand what I am talking about.
You are also aware that most of the folks in Wroclaw (formerly Breslau) moved there AFTER WWII. The German population was ethnically cleansed and moved to douche, er, deustchland. Same goes for most of the other formerly German cities in western Poland.
Besides, I thought that the whole "First World, Second World, Third World" thing died with the cold war.
I did not know a more up to the minute metaphor. Sorry.
When Germany invaded in 1939, they did so as partners in the German-Polish Non Aggression Pact of 1934. Evidently, the Poles had negotiated with Germany. Hitler decided those negotiations weren't worth the paper they were written on. All that negotiating did not pan out too well for the Poles.
Simple and elegant evidence that negotiating with lunatics benefits only the lunatics.
Not ever saying Molly SCPHATTT! [Sound of huge glob of spit splattering on the floor] Ivins was either correct or entertaining. Just saying Pat has gone downhill toward lal-lal-land since I defended him in '92.
I love idiot paper warriors like you. My father flew 50 missions in a P51, and he didn't have quite the contempt for the quality of the Luftwaffe that you do. It is real easy to be snide and contemptuous idiot like you are when it is not your A$$ that is on the line. Great line you've got, willing to kill Poles, Israeli's, Americans, whatever, so long as your fat tail is safe.
And yes, the P51 Mustang was the deciding factor that turned the tide in the air war according to Eisenhower, and when Goering first saw it he was known to have said the jig was up. It's not contempt as you call it, it's simply pride that this nation produced better weapons which ultimately defeated a very evil enemy.
To be honest, I didn’t expect the opprobrium I got. I was just stating the history as I understand it to be. If it was useful to you, it was my pleasure.
Read Post 91
1. Well, their expectations turned out to be wrong didn't they? And for all your trumped up sophisticated eduction - in your mind - you cannot read. Anyone with any understanding of militaries and diplomacy at that time would have known that France and England did not have the force to back up that promise. Pat's point - because, in addition to not being able to read you cannot think - is that such guarantees are often worthless and counting on them can turn out to be a disaster. He is telling Bush not to make them, and telling Israel not to count on them. In your rush to attack PAT you completely forget that there is a 50% chance that in 6 months the President of the US will not feel bound by Bush's word of honor.
2. Resistance helped everywhere and we honor the brave men and women who lived and died resisting the occupation, everywhere. But the resistance did not defeat the Nazis. The mass armies of the US and Russia were required. Yes others helped and helped honorably, but it was total warfare as Clausewitz called such things.
3. The Poles were treated very harshly indeed by the Soviets. Perhaps they would have been treated worse as Nazi collaborators, but perhaps not.
What you and your silly little immoral historical fantasizers forget is that the Nazi war machine was incredibly formidible, and it took the combined armies of enormous industrial powers to defeat it. Asking folks who had no real power to stand up to the Nazis to turn themselves into Nazi tank fodder with little of strategic value to the war to show for it is immoral.
There are no straw men in my post 111. Post 111 is merely a bunch of insults delivered against your intelligence for your mulish refusal to think for yourself, really think, think hard and think deeply. You attempt to redeem your claim to lofty intelligence with this statement: "he claim was that *England* was stupid to declare war on Germany over Poland, since Germany was an overwhelming force and it was reckless for England to do so
I presume "he" in this ignorant statement refers to Buchanan. If you read his article from start to finish, you won't find the words you put in his mouth in it. No one says England was stupid to declare war against Germany. All of what Pat writes about happened before England declared war, and before the BEF got its ass handed to it and had to evacuate from Dunkirk. Pat merely says that England's unconditional guarantees to Poland was reckless, and worthless, and Poland's reliance on it was so. As it turns out, that part was right, as the referenced BEF asskicking so aptly demonstrated.
One of lessons of war is that you don't threaten war unless you are prepared to carry it out, and you don't intentionally go to war until you have the forces required to prevail. Anything less is murderously silly.
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.