Thanks for this. Fascinating read, and timely for me, as I am reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". It had been gathering dust on my bookcase for years before I finally decided a couple of weeks ago to pick it up and read it. I have just reached the part about the Anschluss of Austria, so I'm not yet at the invasion of Poland.
Like everyone else does, I knew about Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. But what I found striking is the sheer number of wasted opportunities both Germans (e.g., the army) and others (e.g., France and UK) had to stop Hitler in his tracks at minimal cost in the years 1933-1937, yet failed to do so due to cowardice or indecision. It wasn't just Chamberlain; it was pretty much everyone. They, and Poland, paid a much steeper price later.
Thanks for the history lesson. it filled in a few blanks for me. I have known various Polish emigres over the years, and while they have the right to be angry with Germany and the Soviets/Russia, I noticed their antipathy was always greater towards the Soviets/Russia.
Great article. Unfortunately Canada is following its tradition of not being prepared for war. We were unprepared in 1914 and 1939 and it seems we will be unprepared when it happens next. We were lucky in that we had powerful allies to help us get to where we needed to be. Can we rely on those allies in the future?
I had many dumb opinions as a young person but only one I’m actively ashamed of. That was when I joined what was (in my slight defence) conventional wisdom at the time that Bush allowing (just look at that word) the ex eastern bloc countries into NATO was needlessly provocative, when in fact it was by far his best foreign policy decision.
At least I’ve grown up, it’s sad that even after Ukraine people deny the agency of Poles, Baltic Peoples and others in suggesting we somehow forced them into this, when of course it’s the opposite (though I’m at the point now where I think we should be talking about kicking Hungary out, though remarkably I discovered that NATO doesn’t have an actual process for evicting members as it never occurred to its creators that non ideologically aligned nations would want to join or remain if they went communist)
Ideology was never important - or only important so far as anti-communist. The NATO was perfectly OK with Greece being a dictatorship of the colonels, Spain being a dictatorship of Franco, regular military coups in Turkey etc.
Back then anti-communist and anti-Russia were the same thing, but since Russia is no longer communst, it is unclear what the NATO is really about. France, Germany were not on board about Iraq, for example.
Formally the NATO is not really about anything. The famous Article 5 says if a country is attacked, the rest will aid which might include military aid. Might. It might just be money. And it does not say if a friendly but non-NATO country is attacked, what to do. Formally, the Russian-Ukrainian war is not a NATO thing and indeed is not treated on the NATO level, it is the individual countries sending aid on their own. My point is: Western reaction to the Russian-Ukrainian war might have been just the same without the NATO as well.
With respect, I disagree. A strong collective defence pact of the sort NATO represents is the best possible way to ensure aggressive wars are never launched, whoever may launch them. While it's true that the Communist threat was the proximate cause of NATO's creation, its roots lie deeper. As does its reason for being. Which I wrote about here and elsewhere: https://dgardner.substack.com/p/why-does-nato-exist
Also, I believe your interpretation of Article 5 is wrong. It very explicitly states that an attack on one member shall be treated as an attack on all members, and all members must do what is necessary to restore security. A member which responded to such an emergency by kicking in a few dollars would find itself not a member as soon as the emergency passed.
Lastly, yes, NATO is very much involved in assisting Ukraine, not only individual members. (Unlike Iraq, which is decidedly not in the North Atlantic region.) https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
“A member which responded to such an emergency by kicking in a few dollars would find itself not a member as soon as the emergency passed. “
The problem here Dan is that amazingly NATO does not contain a provision or process for kicking members out, I discovered this when trying to find out if it was possible for one member nation to launch the process to evict Hungary and I found out that there is nothing in the treaty that describes a process for evicting member states
A modest correction: Article 5 only works if others perceive that, should it be invoked, NATO members will respond. If that is ever in doubt, you are back to the same dynamic that culminated in the Second World War.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say but obviously not clearly enough, Trump doesn’t need to leave NATO to destroy it, he can just make it clear he won’t honour the spirit of article 5 and it’s dead
Perhaps. One possibility. The other possibility is that even Dugin, who is crazier than Putin, believes Russia should only rule Orthodoxs, not Catholics.
>In either case, it seems clear that Poles believe they are indeed next.
Latvia and Lithuania are next, as now the Baltic is a NATO lake, the only way Russia can strengthen their Baltic position is cutting a corridor to Kaliningrad.
It is a shame how the western democracies left Poland without help in 1939 after this double aggression. I hope that we all got our lesson and will stand with our allies and friends.
Many Canadians agree with you Dan. A nation's first responsibility is the safety of its people, and our present and previous governments should be ashamed. The Americans can't be everywhere.
It was actually.far worse than that, beginning with Poles happily taking possession of Jewish houses even as their former owners were marched off to the ghetto.
Still, place a few.Pershing missiles on Polish soil and problem solved. Whatever became of that "Peace Dividend" in '89 and Gorbachev? We are in a new era and have the luxury to be able to think outside the box. The US agreeing.to apply and receive unconditional and absolute sanctions on any nation that violates the borders of another nation - if the rest of the "Security Council" (and isn't that an aptly named group) agrees would possibly get us out of this dire habit that is going to kill us all if we aren't careful. While the US could survive without trade the citizenry wouldn't like it and the politicians know it - many, if not most - US voters choose the president based on the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Now, speaking of Atrocities, I'm off to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", having just discovered it possibly isn't fiction.after.all.
Thanks for this. Fascinating read, and timely for me, as I am reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". It had been gathering dust on my bookcase for years before I finally decided a couple of weeks ago to pick it up and read it. I have just reached the part about the Anschluss of Austria, so I'm not yet at the invasion of Poland.
Like everyone else does, I knew about Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. But what I found striking is the sheer number of wasted opportunities both Germans (e.g., the army) and others (e.g., France and UK) had to stop Hitler in his tracks at minimal cost in the years 1933-1937, yet failed to do so due to cowardice or indecision. It wasn't just Chamberlain; it was pretty much everyone. They, and Poland, paid a much steeper price later.
Thanks for the history lesson. it filled in a few blanks for me. I have known various Polish emigres over the years, and while they have the right to be angry with Germany and the Soviets/Russia, I noticed their antipathy was always greater towards the Soviets/Russia.
Great article. Unfortunately Canada is following its tradition of not being prepared for war. We were unprepared in 1914 and 1939 and it seems we will be unprepared when it happens next. We were lucky in that we had powerful allies to help us get to where we needed to be. Can we rely on those allies in the future?
Great great piece
I had many dumb opinions as a young person but only one I’m actively ashamed of. That was when I joined what was (in my slight defence) conventional wisdom at the time that Bush allowing (just look at that word) the ex eastern bloc countries into NATO was needlessly provocative, when in fact it was by far his best foreign policy decision.
At least I’ve grown up, it’s sad that even after Ukraine people deny the agency of Poles, Baltic Peoples and others in suggesting we somehow forced them into this, when of course it’s the opposite (though I’m at the point now where I think we should be talking about kicking Hungary out, though remarkably I discovered that NATO doesn’t have an actual process for evicting members as it never occurred to its creators that non ideologically aligned nations would want to join or remain if they went communist)
Ideology was never important - or only important so far as anti-communist. The NATO was perfectly OK with Greece being a dictatorship of the colonels, Spain being a dictatorship of Franco, regular military coups in Turkey etc.
Back then anti-communist and anti-Russia were the same thing, but since Russia is no longer communst, it is unclear what the NATO is really about. France, Germany were not on board about Iraq, for example.
Formally the NATO is not really about anything. The famous Article 5 says if a country is attacked, the rest will aid which might include military aid. Might. It might just be money. And it does not say if a friendly but non-NATO country is attacked, what to do. Formally, the Russian-Ukrainian war is not a NATO thing and indeed is not treated on the NATO level, it is the individual countries sending aid on their own. My point is: Western reaction to the Russian-Ukrainian war might have been just the same without the NATO as well.
With respect, I disagree. A strong collective defence pact of the sort NATO represents is the best possible way to ensure aggressive wars are never launched, whoever may launch them. While it's true that the Communist threat was the proximate cause of NATO's creation, its roots lie deeper. As does its reason for being. Which I wrote about here and elsewhere: https://dgardner.substack.com/p/why-does-nato-exist
Also, I believe your interpretation of Article 5 is wrong. It very explicitly states that an attack on one member shall be treated as an attack on all members, and all members must do what is necessary to restore security. A member which responded to such an emergency by kicking in a few dollars would find itself not a member as soon as the emergency passed.
Lastly, yes, NATO is very much involved in assisting Ukraine, not only individual members. (Unlike Iraq, which is decidedly not in the North Atlantic region.) https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
“A member which responded to such an emergency by kicking in a few dollars would find itself not a member as soon as the emergency passed. “
The problem here Dan is that amazingly NATO does not contain a provision or process for kicking members out, I discovered this when trying to find out if it was possible for one member nation to launch the process to evict Hungary and I found out that there is nothing in the treaty that describes a process for evicting member states
Just by existing Article 5 does its job, there’s a reason Putin isn’t in Estonia and that reason is not a great belief in Estonian independence
Will be tragic if Americans elect a man committed to destroying the peace that article 5 ensures
A modest correction: Article 5 only works if others perceive that, should it be invoked, NATO members will respond. If that is ever in doubt, you are back to the same dynamic that culminated in the Second World War.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say but obviously not clearly enough, Trump doesn’t need to leave NATO to destroy it, he can just make it clear he won’t honour the spirit of article 5 and it’s dead
Perhaps. One possibility. The other possibility is that even Dugin, who is crazier than Putin, believes Russia should only rule Orthodoxs, not Catholics.
>In either case, it seems clear that Poles believe they are indeed next.
Latvia and Lithuania are next, as now the Baltic is a NATO lake, the only way Russia can strengthen their Baltic position is cutting a corridor to Kaliningrad.
This is beautifully written and packs a ton of information into a (relatively) short piece-- no small task. I learned a lot.
Although, this was the best part, "Old Town is what every North American who has never been to Europe imagines Europe to be."
Powerful post, pertinent postscript.
It is a shame how the western democracies left Poland without help in 1939 after this double aggression. I hope that we all got our lesson and will stand with our allies and friends.
Many Canadians agree with you Dan. A nation's first responsibility is the safety of its people, and our present and previous governments should be ashamed. The Americans can't be everywhere.
It was actually.far worse than that, beginning with Poles happily taking possession of Jewish houses even as their former owners were marched off to the ghetto.
Still, place a few.Pershing missiles on Polish soil and problem solved. Whatever became of that "Peace Dividend" in '89 and Gorbachev? We are in a new era and have the luxury to be able to think outside the box. The US agreeing.to apply and receive unconditional and absolute sanctions on any nation that violates the borders of another nation - if the rest of the "Security Council" (and isn't that an aptly named group) agrees would possibly get us out of this dire habit that is going to kill us all if we aren't careful. While the US could survive without trade the citizenry wouldn't like it and the politicians know it - many, if not most - US voters choose the president based on the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Now, speaking of Atrocities, I'm off to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", having just discovered it possibly isn't fiction.after.all.