quote: ...the position that AH's being allowed to invade Poland unhindered, as he had already done Czech, would, in some manner unspecified, have prevented the Holocaust & saved the Jews from their ultimate fate...

No one has suggested that. Your continuing argument against it, as though someone had suggested it, is the reason why I assumed you hadn't read the article.

Buchanan said that it was Poland's assurance of Allied backing that made them obstinate about Danzig, and that their obstinacy, together with the belief that the Allies would not in fact intervene if Hitler took Danzig by force, made it politically possible for him to invade Poland, in spite of the natural resistance of any populace to wars, especially wars that may end up harming them personally, and in spite of Hitler's own fear of another world war.

Buchanan specifies the part about preventing the Holocaust clearly: If the 95-percent German city of Danzig had been ceded, Hitler would not have invaded Poland. He wanted to unite Germans in his thousand-year reich, not Poles, and the popular support for his aggression was based on that goal, not on conquest of the world. He would have continued persecuting the half-million German Jews, forcing them and other non-Germans to leave Germany if his political run lasted long enough. The conditions that set the stage for the Wannsee conference would never have existed, and Hitler would never have had control over Poland or its Jewish population.

quote: ...untenable & of a barely credible naïveté. This is not intended to be offensive...

Why would that offend me? But if you'll permit a constructive criticism, I think arguments are more effective when you present the merits of your own position rather than a description of the intellectual depravity of anyone who would take a different position.