OT An interesting POV of the seeds of WWII.

[Archer7seven]

This is told from the side of the Germans. As a hobby historian I find it interesting how documentaries about the same thing as told by different sides, can be so different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7nE5fvFXNE

[Sailor Steve]

Especially when a "history" such as this one leaves out anything it doesn't want you to hear. I'm currently listening to this "documentary" claime that Britain, France and Poland were planning to crush Germany while Hitler tried to negotiate peace with Poland.

Of course it doesn't mention the words of Karl Burckhardt, League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, to Lord Halifax that Hitler told him "If the slightest incident happens now, I shall crush the Poles without warning in such a way that no trace of Poland can be found afterwards. I shall strike with the full force of a mechanized army, of which the Poles have no conception."

The whole film makes all sorts of claims, while never mentioning actual official communiques between the countries involved.

No, this is an attempt by modern nazi propogandists to "prove" that Hitler was an innocent victim trying do the right thing.

[Runnybabbit]

I looked at this also, and have to agree with you Steve, this is simply propaganda which is easily disproved with a look into records and history. Unfortunately, it also has the potential to be dangerous..:hmmm:

Life's short enough as it is, without everyone running around killing people!

[Archer7seven]

Hitler is by no means a victim or innocent, but it's pretty apparent that the western allies left Poland to fend for itself. If the French and English would have invaded the war would have been over by Christmas.

[Sailor Steve]

Britain and France, for all their talk and agreements, were not ready for war. Eight months later they still weren't ready, and got their heads handed to them, causing the fall of France and desperate retreat of Britain at Dunkirk. How would they have helped the Poles in 1939? How and where would they have "invaded"?

But this is about the film, and its version of those events. It very carefully makes it look like Britain, France and Poland were the agressors, and Hitler had nothing to do with it until he was "forced" to take action.

[Archer7seven]

Yes, forced to take action, like a hungry a hungry man eating a steak. More than anything it shows how Stalin played the west. As for the English and the French, instead of carrying on the Sitzkrieg, they could have opened up a second front in the Saar to split the Germans and take some pressure off the Poles.

[pabbi]

The "rigth" story is always told by the winner. And no i'm not a nazy.

[in_vino_vomitus]

It's interesting to read what "ought" to have been done, written in the light of what actually was done. On the subject of the seeds of WWII, I suspect that if the allies had shown a little more compassion after WWI then the environment that led to the rise of the Nazis might never have come to be. And regarding the excesses of that regime, don't forget that most of them spent their formative years dealing with carnage on an industrial scale. I'm not making apologies here either, I'm just saying that we did our part to give Hitler a fertile recruiting ground and a direction to his rhetoric.

I often wonder how things would have turned out if, after the Somme debacle, King George had written a letter to his cousin, the Kaiser, and said "Look Wilhelm - nobody's winning here, let's just stop." Of course that was never going to happen and it's impossible to second guess minds that thought that machine guns were effeminate and the bayonet was the way to win battles. As an aside, I can't help thinking that the closing line of "Apologia" by Wilfred Owen, was directed specifically at king George, rather than the population at large, when he said "These men are worth your tears. You are not worth their merriment."

Anyway, my point is that if you want to talk about the origins of WWII, you could go back a long way if you wanted to.

[HertogJan]

It's interesting to read what "ought" to have been done, written in the light of what actually was done. On the subject of the seeds of WWII, I suspect that if the allies had shown a little more compassion after WWI then the environment that led to the rise of the Nazis might never have come to be. And regarding the excesses of that regime, don't forget that most of them spent their formative years dealing with carnage on an industrial scale. I'm not making apologies here either, I'm just saying that we did our part to give Hitler a fertile recruiting ground and a direction to his rhetoric.

I often wonder how things would have turned out if, after the Somme debacle, King George had written a letter to his cousin, the Kaiser, and said "Look Wilhelm - nobody's winning here, let's just stop." Of course that was never going to happen and it's impossible to second guess minds that thought that machine guns were effeminate and the bayonet was the way to win battles. As an aside, I can't help thinking that the closing line of "Apologia" by Wilfred Owen, was directed specifically at king George, rather than the population at large, when he said "These men are worth your tears. You are not worth their merriment."

Anyway, my point is that if you want to talk about the origins of WWII, you could go back a long way if you wanted to.


+1 Totally agree

Can't add anything to that other then:
History write's the future and the future becomes history.

[Archer7seven]

The "rigth" story is always told by the winner. And no i'm not a nazy.


History is written by the winners, and it started long before world war 2, such a belief makes you a realist.

[joea]

History is written by the winners, and it started long before world war 2, such a belief makes you a realist.
Bollocks, This myth has to stop. History is written by everyone and "losers" certainly have their own version of history. Southerners in the US certainly do, from moderate revisionist views to full blown neo-confederate history.

[BrucePartington]

OK, out of curiosity I've skimmed through the documentary, to get a feel for what it's conveying.

What? No mention of concentration camps? No Jews, minorities, or weaklings were ever sent to Auschwitz and Buchenwald?
Let me guess: gassing and cremation of Jews never happened?
No Warsaw ghetto either?

And the people who made this so called documentary actually have the nerve to call the French and Brits "warmongers", trying to draw attention from themselves, while trying to brainwash weak minded people in a clear effort to try and recruit them to a renewed Nazi party. How do they plan to take over? The night of the long knives all over again?

Who needs a time machine? Mankind is bound to repeat its mistakes over and over again.