Pat Buchanan (editorial) Defends Nazi Germany's Invasion of Poland'

Bush Plays the Hitler Card
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: 05/19/2008




"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. "


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26606

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On March 25, 1939, 10 days after he had completely dismembered Czechoslovakia, Adolf HITLER told the chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht or OKW), Col. Gen. (later Field Marshal) Wilhelm Keitel, and the commander in chief of the army, Col. Gen. (later Field Marshal) Walther von Brauchitsch, that the time had come to consider solving the Polish problem by military means.

A week later, on April 3, Part 2 of the annual directive for the German armed forces, drafted by Hitler himself, set forth a strategic outline for an attack on Poland to be prepared by Sept. 1, 1939. On April 28, in his first open move, Hitler abrogated the Polish-German nonaggression treaty of 1934 and declared that the issue of Danzig must be settled.

Hitler's turning against Poland surprised no one. On March 31, the British government, attempting to forestall the German dictator, had given a unilateral guarantee of Poland's territorial integrity. (France had a military alliance with Poland dating back to 1921.)

Without hesitating, Hitler pressed forward. At a staff conference held on May 23, he stated that a repetition of the Czech affair was not to be expected. Further successes and the expansion of German Lebensraum (space for living) could not be achieved without bloodshed.

There would be war. Observers had noted after the Munich Conference of 1938 that the negotiated settlement had angered Hitler. He had wanted a chance to test the new Wehrmacht in action, and he was now determined to have it against Poland.

This was the new element in the crisis which Hitler carefully nurtured through the spring and summer of 1939. He did not wish another Munich, but he did wish to cajole, frighten, or simply confuse the British and French sufficiently to keep them from intervening in the neat, small war that he intended to have with his neighbor on the east.

http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_3.html

The Fuhrer made countless racist statements against Slavs. Hitler repeatedly lamented the fact that the admixture of Jews and Slavs had polluted the Germanic element of his native Austria (e. g., pp. 138-140). The Fuhrer also contended that Slavs have no capability of self-government--their rulers must all be of Germanic origin (p. 951). Hitler was no white supremacist; he was a German supremacist par excellence!


Clear proof that the Fuhrer had long planned a war of massive conquest and extermination, against the Slavic peoples, is provided by his following statements regarding lebensraum: "Neither eastern nor western orientation should be the future goal of our foreign policy, but an eastern policy signifying the acquisition of the necessary soil for our German people." (pp. 965-966). (Later, the Nazis spoke of "resettlement" of Jews and Slavs. In time, "resettlement" evolved into a euphemism for extermination.)


Pat Buchanan....... Hitler's Apologists!

Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf By Adolf Hitler


Adolf Hitler's so-called second book was not published in his lifetime. Written, as Gerhard Weinberg convincingly speculates, in late June and early July 1928, the book's publication was postponed because Mein Kampf, Hitler's first massive text, was selling very badly and could hardly stand competition with another publication by the same author.



http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1929631162/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

"How to know when your loved one needs 'Memory Care'".

they are red and black and white--you know, red background, a white circle, with a black swastika in the middle.

There was a column written by somebody in the NW that had the same feel to it--negotiating with Hitler wasn't all that bad, and could have gone better.

The upshot in both articles: "What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?" In both cases: Negotiations are cheap, with no costs. The NW editorial was explicitly pro-Obama; Buchanan isn't, but takes his side on this issue.

Talking about Hitler is just taking an extreme example--not justifying Hitler. It's easy to miss, since "Hitler" is a red flag for many.

I think both editorials are wrong, producing a theory that is simpler than possible. There's always a context in successful negotiations, and both editorials ignored some of them; similarly, there's a context in negotiations and talks that prove fiascos, and the editorials ignore those, as well. Even the example of the Sudetenland is warped, because it involved the West redrawing the borders they had drawn recently in Czechoslovakia, and deciding ex parte that Western concerns trumped Czechoslovak sovereignty. It had ramifications that the NW editor ignored.

Take the Polish example. Ignore the Grolier's excerpt, assume that Hitler could be placated by being given Danzig. Hitler wanted Danzig; negotiations would lead to either war or his having Danzig. Poland found that intolerable: they could negotiate, but to what end? By entering into negotiations they open themselves to the charge that Danzig's status was negotiable, or they were negotiating in bad faith, a weakening of their side in either case.

Sometimes negotiations are a net loss for one side, even if they go nowhere.

You are off tangent, I attacked his article on his misrepresentation of Hitler's motives
and proved it.

I have detested him ever since he wrote an article defending LePen, quite a few years ago. That was all I needed to know about him - though I've learned a lot of other things about him since then!

First they want their own reality and now their own history

One wonders why Buchanan is given such deference to begin with.

part of Polish territory? Yeah, right...

Also, Polish FM Beck and the rest of the Polish government had kept a strict policy of siding with neither Germany or the USSR, which greatly frustrated both states. In fact, a Polish alliance with Germany in 1938 would have probably played into the Soviets' hands, as it would have given them an excuse to invade Poland had war broken out over the Sudetenland, and would have forced Germany to fight a three front war (France/Britain, Czechoslovakia, USSR). As it was, the Soviet Union was separated from the Czechoslovakians by Rumania and Poland, and could not intervene on Benes' behalf. A Polish-German alliance in 1938 would have been a really foolish move by Hitler.

Pat Buchanan is not only a racist jackass, he's also totally wrong on the facts in this case.