It's been posted at least three times already:
"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."
What's clearly being said is that if the Poles rolled over and negotiated away Danzig that maybe all the death and destruction that followed might have been avoided. Given Hitler's prior adventures how could anyone believe such a thing unless they're a fool or an apologist? Pat is smart enough to know what he's saying and also capable of coming up with better analogies when discussing how American administrations should deal with their enemies so why doesn't he?
Pat says this where? His only conclusion is that negotiation could not have worsened Polland's position as it suffered the worst possible outcome without negotiation.
The parallel that I think Pat is trying to draw, however, in raising the case of Polland is over the issue of relying on absolute 3rd party guarantees. In this repsect there is a clear parallel between the position of Poland then and the position that Israel might be in, today, as a consequence of Iran flexing its muscles. A foolish person might read Bush's statements as an absolute guarantee to Israel just as Poland foolishly took Chamberline's futile promises as a guarantee.