Comments on: No More Blank Checks for War

By: The Little Pain

The Little Pain — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:24:15 +0000

In 1939, the Blank Cheque to Poland between the wars led straightway to the murder of 60,000 German civilians and 100,000 German civilian casualties. On one day alone allegedly "Polish" citizens - Ladovitch, Karpinski, and Weis - massacred 5,500 German civilians. German territory was invaded and Polish maps showed new Polish borders on the Oder, across lands that had been German since the ages of the Beaker Folk (ca. 2000 BC).

Why is it that the little people - the farmers and the shopkeepers - always pay for the crimes of the great?

By: The Paine

The Paine — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:20:22 +0000

The Blank Cheque to inter-war Poland led straightway (1939) to the murder of 60,000 German civilians and 100,000 German civilian casualties. On one day alone allegedly "Polish" citizens - Ladovitch, Karpinski, and Weis - massacred 5,500 German civilians. German territory was invaded and Polish maps showed new Polish borders on the Oder, across lands that had been German since the ages of the Beaker Folk (ca. 2000 BC).

Why is it that the little people - the farmers and the shopkeepers - always pay for the crimes of the great?

By: The Pain

The Pain — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:05:51 +0000

The Blank Cheque to Poland led straightway (1939) to the murder of 60,000 German civilians and 100,000 German civilian casualties. On one day alone allegedly "Polish" citizens - Ladovitch, Karpinski, and Weis - massacred 5,500 German civilians. German territory was invaded and Polish maps showed new Polish borders on the Oder, across lands that had been German since the ages of the Beaker Folk (ca. 2000 BC).

Why is it that the little people - the farmers and the shopkeepers - always pay for the crimes of the great?

By: Kirt Higdon

Kirt Higdon — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:16:54 +0000

#21 - How tiresome to hear endlessly repeated this neo-con war party propaganda. The Iranians never threatened to wipe Israel or anyone else off the map. The statement was that "the regime which rules Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of time" i.e. from history. Nothing was said about Iran planning to do this itself. Recently, the Iranian president has stated that Israel will collapse on its own. Obviously, the Iranian regime does not wish the Israeli regime well, but that is not a just reason even for Israel to go to war against Iran, let alone for the US to do so.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:49:00 +0000

Pat is impressed that Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and Israel did not. But Iran is, to my knowledge, the only country which has threatened to wipe another country 'off the map'. Methinks that counts for something.

By: Eunomia » No War With Iran

Eunomia » No War With Iran — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:22:28 +0000

[...] a whole, either. Mr. Buchanan continues to do invaluable service to our country in making the necessary arguments against wars that are not in the national interest. In his latest column, he said: No ally, no [...]

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:02:21 +0000

I think that putting the blame solely on Bush for the coming Iran war while wringing one's hand over the incompetence/unwillingness of the Congress is naive. Bush could not do any of the nonsense he has done without the concurrence of the Congress. The fact that some of these, like the so-called Patriot Act or Defense spending for the War in Iraq actually go to a vote is immaterial. We have one political Party in this country and it acts deliberately, even if secretly, to secure the things it wants; it is, furthermore, controlled by and in hock to Israel. Any real fighting in Washington is over the crumbs. And most of the arguing is solely noise for public distraction. When Israel demands its war in Iran our indebted Party will comply -- but don't look for them to suffer or sacrifice.

By: John Zander

John Zander — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:55:45 +0000

right pcH - some of my posts I don't even remember having made - due to alcoholic blackouts. not heroin. i like alcoholic blackouts... the gift of the loss of memory - prior to alzheimers. I'm sober now so i won't even read my posts above. I skipped over them now. they remain for me in the night. glad you got a chuckle. wow, i'm funny. think i'll start drinking soon again today. don't worry, i don't drive. sold my car & t.v. Not for needed funds, on principle. cheers. mostly I stay home. Or if I venture out I'm usually 86'd from most places. it's my claim to fame. my fear is some other john zander or another man of a thousand names will pretend to be me, and I won't know it. I have no idea if those posts above some or all of them are mine. I have not read them, and won't. but it does seem like there are too many of them. i have always said - please censor me. god forbid, perhaps they're merely 'honest' not just humorous - i don't know.

By: PcH

PcH — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:43:07 +0000

Just ignore Zander or chuckle. He is always here under various names. He is either taking revenge on a certain editor's tirade long ago, or his brain is fried on heroin. Either way, it's comic relief.

By: AWLC

AWLC — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:09:23 +0000

I'm a frequent visitor to this site, and I thought that I'd throw my hat in the ring. As a W+L grad and recent Catholic convert I feel right at home. I usually agree with what PB has to say. I believe, however, that he is faulty in his assessment of the events leading up to the outbreak of WWII. I think he gives Hitler too much credit. To be sure, the Chamberlain government, humiliated by the German takeover of rump Czechoslovakia in March 1939 (it should be noted that Poland was complicit in this act) gave the Poles a "blank check." However, the Polish crisis was far more complex than simply the question of Danzig. Hitler dangled Danzig in front of the British and the French in order to sway world opinion and perhaps pull of another coup a'la Munich 1938. He would not have stopped at Danzig. In fact, he demanded the Corridor as well. He couched this demand in typically vague terms- talks of plebiscites and railroad rights but his aim was clear. The Poles, stubborn as they were, refused to accede to these demands, knowing that the loss of the Corridor would have inevitably led to the carving up of their State in the same manner as Czechoslovakia. Hitler's goal, enunciated as early as 1922, was the wholesale destruction of the Polish state. His foreign policy was directed entirely towards a Drang nach Osten. In PB's writings I get the sense that he believes the British were partly to blame for the outbreak of war in autumn of 1939. I cannot disagree more. World War II, in Europe, at least, was Hitler's war. To think that the cession of Danzig alone would have satiated Hitler is silly. The British were right to stand up to German expansionism, they simply picked the wrong time to do it, and the wrong ally. Had they called Hitler's bluff in the Rhineland or the Sudetanland, history might have taken a much different turn.