The Real German Warning for Cold War II (Pat Buchanan)

The American Conservative ^ | March 7, 2014 | Pat Buchanan

[Colonel Kangaroo]

In assessing the motives and actions of Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton compared them to Adolf Hitler’s. Almost always a mistake. After 12 years in power, Hitler was dead, having slaughtered millions and conquered Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. And Putin? After 13 years in power, and facing a crisis in Ukraine, he directed his soldiers in the Crimea to take control of the small peninsula where Russia has berthed its Black Sea fleet since Napoleon. To the Wall Street Journal this is a “blitzkrieg.”

But as of now, this is a less bloody affair than Andrew Jackson’s acquisition of our Florida peninsula. In 1818, Gen. Jackson was shooting Indians, putting the Spanish on boats to Cuba and hanging Brits. And we Americans loved it.

Still, there are parallels between what motivates Putin, a Russian nationalist, and what motivated the Austrian corporal. Hitler’s war began in blazing resentment at what was done to Germany after Nov. 11, 1918. The Kaiser’s armies had defeated the Russian Empire, and the Italians at Caporetto, and fought the Western Allies to a stand still in France, until two million Americans turned the tide in 1918. When Berlin accepted an armistice on President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, not a single Allied soldier stood on German soil.

But, at Paris, the Allies proceeded to tear a disarmed Germany apart. The whole German Empire was confiscated. Eupen and Malmedy were carved out of Germany and given to Belgium. Alsace-Lorraine was taken by France. South Tyrol was severed from Austria and given to Italy. A new Czechoslovakia was given custody of 3.25 million Sudeten Germans. The German port of Danzig was handed over to the new Poland, which was also given an 80-mile wide strip cut out of Germany from Silesia to the sea, slicing her in two. The Germans were told they could not form an economic union with Austria, could not have an army of more than 100,000 soldiers, and could not put soldiers west of the Rhine, in their own country. Perhaps this Carthaginian peace was understandable given the Allied losses. It was also madness if the Allies wanted an enduring peace. Gen. Hans Von Seeckt predicted what would happen. When we regain our power, he said, “we will naturally take back everything we lost.” When Hitler came to power in 1933, he wrote off the lands lost to Belgium, France and Italy—he wanted no war with the West—but set out to recapture lost German lands and peoples in the East. He imposed conscription in 1935, sent his soldiers back into the Rhineland in 1936, annexed Austria in 1938, demanded and got the return of the Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. He then sought to negotiate with the Polish colonels, who had joined in carving up Czechoslovakia, a return of Danzig, when the British issued a war guarantee to Warsaw stiffening Polish spines. Enraged by Polish intransigence, Hitler attacked. Britain and France declared war. The rest is history.

What has this to do with Putin? He, too, believes his country was humiliated and shabbily treated after the Cold War, and sees himself as protector of the ethnic Russians left behind when the Soviet Union came apart. Between 1989 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev had freed the captive nations of Eastern Europe, allowed the Soviet Union to dissolve into 15 nations, and had held out a hand of friendship to the Americans. What did we do? Moved NATO right onto Russia’s front porch. We brought all the liberated nations of Eastern Europe into our military alliance, along with three former Soviet republics. The War Party tried to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, which was established to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia. Had they succeeded, we could have been at war with Russia in 2008 over Georgia and South Ossetia, and today over Crimea.

Now we hear new calls for Ukraine and Georgia to be brought into NATO. Are these people sane? Five U.S. presidents who faced far more violent actions by a far more dangerous Soviet Union—Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Reagan—refused even to threaten force against Russia for anything east of the Elbe river. These presidents ruled out force during the Berlin Blockade of 1948, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the smashing of Solidarity in Poland in 1981. Yet, today, we are committed to go to war for Lithuania and Estonia, Obama is sending F-16s to Latvia where half a million Russians live, and the War Party wants Sixth Fleet warships moved into the Black Sea.

If there is a Cold War II, or a U.S.-Russia war, historians of tomorrow will as surely point to the Bushes and Clintons who shoved NATO into Moscow’s face, as historians today point to the men of Paris who imposed the Versailles treaty upon a defeated Germany in 1919.

[lodi90]

When one can’t deal with Buchanan’s logic, they switch the topic to Buchanan. All the foreign interests then chime in because Buchanan is for America first, last and only.

---

Wrong. There is no logic to Buchanan. He’s a vanilla isolationist and all of his opinions come from that idea.

For example, all of the countries around Russia also have historical claims to parts of RUSSIA. How about if Lithuania or Poland offer to start issuing passports to people living on their former lands now part of Russia? Following Russian “logic” that would be fine. Right?

[Olog-hai]

There was also the Dolchstoßlüge being bandied about.

[Stingray51]

By our treaty commitments, the US massively subsidizes the defense of other countries which are then able to have lower taxes than they would if they paid full freight for their own defense, and thereby better compete against us economically.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc

Who knows the accuracy of the above World Bank link but assuming it is about right:

The US spends 4.2% of GDP on defense. Yet Latvia, right in the line of fire for an expanding Russia, spends 0.9%. Poland makes a much bigger commitment to its own defense at 1.9%, but still less than half of what we spend. South Korea, which has a madman on its border and a capital within rocket range, spends 2.8%. I am tired of promising American blood and treasure to countries that do not take their own defense at least as seriously as we do. By contrast, Israel spends 5.7%

[lodi90]

The Estonian FM has been very vocal about the need to spend more on defense. They know. Now let’s see if you do it.

[nathanbedford]

A very good point.

Technology has changed everything since 1945. Therefore, one must be very careful about the lessons drawn from historical events. In 1914 and in 1939 the occupation of territory was everything, today it is virtually meaningless or, worse, it is a liability to occupy a hostile population as the Soviets and the Americans have found out in Afghanistan.

So then we must ask ourselves, is the territory of Crimea or even Ukraine worth risking thermonuclear war? That answer is self-evident. As Pat Buchanan pointed out, Truman answered it in Berlin, Eisenhower answered it in Hungary, and Kennedy answered it again in Berlin, all in the negative.

The bomb and ICBM changes everything as we found out in North Korea and are likely to find out very soon in Iran. The days of stopping a Hitler, as we stopped Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, simply do not apply to a nuclear power equipped with missiles.

This awareness led us to engage in a multinational defense pacts which have the advantage of increasing the forces arrayed against the foe but the distinct disadvantage of taking on the dubious appearance of interlocking relationships which cast Europe into war in 1914. In other words, we in effect pass the power to declare war from Congress to South Korea or Ukraine. Sometimes the issue goes on the other foot as the Soviets found themselves nearly committed to nuclear war by the Cubans.

I agree with every poster who points out that our problem is a disintegrating economic and moral structure at home leaving us more and more vulnerable abroad with fewer and fewer options.

I think this is precisely what Barack Obama wants and I have thought so since before he was originally inaugurated.

[Olog-hai]

That begs the question as to whether the matter surrounding the Crimea is a threat of thermonuclear aggression by Putin.

[nathanbedford]

Since it's a question we do not dare get wrong, the situation in Crimea does not beg the question but begs us to evade the question.

[11th Commandment]

We brought all the liberated nations of Eastern Europe into our military alliance, along with three former Soviet republics. The War Party tried to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, which was established to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia. Had they succeeded, we could have been at war with Russia in 2008 over Georgia and South Ossetia, and today over Crimea.

OR the outcome would have been Russia would have never invaded Georgia and would have not been meddling in Ukraine. We can play the what if games all day. But following Pat's logic, should the policy of the US after the cold war been to stroke the ego of the Russian Nationalists and give them control over former Soviet states and influence over former satellite nations. What about Poland? Take this model of economic freedom and let Russia influence it to avoid a potential ego war?

What Patrick is saying is that Russian ego is more important than the rule of law and freedom.

[Zhang Fei]

When one can't deal with Buchanan's logic, they switch the topic to Buchanan. All the foreign interests then chime in because Buchanan is for America first, last and only.

Buchanan was something, but America First wasn't that something. GOP primary voters certainly wrote him off. The problem with many arguments has nothing to do with logic - it's the premises that are wrong. Buchanan believes things that only a minority of the population (including GOP primary voters) thinks are correct.

[Olog-hai]

Such questions cannot be evaded. If all parties involved wish to avoid the question, only then can it be avoided.

[GOPJ]

...assessing the motives and actions of Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton compared them to Adolf Hitler’s. Almost always a mistake. After 12 years in power, Hitler was dead, having slaughtered millions and conquered Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. And Putin? After 13 years in power, and facing a crisis in Ukraine, he directed his soldiers in the Crimea to take control of the small peninsula where Russia has berthed its Black Sea fleet since Napoleon. To the Wall Street Journal this is a “blitzkrieg.”

Hillary Clinton's a hysterical woman who thinks the countries of the world are sluts going after her husband. She has ZERO historical perspective.

[nathanbedford]

Okay, then refrain from being a "party."

All of these matters should proceed from the first question, what is America's national interest? This should be done, for example with respect to our relationship to Israel-a statement I know guaranteed generate us response from you-to determine if the relationship is worth the risk associated with it.

What do we gain from risking thermonuclear war over Crimea? Precious little that I can determine. What are the risks if our calculation goes wrong? Infinite!

Answer: don't be a party to this rodeo the game isn't worth the candle and we don't have to worry about what the parties who are involved are prepared to do or not do.

[cripplecreek]

And here it comes.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3130701/posts

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Putin is like Hitler? Can't say I ever saw Putin give the Nazi salute. But Hitlery? Plenty of times.

[Olog-hai]

One cannot run from the world. Isolationism was tried in both previous world wars, and the “world” dragged us in notwithstanding. Showing weakness gets interpreted as being ripe for conquest.

[nathanbedford]

That argument was persuasive in the context of 1938 but ever since the Soviets exploded a bomb in 1948 it is archaic at least as to those nations possessed of the bomb.

I say again, what are our national interests, how much risk do they justify us in taking, what are the odds that we will prevail in securing those interests at an acceptable price?

These are the questions that should determine our policy. I do not say that we can never intervene anywhere, I say that there has to be a proper weighing of our national interests against the risks.

Let's hear it

[Olog-hai]

You do know that Putin’s actions are more of a provocation towards the USA and testing its mettle than any other entity on the globe, I hope. Certainly not the European Union, whom they don’t regard as a threat (yet). That’s an incursion on our national interests.

The USA has been of the type of entity that Washington described, i.e. “always ready for war”, ever since the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine, which John Kerry recently declared “over”. Nobody is going to just leave us alone if we try to be left alone. It really is necessary to get back to George Washington’s vision.

[ex-snook]

"Isolationism was tried in both previous world wars,"

Nah. Interventionism was tried in Europe in the first half of last century. Tried again in the Pacific in the second half. Now in this century is venturing into the ME and Africa. We are now broke and in debt to China, got some 24,000,000 un&under employed because we want intervention in all the trade of the world whereas we need to restore MADE in USA. We have trip wires all over the world for war intervention and in multiple wars right now. Another war would be existential for us.

[Olog-hai]

Furthermore, Putin, as I hope everyone recalls, already threatened Poland with a nuclear strike should the US missile shield have been erected on its soil. This caused “flexible” Obama to unilaterally back down. This has not bought us peace out of Putin, but more provocation in return.

[Alas Babylon!]

Dude, I think you pictures are off... Unless you’re comparing Jimmy Carter to John Wayne!

From Nixon: Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obamanation.