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.
There clearly is since you still don't get the difference.
But the Beyond that, Buchanan most certainly does justify the invasion of Poland, by implying that Hitler had no choice,
Like I said, you cannot resist imagining what Pat said, putting the words in his mouth, and then berating him for them.
Where does Pat say or imply Hilter had no choice.
Pat's a fool
Based on your indictment based on words that he did not say, but which you, wanting to make Pat out to be a fool, fantasize that he said.