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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0