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.
In return, he offered them a junior partnership in the Axis, with further territorial gains out of Czechoslovakia, and possibly in the East [Poland had gotten a piece of the Czechs after the Germans occupied the rest of the country in early 1939 [as did Hungary]. He also [for what it's worth] guaranteed them their territorial integrity and independence [and Hitler never betrayed a country allied to him until they did him].
It was the British -French guarantee to Poland that stiffened their resolve to refuse the offer, to their later detriment.
Well said.
WOW. The point I see is how can one negotiate with a stronger, malevalent nation?Is negotiation better than what ultimately happened? Does anyone honestly believe that a man capable of the things Hitler did would have negotiated in good faith?
Pat has a long history of being a Jew basher.
Aw, shedding a tear for those poor, two-time World War-starting Germans. To be expected. Look, you start a World War then you deserve your fate. They're fortunate to even exist as a nation at all after the crimes they committed in the 20th century.
What did I expect them to do after losing a war they started and then getting the raw end of the deal in the post-War (Versailles) treaty, you ask? Well, to not start another (far deadlier) World War, for one. And to not slaughter tens of millions of innocent civilians in an attempt to compensate for their battered egos, for another.
WOW. The point I see is how can one negotiate with a stronger, malevalent nation?Is negotiation better than what ultimately happened? Does anyone honestly believe that a man capable of the things Hitler did would have negotiated in good faith?That's the whole point of Pat's article. That you can negotiate with your mortal enemies *as long as you know what your interests are*. His argument is not that Hitler's demands were reasonable, just that it was in Poland's best interest to accept them(compared to the alternative what happened). You may disagree with that assertion, but that's not even Pat's main point.
Pat is arguing that we *should* negotiate with Iran because, in his opinion, negotiating with the Chinese and the Soviets actually put the US in a stronger position of power. As an alternative he shows the Poles, who failed to negotiate against their own self interest and were annihilated.
But Pat does seem to be making that argument. He states that the Danzig was unfairly taken in his opinion and that since it was 95 percent German maybe Poland should have been more open to negotiation. Given Hitler's adventures prior to that how could anyone believe he'd stop at Danzig? I personally believe and always have that his goal with taking Russia was as a steppingstone to North America, which was his real prize.
So the choice for the Poles was to either negotiate with Hitler and be Germany's junior partner in war with Stalin? Or to accept Chamberlain's offer of a war guarantee that, should Germany attack, Britain and France would declare war against Germany?
In all honesty, if you don't want war with anybody, with whom would you side? The side making demands to "give up territory and authority or else?" Or the side saying "fight for your sovereignty and we'll back you?" (Bear in mind who won and who lost the previous war.)
Germany's choice doomed Poland to a war against the Soviets if she capitulated—or with Germany if she refused. Chamberlain's guarantee only doomed Poland because Britain and France did not act immediately to move against Germany when she attacked. Their delay is what facilitated Poland's fall, encouraged further German moves, and extended the war.
I’m saying they would have been crushed anyway. The Poles were subhuman to him. He’s blaming the Poles is how I take it. Substitute US of Poles and Osama for Hitler, and see... oh wait a minute, Pat has also taken Osama’s side there too- we’re too decadent, are troops are in Saudi...
As an side note, I am in legal negotiations with my brothers, one good and one rotten (the rotten one is trying to pull a fast one on both of us, bt none can afford the cost of trial), over my stake in my dead father’s businesses. They will share 50/50, with my share being dissolved (long story).
So I am viewing many things through that lens right now...
But Pat does seem to be making that argument. He states that the Danzig was unfairly taken in his opinion and that since it was 95 percent German maybe Poland should have been more open to negotiation. Given Hitler's adventures prior to that how could anyone believe he'd stop at Danzig? I personally believe and always have that his goal with taking Russia was as a steppingstone to North America, which was his real prize.He wouldn't have stopped at Danzig, Poland would have become a client state at the beck and call of the Nazis. But Hitler wouldn't have been nearly so hot to wipe Poland off the map either, Hitler would have gone after Russia with his new corridor. This would have given Poland some degree of breathing room. Hitler and Stalin would have been merrily slaughtering each other instead of picking through the bombed out ruins of Poland and acting chummy. It's not like Poland didn't become a Russian vassal after the war anyway.
Think of it this way. By not negotiating Poland got the worst of all worlds. Hitler and Stalin stomped all over them in the war. 5 million dead! Then for standing up to Hitler they got rewarded by being occupied by Stalin.
I’m saying they would have been crushed anyway. The Poles were subhuman to him. He’s blaming the Poles is how I take it. Substitute US of Poles and Osama for Hitler, and see... oh wait a minute, Pat has also taken Osama’s side there too- we’re too decadent, are troops are in Saudi...You could be right. Then again, Hitler wanted Russia. Poland was an ant to be dealt with later. Instead of pulling the Tiger's tail and getting annihilated for sure, getting the two giants to fight each other was a *much* better strategy IMO.
All those Poles, Russians, Czechs, Ukranians, Serbs, French, Dutch, Norwegians, north Africans, etc. stubbornly got in Hitler's way so Hitler had to defend himself! /sarcasm
Hatred of president Bush has reached a fever pitch in the fever swamps of leftist and rightist moonbatism and anti-Semitism. They started out saying that Bush is almost as bad as Hitler. Then they said that Bush = Hitler. Now they say that Hitler was a good if tragically misunderstood figure but Bush is still evil!
For several years I predicted that the far left and elements of the so-called right would join together in an effort to rehabilitate the Nazis. They want to try to make legitimate the revisionist idea that it was a mistake to have fought the Nazis. I think this is a strategy to condition people to accept it if Iran takes over Iraq and attacks Israel.
To the Buchanan apologists on this thread:
I see that you all think you are models of reasoning from historical evidence, but your combined efforts are not worth anything in understanding what happened in 1939. I recommend that you all go study a few good history books (definitely not any written by Pat Buchanan or his ilk).
What is missing in all of your condescending apologetics is context, the elementary historical knowledge of the period (the same problem exhibited by Pat Buchanan). He is obviously an apologist for Hitler, because he describes supposedly reasonable demands from Hitler that were refused by those obstinate Poles, with irrational encouragement from Britain (and France, although none of you seem to know that). Buchanan fails to make clear when he is making normative vs. factual assertions, but I certainly interpreted his screed as disparaging the Poles and the Brits for daring to think they should not roll over for Hitler.
He SAYS that WWII occurred because of Polish refusal to accede to Hitler’s demands - that is like saying a murder victim is responsible for his own death because he refused to give in to the demands of the murderer - it might be prudent of course to give in if you are not in a position to fight back, but ALL of the moral culpability falls with the lawless aggressor. According to Buchanan WWII only occurred because proud, obstinate Poles refused to ‘negotiate’ i.e., surrender at the barrels of Hitler’s guns, because they were egged on by Chamberlain. [you may say “oh, he’s just describing the murder process in factual terms” but the whole point of PB bringing 1939 into his discussion is to criticize the Poles and Chamberlain for not rolling over.]
There is far more to it than that and you have to consider the whole series of Hitler’s aggressive violations of treaties and international norms in the late ‘30s to grasp why just about everyone realized (after the March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) that there was no end to the rounds of artificial Hitler-induced crisis, followed by ‘negotiation’ - surrender - and then further aggression from Hitler. By March 1939 any idiot could see the pattern, but apparently it still escapes Pat Buchanan 70 years later. Have any of you actually heard of a book called “Mein Kampf”?? Are you aware that it describes an expansion program just a wee bit more extensive than reclaiming Danzig? Do you really think the Poles could have trusted Hitler the way Pat Buchanan pretends they could have? Hindsight is too easy but the kind of hindsight Buchanan tries to offer is a perversion of history, an intellectual and moral embarrassment.
btw, do any of you know that Hitler had promised that the Sudetenland was his ‘last’ territorial demand in Europe? Do any of you know that in March 1939 Hitler INVADED the rest of Czechoslovakia and carved it up, just 6 months after he has supposedly been appeased once and for all with ‘negotiations’?? Do any of you know that Hitler had abrogated a 1935 “non-aggression” pact with Poland months BEFORE he attacked? Maybe the Polish govt. had very good reasons to doubt that any concessions on Danzig could satisfy Hitler?
Hitler was not offering to “negotiate” with Poland, he was offering an ultimatum: surrender or I invade. It was not merely over Danzig and the corridor — ANYONE familiar with 4 years of increasingly aggressive misbehavior by Hitler could see that treaties and documents and promises were not worth a damn when dealing with him.
Buchanan does not confront the fact that after the Czechs were forced to give up the Sudetenland in Sept. 1938 they were then invaded and dismembered anyway, 6 months later. By March 1939 all could see that the first demands and the first concessions were just the beginning with Hitler. When the Czechs gave up vital fortifications and territory they made the rest of their country indefensible. The Poles did not care to give Hitler another access point for attacking their country. That is perfectly reasonable.
Some of you speak as though the Nazi ‘blitzkrieg’ successes were a foregone conclusion. They were not yet known to be at the time, not even to a lot of Hitler’s own generals who were on the verge of overthrowing him at least a couple of times because they thought he was going to bring about Germany’s destruction (which he did, of course, but it took longer than many imagined in 1938-39). The Poles had fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1920 and did not realize yet how much warfare was changing (or how good the German army and air force were becoming). Still, based upon what they thought they knew at the time they had good reason to think they could defend themselves long enough for the French and British to come to bear in the west. It is pure anachronistic revisionism to look at it now and say well of course they should have surrendered to Hitler because they were going to have to do so anyway.
The Poles thought they could hold out, and (another historical FACT which you all ignore or don’t know) they had been promised that the FRENCH (with Brit support) would attack from the west in the first weeks of any German invasion of Poland. Chamberlain’s guarantee was not his alone - he was working closely with the French who had the only serious army available for prompt action in the west - the guarantee turned out to be worthless, but it did not appear that way to most informed observers in spring 1939. In reality, historians can still debate seriously how different history could have been if the the French army had attacked aggressively in the west against vastly inferior German forces (since most of the 1st-line German units were in the east attacking Poland). We know after the fact that the French had neither the offensive doctrine nor the will to advance very far into Germany, but physically they probably could have crushed the German army in the west and marched on Berlin, had they done what had been PROMISED to the Poles.
btw, when Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway and Belgium and the Netherlands and the Balkans countries etc. etc. was that all because they refused to ‘negotiate’ with him? Was he simply FORCED to invade all those small neutral countries because he was desperately seeking someone who would finally ‘negotiate’ with him? Or was something else going on in 1939-41?
That’s all for now - I look forward to all of your carefully reasoned and well-informed responses that will far surpass in quality anything else on this thread. Thank you!
Old Pat is just trying to warm people up to "Jerusalem was never a Jewish city."
I've heard Pat speak on this subject many times and he really seems to underestimate Hitler's intentions and ruthlessness in achieving them. I like him a lot better when he sticks to domestic issues.
At least early on in the war I think you're correct, Poland would have been spared a lot of the violence and death they experienced had they cooperated. But Hitler's defeat by the Russians was inevitable either way and then what, Stalin would have tore through Poland in revenge even worse than he did. It was a no win for that country because like Belgium or Holland they simply didn't have much of a military machine. I'm sure the leaders of Poland at the time saw all that and did what they did because of the promises from Britain and France.Yeah, I think the Poles acted as rationally as they could. They knew they were screwed no matter what.I've heard Pat speak on this subject many times and he really seems to underestimate Hitler's intentions and ruthlessness in achieving them. I like him a lot better when he sticks to domestic issues.
However, this whole "Pat is a Nazi" thing is silly. Pat's making a reasonable argument(that people can disagree with, but it's still reasonable) in support of his greater argument, that negotiating with monsters can yield positive results and *not* doing it can be disastrous.
It is a fact that Poland’s refusal to bow to Hitler led to Hitler’s decision to attack Poland.
It is a fact that Poland was losing in a 6-week war with Germany. Stalin’s attack on Poland sealed her fate.
But how was Poland supposed win by continuing the policy of appeasement and granting concessions to Hitler before hostilities began? How do Polish concessions to Hitler make Stalin feel secure or satiate Hitler’s ambitions?
If war between Hitler and Stalin is to be supposed as a result of Polish concessions, how does that change what in fact happened? Germany and the Soviets went to war anyway. If Germany won, Poland would have been a Nazi satellite. If the Soviets won, Poland would become a Soviet satellite or buffer territory of the USSR for making concessions to the Germans.
Poland’s trust in Britain and France may have been misplaced, but Britain and France were the one’s who were slow to act on their guarantee. They had time to prepare and some time after hostilities began to at least do _something._
Poland could trust Germany to either attack Poland or to use Poland as a springboard for a war with Stalin. Either way, certain war with a neighbor was the only prospect for Poland. Neither neighbor could be called a victor in the previous war.
Chamberlain’s guarantee was the best option for minimizing the possibility of war. Britain and France failed Poland. Britain and France were the latest war winners and dictators of the terms to the losers. It should have been a safe bet to side with them.
The resulting war was not a case of Poland failing Poland. It was a case of the Britain and France failing Poland.
No I'm not sold that Pat is a Nazi either but some of what he says about Hitler I can understand how some might get the impression that maybe he has sympathies.
However it's not appeasement to *use your enemies against each other*. Think of it this way. Two wolves are salivating over a sheep. What does the sheep do? Say "you big bad wolves! appeasement is bad! I will stand up to you! just wait until my friends come!". You know the results of that, the wolves laugh and share the sheep.
On the other hand if the sheep actually thinks in its own best interest and pits the wolves against each other... (see Kissinger with the Chinese to beat the Russians) you just might get somewhere.
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.