creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
25 May 2012
The Unraveling Myth of Watergate

It was, they said, the crime of the century. An attempted coup d'etat by Richard Nixon, stopped by two … Read More.

22 May 2012
What If Zimmerman Walks Free?

Three months ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Handcuffed,… Read More.

18 May 2012
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, … Read More.

Looking Back at 'The Good War'

Share Comment

In the early morning hours of Sept. 1, 1939, 72 years ago, the German army crossed the Polish frontier.

On Sept. 3, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, having received no reply to his ultimatum demanding a German withdrawal, declared that a state of war now existed between Great Britain and Germany.

The empire followed the mother country in. The second world war was on. It would last six years, carry off scores of millions and end with Germany in ruins, half of Europe under Josef Stalin's rule and the British Empire on the way to collapse.

Though it may prove to be the mortal wound that brings about the death of the West, most today accept World War II as inevitable, indeed as "the good war."

For it is said and believed that Adolf Hitler was not only the incarnation of evil but also out to conquer, first Poland and then Europe and then the world.

To stop such a monster, one must risk everything.

Which makes these two sentences in the final chapter of British historian Richard Overy's new book, "1939: Countdown to War," riveting:

"Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest. ... (R)ecent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire ... had to be improvised almost from scratch."

But if Hitler had no "plan or blueprint for world conquest," this raises perhaps the great question of the 20th century.

What was Britain's stake in a Polish-German territorial quarrel to justify a war from which the British nation and empire might never recover?

How the war came about is the subject of Overy's book.

By August 1939, Hitler had come to believe that Polish intransigence over the city of Danzig meant Germany would have to resolve the issue by force. But he desperately did not want a war with Britain like the one in which he had fought from 1914-18.

To prevent a German-Polish clash from bringing on a European war, however, Hitler had to sever the British-Polish alliance formed the previous spring.

To split that alliance, Hitler negotiated his own pact with Stalin, a coup that meant any British declaration of war to save Poland would be an utterly futile gesture. But when the Hitler-Stalin pact was announced, spelling Poland's doom, Britain publicly reaffirmed her commitment to Poland.

Hitler instantly called off an invasion set for Aug.

26.

In the last analysis, says Overy, British "honour," Chamberlain's honoring of his war guarantee to the Poles, caused Britain to go to war.

When and why was this commitment given?

On March 31, 1939, Chamberlain, humiliated by the collapse of his Munich agreement and Hitler's occupation of Prague, handed, unsolicited, a war guarantee to a Poland then led by a junta of colonels.

To understand the rashness, the sheer irrationality of this decision, one must understand the issue involved and Britain's situation in 1939.

First, the issue: The Polish-German quarrel was over a city, Danzig, most British leaders believed had been unjustly taken from Germany at the end of World War I and ought to be returned.

The German claim to Danzig was regarded as among the most just claims Germany had from what most agreed by then had been an unjust and vindictive Treaty of Versailles.

What did the people of Danzig themselves want? Writes Overy:

"In May 1933, shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, Danzig's National Socialist Party won 38 out of the city's 72 assembly seats and formed the city government. ... By 1936 there was a virtual one-party system. ... The strongly nationalist German population agitated in 1939 to come ... back home to Germany."

In short, the Germans wanted their city back, and the Danzigers wanted to go home to Germany. And most British had no objection.

Yet Britain backed up Poland's refusal even to negotiate, and when that led to war, Britain declared war on Poland's behalf.

Why did Britain do it?

After all, the war guarantee was given in response to the destruction of Czechoslovakia, but the Polish colonels had themselves participated in that destruction and seized a slice of Czechoslovakia.

Second, despite the guarantee, Britain had no plans to come to Poland's aid. Third, Britain lacked the means to stop Germany. When Hitler bombed Warsaw, British bombers dropped leaflets on Germany.

If Britain had no ability to save Poland and no plans to save Poland, why encourage the Poles to fight by offering what the British knew was a worthless war guarantee? Why declare a European and world war for a country Britain could not save and a cause, Danzig, in which Britain did not believe, in an Eastern Europe where Britain had no vital interest?

Said British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, "(We must) throw all we can into the scales on the side of law as opposed to lawlessness in Europe."

And throw it all in they did. And what became of Poland?

At Tehran and Yalta, another prime minister, Winston Churchill, ceded Poland to Stalin's empire, in whose captivity she remained for a half-century.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
One gets the feeling, when reading these columns, that Mr. B is not just giving a history lesson here, but is on the verge of challenging bedrock convictions as precious to us as, well, the principle that the "good war" was indeed a good war.

His are all interesting insights about how war calculus was so different then than it is now, but I keep expecting a punch line that never seems to come.

It is there somewhere in his subconscious waiting to leap out, I guess. But if there ever was an engagement in arms that, while perhaps avoidable through engaging in less denial and more skillful negotiation, could not ethically have been refused by Great Britain and the U.S., I can't for the life of me think of what it would have been.

My uncle's sanity was ruined forever when he, as a U.S. soldier, became one of the first Allied soldiers to encounter and liberate a concentration camp, and saw unvarnished what had been done to the innocent people systematically tortured there. As I think about that, the glib tone of this article makes me feel the author has a certain amount of distant arrogance is utterly disrespectful of what the world went through in that war.

We didn't fight fair, and neither did the Germans. We fought to win, because we had to. The notion that the war was fought on our side by chivalrous democracies honoring the traditions of respectable ways to vanquish the enemy, needs to be thrown out with all the other crap we've imprinted on from Hollywood about the manifest destiny of the U.S.

We fought to win, and we engaged in deliberate carpet bombing of civilians and all of the other nasty stuff that is inevitable in real war. But we didn't run torture camps. The Germans did.

And those camps will forever be a stain on western civilization and the heritage we all share here in the west. However, the United States and Great Britain and the allies that were left after Germany bulldozed its way across France stood up and engaged in a fight to the death to stop what Hitler was doing.

Roosevelt was barely able to get by a Congress as rotten then as it is now to get us to fight that war, but he did, and that is something the U.S. and Great Britain can be proud of forever.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Thu Sep 1, 2011 6:00 PM
^The only "punch line" I can discern is that Mr. B. does not trust the authorities that make decisions for us in God's name. His ways are not our ways. What seems good and bad to the rationalist may be bad and good in God's plan.
Comment: #2
Posted by: cathy jones
Fri Sep 2, 2011 6:38 AM
I enjoy these educated debates that people have. Mr Buchanan is talking about a book a British fellow has written. I have Churchill's four volume set about the war but have not looked at it in years. I favor the United States view. Our old friends the British were involved in one of the first modern wars, the Crimean War. Then came our Civil War. Let's look at that. New England manufacturing suffered because the South was trading with Great Britain. When the smoke cleared, most of the wealth of the United States was centered in New England. Pretty good, eh? Now, on to World War I. After the smoke cleared, most of the wealth of Europe was in New England (and they say the Chinese are clever). Now, this fanatical nut case Hitler rises up and says, "hey, I'm going to get it back." Voila! World War II. It didn't work out quite the way he planned, thank God. Where do you suppose most of the wealth in the world was after World War II? Hurrah for our side. I do believe that a person who claims Hitler had no plans for world conquest might be wriong. He would have eventually gotten around to picturing himself sunbathing in Malibu dating Betty Davis.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Fri Sep 2, 2011 10:08 PM
@Masako
"But we didn't run torture camps. The Germans did. "

Uuuh??
What insupportable self-righteousness. Where did you get your history lessons from ? Back of kosher cornflake packages?

Before looking "at the mote that is in thy brother's eye", consider the beam in thy own, brother Masako,
for example
- British tortures in India,
- concentration camps for Boer civilians in South Africa,
- the infamous Eisenhower camps ("Rheinwiesenlager"), where hundreds of thousands have been staved to death without any military necessity.
just to name a few.

The Germans put their enemies to work in war times, Eisenhower starved them to death for the pleasure to see them die.

Was your uncle the GI photographed before the "gas chamber" in Dachau, where 20 years later it was admitted there was none?
Anyway, he cannot have seen "torture camps" - since even exterminationists don't claim the camps were for torture - but a lot of dead bodies, yes.

Sylvie
Comment: #4
Posted by: Sylvie
Sun Sep 4, 2011 12:12 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 26 May 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 25 May 2012

9 Nov 2010 The Murderers of Christianity

25 May 2007 Why Congress Caved to Bush

9 Jan 2007 Who is Planning Our Next War?