WOW. The point I see is how can one negotiate with a stronger, malevalent nation?Is negotiation better than what ultimately happened? Does anyone honestly believe that a man capable of the things Hitler did would have negotiated in good faith?That's the whole point of Pat's article. That you can negotiate with your mortal enemies *as long as you know what your interests are*. His argument is not that Hitler's demands were reasonable, just that it was in Poland's best interest to accept them(compared to the alternative what happened). You may disagree with that assertion, but that's not even Pat's main point.
Pat is arguing that we *should* negotiate with Iran because, in his opinion, negotiating with the Chinese and the Soviets actually put the US in a stronger position of power. As an alternative he shows the Poles, who failed to negotiate against their own self interest and were annihilated.
But Pat does seem to be making that argument. He states that the Danzig was unfairly taken in his opinion and that since it was 95 percent German maybe Poland should have been more open to negotiation. Given Hitler's adventures prior to that how could anyone believe he'd stop at Danzig? I personally believe and always have that his goal with taking Russia was as a steppingstone to North America, which was his real prize.
I’m saying they would have been crushed anyway. The Poles were subhuman to him. He’s blaming the Poles is how I take it. Substitute US of Poles and Osama for Hitler, and see... oh wait a minute, Pat has also taken Osama’s side there too- we’re too decadent, are troops are in Saudi...
Sadly the British and French were led by incompetents politicians and generals in 1939-40, and their mobilization was sabotaged by the communists, who were allied with the Nazis in 1940.
But it is the most ridiculous point.
If they had handed over the Free City of Danzig and the corridor, Hitler would have militarized it and used it as a front when they did invade Poland, which would have still been inevitable.