Posted on 05/21/2008 6:49:34 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Last week we noted the bizarre arguments of Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, who tried so hard to defend Barack Obama against President Bush’s “appeasement” speech that he actually ended up defending Hitler for annexing Austria. His exact words were: “What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable.”
If you think that’s an ahistorical pretzel of monumental proportions, though, you ain’t seen nothin’ — because here comes Pat Buchanan. According to old Pat, not only was the Anchluss not a problem, Hitler’s invasion of Poland was also perfectly understandable, given the Poles’ refusal to negotiate.
Those darned stubborn Poles were responsible for starting World War II, according to Pat: Bush Plays the Hitler Card.
German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.
Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.
But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.
From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.
The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.
He WAS very fond of dogs and children...
Czeckoslovakia was a picnic compared to how Poland was treated. Had Poland merely been treated like Czeckoslovakia it would have been a lot better off. Hitler had a point to make in Poland about what happens when you resist, and he made it in spades.
Point 2 is the silliest statement I have read. Without insulting the French, diplomats lie and they have always lied. US diplomats lie. Given Poland's history they would have known that. France simply did not have the military capability to help.
Point 1. How do you attribute our current problems with Islam to WWII as a principal origin of the conflict?
Point 2. Who anywhere has stated that we should not have fought Hitler in WWII or that the world would have been better off for it.
I could care less about Pat, actually, but I am very very concerned for the future of conservatism, when its adherents cannot read and cannot think.
Like everyone else here, you have allowed a leftist (the original posted article) to make an excerpt from Pat's article, recaption it, and frame how you are to read it. In fact if you read Pat's article in its entirety as he wrote it, Post #25, it makes a very different point and reaches a very different conclusion than this leftest article fooled you into reaching - because you cannot read or think for yourself.
Pat's article is not about Poland. It is about Bush and Israel, and absolute guarantees and the consequences of blanket refusals to negotiate. But because you won't read for yourself and think for yourself a leftist swindled you into thinking that Pat is justfying Hitler.
With fools like you in its roles conservatism is doomed.
Have at Pat for all I care, but attack him for what he said and not for what some leftwing nutjob said he said.
Pat is making a very different point than the point put in his mouth by his detractors. You can disagree with Pat. I don't care, but his point is about Bush and Israel, the fickleness of absolute diplomatic guarantees and the potential consequences of blanket refusal to negotiate when you may not be negotiating from the position of strength you thought you had based on promises by others (i.e. the position of Poland in WWII and by parallel the position of Israel today).
Despite what his detractors who have allowed themselves to get sidetracked into a ditch, Pat is not "justifying" Hitler's invasion of Poland. No Christian, as Pat certainly is, should have to start off his article by reminding people that Hitler was a moral monster. We can take that for a given.
According to Pat, we assume?
“Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.”
Riiight, and the invasions of Belgium, France, Norway and Russia had not even been contemplated by Hitler before he invaded Poland, they happened as an afterthought, I’m sure.
“Since vee haf unvaded Poland, vee might as vell take over ze rest of Europe!” Does that sound about right?
And where will Israel be when they remain intransigent on the basis of US diplomatic representations, get themselves in a bind and take Bush's blank check to Barack for payment in specie? I believe that Pat's dire warning is - somewhere East of Poland.
About 1/2 the folks on this forum read this article and decided for themselves: "Pat sure is an idiot"
Me, being slightly more sophisticated, if I can say so myself, put it as an either or and put to myself the following proposition: "Self," I said to myself, "Either Pat is an idiot, or that is not what he wrote."
So unlike the idiot 1/2 of knee jerkers who have got conservativism so tied in a knot around its own neck that it is hanging itself, I thought a bit more deeply about this conundrum.
I said to myself, "Self, the way I see it: 1. Pat says some outrageous things sometimes, but is is generally pretty smart. 2. Pat is a christian, if nothing else, and so I cannot believe he actually has any warm feelings for Hitler. 3. Self-styled journalistic hacks and bloggers almost always turn out to be liars."
So weighing this, and after much further deep thought I said "Self, what we ought to do is go find out what Pat actually said."
After watching American idol, drinking a couple of beers, walking the dog figuratively and literally, I sat back down and did a bit of surfing, and after a while discovered Pat's original article where he said what he said and not what some lying scumbag journalistic hack said he said.
And what I learned is that the journalist hack lying scumbag who wrote this article really is a journalistic hack lying scumbag, and while Pat says some pretty outrageous things sometimes, he is actually pretty smart and actually had a reasonable point to make about Bush's foolish guarantees to Israel.
So, before you go falling into holes dug for you by leftist lying hack jobs, why don't you read for yourself what was written. Then have a couple of beers, walk the dog, commune with your soul, before you post silly idiocy because you woke up sober at the bottom of a pit dug for you by a lying leftist scumbag.
Actually as history shows, sooner or later, losing nations, resurgient, are very good at repudiating their own goddamned treaties that were signed under duress. History is rife with it. There are two parts to a treaty. The written agreement and the regime (a formal technical diplomatic term) put in place to enforce it. Absent an enforcement regime many treaties become worthless or fall into abeyance.
Thank you for the link
Everybody's an idiot except you!
Nope. Just idiots let lying leftwing journalists frame their view of the issues. Have at Pat all you want for what he actually said, but not for what some scurrilous journalist wants you to think he said.
James Taranto is a scurrilous journalist? How did he "frame" the issue? Oh, right, he reprinted Pat's words. How sneaky!
He excerpted Pat's words out of context, eliminated Pat's introctory and conclusory remarks and then told you how you were to read them. He even retitled the whole thing for you just to make sure that you read it the way Taranto intended you to read it, rather than the way that Buchanan intended you to read it. That is scurilous.
You fell for it in a knee jerk fashion without even thinking about it. That is idiocy. And now you are trying to cover up for the fact that you allowed yourself to be duped by these scurilous journalistic tactics.
LOL!
eliminated Pat's introctory and conclusory remarks
Please, add the "introctory and conclusory remarks" that change this
German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig
Into something other than blaming Poland for their own invasion.
LOL! Your illogic is even more scurilous that Taranto’s.
1. Tell me, what was the point Pat made in the conlusory remarks that Taranto excised?
The rapist killed the girl because she didn't comply with his demands.
The bank robber killed the clerk because he didn't hand the money over.
In returning fire the drug dealer shot the innoncent pedestrian because he did not duck.
The car struck the pedestrian in the crossing lane because the pedestrian continued to cross after the car honked its horn.
There are a million similar statements that one can right, providing the victim of an assault an alternative that might not result in immediate tragic consequences.
Telling folks that they have the option to step back to the curb, duck gunfire, hand over the money, give in to the assialant and potentially live another day to seek justice in another forum does not transfer guilt from perpetrator to victim.
But you are so enraged by the red flag with Pat's name on it that Taranto waives in front of your eyes, that you snort and stomp and blow steam out your nostrils and cannot see reason.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.