Buchanan was apologizing for Hitler (and Germany) breaking the Treaty of Versailles by saying it was invalid, because it was signed at the point of a gun.
In law school, you learn in Contracts I (Common Law) that a contract is voluntary, and that duress voids a contract.
I would go further, since the treaty in question involved European parties which adhere to Civil Law, that a contract is a bilateral, synallagmatic obligation, which depends on the will of both parties. In other words, it is completely voluntary. That's Civil Law of Obligations I.
A contract arises between two (or more) willing persons.
A peace treaty, in contrast, imposes the will of the victor on the vanquished. Naturally, weapons are involved. Weapons are always involved in war. Otherwise, it wouldn't be war.
To get back to the point, Buchanan argues that Germany was not bound by the Treaty of Versailles because the Allies said, sign or die. What you seem to be arguing is that if one crosses one's fingers then no deal is a deal.
That may suit Buchanan, and it may suit you, but the results would be that no victor would spare the vanquished because no vanquished would honor a treaty. Better to rape, pillage, and plunder, because the spoils of war are tangible, and treaties are toilet paper.
Hitler was the kind of man who crapped on treaties. The world is not a better place thereby.
This isn't morality, by the way. It's realpolitik. |
