← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 16571 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2005-02-04
2005-02-04 02:26 | User Profile
This thought came upon me when I was dealing with this thread, after I had commented:
[I]"All the Jews in the world would not have been able to make France and England to declare war on Germany if Hitler had stopped after Munich and the annexation of Sudetenland."[/I]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16549[/url]
I realized how easily Adolf Hitler could have demonstrated in 1939 that he had a sincere wish for peace, and that he wanted to avoid inter-European bloodshed for the benefit of international Jews.
As we know, this is the "party line" that neo-Nazi apologists enthusiastically give us, that Hitler was forced to war against his will.
Those of us with a more skeptical viewpoint (and us who actually take Hitler for his own words in [I]Mein Kampf [/I] and elsewhere) tend to think that Hitler's goal was create a huge Germanic Empire in the Eastern Europe at the expense of Slavs, to make some serious [I]lebensraum[/I], and if "peaceful" methods (occupation without resistance, as in Czechoslovakia) were not enough, he was ready to resort to violence (as in Poland).
His ultimate goal, as stated in [I]Mein Kampf[/I], was to "put an end to Russia as a state" and extend the borders of Greater Germany to Ural mountains.
So, if Hitler did not harbor these kind of imperialistic dreams, what should he had done after France and England had declared war on him after he had invaded Poland, and after the military power of Poles had been completely destroyed and Western allies showed no sign of attacking him?
Simple: to re-annex those parts of Poland to Germany that had been taken from her in Versailles (the Danzig Corridor), [B]and nothing else[/B].
Then he should have slammed some war reparations on Poles (like Germans did with France in 1871) and slowly [B]retreat from the rest of German-occupied Poland[/B].
The gracious Fuhrer should had then given Poles back their independent state, except for those parts where the Germans were in a majority!
Can you imagine what kind of impression that would have made on the Western public?
This period of "phony war" (October 1939 - May 1940) would have been the golden opportunity for Hitler to show his peaceful intentions.
[COLOR=Purple][B]"What was happening was futile attempts by both sides to negotiate an end to the war that would not embarrass either side. Germany reached out to the Allies through Holland. Since the British held that Germany should recall her forces from Poland, there was not much leeway for either side to get out with a favorable position to both sides."[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/phonywar.htm[/url]
If Hitler had indeed retreated from Poland, after taking back the Danzig Corridor and securing the rights of Poland's German minority, what possible excuse would have British politicians had to reject German peace offers?
Warmongers like Churchill wouldn't have stood a chance in British internal politics! A new Munich deal would have been entirely possible.
Sure, Poles would have been enraged and yearning for vengeance after their crushing defeat (just like Frenchmen did after 1871), but what could they have done, except gratefully accept their independence back and sulk in impotence?
And what if Soviets had taken over Eastern Poland? The PR effect in the West would have been even better: honest German Nazis just wanted what was rightfully theirs, while greedy Communist imperialists grabbed whatever they could!
If Soviets had then one day attacked Germans, they would have had a real chance to get Western allies to support them against this unprovoked Bolshevik onslaught - [B]at[/B] [B]the very least [/B] they would have not allied with invading Soviets against Germany.
(Plus, the small Polish state between USSR and Germany would have served as a handy buffer zone for Germans...)
So? Germany should have given Poland simply the same treatment it gave to France in 1871 and nothing more, instead of trying to swallow it entirely.
Adolf Hitler could shown a little Christian humility towards Poles ([B]and Czechs, but that's another story[/B]), instead of megalomaniacal pagan pride, and the fractricidal mass slaughter could have been avoided.
Petr
2005-02-04 02:42 | User Profile
It's a good plan, and I wish it had turned out that way. One thing, though, is that where you mention the whole Christian vs. pagan dichotomy, the logic breaks down a bit. I don't see what you're describing as having any real religious implications at all--you're describing religiously-neutral matters of strategy and politics. If anything, your Poland withdrawal plan is the height of brilliant manipulation and one-upsmanship: what's specifically "Christian" about that?.
Wouldn't the truly "Christian" thing have been to hand over more German land that was already part of the Reich in the first place to Poland, when Poland made clear it intended to keep Danzig et al.? Wouldn't that be "turning the other cheek?"
2005-02-04 02:46 | User Profile
[B][I] - "you're describing religiously-neutral matters of strategy and politics."[/I][/B]
[I]Everything[/I] in this world has religious implications, to one way or another. I do not even (philosophically) recognize the existence of any "neutral issues".
:smile:
[B][I]- "If anything, your Poland withdrawal plan is the height of brilliant manipulation and one-upsmanship: what's specifically "Christian" about that?."[/I][/B]
The Bible does not condemn certain healthy "selfishness":
[COLOR=Navy][B]"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1Tim 5:8 [/B] [/COLOR]
Petr
2005-02-04 02:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]
[COLOR=Navy][B]"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1Tim 5:8 [/B] [/COLOR]
Petr[/QUOTE]
I like that one better than "there is neither Jew nor Greek," but I realize that race-realist Christian nationalists have devised means of interpreting and applying it that don't result in furthering globalism and multiracialism.
2005-02-04 03:06 | User Profile
Hitler loved war and considered himself a military genius of the order of Napoleon. That was his great fault and the undoing of Germany. It is an understatement to say he overplayed Germany's hand.
2005-02-04 04:01 | User Profile
By 1939 it was too late - the British and French were angry, paranoid and convinced they had been lied to and tricked by Hitler
There was nothing Hitler could have done to avoid war by that stage
2005-02-04 04:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=88mmFlaK]The problem is that our own countries are allowing these so-called muslim "invaders" in; therefore the immigration problem lies squarely on our shoulders; there are no clear-cut 'good guys' or 'bad guys', but folks (of all nationalities)living today which are bearing the burden of the incessant warmongering, intervention, and meddling of [u]their[/u] leaders, both past and present.
I have the greatest respect for the institution of militarism; I have no respect for chickenhawk leaders, like the Bu$h and his neocon gang, and those like him, who use the military (and who propagandize to the next crop of would-be heroes) to further their idealism.
Similarly, I reject other leaders (e.g., :hitler: )who were infact seasoned warriors, yet similarly agitate for (and get) war, despite the fact that they should know, of all people, what such an exercise in barbarity, and often futility, it amounts to... and for what?
To bring "democracy" To realise the greater nation To manifest destiny To colonise, and exploit To enlighten
Ptui! :furious:[/QUOTE]
Hey,[B] Hitler didn't want war. [/B] If Poland had done the right thing and given Danzig back to Germany as Hitler asked, then he would not have had to invade Poland. The Poles had plenty of time to give Danzig back. The burden is on Poland, and England, not on Hitler.
[edited]
2005-02-04 04:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]This thought came upon me when I was dealing with this thread, after I had commented:
[I]"All the Jews in the world would not have been able to make France and England to declare war on Germany if Hitler had stopped after Munich and the annexation of Sudetenland."[/I]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16549[/url]
I realized how easily Adolf Hitler could have demonstrated in 1939 that he had a sincere wish for peace, and that he wanted to avoid inter-European bloodshed for the benefit of international Jews.
As we know, this is the "party line" that neo-Nazi apologists enthusiastically give us, that Hitler was forced to war against his will.
Those of us with a more skeptical viewpoint (and us who actually take Hitler for his own words in [I]Mein Kampf [/I] and elsewhere) tend to think that Hitler's goal was create a huge Germanic Empire in the Eastern Europe at the expense of Slavs, to make some serious [I]lebensraum[/I], and if "peaceful" methods (occupation without resistance, as in Czechoslovakia) were not enough, he was ready to resort to violence (as in Poland).
His ultimate goal, as stated in [I]Mein Kampf[/I], was to "put an end to Russia as a state" and extend the borders of Greater Germany to Ural mountains.
So, if Hitler did not harbor these kind of imperialistic dreams, what should he had done after France and England had declared war on him after he had invaded Poland, and after the military power of Poles had been completely destroyed and Western allies showed no sign of attacking him?
Simple: to re-annex those parts of Poland to Germany that had been taken from her in Versailles (the Danzig Corridor), [B]and nothing else[/B].
Then he should have slammed some war reparations on Poles (like Germans did with France in 1871) and slowly [B]retreat from the rest of German-occupied Poland[/B].
The gracious Fuhrer should had then given Poles back their independent state, except for those parts where the Germans were in a majority!
Can you imagine what kind of impression that would have made on the Western public?
This period of "phony war" (October 1939 - May 1940) would have been the golden opportunity for Hitler to show his peaceful intentions.
[COLOR=Purple][B]"What was happening was futile attempts by both sides to negotiate an end to the war that would not embarrass either side. Germany reached out to the Allies through Holland. Since the British held that Germany should recall her forces from Poland, there was not much leeway for either side to get out with a favorable position to both sides."[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/phonywar.htm[/url]
If Hitler had indeed retreated from Poland, after taking back the Danzig Corridor and securing the rights of Poland's German minority, what possible excuse would have British politicians had to reject German peace offers?
Warmongers like Churchill wouldn't have stood a chance in British internal politics! A new Munich deal would have been entirely possible.
Sure, Poles would have been enraged and yearning for vengeance after their crushing defeat (just like Frenchmen did after 1871), but what could they have done, except gratefully accept their independence back and sulk in impotence?
And what if Soviets had taken over Eastern Poland? The PR effect in the West would have been even better: honest German Nazis just wanted what was rightfully theirs, while greedy Communist imperialists grabbed whatever they could!
If Soviets had then one day attacked Germans, they would have had a real chance to get Western allies to support them against this unprovoked Bolshevik onslaught - [B]at[/B] [B]the very least [/B] they would have not allied with invading Soviets against Germany.
(Plus, the small Polish state between USSR and Germany would have served as a handy buffer zone for Germans...)
So? Germany should have given Poland simply the same treatment it gave to France in 1871 and nothing more, instead of trying to swallow it entirely.
Adolf Hitler could shown a little Christian humility towards Poles ([B]and Czechs, but that's another story[/B]), instead of megalomaniacal pagan pride, and the fractricidal mass slaughter could have been avoided.
Petr[/QUOTE]
As I noted before, the whole burden was on Poland and England. In fact, Hitler offered to withdraw his troops from Poland if he could be allowed to keep Danzig/the Polish Corridor. But nooooo. England, and likely Poland as well, wanted war to keep their Jewish banker pals happy. Germany was already stronger than England [financially, too] in late 1939 and the Jew-Jewy bankers were gettin' weally, weally nervous! Nervous, they were! Oy! Nazi Germany wasn't good for God's Special Pets! It wasn't Jew-Approved. Only Jew-Approved states can exist.
[edited]
2005-02-04 04:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Hey, Hitler didn't want war. If Poland had done the right thing and given Danzig back to Germany as Hitler asked, then he would not have had to invade Poland. The Poles had plenty of time to give Danzig back. The burden is on Poland, and England, not on Hitler.
-------[/QUOTE]Sure, you want it, you take it,inconsequential things like peace treaties notwithstanding.
And, of course, we all know that Hitler saved Europe from Communist domination by invading the Soviet Union....Lebensraum, of course, played no part in the decision to go forward with Barbarossa...:wacko:
Panzers, Vorwarts!
2005-02-04 07:07 | User Profile
If only they'd had more time.
If only....
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/ihn4f/NaziWonderWeaponsBerlin1945.jpg[/img]
2005-02-04 07:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Sure, you want it, you take it,inconsequential things like peace treaties notwithstanding.[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the Anglo/Polish treaty [B]that wasn't ratified properly?[/B]
And again, [B]the burden was on Poland.[/B]
2005-02-04 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=General Rommel]If only they'd had more time.
If only....
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/ihn4f/NaziWonderWeaponsBerlin1945.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
So, what happened to, uh...."Photon Torpedo?" :mellow:
2005-02-04 10:04 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "In fact, Hitler offered to withdraw his troops from Poland if he could be allowed to keep Danzig/the Polish Corridor"[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Can you document this claim?
Petr
2005-02-04 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]As I noted before, the whole burden was on Poland and England. In fact, Hitler offered to withdraw his troops from Poland if he could be allowed to keep Danzig/the Polish Corridor. But nooooo. England, and likely Poland as well, wanted war to keep their Jewish banker pals happy. ----[/QUOTE]Reading the recent book "[I]Hitler's Traitor[/I]by Loius Kilzer, where he concludes Martin Bormann was a Soviet agent, I think he pretty much concludes as much. Germany did not want war in 1939, and seriously continued to pursue peace with the west afterwards. I'm not sure of all the specifics, but this must have been on the table. He concludes that France and Germany also shared guilt for the continuance of the war after the Polish invasion, by refusing to either seriously wage war or seriously negotiate. (Known as "provacative" behavior.)
One of the more interesting things about this book was the author's detail of the negotiations between Germany and Britain. Kilzer reports that Hitler (and even more backstabbing generals) made a consistent offers of negotiation with Britain, all the way through Hess's famous plane trip - and what's more, that there was a party in Britain seriously interested in these negotiations. (Hess's trip was much less of a surprise to the British than they ex post facto admitted after it had been inadvertently made public) Overall it just appears that Hitler persistently bungled chances of of either peace or victory. He and the Nazi's just seemed to be bunglers in pursuing peace. At the same time, Hitler's infatuation with the possibility of peace pretty much botched his chances of victory over Britain.
If you get a chance Petr and however, you might pick up a copy of this book. It's a very interesting read.
2005-02-04 19:48 | User Profile
I have checked the files of university libraries of Finland, and no, Kilzer's book is not available.
Okie, does that Kilzer's book have a good sourcework, lots of footnotes etc.? With such big claims as these, he'd better have...
I remember FadeTheButcher posting excerpts from Joseph Goebbels' diary where towards the end of 1939, Goebbels writes something like "Fuhrer is no longer at all interested in peace. He wants to put England to a sword"
Petr
2005-02-04 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I have checked the files of university libraries of Finland, and no, Kilzer's book is not available. Too bad. Maybe there's a paperback, used, or e-copy available. It makes very good reading.
Okie, does that Kilzer's book have a good sourcework, lots of footnotes etc.? With such big claims as these, he'd better have... Oh yes. See my original comments on [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/report.php?p=92944]Was Hitler's Secretary Martin Bormann A Soviet Spy?[/URL] Now I don't know exactly about the claims. Like a lot of the many works of revisionist history on WWII, especially spy stories, it makes compelling arguments, many of them undoubtedly true. You just have to judge for ourself I guess, since the mainstream community is not that interested in this anymore anyway.
I remember FadeTheButcher posting excerpts from Joseph Goebbels' diary where towards the end of 1939, Goebbels writes something like "Fuhrer is no longer at all interested in peace. He wants to put England to a sword"
Petr[/QUOTE]Well Kilzer concludes "But of all the enemies Hitler ever faced, he never showed hatred or even much anger toward the British, at least not as a people. It is to this day debatable whether he even showed resolve."
Goebbels diaries might have been influenced by the hard-line the British were showing at the time. Apparently according to Kilzer they had received offers of peace contingent on the retention of the Polish corrider by the German's and pretty much adamantly rejected them. Especially with Hitler in power.
Hence the start of the general intrigue, an atmosphere where futher intrigue like the Bormann/Werther affair found fertile soil.
2005-02-05 01:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Are you referring to the Anglo/Polish treaty that wasn't ratified properly?
And again, the burden was on Poland.
------[/QUOTE] You're missing the point, friend.
Hitler was a warmonger, just as FDR was, and many others; he was a man of his times.
2005-02-05 01:06 | User Profile
Hitler loved war. There is no way he was an innocent victim of Poland but of all the dictators of his era he is one of the better ones if for no other reason than he was honest and loyal, which can't be said about either the cripple, the drunk, or the Georgian wolf.
2005-02-05 04:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Hitler loved war.[/QUOTE]
No. Hitler did everything he could to avoid war and worked tirelessly for a peaceful territorial revisionism of the anti-German Versailles Treaty. Only when it became obvious that Halifax's Britain would rather go to war with Germany than see her reclaim the ancient German city of Danzig (a city that was 95 % German and National Socialist even before the Reich voted National Socialist and to whom the WW I Allies refused self-determination, because the outcome would have been an overwhelming vote to rejoin the Reich), that war became inevitable. Hitler was not going to watch with studied indifference while Danzingers were being abused and mistreated by the Poles.
[QUOTE]There is no way he was an innocent victim of Poland[/QUOTE]
OK, let's look at the facts.
To say that the German invasion of Poland was the cause of the WW II is nonsense.
First of all, the post WW II "Polish frontiers" included much territory that properly belonged to Germany. Danzig was a German city. Period. And the "Polish Corridor" which was created by the Versailles Diktat was intended not to cede to Poland anything that legitimately belonged to her but to permanently cripple Germany and render her impotent as an economic and political rival.
Hitler had made every effort to come to reasonable terms on the corridor, even to the point of ceding it outright to Poland, with the condition that Germany should be granted a 1 kilometer strip through the corridor so that the two parts of divided Germany could linked by a highway and rail line.
His offer was contemptuously refused by the Poles who had been given assurance that they would be backed up by Britain... and by America.
In an article appearing in the Chicago Herald-American on Oct. 8, 1944, Karl von Wiegand wrote: "On April 25, 1939, four months before the German invasion of Poland Ambassador William Christian Bullitt called me to the American Embassy in Paris to tell me: War in Europe has been decided upon." "'Poland,' he said, 'had the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and would yield to no demands from Germany.' 'America,' he predicted, would be in the war after Britain and France entered it.'" (Source: Conrad K. Grieb, Uncovering the Forces for War.)
Confirming this, Arthur Sears Henning wrote on November 12, 1941: "From the outbreak of the war the president has been under fire for permitting, if not encouraging, William C. Bullitt, American Ambassador to France and other American diplomats to encourage France and Poland to get into the war with American support." (Washington Times Herald) (ibid.)
But the real clincher here is that, when Stalin invaded Poland shortly after Germany's action, the British found no trouble at all with it, proving beyond doubt that its "defense of Poland" claim was no more than a self-serving lie. Stalin and Churchill became cozy bed-partners and the subject did not prove to be an obstacle to their relationship.
The Germans had been growing too strong economically and their political influence in Europe was likewise growing and Britain was not inclined to accept that.
And Britain, once again, justified the name it had so well earned for itself... "Perfidious Albion."
And all of it fit quite neatly into the Jewish agenda for a New World Order.
I would also encourage you to read David L. Hoggan's The Forced War: When Peaceful Revisionism failed for an appreciation of the length and depth of the abuse and mistreatment suffered by Germans at the hands of Poles before the outbreak of WW II. The said abuse and mistreatment played an important role in putting an end to Polish horrors by German action.
2005-02-05 05:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=88mmFlaK]You're missing the point, friend.
Hitler was a warmonger, just as FDR was, and many others; he was a man of his times.[/QUOTE]
Nope. England and France declared war in WWII, not Hitler. Have you read A.J.P. Taylor's book?
2005-02-05 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]No. Hitler did everything he could to avoid war and worked tirelessly for a peaceful territorial revisionism of the anti-German Versailles Treaty. Only when it became obvious that Halifax's Britain would rather go to war with Germany than see her reclaim the German ancient city of Danzig (a city that was 95 % German and National Socialist even before the Reich voted National Socialist and to whom the WW I Allies refused self-determination, because the outcome would have been an overwhelming vote to rejoin the Reich), that war became inevitable. Hitler was not going to watch with studied indifference while Danzingers were being abused and mistreated by the Poles.
OK, let's look at the facts.
To say that the German invasion of Poland was the cause of the WW II is nonsense.
First of all, the post WW II "Polish frontiers" included much territory that properly belonged to Germany. Danzig was a German city. Period. And the "Polish Corridor" which was created by the Versailles Diktat was intended not to cede to Poland anything that legitimately belonged to her but to permanently cripple Germany and render her impotent as an economic and political rival.
Hitler had made every effort to come to reasonable terms on the corridor, even to the point of ceding it outright to Poland, with the condition that Germany should be granted a 1 kilometer strip through the corridor so that the two parts of divided Germany could linked by a highway and rail line.
His offer was contemptuously refused by the Poles who had been given assurance that they would be backed up by Britain... and by America.
In an article appearing in the Chicago Herald-American on Oct. 8, 1944, Karl von Wiegand wrote: "On April 25, 1939, four months before the German invasion of Poland Ambassador William Christian Bullitt called me to the American Embassy in Paris to tell me: War in Europe has been decided upon." "'Poland,' he said, 'had the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and would yield to no demands from Germany.' 'America,' he predicted, would be in the war after Britain and France entered it.'" (Source: Conrad K. Grieb, Uncovering the Forces for War.)
Confirming this, Arthur Sears Henning wrote on November 12, 1941: "From the outbreak of the war the president has been under fire for permitting, if not encouraging, William C. Bullitt, American Ambassador to France and other American diplomats to encourage France and Poland to get into the war with American support." (Washington Times Herald) (ibid.)
But the real clincher here is that, when Stalin invaded Poland shortly after Germany's action, the British found no trouble at all with it, proving beyond doubt that its "defense of Poland" claim was no more than a self-serving lie. Stalin and Churchill became cozy bed-partners and the subject did not prove to be an obstacle to their relationship.
The Germans had been growing too strong economically and their political influence in Europe was likewise growing and Britain was not inclined to accept that.
And Britain, once again, justified the name it had so well earned for itself... "Perfidious Albion."
And all of it fit quite neatly into the Jewish agenda for a New World Order.
I would also encourage you to read David L. Hoggan" The Forced War: When Peaceful Revisionism failed for an appreciation of the length and depth of the abuse and mistreatment suffered by Germans at the hands of Poles before the outbreak of WW II. The said abuse and mistreatment played an important role in putting an end to Polish horrors.
but of all the dictators of his era he is one of the better ones if for no other reason than he was honest and loyal, which can't be said about either the cripple, the drunk, or the Georgian wolf.[/QUOTE]
Correct. Hitler tried to resolve the Poland matter peacefully, at first. But the Poles would not listen to reason.
Even many top allied leaders agreed that Danzig rightfully belonged to Germany. The Versailles Treaty was full of Jew-Jewy goodness, like everything else in modern times. All the big "advisors" at Versailles were Jewish, whispering into the ears of the clueless gentile leaders. Itz what Jews do best.
2005-02-05 06:10 | User Profile
In his book, "Gestapo Chief, The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Muller Volume 3," author Gregory Douglas included a chapter entitled " The Potocki Reports".
Count Jerzy Potocki was Polands Ambassador to the United States and the author has reprinted a number of Mr. Potocki's reports to the Foreign Minister in Poland. He details who the warmongers were that were pushing for war in the USofA. Very interesting and informative.
Book: [url]http://www.barnesreview.org/TBRcomm/agora.cgi?cart_id=%25%CArt_id%25%25&keywords=gestapo%20chief[/url]
2005-02-05 08:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Hitler was not going to watch with studied indifference while Danzingers were being abused and mistreated by the Poles.[/QUOTE] Was Danzig not a free city? What rights did the Poles have there?
2005-02-05 11:30 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Hitler did everything he could to avoid war and worked tirelessly for a peaceful territorial revisionism of the anti-German Versailles Treaty." [/B] [/COLOR]
"The conqueror always loves peace, for he'd like to invade our countries without meeting any resistance at all."[/I]
[I][B][COLOR=DarkRed] - "And the "Polish Corridor" which was created by the Versailles Diktat was intended not to cede to Poland anything that legitimately belonged to her but to permanently cripple Germany and render her impotent as an economic and political rival."[/COLOR][/B][/I]
Oh [I]puhleeze[/I]. As if Germany without the "Polish Corridor" would have been "permanently crippled and impotent" - especially after the annexation of Austria, Sudetenland, and Bohemia!
And as far as legitimate claims go, the whole "corridor" had been Polish territory until Prussia snatched it for herself in the First and Second Partitions of Poland in 1772 and 1793.
Also, that area [B]did[/B] have a Polish majority in 1919 - the anti-Catholic [I]Kulturkampf[/I] in the 1870s was especially bitter in that area because of that.
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3][B]Province Posen, 1871-1890 [/B] [/SIZE]
[I]"The Polish deputees in Prussia's diet voted against the Province of Posen's integration in the Northern German Confederation (1867) and into the German Empire (1871) - to no avail. Bismarck therefore regarded Poland's nobility and the nation's Catholic clergy as threatening the state.
"In 1871, Bismarck launched the state's attack on the Catholic church, called KULTURKAMPF. In the Province of Posen, the policy was regarded as anti-Polish. Archbishop COUNT LEDOCHOWSKI of Posen was deposed and sentenced to 2 years in prison in 1874. Most higher church officials were imprisoned; many Catholic parishes, for several decades, were without a priest. In 1873, German was proclaimed the exclusive language of education throughout the province, 1876 the exclusive language of the administration, 1877 of the courts.
"In 1886 the SETTLEMENT LAW was passed, by which the Reich subsidized the acquisition of farms in Posen by ethnic Germans. With Bismarck's dismission in 1890 the Kulturkampf ended.
[B]In 1885 the population of the province numbered 1,715,618; of whom 1,131,869 were Catholics, 531,722 Protestants, 50,866 Jews; by nationality c. 880,000 Poles, c.725,000 Germans (Meyers)."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/gdposen18711890.html[/url]
Danzig was the only place in the Corridor where the Germans were in majority, and therefore it became a Free City, and had some significant autonomical powers:
[B]"The Nazi Party was elected in the May 1933 election. However they received only 57 percent of the vote, less than the two thirds required by the League to change the Free City's constitution. The government introduced laws that were anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic."[/B]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig[/url]
Danzig was just an excuse for Hitler to destroy Poland in the same manner as he had eliminated Czechoslovakia, and even not the much-maligned Poles were not so stupid as not to see through that.
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "But the real clincher here is that, when Stalin invaded Poland shortly after Germany's action, the British found no trouble at all with it, proving beyond doubt that its "defense of Poland" claim was no more than a self-serving lie."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
How can you know that British "were not troubled at all"? Perhaps all they could do about it was to watch on in a mute horror?
In a purely juridical sense, Britain's pact with Poland was aimed namely against [U]German[/U] invasion.
[B]"1939 March 31 Britain and France sign an agreement with Poland guaranteeing its borders against aggression. These "unconditional" guarantees concern only Poland's western border, not its frontiers with the Soviet Union.[/B]
B"[/B]
[url]http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1939tbse.htm[/url]
When Western allies signed that agreement with Poles, how could they have known that Adolf Hitler was about to ally himself with the Soviets against whom he had preached his whole career!
It's unlikely that Stalin would have dared to snatch Eastern Poland (or Baltic states, or Finland) for himself without Germany's approval - he was not yet ready for an all-out war where even Western allies might have turned against him.
Therefore, Hitler does indeed bear an indirect responsibility for the Katyn killings after all - he exposed Poles to that fate just as surely as Western allies abandoned Russian exiles for Stalin in the "Operation Keelhaul".
On the practical side of things - France and Britain had their hands already full with Hitler - do you suppose they wanted to fight Germany and USSR [B]simultaneously[/B]?
Not all European politicians had such irresponsible mentalities that they would have put their countries against such overwhelming odds in such a whimsical manner.
Hitler was that kind of guy, he who declared war on the United States and gave Jews and Roosevelt just what they wanted.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]- "I would also encourage you to read David L. Hoggan's The Forced War: When Peaceful Revisionism failed for an appreciation of the length and depth of the abuse and mistreatment suffered by Germans at the hands of Poles before the outbreak of WW II." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
I remember reading some excerpts from Hoggan at Phora Forum and he struck me as an openly biased and unreliable writer.
Petr
2005-02-05 16:49 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "Hitler had made every effort to come to reasonable terms on the corridor, even to the point of ceding it outright to Poland, with the condition that Germany should be granted a 1 kilometer strip through the corridor so that the two parts of divided Germany could linked by a highway and rail line."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Let’s examine the chronology of this generous offer a little bit, shall we?
[COLOR=Indigo][U]1939 March 15 [/U] Civil unrest forces President Hacha of Czechoslovakia to ask for German protection. German troops enter Prague, and Bohemia becomes a German Protectorate.
[U]1939 March 16 [/U] Hitler declares that Czechoslovakia no longer exists.
[U]1939 March 23 [/U] Germany annexes Memel and [B]Hitler demands access to the Polish Corridor, the narrow strip of land that since the Treaty of Versailles has separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany.[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1939tbse.htm[/url]
Hitler made his modest proposal exactly one week after exterminating the national existence of Czechoslovakia! That sure should have made Poles convinced of his benevolent intentions!
Hitler's “reasonable terms” were like a diplomatic equivalent of some street mugger’s opening phrase in a dark alley: “[I]hey mister, got a light[/I]?” Now that sounds a quite reasonable request as well, don’t you think?
And also like street muggers, Hitler could smell weakness, so Poles decided to show none.
And why should have Poles trusted Hitler's word and intentions anyways? They knew well what he had written in [I]Mein Kampf[/I] about gaining [I]lebensraum[/I] in the East at the expense of Slavs; they had already made one treaty with him in 1934:
[COLOR=Blue]"On November 15, 1933, Lipski had an hour-long meeting with Hitler during which the Führer repeated his insistence that Germany accepted the existence of Poland. [B]True, the two nations had border disputes arising from the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, but they were not worth fighting a war over. [/B] If the Germans and Poles negotiated from a position of good faith, the problems facing them could be resolved without resort to force.3
...
"In addition to his discussions with Gaus, Lipski met with Josef Goebbels, who demonstrated his prowess as Germany's Minister of Propaganda. According to Goebbels, Hitler truly desired to conclude the non-aggression declaration, but he was opposed by the old Prussian elites, especially the Junkers. In contrast to the elites, the Nazis were [B]"new men, young, not compromised, originating from masses of Germans with nationalistic ideas, but who have nothing in common with the alldeutsch type striving for expansion at the expense of other nations." [/B] Lipski felt he had no reason to doubt Goebbels' sincerity, even going so far as to tell him that the Polish people sympathized with the ideas underlying the Nazi regime.7[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.wibemedia.com/poland-germany.html[/url]
Petr
2005-02-05 19:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "Hitler had made every effort to come to reasonable terms on the corridor, even to the point of ceding it outright to Poland, with the condition that Germany should be granted a 1 kilometer strip through the corridor so that the two parts of divided Germany could linked by a highway and rail line."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
Letââ¬â¢s examine the chronology of this generous offer a little bit, shall we?
[COLOR=Indigo][U]1939 March 15 [/U] Civil unrest forces President Hacha of Czechoslovakia to ask for German protection. German troops enter Prague, and Bohemia becomes a German Protectorate.
[U]1939 March 16 [/U] Hitler declares that Czechoslovakia no longer exists.
[U]1939 March 23 [/U] Germany annexes Memel and [B]Hitler demands access to the Polish Corridor, the narrow strip of land that since the Treaty of Versailles has separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany.[/B][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1939tbse.htm[/url]
Hitler made his modest proposal exactly one week after exterminating the national existence of Czechoslovakia! That sure should have made Poles convinced of his benevolent intentions!
Hitler's ââ¬Åreasonable termsââ¬Â were like a diplomatic equivalent of some street muggerââ¬â¢s opening phrase in a dark alley: ââ¬Å[I]hey mister, got a light[/I]?ââ¬Â Now that sounds a quite reasonable request as well, donââ¬â¢t you think?
And also like street muggers, Hitler could smell weakness, so Poles decided to show none.
And why should have Poles trusted Hitler's word and intentions anyways? They knew well what he had written in [I]Mein Kampf[/I] about gaining [I]lebensraum[/I] in the East at the expense of Slavs; they had already made one treaty with him in 1934: [/QUOTE]It is true the annexation of all of Czechoslovakia save Slokovia in 1939 broke the Munich agreement, and embarassed and made it politically impossible for Chamberlain to continue to negotiate publically with Hitler. But the interpretation of these actions is what requires nuance. The conventional interpretation is that these actions proved Hitler was determined to seek war at any cost, and his later action with the Polish corrider was viewed in this light. Presumably at this point Hitler therfore would have realized the logic of his actions and viewed the outbreak of war with at least fatalistic acceptance, and presumably joy. And continuing from that point on to wage efforts at peace negotiations only as a ploy,
This interpretation however just isn't supported by careful history however.
On September 1, 1939 German tanks crashed through the Polish borders.
Two days later, the British ambassador marched into the room........
"Hitler was sitting at his desk and Ribbontrop stood by the ewindow," Schmidt later wrote. "Both looked p expectently as I came in. I stopped at some distance from Hitler's desk, and then slowly translated the British Government's ultimatum"
When Schmidt finished, no one in the room seemed able to inhale, the blow had been so severe. Hiter, Schmidt recalled, "sat immobile, gazing before him. He was at a loss......
"After an interval which seemed an age, he turnedto Ribbontrop, who remained standing by the window. 'What now?'asked Hitler." Ribbontrop'sanswer was simple: "I assume that the French will hand in asimilar ultimatum wihin the hour" Goring looked at Schmidt and said softly: "If we lose this war, then God have mercy on us."
Hitler turned to Hess, his closest friend, to whom he had dictated Mein Kampf. "Nowall my work crumbles" he said. "I wrote my book for nothing" Ribbontrop told interrogators after the war that on the morning of September 3, 1939, Hitler felt "his life's work collapsed when Britain declared war on Germany"
Louis Kilzer in [I]Hitler's Traitor[/I]
Not the attitude of a man who consciously, deliberately, and single-mindedly pursued war to the exclusion of al else, even if to others his actions certainly seemed to make that the most logical inference at the time. As is often the case [I]ex post facto[/I] interpretations are simplistic, and the reality of peoples motives is more complex.
2005-02-05 19:51 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Not the attitude of a man who consciously, deliberately, and single-mindedly pursued war to the exclusion of al else, even if to others his actions certainly seemed to make that the most logical inference at the time."[/I][/B]
Hitler had no objections for war against Slavs or even the French, but not against the fellow Nordic Englishmen, whom he admired. Hitler had firmly intended to crush Poland, but he had been quite hopeful that Britain would not have had guts to oppose that.
So what we see here is simply self-pity that those Western allies wouldn't allow him to conquer Eastern Europe in peace after all, to let him pick off his enemies one at the time.
Even in [I]Mein Kampf[/I], Hitler was playing with schemes to isolate France from Britain so that Germany could crush the French for good without them interfering.
Petr
2005-02-05 20:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]"The conqueror always loves peace, for he'd like to invade our countries without meeting any resistance at all."[/I] There may be a certain amount of truth to this. But it cuts both ways. Defendors also would love to have peace but can be reluctant to make the necessary concessions, just as war comes because the invader is also unwilling to make the necessary concessions to avoid war.
The key is to fairly evaluate the respective claims of the invader and defender and determine if the invador has some legitimate grevience. Here the issue is not so clear cut.
[I][B][COLOR=DarkRed] - "And the "Polish Corridor" which was created by the Versailles Diktat was intended not to cede to Poland anything that legitimately belonged to her but to permanently cripple Germany and render her impotent as an economic and political rival."[/COLOR][/B][/I]
Oh [I]puhleeze[/I]. As if Germany without the "Polish Corridor" would have been "permanently crippled and impotent" - especially after the annexation of Austria, Sudetenland, and Bohemia!........................
Danzig was just an excuse for Hitler to destroy Poland in the same manner as he had eliminated Czechoslovakia, and even not the much-maligned Poles were not so stupid as not to see through that.
It may seem hard for us now to understand the importance that the Germans placed on territorial integrity in opposition to "the Polish corridor". But this was by no means just a Hitler arguing point. Germany was pretty much united on that, Hitler's enemies (such as the Generals) no less than he.
It was so important that the Allies demands for the return of it, as part of their overall policy of [I]decentralization [/I] was viewed by all as the equivalent of making all of Hitler's foreign policy a failure, and acceptance of it would according to Kilzer apparently have pretty much finished Hitler politically.
And as far as legitimate claims go, the whole "corridor" had been Polish territory until Prussia snatched it for herself in the First and Second Partitions of Poland in 1772 and 1793.
Also, that area [B]did[/B] have a Polish majority in 1919 - the anti-Catholic [I]Kulturkampf[/I] in the 1870s was especially bitter in that area because of that.
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3][B]Province Posen, 1871-1890 [/B] [/SIZE]
[I]"The Polish deputees in Prussia's diet voted against the Province of Posen's integration in the Northern German Confederation (1867) and into the German Empire (1871) - to no avail. Bismarck therefore regarded Poland's nobility and the nation's Catholic clergy as threatening the state.
"In 1871, Bismarck launched the state's attack on the Catholic church, called KULTURKAMPF. In the Province of Posen, the policy was regarded as anti-Polish. Archbishop COUNT LEDOCHOWSKI of Posen was deposed and sentenced to 2 years in prison in 1874. Most higher church officials were imprisoned; many Catholic parishes, for several decades, were without a priest. In 1873, German was proclaimed the exclusive language of education throughout the province, 1876 the exclusive language of the administration, 1877 of the courts.
"In 1886 the SETTLEMENT LAW was passed, by which the Reich subsidized the acquisition of farms in Posen by ethnic Germans. With Bismarck's dismission in 1890 the Kulturkampf ended.
[B]In 1885 the population of the province numbered 1,715,618; of whom 1,131,869 were Catholics, 531,722 Protestants, 50,866 Jews; by nationality c. 880,000 Poles, c.725,000 Germans (Meyers)."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/gdposen18711890.html[/url]
Danzig was the only place in the Corridor where the Germans were in majority, and therefore it became a Free City, and had some significant autonomical powers:
[B]"The Nazi Party was elected in the May 1933 election. However they received only 57 percent of the vote, less than the two thirds required by the League to change the Free City's constitution. The government introduced laws that were anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic."[/B]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig[/url]
Again, ethnic matters in eastern Europe were quite complex. The claim of Poland to Posen is certainly not as clear as you are thinking, and even many anti-Nazi writers concede this, that Germany had a legitimate grevience, and that the Polish corridor was part of the general and unwise pattern of [I]encirclement[/I] and [I]decentralization [/I] the French had established at Versailles to weaken Germany, against the logic of Central and Eastern Europe politics and realities.
[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "But the real clincher here is that, when Stalin invaded Poland shortly after Germany's action, the British found no trouble at all with it, proving beyond doubt that its "defense of Poland" claim was no more than a self-serving lie."[/B][/I][/COLOR]
How can you know that British "were not troubled at all"? Perhaps all they could do about it was to watch on in a mute horror?
I think this is based on the interpretation based on the subsequent and apparently wholehearted and unscrupulous cooperation with the Soviets. Kilzer thinks really though pro-Sovietism was much more consistently an American than a British affair.
In a purely juridical sense, Britain's pact with Poland was aimed namely against [U]German[/U] invasion.
[B]"1939 March 31 Britain and France sign an agreement with Poland guaranteeing its borders against aggression. These "unconditional" guarantees concern only Poland's western border, not its frontiers with the Soviet Union.[/B]
B"[/B]
[url]http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1939tbse.htm[/url]
When Western allies signed that agreement with Poles, how could they have known that Adolf Hitler was about to ally himself with the Soviets against whom he had preached his whole career!
If it was meaningless then, why did they choose to go to war over it?
It's unlikely that Stalin would have dared to snatch Eastern Poland (or Baltic states, or Finland) for himself without Germany's approval - he was not yet ready for an all-out war where even Western allies might have turned against him.
You're being ungrateful. Its general knowledge that disagreement over Finland and Hitler's unwillingness to accept Stalin's dominance there was one of the principle factors that led to the outbreak of war with Russia.
Therefore, Hitler does indeed bear an indirect responsibility for the Katyn killings after all - he exposed Poles to that fate just as surely as Western allies abandoned Russian exiles for Stalin in the "Operation Keelhaul". And the allies and Russia similarly bear some responsibility for the Holocaust by similar reasoning.
On the practical side of things - France and Britain had their hands already full with Hitler - do you suppose they wanted to fight Germany and USSR [B]simultaneously[/B]?
Not all European politicians had such irresponsible mentalities that they would have put their countries against such overwhelming odds in such a whimsical manner.
I don't know. Declaring war in 1939 for the Polish corrider at the time also semed whimsical. Success always [I]ex post facto[/I] seems brilliant, wheras it is often just luck.
Hitler was that kind of guy, he who declared war on the United States and gave Jews and Roosevelt just what they wanted.
Now I think we've discussed how Roosevelt pretty much sucked Hitler into the war,in way its hard to see how Hitler had a very good choice as an alternative.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]- "I would also encourage you to read David L. Hoggan's The Forced War: When Peaceful Revisionism failed for an appreciation of the length and depth of the abuse and mistreatment suffered by Germans at the hands of Poles before the outbreak of WW II." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
I remember reading some excerpts from Hoggan at Phora Forum and he struck me as an openly biased and unreliable writer.
Petr[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you'll feel even more about this document, but I think its arguments deserve some consideration regardless. I think you have to admit there were no angels in Eastern Europe (as in Western Europe and the U.S for that matter).
[URL=http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/Polish_Atrocities_intro.htm]Polish Atrocities[/URL]
2005-02-05 20:34 | User Profile
Europe would be better off had the Nazis won, although that isn't saying much. As it is, it is just a matter of time before jihadis put European man to the sword.
2005-02-05 20:39 | User Profile
Bardamu, kindly knock off that defeatism. Despite of what neocon propagandists may tell you, we are not yet completely wussed out. White Christians in Russia (Mongol rule) and Balkans (Ottomans) have been through worse than this.
Much degeneracy and complacency, but yet I'm confident that if some "Camp of the Saints" scenario would really come up, we'd find [B]easily [/B] guts to blow those invading ships off the water.
(did I mention that I loathe Jean Raspail and his defeatism?)
Petr
2005-02-05 20:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Not the attitude of a man who consciously, deliberately, and single-mindedly pursued war to the exclusion of al else, even if to others his actions certainly seemed to make that the most logical inference at the time."[/I][/B]
Hitler had no objections for war against Slavs or even the French, but not against the fellow Nordic Englishmen, whom he admired. Hitler had firmly intended to crush Poland, but he had been quite hopeful that Britain would not have had guts to oppose that. True, Germany's main territorial imperative had always been in the east, and especially after the establishment of the "encircling states", that the French had set up to permanently weaken Germany. But its I think parochial to dismiss this attitude as unacceptable to us. After all despotism and rule by the most aggressive and warlike faction had been the rule in Easstern Europe as long as it has existed. And we certainly in some instances had no real objection to it, i.e. the Soviet dominance.
So what we see here is simply self-pity that those Western allies wouldn't allow him to conquer Eastern Europe in peace after all, to let him pick off his enemies one at the time.
Even in [I]Mein Kampf[/I], Hitler was playing with schemes to isolate France from Britain so that Germany could crush the French for good without them interfering. Petr[/QUOTE] Yes, the Germans viewed France as their main enemy, and after Versailles not without reason.
And historically Hitler certainly had good reason to think Britain wasn't that interested in Eastern Europe. They just never really had been after all, preferring to focus on the Empire. He just didn't understand well the internal politics of democratic Britain, and how his public posture made it politically difficult for Britain to negotiate with him.
In this he wasn't unique of course. Imperial Germany made the same mistake in WWI when they brought Britain into the war by invading Belgium - "no one is going to go to war over this little ancient treaty with this little postage stamp nation"
2005-02-05 21:32 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "But its I think parochial to dismiss this attitude as unacceptable to us. After all despotism and rule by the most aggressive and warlike faction had been the rule in Easstern Europe as long as it has existed. And we certainly in some instances had no real objection to it, i.e. the Soviet dominance."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/COLOR]
One must also be able, as we say in Finland, "to think further than your nose".
Even if we approach this issue from a purely egoistic perspective - [I]why should Western democracies care if Germany colonizes Eastern Europe and turns its inhabitants into helots [/I] - any perceptive Western politician could have seen clearly in the early 1939 that if Germany was allowed to swallow Poland (let alone Soviet Union), it would turn into an unstoppable economic and military might.
This new Germanic Empire of the East would have had some scores to settle with France, and resources to crush her with ease. Even Britain would have inevitably turned into a mere satellite of the Greater Germany, utterly at the mercy of the good graces of Fuhrer.
So, what France and England did in 1939 was - at the bottom of it - [B]quite rational, not whimsical[/B]: the time was working against them, they would have to stop Germany now or never, before it would become so strong that the combined power of the Entente could not contain it.
They were basically frightened by this application of Martin Niemöller's idea:
[I]"Then Hitler came for us - and by then there was no one left to stand up for us."[/I]
(There were some really high-quality discussions about his issue on the old Phora Forum and Fade made some interesting strategic remarks.)
Petr
2005-02-05 22:13 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "It may seem hard for us now to understand the importance that the Germans placed on territorial integrity in opposition to "the Polish corridor". But this was by no means just a Hitler arguing point. Germany was pretty much united on that, Hitler's enemies (such as the Generals) no less than he."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
So did the Germans have a right to plunge the continent into war just because their feelings had been hurt? (And already well pandered to in Munich)
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]- "It was so important that the Allies demands for the return of it, as part of their overall policy of decentralization was viewed by all as the equivalent of making all of Hitler's foreign policy a failure, and acceptance of it would according to Kilzer apparently have pretty much finished Hitler politically." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
You could also consider the possibility that Mr. Kilzer might not be right about anything.
Are you telling me that after such stunning successes as the Austrian Anschluss and the annexation of Sudetenland, the German public would have overthrown Hitler if he had not demanded the Corridor back?
[I][COLOR=DarkRed][B]- "You're being ungrateful. Its general knowledge that disagreement over Finland and Hitler's unwillingness to accept Stalin's dominance there was one of the principle factors that led to the outbreak of war with Russia."[/B][/COLOR][/I]
We Finns have no need to be grateful for Germany about the happenings of the year 1939 - it was literally [B]our finest hour[/B].
Hitler had cold-bloodedly sold us (along with Baltic states, and Eastern Poland) to Stalin so that he might get free hands to deal with Poland.
Our army stood alone against the Soviet army, and we managed to hold our positions long enough to reach a tolerable diplomatic solution (in March 1940) with minimal territory losses.
Western allies were actually just about to get into war with USSR when this deal was made!
[COLOR=Purple]"On 7 March 1940 General William Ironside* gave Marshal Mannerheim an account of the British forces being prepared to come to the assistance of Finland:
[I]"The first echelon, consisting of a Franco-British division, . . . to be despatched to Narvik on March 15. . . All these were crack troops.. .. The second echelon would be composed of three British divisions, each of a strength of 14,000 men. . . . The combined combatant strength thus numbered 57,500 men". [/I]
(C. Mannerheim: op. cit.; p. 385-86).[/COLOR]
And it was surely not because of us that Hitler went on with the Operation Barbarossa - it had been his fundamental dream all along, and its planning had begun almost immediately after the fall of France:
[COLOR=Blue][B]"The preliminary planning of 'Barbarossa', the German invasion of the USSR, began as early as August 1940 when General Marcks presented a plan for the defeat of the USSR in 9-17 weeks, using 110 infantry, and 24 Panzer divisions." [/B] [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.expage.com/wwiieast03[/url]
Hitler would have attacked USSR even two months earlier than he did if he had not been delayed by Mussolini's blunders in Greece.
Petr
2005-02-05 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]This new Germanic Empire of the East would have had some scores to settle with France, and resources to crush her with ease. Even Britain would have inevitably turned into a mere satellite of the Greater Germany, utterly at the mercy of the good graces of Fuhrer.
So, what France and England did in 1939 was - at the bottom of it - [B]quite rational, not whimsical[/B]: the time was working against them, they would have to stop Germany now or never, before it would become so strong that the combined power of the Entente could not contain it.
They were basically frightened by this application of Martin Niemöller's idea:
[I]"Then Hitler came for us - and by then there was no one left to stand up for us."[/I] No doubt the Third Reich was a threat, and France and England certainly were justified in resisting it, although how much of a threat and if they picked the best ways of resisting it can always be argued.
(There were some really high-quality discussions about his issue on the old Phora Forum and Fade made some interesting strategic remarks.)
Petr[/QUOTE] Hey - the Germans trusted Hitler. The Poles trusted in the allies. And you trusted in Fade. Everyone has their Waterloo. :lol:
2005-02-05 22:55 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Now I think we've discussed how Roosevelt pretty much sucked Hitler into the war,in way its hard to see how Hitler had a very good choice as an alternative."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Hitler completely miscalculated the power of the USA, and even more underestimated the anti-war sentiment in states. If he had kept his cool for a few critical weeks, he could have stalled America's full participation in war in Europe for [I]years[/I] as the American public would have concentrated in beating Japanese to pulp instead.
Hitler was [B]not[/B] required by treaty to declare war to support Japan, for Japan had itself been the attacker, not been attacked. Japanese had not supported Germany against the Soviets, so why did he have to sacrifice his country for their sake?
Nazis are just making excuses for Hitler's incredible strategic blunder by claiming that he "had no choice."
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "I'm sure you'll feel even more about this document, but I think its arguments deserve some consideration regardless. I think you have to admit there were no angels in Eastern Europe (as in Western Europe and the U.S for that matter).[/I][/B][/COLOR]
I'm pretty sure that if this official propaganda pamphlet were to be treated with same scrutiny and skepticism that revisionists usually give to Jewish holocaust tales, not much would be left of it.
[COLOR=Indigo][B]"Initially, Nazis claimed that 5000 Germans died in Poland in September 1939. Later, they inflated that number in 1940 to 58,000, and Hitler personally raised that number to over 60,000. De Zayas now estimates "conservatively" that number to be 5,000." [/B] [/COLOR]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromberg_Bloody_Sunday[/url]
And remember, these people were killed [B]after[/B] Germany had attacked Poland, not [B]before [/B] it.
And no, Poles were not harmless puppies. Their behavior (although to a certain extent understandable) towards German civilians after the WW II is alone to prove it.
Petr
2005-02-05 23:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "It may seem hard for us now to understand the importance that the Germans placed on territorial integrity in opposition to "the Polish corridor". But this was by no means just a Hitler arguing point. Germany was pretty much united on that, Hitler's enemies (such as the Generals) no less than he."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
So did the Germans have a right to plunge the continent into war just because their feelings had been hurt? (And already well pandered to in Munich) Remember this question doesn't just swing at the Germans, the sword still cuts both ways. (And not just at the Western Allies, also the Soviets of course). Still I'm certainly not arguing the Germans were heroes, just that after reading it seems, as do many questions, more complicated than we would prefer to believe.
[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]- "It was so important that the Allies demands for the return of it, as part of their overall policy of decentralization was viewed by all as the equivalent of making all of Hitler's foreign policy a failure, and acceptance of it would according to Kilzer apparently have pretty much finished Hitler politically." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]
You could also consider the possibility that Mr. Kilzer might not be right about anything.
Are you telling me that after such stunning successes as the Austrian Anschluss and the annexation of Sudetenland, the German public would have overthrown Hitler if he had not demanded the Corridor back?
No, I was not saying that at all. I was saying though that he very likely would have been toppled [B]after the war started [/B] if he had agreed to these and other demands the Allies were making for peace.
Now as to invading Poland, again it strikes me as at least a stupid decision b Hitler. But that doesn't mean he by himself is prima facie entirely guilty of all the atrocities of WWII.
Its the difference between people who go in to try and rob a bank which they think is a breeze, are surprised when the teller pulls a gun out, and end up killing him, versus those robberies where the criminals send the employees back to the vault then shoot them in the back of the head execution style. No one is saying bank robbers of any kind are heroes. But you're talking about two differnt things.
(Now actually in the US some Missorians did view the James/Coulter/Younger gangs as heroes, but that's a different story).
[I][COLOR=DarkRed][B]- "You're being ungrateful. Its general knowledge that disagreement over Finland and Hitler's unwillingness to accept Stalin's dominance there was one of the principle factors that led to the outbreak of war with Russia."[/B][/COLOR][/I]
Western allies were actually just about to get into war with USSR when this deal was made!
[COLOR=Purple]"On 7 March 1940 General William Ironside* gave Marshal Mannerheim an account of the British forces being prepared to come to the assistance of Finland:
[I]"The first echelon, consisting of a Franco-British division, . . . to be despatched to Narvik on March 15. . . All these were crack troops.. .. The second echelon would be composed of three British divisions, each of a strength of 14,000 men. . . . The combined combatant strength thus numbered 57,500 men". [/I]
(C. Mannerheim: op. cit.; p. 385-86).[/COLOR]
From his memoir Churchill expressed the more commonly accepted view that the British shamefully did nothing for Finland. Its an interesting promise, but I'm not sure how much you can rely on the promises of one British general that "the check was in the mail" it sounds like still quite a ways from ever dispatching the troops, much less getting them all the way to the front.
Especially when there were much more tangible threats right next door. (As the Norwegians found out).
We Finns have no need to be grateful for Germany about the happenings of the year 1939 - it was literally [B]our finest hour[/B].
Hitler had cold-bloodedly sold us (along with Baltic states, and Eastern Poland) to Stalin so that he might get free hands to deal with Poland.
Our army stood alone against the Soviet army, and we managed to hold our positions long enough to reach a tolerable diplomatic solution (in March 1940) with minimal territory losses. True enough as it goes. But remember (or maybe you haven't been taught this, at least with much emphasis) that little scrap of paper you signed with Stalin in March 1940 was hardly the end of the matter. From what I read the threats against Finland's autonomy and Soviet pressure continued after that. They continued until German diplomats in the difficult talks with the Russians finally put their protective cloak around Finland, reneging on the "spheres of influence" agreement Stalin was trying to use to give himself a free hand in Finland, and warning Soviet actions against Fnland would have "unforseen consequences".
This isn't Kilzer, it was another, fairly mainstream, author.
And it was surely not because of us that Hitler went on with the Operation Barbarossa - it had been his fundamental dream all along, and its planning had begun almost immediately after the fall of France:[COLOR=Blue][B]"The preliminary planning of 'Barbarossa', the German invasion of the USSR, began as early as August 1940 when General Marcks presented a plan for the defeat of the USSR in 9-17 weeks, using 110 infantry, and 24 Panzer divisions." [/B] [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.expage.com/wwiieast03[/url]
Hitler would have attacked USSR even two months earlier than he did if he had not been delayed by Mussolini's blunders in Greece.
Petr[/QUOTE] True enough. Kilzer is of the opinion however, which I've read elsewhere, however that Stalin was as much of an aggressor as Hitler, even possibly planning to start the war close to the time Hitler did, if he hadn't been beaten to the punch.
It's personally hard for me to believe, given the Finnish debacle, but Kilzer and some other authors I've read seem to have very good evidence based on Russian troop movements to near the border (especially when Stalin is generally believed to have been surprised by the German offensive, hence this was not merely part of a forward defense.)
2005-02-05 23:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Now I think we've discussed how Roosevelt pretty much sucked Hitler into the war,in way its hard to see how Hitler had a very good choice as an alternative."[/I][/B][/COLOR]
Hitler completely miscalculated the power of the USA, and even more underestimated the anti-war sentiment in states. If he had kept his cool for a few critical weeks, he could have stalled America's full participation in war in Europe for [I]years[/I] as the American public would have concentrated in beating Japanese to pulp instead.
Hitler was [B]not[/B] required by treaty to declare war to support Japan, for Japan had itself been the attacker, not been attacked. Japanese had not supported Germany against the Soviets, so why did he have to sacrifice his country for their sake?
Nazis are just making excuses for Hitler's incredible strategic blunder by claiming that he "had no choice."
[/QUOTE]We've discussed that on another thread. I'll have to look it up later. It involves Roosevelts manipulations after Pearl Harbor. (Dountless of course with the conivance of Churchill) But as is well known, the U.S. was already playing an active role in the war anyway, through the lend-lease program, using our destroyers to protect British bound convoys, occupying Iceland, that sort of thing.
As you've noted with Poland, states when they feel war is a foregone conclusion have a tendency to quit negotiating and start fighting.
And no, Poles were not harmless puppies. Their behavior (although to a certain extent understandable) towards German civilians after the WW II is alone to prove it. Well of course here they were quite a bit better than the Czechs, especialy considering their much harsher wartime occupation.
But maybe they'd learned something also about the long term benefits of not being too nasty to your neighbors, even when they're down.
2005-02-05 23:45 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Now as to invading Poland, again it strikes me as at least a stupid decision b Hitler. But that doesn't mean he by himself is prima facie entirely guilty of all the atrocities of WWII." [/I] [/B]
Which is not what I am arguing at all.
Petr
2005-02-05 23:50 | User Profile
[B][COLOR=Indigo][I] - "But as is well known, the U.S. was already playing an active role in the war anyway, through the lend-lease program, using our destroyers to protect British bound convoys, occupying Iceland, that sort of thing."[/I][/COLOR][/B]
That's the kind of assistance that Finland got from Western allies during our Winter War, [I]relatively harmless[/I]. There is a world of difference between [B]that [/B] and Roosevelt sending American armies to invade Europe and flying fortresses to grind Germany's cities to dust.
Hitler declared war on the US as if it had been some sort of banana republic that had insulted Germany's flag, instead of being an industrial giant that you do not actually want to join your enemies, even if it behaves in an unfriendly manner!
Petr
2005-02-05 23:54 | User Profile
[B][I] - "But maybe they'd learned something also about the long term benefits of not being too nasty to your neighbors, even when they're down."[/I][/B]
What Hitler actually taught to Poles and Czechs was that if you're going to be nasty to someone, you'd better be [B]so[/B] nasty that he stays down forever.
Nihilism is contagious, you reap what you sow etc.
Petr
2005-02-05 23:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B][COLOR=Indigo][I] - "But as is well known, the U.S. was already playing an active role in the war anyway, through the lend-lease program, using our destroyers to protect British bound convoys, occupying Iceland, that sort of thing."[/I][/COLOR][/B]
That's the kind of assistance that Finland got from Western allies during our Winter War, [I]relatively harmless[/I]. There is a world of difference between [B]that [/B] and Roosevelt sending American armies to invade Europe and flying fortresses to grind Germany's cities to dust. Well, especially sending your destroyers to guard convoys and dropping depth charges on German U-boats certainly seems close to an act of war in itself to me.
Once you're involved in hostile action like that, its quite easy to trigger further incidents that will bring you into war if you want. At Roosevelt certainly proved himself an expert of that at Pearl Harbor. I doubt if Hitler's refusal to declare war would have been more been than just a minor inconvenience to Roosevelt and Churchill's involving us.
Hitler declared war on the US as if it had been some sort of banana republic that had insulted Germany's flag, instead of being an industrial giant that you do not actually want to join your enemies, even if it behaves in an unfriendly manner!
Petr[/QUOTE]Like I say, I'll have to find the post/thread where it talked about this specifically.
2005-02-06 08:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]"On 7 March 1940 General William Ironside* gave Marshal Mannerheim an account of the British forces being prepared to come to the assistance of Finland[/QUOTE] If sincere, it was very foolish.
The British were trying to overcompensate for Appeasement by picking fights with everyone-everywhere-anyhow
Anyway, the Baltic was controlled by the Germans and Russians, so the plan would have required a crossing of Swedish territory and permission for this was [I]vehemently[/I] denied by the Swedes.
(I believe a Swedish diplomat said of this that "Small nations cannot afford to be heroic")
A similar situation later developed with regard to Norway, but although the British this time decided to force the issue, Hitler got there first.