In return, he offered them a junior partnership in the Axis, with further territorial gains out of Czechoslovakia, and possibly in the East [Poland had gotten a piece of the Czechs after the Germans occupied the rest of the country in early 1939 [as did Hungary]. He also [for what it's worth] guaranteed them their territorial integrity and independence [and Hitler never betrayed a country allied to him until they did him].
It was the British -French guarantee to Poland that stiffened their resolve to refuse the offer, to their later detriment.
So the choice for the Poles was to either negotiate with Hitler and be Germany's junior partner in war with Stalin? Or to accept Chamberlain's offer of a war guarantee that, should Germany attack, Britain and France would declare war against Germany?
In all honesty, if you don't want war with anybody, with whom would you side? The side making demands to "give up territory and authority or else?" Or the side saying "fight for your sovereignty and we'll back you?" (Bear in mind who won and who lost the previous war.)
Germany's choice doomed Poland to a war against the Soviets if she capitulated—or with Germany if she refused. Chamberlain's guarantee only doomed Poland because Britain and France did not act immediately to move against Germany when she attacked. Their delay is what facilitated Poland's fall, encouraged further German moves, and extended the war.
To the Buchanan apologists on this thread:
I see that you all think you are models of reasoning from historical evidence, but your combined efforts are not worth anything in understanding what happened in 1939. I recommend that you all go study a few good history books (definitely not any written by Pat Buchanan or his ilk).
What is missing in all of your condescending apologetics is context, the elementary historical knowledge of the period (the same problem exhibited by Pat Buchanan). He is obviously an apologist for Hitler, because he describes supposedly reasonable demands from Hitler that were refused by those obstinate Poles, with irrational encouragement from Britain (and France, although none of you seem to know that). Buchanan fails to make clear when he is making normative vs. factual assertions, but I certainly interpreted his screed as disparaging the Poles and the Brits for daring to think they should not roll over for Hitler.
He SAYS that WWII occurred because of Polish refusal to accede to Hitler’s demands - that is like saying a murder victim is responsible for his own death because he refused to give in to the demands of the murderer - it might be prudent of course to give in if you are not in a position to fight back, but ALL of the moral culpability falls with the lawless aggressor. According to Buchanan WWII only occurred because proud, obstinate Poles refused to ‘negotiate’ i.e., surrender at the barrels of Hitler’s guns, because they were egged on by Chamberlain. [you may say “oh, he’s just describing the murder process in factual terms” but the whole point of PB bringing 1939 into his discussion is to criticize the Poles and Chamberlain for not rolling over.]
There is far more to it than that and you have to consider the whole series of Hitler’s aggressive violations of treaties and international norms in the late ‘30s to grasp why just about everyone realized (after the March 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia) that there was no end to the rounds of artificial Hitler-induced crisis, followed by ‘negotiation’ - surrender - and then further aggression from Hitler. By March 1939 any idiot could see the pattern, but apparently it still escapes Pat Buchanan 70 years later. Have any of you actually heard of a book called “Mein Kampf”?? Are you aware that it describes an expansion program just a wee bit more extensive than reclaiming Danzig? Do you really think the Poles could have trusted Hitler the way Pat Buchanan pretends they could have? Hindsight is too easy but the kind of hindsight Buchanan tries to offer is a perversion of history, an intellectual and moral embarrassment.
btw, do any of you know that Hitler had promised that the Sudetenland was his ‘last’ territorial demand in Europe? Do any of you know that in March 1939 Hitler INVADED the rest of Czechoslovakia and carved it up, just 6 months after he has supposedly been appeased once and for all with ‘negotiations’?? Do any of you know that Hitler had abrogated a 1935 “non-aggression” pact with Poland months BEFORE he attacked? Maybe the Polish govt. had very good reasons to doubt that any concessions on Danzig could satisfy Hitler?
Hitler was not offering to “negotiate” with Poland, he was offering an ultimatum: surrender or I invade. It was not merely over Danzig and the corridor — ANYONE familiar with 4 years of increasingly aggressive misbehavior by Hitler could see that treaties and documents and promises were not worth a damn when dealing with him.
Buchanan does not confront the fact that after the Czechs were forced to give up the Sudetenland in Sept. 1938 they were then invaded and dismembered anyway, 6 months later. By March 1939 all could see that the first demands and the first concessions were just the beginning with Hitler. When the Czechs gave up vital fortifications and territory they made the rest of their country indefensible. The Poles did not care to give Hitler another access point for attacking their country. That is perfectly reasonable.
Some of you speak as though the Nazi ‘blitzkrieg’ successes were a foregone conclusion. They were not yet known to be at the time, not even to a lot of Hitler’s own generals who were on the verge of overthrowing him at least a couple of times because they thought he was going to bring about Germany’s destruction (which he did, of course, but it took longer than many imagined in 1938-39). The Poles had fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1920 and did not realize yet how much warfare was changing (or how good the German army and air force were becoming). Still, based upon what they thought they knew at the time they had good reason to think they could defend themselves long enough for the French and British to come to bear in the west. It is pure anachronistic revisionism to look at it now and say well of course they should have surrendered to Hitler because they were going to have to do so anyway.
The Poles thought they could hold out, and (another historical FACT which you all ignore or don’t know) they had been promised that the FRENCH (with Brit support) would attack from the west in the first weeks of any German invasion of Poland. Chamberlain’s guarantee was not his alone - he was working closely with the French who had the only serious army available for prompt action in the west - the guarantee turned out to be worthless, but it did not appear that way to most informed observers in spring 1939. In reality, historians can still debate seriously how different history could have been if the the French army had attacked aggressively in the west against vastly inferior German forces (since most of the 1st-line German units were in the east attacking Poland). We know after the fact that the French had neither the offensive doctrine nor the will to advance very far into Germany, but physically they probably could have crushed the German army in the west and marched on Berlin, had they done what had been PROMISED to the Poles.
btw, when Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway and Belgium and the Netherlands and the Balkans countries etc. etc. was that all because they refused to ‘negotiate’ with him? Was he simply FORCED to invade all those small neutral countries because he was desperately seeking someone who would finally ‘negotiate’ with him? Or was something else going on in 1939-41?
That’s all for now - I look forward to all of your carefully reasoned and well-informed responses that will far surpass in quality anything else on this thread. Thank you!
Hitler wanted the Polish race to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Hitler was such an ardent anti-communist that He divided up Eastern Europe with Stalin in August 1939.
“I don’t like Buchanan myself, but he’s not totally off base here. “
Agree with him or not, I have found Buchanan usually knows what he is talking about when he talks about the second world war, in terms of facts, and usually knows far more than the vast majority of his critics.
“[and Hitler never betrayed a country allied to him until they did him].”
Not being sarcastic - this is distinct from countries he simply made non-aggression or other neutrality-type pacts with (like the USSR)?