Pat didn't say Hitler wanted an alliance?
Those were not Pat's words.
Pat didn't blame Poland, for not negotiating? Pat didn't blame Britain, for their promise to declare war? The only one I don't see Pat blaming is Hitler.
How did Chamberlain's promise work out for the Poles? Not to well, I think history shows.
Duh.
All Pat says is that Hitler did invade.
He wasn't blaming Poland for not negotiating?
Where does Pat say Hitler had no choice but to invade?
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.
Pat points out that that choice had a cost, but you adduce in your words: The cost was the fault of the refusal not the fault of the invaders.
Where did I get that idea? "The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig" Oh, yeah.
Again you repeat the fallacy.
The fallacy belongs to Pat. If they had only negotiated, they would not have suffered the cost.
Well, finally you have gained command of the overridingly important obvious.
Blame? The trial of the Nazis happened 50 years ago and they were justly found guilty of war crimes. Where did Pat say "j'accuse." Yes Britain's representations to Poland were foolish. Yes Poland was foolish to rely on impotent British threats and promises. Blame and guilt? That was already decided by the war crimes tribunals. Pat is discusing wisdom in the conduct of foreign policy and foreign relations. In the face of Hitler's deadly menance both Britain and Poland behaved very foolishly. Being foolish does not mean you are guilty or "blameworthy." You are simply foolish. Pat suggests Bush and Israel might learn from this and not be foolish in the future. You seem to suggest that we should continue to be foolish because for either party to take the lesson of the foolishness of the Brits and Poles would be to let Hitler off the hook.
I didn't think anyone was quite that dumb, but I am not unrelenting on that view.