Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway


(1) Why did Germany invade Poland? What was the issue between those two countries that necessitated a war?

It was the question of whether Danzig - a city that was 95 percent German, which had been torn away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty - would be incorporated into Germany, right?

(2) You have your facts wrong.

- First, Germany demanded the incorporation of Danzig into Germany, as Danzig was a German city. The Poles refused to cede Danzig. The British, stung by Munich, gave a war guarantee to Poland.

- Second, the Poles refused to back down over Danzig. Germany declared war.

- Third, Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around, because of the stupid and worthless war guarantee to Poland.

- Fourth, “Czechoslovakia” was a tyranny that was hated by the Germans, Slovaks, Poles, and Hungarians that had been forced to live under Czech rule.

The Poles and Hungarians also invaded “Czechoslovaka.” The Slovaks declared their independence. They didn’t want to live under Czech rule ... and rejected “Czechoslovakia” again in the Velvet Divorce.

- Fifth, it was Britain that dragged the United States into the war, after Britain was dragged into the war by the worthless war guarantee.

(3) Buchanan never argues that England was “evil” for giving the war guarantee. Unwise, yes. It was undoubtedly one of the most foolish decisions ever made by any empire in all of world history.

Britain didn’t have the resources or capability to ensure Poland’s independence. It surely had no real interests either in a poor country in Eastern Europe anyway.

(4) Saying that the “Nazis” were “aggressive” for demanding the annexation of the Sudetenland and Danzig is like saying that America is “aggressive” for refusing to cede Seattle, Portland, and Boston to foreign powers.

All of Germany - liberal, socialist, conservative, Nazi, communist - agreed that Danzig was a German city that had been unjustly torn from Germany. That was not a “Nazi” position. It was mainstream view within Germany for obvious reasons.

(5) Why was there a “Free City of Danzig” in the first place? Because after WW1 a punitive treaty - one that America rejected in disgust, which caused America to turn its back on Europe - was imposed on Germany by Britain and France which was designed to cripple the country and keep Germany in thrall to Britain and France.

(6) There is plenty of logic to Buchanan’s argument: the worthless Polish war guarantee was the cause of Polish brinkmanship which was the cause of the German invasion which was the cause of the Soviet invasion which was the cause of Britain and France declaring war and the cause of the Second World War.

That worthless war guarantee resulted in the worst possible scenario for Poland - enslavement, the death of millions, the ruin of the country, the obliteration of its cities, communist and fascist rule, the loss of independence for fifty years - and by extension it also destroyed Britain as a world power.

There is nothing in the least bit “communist” about Buchanan’s argument. On the contrary, it was Churchill who in his “naughty document” ceded Poland and much of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Greece) to Stalin at the Yalta Conference.

It was Winston Churchill who abandoned Poland.

36 posted on 11/01/2011 1:59:32 AM PDT by WilliamHouston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: WilliamHouston

All Buchanan and your arguments rest on assumptions that are false or preposterous:

1. Poland should have ceded Danzig to Germany. a) Danzig was already controlled by Nazis. Poland wanted to keep some purely trade-related rights to a port. Giving Poles nonmilitary access to ports is so offensive to Germans, that they are justified carving up Poland with the USSR. (meanwhile, they already controlled Danzig, and could have merely blocked access to the ports. They didn’t do that, they conquered the whole country. So, that definitely must be Britain’s fault)

2. Buchanan’s whole argument rests on the fact that Hitler would have “played nice,” if he just could have had Danzig. Well, what is your proof? I think there is plenty of proof that wasn’t the case. There was Austria. There was Czechoslovakia. There was Poland. The fact of the matter there was a lot of intelligence that Nazi Germany had aggressive plans besides that. We know now that Hitler was only prevented from kidnapping Pius XII by the Italian military.

I would never argue that Churchill is beyond criticism, but you need a lot more proof than you have given me to show that Hitler was peaceful beyond just wanting Danzig, who was pushed by a bloodthirsty Churchill.

41 posted on 11/01/2011 2:18:47 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: WilliamHouston
1. Churchill has no power in 1939.
2. And England and France stoppped the partition of Czechoslovakia, there would have been no Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. His and your arguments fail.
3. Your defense of bad history, just like PAt's lunacy, undermines WEstern Civilizaiton. Is your loyalty to pro-Islamic pacific or to Western Survival. Choose one.
59 posted on 11/01/2011 11:40:56 AM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: WilliamHouston
Danzig was an autonomous zone under League of Nations protectorate. Poland was building its own port at Gdynia. Sooner or later, Danzig probably would have reverted to Germany, if the Germans showed some patience.

Czechoslovakia was neither a tyranny nor "hated" by non-Czechs under its rule. It was one of the few democracies in the region and while there were frictions, "hatred" is far too strong a word.

64 posted on 11/01/2011 12:01:32 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson