Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler's Invasion of Poland

littlegreenfootballs.com ^ | May 21, 2008

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

From a historical standpoint, Buchanan is right guys.

Since when did FReepers put knee-jerk emotion over facts and logic?

[usmcobra]

When you lose a war the winner get to decide what territory you get to keep.

Pat’s wrong, by his standard every country that was ever punished by lost territory should wage war to get it back if the new owners of said property don’t negotiate to get it back.

[AndyJackson]

Since when did FReepers put knee-jerk emotion over facts and logic?

It has been going on for quite a while. It is very very sad to watch. The vanguard of conservatism is slipping into some very sloppy habits.

[AndyJackson]

by his standard every country that was ever punished by lost territory should wage war to get it back if the new owners of said property don’t negotiate to get it back.

Pat states this prescription exactly where?

[Cacique]

btt

[C19fan]

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

Maybe the Poles saw what happen to Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. That is the reason Chamberlain gave up appeasement and GB along with France backed Poland

[Oztrich Boy]

Only to be repatriated to the nation in which they had spent the last two millenia..

There was no two millenia Germany

That part of Europe was a bunch of petty dukedoms and minor Kingdoms until first Napoleon, then Prussia "unified" it.

[AndyJackson]

In this article Pat is pointing out the folly of Bush's false historical analogies. Pat merely makes the observation that absolute refusal to negotiate with mortal enemies can, itself, be fatal,which it clearly was in the case of Poland. Nothing more.

Second, while it is all well and good to point out that Charberlain changed is view of the effectiveness of appeasement, his policy towards Poland was irrelevant, since he lacked the means to back up his policies and promises. This irresponsible act merely encouraged Poland to commit political suicide.

[AndyJackson]

Furthermore, learning from history requires a clear-eyed, honest understanding of the facts as they actually happened. That is often nearly impossible in and of itself. Wishful thinking, moralizing and other kinds of factual distortions lead to misapprehension and error. We have enormous problems that are vital to our survival. Getting our facts straight is essential. It is a fundamental moral obligation of those who would wish to guide our policy.

[C19fan]

In this article Pat is pointing out the folly of Bush's false historical analogies. Pat merely makes the observation that absolute refusal to negotiate with mortal enemies can, itself, be fatal,which it clearly was in the case of Poland. Nothing more. Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler at Munich giving him the German speaking Sudentenland. What did Hitler do? He invaded the rest of the non-German speaking remnant of Czechoslovakia. Now Hitler goes to the Poles and demands Danzig. After seeing what Hitler did with Czechoslovakia what would you expect Poland to do, actually negotiate! France and Britain could of invaded Germany before the onset of 1940.

[Bender2]

I well remember not too many years ago when Pat Buchanan gave a speech at the 1992 Republican convention, the one Molly Ivins quipped was "better in the original German."

It ticked me off to no end... Yet, by golly, as time has passed...

I find my anger was for naught... Pat has shown repeatedly since then that he has way far more than marbles loose in his belfry!

[Mamzelle]

Your reasoning is going to fall on deaf neo-ears. I read PB's column, and found no "Hitler love" in it, but a discussion of the historical folly of appeasement and how Poland got caught in the crossfire--or lack of fire.

There is a faction here that wants to believe Pat said something he did not say so they can work themselves up over it. They want him to be an anti-semite so they can play Atticus Finch, and forget for awhile the specter of Barack Hussein Obama in charge of Middle East policy. A lot of energy has been wasted on hating Pat. Mel will be next.

[usmcobra]

So was he is using some other bench mark for why Hitler was right to invade besides the Danzig corridor?

By his standard If the Peace treaty that put Danzig in Poland was illegal because it didn’t conform to Wilson’s 14 points, then what I said is what he is trying to prove.

Pat has just made every treaty ever signed after a war null and void if the losing side doesn’t agree to the terms, or can find some one that doesn’t agree to the terms for them.

The next thing you know he will be encouraging the British to retake the east coast as their lost 13 colonies since the treaty of Paris was never signed by the United States Government.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Pat’s wrong, by his standard every country that was ever punished by lost territory should wage war to get it back if the new owners of said property don’t negotiate to get it back.

Using the argument that Nazi Germany had the right to take back territory lost in WW1 Pat is actually giving Mexico justification to reclaim the Southwest US. Since they can't do so militarily it must ok in Pat's mind then for them to invade illegally as they are. Of course he argues the opposite when it comes to that but I guess he doesn't see the hypocrisy or double standard in what he's saying.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

When you lose a war the winner get to decide what territory you get to keep.

BS, especially as it applies to WWI. The Treaty of Versailles was one of the harshest post-war treaties of all time. What did you expect Germany to do?

[usmcobra]

How about don’t start yet another war for one thing?

They chose poorly how to deal with losing.

[TigersEye]

Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the greatest mass murderer of them all, Mao Zedong, when Maoists were conducting a nationwide purge: the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yet, Nixon ended a quarter century of implacable U.S.-Chinese hostility. Was Nixon's trip to China useless?

It was far worse than useless. It was validation and appeasement of that great mass murderer Mao Zedong. We have been paying a price for that bit of stupidity ever since and the full evil fruit of it is yet to come. It was an invitation to rape us and it was gladly accepted.

[CrosscutSaw]

Even though I don’t always agree with Pat Buchanan I always liked him. But on this, he is downright silly.

I still like and respect him though. Pat is a good guy.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did you expect Germany to do?

Start another war and lose more territory. How'd that work out for them?

[JasonC]

It wasn't foolish. Germany wasn't an overwhelming force. The war was criminally insane on their part, and they duly lost. Pat is a Nazi flacking for his fuhrer, that is all.