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.
It ia obvious you feel, by your last post, that you cannot reason with the unreasonable. This is because by definition they are unable to reason. Please tell us how smart the jewish elders were who “negotiated” the vacancy of the Warsaw ghetto as opposed to those patriots who engaged in armed resistance.
“Give me liberty or let me prolong my fate a little while by negotiating.” Or New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Negotiate a While”
What was there to negotiate? Anyone who read Mein Kampf knew what Hitler's intentions for the East were.
At post 253 I cited Schelling's work on game theory applied to the strategy of conflict. Schelling was instrumental in understanding and explaining deterrence theories vis-a-vis the Cold war, Stalin , and Khrushchev, in particular.
Schelling's important contribution was that on the assumption that neither side wanted mutual total annihilation, there were bargaining opportunities between the US and USSR. The Soviets were not, fortunately, irrational, or we would all be dead. Nuclear deterrence, sadly, depends upon the other party being rational.
Pat's article is, in short clear English, an enunciation of two classic bargaining problems of the kind that Schelling spent his life analyzing, Israel, supported they believe, by the US, its parallel, Poland, supported they believed by the British.
Pat's point was that, merely in terms of bargaining theory, you can negotiate the terms of your surrender or occupation. The Germans were not irrational, or unobjective. They were just moral monsters, willing to use the most effective means to achieve their desired goals, regardless of the inhumanity. The manner by which you surrender, or are overwhelmed is not irrelevant, as the difference between Czechoslovakia and Poland demonstrate.
The Czechs capitulated and were occupied. It was a brutal occupation. The Poles resisted, Hitler reached agreement with Stalin to divide Poland, Hitler invaded, resistance was valiant, but suicidal, and the subsequent repression was far more brutal than it was in Czechoslovakia. Poland was not Hitler's ultimate objective; Stalin was. Poland's resistance did little for the allied cause and gave Hitler's armies more practice in the field.
The Germans were not an irrational unreasoning nation. They were simply moral monsters whose goals were anathema to civilized people. A lunatic is incapable of organizing violence to achieve desired ends. An evil genius is otherwise.
Who can know whether the fate of the Jews in Eastern Europe might have been different had Hitler got his corridor to Russia, bypassed unoccupied Poland (remember a lot of France also remained unoccupied), and gotten bogged down attacking the Soviets?
Importantly, the fate for the Eastern European Jews could not have been worse.
As to the unresonable person I am arguing with above, when
And finally, the position of the Jews in Nazi occupied Warsaw were very very different than the New Hampshire patriots in the face of the British. There is a difference of distance, firepower, and the ultimate moral constraints on the opponent.
Ooops. Exercised the post before edit option.
As to the unreasonable person I am arguing with above, there is no bargaining with a person who remains intransigent in the belief that the Nazis were unprepared for WWII in the face of all evidence that from the moment they came into power all they did was prepared for a World War, started said war, and prosecuted it so successfully for many years they had the entire civilized world on the ropes, defeated great armies, killed millions of people and occupied most of Europe and the Mediterranean.
But it is not that you cannot negotiate with an erratic person. (Schelling sets forth when and how you do it and what you can gain). No, there is no negotiation with said irrationality for two reasons. 1. There is nothing at stake other than the parties' mutual reputation for rational discourse. (There is no upside) 2. By taking a position so contrary to clear accepted evidence, the other party has destroyed his own reputation for rational discourse.(There is not even any downside to not negotiating).
In other words, from the point of view of bargaining theory, the alternative to a negotiated agreements is better than what you can get from negotiating.
But, that is not the position of the unfortunate Poles in WWII. In a bargaining game where the alternative to a negotiated settlement is that you are dead, you look for other options, if they exist. Fortunately that is what rational people do. It is the difference between civilization and a mutual suicide pact. Even male lions, who lead the most precarious of lives - have mutually negotiated peace treaties where they respect territorial boundaries - right up to the point that a takeover is possible.
Sorry, totally wrong. They believed Jews were lower than dogs. Nevermind who or what inspired those beliefs. They believed they were superior to other people. These are not rational thoughts.
And Slavic Poles were just a notch above Jews in Hitler's book.
Tell that to the members of the Kosciuszko Squadron, or the Polish soldiers at Monte Cassino.
I did not say Poles did not contribute greatly to the allied cause. There were many worthy heroes who must be remembered in history. But the examples you cite were as part of the many years later broad and effective allied effort, and not the ineffective and futile resistance in 1939 to Hitlers demands to negotiate.
To put things back in context, this is not a debate about Poland, but a debate about what Pat Buchanan really wrote. Pat wrote an article warning Bush about the silliness of absolute guarantees and Israel about steadfast refusal to negotiate with mortal enemies relying upon foolish guarantees. As an example of how such decisions can turn out, Pat turns to the historical example of Poland remaining intransigent in the face of Nazi irredentist claims and other demands, based on a misappreciation of the actual ineffectiveness of British guarantees. Poland simply ceased to exist for 50 years. No one is saying that the Poles caused anything or that as individuals they were anything less than heroic. But a journalistic hitman (even the WSJ has its moments) misread the article and framed it as Buchanan sympathy for Nazis. A lot of freepers followed the journalistic hit down the pretzel shaped rabbit hole of illogic.
The article is about diplomacy and bargaining in the face of overwhelming force. Nothing else. I praise the heroism demonstrated by the Poles in the war and have deep sympathy for what subsequently transpired. Pat, as a staunch Christian anti-communist, presumably shares that view.
Rational: adjective
definition: using reason or logic in thinking out a problem
The Nazis had a set of defined strategic goals. They applied innovative tactical and strategic developments to achieving those goals. They designed, developed and produced devastatingly effective weapons systems.
QED they were rational.
They were moral monsters, unquestionably. They were arroganty rascist, etc. etc. But the way they went about achieving their goals was highly rational and effective and had the world by the throat for many years.
Stalin was just as much a moral monster, but fortunately for us, he was also rational.
Truly irrational folks - erratic lunatics - do not execute effective military campaigns involving the maneuver of massed armies of hundreds of thousands of men.
So let me get it straight. The unibomber was rational because he effectively planned and executed many killings and was adept at making the explosives and remainig at large for many years. These facts do not allow someone to say he was irrational because he believed he had every right to make anyone his victim on his whim?
In fact, the German people looked anything but rational as they swooned in front of their human God.
Pat has gone over the edge. The Poles should be lauded for their bravery in the face of overwhelming odds against, just as those brave souls at the Alamo declined to negotiate, not to mention the armed resistance in the Warsaw ghetto, and on and on and on.
I know it is hard to think about the world that way, but you are learning. Yes the unibomber was unbelievably "rational." No erratic lunatic could have pulled of what he did. Was he a monster with a deranged view of morality. No question about it, but in terms of executing a plan to achieve his desired goals his "rationality" was flawless. The FBI didn't catch him. His brother turned him in.
And regarding Pat, the Poles and what the article is about, you don't get it do you? No one said any of the things about the Poles that you said they said.
Finally, the Alamo is great theater and great American mythology. Fortunately, in dealing with the Soviets in the Cold war we decided to negotiate and live, rather than stand on principal and have a shoot out at the OK coral with nuclear weapons. At the end of the day "we" "won."
I bet they looked anything but rational to the French as they rationally evaded the Maginot line, too, rather than irrationally marching through it like the madmen they were supposed to be.
Okay, let's ignore the Polish analogy and draw some other parallels that we're involved with at the moment: We have issued guarantees to South Korea against North Korea; a guarantee to Taiwan against China; and to all NATO allies against Russia. I don't know how many more we have out there, other than the one to Israel against any Islamic threat.
This is a common warning in Pat's writings and I have to agree: for how many nations can we issue such iron-clad guarantees? Europe has pretty much tired of the war against Islamic fundamentalism and we've carried the heaviest burden all along—even though Europe benefits greatly by having an active champion in the lists.
Will we tire of war one day, as Britain and France did, and let down an ally we made a promise to? With the decision to jump back in staring us in the face?
Thanks. This is a vitally important question that follows close on the heels of Pat's analysis. I am not sure why people cannot debate the real issues here rather than the absurd accusation that a conservative Catholic is an apologist for Hitler.
“the Alamo is great theater “
I thoroughly see what you’re about and I have no desire to attempt to reason with you further.
You have not attempted reason. You have attempted sloganeering. What do you see that I am about?
Diplomacy and war are serious subject with hundreds of millions of lives and vast fortunes at stake. I now it sounds cool, but taking an incoming Nuke to "remember the Alamo," is probably not the wisest policy choice available.
FYI, Hitler’s plan was that Poland and Germany would partition Lithuania and Poland would get another seaport in Memel.
Poland acted as an accomplice of Germany during the Munich conference. Germany annexed Sudetenland while Poland annexed Zaolzie.
And seeing the ultimate fate of the Czechs and Slovaks, Poland chose not to support German land grabs any more.
You lose.
Wow, Pat is even more craven than France....
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.