Replies

At least early on in the war I think you're correct, Poland would have been spared a lot of the violence and death they experienced had they cooperated. But Hitler's defeat by the Russians was inevitable either way and then what, Stalin would have tore through Poland in revenge even worse than he did. It was a no win for that country because like Belgium or Holland they simply didn't have much of a military machine. I'm sure the leaders of Poland at the time saw all that and did what they did because of the promises from Britain and France.
I've heard Pat speak on this subject many times and he really seems to underestimate Hitler's intentions and ruthlessness in achieving them. I like him a lot better when he sticks to domestic issues.

Yeah, I think the Poles acted as rationally as they could. They knew they were screwed no matter what.

However, this whole "Pat is a Nazi" thing is silly. Pat's making a reasonable argument(that people can disagree with, but it's still reasonable) in support of his greater argument, that negotiating with monsters can yield positive results and *not* doing it can be disastrous.

"this whole "Pat is a Nazi" thing is silly"

I don't imagine for a moment that Pat is a Nazi, closet or crypto or other.

I do think he is smug, careless, ignorant, unctuous, and much too glib in describing the outbreak of WWII. He may be "soft on Nazis" or maybe he simply does not understand much about the period 1936-40. He certainly does not seem to care about the survival of Israel - whether that is due to some latent anti-Semitism, I don't know. He does not seem capable of recognizing the achievements and moral grandeur of Israelis - he treats them as casual afterthoughts of no value (of course people would have intrinsic value as humans whether or not they display great achievements and moral grandeur, but I find it difficult to understand how anyone cannot greatly admire Israel and her people). In the world after the Holocaust I find his attitudes to be especially appalling. No, I'm not Jewish and have not the slightest direct connection to Israel - I'm simply another American who admires and values Jewish people to a vastly greater extent than Pat B. does, it seems.

Certainly I agree with Pres. Bush that it is a strong US interest, both a moral and strategic interest, to see Israel strong and successful. Like many people I do not get the impression that Pat B. cares too much one way or another whether 7 million Israelis survive - that may be why a lot of people think he is anti-Semitic? Maybe he's just a callous beast and it has nothing to do with Jews in particular?

I also think he's one of the last people I would want making major decisions of national security for the USA, so I'm glad he has not surpassed the status of 3rd-rate commentator for a small-time talking head program in recent years.

Other than that, I just want to go back to ignoring him!

Pat's making a reasonable argument(that people can disagree with, but it's still reasonable) in support of his greater argument, that negotiating with monsters can yield positive results and *not* doing it can be disastrous. .

Why is this so hard to get? Why do folks have so much difficulty reading the actual words written and not reading words that were not written?

“However, this whole “Pat is a Nazi” thing is silly. Pat’s making a reasonable argument(that people can disagree with, but it’s still reasonable) in support of his greater argument, that negotiating with monsters can yield positive results and *not* doing it can be disastrous. “

I think this is a combination of many (but not all, some disagreeing know a good bit as is shown here) posters being historically ignorant of anything beyond ‘germany bad’ analysis of WWII, and a fair amount of anti-buchanan sentiment, no matter what he writes. If he writes ‘sun may rise tomorrow,’ the responses would include limited unequivocal agreement at best.