Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler's Invasion of Poland
littlegreenfootballs.com ^ | May 21, 2008

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Germany; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: appeasement; appeaser; buchanan; coughlinjunior; dhimmi; dhimmitude; europeanunion; germany; jackbootedfascist; mullahpat; nato; patbuchanan; pitchforkpat; poland; russia; t34; unitedkingdom; ussr; waronterror; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-342 next last
To: Free ThinkerNY
From a historical standpoint, Buchanan is right guys.

Since when did FReepers put knee-jerk emotion over facts and logic?

41 posted on 05/21/2008 8:30:12 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Bipartisanship: Two wolves and the American people deciding what's for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

When you lose a war the winner get to decide what territory you get to keep.

Pat’s wrong, by his standard every country that was ever punished by lost territory should wage war to get it back if the new owners of said property don’t negotiate to get it back.


42 posted on 05/21/2008 8:39:57 PM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Since when did FReepers put knee-jerk emotion over facts and logic?

It has been going on for quite a while. It is very very sad to watch. The vanguard of conservatism is slipping into some very sloppy habits.

43 posted on 05/21/2008 8:41:24 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
by his standard every country that was ever punished by lost territory should wage war to get it back if the new owners of said property don’t negotiate to get it back.

Pat states this prescription exactly where?

44 posted on 05/21/2008 8:42:23 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

btt


45 posted on 05/21/2008 8:45:01 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
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

Maybe the Poles saw what happen to Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. That is the reason Chamberlain gave up appeasement and GB along with France backed Poland

46 posted on 05/21/2008 8:46:31 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid
Only to be repatriated to the nation in which they had spent the last two millenia..

There was no two millenia Germany

That part of Europe was a bunch of petty dukedoms and minor Kingdoms until first Napoleon, then Prussia "unified" it.

47 posted on 05/21/2008 8:51:15 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Holy State or Holy King - Or Holy People's Will - Have no truck with the senseless thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
In this article Pat is pointing out the folly of Bush's false historical analogies. Pat merely makes the observation that absolute refusal to negotiate with mortal enemies can, itself, be fatal,which it clearly was in the case of Poland. Nothing more.

Second, while it is all well and good to point out that Charberlain changed is view of the effectiveness of appeasement, his policy towards Poland was irrelevant, since he lacked the means to back up his policies and promises. This irresponsible act merely encouraged Poland to commit political suicide.

48 posted on 05/21/2008 8:51:35 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Furthermore, learning from history requires a clear-eyed, honest understanding of the facts as they actually happened. That is often nearly impossible in and of itself. Wishful thinking, moralizing and other kinds of factual distortions lead to misapprehension and error. We have enormous problems that are vital to our survival. Getting our facts straight is essential. It is a fundamental moral obligation of those who would wish to guide our policy.


49 posted on 05/21/2008 8:54:56 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
In this article Pat is pointing out the folly of Bush's false historical analogies. Pat merely makes the observation that absolute refusal to negotiate with mortal enemies can, itself, be fatal,which it clearly was in the case of Poland. Nothing more. Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler at Munich giving him the German speaking Sudentenland. What did Hitler do? He invaded the rest of the non-German speaking remnant of Czechoslovakia. Now Hitler goes to the Poles and demands Danzig. After seeing what Hitler did with Czechoslovakia what would you expect Poland to do, actually negotiate! France and Britain could of invaded Germany before the onset of 1940.
50 posted on 05/21/2008 8:58:19 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
I well remember not too many years ago when Pat Buchanan gave a speech at the 1992 Republican convention, the one Molly Ivins quipped was "better in the original German."

It ticked me off to no end... Yet, by golly, as time has passed...

I find my anger was for naught... Pat has shown repeatedly since then that he has way far more than marbles loose in his belfry!

51 posted on 05/21/2008 8:58:52 PM PDT by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Your reasoning is going to fall on deaf neo-ears. I read PB's column, and found no "Hitler love" in it, but a discussion of the historical folly of appeasement and how Poland got caught in the crossfire--or lack of fire.

There is a faction here that wants to believe Pat said something he did not say so they can work themselves up over it. They want him to be an anti-semite so they can play Atticus Finch, and forget for awhile the specter of Barack Hussein Obama in charge of Middle East policy. A lot of energy has been wasted on hating Pat. Mel will be next.

52 posted on 05/21/2008 8:59:49 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Time for Conservatives to go Free Agent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

So was he is using some other bench mark for why Hitler was right to invade besides the Danzig corridor?

By his standard If the Peace treaty that put Danzig in Poland was illegal because it didn’t conform to Wilson’s 14 points, then what I said is what he is trying to prove.

Pat has just made every treaty ever signed after a war null and void if the losing side doesn’t agree to the terms, or can find some one that doesn’t agree to the terms for them.

The next thing you know he will be encouraging the British to retake the east coast as their lost 13 colonies since the treaty of Paris was never signed by the United States Government.


53 posted on 05/21/2008 9:00:35 PM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
Pat’s wrong, by his standard every country that was ever punished by lost territory should wage war to get it back if the new owners of said property don’t negotiate to get it back.

Using the argument that Nazi Germany had the right to take back territory lost in WW1 Pat is actually giving Mexico justification to reclaim the Southwest US. Since they can't do so militarily it must ok in Pat's mind then for them to invade illegally as they are. Of course he argues the opposite when it comes to that but I guess he doesn't see the hypocrisy or double standard in what he's saying.

54 posted on 05/21/2008 9:00:35 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
When you lose a war the winner get to decide what territory you get to keep.

BS, especially as it applies to WWI. The Treaty of Versailles was one of the harshest post-war treaties of all time. What did you expect Germany to do?

55 posted on 05/21/2008 9:02:34 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Bipartisanship: Two wolves and the American people deciding what's for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

How about don’t start yet another war for one thing?

They chose poorly how to deal with losing.


56 posted on 05/21/2008 9:06:32 PM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the greatest mass murderer of them all, Mao Zedong, when Maoists were conducting a nationwide purge: the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yet, Nixon ended a quarter century of implacable U.S.-Chinese hostility. Was Nixon's trip to China useless?

It was far worse than useless. It was validation and appeasement of that great mass murderer Mao Zedong. We have been paying a price for that bit of stupidity ever since and the full evil fruit of it is yet to come. It was an invitation to rape us and it was gladly accepted.

57 posted on 05/21/2008 9:06:46 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Even though I don’t always agree with Pat Buchanan I always liked him. But on this, he is downright silly.

I still like and respect him though. Pat is a good guy.


58 posted on 05/21/2008 9:14:44 PM PDT by CrosscutSaw (An Obama nation would be an abomination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
What did you expect Germany to do?

Start another war and lose more territory. How'd that work out for them?

59 posted on 05/21/2008 9:19:37 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are doom and gloomers, union members and liberals so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
It wasn't foolish. Germany wasn't an overwhelming force. The war was criminally insane on their part, and they duly lost. Pat is a Nazi flacking for his fuhrer, that is all.
60 posted on 05/21/2008 9:26:32 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-342 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson