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.
Good points - one thing I emphasize is that France and Britain didn’t merely fail Poland, but in 1939 it would have seemed to almost anyone (including many German officers) that the ‘guarantee’ was worth a lot. It was Hitler’s uncanny sense of the mental and moral weakness of his foes that led him to expect that there would not be serious action in the west while he invade Poland. However, what the Poles expected because they had been PROMISED it by France and Britain was an aggressive land and air attack on German forces in the west. France was supposed to have up to 70 divisions available on the western front compared to only 25-30 understrength, 2nd-tier divisions for Germany. Britain was known not to have much of an army but could have contributed a few divisions in a renewed “British Expeditionary Force” — the primary contribution from Britain was supposed to be their air force. That is what the Poles were expecting, that Germany would immediately be forced into a 2-front war with an inadequately defended western frontier. In reality, as we know, the Poles were badly betrayed as the French command decided it was better to stay hunkered down (they advanced only 5 km or so into Germany, with little resistance, and then stopped). The French saved on casualties in the short term, but of course they allowed Hitler to dispose of his adversaries one by one instead of facing the 2-front war right away.
Pat Buchanan is dead to me.
Hitler wanted the Polish race to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
What you said.
As for the purported anti-communism, Patty, who has a hard on for the Stalin-loving Putin, forgets the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact where Germany and The USSR partitioned Eastern Europe. (And my comment about Buchanan is no more obscene than his historical revisionism.)
Personally, I surprised that Patty is not dredging up Hitler's silly lie that Poland attacked Germany first.
I don't imagine for a moment that Pat is a Nazi, closet or crypto or other.I think you misunderstand Pat. Pat doesn't have any moral compass, he could care less about what is "right". The only thing that goes through Pat's head is "Does this action help or hinder the objectives and culture of the United States?". Pat, Karl Rove and Liddy are all products of the Nixon White House. When you view it through that lens it makes a lot more sense.I do think he is smug, careless, ignorant, unctuous, and much too glib in describing the outbreak of WWII. He may be "soft on Nazis" or maybe he simply does not understand much about the period 1936-40. He certainly does not seem to care about the survival of Israel - whether that is due to some latent anti-Semitism, I don't know. He does not seem capable of recognizing the achievements and moral grandeur of Israelis - he treats them as casual afterthoughts of no value (of course people would have intrinsic value as humans whether or not they display great achievements and moral grandeur, but I find it difficult to understand how anyone cannot greatly admire Israel and her people). In the world after the Holocaust I find his attitudes to be especially appalling. No, I'm not Jewish and have not the slightest direct connection to Israel - I'm simply another American who admires and values Jewish people to a vastly greater extent than Pat B. does, it seems.
Certainly I agree with Pres. Bush that it is a strong US interest, both a moral and strategic interest, to see Israel strong and successful. Like many people I do not get the impression that Pat B. cares too much one way or another whether 7 million Israelis survive - that may be why a lot of people think he is anti-Semitic? Maybe he's just a callous beast and it has nothing to do with Jews in particular?
I also think he's one of the last people I would want making major decisions of national security for the USA, so I'm glad he has not surpassed the status of 3rd-rate commentator for a small-time talking head program in recent years.
Other than that, I just want to go back to ignoring him!
Hitler was such an ardent anti-communist that He divided up Eastern Europe with Stalin in August 1939.
Sadly the British and French were led by incompetents politicians and generals in 1939-40, and their mobilization was sabotaged by the communists, who were allied with the Nazis in 1940.
I have read a few hundred [at least] history books, and I can tell you that as a fact, Hitler offered Poland an alliance of sorts, which would have enabled him to get at all that lebensraum he wanted - in the U.S.S.R, where he announced to the world in 1923 Germany's future lay [but then, you did read MEIN KAMPF, correct?]. And it wasn't like Poland hadn't just engaged in negotiations with Hitler, since they took a piece of Czechoslovakia [along with Hungary] with Hitler's blessings in 1938.
World War II [which probably can be dated from 1931-Manchuria] had a lot of causes. It didn't date from the Poles’ refusal to accommodate Hitler. Hitler intended to fight before 1942, when the jump he had on the rest of the world in armaments would be gone [see the Hossbach Memorandum]. He wanted war with the west in 1938 - in Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain and Daladier didn't oblige.
By mid 1939, Hitler had Poland surrounded on three sides, and he was astute enough to realize the western Allies lacked the will to come to Poland's aid if push came to shove. That being said, Hitler's eyes were still fixed on the U.S.S.R, and the record gives weight to the supposition that he may well have been willing to reach an accommodation with the Poles; to get at the Russians. The guarantee by the West gave Poland the false security upon which she based her refusal to Hitler's offer [which came well before the public demands].
Between her Allies’ lack of will, Poland's idiotic war plan, and her strategic encirclement, Poland had no chance against the Germans. By facing off against the Germans, the Poles did not avoid an invasion by the Soviets. They were attacked anyway. And the Allies who promises led Poland to stand firm, and who went to war over Poland, left her to the Red Army in 1944 without a whimper.
As for the countries in the West, your knowledge of history is somewhat selective. Take Norway. The Germans invaded Norway to secure their iron ore transports from Sweden. They only turned their attention to Norway in February, 1940 after British warships boarded the ALTMARCK in Norwegian territorial waters to free prisoners taken by the GRAF SPEE in 1939 [ALTMARCK was her supply ship], and the Norwegians did nothing. And, coincidentally the German fleet that sailed in Operation Weser left for Norway 1 day ahead of the Franco-British occupation force headed for the same ports. And the Allies hadn't ‘negotiated’ with the Norwegians either.
As for Belgium, she had been a theater of operations in the first World War, and Holland was added at the behest of the Kriegsmarine, and for strategic reasons. Those countries were invaded as part of military operations. Since both were cooperating to one degree or other, with Britain and France, there was no reason for Hitler to negotiate with them in the middle of a war. Don't you agree? You do remember that by the time they were invaded, there was a war on, don't you?. Not quite the same as Poland and Czechoslovakia, wouldn't you agree?
The Treaty of Versailles was one of the harshest post-war treaties of all time. What did you expect Germany to do?
A few points:
1. Before the Germans marched into Poland, they took over the rest of Czechoslovakia that they did not get with the Munich Agreement. What right did they have to do that? What claim did they have?
2. Whatever blow to its “honor” and whatever was lost to Germany at Versailles in terms of territory and natural resources (esp. coal), Germany’s strategic position, as Kissinger has pointed out, improved after the Treaty of Versailles: instead of bordering on two empires on its eastern side (Russia and Austria-Hungary), it now found located next to it several small, weak, countries - the newly truncated Austria; Czechoslovakia; and Poland.
3. The terms dictated to Germany in 1919 were much less severe than what the Germans were planning to dictate to the Allies in the event that the Axis prevailed. (Check out Barbara Tuchman’s “The Zimmermann Telegram” on that point). Indeed, go look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed with the USSR after the Bolshevik Revolution (and the Bolsheviks sued for peace), by which terms Germany received all of Poland that had been part of the Russian Empire; the Ukraine and Belorussia; the Baltic provinces (Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia). Plus Turkey was to receive Azerbaijan (including Baku with its vast oil fields). Compared to what they would have done to the Soviet Union/Russia, the Germans got off easy as far as terms imposed on them go.
4. For areas where German-speakers and those of other nationalities were in roughly equal proportion, the Versailles Treaty provided for plebiscites as to which nation those areas would revert, e.g., the Saarland (reverted to Germany); Silesia (part to Germany, part to Poland). Yes, Sudetenland was an exception (as that was just given to Czecho.), and Wilson’s insistence that it become part of Czechoslovakia was seen by many in the Allied camp as just plain stupid.
5. Buchanan’s reliance on Wilson’s 14 points as establishing the legal basis for a German claim on Danzig is bogus. First, the 14 points had no legal effect in and of themselves; second, among those points, Pres. Wilson had insisted on (and Germany had agreed to) the establishment of an independent Poland INCLUDING THE CITY OF DANZIG AND A CORRIDOR RUNNING SOUTH FROM DANZIG THAT WOULD BE PART OFTHE NEWLY-CREATED POLISH STATE.
6. Hungary lost a much, much, greater portion of its territory after WWI (at Trianon) than did Germany. The Turks also got a worse deal at (IINM)Lausanne, but that’s another story.
Dang, Enchante, why didn’t i read your post before i put mine up there?
(Bang-up job, dude!)
es
Sorry, buyt Belgium explicitly refused to join the allies. Stop shilling for your beloved Panzer Leaders.
After they resisted, he certainly did. I’m not saying Hitler would have honored an agreement with the Poles [although his record in dealing with loyal allies was surprisingly good]. I’m just saying that the offer was made.
As for Belgium, she had been a theater of operations in the first World War, and Holland was added at the behest of the Kriegsmarine, and for strategic reasons.
VIZ THE FIRST WORLD WAR, THE “SCHLIEFFEN PLAN,” FORMULATED AND REVISED FROM 1891 - 1914 TO HELP GERMANY DEFEAT BOTH FRANCE & RUSSIA IF GERMANY HAD TO FIGHT BOTH, PROVIDED THAT GERMAN ARMIES (# 1-7) WOULD MARCH THROUGH HOLLAND AS WELL AS BELGIUM (TO FACILITATE A GERMAN ATTACK ON, AND SEIZURE OF, PARIS FROM THE WEST). HOWEVER, IN 1914, HELMUTT V. MOLTKE (THE YOUNGER), THE GERMAN CHIEF OF STAFF, THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SUICIDAL FOR GERMANY TO TURN HOLLAND - A NEUTRAL COUNTRY AS BELGIUM WAS - INTO AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY, AND SO BELGIUM WAS ATTACKED AND OCCUPIED, WHILE HOLLAND WAS NOT.
Those countries were invaded as part of military operations. Since both were cooperating to one degree [with Britain and France . . ]
WHAT KIND OF ‘COOPERATION’ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BOTH COUNTRIES WERE OFFICIALLY NEUTRAL AS TO GERMANY V. FRANCE & BRITAIN. FOR HITLER, NEUTRALITY WAS A DIPLOMATIC NICETY TO BE OBSERVED IF - AND ONLY IF - IT SUITED HIS LARGER PURPOSES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTACKING FRANCE IN 1940, IT DIDN’T.
Hitler never intended for that alliance [THE LITVINOFF-VON RIBBENTROP PACT] to be more than a tactical truce.
Yes, you are right on that. Neither did Stalin, but he thought that when the time came to fight Germany, it would be on HIS terms. Guess he was wrong.
I hadn’t read this post before i put mine up (viz “cooperation”). You may be right on that point.
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.