Michael, you're ignoring what the Buchanan article said and arguing against things it didn't say. If you don't want to read the article or consider its thesis, that's your right. But it makes a compelling point, and is written by someone who, though not a pacifist, has argued eloquently and consistently for two decades against pretexts for imperial aggression given by both US political parties. You didn't state your opinion of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran in your reply to Joyce. Perhaps you meant to, but it's not there. Ron, I'm a non-smoker. I assume you didn't really mean to suggest otherwise and were only trying to denigrate my character and intelligence instead of discussing issues and citing facts, just as Michael has done several times. But since you paired it with a small amount of rational argument I have to take you seriously and reply. The article you're refusing to consider is not about Hitler's paranoid fantasies or craven posturing. It's about political reality -- what he might have been able to carry out under different circumstances, and his realistic intentions as indicated by his actions before the invasion of Poland. It suggests that without Allied guarantees, which Hitler had good reason to believe would not be honored, Poland would have ceded Danzig and he wouldn't have had the political capital needed to invade. The Wannsee Conference was held in 1942, long after that and well into the war which radically changed his political reality.
|