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.
Can't answer because quoting Pat accurately destroys Taranto's scurilous thesis.
The tanks rolled, not because of Hitler, but because of what Poland did.
Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.
Hitler was a reasonable guy. He just wanted an alliance.
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.
Those unreasonable Poles. It was all their fault. And Britain's.
From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused.
See, Hitler was the reasonable one.
So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.
See what happens if you don't take Pat's advice, Hitler has no choice but to invade.
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 cost was the fault of the refusal not the fault of the invaders.
Now that I've seen the logic of Pat's claim, how could I have ever thought he was an idiot? /idiocy off.
Except Pat's idiocy is never off.
Please, feel free to post Pat’s wisdom. LOL!
What Pat Buchanan actually wrote: Bush Plays the Hitler Card
Knock yourself out. LOL!
Keep digging. LOL!
These are your words, not Pats.
Pat's words:If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.
Your words: Those unreasonable Poles. It was all their fault. And Britain's.
Those were not Pat's words. How did Chamberlain's promise work out for the Poles? Not to well, I think history shows.
Your words: See, Hitler was the reasonable one.
Where did Pat or anyone say Hitler was reasonable, besides you.
Pat's words: So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.
Did or did not Hitler cut a deal with Stalin and divide Poland?
Your words: See what happens if you don't take Pat's advice, Hitler has no choice but to invade.
Where does Pat say Hitler had no choice but to invade? All Pat says is that Hitler did invade.
Pat's words: 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.
Pat points out that that choice had a cost, but you adduce in your words: The cost was the fault of the refusal not the fault of the invaders.
Pointing out that Poland chose Option 2 rather than Option 1 to their great detriment in the Prisoner's dilemma that Hitler put Poland in, diminishes not one wit Hitler's guilt for creating the dilemma or executing the threat and the Poles.
Again you repeat the fallacy. It is the same fallacy as in concluding that the statement "the rapist killed his victim because she refused to comply with his demands" justifies the rapist's act of murder or turns the rapist into a "reasonable guy" in your words. Pointing out that the victim has options in the face of overwhelming deadly force does not justify the actions of the assailant, and Pat nowhere excuses Hitler. Telling your child, "if you had only stepped back to the curb your leg would not be in a cast" is to advise the child that there are wise and foolish choices in the world. It does not alleviate the guilt of the driver who hit him, or pass guilt from the driver to the victim.
The general fallacy that you commit is the following. It is a principal of law that when a perpetrator threatans deadly force, any compliance by the victim is regarded as under durress and does not alleviate the guilt of the perpetrator. The perp is guilty regardless of what the victim does. To advise the victim that under threat of force or violence there are options and that some may have more favorable outcomes than others again does nothing to alleviate the guilt of the perpetrator. To point out that if your goal is continued life and happiness after the act of violation, some choices may be foolish again is not to alleviate the guilt of the perpetrator.
But in your immoral universe all attempts to impart wisdom to potential victims is to justify the acts of the perpetrator. Fortunately, modern theories of justice are not as foolish as you are.
You won't answer because to do so unralvels your argumet and his hatchett job. It is like the oath you take before testifying in court to tell the truth and the WHOLE truth. Well neither you nor he can fact the WHOLE truth.
You have all the links. If you think you can make a point, make it.
I want it in your words. Why do you dodge Pat’s conclusion which Tarant excised. It is because neither you nor he can deal in whole truths.
Pat didn't say Hitler wanted an alliance?
Those were not Pat's words.
Pat didn't blame Poland, for not negotiating? Pat didn't blame Britain, for their promise to declare war? The only one I don't see Pat blaming is Hitler.
How did Chamberlain's promise work out for the Poles? Not to well, I think history shows.
Duh.
All Pat says is that Hitler did invade.
He wasn't blaming Poland for not negotiating?
Where does Pat say Hitler had no choice but to invade?
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.
Pat points out that that choice had a cost, but you adduce in your words: The cost was the fault of the refusal not the fault of the invaders.
Where did I get that idea? "The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig" Oh, yeah.
Again you repeat the fallacy.
The fallacy belongs to Pat. If they had only negotiated, they would not have suffered the cost.
That's funny. I want it in Pat's words.
Why do you dodge Pat’s conclusion which Tarant excised.
I don't know what you're even talking about. So post Pat's conclusion already. Instead of whining about it.
I did.
Well, finally you have gained command of the overridingly important obvious.
I guess it didn’t prove your claim.
Blame? The trial of the Nazis happened 50 years ago and they were justly found guilty of war crimes. Where did Pat say "j'accuse." Yes Britain's representations to Poland were foolish. Yes Poland was foolish to rely on impotent British threats and promises. Blame and guilt? That was already decided by the war crimes tribunals. Pat is discusing wisdom in the conduct of foreign policy and foreign relations. In the face of Hitler's deadly menance both Britain and Poland behaved very foolishly. Being foolish does not mean you are guilty or "blameworthy." You are simply foolish. Pat suggests Bush and Israel might learn from this and not be foolish in the future. You seem to suggest that we should continue to be foolish because for either party to take the lesson of the foolishness of the Brits and Poles would be to let Hitler off the hook.
I didn't think anyone was quite that dumb, but I am not unrelenting on that view.
Oh well, some Joe Palookas come here to feel superior and to explain to us dummies what they are convinced we don't comprehend.
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.