You see, because of your blind rage every time you see the red flag of Pat Buchanan’s name you have deferred all the finer descriminations of the rational mind, such as a simple difference between the meaning of “explain” and “justify.” The difference between saving a rape target’s life and convicting a rapist of felony assault and murder rest on the fine difference in meaning between those two words.
Fine. Let's play your game. Then we can say that Pat "justifies" Hitler's invasion on the basis of liberating the "95% German" population of Danzig:
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.
We can certainly credit the Treaty of Versailles with helping to ensure a second world war. Nevertheless, Wilson's 14 points were not law in any sense of the word.
(BTW: it's rather preposterous to see Pat Buchanan -- that stout rejector of "Wilsonianism" -- using that hated strategy to justify his screed.)
Nor had Hitler been so concerned about "self-determination" when he undertook the Anschluss the previous year. And Pat somehow forgets to consider the "why" of dismantling Prussia, of which Danzig had once been a part.
But the Beyond that, Buchanan most certainly does justify the invasion of Poland, by implying that Hitler had no choice, given the Poles' reluctance to "negotiate" over Danzig.
And he likewise "justifies" Hitler's dismemberment of Czechoslovakia on the same basis.
There's no need for a lecture on the difference between "justify" and "explain." Pat is attempting to "justify."
Pat's a fool.