Munich, 1938
When President Bush, before the Knesset, used the word "appeasement" to label those who would negotiate with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he invoked the most powerful analogy in any debate over war and peace. No man wishes to be regarded as an "appeaser."
But, as this writer has discovered since my book Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
Why did Neville Chamberlain go to Munich? How did Munich lead to World War II?
The seeds of the crisis were planted at the Paris peace conference of 1919. There, the victorious Allies carved the new nation of Czechoslovakia out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
But instead of following their principle of self-determination, the Allies placed under the rule of 7 million Czechs 3 million Germans, 3 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles and 500,000 Ruthenians. These foolish decisions spat upon Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points, under the terms of which the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians had laid down their arms.
By 1938, Germany had arisen, re-armed and brought Austria into the Reich, and was demanding the right of self-determination now be granted to the 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia, who were clamoring to be free of Prague to rejoin their kinsmen.
Britain had no alliance with, and no obligation to fight for, the Czechs. But France did. And Britain feared that if Adolf Hitler used force to bring the Sudeten Germans back to German rule, France might fight. And if France declared war, Britain would be drawn in, and a second bloodbath would ensue as it had in 1914.
Chamberlain went to Munich because he did not believe that keeping 3 million Germans inside a nation to which they had been consigned against their will was worth a world war.
Moreover, Britain was unprepared for war. She had no draft, no Spitfires, no divisions ready to be sent to France. Why should the British Empire commit suicide by declaring war on Germany, to support a Paris peace agreement that he, Chamberlain, believed had been unjustly and dishonorably imposed on a defeated Germany?
Chamberlain believed not—and, after three trips to Germany that September, he effected the transfer of the Sudeten Germans to Berlin's rule, where they wished to be. He came home in triumph to be hailed as the greatest peacemaker of all time.
Why, then, are "Munich" and "appeasement" terms of obloquy?
The answer lies in what happened next.
Chamberlain returned from Munich to a rapturous reception, waving a paper he and Hitler had signed, and declared: "For the second time in 60 years, a British prime minister has returned from Germany with peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time."
This was palpable nonsense. Hitler had already turned to the next item on his menu, Danzig, a city of 350,000 Germans, detached from the Reich at Versailles and made a Free City to give the new Poland an outlet to the sea. Hitler did not want war with Poland. Indeed, he wanted the kind of alliance with Poland he had with Italy. But, first, Danzig must be resolved.
Here, too, the British Government agreed: Danzig should be returned. For of all the amputations of German lands and peoples at Versailles, European statesmen, even Winston Churchill, regarded Danzig and the Polish Corridor that sliced Germany in two as the most outrageous. The problem was the Poles, who refused to discuss Danzig.
Then, in March, Czechoslovakia suddenly began to fall apart. The Sudetenland had been annexed by Germany. Hungary had taken back its lost lands, and Poland had annexed the disputed region of Teschen. Slovakia and Ruthenia now moved to declare independence, and Prague began to march on the provinces.
Hitler intervened to guarantee the independence of Slovakia and gave Hungary a green light to re-annex Ruthenia. Czech President Hacha then asked to see Hitler, who bullied him for three hours into signing away Czech sovereignty and making his nation the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
Chamberlain, now humiliated, mocked by Tory back-benchers, panicking over wild false rumors of German attacks on Romania and Poland, made the greatest blunder in British history. Unasked, he issued a war guarantee to Poland, empowering a Polish dictatorship of colonels that had joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia to drag the British Empire into war with Germany over a city, Danzig, the British thought should be returned to Germany.
It was not Munich. It was the war guarantee that guaranteed the war that brought down the Empire, and gave us the Holocaust, 50 million dead and the Stalinization of half of Europe.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
"The seeds of the crisis were planted at the Paris peace conference of 1919."
Indeed... and after that point, was it at all conceivable that war could be stopped?
What's missing from this analysis (I haven't read the book) is consideration of geography. When the Czechs gave up the Sudetenland, they gave up their geographic defense.
Woulld Hitler have invaded in the face of British and French condemnation and Czech willingness to fight?
If Hitler had been given Danzig, would have have refrained from touching the rest of Poland?
"If Hitler had been given Danzig, would have have refrained from touching the rest of Poland?"
Maybe, if the Poles had also agreed to join the Anti-Comintern Pact, but then they probably would have paid the price in sovereignty in international affairs. Europe did indeed need to present a united front against Communism, but not under the Nazi banner. The liberal banner that later did it was only partially effective because liberalism is but a step toward socialism and communism.
Buchanan's orations are important not so much for historical analysis as for removing some of the mystique that makes heroes of the "Good War" like Churchill a sacred cow for so many leftists and neocons. Anyone who has been on a university campus lately knows just how prone political activists are to quoting sound bites from great figures as singular justification for their own position and to shut up anyone who disagrees. You couldn't be disagreeing with WINSTON CHURCHILL, now, COULD you?
People are imperfect; they pass and they fail; and we can laud the accomplishments of figures like Churchill without imitating their personal, philosophical or strategic blunders.
Dear NGPM,
I really enjoy reading your posts because they wreak of honesty and the amateur: The Lover and not the professional or The Freshman and not the Sophomore who literally represents The WISE/MORON. Here is something my son sent me from his college dorm --- He sent it in jest as a representative sample of what passes today for the "conservative voice". Around here folks may tear each other apart commenting on a wise professor's review of a wise journalist's and poltitician's recent book. But actually these are conversations among a culture of lovers and friends compared to the popular versions existing in the night. Check this out and thanks for your good posts.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-0CO53jQd60
All that Mr Buchanan really proves, if he proves anything, is that BRITAIN need not have gone to was in September 1939. He does not prove that the war would not have broken out or that Britain would not have been forced to join in later. Hitler was furious over Munich, which was a "fat man's deal" between Mussolini and Goering. He wanted war and when he didn't get it at Munich, he went looking for another provocation.
The problem was not that Chamberlain was in power but that Hitler was in power. Hitler was in power because the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty pushed the German people into his arms. The terms of that treaty were harsh because Britain and France were in hock up to their necks to US bankers and munitions manufacture and the US government would not write off the debt. Britain and France were in hock to the US bankers and munitions manufacturers because they were willing to sell on credit to them right from 1914 and continued to supply them after the US had intervened in the war, therby increasing the debt still further.
If the US had not intervened in the war, some sort of negotiated peace would have been hammered out in 1917. Germany would probably not have had reparations imposed on it, whereupon Britain and France would have defaulted on their debt to the US bankers and munitions manufacturers. Thus, there is no getting away from the US intervention in WWI, for purely commercial reasons, as the charge which cracked the dam which caused it to break which flooded the valley which washed away the houses which killed the people... Without the US intervention in WWI there would have been no Czechoslovakia or Danzig Corridor to fight over! And no Hitler to fight about them. And no Stalin. And no Yugoslavia to fall apart in the 1990s!
Moral of the story: Yankee stay home!
While Mr. Buchanan has a valuable point about the real mechanism that triggered the war, I have to disagree when he wrote:
"Hitler did not want war with Poland. Indeed, he wanted the kind of alliance with Poland he had with Italy."
Hitler wanted Poland: he was manifestly clear, from Mein Kampf onward, that the Lebensraum that was Germany's right and destiny lay to the East. He viewed the Poles as less then fully human and deserving of mass serfdom under the Germans.
I suppose that Hitler would have been happy to take Polish lands without warfare if he could, but the bottom line was that he wanted Poland.
Fr. Johansen took the words right out of my mouth.
The difficulty with the argument that Mr. Buchanan seems to be making is that it assumes that the ethnic Germans possessed the right to live in the same, German state. This is certainly a defensible position - but also one which makes it harder to resist Mexican claims to the Southwest. Perhaps that analysis is too simplistic, but that's how it reads to me.
@ Michael Kenny re Yankee stay home!
Absolutely right in each particular. Woodrow Wilson was a disaster for everybody, including the USA.
Incidentally, the problem with the Treaty of Versailles was not the terms that were imposed, but the perceptions of their effects.
The idea that Versailles was intrinsically bad came first from John Maynard Keynes, who famously wrote 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace'; yet the Germans had imposed very much more stringent peace terms upon the Russians at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Compared to TBL, Versailles was a Sunday school picnic.
As Sir Arthur Salter noted of JMK's book, "on the whole his most famous book, brilliant and sincere as it was, did more harm than good; and that he was most in error when he achieved his most dramatic public success".
The rise of Hitler was not a consequence of Versailles per se. If the Kaiser had been kept in power as a constitutional monarch, there might have been no need for such a thoroughly monarchical people as the imperial-era Germans to go out and find themselves a new one. If the Allies had kept driving forward to Berlin, and the country administered by occupying powers, the German 'Wirtschaftwunder' might have been brought forward 30 years.
What's lost in all of this is that many, if not most, Germans resented being ruled by a government in Prussia: Berlin. I know it hurt me when that traitor, Helmut Kohl, agreed to move our capitol from Bonn to Berlin.
We have a lot of talk concerning The Great War, but let me mention a previous war, the Austro-Prussian War and the Treaty of Prague of Prague resolving that war in 1866.
Britain, France, nor Russia came to the rescue of Austria, thus cutting of their own noses to spite their face. It was an incredible blunder by all three great powers of Europe, and simply led to the domination of Europe by Prussia. Had any of the three intervened on Austria's side, Prussia would have been stopped, the Treaty of Prague would have saved the South [of Germany] from Northern domination, there wouldn't have been a Franco-Prussian War, and The Great War (parts both I and II) would have been something entirely different; as a matter of fact, this monstrosity we call "Italy" very well may have crumbled also.
This was all started with the Crimean War, which, in turn was instigated by Napoleon III, a "lesser of evils" candidate, chosen out of the turmoil of the Revolution of 1848, instigated by Revolutionary Communists.
In short, the reason Berlin dominates Germany to this day is that the Revolutionaries can not stand a German capital in, or anywhere near, either Aix-la-Chapelle or Vienna. Modernity insists on a Prussian (Protestant) Germany. The fact we had a WEST Germany for 42 years was a blessing.
Actually what happened next was not Danzig but the rump of Czechoslovakia after the Sudetenland, which the Germans took on March 15, 1939. This was what opened Chamberlain's eyes to the Nazi menace. After that came Memel, the final bloodless conquest. And only after unsuccessful negotiations for the Polish Corridor and free access to the free city of Danzig did Hitler invade on 9/1/39. It Mr. B. wishes to write history correctly he should not gloss over these things.
Most certainly Germany wanted war. The Hossbach memorandum demonstrates this quite clearly. Unless, the occasion of this presentation was simply Hitler posturing. A.J.P. Tayor thinks so, but one wonders.
Taylor, by the way, argues that the proximate cause of the war was the failure of the Poles to produce a plenipotentiary in Berlin in the last days of August, 1939 to make a deal on Danzig.
That's right. Who cares that those people voted to rejoin Germany in free elections certified by international observers? For Danzig and Memel to reunite with Germany would be like West Virginia rejoining Virginia or Oklahoma going Indian again.
Of course. That's what Rudolf Hess, Hitler's right hand man, flew to Great Britain for.
@4: Mr. Reavis, you're too kind. I'll look at that video when I'm not at work and I allow myself to turn on the computer at home, but I have to say, not being much older than your son I hope he thanks Christ every day for his parents. My own had a vague sense that modern American discourse was severely warped but were never sure of what was a viable alternative. (A correspondant of mine was recently kind enough to introduce them to Chronicles, and I suppose it's better late than never.)
"The rise of Hitler was not a consequence of Versailles per se. If the Kaiser had been kept in power as a constitutional monarch, there might have been no need for such a thoroughly monarchical people as the imperial-era Germans to go out and find themselves a new one. If the Allies had kept driving forward to Berlin, and the country administered by occupying powers, the German ‘Wirtschaftwunder’ might have been brought forward 30 years."
Who was it who said the terms of Versailles were "too hard without being hard enough"? I think that's an excellent summary.
"What’s lost in all of this is that many, if not most, Germans resented being ruled by a government in Prussia: Berlin."
You know, I have heard that in the interwar period there was a fair amount of sentiment in Bavaria to split away from Prussia and merge with Austria. That would have done wonders for the world.
An excellent retelling of history by Pat. Britain and France were unprepared for war in Sept 38 and were unprepared in Sept 39 when they stupidly went to war with Nazi Germany.
Further, there was no moral basis for going to war over the Sudentenland in 38.
It is sad to learn that British support of the the vicious aggressions of the Poles and Czechs against the just rights of the Germans caused WW II.
Of course, the Belgians and the Danes must accept their part of the blame also.
Professor Wilson (#18)has a point. If my Danish ancestors had only fought more vigorously in 1864 against Prussian aggression in Schleswig and Holstein, the whole unhappy 20th Century would have been avoided. This just goes to show that even if you fight the Germans, you can still be justly accused of appeasement! Not only that, my late cousin Minne, who was in the Danish Resistance, helped Jews evacuate out of Denmark to Sweden. She also removed incriminating evidence from places where she knew the Gestapo was going to raid. So, not only was she guilty, and by DNA evidence, me too, of thwarting the just rule of law, we are also guilty of ethnic cleansing...
I can't speak for the Belgians, but since we all look alike, I'm probably guilty for their stuff, too.
Unclean! Unclean!
Maybe Clyde would like to support his statements with facts and logic instead of teenage sarcasm. Of course, its all part of the sad, internet experience that posters who cannot provide actual persuasive arguments resort to snark.
I suppose I should just have ignored it, but who knows maybe Mr. Wilson has historical reasons to back his opinion.
Mr Wilson is expressing his sympathies for "national minorities" that wish(ed) to rebel against greater powers, a la the South versus the North.
Let me discuss:
The South was it's own separate America, and the North it's own, as well. In the end, the Northern America conquered the Southern version. Whiggish Yankees came to dominate: end of story; languages were identical, religions were identical, ancestries were identical; the War Between the States was entirely a civil war, not of governments, but of People.
Now, for the differences between the Prussians and the Czechs? Dramatic! Had the German capitol been in Munich, there would not have been a war. Had the German capitol been in Aix-la-Chappelle, there would not have been a war. The fact there was even a war is derived, entirely from the fact, the capital was placed in the EAST: Berlin.
The differences between the Czechs and the Rhinelander? I can tell you with 100% confidence: MINIMAL. A pils is a pils, no matter what the Prussians might have called the drink. Riesling is Riesling, no matter what the Prussians can't grow. So on and so forth; my father bought his wine and cheese from a Frenchman in the Main Valley - his "German" neighbors were glad he was there, much like how my wife is glad to see Mexican neighbors providing [vegetarian] food here in [East] Alabama. Outside of our own circles, peoples idea(l)s of nationalism are quite thin.
What I was trying to suggest: It is too easy to get lost in speculations about diplomatic might-have-beens and ignore the big picture. The fact was that Hitlerian Germany was a revolutionary state bent on conquest and imposing an unprecedented New Order on Western Europe. This was no secret---they boasted about it. This is what Churchill (and Lukacs) recognised. As Lukacs points out, in the immediate context Hitler was a greater threat to Europe than the distant Russians who had a long tradition of tyranny. Britain had alone kept up the fight against the similar but far less evil revolutionary conquests of Napoleon. I can't understand how anyone could not honour Britain for undertaking the same burden against Hitler. Does anyone doubt that Hitler would have treated Switzerland the same way he treated Denmark, Czechoslavakia, Poland, Belgium, etc., if Switzerland had been an easier nut to crack.
This WW II revisionism has obviously touched a lot of nerves all around. I will try to make this my last offering to explain where I am coming from, as the young folks say.
1) Some of the discussants seem to me to put the most favourable possible spin on German motives and actions and to interpret British motives and actions in the worst possible light.
This is morally hazardous. Let's remember that British decisions were being made by an elected government in the Mother of Parliaments, while German decisions were being made by the first oriental despot in the history of Western Europe--a reincarnated Robespierre, but with vastly greater power and ambitions.
2) There seems to be a tendency here toward scapegoating, to pretending that the faults and mistakes of the British Empire are somehow the cause of the odious Yankee Empire that we now suffer under. As Lukacs points out, the two things are not comparable. The Yankee Empire did not arise from anything Britain did. Its sources are evil ideas planted on Massachusetts Bay in the 17th century and the traitorous hubris of a whole series of American leaders who forced us unwillingly into foreign entanglements. And the "conservatives," with their customary avoidance of fact, refuse to admit the glaringly obvious---that the feckless Ronald Reagan is one of the guilty parties. He did not establish the Empire, but it was under his wings that the neocon power and ideology of the present form of Empire became established.
Buchanan's article was about Allied impropriety, but this topic is always hijacked and diverted to talk about the Germans. If I were Buchanan, Roberts, et al. and watching the comments to my article I might be frustrated that people who know better were not listening.
The real danger, I believe, for conservatives and Southerners to change the topic to the "the Nazis," is it makes it look like that conservatives, Southerners, and Nazis have something in common. The more it is denied, the more the association is reinforced.
Moreover, the new line of commenting is simply a rehash of the simplistic, official history. It is a bit ironic, if not disingenuous, for someone to complain that official histories are reliably false, yet at the same time to repeat it. Besides, everyone already knows the official history.
Here are a few comments to correct a little of that official history. It is not intended to make the Germans look good or bad. An evil man may not have robbed the bank, but he is still evil. On the other hand, is it right or even possible to consider an entire ethnicity (Germans) as evil?
Now for the comments. The Germans were very explicit about what the "New Order" meant. It meant that Germany and all peoples had the right to self-determination. The by-word of their regime, repeated over and over again was: "National Socialism is not for export."
This is what they meant by the term. If the Germans wanted world conquest, they did not boast about it.
Further, as Buchanan says elsewhere, Hitler was publicly and consistently an admirer of the British Empire for its civilizing influences. This is of course why the British were allowed to leave Normandy in peace at the beginning of the war and why the number two man in Germany flew alone to Britain to negotiate a peace and an end to the war -- and was promptly and forever jailed incommunicado.
Churchill, by ignoring these overtures and allying with International Socialism, ended the British Empire for all time.
As an aside, I notice that many Americans don't seem to be aware of what Socialism meant to Europeans. Up until the aftermath of WWII, the term still held connotations in common with the populist (volkisch) movement. To differentiate what Americans call socialism from the populist element, they called the former international socialism (Marxism) and the latter national socialism. (Now Europeans use the word socialist the way Americans use liberal.) The Germans also used the word "nation" in an ethnic sense.
To criticize how the Germans treated Czechoslovakia and Poland is to question the principle of self-determination. CZ was a new country, a fiction, an abstraction that included three million Germans scattered around the country and concentrated homogeneously along the German border. Those native Germans voted to rejoin Germany.
In Poland, the president, who was a strong ally with Germany, was assassinated by British agents prompting Germany to declare a day following to be a bank holiday and day of mourning. Soon thereafter, Polish partisans began attacking, wounding, and killing tens of thousands of German civilians, who had found themselves ruled by a foreign government in the new boundaries made after WWI. All this violated the principles of self-determination.
This is why some say that had Hitler died in 1938, he would be remembered as a great statesman. In other words, it was in the war that he became evil.
There is also the double standard of approving Allied occupation during and after the war -- Germany is still occupied -- but pretending that Axis occupation during the war alone was "conquest." Any valid criticism should be consistently applied.
To say that Germany of the 1920s and 30s was a greater threat than the USSR is to ignore the very real history of the international Marxist movements. When the Germans publicly denounced world conquest as against the principles of self-determination and "race", they were pointedly attacking the well-known promises of the USSR/Comintern for world revolution. How soon we forget.
The USSR/Comintern had an unlimited budget financed out of Manhattan and had a larger army and more armaments than the rest of the world combined. But Germany until the new government of 1933 was in the depths of an Allied-imposed ten-digit inflation, massive unemployment and had no military to speak of.
If the Germans secretly wanted world conquest just like the Comintern, it was an unrealistic fantasy.
The USSR/Comintern had been organizing the Marxist world Revolution since the 1840s and had control of trade unions world-wide and wielded control of a major political party in every Western country including the US. Through control of the unions, they had proved the ability to shut down any country economically, and through the control of their parties, they were agitating for a new world war.
Germany in the same period was advocating for the end of the occupation of the Rhineland, which included its industrial heartland, and for the return of its old territories, inhabited by its countrymen but occupied and ruled by foreign governments.
If the Germans secretly plotted world conquest, it contradicted their own published platforms.
The USSR/COmintern was not confined to Eastern Europe, but was an active and frequently dominant player in the West.
----------
That said, the greater danger from changing the line of discussion from Allied abuses to Germany is not that that new line simply rehashes the official history that everyone already knows, but which continues to link conservatives and Southerners with a regime commonly perceived as notoriously evil. By constantly denying that they are like the Nazis, they are actually reinforcing the association!
The more a conservative or a Southerner talk about the Nazis, the more firmly they are linked.
This is why it may be more constructive to expose Allied abuses in a way that fosters pangs of conscience against our current reality and our own current governments.
My own biggest disadvantage in fully understanding history and the subsequent consequences consists of not knowing where to start – since something vital has always preceded some other equally vital event.
Aside from the Napoleonic wars which took the better part of the 19th Century, we must acknowledge the clever division of colonies between England, Spain, France even Portugal, while Germans were whistling Dixie and ended up in their lederhosen only. Next two key events that decidedly affected their posterity were the Crimean War – (an outright British aggression against Russia – never-mind the feeble minded pretext of “keys to the Holly City, etc. – or “Turks being endangered”.
The Southern half of Europe was falling through its own bottom at both of these events – The Ottoman Empire was practically abolished by Berlin congress. During those days, we had the major power-houses in Benjamin Disraeli and Otto Von Bismarck creating the map of Southern Europe. Serbia (the country of my birth) is still paying for the errors made at that time. On one hand there was this “ethnic homogenous unity” while in the Balkans it was a “free for all” – how in the name of Hoyle would the predominantly Serbian Bosnia be placed under Austro-Hungarian “administration”? I think Dr. Trifkovic coined “the perfidity of Albion”, and for my money I just plain distrust the “Islanders”. By following the above I can trace many present day unrests (wars) in today’s Middle-East (equally British colonies, protectorates, etc.), including Egypt which just happens to be on African soil.
We are all sadly mistaken if we think we are in trouble now. Let’s just wait for the African tribes to consolidate and establish their own identity – with the predominance of Islam in the Sub-Saharan Africa there will endless bloodbaths left in the departing footsteps of the British soldiers.
To clarify those "departing footsteps of the British solidiers", may I use the example or Rhodesia (pardon me) Zimbabwe, independent since 1980, look at it today - a hairline from an outright civil war.
I've read this and all Buchanan's books and it is worth the read if only for the realistic rather than romantic (or neo-con) portrayal of Churchill.I voluntarily demur on the causes of WWII.I can state with confidence that Buchanan exxagerates WWII as the reason"Britain lost its Empire and the West lost the World".The British Empire was finished with or without that tragic war.Gandhi had already won and India was on the way out.Do you really think the British were going go the long haul in Kenya,Egypt,Palestine,etc.?I doubt it --inevitably a Labor government would have decolonized.Additionally,the USA and USSR were implacable enemies of the British Empire.The Brits always had some deluded notion we were not going to grab their spheres of influence because we spoke English and called them cousins.Ha!! If WWII had not occurred,I suppose Italian Ethiopia would have lasted as long as ,say,French Algeria.We should not mourn the loss of the Empire....we should worry about its once European offspring-the US,Canada,Australia,etc.One last word,Lukacs in his review talks about well-known Russian tyranny.Sure,as well known as the Black Legend of Spanish tyranny similarily propagandized by pro-Brit historians.Russia liberated more Christians from Islamic slavery than any other European nation.Spain might be second."Tyranical" Orthodox Russia seems to back,and frankly if "tyranical"Catholic Spain doesn't make a comeback this EU secular "Spain" will be reconquered by Islam. The Reconquista is not for the squishy,Mr.Lukacs.
Mr Buchanan:
I would like to ask you to stop spreading Nazi propaganda on this otherwise great website. One citation:
Chamberlain, now humiliated, mocked by Tory back-benchers, panicking over wild false rumors of German attacks on Romania and Poland, made the greatest blunder in British history. Unasked, he issued a war guarantee to Poland, empowering a Polish dictatorship of colonels that had joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia to drag the British Empire into war with Germany over a city, Danzig, the British thought should be returned to Germany.
Anyone who has learned a bit of recent history knows that German barbarians under Hitler’s leadership have been attempting to gain “living space” by exterminating “Slavic sub-humans” the very way your ancestors did it with American Indians.
Ancient polish city Gdansk (Danzig) was obviously a pretext to a war that was supposed to give Germans the living space.
In all you publication you come across to an educated, intelligent reader as an individual who (using an old polish saying): knows that the bells are ringing but does not know in what church”. For instance you know that American empire is falling apart but you have no clue about the real reasons. In this you are in line with current clowns-presidential candidates.
Since this site is rather visited by intelligent readers, not common Americans, I am urging you to stop spreading your ignorance and arrogance!
Sincerely,
Chris Zdunkiewicz Dr.Sc.