← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel

PJB: Bush, Putin and the Hitler-Stalin Pact

Thread ID: 18166 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2005-05-09

Wayback Archive

Centinel [OP]

2005-05-09 15:07 | User Profile

[url]http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050509-pact.htm[/url]

Bush, Putin and the Hitler-Stalin Pact

by Patrick J. Buchanan May 9, 2005

To Americans, World War II ended with the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, following detonation of atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9.

But for Russians, who did not enter the war on Japan until Aug. 8, 1945, "The Great Patriotic War" ended on May 9, with the surrender of Nazi Germany. Which raises a question: What exactly is President Bush celebrating in Moscow?

The destruction of Bolshevism was always the great goal of Hitler. And the Red Army eventually bore the brunt of battle, losing 10 times as many soldiers as America and Britain together. But were we and the Soviets ever fighting for the same things, as FDR believed? Or was Stalin's war against Hitler but another phase of Bolshevism's war to eradicate Christianity and the West?

Vladimir Putin, a patriot and nationalist who retains a nostalgia for the empire he served as a KGB agent, refuses to renounce the Hitler-Stalin Pact of Aug. 23, 1939. Under the secret protocols of that pact, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the Romanian provinces of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were ceded to Stalin, as was eastern Poland.

Hitler's attack on Poland, the success of which was guaranteed by that pact, came on Sept. 1, 1939. On Sept. 17, Stalin, who had hidden in the weeds to see how Britain and France would react to Hitler's invasion, stormed into Poland from the east and claimed his share of the martyred nation. Six years of terror for Poles began, ending in 44 years of captivity in the bowels of what Ronald Reagan bravely called an "evil empire."

As a result of this war, Hitler's 1,000-Year Reich lasted 12 years and Germany was destroyed as no other nation save Japan. Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and Berlin were reduced to rubble. Between 13 million and 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from the Baltic region, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Two million, mostly women and children, perished in an orgy of murder, rape and massacre that attended that greatest forced exodus in European history.

As a result of the Great Patriotic War, Finland had its Karelian Peninsula torn away by Stalin and 10 Christian countries – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Yugoslavia – endured Stalinist persecution and tyranny for half a century.

Again, what, exactly, is Bush celebrating in Moscow?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a soldier of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War. Let us hear from him about what a wonderful cause it was. As for Putin, into whose soul Bush has looked, his position is understandable. From the vantage point of Russian vital interests, the Hitler-Stalin pact was a brilliant coup.

Hitler was on the path to war. The war he wanted was one with the Soviet Union: to kill it, carve it up and put every Bolshevik to the sword. His war was also to be a racist war. Hitler wanted to impose Germanic rule over Slavic peoples.

Stalin, with his pact, redirected Hitler's Panzers to the west and bought the Red Army two more precious years to prepare for Hitler's onslaught – years Stalin used well.

How did Stalin succeed?

On March 31, 1939, the British and French – in a panic after Hitler drove into Prague without resistance – handed Poland an unsolicited war guarantee they could not honor and did not intend to honor. It was a bluff. But believing in that guarantee, the brave Poles defied Hitler over Danzig, stood and fought, and were crushed, as the British and French hid inside the Maginot Line.

But because they had declared war on him, though they had no plan to attack him, Hitler, in April 1940, invaded Denmark and Norway, and in May, the Low Countries and France. In three weeks, he threw the British army off the continent at Dunkirk, and, in six weeks, crushed France.

Meanwhile, Stalin provided Hitler all the food and fuel he had requested and declared Britain and France to be the aggressors against his Nazi partner.

When Stalin's turn came and Hitler invaded on June 22, 1941, Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov, who had negotiated the Hitler-Stalin – or Molotov-Ribbentrop – pact, said plaintively to the German ambassador, "What have we done to deserve this?"

Churchill and FDR rushed to embrace Stalin, gave him everything he demanded and more, and at Tehran and Yalta, ceded to him custody of all the peoples of Eastern Europe and of Poland, for which Britain had gone to war.

What Putin is celebrating is easy to see. But, tell me again: What exactly is our president celebrating in Moscow?

Franco

2005-05-10 04:09 | User Profile

Great essay. It makes good points.

[For newbies here at OD: I still find it amazing that Britain plunged Europe into a world war over a CITY [Danzig]! And further, Britain's treaty with Poland was bogus.

And people have the nerve to call Hitler immoral; the British [historic Jew-pals] knew very well that Hitler was merely trying to reverse the unfair Versailles Treaty. They knew that Hitler wasn't trying to 'take over the world.'

WWII was so tragic that words cannot describe it. And who suffered the most? The White race. Literally millions of Whites who[I] would [/I]have had kids [I]didn't [/I]have kids because they didn't survive the war.

Who really won WWII? The Jews did].

[edited]

robinder

2005-05-10 05:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE] I still find it amazing that Britain plunged Europe into a world war over[/QUOTE] In 1939 there was no world war, there was a war involving France, The United Kindgom, Germany and Poland.

[QUOTE] And people have the nerve to call Hitler immoral[/QUOTE] Yes, how very presumptous of them.

[QUOTE]the British [historic Jew-pals][/QUOTE] This is a vast over-simplification. A list of prominent Jews in various fields from all Europe could be drawn up, but that would be mere tedium. Instead consider pieces of an essay written by George Orwell in 1945, where the author notes English feelings toward Jews and ponders that such views might grow more negative:

[QUOTE]"One effect of the persecutions in Germany has been to prevent anti-Semitism from being seriously studied. In England a brief inadequate survey was made by Mass Observation a year or two ago, but if there has been any other investigation of the subject, then its findings have been kept strictly secret. At the same time there has been conscious suppression, by all thoughtful people, of anything likely to wound Jewish susceptibilities. After 1934 the Jew joke disappeared as though by magic from postcards, periodicals and the music-hall stage, and to put an unsympathetic Jewish character into a novel or short story came to be regarded as anti-Semitism. On the Palestine issue, too, it was de rigueur among enlightened people to accept the Jewish case as proved and avoid examining the claims of the Arabs—a decision which might be correct on its own merits, but which was adopted primarily because the Jews were in trouble and it was felt that one must not criticise them. Thanks to Hitler, therefore, you had a situation in which the press was in effect censored in favour of the Jews while in private anti-Semitism was on the up-grade, even, to some extent, among sensitive and intelligent people. This was particularly noticeable in 1940 at the time of the internment of the refugees. Naturally, every thinking person felt that it was his duty to protest against the wholesale locking-up of unfortunate foreigners who for the most part were only in England because they were opponents of Hitler. Privately, however, one heard very different sentiments expressed. A minority of the refugees behaved in an exceedingly tactless way, and the feeling against them necessarily had an anti-Semitic undercurrent, since they were largely Jews. A very eminent figure in the Labour Party—I won’t name him, but he is one of the most respected people in England—said to me quite violently: “We never asked these people to come to this country. If they choose to come here, let them take the consequences.” Yet this man would as a matter of course have associated himself with any kind of petition or manifesto against the internment of aliens. This feeling that anti-Semitism is something sinful and disgraceful, something that a civilised person does not suffer from, is unfavourable to a scientific approach, and indeed many people will admit that they are frightened of probing too deeply into the subject. They are frightened, that is to say, of discovering not only that anti-Semitism is spreading, but that they themselves are infected by it."

"There has been a perceptible anti-Semitic strain in English literature from Chaucer onwards, and without even getting up from this table to consult a book I can think of passages which if written now would be stigmatised as anti-Semitism, in the works of Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and various others. Offhand, the only English writers I can think of who, before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade. And however little the average intellectual may have agreed with the opinions of Belloc and Chesterton, he did not acutely disapprove of them. Chesterton’s endless tirades against Jews, which he thrust into stories and essays upon the flimsiest pretexts, never got him into trouble—indeed Chesterton was one of the most generally respected figures in English literary life. Anyone who wrote in that strain now would bring down a storm of abuse upon himself, or more probably would find it impossible to get his writings published." "If, as I suggest, prejudice against Jews has always been pretty widespread in England, there is no reason to think that Hitler has genuinely diminished it. He has merely caused a sharp division between the politically conscious person who realises that this is not a time to throw stones at the Jews, and the unconscious person whose native anti-Semitism is increased by the nervous strain of the war. One can assume, therefore, that many people who would perish rather than admit to anti-Semitic feelings are secretly prone to them. I have already indicated that I believe anti-Semitism to be essentially a neurosis, but of course it has its rationalisations, which are sincerely believed in and are partly true. The rationalisation put forward by the common man is that the Jew is an exploiter. The partial justification for this is that the Jew, in England, is generally a small businessman—that is to say a person whose depredations are more obvious and intelligible than those of, say, a bank or an insurance company. Higher up the intellectual scale, anti-Semitism is rationalised by saying that the Jew is a person who spreads disaffection and weakens national morale. Again there is some superficial justification for this. During the past twenty-five years the activities of what are called “intellectuals” have been largely mischievous. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that if the “intellectuals” had done their work a little more thoroughly, Britain would have surrendered in 1940. But the disaffected intelligentsia inevitably included a large number of Jews. With some plausibility it can be said that the Jews are the enemies of our native culture and our national morale. Carefully examined, the claim is seen to be nonsense, but there are always a few prominent individuals who can be cited in support of it. During the past few years there has been what amounts to a counter-attack against the rather shallow Leftism which was fashionable in the previous decade and which was exemplified by such organisations as the Left Book Club. This counter-attack (see for instance such books as Arnold Lutin’s The Good Gorilla or Evelyn Waugh’s Put Out More Flags) has an anti-Semitic strain, and it would probably be more marked if the subject were not so obviously dangerous. It so happens that for some decades past Britain has had no nationalist intelligentsia worth bothering about. But British nationalism, i.e. nationalism of an intellectual kind, may revive, and probably will revive if Britain comes out of the present war greatly weakened. In that case the kind of anti-Semitism which flourished among the anti-Dreyfusards in France, and which Chesterton and Belloc tried to import into this country, might get a foothold."

[/QUOTE]

Franco

2005-05-10 05:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE] In 1939 there was no world war, [/QUOTE]

I don't recall saying that there was.

Franco

2005-05-10 05:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]This is a vast over-simplification. A list of prominent Jews in various fields from all Europe could be drawn up, but that would be mere tedium.[/QUOTE]

By the 1930s, Jews occupied important areas of British culture. In fact, many Jews married into wealthy British gentile families - a fact unknown to many people.

The reason so many White Nationalists dislike England is for that very reason. The Jews became part of British society with FEW complaints from the public. Contrast that with Germany [even before Hitler came to power].

robinder

2005-05-10 06:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]By the 1930s, Jews occupied important areas of British culture.[/QUOTE] This is true for much of Europe, feel free to draw up a list of these individuals and I will provide a list of Jews from the rest of Europe from the French Revolution until the 1930s.

[QUOTE=Franco] In fact, many Jews married into wealthy British gentile families - a fact unknown to many people.[/QUOTE] This is also true for much of Europe. You may have heard of the Rothschilds.

[QUOTE] The reason so many White Nationalists dislike England is for that very reason. [/QUOTE] Which is misguided and also rooted in bitterness at the fact that The UK did not technically lose the second world war, not to mention that they are often German exceptionalists who find just about any Nazi actions justified.

[QUOTE] Contrast that with Germany [even before Hitler came to power].[/QUOTE] Pre-Hitler Germany was rife with popular Social Democratic and Communist movements.

friedrich braun

2005-05-10 16:18 | User Profile

[B]On March 31, 1939, the British and French – in a panic after Hitler drove into Prague without resistance – handed Poland an unsolicited war guarantee they could not honor and did not intend to honor. It was a bluff. But believing in that guarantee, the brave Poles defied Hitler over Danzig, stood and fought, and were crushed, as the British and French hid inside the Maginot Line. [/B]

Not only did the British feel themselves obligated to be the self-appointed arbiters of Germany’s eastern borders, but Lord Halifax and the British Foreign Office informed the dissolute, arrogant, and saber-rattling Polish colonels who ran Poland as a military dictatorship in the twenties and thirties (remember those noble Allies who declared war on Germany in the name of “freedom and democracy”?) to stay firm and refrain from negotiating with the Germans over the GERMAN city of Danzing (95 % German at that time and with a National Socialist government even before the Reich). Further, right until the end of August 1939 Lord Halifax told the Polish colonels-thugs to turn down all German offers to settle the Danzig question, duplicitously reassuring them that Poland had the full support of His Majesty’s Empire. In effect, they gave the Poles a blank cheque in the form of guarantees ONLY against Germany – even though Poles feared the Russians as a greater threat to their national independence.

The nature of the German offer to Poland:

P. 145-146

Prof. David L. Hoggan, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revisionism Failed.

[QUOTE]Ribbentrop requested Lipski [Polish Ambassador to Germany] to convey a cordial invitation to Beck to visit Germany again in November 1938. Lipski promised to do this, and the German Foreign Minister proceeded to outline Hitler’s plan. Germany would request Poland to permit her to annex Danzig. She would ask permission to construct a superhighway and a railroad to East Prussia. Lipski was assured that these carefully circumscribed suggestions represented the total of German requests from Poland. It was clear that there had to be a quid pro quo basis for negotiation and Germany was prepared to offer many concessions. Poland would be granted a permanent free port in Danzig and the light to build her own highway and railroad to the port. The entire Danzig area would be a permanent free market for Polish goods on which no German customs duties would be levied. Germany would take the unprecedented step of recognizing and guaranteeing the existing German-Polish frontier, including the 1922 boundary in Upper Silesia. Ribbentrop compared the German sacrifice in making this offer with concessions recently made to Italy in the Tirol question. He added that Germany hoped to make similar agreement with France about the Franco-German frontier, since the Locarno treaties were no longer in effect.Germany had many other ideas for further proposals which would be of advantage to Poland. Ribbentrop proposed a new formal treaty to include these provisions for a general settlement. It need not be an alliance pact, and a new non-aggression pact which might be extended to twenty-five years would suffice. He hoped that the new pact would contain a consultation clause to increase cooperation, and he thought it would be helpful if Poland would join the anti-Comintern front.Hitler’s offer contained generous terms for Poland. It included an enormous German renunciation in favor of Poland in the question of the frontiers. Hitler’s offer to guarantee Poland’s frontiers carried with it a degree of security which could not have been matched by any of the other non-Communist Powers. This more than compensated for the return to Germany of Danzig, which had been under a National Socialist regime for several years. Polish prestige in agreeing to the change at Danzig would be protected by this fact. It would be easy for Polish propagandists to point out that Poland was securing great advantages in such a policy. An Ambassador would normally have confined his response to a discussion of the individual points in such an offer with the aim of obtaining complete clarity prior to receiving new instructions. This was not Lipski’s method. He replied at once that he “did not consider an Anschluss (Germany-Danzig) possible, however, if only – and principally – for reasons of domestic policy.” He developed this theme with great intensity, and he insisted that Beck could never prevail upon the Polish people to accept the German annexation of Danzig. He added that in Poland the Free City of Danzig, unlike the Saar, was not regarded as a product of the Versailles Treaty, but of an older historical tradition.Lipski was insincere in his presentation of these carefully prepared arguments. He knew perfectly well that the chief obstacle to the German annexation of Danzig was the determination of Beck that Germany should never recover this city. The Polish diplomat deliberately created the misleading impression that Beck was unable to decide about Danzig because of public opinion. It was astonishing that Lipski displayed no enthusiasm about German recognition of the Polish frontiers. He would have been enthusiastic had he been more optimistic about a lasting good relations with Germany, but unfortunately this was not the attitude of the Polish Foreign Office under Beck’s leadership.Ribbentrop tried to conceal his impatience, but he was obviously irritated by the strange attitude of Lipski. He warned Lipski that recognition of the Polish Corridor was no easy matter for Hitler. Lipski's response was to change the subject...[Maybe we should also mention at this point what happened to the Czech city of Teschen...a sizeable chunk of Czechoslovakia greedily bitten off by Poland in 1938...and maybe someone will tell us how the non-Polish citizenry was treated by the invading Poles...these sweethearts...][/QUOTE]

Again, it’s important to remember that Germany tried…and tried…and tried to come to a sensible agreement with Poland until September 1939, only to have all its offers for a compromise spurned, ignored, and turned down by the Polish colonels. Polish recklessness and stupidity are the stuff of legend in European affairs (it’s not incidental that Poland was dismembered thrice in her history), and once again the Poles lived up to their well-earned reputation. Therefore, to say, as Poles and Allies habitually do, that Danzig was just a “pretext” (when Germany hoped for a peaceful arrangement until the very end) is an insidious lie cultivated by Poles and the Allies to justify their hypocritical treatment of Germany.

Further, starting in 1934 and up to 1939 Polish leadership repeatedly beat the drums for a war on Germany. Poles periodically made calls throughout the 1930s on the West to wage war against her. The fact is that Poland wanted to see a war between Poland and Germany because the Poles fantasized that Poland was going to come out of such a war a major European power and territorially expand in the East and West. Finally, they were the eager tools and useful idiots of Britain’s cynical balance of power policy.