How well did negotiating with Berlin work out for the Czechs?

"But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels"

Because Hitler made them look weak, foolish, and amoral in Czechoslovakia. Politically, and diplomatically it was unacceptable to continue knuckling under to German demands when the Germans would not abide by their half of any agreement. Further, Britain was always frightened by the prospect of any power dominating all of Europe. The logical next step for any such power would be to build a fleet to challenge Britain.

"The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany."

What kind of "full independence" allows another nation to offer the "independent" nation's territory to a third party without the "independent" nation even having a seat at the table? That sounds much more like a subject state than a fully independent one. Would Buchanan claim that the nations of the Warsaw Pace were fully independent? He makes it sound like the Czechs were volunteering to become part of Germany of their own volition when in fact they were simply going to Berlin to find out how harsh the terms of their conquest would be.

"But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France."

Because the Great War had familiarized him with the fundamental problems involved in fighting a two front war. Ideally he would fight his targets piece-meal, only starting a new war once his previous opponent had been neutralized. But he could not count on France remaining out of things until he had time to turn his full attention to them.

"Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?"

He didn't. There is no historical evidence that Hitler ordered his forces to let them go. In fact he authorized the Luftwaffe to attack there. There is no evidence that the escape at Dunkirk happened for any reason except that the German tanks were running out of gas and needed to stop and wait for their supply chain and infantry support to catch up.

"Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?"

He didn't have the naval assets to take them on yet.

"Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? "

Because he had no way to enforce such a demand. There was nothing to stop the French fleet from sailing to Britain if he made it.

"Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez?"

Because Libya was a better base.

"Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?"

Because a neutral Greece would have meant not having to divert forces from the attack on the Russians in order to support the Italians.

"Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland"

Yes, if he could conquer Poland without fighting it, he would have been happy with that.

"And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally."

War with Britain did not dissuade him from starting a war with Poland. There is no reason to think that it would have dissuaded him from starting a war with France when he got around to it.

"As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?"

Well, and this is just wild speculation…he could invade Russia by taking over or "allying" with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia first. But hey, how could that ever happen when he was so reluctant to risk war with Britain?

Even so, Hitler still had a chance for long term peace up to the summer of 1941. France had been taken out. UK would have opted for a cease-fire sooner or later. Hitler had all of Europe on his side or under his umbrella. Even Stalin the paranoid trusted him. But, he attacked the USSR. That REALLY began the super war of WWII. Germany vs Poland had been a quickie. Germany vs France had been a quickie. Germany vs UK was tougher but not very destructive to either side. Germans had limited air power to take UK and vice versa.

So the question “Was the war necessary” ?
Well no, if you would have whished to have a racist fascist power free of jews, disabled, mentally ills and full of Slaves working for their Aryian masters ruling from the Rhine to the Pacific.
No if you would have enjoyed the teaching of racist theories in schools and university, as part of the “grandeur” of the western civilisation.

Well, it is up to anyone to answer.
(Sorry, English is not my mother tongue)

THANK GOD, HE DIDN'T, because he wasn't interested in ruling the world, that's a fact.
And you're right about that.

It is true that Hitler didn't want to make war to the West. However, if your read Mein Kampf, "Bolchevismus" was the ennemy as well as were the jews.
The fact is that Hitler wasn't a genious at all. He was an uneducated narrowminded politician with almost no military skills.
He wasn't prepare to fight a world war, that is for sure.
The Germans were scared of the french army, one of the best in the world "on paper". And they knew they had no fleet to challenge the royal navy. So on those points you're right. In fact it was its biggest mistake, thanks for us Europeans.

It ignores the fact that Hitler considered Poland an illegitimate state, whose destruction he called for, and for which he started planning the war shortly after the breakup of Czechoslovakia. He was frustrated that he had to postpone the attack a few times. It ignores the fact that he even faked the beginning of the war, by laying out corpses in Polish uniforms to pretend that the Poles had attacked first.

More generally, it ignores all the evidence of Hitler's racial ideology, which saw Poles and Russians as inferior subhumans, worthy only of being conquered and enslaved.

Even your evidence about Hitler's armaments is bogus. He did not have adequate bombers or an adequate fleet because he did not have the resources to build them if he wanted to have a big enough army. It was not peaceful intentions but poor planning, self-destructive turf wars among the services, and a poor resource-base. Read Tooze's "The Wages of Destruction", the most authoritative economic history of the Third Reich.

Churchill called it the "Unnecessary War" because he considered it preventable by hitting Hitler harder and earlier, NOT because there was so little to fight about… exactly the opposite of what Mr. Buchanan is suggesting. That is in Churchill's memoirs. But if Mr. Buchanan is fact-challenged on everything else, we shouldn't be surprised if he is here, too.

He's dangerous not only because of lying and screwing facts so as to fit his fascist ideology, he sounds pretty educated and trustworthy when doing so and thus those who know nothing about the subject matter might even start believing this.

Germany was, obviously, an absolutely peaceful country before the war, Czechoslovakia wasn't, obviously, sold by France and Britain in Munich and the Czech part of the country desperately wanted Germany to grant it the status of Slovakia although there was no longer any "Czech part" – just a German driven Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. And Poland is obviously to blame for the war the most as it did not surrender just as Czechs and Slovaks had done when left behind by their "allies".

I am so much supportive of freedom of speech that I couldn't be more but there are moments when I have a feeling it might actually not be a bad idea if there were some limits.

The problem with people like this Buchanan is that they are able to sound persuasive although they are full of … you know what.

You can say this about any enemy — well, he wants to conquer the world in 20-30 years, so better blow up his country lickity split

Gdansk was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793 (Second Partition of Poland) ! but from 1466 to 1793 it WAS POLISH CITY ! (of course 997-1308 it was part of Poland) After that Prussia and later GERMANY DO EVERYTHING to destroy POLISH Sign’s on POLISH TERRITORY ! German propaganda in most UNTRUTH way speak about GDANSK!

We cannot prove right or mistake in such pact, because we cannot predict what would be if. Poland gain freedom after 120 year’s , Poland didn’t had any military forces for 120 . After this Poland had to fight with Russian’s shortly after I World War. What is better in this – before First World WAR in Europe politicians didn’t speak seriously about Poland. After Communist revolution in Russia European countries remand about Poland. And Poland had to rebuild all country from government to hospitals, schools. They had to think how to spend money – school or military. Well maybe Polish army was inefficient and obsolete (not at All i will add) – but German lost 1/3 of invasion forces (tanks, airplanes). France had far more better military equipment but they fight little longer than Poland !

For me after Analise military presence and forces in Germany is a clear to say that if France and GB attack Germany with full military force – Second World War should have ended after 31/61 day’s ! German’s didn’t have sufficient amount of ammunition for long defense (if GB and France would attacked) ! So correct me if im wrong ? You think that Hitler would never attack GB and France ?

IF YES ! YOU ARE TERRIBLY WRONG – Hitler didn’t accepted various Versailles treaties after I World War … so War with France was only matter of TIME !

“Yes it was logical ….”

Yes, but first Czechoslovakia (in fr. Tchecoslovaquia of course)!!!. You are speaking about German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact ? please precise ?

“With the Germans we are risking our bodies but with Russia we are risking our souls”

Communism …

“So who is saying the truth? Was Hitler mad to claim a city that was rigthfully German and with the support of her citizens? ”

Try to understand ! GDANSK was only reason to declare war, If You plan war You must have reason !!! I said read MYKAMPH and understand what Hitler really wanted ! HE WANTED LAND FOR HIS “BETTER NATION”! You Speak that Hitler don’t want war so why he attack civilian targets WHY he killed so many people ?

“Don’t tell me about Auschwitz for God’s sake! That wasn’t at stake in 1939.”

Everything started even earlier ! Auschwitz didn’t start from day to day ! it took years to prepare everything – question’s how get rid of Jew’s stared earlier !

“I don’t know if you are Polish /Polish origins, but I have talked pf “arrogant and corrupted Poles” refering to the Polish camarilla in power at Varsovia not of the Polish people. ”

This is Their own problem ! They have beautiful nation but stupidest politics in whole Europe ! I will tell more – their politics after 1939 left Poland (for example Beck)! they just run ! They told about honor, fight, and then just run – left whole nation …

There is always problem with war, what we must do is to analyze who will win on war, and who will get largest profit. WAR is profit ! That’s true that on war win bank’s and large military, food, and other connected with war companies.

there is another way – for politicians in Europe was far more better to deal with Hitler to prevent expansion of Russian Communism. How fast First War Ended after Communist Revolution ! Remember what Lenin told – he declared war to “palace” but this is for another STORY

i Was angry, because if we have pact, military defense pact – we MUST know the consequences of agreement! if we don’t know we just don’t agrre ! IM AFFRAID if there will be problems with Russia and Poland NATO will left Polish people for them selfs ! We will betray them again ! I cannot and i will never agree with thesis that HITLER DON’T WANT WAR! He do everything to WAR ! and when we analyze whole situation in Germany after second world war we will understand his Success. SA, SS what it was ? pacifist with peace propositions ?

It should have been clear to most thinking men in the Western democracies that another major war would be a losing proposition for the traditional social and economic order. The masses, whose efforts were indispensable to a serious war effort at the front and at home would demand a drastic reordering of social and economic priorities in their own societies in return for becoming cannon fodder and workers in the war effort. So “victory” was not really possible for the West. Even if they won the war they would lose the peace to their own domestic Leftist enemies at home. There were highly organized Leftist forces within every Western nation ready and eager to seize on any sudden strain in the social and economic fabric of their host to bring about a “New Social Order”.

The West’s only rational strategy, short of avoiding war entirely, was the “short, sharp” war that some British military strategists had suggested would become the successor to the long suicidal slaughter of the first world war. Up until the summer of 1940 this prediction was still a reasonably foreseeable outcome to the struggle. Losses on all sides were still “reasonable” and the damage to and consumption of national economic and social infrastructures was mostly within recoverable limits.

Unfortunately, modern industrial societies, unless they can be quickly overrun, tend to be impossible to defeat on the battlefield in traditional land warfare. They will fight on until their economic infrastructure is exhausted or their populace revolts.

After social and economic revolution at home after the war was “won” the biggest danger to the West was that National Socialist Germany and Communist Socialist Russia would get themselves into a fight to the death and that Communist Russia would win. This would have brought the revolutionary scenario of the first case back to the forefront.

The real issue for the West was not “How do we stop Hitler?” but “How do we preserve our own traditional social and economic order at home?” Even Poland, the ostensible reason for the war, ceased to exist in it’s pre-war state after the fighting had ended.

Communist Russia and of course the United States of America were the only real exceptions to the general European predicament. Stalin had invested massively in economic, military and social infrastructure. With its huge land mass, enormous human resources, giant industrial organizations and totalitarian political and social control Russia was the one (partly) European nation with the potential to win a “Total War”.

America, of course was physically too far from Europe to ever become directly engaged, and besides had enormous human, industrial, natural and social resources available to wage a war that could never touch its own shores. America could actually profit from the war while paying so low an overall price that not too much social change would occur. As a result the U.S.A. could actually move in a slightly Rightward political direction after the war while Europe lurched to the Left.

Wars do not end by themselves any more than they start by themselves, except through military or economic collapse or popular revolt. Leaders must have a conscious and practical “exit strategy.” The first duty of a Western leader must be to preserve the traditional Western, Christian, private property, personal responsibility based social, economic, political and religious system of the West. That may mean avoiding war, (Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968) usually the best alternative, or it may mean engaging in a sort, sharp conflict with a well thought out exit strategy (1991 Gulf War), or it may even mean forming unexpected alliances (Nixon to China).

It may be instructive to note that Czechoslovakia, which did not go to war, emerged from the conflict with its economic, social and industrial base largely intact, so much so that for decades after, when film makers sought a traditional looking European city to film in they often chose Prague, even when the story was set elsewhere, as nearly all of the other cities of similar size had been destroyed during the war and rebuilt afterward.

Good article as always Pat. I look forward to concise and cogent articles. I would highly recommend that all of the individual who have written in this blog that have not already read Pat’s book “The Unecessary War” to actually read it. And I am saying this to those who do not agree with Pat’s thesis. It irks me to no end when people merely write that Pat does not know what he is talking about and do not even lay out an alternate case. If someone thinks that Pat is wrong, then lay out your own case!!! Don’t just write and call him names and try to denigrate him, actually try to make a case of your own. Do some research, then write back and try to refute point by point what Pat has written in his article.

Thanks again Pat for the article, look forward to more insightful articles!!