Is he actually defending Hitler’s actions for invading Poland over a Germanic speaking port?
Good Lord.
Buchanan has lost it
Published: May 20, 2008Posted in: Catch-All
About the Author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter. 
Loading ...
In his essay, Buchanan uses the Czech surrender of Sudetenland as an example of what should have been done. He says that Poland should have surrendered Danzig to placate the Germans, like the Czechs did with Sudetenland.
What Buchanan omits is that after the Munich pact, the Germans took control of all of Czechoslovakia. Poland saw what happened to Czechoslovakia, i. e. Czechoslovakia gave up part of their country to Germany, and Germany then took over all of their country. This is not a case of hindsight; Poland saw the result of appeasement.
Two words: John Demjanjuk.
Buchanan defended this Nazi SS scum back in the 80’s.
It’s no surprise he’s defending the guy who actually gave the orders.
What is surprising is that the likes of MSNBC and Dick Armey still give him a podium
Either you didn’t read the whole essay, or you did not understand the thrust of Pat Buchanan’s main point; that for Bush to condemn the use of diplomacy takes away a sometimes useful tool in the process of working with different factions and governments.
Over the last thirty years, I have read much of Pat Buchanan’s writings and I used to talk with him when he used to attend Republican functions around Virginia. Pat Buchanan has a very deep understanding of history and government. He is one of few analysts who regularly include objective examples from the Nazi regime under Hitler as part of his topics. His approach is always honest and objective and it is unfortunate that since he doesn’t start and end every piece that he does on the Middle East with a big sloppy wet kiss for Israel, he is so unfairly accused as being pro-Nazi, or the consummate sin in the eyes of the Left, anti-Israel. Neither is the case. Pat Buchanan, as always, just provides his usual cogent analysis, fairly comparing current events with his crystal clear view of history.
A legitimate criticism of his recent essay would be that using the Polish-German example distracted from, rather than reinforced, his position that diplomacy is sometimes a viable tool.
Pat Buchanan knows that by adding a reference to any facet of the Nazi era to his essays will add a spark of controversy and is always good for a boost in readership. He got you again!
I concur J. Tyler. It was a good article and very thought provoking. I was actually confused as to how this meant he was a sympathiser. It seemed to me that his history was accurate.
It’s quite clear. Buchanan says “Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig” and “Hitler had not wanted war with Poland…But the Poles refused to negotiate.”
Negotiate? As in give up land. JR’s point is fairly clear to me. Buchanan puts the responsibility of Hitler’s actions on Poland.
See, ya gotta be careful about these people who bash the Republican Party for not being conservative enough while they run for President, both for the Republican nomination and for third parties.
I agree Brian. Pat asked, “Were all four Israeli leaders deluded fools?” And the sentence before reads “Ehud Olmert offered him 95 percent of the West Bank.” A nation as small as Israel is foolish to give up land. And the land for peace deal has worked so very well for them.
I like the Old Testament Israel better. Some times negotiations have to be done at the end of the sword (or laser pistol). Just–here it comes–ask Padme.
What Pat refuses to acknowledge is you cannot negotiate with terrorist who want you dead period. I think this is the case with those various Middle Eastern variety terrorists.
It may sell magazines to downplay how bad Hitler was, but it does not help to convince people of Buchanan’s point. If he wants to make the case that an ingenious argument, with no military to back it up, will persuade a tyrant not to attack another country, Buchanan should show an instance in history where that actually happened.
Sorry for the double post, but I just had dinner and now I am feeling much better. I have come to my senses. Pat is right!
Obama should negotiate with the Middle Eastern terrorist. Let’s give them land for peace. Specifically, California. Liberals believe in land for peace, so they would not mind sharing their state with misunderstood terrorists.
California is warm. There is money there. Hollywood, one of the many things those guys with guns and bombs hate about us, is there. With all those cameras they could even make movies about how just their former cause was. What’s not to like?
Giving them California might make them forget about Israel and grant lasting peace there too.
And would giving up California be that much of a sacrifice for the rest of us?
Vote Obama/Buchanan!
The article restates a ludicrous argument that Buchanan has made before: that Western Europe should have consigned Eastern Europeans to Nazi slavery to avoid war.
Not only is that degrading to Eastern Europeans, but misses the point that Hitler always had intended to conquer France. In “Mein Kampf” he wrote “France must be destroyed.”
As for Danzig:
1. It was Poland’s only outlet to the sea.
2. Wilson’s Fourteen Points did cover an independent Polish nation.
3. Giving Germany Danzig would have left Poland largely surrounded by hostile nations (i.e. Germany, Soviet Union, and pro-Nazi Hungary).
As bloody as it got, better Poland did take the British guarantee.
Duck:
California has deserts, oil, gambling, and dhimmies. What’s not to like?
Brian: “See, ya gotta be careful about these people who bash the Republican Party for not being conservative enough while they run for President, both for the Republican nomination and for third parties.”
Speaking of the Hindenburg, that’s a completely fallacious argument. Those that buy into the entire “left vs right” paradigm aren’t analyzing things deeply enough. The Nazis – Fascist National Socialists – were still Collectivists, just like Communists, the Italian Fascists, Corporatists, Monarchists, today’s so called ‘Liberals’, and any other breed of statist philosophy. They still held the State as the highest power.
What American Conservatism is supposed to stand for is Individualism – the idea that each man and woman is an end to himself, sovereign, and not a serf or disposable by the state.
American Conservatism is supposed to stand for free market Capitalism, the idea that we are all free to exchange for mutual benefit, to the extent of our abilities.
American Conservatism is based on non-intervention, the idea that America should defend herself, and not be entangled in the affairs of the crumbling old empires of Europe and Asia.
To even think of lumping in the ideas that all men should be free – the ideas that gave birth to America – in with the Nazis, while the current reigning philosophy of so called ‘Centrism’ is far closer, exponentially, to what was going on in Germany in the 30s and 40s – is an affront to any kind of reason.
The Communists are super left, while Nazis are super right? Garbage. An insipid argument, based on a limited, one dimensional view of the political spectrum – which is in reality a continuum, not a line – which is boiled down to the lowest common denominator so that the news can spoon feed it out in five second sound bites. The entire left-right paradigm was created by Socialists. Abandon it. Things are far more complicated than that.
Dan, when other people write things like “speaking of the Hindenberg,” it helps the readers’ judgment of the author when someone actually spoke of the Hindenberg.
You preceded your tirade by copying a quote of mine, which had literally nothing to do with your following paragraphs which simultaneously define groups on the left-right spectrum, and criticizes other people who do the same thing.
The only connection with your comments and the Hindenburg is what kind of air is kept both of them afloat.
What, you don’t have a monopoly on snide remarks – so, to stick with this running theme of my points flying over your head, the Hindenburg reference here was to your argument in that statement of yours, thus quoted.
Unfortunately, this left-right paradigm is so pervasive that you have to use those terms to explain its fallacies, and why it should be scrapped. If you’re going to attempt to be witty, at least be good at it. I see that you haven’t countered my point that the political spectrum is far broader than that paradigm would have you think, so it stands. The fact that you’re wrong about “ooh, watch out for those far righties” stands as well. You essentially put Bastiat, De Tocqueville and Locke in the same class as Goebbels with that statement, which is nonsense.
I was just pointing out in that column that Buchanan and Ron Paul have a lot in common.
Now, please return to your pablum about political spectrums. I’m sure it’s interesting too…..well, someone.
So, you’re not interested in understanding the proper function of government, or the way of thinking that even makes this page possible?
Epic lols.
Yes, Dan. If it wasn’t for you, what would we all do?
:shrugs: I don’t know.