Pat Buchanan has provided the lefties with some nice ammo. He, like Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times, believes that Hitler was reasonable in demanding territory from a sovereign country. First, he distinguishes appeasement and indicts Chamberlain for committing it in Munich.
Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war — to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised — he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.
Chamberlain’s negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war — at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.
Then he goes wildly off the reservation.
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.
Poland was a sovereign nation. Treaties following a war routinely redefine boundaries. For Hitler to unilaterally decide, after Germany started, and lost, World War I, that he didn’t like the deal, does not justify redrawing the map by force. By Buchanan’s logic, Mexico would be justified invading Texas because they didn’t think that war worked out all that well for them either.
So we have the Buchanan Doctrine: If you don’t negotiate with an adversary for territory he thinks is rightfully his, then you should expect to be invaded.
Buchanan makes a lot of sense a lot of the time, but not this time.
Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
Bill Dupray is a lawyer living in Northern Virginia.
One thing about Pat, he knows his history. I really like the man… we differ on many an issue. Most especially Iraq, which is the main reason he sounds more like a liberal than a conservative for these past few years. But my respect for him remains.
I’ve read alot of Pat’s books. He comes from a school of thought, based on his knowledge of American history (in which is is extraordinarily well versed in both warfare and economic) that may not apply today because of our global trade, instantaneous communications, and “small world” links between nations. He is somewhat isolationist policy-wise, and protectionist economically. Today, Pat would be the first person to suggest the US is acting like an empire… even tho we do not seek to annex territory.
I suspect these foundations factor into his opinions on this particular subject. In his opinion, what happens (and happened) between Europe/Slavic nations during that era is not the business of the US. Perhaps viable when carge went predominately by ship, letters by airmail, and the Internet was nary a glint in Gore’s eye. LOL
Buchanan missed important points about the Czech appeasement. It wasn’t even close to being bloodless.
From Wikipedia: The Germans killed 390,000 Chez (outright or through camps), sent thousands to prisons/camps and sent 2.7 historically Germans back to Germany (where if they died during WWII, they probably died as Germans). In 1919 the country had 13.5 million people and now it has 10.3 million people.
Also according to Wikipedia, In 1921 Poland had a population of 27 million. Now it has a population of 38.5 million.
During the Soviet occupation, the Czechs were treated well compared to Poland. Now both populations have about the same negative growth. I would say the decrease for the Chez was from the destruction the Germans took on the Czechs more than anything else. Poland toughed it out under the germans then the Soviets and theri poulation still grew.
The thing is, if Chamberlain had gone to war with Germany in 1938 the Luftwaffe would have had free reign to pound Britain into submission and the R.A.F would have been powerless to stop them. Chamberlain did at least manage to buy Britain time to mobilise military production on an industrial scale. Thus the R.A.F was able, just, to deny the Nazis air superiority and deny Hitler the chance to launch operation Sealion. It was a close run thing, and it cost Britain her empire, but those extra few months were vital in enabling British fighter squadrons to get up to strength.
Of course, the U.S.A was nowhere to be seen while this was going on, and her population were still divided when finally she entered the war. What should have happened, was the moment the Nazis set foot in Poland they were met with a massive and unified response from Britain, France, Russia and the U.S.A. That is when Military action is justified and necessary – when an enemy invades your territory or that of one of your allies. Comparisons of what happened in 1938 – 1939 and the contemporary situation in Iran, Iraq or wherever are assinine and do nothing to help determine what we should be doing now.