Who Started World War II?

[Oberon]

I agree that there was no long term plan, in fact, to be honest it's hard to find any long term plan in Nazi Germany, the chaotic system of government that Hitler created around him made such things pretty difficult. However, in a bi or tripolar world it would be almost inconceivable that the superpowers would not clash in some manner. Look at the USSR and USA during the Cold War, look at the proxy wars that took place and how close to war we came on more than one occasion.
Hitler might not have planned to go to war with America in the aftermath of a European victory, but I'd put good money on a clash happening at some point anyway. Certainly Hitler would not have embraced America with open arms, especially not after the assistance that had been given to the UK during the war time. Perhaps if a fascist government had come into power in the US then relations might have improved, perhaps if Jews started getting treated like blacks, then things might not have come to blows, but you put superpowers in a room together and eventually someone is going to elbow someone in the guts.

[Fahnenbohn]

No this debate took place long ago in a town called Nurenburg Germany under the eyes of the entire world by people not hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. This debate was conducted in great form and detail.

:o I hope you are joking !!! The defense has been very severely hampered, and the prosecution didn't need to provide evidence. This trial was a total travesty !

[Fahnenbohn]

@ Oberon. After peaceful settlement of German-Polish dispute and restitution of its colonies, Hitler had only 2 problems to solve : restarting talks on disarmament, and organizing an international conference to create a Jewish state somewhere. And then retire. But that is forgetting Britain, USSR, and Roosevelt...

[August]

:o I hope you are joking !!! The defense has been very severely hampered, and the prosecution didn't need to provide evidence. This trial was a total travesty !

Didn't need to provide evidence? Evidence of the nazis guilt was all over Europe. Evidence is still all over Europe and it's only the willfully blind that cannot see it.

[Nippelspanner]

No this debate took place long ago in a town called Nurenburg Germany under the eyes of the entire world by people not hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.

This debate was conducted in great form and detail and resulted in a bunch of criminals getting their just deserts. I fail to see the value in repeating this debate ad nauseum just because one side doesn't want to face up to their criminal history.
August! :up:

[Oberon]

@ Oberon. After peaceful settlement of German-Polish dispute and restitution of its colonies, Hitler had only 2 problems to solve : restarting talks on disarmament, and organizing an international conference to create a Jewish state somewhere. And then retire. But that is forgetting Britain, USSR, and Roosevelt...

If Hitler was all that smart and hard done by, then why didn't he just let the Danzig issue drop and come back to it at a later date? Rather than go to war, why didn't he just back down and bide his time. No one had a gun to his head, Poland wasn't about to invade Germany. He could have backed down, spun some political diatribe about it, and just continued building diplomatic relations with the other nations of Europe.
Heck, he sabotaged his own progress when he tore up the Munich Agreement. Britain and France sold out their ally in that agreement, that's how desperate they were to avoid war, but Hitler showed that he didn't care if he had war or not, he just wanted his land, no matter how he got it.
If he had kept to the Munich Agreement and left Danzig for a while, or even focused on improving relations with Poland so that some form of access to Danzig could be made then he could have painted himself as a more reasonable person, and could well have created the anti-Soviet alliance that he deeply wanted.

[August]

[QUOTE=Joefour;2372977]Yes, technically Fahnenbohn IS right. FDR was supplying Britain with war materiel in violation of international laws.

Here is just one article on the subject www.historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/ (http://www.historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/)

So what? Many countries have supplied combatants during wartime without going to war, sometimes they have even supplied both sides simultaneously so he can quibble all he wants but the officially recognized start of war begins with a declaration of such and that came first from mister hitler.

[Raptor1]

@ Oberon. After peaceful settlement of German-Polish dispute and restitution of its colonies, Hitler had only 2 problems to solve : restarting talks on disarmament, and organizing an international conference to create a Jewish state somewhere. And then retire. But that is forgetting Britain, USSR, and Roosevelt...

There was no peaceful resolution to the German-Polish dispute. Hitler didn't plan to annex Danzig and call it a day, a complete occupation of Poland was very much the goal from the start. The German army was committed to the invasion long before the smokescreen diplomacy of the last few days of August, 1939 took place. This is consistent with Hitler's earlier actions concerning Czechoslovakia, as well as his ideological views on the need for Lebensraum.

[Fahnenbohn]

@ Oberon : Your arguments are very good, and you try to stay objective. I have a real pleasure to discuss with you ! :yeah:

If Hitler was all that smart and hard done by, then why didn't he just let the Danzig issue drop and come back to it at a later date?

Because that was the last territorial problem that he wanted to solve in Europe (he abandonned the idea of recovering Alsace-Lorraine). And he was determined to find a solution.

but Hitler showed that he didn't care if he had war or not, he just wanted his land, no matter how he got it. If he had kept to the Munich Agreement and left Danzig for a while, or even focused on improving relations with Poland so that some form of access to Danzig could be made ...

This is going to be invalidated by my presentation.

... then he could have painted himself as a more reasonable person.

No, he would have painted himself as someone weak and irresolute.

[Oberon]

Eh...uh...

Well, I'm not sure what happened there, but Fahn had a piece on the 16 point peace plan that Hitler brought forward to the Polish representatives on the 29th August 1939.

The list is reasonable, however one has to remember that Hitler had already broken his word once, there was no guarantee that he would not do it a second time. These were the thoughts in the mind of the British cabinet.
It was, in short, something of an ultimatum, a case of "accept this by 31st August or we'll invade you" particularly in how it demanded a Polish plenipotentiary to arrive in Berlin by noon the next day or else.

Now I can understand how there would be perhaps some irritation at delaying attempts in negotiations, but an ultimatum, particularly after the events of the Munich agreement, was not the way to go and would only serve to make war inevitable. Britain had already backed down once and had sand thrown in her eyes for it, she would not back down again.

Again, it's an example of where Hitler shot his bolt too early, some patience might well have netted the agreement, some softer words and less confrontation could well have soothed the British consternation away, but he went in bull headed and the lot came crashing down.

I mean, German war with Poland was almost inevitable from the start, we know that there were plans made for the partition of Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 23rd August, and the initial German invasion was planned for the 26th, these plans had been put in place as far back as May, and since Poland and France had had a treaty since 1921 that would have meant war with France anyway. Britain getting in on the deal was supposed to add extra incentive to Hitler to not go down the invasion route.

Finally, let's end with a speech that Hitler gave his generals back in May 1939:

With minor exceptions German national unification has been achieved. Further successes cannot be achieved without bloodshed. Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries... Danzig is not the objective. It is a matter of expanding our living space in the east, of making our food supply secure, and solving the problem of the Baltic states. To provide sufficient food you must have sparsely settled areas. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and the decision remains to attack Poland at the first opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of Czechoslovakia. There will be fighting.

[Fahnenbohn]

Well, I'm not sure what happened there, but Fahn had a piece on the 16 point peace plan that Hitler brought forward to the Polish representatives on the 29th August 1939.

Incomplete text, I have to re-work on it. Wait for my answer.



Finally, let's end with a speech that Hitler gave his generals back in May 1939 :

"With minor exceptions German national unification has been achieved. Further successes cannot be achieved without bloodshed. Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries... Danzig is not the objective. It is a matter of expanding our living space in the east, of making our food supply secure, and solving the problem of the Baltic states. To provide sufficient food you must have sparsely settled areas. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and the decision remains to attack Poland at the first opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of Czechoslovakia. There will be fighting."

I would like to check the quote by myself. Can you give me a link to your source please ?

[Fahnenbohn]

The list is reasonable, however one has to remember that Hitler had already broken his word once, there was no guarantee that he would not do it a second time. These were the thoughts in the mind of the British cabinet.

And how could Hitler justify the invasion of Poland if the Polish Government had accepted the negotiations ??

I mean, German war with Poland was almost inevitable from the start.

Maybe, maybe not. All was depending on the Polish behaviour. Why did she* refuse such reasonable proposals ?

* : sorry for my bad english, i really dont know if i'm allowed to say "she" for the Poland :oops:[/QUOTE]

France had a treaty since 1921 that would have meant war with France anyway.

Not necessarly, as I'm going to explain.

[Sailor Steve]

* : sorry for my bad english, i really dont know if i'm allowed to say "she" for the Poland :oops:

Yes, it's common in English to use "she" for anything from a possession (car, boat, guitar) to a country.

[Fahnenbohn]

You know, just a thought. We all have in our memory some Hitler's speech where he is speaking, or rather yelling like a hysterical man. But this is very misleading. Privately, he was not a fool, but a affable man, peaceful and balanced in his language. He was also very cultured. He had just a passion for Germany. That such a man wanted to put to fire and sword Europe is hardly conceivable. But you will say that he concealed his intentions. I answer : too easy.

On the other hand, he had a certain contempt for the Slav peoples, I agree (though some Slavic people have a very germanic appearance !). He was ready to impose his conditions for Poland. But this didn't justify a war to the death ! :down:

[HunterICX]

Eh...uh...

Well, I'm not sure what happened there, but Fahn had a piece on the 16 point peace plan that Hitler brought forward to the Polish representatives on the 29th August 1939.


You mean this one I quoted below?

Incomplete text, I have to re-work on it. Wait for my answer.


I don't think you'll have too as it's easily found online:


[Text of the German proposal of August 29, 1939:]
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation, secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
The German Reich government is convinced that it is absolutely necessary to investigate the economic and physical damage inflicted since 1918, with full reparations to be made for that. Of course, it regards this obligation as binding on both sides.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete proposals:

1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of its population.

2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north] to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder, Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then westwards to Schoenlanke.

3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory. All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
To insure an impartial plebiscite and to make sure that all necessary preliminary preparation work is properly carried out, this territory will come under the authority of an international commission, similar to the one organized in the Saar territory [for the 1935 plebiscite there]. This commission is to be organized immediately by the four great powers of Italy, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. This commission will have all sovereign authority in the territory. Accordingly, Polish military forces, Polish police and Polish authorities are to clear out of this territory as soon as possible, by a date to be agreed upon.

4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, established by an international court of arbitration.

5. In order to insure ample time for the preparations necessary in order to conduct an impartial plebiscite, the plebiscite will not take place until after at least twelve months have elapsed.

6. In order to ensure unhindered traffic between Germany and East Prussia, and between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea, during this period [before the plebiscite], certain roads and rail lines may be designated to enable free transit. In that regard, only such fees may be imposed that are necessary for the maintenance of the transit routes or for transport itself.

7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory will go to Germany or to Poland.

8. After the plebiscite has been conducted, and regardless of the result, free transit will be guaranteed between Germany and its province of Danzig-East Prussia, as well as between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea. If the plebiscite determines that the territory belongs to Poland, Germany will obtain an extraterritorial transit zone, consisting of a motor super-highway [Reichsautobahn] and a four-track rail line, approximately along the line of Buetow-Danzig and Dirschau. The highway and the rail line will be built in such a way that the Polish transit lines are not disturbed, which means that they will pass either above or underneath. This zone will be one kilometer wide and will be sovereign German territory. In case the plebiscite is in Germany's favor, Poland will have free and unrestricted transit to its port of Gdynia with the same right to an extraterritorial road and rail line that Germany would have had.

9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.

10. The special rights that may be claimed by Poland in the port of Danzig will be negotiated on the basis of parity for rights to Germany in the port of Gdynia.

11. In order to eliminate all fear of threat from either side, Danzig and Gdynia will be purely commercial centers, that is, with no military installations or military fortifications.

12. The peninsula of Hela, which will go to either Poland or Germany on the basis of the plebiscite, will also be demilitarized in any case.

13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit these complaints to an international investigation commission, which will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
Germany and Poland pledge to compensate for all economic and other damages inflicted on minority populations on both sides since 1918, and/or to revoke all expropriations and provide for complete reparation for the victims of these and other economic measures.

14. In order to eliminate feelings of deprivation of international rights in the part of the Germans who will remain in Poland, as well as of the Poles who will remain in Germany, and above all, to insure that they are not forced to act contrary to their ethnic-national feelings, Germany and Poland agree to guarantee the rights of the minority populations on both sides through comprehensive and binding agreements. These will insure the right of these minority groups to maintain, freely develop and carry on their national-cultural life. In particular, they will be allowed to maintain organizations for these purposes. Both sides agree that members of their minority populations will not be drafted for military service.

15. If agreement is reached on the basis of these proposals, Germany and Poland declare that they will immediately order and carry out the demobilization of their armed forces.

16. Germany and Poland will agree to whatever additional measures may be necessary to implement the above points as quickly as possible.

[End of the text of the German proposal]


source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html
(it's about halfway down the page more or less)

[Fahnenbohn]

The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 which was signed by Germany states that nations should not use war to solve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them."

Peace is not possible when injustice is not solved. War is the last argument when the opponent doesn't want to listen anything.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/13//16011301494918069013890287.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011301494918069013890287.png)

[Fahnenbohn]

I would like to recall some facts :

- On 24 October 1938, the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, explained to the Polish Ambassador Lipski the foundation for German-Polish agreement to solve the problem.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/13//16011301350018069013890283.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011301350018069013890283.png)

- On January 5, 1939, Hitler personally met the Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck. Although being very clear on the fact that Danzig was German, would always remain German, and sooner or later return to Germany, the Führer showed himsef very consilient and insisted that he wanted to find a solution "that would take into account the respective interests of the two countries" (communication with east Prussia is as important for the Reich as communication with the sea for Poland). M. Beck remained very evasive.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/13//16011301350018069013890284.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011301350018069013890284.png)

- On January 16, the Polish Ambassador in New York informed Josef Beck that, according to a member of the American president's entourage, this one wanted France and England to "put an end to any political compromise with totalitarian states, and to not involve with them in any discussions with the aim of territorial modifications." He also gave an assurance that the US were "actively preparing for war - 1.25 billion dollars - and they were ready, in case of war, to intervene actively on the side of England and France." This letter would strengthen Poland's intransigence. (Le Livre Blanc Allemand, n°3, "Documents polonais relatifs à l'Histoire des origines de la guerre")

- On March 26, 1939 : the Polish ambassador in Berlin had clearly answered to Ribbentrop : "Any continuation of this German projects, particularly with regard the return of Danzig to the Reich would mean war with Poland."

- On April 28, 1939, Hitler left the door open for discussion by declaring : "If the Polish Government desires to reach a settlement of new contractual relations with Germany, I would answer this desire, provided however that such a regulation is then based on an absolutely clear obligation and urging the two sides to the same extent. Germany is in any case very willing to assume such commitments and then to fulfill them. "

- The invasion of Poland was scheduled on August 26. But the day before, Britain and Poland formally signed an unconditional mutual assistance pact (military assistance in case of aggression). Then, Hitler ordered Marshal Keitel to stop immediately all military preparations because he needed time to negotiate.- The Führer then summoned the British ambassador in Berlin. After telling him that the German-Polish problem had to be resolved and that it would be, he charged him to convey to his Government, his willingness to reach a treaty of friendship with England. The response from England came only on August 28th late evening. The English government posed as a precondition for any agreement the peaceful resolution of the German-Polish dispute. Hitler replied the next day in the late afternoon. Although skeptical, he accepted the principle of direct conversation with Poland. After repeating that he doesn't want to prejudice the vital interests of this country, nor to question the existence of an independent Polish state, he demanded the coming of a Polish plenipotentiary for the next day on August 30, stressing that Germany should submit proposals for a solution acceptable to him. See HunterICX's post with the 16 points.

In his memories, the translator who assisted Hitler in his conversations with strangers wrote :

"By reading [the 16 proposals], I didn’t believe my eyes [...]. Such proposals were inspired by a spirit that had little common with the National Socialist methods and ideas from Hitler during countless previous interviews. This was really a project which bore the mark of the League of the Nations." (Paul Schmidt, Sur la scène internationale. Ma figuration après de Hitler. 1933-1945 (éd. Plon, 1950), pp. 217-8.)

- The day of 30 August passed without a Polish plenipotentiary came. Anxious however to leave one last chance to his neighbor, Hitler delays again the attack on Poland (24 additional hours).

Is this the attitude of a man who is wanting a war ?

- On August 30, around midnight, J. von Ribbentrop received the British ambassador. This one informed him that "The British Government was not able to recommend to the Polish Government to accept this procedure". So, it was clear that Britain would not safeguard peace.

--> Until the end, Hitler was in favor of direct negotiations between powers, including Poland ! But the polish plenipotentiary never came ...

- On September 1, the German armies penetrated in Poland. However, world peace was not dead. A simple local conflict had begun, as there had been so many in 50 years, and nothing required it to escalate into global conflict.

*

[Raptor1]

The August 29th proposal couldn't have been a genuine attempt to secure peace. It was presented to the British, rather than the Polish, and was supposed to have somehow made its way from Germany to Britain to Poland and brought back a Polish negotiator within a very limited time frame, making it more of an ultimatum than an actual attempt to negotiate. It was presented much too late to stop the invasion in any case. The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had practically completely sealed Poland's fate, and the German army received its orders for the invasion over a week beforehand. The invasion was supposed to have started on August 26th before being delayed by the signing of the Polish-British defense treaty, since Hitler wanted more time to attempt to ward off French and British involvement in the conflict. Some units of the German army had actually started moving towards their objectives on the 25th before they were recalled (in fact, some of them weren't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jab%C5%82onk%C3%B3w_Incident)).

EDIT: In his memories, the translator who assisted Hitler in his conversations with strangers wrote :

"By reading [the 16 proposals], I didn’t believe my eyes [...]. Such proposals were inspired by a spirit that had little common with the National Socialist methods and ideas from Hitler during countless previous interviews. This was really a project which bore the mark of the League of the Nations." (Paul Schmidt, Sur la scène internationale. Ma figuration après de Hitler. 1933-1945 (éd. Plon, 1950), pp. 217-8.)

That's a curious way to put it since Germany had withdrawn from the League of Nations years beforehand. In any case, he's right, it does have little in common with Hitler's ideas because it wasn't supposed to have been accepted.

- The day of 30 August passed without a Polish plenipotentiary came. Anxious however to leave one last chance to his neighbor, Hitler delays again the attack on Poland (24 additional hours).

Is this the attitude of a man who is wanting a war ?

- On August 30, around midnight, J. von Ribbentrop received the British ambassador. This one informed him that "The British Government was not able to recommend to the Polish Government to accept this procedure". So, it was clear that Britain would not safeguard peace.

--> Until the end, Hitler was in favor of direct negotiations between powers, including Poland ! But the polish plenipotentiary never came ...

- On September 1, the German armies penetrated in Poland. However, world peace was not dead. A simple local conflict had begun, as there had been so many in 50 years, and nothing required it to escalate into global conflict.

*

This is exactly the attitude of a man who wants to legitimize his war. If he had wanted peace, he'd not have signed an agreement with the Soviet Union to divide Poland or given the order to launch the invasion ahead of time and used actual diplomacy rather than hasty ultimatums to achieve his goals. As for it being a 'simple local conflict', I'm sure the Polish would have seen themselves as a worthy sacrifice in the name of global peace.

[Fahnenbohn]

It was presented to the British, rather than the Polish

Poland didn't want to hear anything. And Britain did nothing to calm the situation.

It was presented much too late to stop the invasion in any case.

Because the signing of the Polish-British defense treaty was a total surprise. Britain knew that Hitler was determined to solve the corridor problem, one way or another. A conflict between Poland and Germany should NOT have requiered war between Germany and Britain/France.

The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had practically completely sealed Poland's fate.

Yes, in case of invasion only. So if Germany and USSR invaded Poland, this is the fault of Britain/Poland/USA who didn't want to leave the possibility for Germany to solve this scandalous fact of her country cut in 2 parts, without communication. --> So we can say that Britain/USA wanted the war against the Third Reich. Poland was an excuse, and She was the victim of her own pride.

About France this is a little more complexe ...

*

[August]

Finally, let's end with a speech that Hitler gave his generals back in May 1939:

Game, set and match I believe.

[Fahnenbohn]

This is exactly the attitude of a man who wants to legitimize his war.

Really Raptor1, do you think that Hitler would have made so reasonable proposals if he wanted a war ? If Poland didn't accept, that was not because of exagerate german proposals. Impossible.

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/13//16011301350018069013890283.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011301350018069013890283.png)

If he had wanted peace, he'd not have signed an agreement with the Soviet Union.

On the contrary ! It was a non-agression pact ! And if really Britain/France defended Poland, then they shouldn't have declared war on Germany, because USSR was also guilty. What justice for Poland ? A half one is not justice.

[Rockin Robbins]

Fahrenbohn, what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? Hitler was not "reasonable." He outright killed millions of his own countrymen for a hobby. His non-aggression pact with Russia was a transparent ploy to hold them at arms length until he was ready to attack them.

He was a psychopathic madman, a traitor to his own country, a ruthless killer of those who would have been his chief support, a man so stupid that he made not one fatal mistake (our peronal quota), but dozens of mistakes that absolutely guaranteed his complete defeat and the destruction of the nation he pretended to lead.

In fact, Germany was only a pawn in a game to make Hitler a "big man." He didn't give a rat's patootie whether Germany lived or died. In fact he sentenced the entire nation to death at the end and only the purposeful failure of better men to execute Hitler's suicidal orders kept it from happening.

His was a fantasy world of Valhalla and all kinds of mythological mumbo jumbo where he was a foolish, psychopathic, murderous and self-crucifying god. He was an idiot. He richly deserved to die as horribly as possible. Hiding in a hole and being the instrument of his own destruction was pretty appropriate. Wish the Russians had got hold of him though. They would have known what to do with a petty criminal.

It is only because they were defeated by better nations that instead of ceasing to exist as a nation and becoming the just spoils of conquest, as would have happened to his enemies if Hitler had won, the United States and allies at great expense rebuilt Germany, set her up on her own two legs and walked away to let her become a 100% legitimate citizen of the nations of the world. Germany is a better country today because she lost World War II.

And yet there are those here in this forum who fantacize about the glorious times when German citizens were put in cages to be worked to death, and if that didn't work, to be shot or gassed, their gold teeth extracted, their jewelry collected, cataloged and warehoused, their property confiscated all by a man with Jewish ancestry: Hitler. These were the very same Jews who stood steadfastly behind Germany in the first world war and contributed finances toward that effort far out of size to their numbers, the very people who would have been important support in the war. But all leaders must have a hobby, don't they? Surely this is reasonable conduct for a great leader. I have some very dry land in the Florida Everglades I'll let you buy for a very low price.

Hitler was the embodiment of evil. There was no love in that man. He made no agreements he was bound to keep. Everything was about himself and everything else was expendable. He was most evil for the nation he pretended to lead, guard and love. Failure to see that fact is evidence that the cognitive abilities of his apologists do not deserve the respect of debate or even a civil greeting. Engaging in any manner of conversation with these morally bankrupt aplogists is inappropriate and useless. They can only be repudiated.

[Fahnenbohn]

In any case, he's right, it does have little in common with Hitler's ideas.

Maybe he's surprised that Hitler made so generous proposals to a people in whom he had little respect.

But let's admit that Poland had accepted Hitler's deal. Then, Hitler would have had no more pretext to invade Poland ...

[Fahnenbohn]

His non-aggression pact with Russia was a transparent ploy to hold them at arms length until he was ready to attack them.

I have a very different point of view. I think rather that Staline made his best shot with this "non-agression pact". He exclaimed himself after the signing : "I cheated Hitler !" Now, russian borders were common with german ones, and the communism was ready to conquere Europe.

Let's see his face on this picture during the signing :

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/13//16011303031018069013890427.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011303031018069013890427.png)

He was a psychopathic madman, a traitor to his own country, a ruthless killer of those who would have been his chief support, a man so stupid that he made not one fatal mistake (our peronal quota), but dozens of mistakes that absolutely guaranteed his complete defeat and the destruction of the nation he pretended to lead.

In fact, Germany was only a pawn in a game to make Hitler a "big man." He didn't give a rat's patootie whether Germany lived or died. In fact he sentenced the entire nation to death at the end and only the purposeful failure of better men to execute Hitler's suicidal orders kept it from happening.

His was a fantasy world of Valhalla and all kinds of mythological mumbo jumbo where he was a foolish, psychopathic, murderous and self-crucifying god. He was an idiot. He richly deserved to die as horribly as possible. Hiding in a hole and being the instrument of his own destruction was pretty appropriate. Wish the Russians had got hold of him though. They would have known what to do with a petty criminal.

I'm sure all this is pure fantasm. No sorry, I know it.

[Raptor1]

Poland didn't want to hear anything. And Britain did nothing to calm the situation.

Can you blame them, considering what happened to Czechoslovakia?

Because the signing of the Polish-British defense treaty was a total surprise. Britain knew that Hitler was determined to solve the corridor problem, one way or another. A conflict between Poland and Germany should NOT have requiered war between Germany and Britain/France.

It would have required one between Germany and Poland, though, and it's Germany who unilaterally made the demands and the decision to invade. Britain and France weren't willing to allow Germany to attack Poland without consequence, so I supposed it would have required a war between those nations as well.

Yes, in case of invasion only. So if Germany and USSR invaded Poland, this is the fault of Britain/Poland/USA who didn't want to leave the possibility for Germany to solve this scandalous fact of her country cut in 2 parts, without communication. --> So we can say that Britain/USA wanted the war against the Third Reich. Poland was an excuse, and She was the victim of her own pride.

About France this is a little more complexe ...

*

Of course it was in case of invasion only. It was signed under the assumption that the invasion would have taken place. The German army was already under orders to launch the operation when it was signed.

Really Raptor1, do you think that Hitler would have made so reasonable proposals if he wanted a war ? If Poland didn't accept, that was not because of exagerate german proposals. Impossible.

How reasonable the proposal was is irrelevant, because it wasn't a proposal at all. It was delivered under conditions that would not have allowed it to be signed. The Germans demanded (from the British ambassador in Berlin) that the Polish send a negotiator with full powers to Berlin within a single day, and no attempt was made to continue negotiations with more time or under other conditions. Moreover, it was delivered after the decision to invade has been made and, in many ways, already put into motion.

On the contrary ! It was a non-agression pact ! And if really Britain/France defended Poland, then they shouldn't have declared war on Germany, because USSR was also guilty. What justice for Poland ? A half one is not justice.

The Pact, and particularly its secret protocol, covered more than non-aggression. As for justice, I wasn't talking about that in the slightest, just about who started the war. Of course, the time for getting justice should have been at the Munich Agreement.


But let's admit that Poland had accepted Hitler's deal. Then, Hitler would have had no more pretext to invade Poland ...

Which is exactly why it was delivered in the way that it was. Hitler wanted a pretext to invade Poland. That is also why deception operations like the attack on the Gleiwitz radio tower took place.

[Tchocky]

You know, just a thought. We all have in our memory some Hitler's speech where he is speaking, or rather yelling like a hysterical man. But this is very misleading. Privately, he was not a fool, but a affable man, peaceful and balanced in his language. He was also very cultured. He had just a passion for Germany. That such a man wanted to put to fire and sword Europe is hardly conceivable. But you will say that he concealed his intentions. I answer : too easy.

Finally we're getting somewhere.

HITLER WAS NICE TO HIS DOG, GUYS.

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm sure all this is pure fantasm. No sorry, I know it.
You wouldn't know "fantasm" (sic) if it bit you on the patootie. What you know is not relevant to reality. Thank God you are in charge of nothing. I would not believe you if you told me what you had for lunch.

If you and your vaccuous brained buddies ever develop brain cells and organize to recreate the "glorious past" we will have to ensure you share Hitler's fate. Unlike you and your ilk, we will not enjoy it. But you can remember it to your grave. It shall not happen again, no matter what the cost. Rats must be exterminated.

[Fahnenbohn]

It would have required one between Germany and Poland, though, and it's Germany who unilaterally made the demands and the decision to invade.

Because Poland was responsible of maintaining this injustice. Thus war was legitimate.

Of course it was in case of invasion only. It was signed under the assumption that the invasion would have taken place. The German army was already under orders to launch the operation when it was signed.

Yes, because there was no hope to do elsewhere. All negociations were refused, and even considered as a war declaration by Poland !

How reasonable the proposal was is irrelevant, because it wasn't a proposal at all. It was delivered under conditions that would not have allowed it to be signed. The Germans demanded (from the British ambassador in Berlin) that the Polish send a negotiator with full powers to Berlin within a single day.

Hey ! Germany tried to negociate since 1937 ! NOW, it was Poland who had to prove her peace desire ! Only Poland could still prevent the invasion, the timer had started. Hitler had already been enough patient.

Hitler wanted a pretext to invade Poland.

I think I've given sufficent evidence to prove the contrary. No wait, I have yet many other things to say in fact ! Wait for the next posts !

That is also why deception operations like the attack on the Gleiwitz radio tower took place.

I think that this fake was destinated only to the public opinion. Time of information, so time of propaganda !

[Tchocky]

Hey ! Germany tried to negociate since 1937 ! NOW, it was Poland who had to prove her peace desire ! Only Poland could still prevent the invasion, the timer had started. Hitler had already been enough patient.

So to avoid war you have to prove you want peace - and if a neighboring country invades it's your fault for not proving you didn't invite them?

Turn off the computer. This is a waste of everyone's time and you know it.

[Fahnenbohn]

if a neighboring country invades it's your fault for not proving you didn't invite them ?

In our case : if a neighboring country has stolen you something, and she refuses that you use it, is it unfair that you invite yourself in her home to recover it ? NO

Bye.

[Tchocky]

In our case : if a neighboring country has stolen you something, and she refuses that you use it, is it unfair that you invite yourself in her home to recover it ? NO

Bye.




Varying definitions of "stole" in play. None of which are applicable.

And you are being dangerously stupid here.

If Germany was interested in regaining what they felt had been stolen, then they would done exactly that.

Not almost all of western Poland.

Not in conjunction with the USSR.

Again, stop.

[Fahnenbohn]

Not in conjunction with the USSR.

Why ? Britain and France was not on the german side. So in case of they would declare war on Germany, Germany was free on her oriental border. And Hitler was heavily counting on that pact in order "democracies" don't declare war on Germany :
- first he was not the only invader,
- and second he could concentrate his armies on the west side.

Again, this is showing that Britain, supported by usa, wanted the war.

[Tchocky]

Jesus Christ.


He was counting on the fact that Britain and France wouldn't declare war in spite of the mutual defense pacts?

Wow, Hitler was more of an idiot than I thought. This somehow proves that Britain wanted war? Come on.

And your rubbish argument about Danzig is refuted by Hitler himself. Here's the man himself

Hitler told his generals on 23 May 1939 that the reason for invading Poland was "Danzig is not the object to which it goes. It is for us the extension of the living space in the East."Source (http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php)

Stop lying about easily proven historical records.

[Raptor1]

Because Poland was responsible of maintaining this injustice. Thus war was legitimate.

Huh. I guess it's easier to legitimize the complete annexation, occupation and division of a nation-state than I thought it was.

Yes, because there was no hope to do elsewhere. All negociations were refused, and even considered as a war declaration by Poland !

Even if Poland was willing to agree to Germany's demands, Munich has already proven how much they can be relied on. There really was no point in Poland negotiating, and Hitler knew this.

Hey ! Germany tried to negociate since 1937 ! NOW, it was Poland who had to prove her peace desire ! Only Poland could still prevent the invasion, the timer had started. Hitler had already been enough patient.

Hitler could have prevented the invasion, there was nothing forcing him to invade and occupy Poland. The only way Poland could prevent the invasion was if it submitted itself to be occupied.


I think I've given sufficent evidence to prove the contrary. No wait, I have yet many other things to say in fact ! Wait for the next posts !

The notion that Hitler wanted a peaceful resolution with Poland (unless that resolution involved Poland's complete surrender, I guess) contradicts much of what he's said and done prior to, during and after the invasion. Any evidence you give to the contrary has to explain this discrepancy and it manifestly does not.


I think that this fake was destinated only to the public opinion. Time of information, so time of propaganda !

Of course it was. If Germany had a legitimate reason to invade Poland, it would not have been necessary to forge a justification.


He was counting on the fact that Britain and France wouldn't declare war in spite of the mutual defense pacts?

Wow, Hitler was more of an idiot than I thought. This somehow proves that Britain wanted war? Come on.


I don't know if he was counting on the British and French not getting involved, but he was certainly hoping that would be the case. In any case, he's proven himself to be an idiot on far more occasions than I can count.

[Joefour]

You wouldn't know "fantasm" (sic) if it bit you on the patootie. What you know is not relevant to reality. Thank God you are in charge of nothing. I would not believe you if you told me what you had for lunch.

If you and your vaccuous brained buddies ever develop brain cells and organize to recreate the "glorious past" we will have to ensure you share Hitler's fate. Unlike you and your ilk, we will not enjoy it. But you can remember it to your grave. It shall not happen again, no matter what the cost. Rats must be exterminated.


Perhaps some of us here should go back in the postings a bit and reread Jimbuna's rules that he laid out. Keep it civil and objective.

[Fahnenbohn]

In any case, he's proven himself to be an idiot on far more occasions than I can count.

Hahaha. So funny.

[Fahnenbohn]

If Germany had a legitimate reason to invade Poland, it would not have been necessary to forge a justification.

The invasion was already legitimate. All the army was ready. The Gleiwitz incident was a pretext to legitimate the start of the invasion.

Cheers !

[Betonov]

No reason for war is ever legitimate

ever

no

[Fahnenbohn]

He was counting on the fact that Britain and France wouldn't declare war in spite of the mutual defense pacts?

Wow, Hitler was more of an idiot than I thought.

Between Hitler and you, I would say that the idiot was not Hitler.

[Betonov]

Between Hitler and you, I would say that the idiot was not Hitler.

Moderator, rule breach !!!!!

[Tchocky]

The invasion was already legitimate. All the army was ready. The Gleiwitz incident was a pretext to legitimate the start of the invasion.

You're not serious.

[Tchocky]

Between Hitler and you, I would say that the idiot was not Hitler.
That says a lot.

[Fahnenbohn]

No reason for war is ever legitimate.

Of course yes. Open a book of international right. People who don't defend their rights are just decadent cowards.

[Dowly]

You're not serious.The use of common sense is strictly forbidden in the land of conspiracies.

[Fahnenbohn]

... the land of conspiracies.

pfffff .... :nope: what an argument ! :o

[Raptor1]

Of course yes. Open a book of international right. People who don't defend their rights are just decadent cowards.

Then I guess the Poles aren't decadent cowards, at least.

[Dowly]

pfffff .... :nope: what an argument ! :o
It wasn't an argument, but an observation.

[Fahnenbohn]

Then I guess the Poles aren't decadent cowards, at least.

No indeed. They were not.

[Fahnenbohn]

I leave the thread for a while. The atmosphere becomes heavy here.

Readers : the debate has begun. Don't hesitate to intervene. Except for insulting or saying things off-topic. Thank you.

* And sorry Tchocky, I regret my word, but in a sense, you didn't let me the choice.

[Tchocky]

* And sorry Tchocky, I regret my word, but in a sense, you didn't let me the choice.

What you type isn't my fault.

I'd hate for anyone to think what you post has anything to do with me.

Apology accepted I guess.

[Betonov]

What you type isn't my fault.

I'd hate for anyone to think what you post has anything to do with me.

Apology accepted I guess.

Under international law it's your fault

Yes, that's it. Under the International law, "This is not the one who attacks first whi is responsible for the war, but the one who made war inevitable."

[Tchocky]

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

* And sorry Tchocky, I regret my word, but in a sense, you didn't let me the choice.

That apology and the fact the intended recipient accepted it saved you from an infraction.

@RR.....I do appreciate the subject matter can lead to anger and emotional language but you have adequately made your point.....no more please, you are more than capable of debating on a better level.

[Betonov]

@RR.....I do appreciate the subject matter can lead to anger and emotional language but you have adequately made your point.....no more please, you are more than capable of debating on a better level.

He was dragged down to their level.
Happens to the best of us.

[Oberon]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Making-Second-World-War/dp/0415907160

The quote is featured in this, it is also mentioned in wikipedia, and I believe was originally taken from the Schmundt notes, the full text of that meeting is below (in spoilers because it's quite a wall of text):

The Schmundt Notes
Report on a Meeting on 23 May 1939

Command Issue
Only through officer
Place: the Führer’s office, New Reich Chancellery
Assistant on Duty: Lieutenant-Colonel of General Staff Schmundt

Participants: The Führer, Field Marshall Göring, Grand Admiral Raeder, Colonel General v. Brauchitsch, Colonel General Keitel, Colonel General Milch, General of Artillery Halder, General Bodenschatz, Commanding Admiral Schniewindt, Colonel at the General Staff Jeschonnek, Colonel of the General Staff
Warlimont, Lieutenant Colonel of the General Staff Schmundt, Captain Engel,
Corvette Captain Albrecht, Captain v. Below.

Subject: Information about the Situation and Political Goals.

The Führer states the purpose of the meeting to be the following:

1.) Presentation of the situation.
2.) Setting of the tasks resulting from the situation for the Wehrmacht.
3.) Clarification of the consequences resulting from the tasks.
4.) Securing the secrecy of all decisions and works resulting from the result of the consequences.

Secrecy is a pre-condition of success.

In the following the contents of the Führer’s statements are rendered:

Our present situation is to be viewed under two aspects:

1.) Actual development from 1933 to 1939.
2.) The constantly equal situation in which Germany finds itself.

In the time from 1933-39 advances were made in all fields. Our military situation improved enormously. Our relationship with our environment has remained the same. Germany had left the circle of the power states. The balance of power was established without Germany’s participation.

Statement of Germany’s vital claims and re-entry into the circle of the power states disturbs this balance. All claims are taken to be an 'intrusion'.

The English fear an economic threat more than a common threat by power.

The mass of 80 millions has solved the ideological problem. The economic problems must also be solved. No German can avoid the creation of the economic pre-conditions for this. Solving the problems requires courage. There must be no avoiding the solution of the problems by adaptation. On the contrary, the circumstances must be matched to the demands. Without intrusion into foreign states or attacking foreign property this is not possible.

The living space, adequate to the greatness of the state, is the basis of all power. For a time one may do without, but then the solution of the problems comes around one way or the other. There is the choice between rising or falling. In 15 or 20 years the solution will be compulsorily necessary for us. Longer than that no German statesman can go around the issue.

At the time we are in a state of national enthusiasm, in the same mood as two other states: Italy and Japan.

The time lying behind us has been well used. All steps were consequently directed towards the goal.

After six years the situation today is the following:

The national-political unification of the Germans has occurred, save for small exceptions. Further success cannot be obtained without bloodshed.

The drawing of the borders is of military importance
The Pole is not an additional enemy. Poland will always be on the side of our enemies. Despite the friendship treaty there has always been the intention in Poland to use any chance against us.

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

In Europe there is no other possibility.

Colonies: Warning against giving away colonial possessions. That is no solution of the food problem. Blockade!

If fate forces us to a conflict with the West, it is good to have more land in the East. In the war we can count even less on record harvests than in peacetime.

The population of non-German territories does not do military service and is thus available for work.
The problem 'Poland' is not to be separated from the conflict with the west.
Poland’s inner steadfastness against Bolshevism is dubious. Thus Poland is also a dubious barrier against Russia.

A successful war in the west with a quick decision is questionable, as is the attitude of Poland.

Pressure from Russia the Polish regime will not withstand. Poland sees danger in Germany’s victory over the West and will try to take this victory away from us.

There can thus be no question of sparing Poland, and the decision that remains is to attack Poland at the first appropriate occasion.

A repetition of the Czech case we cannot believe in. There will be fighting. The task is to isolate Poland. The success of isolation is decisive.

Thus the Führer must reserve for himself the final order to strike. There must be no simultaneous confrontation with the West (France and England).

If it is not certain that in the sequence of a German-Polish confrontation a war with the West is to be excluded, the fight must be mainly directed against England and France.

Principle: Confrontation with Poland – beginning with attack against Poland – will only have success if the West stays out.

If this is not possible it will be better to attack the West and to liquidate Poland at the same time.

It is a matter of skillful politics to isolate Poland.

A difficult question is that of Japan. While at the time they are for various reasons cool in what concerns going together with us, it is in Japan’s own interest to move against Russia in time.

With Russia economic relations are only possible when political relations have improved. In press statements a cautious attitude is becoming apparent. It is not to be excluded that Russia is disinterested in a shattering of Poland. If Russia keeps driving against us, the relationship with Japan may become closer.

An alliance of France, England and Russia against Germany-Italy-Japan would lead me to attack England and France with some devastating strikes.

The Führer doubts the possibility of a peaceful confrontation with England. It is necessary to be prepared for the confrontation. England sees in our development the foundation of a hegemony that would weaken England. England is thus our enemy, and the confrontation will be one of life and death.

What will this confrontation look like?

England cannot liquidate Germany with a few powerful strikes and force us into submission. For England it is decisive to carry the war as close as possible to the Ruhr area. French blood will not be spared. (West Wall!!) Possession of the Ruhr area is decisive for the duration of our resistance.

The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied militarily. Declarations of neutrality cannot be relied upon. If France and England want to bring about a confrontation during the war between Germany and Poland, they will support the Netherlands and Belgium in their neutrality and let them build fortifications to them force them to come along.

Belgium and the Netherlands will, though under protest, give in to the pressure. If England intervenes during our Polish war, we must thus make a lightning strike against the Netherlands. It is desirable to gain a new line of defense of Dutch territory up to lake Zuider. The war with England and France will be a war of life and death.

The idea that we may be able to buy ourselves out cheaply is dangerous: this possibility does not exist. The bridges must then be broken down, and the issue will no longer be right or wrong, but existence or non-existence of 80 million people.

Question: Short or long war?

All armed forces and state leaders have to strive for a short war. The state leadership must, however, prepare as well for a war lasting 10 to 15 years.

Throughout history people have ever believed in short wars. In 1914 they were still of the opinion that long wars could not be financed. Even today this view is still in many heads. Any state will, however, hold out as long as possible if there is not a decisive weakening right away (for instance Ruhr area). England has similar weaknesses.

England knows that an unfortunate outcome of the war will mean the end of its world power.

England is the motor that drives against Germany. It’s strength lies in the following:

1.) The Briton is proud, brave, tough, resistant and has an organizational talent. He knows how to take advantage of any new event. He has the adventure spirit and the courage of the Nordic Race. Quality sinks with broadening. The German average is better.

2.) It is a world power per see. Constantly increased by allies since 300 years ago. The power is to be seen not only as a real one but also as a psychological one encompassing the world. In addition there is the boundless wealth and the credit-worthiness related thereto.

3.) The geopolitical security and protection by strong sea power and a gallant air force.

England’s weakness:

If in the war we had had two more battleships and two more cruisers and begun the Skagerrak battle in the morning, the British fleet would have been beaten and England brought to its knees. It would have been the end of the World War. In the past it was not sufficient to beat the fleet, one also had to land to defeat England. England could feed itself. This is no longer possible today.

As soon as England is cut off from its supplies it is forced to capitulate. The supply of food and combustion material depends on protection by the fleet.

The attack of the air force against the English homeland does not force England to capitulate in one day. But if the fleet is destroyed, immediate capitulation is the consequence.

There is no doubt that a surprise attack can lead to a quick solution. It would be criminal, however, if the state leadership were to rely on surprise being achieved.

Experience tells us that surprise can be foiled by the following:

1.) Betrayal to persons outside the competent military circles;
2.) Ordinary coincidence leading the whole action to break down;
3.) Human failure;
4.) Weather conditions.

The date to strike must be established long in advance.
Beyond this one cannot, however, live in tension for long.
We must count on the weather conditions making a surprise intervention by the fleet and air force impossible.

This must be considered in the planning as a worst case. .

1.) It remains to be endeavored to deal the opponent a or the devastating blow at the very beginning. Right or wrong or agreements play no part in this.

This is only possible is one doesn’t ‘slip’ into a war with England due to Poland.

2.) Beside the surprise attack and the shattering of English possibilities on the continent, the long war is to be prepared.

The army has to take hold of the positions that are important for the fleet and the air force. If we succeed in occupying the Netherlands and Belgium and beating France, the basis for a successful war against England will have been created.

From western France the air force can take care of the narrower blockade of England, while the wider blockade is carried out by the fleet with the U-boats.

Consequences:

England cannot fight on the continent, the daily attacks by air force and navy cut apart all lifelines.

Time decides against England. Germany doesn’t bleed to death on land.

The necessity of this kind of warfare has been proven by the World War and the military confrontations since then.

From the World War the following compulsory conclusions for the waging of war must be drawn:

1.) Had the navy been stronger at the beginning of the war and the army turned on the Channel ports, the outcome of the war would have been another.

2.) A land cannot be brought to submission by the air force alone.
It is not possible to attack all objectives at the same time, and a few minutes in between bring the defense onto the stage.

3.) What is important is the reckless use of all means.

4.) Once the army in cooperation with the air force and navy taken the most important position, industrial production no longer flows into the Danaid barrel of army battles, but benefits the air force and the navy.

Thus the army must be in conditions to take these positions. The attack according to plan is to be prepared.

To study this is the most important task. The goal is always to bring England to its knees.

Every weapon has a decisive effect on the outcome of battle only as long as the enemy doesn’t possess it.

This applies to gas, U-boats and the air force. For the latter it applied as long as the English fleet had no defense, which in 1940 and 1941 will no longer be the case. Against Poland for instance the tank weapon will be effective, as the Polish army lacks the defense against it.

Where the effect can no longer be deemed decisive, its place is taken by surprise and genius of operation.

This is the program for attack.

The program obliges to the following

1.) Correct evaluation of the weapons and their effect:
for instance
a) Battleship or aircraft carrier, what is more dangerous in the individual case and on the whole. An aircraft carrier is better for protecting a convoy.
b) Is an air attack on a factory more important than one on a battleship? Where are the bottlenecks of factory production?

2.) Regarding the army’s quick preparedness. The neighboring states must be overrun from the barracks.

3.) Regarding the study of the opponent’s weak spots.
These studies must not be left to the general staff. Secrecy is then no longer guaranteed.
The Führer has thus decided to command a small study staff at the Wehrmacht High Command which contains representatives of the three Wehrmacht branches and will on a case by case basis take in the supreme commanders or heads of general staff. This staff must constantly inform the Führer and keep him updated.

The study staff takes care of the intellectual preparation of operations at the highest level and the technical and organizational preparations resulting therefrom. The purpose of certain instructions is nobody’s business outside the staff.

As much as the armament of our opponents may increase, they must at some time reach the end of their possibilities, and ours will be greater.

French recruit classes 120,000 men!

We will not be forced into a war, but there is no way for us around it.

Secrecy is the decisive pre-condition for success. Also towards Italy or Japan the goal must remain secret. For Italy there remains the breaking through the Maginot Line, which is to be studied. The Führer considers the breakthrough possible.

Putting together (bundling) the Wehrmacht branches for the study of the overall problem is important.

The purpose

1.) Study of the overall problem.
2.) " the procedure.
3.) " the required means.
4.) " the necessary training.

The staff must consist of men with much fantasy and best professional knowledge, as well as officers with a sober, skeptical mind.

Principle for the work:

1.) Nobody is to be involved who must not know.
2.) Nobody must learn more than he needs to know.
3.) When at the latest must the respective person know it? Nobody must know anything earlier than he needs to know it.

Upon question by Field Marshall Göring the Führer establishes that

a) the Wehrmacht branches determine what is to be built;
b) the ship building program is not to be changed;
c) the armament programs are to be targeted to 1943 or 44.

For the correctness of the rendering:
Schmundt, Lieutenant Colonel

Also available in the original German at:
http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php

[Oberon]

In an aside, a youtube channel I like to frequent has had an interesting series over the past month or two, 'What if Nazi Germany had won in Europe?':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSCuE7jmFa4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qsdxkRhapU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRcVGO1s9Sw

[Bilge_Rat]

The Polish Corridor was part of Polish-Lithuanian territory before it was annexed by Prussia in the late 18th century, it had a majority Polish population which steadily grew in the interwar period and was important to the Polish economy. Certainly its incorporation into Poland was one of many harsh terms the Treaty of Versailles inflicted on Germany, but I don't think it lacked precedent or somehow justified the German invasion, which wasn't interested solely in securing it to begin with.



There were two reasons given for creating the "Polish corridor"

1. was that it had a majority Polish population that should be "reunited" with Poland proper.

However, given that the territory had been German for 150 years or over 6 generations, exactly what was a "German" or a "Pole"?. Is a 3rd generation U.S. citizen of latino descent an "american" or a "mexican"?

The second problem was that the ethnic groups were intermingled:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Sprachen_Westpreussen_en.svg/916px-Sprachen_Westpreussen_en.svg.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia

In almost every county, the "German" population was close to or over 50%. That is why Poland went out of their way to chase the Germans away to make the corridor more "Polish" after it was annexed.

French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland) and in Posen-West Prussia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen-West_Prussia) were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.[122] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#cite_note-Cartier-125) Cartier asserts that, out of 1,058,000 Germans in Posen-West Prussia in 1921, 758,867 fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.[122] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#cite_note-Cartier-125) In 1926, the Polish Ministry of the Interior estimated the remaining number of Germans at fewer than 300,000.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] These sharpening ethnic conflicts would lead to public demands to reattach the annexed territory in 1938 and become a pretext for Hitler′s annexations of Czechoslovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia) and parts of Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1939%E2%80%931945)).[122] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#cite_note-Cartier-125)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#In_Germany

Trying to redraw borders based on supposed "ethnic" lines is always asking for trouble. Large groups of ethnic Russians are located in the Baltic states and Ukraine, should those territories be ceded back to Russia? :hmmm:

2. the second reason given was that Poland needed an access to the Sea for economic reasons. The problem was that the only seaport in the corridor is Danzig which was over 95% German. The Allies could not justify transferring Danzig to Poland which is why they came up with the idea of a "free city" which was not German or Polish. So Poland did not really have an access to the Sea since goods had to transit via Danzig.

No matter how to look at it, the real reason why the "corridor" was created was to punish and weaken Germany. It is hard to believe anyone thought it was a viable long term solution.

[MH]

Ok so it is well established fact that Germany after ww1 was punished and humiliated for too long which eventually led to WW2.
In some sense maybe it was well understood by western power which is one of the reason why Hitler was allowed to stretch the rope as far as he did till he invaded Poland.
Lets assume that some moves Germany made on international arena before WW2 could be justified yet there is a difference between this and white washing all the dirt and Nazi ideology.
It is nuts.

[Oberon]

I can sympathise with the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, and even the Anschluss of Austria, but beyond that it starts to get much more difficult to justify. Especially after Munich.

[Bilge_Rat]

Ok so it is well established fact that Germany after ww1 was punished and humiliated for too long which eventually led to WW2.
In some sense maybe it was well understood by western power which is one of the reason why Hitler was allowed to stretch the rope as far as he did till he invaded Poland.
Lets assume that some moves Germany made on international arena before WW2 could be justified yet there is a difference between this and white washing all the dirt and Nazi ideology.
It is nuts.

That is certainly not my goal MH. There is no possible justification for the Holocaust and once the war started, it had to be fought to the finish.

However, if discussing the causes of WW2, you cannot just look at august 1939.

Any politician, even Hitler, does not exist in a vacuum. He came to power by harnessing the nationalist/conservative forces who wanted to overturn the "humiliation" of the Versailles Treaty. If the Treaty had been more fair, the Nazis might never have come power and WW2 might have been avoided. Remember they only polled 2% of the votes in 1928.

[Fahnenbohn]

This is absolutely obvious for me that this :

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/13//16011301494918069013890287.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011301494918069013890287.png)

... was a patent injustice and a constant affront. No country on the earth could have accepted that. And refusing to Germans to solve this problem without giving any reasons is a kind of war declaration : "I would not allow you to cure this injury. If you revolt yourself, I'll beat you."

Hitler renounced the Polish Corridor, this was not an expansionist politic, it was just a border rectification.

So, before going further, you have to explain me : if Hitler really wanted to invade and annexe Poland ...

- why did he make peaceful proposals to Poland since 1937 ? that was not necessary.
- if Poland has accepted these proposals, Germany would have no more pretextes to invade Poland.

Britain/USA were supporting Poland to have no negociations with Germany.
So in fact, this is Britain/USA who legitimated Hitler's offensive, and pushed Germany into the war....

*

[Raptor1]

1. was that it had a majority Polish population that should be "reunited" with Poland proper.

However, given that the territory had been German for 150 years or over 6 generations, exactly what was a "German" or a "Pole"?. Is a 3rd generation U.S. citizen of latino descent an "american" or a "mexican"?

I believe spoken language is usually used to measure the spread of ethnic groups. It's certainly a problem, but by the same token you could argue that Poland as a state shouldn't even exist because all of it has been part of Germany, Russia and Austria for more than a hundred years.


The second problem was that the ethnic groups were intermingled:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerelia

In almost every county, the "German" population was close to or over 50%. That is why Poland went out of their way to chase the Germans away to make the corridor more "Polish" after it was annexed.

Trying to redraw borders based on supposed "ethnic" lines is always asking for trouble. Large groups of ethnic Russians are located in the Baltic states and Ukraine, should those territories be ceded back to Russia? :hmmm:

That map is of all of West Prussia, not just the area the Polish corridor was located in. Apparently in 1921 the population in the corridor was 81.2% Polish. I don't know the exact numbers of Germans that have left the area in the interval between the establishment of Poland and that date, but from what I understand the area has had a majority Polish population even under the German Empire, despite the latter's attempts to Germanize the area since the late 19th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Settlement_Commission).

2. the second reason given was that Poland needed an access to the Sea for economic reasons. The problem was that the only seaport in the corridor is Danzig which was over 95% German. The Allies could not justify transferring Danzig to Poland which is why they came up with the idea of a "free city" which was not German or Polish. So Poland did not really have an access to the Sea since goods had to transit via Danzig.

No matter how to look at it, the real reason why the "corridor" was created was to punish and weaken Germany. It is hard to believe anyone thought it was a viable long term solution.

Poland built a new port in Gdynia after the war to reduce its reliance on Danzig, and it eventually overtook the latter in significance to the Polish economy. This would not have been possible without the Corridor. Given enough time, I think the Danzig could well have been peacefully incorporated back into Germany; I don't believe the Poles ever claimed ownership of it.

As for the real reasons for why it was given to Poland, then I can't argue that weakening Germany was not a factor. The harshness of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles most certainly contributed to the Nazis coming to power, but I really don't see how the Corridor could have justified the German invasion in any way.

[Fahnenbohn]

I can sympathise with the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, and even the Anschluss of Austria, but beyond that it starts to get much more difficult to justify. Especially after Munich.

About Hitler's proposals about the Danzig corridor problem, I see nothing unreasonable. Please tell what could happen if Hitler did "as in Czechoslovakia", as you say ? And would it be even possible ? Poland was not Czechoslovakia (a totally artificial state) ...

[Bilge_Rat]

That map is of all of West Prussia, not just the area the Polish corridor was located in. Apparently in 1921 the population in the corridor was 81.2% Polish.



In 1910, the Germans represented 43% of the population:

According to Richard Blanke, an American historian of German descent[60] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-60)[specify (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)], 421,029 Germans were living in the area in 1910, making up 42.5% of the population.[61] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-61) Blanke has been criticised by Christian Raitz von Frentz, his book classified by him as part of a series on the subject that have an anti-Polish bias, additionally Blanke's views have been described by Polish professor A. Cienciala as sympathetic to Germany.[62] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-62) In addition to the military personnel included in the population census, a number of German civil servants and merchants were introduced to the area, which influenced the population mix, according to Andrzej Chwalba.[59] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-historia1918-59) By 1921 the proportion of Germans had dropped to 18.8% (175,771). Over the next decade, the German population decreased by another 70,000 to a share of 9.6%.[63] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#cite_note-books.google.com-63)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Ethnographic_reasons

[Oberon]

About Hitler's proposals about the Danzig corridor problem, I see nothing unreasonable. Please tell what could happen if Hitler did "as in Czechoslovakia", as you say ? And would it be even possible ? Poland was not Czechoslovakia (a totally artificial state) ...

Hitler betrayed the ideals of the Munich Agreement, up until that point Britain was reluctantly willing to do business with Hitler, to stave off the war that no-one in Western Europe wanted. No-one who had any memory of the First World War and the horrors of the trenches on the western front could have possibly wanted another major war. The public had no stomach for war, and so Chamberlain did not challenge the taking of the Sudetenland, and even forced the Czechoslovakians to accept the terms.
After Czechoslovakia Britain and France came to the decision that trying to make deals with Hitler probably wasn't going to work, and that war was likely.

[MH]

So maybe after all Stalin did a favor by re-arranging up all this ethnic maze of central Europe that came about after ages of conquests and wars.

[Fahnenbohn]

After Czechoslovakia Britain and France came to the decision that trying to make deals with Hitler probably wasn't going to work, and that war was likely.

BUT : What were they afraid of in Poland ?????????
Say it to me ! http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/new_extra/chucotte-secret-4885.gif

[Raptor1]

In 1910, the Germans represented 43% of the population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Ethnographic_reasons

There were major German military formations stationed in the area at the start of World War I. If those figures include military personnel, they could deviate from the actual population by a significant amount.

BUT : What were they afraid of in Poland ?????????
Say it to me ! http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/new_extra/chucotte-secret-4885.gif

Annexation and occupation. You know, those things that happened to Czechoslovakia and eventually, in fact, to Poland?

[Oberon]

BUT : What were they afraid of in Poland ?????????
Say it to me ! http://www.forumsig.org/images/smilies/new_extra/chucotte-secret-4885.gif

Hitler invading and occupying it. Hence why Britain signed an agreement with it.

[Fahnenbohn]

Hitler invading and occupying it. Hence why Britain signed an agreement with it.

- There is no evidence that Hitler would have invaded Poland after having signed the negotiations (very minimal) about Dantzig.

- On the contrary, all demonstrates that Britain has pushed Poland to refuse any negotiations, pushing Germany to the offensive, who was the british pretext to declare war.

These facts are not refutable.

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, they are. :know:

[Sailor Steve]

- On the contrary, all demonstrates that Britain has pushed Poland to refuse any negotiations, pushing Germany to the offensive, who was the british pretext to declare war.
With regards to another war, a friend of mine once said "If I come to your house, kick in your door and beat the crap out of you, I can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why I did it. What I can't do is turn around and claim it was your fault."

The bottom line is that Germany invaded Poland, and created a fake situation to justify it. Nobody made them do that. All reasons and excuses aside, Germany started the war.

[MH]

- On the contrary, all demonstrates that Britain has pushed Poland to refuse any negotiations, pushing Germany to the offensive, who was the british pretext to declare war.

These facts are not refutable.

Amazing backward logic ... similar to the troother stuff.

That is called drawing a line...Germany proved by then it could not be trusted and was led by a loon anyway.
....and if Hitler fell for this British tick you claim it proves Hitler was very very spoiled loony brat.

[Betonov]

I learned one thing from Fahnenbohn in this thread.

That there was a diplomatic solution to the Danzig problem that would have been solved with the democratic process of a plebiscit, but the Nazis still went to war.

[Joefour]

With regards to another war, a friend of mine once said "If I come to your house, kick in your door and beat the crap out of you, I can come up with all kinds of excuses as to why I did it. What I can't do is turn around and claim it was your fault."

The bottom line is that Germany invaded Poland, and created a fake situation to justify it. Nobody made them do that. All reasons and excuses aside, Germany started the war.

Thank you, Steve,

Maybe now someone will get closer to answering the question I asked at posting #206. Those events REALLY to be discussed.

[Fahnenbohn]

The bottom line is that Germany invaded Poland, and created a fake situation to justify it.

OK, so :

- All german proposals to Poland since 1937 are fake.

- After german invasion of Poland, Britain who caused the failure of all the initiatives for peace is a fake.

- Hitler who remains open to a peaceful settlement of the dispute is a fake.

My God .... this is ... negationism ! :)

[Betonov]

-Hitler's honesty when upholding international treaties is fake

I'm sorry, was fake. Fortunately for us he lost the war.

[Raptor1]

These facts are not refutable.

Isn't that what we've been doing all the time?


Maybe now someone will get closer to answering the question I asked at posting #206. Those events REALLY to be discussed.

They were.

Forgive me for not being more exact in my language. What events sparked the movement of german troops across the border into Poland?


The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was probably the deciding factor in the exact timing of the invasion, but it had been planned before that.

If you want to be ultra-specific about it, the movement of German troops into Poland took place because the German army received orders from Hitler to implement Case White first on August 26th, then on September 1st.


- All german proposals to Poland since 1937 are fake.


Not fake, just dishonest. Most if not all of these were presented after the Munich Agreement and could not be trusted, in any case.

[MH]

OK, so :

- All german proposals to Poland since 1937 are fake.

- After german invasion of Poland, Britain who caused the failure of all the initiatives for peace is a fake.

- Hitler who remains open to a peaceful settlement of the dispute is a fake.

My God .... this is ... negationism ! :)

ok ok

https://theplastichippo.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/our-prime-minister.jpg

[Fahnenbohn]

Amazing backward logic ... similar to the troother stuff.

That is called drawing a line...Germany proved by then it could not be trusted and was led by a loon anyway.
....and if Hitler fell for this British tick you claim it proves Hitler was very very spoiled loony brat.

Sorry, but I understand absolutely nothing of what you're saying (untranslatable in French).

[Sailor Steve]

All german proposals to Poland since 1937 are fake.
No, only the attack on the radio station. I assume the proposals were real. That they were refused may be considered a justification by you, but the bottom line is that Germany invaded Poland and started the war.

After german invasion of Poland, Britain who caused the failure of all the initiatives for peace is a fake. After? I have a treaty with another country. You invade that country. Am I supposed to ignore that treaty? If I do then my word is not worth much. Maybe the treaty was made deceptively. Maybe not. No matter which, I didn't force you to invade. And saying I left you no other choice is indeed deceptive, because there is always another choice. Even if Britain maneuvered the situation, it was still Hitler who chose to start shooting.

Hitler who remains open to a peaceful settlement of the dispute is a fake. Was this before or after the invasion? If before, then invading is hardly seeking a "peaceful settlement". If after, then he already decided against peace and chose to just take what he wanted.

Either way it's nobody's fault but his.

[Joefour]

Isn't that what we've been doing all the time?



They were.





If you want to be ultra-specific about it, the movement of German troops into Poland took place because the German army received orders from Hitler to implement Case White first on August 26th, then on September 1st.



Not fake, just dishonest. Most if not all of these were presented after the Munich Agreement and could not be trusted, in any case.

Sorry, not even close to answering my question. I'm going to have to shut up and I'll wait and see if Fahnenbohn eventually gets to it. Should be a rather lively part of the discussion.

[MH]

Sorry, not even close to answering my question. I'm going to have to shut up and I'll wait and see if Fahnenbohn eventually gets to it. Should be a rather lively part of the discussion.

So why don't you answer it?
Its not a internet trivia is it?

[Fahnenbohn]

Not fake, just dishonest. Most if not all of these were presented after the Munich Agreement and could not be trusted, in any case.

So you pushed Germany to the war just because she could have been dishonest on the German-Polish agreement ?? Wow, that's really a bad reason to declare a war !!!! :timeout: No, Poland was just a pretext. Was Poland independent after the war ? No. The unique purpose of this war was to destroy the new Germany's regime. Why ? Because she was too powerful to be free from capitalism and communism. These 2 ideologies wanted world domination. Not Germany.

[Joefour]

So why don't you answer it?
Its not a internet trivia is it?

No further comment at this time.

[Raptor1]

So you pushed Germany to the war just because she could have been dishonest on the German-Polish agreement ?? Wow, that's really a bad reason to declare a war !!!! :timeout: No, Poland was just a pretext. Was Poland independent after the war ? No. The unique purpose of this war was to destroy the new Germany's regime. Why ? Because she was too powerful to be free from capitalism and communism. These 2 ideologies wanted world domination. Not Germany.

I pushed Germany to invade Poland? That's interesting.

I guess Hitler must have been a fool to start a war whose only purpose was the destruction of Germany, then. Nobody was threatening him in any sort of real way, in fact he was allowed to have his way on many issues in an attempt to avert war, and he still invaded Poland (followed by more than half a dozen other neutral states, France, the Soviet Union and some his Axis allies) just as the Allies supposedly wanted.

As for Poland's independence, it was technically independent after the war, though in practice it was a satellite state of the Soviet Union. It's independent now, though, which is a much better condition than it was in under German occupation.

[Fahnenbohn]

the bottom line is that Germany invaded Poland and started the war.

Yeah, a war with Poland only. And because it was as if Poland had declared war on Germany, by being responsible of the remain of an unacceptable situation.

What you seem not to want to understand is this principle of the International Right : the true agressor is not the one who started the war, it is the one who made war inevitable. In our case, this is Poland, helped by Britain who was helped by the USA. If you don't understand that, you can't understand one word of what I'm saying.

After? I have a treaty with another country. You invade that country. Am I supposed to ignore that treaty?

But why such a treaty ? Was Poland threatened by the German proposals ? Not at all. What were Britain's interests ? That is what is important to know. A nation doesn't give her protection just like that, she has always interests to do that. Britain knew that Hitler wanted to find a solution (even by forcing her by a conflict). She knew that this corridor problem was offensive for the german people. So, why did she want to derail any negotiations, if not in order to start a conflict in which Germany would be presented as the agressor ?

If after, then he already decided against peace and chose to just take what he wanted.

If after the invasion : if Poland and her allies want to preserve the peace, then they have to stop the hostilities and start to negociate with Hitler (he was ready for that). Of course, at this moment, Hitler was able to add other conditions.

[mapuc]

A quick question

How was the German economy around the year 35-39 ?

Markus

[Fahnenbohn]

In fact, after all I've read here, nobody calls into question the Treaty of Versailles. What it did was unfair to certain nations, but these nations didn't have the right to protest ...

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, a war with Poland only. And because it was as if Poland had declared war on Germany, by being responsible of the remain of an unacceptable situation.
"As if" Poland declared war on Germany. That's an interesting interpretation, but the fact remains that Poland didn't declare war on Germany, so Germany had to fake a Polish attack so they would look like the victim and not the aggressor.

What you seem not to want to understand is this principle of the International Right : the true agressor is not the one who started the war, it is the one who made war inevitable. In our case, this is Poland, helped by Britain who was helped by the USA. If you don't understand that, you can't understand one word of what I'm saying.
Where exactly is this Principle written? Who agreed on it?

But why such a treaty ? Was Poland threatened by the German proposals ? Not at all. What were Britain's interests ?
I already pointed that out, and answered in the part you didn't quote.
Maybe the treaty was made deceptively. Maybe not. No matter which, I didn't force you to invade. And saying I left you no other choice is indeed deceptive, because there is always another choice. Even if Britain maneuvered the situation, it was still Hitler who chose to start shooting.

That is important to know. A nation doesn't give her protection just like that, she has always interests to do that. Britain knew that Hitler wanted to find a solution (even by forcing her by a conflict). She knew that this corridor problem was offensive for the german people. So, why did she want to derail any negotiations, if not in order to start a conflict in which Germany would be presented as the agressor ?
Maybe to stop any more incidents like the takeover of Czechoslovakia, in which Germany certainly was the aggressor. But it doesn't matter. As I said, there is always another way. Someone else has pointed out that Hitler could have bided his time and showed that he truly wanted peace, and not just another piece of Europe. But he chose to invade.

If after the invasion : if Poland and her allies want to preserve the peace, then they have to stop the hostilities and start to negociate with Hitler (he was ready for that). Of course, at this moment, Hitler was able to add other conditions.
So Hitler invaded Poland just to make them negotiate some more? Then why take over the whole country? The bottom line is still that he chose to kill rather than talk. He made the decision. As I said earlier, saying he was forced into it is no more than an excuse. He made the decision. Germany invaded, and started the war.

[Nippelspanner]

- There is no evidence that Hitler would have invaded Poland after having signed the negotiations (very minimal) about Dantzig.

- On the contrary, all demonstrates that Britain has pushed Poland to refuse any negotiations, pushing Germany to the offensive, who was the british pretext to declare war.

These facts are not refutable.
What facts?
I don't see facts, I see claims - as usual.

[ivanov.ruslan]

We should not forget that Bismarck and Tirpitz, were built during the arrest in Germany of Versailles contract, apparently breaking it http://www.nariba.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

[Oberon]

We should not forget that Bismarck and Tirpitz, were built during the arrest in Germany of Versailles contract, apparently breaking it http://www.nariba.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif

Yeah, that was Raptors fault, he just couldn't help himself. I told him, uboats are the way to go but no he just had to have his battleships. :nope:

[Fahnenbohn]

What facts?
I don't see facts, I see claims - as usual.

I have the documents with all the proofs, but this is very hard to translate in english. And I won't have time to translate all this. If you want them, let PM me, give me your mail, and I send you the files.

[Bilge_Rat]

A quick question

How was the German economy around the year 35-39 ?

Markus

it was doing more or less fine, after the Nazis took over they implemented more direct control over the economy, specifically controlling the exchange rate, capital inflow/outflow, and import/exports though formal and informal controls. The aim was to keep capital in Germany to help finance their rearmament and infrastructure projects. It would have been doing better if they had devalued the Reichmark or let it float, but that was verbotten after the 1923 crash. They also assumed more direct control and rationing of vital raw materials to make sure armament producers received priority.

They don't seem to have had a problem financing their re-armament program, the only limit was a relative shortage of raw materials and labour. They also had a one time boost from assets/valuables they forced jews to leave behind when they emigrated.

Some economists have theorized that the Nazi economy was a house of cards, but as Tooze points out in "Wages of Destruction", it was actually fairly robust. It is a bit ironic that for all their criticisms of Communism, the Nazis were actually very interventionist in their economic policies.

They did not interfere with the ownership of most German corporations, unless the owners posed a political problem and/or were incompetent. Most business owners were happy to cooperate since the Nazis gave them very lucrative arms contracts and kept the workers in line.

[ivanov.ruslan]

Oberon: I told him

He,:cool:

[mapuc]

it was doing more or less fine, after the Nazis took over they implemented more direct control over the economy, specifically controlling the exchange rate, capital inflow/outflow, and import/exports though formal and informal controls. The aim was to keep capital in Germany to help finance their rearmament and infrastructure projects. It would have been doing better if they had devalued the Reichmark or let it float, but that was verbotten after the 1923 crash. They also assumed more direct control and rationing of vital raw materials.

They don't seem to have had a problem financing their re-armament program, the only limit was a relative shortage of raw materials and labour. They also had a one time boost from assets/valuables they forced jews to leave behind to leave the country.

Some economists have theorized that the Nazi economy was a house of cards, but as Tooze points out in "Wages of Destruction", it was actually fairly robust. It is a bit ironic that for all their criticisms of Communism, the Nazis were actually very interventionist in their economis policies.

Thank you


Markus

[Fahnenbohn]

Maybe to stop any more incidents like the takeover of Czechoslovakia, in which Germany certainly was the aggressor.

Germans from Sudeten wanted to be in the Reich. Only tyrannie could prevent them to do that. Always Versailles ...

Someone else has pointed out that Hitler could have bided his time and showed that he truly wanted peace.

Don't reverse the situation. Germany made proposals since 1937, Poland has never made any effort, and even ended up making threats. Poland provoked Germany, she didn't has to complain about the consequences.

So Hitler invaded Poland just to make them negotiate some more ? Then why take over the whole country ?

Because the government ran away and pretended to still continue the war.

No peace in injustice. Treaty of Versailles was full of injustice... pitiful ! Hitler came into power in order to correct these injustices. That's all. After, he might have been too fast. But when something is injust, the faster you correct it, the better it is.

All I regret in this debate is not being able to share my sources with you. All is in french.

[Raptor1]

Yeah, that was Raptors fault, he just couldn't help himself. I told him, uboats are the way to go but no he just had to have his battleships. :nope:

Everybody else had them!

Germans from Sudeten wanted to be in the Reich. Only tyrannie could prevent them to do that. Always Versailles ...

And the Czechs in Czechoslovakia?


Because the government ran away and pretended to still continue the war.

Because the Germans overran the country?

Germany made a secret agreement with the Soviet Union to partition Poland, then invaded and occupied the country. It wasn't even in a position to just negotiate the issue after it invaded, and it certainly couldn't have been counting on anything of the sort.

[MaDef]

No peace in injustice. Treaty of Versailles was full of injustice... pitiful ! Hitler came into power in order to correct these injustices. That's all. After, he might have been too fast. But when something is injust, the faster you correct it, the better it is.
All I regret in this debate is not being able to share my sources with you. All is in french. This sounds suspiciously like "The ends justify the means" excuse. While the treaty of Versailles was overly harsh & punative towards Germany, Hitler & the Nazis chose the manner in which they tried to correct those "injustices". They chose wrong.

[razark]

Treaty of Versailles was full of injustice...
If the Treaty was so bad, why did Germany sign it?

[Sailor Steve]

Germans from Sudeten wanted to be in the Reich. Only tyrannie could prevent them to do that. Always Versailles ...
Sudetenland is in Czechoslovakia, not Poland. If you're talking about the Polish Corridor, it was unfortunate that the respective populations were on the wrong sides of the border. Yes, Germans on the east side of the Corridor wanted to be in Germany, but Poles on the west side wanted to be in Poland as well. It should have been easier to just swap the populations, but of course people also want to live where they've always lived.

Don't reverse the situation. Germany made proposals since 1937, Poland has never made any effort, and even ended up making threats. Poland provoked Germany, she didn't has to complain about the consequences.
"They provoked us." - The excuse of invaders all through history. I'd like to say Germany could have asked the aid of other countries in arbitrating this, but I agree they had reasons not to trust the only nations that could have filled that role. Still, no one forced them to invade.

Because the government ran away and pretended to still continue the war.
Because Germany wanted the extra space. You see, it's always easy to come up with reasons that make you look good and the other guy look bad.

No peace in injustice. Treaty of Versailles was full of injustice... pitiful ![/quote]
On that I agree. Britain and France treated Germany very badly in 1919. On the other hand there would have been no treaty and no First War if Germany had not invaded Belgium in 1914. As you said, "She didn't has to complain about the consequences."


Hitler came into power in order to correct these injustices. That's all. After, he might have been too fast. But when something is injust, the faster you correct it, the better it is.
But correcting an injustice with another injustice is no justice at all. As we say here, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

[Jimbuna]

Just checking in....thread is subject to regular scrutiny.

[Nippelspanner]

Between Hitler and you, I would say that the idiot was not Hitler.

Readers : the debate has begun. Don't hesitate to intervene. Except for insulting or saying things off-topic. Thank you.

:hmmm:

Translation: "Of course, it's cool when I do it!"

[Bilge_Rat]

If the Treaty was so bad, why did Germany sign it?

they did not have a choice, it was either sign the treaty or resume the war and face an invasion.

[razark]

they did not have a choice, it was either sign the treaty or resume the war and face an invasion.
So they did have a choice.

The Germans signed the treaty and accepted its terms instead of the possibility of total defeat. It was then their responsibility to uphold the agreement they made.

[Cybermat47]

:hmmm:

Translation: "Of course, it's cool when I do it!"

That's often the case :nope:

[Fahnenbohn]

Dear Sailor Steve, I'm very happy to have this debate with you, you do not fall in irony.

If you're talking about the Polish Corridor, it was unfortunate that the respective populations were on the wrong sides of the border. Yes, Germans on the east side of the Corridor wanted to be in Germany, but Poles on the west side wanted to be in Poland as well. It should have been easier to just swap the populations, but of course people also want to live where they've always lived.

That's why Hitler made a very reasonable proposal :

2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north] to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder, Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then westwards to Schoenlanke.

3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory. All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
To insure an impartial plebiscite and to make sure that all necessary preliminary preparation work is properly carried out, this territory will come under the authority of an international commission, similar to the one organized in the Saar territory [for the 1935 plebiscite there]. This commission is to be organized immediately by the four great powers of Italy, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. This commission will have all sovereign authority in the territory. Accordingly, Polish military forces, Polish police and Polish authorities are to clear out of this territory as soon as possible, by a date to be agreed upon.

4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, established by an international court of arbitration.

5. In order to insure ample time for the preparations necessary in order to conduct an impartial plebiscite, the plebiscite will not take place until after at least twelve months have elapsed.

7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory will go to Germany or to Poland.

8. [...] If the plebiscite determines that the territory belongs to Poland, Germany will obtain an extraterritorial transit zone, consisting of a motor super-highway [Reichsautobahn] and a four-track rail line, approximately along the line of Buetow-Danzig and Dirschau. The highway and the rail line will be built in such a way that the Polish transit lines are not disturbed, which means that they will pass either above or underneath. This zone will be one kilometer wide and will be sovereign German territory. In case the plebiscite is in Germany's favor, Poland will have free and unrestricted transit to its port of Gdynia with the same right to an extraterritorial road and rail line that Germany would have had.

But maybe, that was also a "fake" ? Really, the situation was too serious to be able to ensure such a thing !

Still, no one forced them to invade.

Sorry, but this is pure cynicism.

Because Germany wanted the extra space.

That's wrong, this is a phantasm.

Britain and France treated Germany very badly in 1919. On the other hand there would have been no treaty and no First War if Germany had not invaded Belgium in 1914. As you said, "She didn't has to complain about the consequences."

That's also wrong. The situation was more complexe than just saying : Germany invaded --> Germany is responsible of World War ... :nope: You should ask yourself : why did she act so ? In (very very) short, this was because of the Alliances system.

But correcting an injustice with another injustice is no justice at all.

On that, I agree, and Hitler agreed also : in 1939, he could just have demanded the annexation of the polish corridor. And that was an injustice.

:up:

[Bilge_Rat]

So they did have a choice.

The Germans signed the treaty and accepted its terms instead of the possibility of total defeat. It was then their responsibility to uphold the agreement they made.

I am guessing you are having trouble grasping the concept of this thread, here is a primer for you.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Problems_with_the_Treaty_of _Versailles

[HunterICX]

On that I agree. Britain and France treated Germany very badly in 1919. On the other hand there would have been no treaty and no First War if Germany had not invaded Belgium in 1914. As you said, "She didn't has to complain about the consequences."

Yes the treaty was very unfair due that it was put that Germany was sole to blame for World War 1 which we know is false, but she took a huge part in escalating it by granting Austria-Hungary the ''blanque-cheque'' and ofcourse the German Military Elite ruling out any means of solving the crisis through the channels of diplomacy and instead they chose to go to war.

[Fahnenbohn]

Just several short remarks :

1. You are always saying that hitler was too hurried. I say he has preoccupied to START the negotiations. After, they could take the time needed.

For 2 years, Poland refused any negotiations, and this is UNJUSTIFIABLE.

2. An injustice REQUIRES of negotiations.

3. The construction of ways of communication and the return of a city to the Reich are NOT territorial demands, contrary to Austria and Sudetenland.

[HunterICX]

Just several short remarks :

1. You are always saying that hitler was too hurried. I say he has preoccupied to START the negotiations. After, they could take the time needed.

For 2 years, Poland refused any negotiations, and this is UNJUSTIFIABLE.

Poland refused to give into demands. Perhaps earlier Hitler and the Nazi Party may have tried a more friendlier approach but as soon he didn't achieve what he wanted his attitude turned agressive.

Even if a sovereign country does refuse to negotiate it still doesn't warrant a justification to invade.

Poland didn't threaten Germany in any way /End

2. An injustice REQUIRES of negotiations.What?

3. The construction of ways of communication and the return of a city to the Reich are NOT territorial demands, contrary to Austria and Sudetenland.Demanding 759 square miles (Danzig) looks like an territorial demand to me.

[Fahnenbohn]

And the Czechs in Czechoslovakia?

The land was not annexed but became a protectorate.

-------
EDIT : About Boheme Moravia.

You see, in France, we have some people who are asking for independence also : Bretons, Corsicans, and other (islands of the ancient colonial empire) ... Is it a reason to declare war on France because she is a tyrannic country ? No.

We always lived peacefully with them. And they have many advantages in being part of the France
-------

Now, let's quote Hitler's speech of October, 6, 1939 :

The aims and tasks which emerge from the collapse of the Polish State are, insofar as the German sphere of interest is concerned, roughly as follows:

1. Demarcation of the boundary for the Reich, which will do justice to historical, ethnographical and economic facts.

2. Pacification of the whole territory by restoring a tolerable measure of peace and order.

3. Absolute guarantees of security not only as far as Reich territory is concerned but for the entire sphere of interest.

4. Re-establishment and reorganization of economic life and of trade and transport, involving development of culture and civilization.

5. As the most important task, however, to establish a new order of ethnographic conditions, that is to say, resettle ment of nationalities in such a manner that the process ultimately results in the obtaining of better dividing lines than is the case at present.

*

[Fahnenbohn]

Even if a sovereign country does refuse to negotiate it still doesn't warrant a justification to invade.

Yes maybe. But in our case, the injustice REQUIRES negotiations, or war.

[Fahnenbohn]

GERMANY was the empire that guaranteed peace and was the only one who was able to guarantee it in Europe. Having declared war on it* is an unforgivable crime.

* : or "her" ? (sorry for bad english, I presume this is "her" after Sailor Steve's explanations, but "her" for an Empire ? :hmm2:)

[HunterICX]

Yes maybe. But in our case, the injustice REQUIRES negotiations, or war.

Ehm yeh...that's not how it works you don't tell someone to start negotiate or it will be war.

GERMANY was the empire that guaranteed peace and was the only one who was able to guarantee it in Europe. Having declared war on it* is an unforgivable crime.

and it failed doing just that....twice.

[Fahnenbohn]

Ehm yeh...that's not how it works you don't tell someone to start negotiate or it will be war.

Negotiations were perfectly justified.

[Nippelspanner]

GERMANY was the empire that guaranteed peace and was the only one who was able to guarantee it in Europe. Having declared war on it* is an unforgivable crime.
Man... and I already used up that Stewie Griffin meme :shifty:

[Fahnenbohn]

GERMANY was the empire that guaranteed peace and was the only one who was able to guarantee it in Europe. Having declared war on it* is an unforgivable crime.

And all Germans of today should agree with me, instead of being ashamed of their history. And don't talk about Holocaust, this is forbidden to prove anything against it.

[Nippelspanner]

EDIT : And all Germans of today should agree with me, instead of being ashamed of their history.
Oh it's tell others what to do time?
I will follow your advise - when you follow your beloved Adolf.
Deal?
Win/Win! :yeah:

[HunterICX]

Negotiations were perfectly justified.

Which is odd since they never took place, instead impatient Hitler&Co chose to use violence.
Poland was fully within its right to choose not to negotiate as it was in her interest to do so.

[Raptor1]

That's wrong, this is a phantasm.

Hitler has specifically stated Germany's need for Lebensraum in his books and in statements concerning his ideology. Moreover, he mentioned this in direct relation to the execution of Case White. He implemented policies to make the concept a reality soon after Poland was occupied, and continued to do so in other areas following his invasion of the Soviet Union. There is a logical chain of events here that is completely broken by the assuming that Hitler wasn't after Lebensraum, and there really is no evidence to justify this sort of assumption. No, just because Germany made some demands for the return of Danzig doesn't mean that it couldn't have found a pretext to invade under later, like it did with Czechoslovakia.

Just several short remarks :

1. You are always saying that hitler was too hurried. I say he has preoccupied to START the negotiations. After, they could take the time needed.

For 2 years, Poland refused any negotiations, and this is UNJUSTIFIABLE.

2. An injustice REQUIRES of negotiations.

3. The construction of ways of communication and the return of a city to the Reich are NOT territorial demands, contrary to Austria and Sudetenland.

Let me try summarizing the issue of Danzig and Germany's negotiations so we don't get confused by who tried do what, where and when. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Danzig's status as a Free City was a compromise made at Versailles to give Poland access to sea trade, which was judged to be vital to its economy. Neither Germany, who wanted the city incorporated into its territory, nor Poland, which wanted independent access to the sea, were satisfied with this agreement. Poland built the port of Gdynia in the Corridor to supplant Danzig as its primary port, and this port eventually exceeded Danzig's relevance to its maritime trade, but by 1938 Danzig still accounted for 31.6% of all Polish exports.

The Danzig problem basically boils down to two points, then. Germany wanted the city annexed because it was inhabited by Germans, while Poland wanted to maintain the status quo, at least for the time being, to preserve its economy, which was struggling in the interwar period. Whether you believe that one reason or the other was more justified, the issue of losing Danzig was far more of an immediate concern for Poland than gaining it was for Germany. Danzig could have potentially have been returned to Germany given sufficient time, Poland made no claim to it and was already moving its trade away to other ports, but at this point Poland judged it to be vital to its economy.

In 1933 the government in Danzig was taken over by the Nazi party, which agitated for the city's return to Germany. Despite this, Poland and Germany signed a non-aggression pact in 1934.

From what I can tell, the first attempts to negotiate Danzig's status was on October 24th, 1938, when Ribbentrop talked to Józef Lipski and proposed the agreement that Danzig should be annexed by Germany and the extra-territorial road and railway be constructed to East Prussia. The Germans offered nothing in return for this except the extension of the German-Polish non-aggression pact and some guarantees of Poland's borders, effectively making this more of a demand than a negotiation. This proposal came in the immediate aftermath of the Munich Agreement, and Poland was afraid of coming under German influence. So naturally, Poland refused. Germany continued trying to push these demands for the next 6 months. This effectively amounted to all of Germany's attempts to 'negotiate'.

On March 15th, 1939, Germany occupied Czechoslovakia. In response, Britain promised to support Poland. On March 25th, Hitler directed OKW to prepare for a war to seize not just Danzig, but all of Poland. OKW issued a directive to the German armed forces outlining Case White on April 3rd, requiring that preparations be made for launching the operation before September 1st. On April 28th, Hitler renounced the non-aggression pact with Poland and demanded the issue be settled. Agitators were soon sent into Danzig by Germany to provoke a crisis. The German army begun troop movement to bring forces into position for Case White on June 26th. Soon afterwards, Germany began negotiating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the Soviet Union, in which it agreed to partition Poland. The operation was scheduled to being on August 26th, but was delayed until September 1st because of Britain's treaty with Poland and Italy's declaration that it would not take part in the conflict. The 16-point proposal and the conditions for its signing was read out to the British ambassador, much too late, during this interval without enough time or effort to create real negotiations. Józef Lipski spoke with Ribbentrop on August 31st under instruction from Warsaw to inform Germany that Poland was willing to enter into discussions if both parties were on equal footing. This resulted in nothing. Hours later, Germany invaded Poland.

In short, I agree that there was a problem concerning Danzig's status, but throughout this entire course of events it was Hitler and Germany alone that created the crisis, made the demands, prepared for war and started the invasion, actions which were at no point made necessary by anybody else. This is without even getting to Hitler's well-documented desire to occupy Poland in its entirety.

The land was not annexed but became a protectorate.

What they called it is irrelevant. Germany intimidated Czechoslovakia into surrendering under the threat of war, then promptly occupied it with military force. It did this after it has peacefully been given all its demands in regards to the country at Munich. I really don't see how this action can be justified in any way.

EDIT : About Boheme Moravia.

You see, in France, we have some people who are asking for independence also : Bretons, Corsicans, and other (islands of the ancient colonial empire) ... Is it a reason to declare war on France because she is a tyrannic country ? No.

We always lived peacefully with them. And they have many advantages in being part of the France

The Czech people never looked for German occupation, in fact protests sprang up pretty much immediately, and never benefited from it in the slightest. That's completely irrelevant.


5. As the most important task, however, to establish a new order of ethnographic conditions, that is to say, resettle ment of nationalities in such a manner that the process ultimately results in the obtaining of better dividing lines than is the case at present.


Isn't that the basis of Lebensraum? What's your point?

[Oberon]

Danzig ist nicht das Objekt, um das es geht. Es handelt sich für uns um die Erweiterung des Lebensraumes im Osten und Sicherstellung der Ernährung, sowie der Lösung des Baltikum- Problems. Lebensmittelversorgung ist nur von dort möglich, wo geringe Besiedelung herrscht. Neben der Fruchtbarkeit wird die deutsche, gründliche Bewirtschaftung die Überschüsse gewaltig steigern.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php

[Raptor1]

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php

That must have been a British spy masquerading as Hitler or something. :hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php
http://i.imgur.com/AKfDdna.png

:har:

[Jimbuna]

And all Germans of today should agree with me, instead of being ashamed of their history. And don't talk about Holocaust, this is forbidden to prove anything against it.


You make reference to the holocaust (and not for the first time).

Permit me to update you on SubSim policy as explained to me this morning from the top...

What SubSim would like to avoid are discussions where someone is actively arguing that the Holocaust was a fiction, never happened, or is a false history created by the World Zionist organization, etc.
Therefore it is the denial that is the problem and not the event itself, hence the forum rule:
Subsim's stance on hate groups
Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.

So, taking the above into consideration I think it sufficiently spelled out what is and what is not acceptable but please be advised, any breach of the above may well end up with posting privileges being revoked.

I certainly don't intend ending up with a troublesome heart condition over the matter.

[Cybermat47]

The land was not annexed but became a protectorate.

Just like Aboriginals were protected by the Australian settlers. And the Germans protected the Czechs just as well as we protected Tasmania Aboriginals.

[August]

GERMANY was the empire that guaranteed peace

Yeah peace because everyone is dead kind of peace.

This is nazi peace:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mass_grave1-1024x959.jpg

[Catfish]

There are some things right, but a lot more are false, in this thread :hmmm:
(and thanks Raptor1, very good explanation on page 25!)


1. Hitler did not want to conquer the world. I guess we all know that.

2. That a world war ensued was possible, but not necessarily so, and it was not as foreseeable or logical, as we assume today.
(Indeed, as long as the US staid out of the war (what it of course did not, not even before an official declaration of war from the US, their ships had attacked german U-boats already before) and Japan having nothing to do with Germany, there most probably would have been no worldwide war).

3. Invading almost all Europe was a reaction to England declaring war, from a strategical point of view alone it was unthinkable to let France or any other country become a war zone again, or a kind of enemy aircraft carrier. It was done to prevent a second front, as it it had happened in WW1.
England tried to invade Norway, Germany happened to be faster for the same reason (but lost almost all destroyers, in the invasion).
This all was done with the sole object to go against Russia, and prevent a second front in the West, or else.

4. Hitler had not expected England to declare war, and he did not really plan to invade it. The bombings (first only against industrial targets, but then escalating) were executed to force England out of the war. We know how this worked out, but who knows what would have happened, without the US.

5. Hitler wanted his "Lebensraum" in the east right from the beginning. Indeed his whole ideology and plans were based on this, and his idea of racial superiority, against those russian "underlings". You can read it in almost all the 3rd Reich's documents, of the time (and not only from H.).
Racial superiority was also the thinking of some in England though, and you can also read this in a lot of documents of the time, it was not a german (or austrian) invention alone. But those supporters never were able to be accepted, crush the constitution, and form a government. Big difference.

(Hitler wanted to fight Russia right from the beginning, to get at least a big part of it. Poland was just in the way, but it also meant some revenge for losing Prussia earlier. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was just a temporary means to buy some time, and get the eastern part of Poland crushed by Russia without german intervention, to later annex it.
Poland had acted quite aggressively before war broke out, some germans living in now-polish parts of former Prussia were harrassed and there even were progromes. There were also military drills, parades and a lot of polish propaganda against Germany as well. This alone is of couse no reason to invade another country.. but adding german propaganda it is one reason why this "revenge" did not find so much resistance, in the german people.
Apart from that we shall not forget, that any resistance, politically or whatever, was answered with a visit by the Gestapo..
The jews were the other scapegoat for all misery, and the money seized from them was used to finance the war. In that respect you could cynically say, that jewish money powered the german war industry. But it was stolen, of course. Goetz Aly has written an excellent book, about the german financial operarions, before and during the war.

Also, polish trains passing through the corridor had their windows blackened for some reason, but it was still clear to see that the whole region was neither needed nor used by Poland, and the fomer german houses, farms and fields decayed – which of course was not liked, especially by those who had been driven off the land, in the aftermath off WW1 and Versailles.

Going bach and regarding Versailles there are interesting bits, from Italy joining the Entente just to get big chunks out from Austro-Hungary, block Austria's ports and remove trading competition, to getting hands on Venice and all those mediterranean ports which had belonged to Austro-Hungary, before WW1.
When French Prime Minister Clemenceau was asked how history would remember the start of World War I, he replied "One thing is for certain: they will not say that Belgium invaded Germany." Case closed, so easy..)



There is no need for overblown propaganda, nor is there any need to downplay cruelties and atrocities. Things are bad enough as they are! You cannot condense the whole situation to tactical decisions and political errors of the Allies or Germany, and only concentrate on small details you like to highlight, and exclude everything else.

This is because it is good that Hitler was stopped, for reasons of dictatorship to mass execution, and genocide.
It does not matter who started the war, it is just good that the Allies won it.

[Onkel Neal]

You make reference to the holocaust (and not for the first time).

Permit me to update you on SubSim policy as explained to me this morning from the top...

What SubSim would like to avoid are discussions where someone is actively arguing that the Holocaust was a fiction, never happened, or is a false history created by the World Zionist organization, etc.
Therefore it is the denial that is the problem and not the event itself, hence the forum rule:


So, taking the above into consideration I think it sufficiently spelled out what is and what is not acceptable but please be advised, any breach of the above may well end up with posting privileges being revoked.

I certainly don't intend ending up with a troublesome heart condition over the matter.

Thanks, Jim, you explained it very well.

Yes, people can discuss just about anything they want here, even fantasies; Hitler was a gentle peace-loving soul who was forced into war when all he wanted to do was spread love, FDR knew the Japs were going to bomb Pearl Harbor but did nothing so the US would get into the war, the Kennedy assassination was a coup, UFOs are real, the earth is flat, whatever. You are entitled to your opinion, and as long as you do not topic spam, you can discuss it here. But there are limits to everything, so I advise against arguing, or even trying to be clever and cute and slip in a comment, about the Holocaust being untrue. As far as I am concerned, that's a gross violation of respect for the people who suffered through the Holocaust, both those who were killed and those who managed to survive the genocide.

[Joefour]

Oh it's tell others what to do time?
I will follow your advise - when you follow your beloved Adolf.
Deal?
Win/Win! :yeah:

He's not telling you what you can and cannot talk about;It's one of the rules that Jimbuna laid down for this thread:no talk about the Holocaust.

OOPS! Looks like I should have read this page first. Sorry.

[MH]

.....................
There is no need for overblown propaganda, nor is there any need to downplay cruelties and atrocities. Things are bad enough as they are! You cannot condense the whole situation to tactical decisions and political errors of the Allies or Germany, and only concentrate on small details you like to highlight, and exclude everything else.

This is because it is good that Hitler was stopped, for reasons of dictatorship to mass execution, and genocide.
It does not matter who started the war, it is just good that the Allies won it. :up:

One of the best posts in this thread.

[Bilge_Rat]

so, assuming Britan and France would have stood by while Russia and Germany carved up Poland, what would have been Hitler's next move?

Would he have declared war on France on his own? Would he have attacked the USSR if France and the French Army were in his back?

The need for "Lebensraum" was always of a vague goal. In 1940, population density in Germany was not that much higher than in neighboring countries.



http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/images/maps/nsx.density.EUR.1940.jpg

[Aktungbby]

The need for "Lebensraum" was always of a vague goal. In 1940, population density in Germany was not that much higher than in neighboring countries.




WOW! It was hardly a 'vague' goal IMHOhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R35179%2C_Prof._Friedrich_Ratzel.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R35179%2C_Prof._Friedrich_Ratzel.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R35179,_Prof._Friedrich_Ratzel.jpg)more of a persistant Herrenvolk 'Manifest Destiny' that replaced Indians with Slavs...(but it's ok when we do it!:O:) ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum)

[Sailor Steve]

But maybe, that was also a "fake" ? Really, the situation was too serious to be able to ensure such a thing !
I've already said that the only "fake" thing was so-called raid on the radio station. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Sorry, but this is pure cynicism.
No, it's the truth. I think it's been adequately shown by others that claiming Hitler was negotiating honestly is a falsehood. Documents posted by others have shown that he wanted all of Poland from the start.

That's wrong, this is a phantasm.
Not so. Hitler mentions it in his own official (but secret) documents.

That's also wrong. The situation was more complexe than just saying : Germany invaded --> Germany is responsible of World War ... :nope: You should ask yourself : why did she act so ? In (very very) short, this was because of the Alliances system.
Why did the others act the way they did? It has now been shown that Britain and France made the treaty with Poland after Hitler took Czechoslovakia. As for "the Corridor", the secret documents show quite well that the Corridor was just an excuse, and that Hitler wanted all of Poland. Finally, your argument is the one which is wrong. Hitler was aware of the new treaty between Britain and Poland, and yet he chose to attack anyway. That really is the bottom line. Hitler may not have wanted a war with the other countries, but he certainly wanted Poland, and was willing to risk that war to get what he wanted.

[Joefour]

I've already said that the only "fake" thing was so-called raid on the radio station. Why do you keep ignoring that?


No, it's the truth. I think it's been adequately shown by others that claiming Hitler was negotiating honestly is a falsehood. Documents posted by others have shown that he wanted all of Poland from the start.


Not so. Hitler mentions it in his own official (but secret) documents.


Why did the others act the way they did? It has now been shown that Britain and France made the treaty with Poland after Hitler took Czechoslovakia. As for "the Corridor", the secret documents show quite well that the Corridor was just an excuse, and that Hitler wanted all of Poland. Finally, your argument is the one which is wrong. Hitler was aware of the new treaty between Britain and Poland, and yet he chose to attack anyway. That really is the bottom line. Hitler may not have wanted a war with the other countries, but he certainly wanted Poland, and was willing to risk that war to get what he wanted.

Steve,

If by "radio station" you are referring to the Gleiwitz Incident, allow me to furnish the following links for your perusal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
http://ww2today.com/the-gleiwitz-incident-and-the-first-man-to-die-in-world-war-ii
https://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fictionhttps://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction (https://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fictionhttps://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/6106566/World-War-IIs-first-victim.html

If they don't work, please excuse me and I will try and fix them. I am not all that computer savvy when it comes to copying and pasting stuff like this, and it is difficult for me to read these purple letters against a brown background.
I have tried to incorporate links that include at least two different points of view in an attempt to supply a fair and balanced spectrum of sources. I make no personal conclusions;it is up to the reader to make up their own mind about what is said.
Disclaimer:I have included an entry from Wikipedia, but do so with hesitation for the plain and simple fact that ANYONE can go into Wikipedia on any subject and change it to suit their own agenda.

EDIT: I was of the understanding that the forum owner had already reiterated the forum rules that holocaust denial was not acceptable. No more links to anything of the opposite position/understanding please.

[mapuc]

This is going to be off topic

Have read a lot about Poland in this thread and each time I start to think about this

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. How much influence did it have on the war and was it a definitive go-ahead for the German when this treaty was signed ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

If this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, please be free to erase this comment.
Markus

[Fahnenbohn]

You make reference to the holocaust (and not for the first time).

This is not forbidden by the Subsim's stance on hate groups to do that.

[Fahnenbohn]

As far as I am concerned, that's a gross violation of respect for the people who suffered through the Holocaust.

Only this : the question is not : is it "good" or "bad", but is it "true" or "wrong" ? Am i allowed to say that ??

[Oberon]

I believe when Steve says 'fake' he means that it was a German false-flag operation.

[Fahnenbohn]

Hitler may not have wanted a war with the other countries, but he certainly wanted Poland, and was willing to risk that war to get what he wanted.

Ok, in fact, you are saying that Hitler was sure that all the proposals he made to Poland since 1937 on the problem of the corridor, could only be rejected by Poland ? Seriously, how can you refuse as generous and reasonable proposals ?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Wikipedia

Nazi German and Polish diplomacy

The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, took power in Germany in 1933. Hitler at first ostentatiously pursued a policy of rapprochement with Poland, culminating in the ten-year Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact of 1934. In the years that followed, Germany placed an emphasis on rearmament, as did Poland and other European powers. Despite this, the Nazis were able to achieve their immediate goals without provoking armed conflict: in 1938 Nazi Germany annexed Austria and the Sudetenland after the Munich Agreement. In October 1938, Germany tried to get Poland to join the Anti-Comintern Pact. Poland refused, as the alliance was rapidly becoming a sphere of influence of an increasingly powerful Germany.
Following negotiations with Hitler on the Munich Agreement, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain reported that, "He told me privately, and last night he repeated publicly, that after this Sudeten German question is settled, that is the end of Germany's territorial claims in Europe". Almost immediately following the agreement, however, Hitler reneged on it. The Nazis increased their requests for the incorporation of the Free City of Danzig into the Reich, citing the "protection" of the German majority as a motive. In November 1938, Danzig's district administrator, Albert Forster, reported to the League of Nations that Hitler had told him Polish frontiers would be guaranteed if the Poles were "reasonable like the Czechs." German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker reaffirmed this alleged guarantee in December 1938.
The situation regarding the Free City and the Polish Corridor created a number of headaches for German and Polish Customs. The Germans requested the construction of an extra-territorial Reichsautobahn freeway (to complete the Reichsautobahn Berlin-Königsberg) and railway through the Polish Corridor, effectively annexing Polish territory and connecting East Prussia to Danzig and Germany proper, while cutting off Poland from the sea and its main trade route. If Poland agreed, in return they would extend the non-aggression pact for 25 years.
This seemed to conflict with Hitler's plans and with Poland's rejection of the Anti-Comintern Pact, and his desire either to isolate or to gain support against the Soviet Union. German newspapers in Danzig and Nazi Germany played an important role in inciting nationalist sentiment: headlines buzzed about how Poland was misusing its economic rights in Danzig and German Danzigers were increasingly subjugated to the will of the Polish state. At the same time, Hitler also offered Poland additional territory as an enticement, such as the possible annexation of Lithuania, the Memel Territory, Soviet Ukraine and Czech inhabited lands. However, Polish leaders continued to fear for the loss of their independence and a fate like that of Czechoslovakia, which had yielded the Sudetenland to Germany in October 1938, only to be invaded by Germany in March 1939. Some felt that the Danzig question was inextricably tied to the problems in the Polish Corridor and any settlement regarding Danzig would be one step towards the eventual loss of Poland's access to the sea. Hitler's credibility outside Germany was very low after the occupation of Czechoslovakia, though some British and French politicians approved of a peaceful revision of the corridor's borders.
In 1939, Nazi Germany made another attempt to renegotiate the status of Danzig; Poland was to retain a permanent right to use the seaport if the route through the Polish Corridor was to be constructed. However, the Polish administration distrusted Hitler and saw the plan as a threat to Polish sovereignty, practically subordinating Poland to the Axis and the Anti-Comintern Bloc while reducing the country to a state of near-servitude as its entire trade would be dependent on Germany.
Hitler used the issue of the status city as pretext for attacking Poland, while explaining during a high level meeting of German military officials in May 1939 that his real goal is obtaining Lebensraum for Germany, isolating Poles from their Allies in the West and afterwards attacking Poland, thus avoiding the repeat of Czech situation.

Ultimatum of 1939

A revised and less favorable proposal came in the form of an ultimatum delivered by the Nazis in late August, after the orders had already been given to attack Poland on September 1, 1939. Nevertheless, at midnight on August 29, Joachim von Ribbentrop handed British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson a list of terms that would allegedly ensure peace in regard to Poland. Danzig was to return to Germany and there was to be a plebiscite in the Polish Corridor; Poles who had been born or had settled there since 1919 would have no vote, while all Germans born but not living there would. An exchange of minority populations between the two countries was proposed. If Poland accepted these terms, Germany would agree to the British offer of an international guarantee, which would include the Soviet Union. A Polish plenipotentiary, with full powers, was to arrive in Berlin and accept these terms by noon the next day. The British Cabinet viewed the terms as "reasonable," except the demand for a Polish Plenipotentiary, which was seen as similar to Czechoslovak President Emil Hácha accepting Hitler's terms in mid-March 1939.
When Ambassador Józef Lipski went to see Ribbentrop on August 30, he was presented with Hitler’s demands. However, he did not have the full power to sign and Ribbentrop ended the meeting. News was then broadcast that Poland had rejected Germany's offer. I fail to see anything in the Polish Corridor agreement that is either generous or reasonable for Poland. Either way it was a lose/lose for Poland, as the plebiscite was basiclly rigged in favor of the German population that was living there already. The Polish Government had every reason to distrust Hitler and every reason not to acept such a foolish agreement from him. As you, Fahnbohn had said in an earlier post #225. It would be as if : in order to give Switzerland an access to the sea, we would have cut France in two parts by a Swiss corridor. What French could have accepted that? So you have in effect answered your own question about the Polish Corridor with this example.

[Raptor1]

so, assuming Britan and France would have stood by while Russia and Germany carved up Poland, what would have been Hitler's next move?

Would he have declared war on France on his own? Would he have attacked the USSR if France and the French Army were in his back?

The need for "Lebensraum" was always of a vague goal. In 1940, population density in Germany was not that much higher than in neighboring countries.


He'd probably try to gain France and Britain's support against the Soviet Union. Even if that fails, Hitler would probably have taken their refusal to assist Czechoslovakia and Poland as a sign that they'll have no willingness to interfere in such a conflict. In either case, I think the invasion of the Soviet Union would have been the next step for Germany.

As for Lebensraum, reality doesn't seem to have often been a major concern for Nazi leadership.


Disclaimer:I have included an entry from Wikipedia, but do so with hesitation for the plain and simple fact that ANYONE can go into Wikipedia on any subject and change it to suit their own agenda.

You'll find that anyone can post anything they'd like on the internet. This is not restricted to Wikipedia.

I find the notion that the Gleiwitz incident was genuine to be highly unlikely. Even if it was, it could not possibly have effected the timing of the German invasion, much less have been a cause for it. The German army was prepared to and under orders to launch the invasion long before it took place. The Gleiwitz incident itself was a footnote; if it was genuine then it was a ridiculously poorly thought-out and incredibly fortunately timed for the Germans, but in any case it had no relevance beyond allowing the Germans to claim dubious legitimacy.

This is going to be off topic

Have read a lot about Poland in this thread and each time I start to think about this

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. How much influence did it have on the war and was it a definitive go-ahead for the German when this treaty was signed ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

If this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, please be free to erase this comment.
Markus

The decision to go to war was made by Germany before the treaty was signed, but it very likely marked the point at which Germany was irrevocably committed to the full-scale invasion of Poland.

Ok, in fact, you are saying that Hitler was sure that all the proposals he made to Poland since 1937 on the problem of the corridor, could only be rejected by Poland ? Seriously, how can you refuse as generous and reasonable proposals ?

Neither the demands given by Germany in the months following the Munich Agreement nor the phoney 16-point proposal of August 29th was in any way generous or reasonable (or acceptable) to Poland. Did I miss something?

[Catfish]

Ok, in fact, you are saying that Hitler was sure that all the proposals he made to Poland since 1937 on the problem of the corridor, could only be rejected by Poland ? Seriously, how can you refuse as generous and reasonable proposals ?

I believe if not a war had happened, Poland would have made concessions, if it only would have been able to have access to the Baltic sea.

Unfortunately what Hitler publicly said (and what is always used and quoted as "evidence") does not include what he let his "diplomats" say behind closed curtains (the "iron fist in a velvet handkerchief"). Indeed plain lying and appeasing Poland might have also worked to lull Poland into safety, but then the german population would have asked why it then had to be invaded. Anyway he intended to destroy Poland, and he also needed it for a march through, towards Russia.

There needed to be real and made up reasons, to make the own population accept an invasion of another country. Hitler would have invaded Poland in any case, using any excuse (like he tried to use the made-up Gleiwitz incident, "ab 5:45 wird jetzt zurückgeschossen!"). (~From 5:45, we are now shooting back!.) Shooting back, indeed lol

You see for justification, you always have to make someone else responsible, to have done the bad thing first. Unfortunately this false flag operation at Gleiwitz went completely wrong, and not much people believed it. My father did not, b.t.w.

[Fahnenbohn]

Isn't that the basis of Lebensraum? What's your point?

No, he's just saying that the borders, as imposed by the treaty of Versailles, were not in accordance with the ethnical situation, resulting in serious troubles everywhere.

[Fahnenbohn]

Could you find me any documents showing the polish answer to the german proposals ? Did Poland try to be comprehensive, did she honestly explain why She could't accept this or that point, and why ?

[Fahnenbohn]

So you have in effect answered your own question about the Polish Corridor with this example.

What do you mean ?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

What do you mean ? What do you think I mean?

[mapuc]

I don't thing Poland had so much to say in a bigger picture

They were treated as they were a little kid waiting for Mom(Germany) and Dad(Soviet) decision on what to do with the kid

This is how I see it after all the books documentary I have seen about the years before the war.



Markus

[Fahnenbohn]

What do you think I mean?

I don't understand what you mean by closing my comparison (between the polish corridor and an imaginary helvetic corridor) with the fact that Poland had to refuse the German offer.

[Cybermat47]

This is not forbidden by the Subsim's stance on hate groups to do that.

Actually, it is. You've been saying that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Subsim's stance on hate groups
Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I don't understand what you mean by closing my comparison (between the polish corridor and an imaginary helvetic corridor) with the fact that Poland had to refuse the German offer. What I ment was by use of your example of an imaginary corridor, if it was to be managed using the same or similar ideas to that of the Polish Corridor then I highly doubt the French would accept that agreement much as the Poles would of accepted the agreement laid down in the Polish Corridor offer. Also try to explain in what way is the Polish Corridor to be considered a reasonable and generous diplomatic offer in your opinion.

[Fahnenbohn]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Making-Second-World-War/dp/0415907160

Also available in the original German at:
http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php

From what I read, I can say : The polish corridor was not a pretext to declare war with Poland, but the way of confirming that Poland was the enemy of Germany, and that no agreement would ever be possible.

[Fahnenbohn]

Actually, it is. You've been saying that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Care of yourself, you're saying the same thing as me. ;)

[HunterICX]

From what I read, I can say : The polish corridor was not a pretext to declare war with Poland

Yes it was.

, but the way of confirming that Poland was the enemy of Germany

No it wasn't.

and that no agreement would ever be possible.

Hitler made sure of that by invading the country.

[Jimbuna]

Care of yourself, you're saying the same thing as me. ;)

I am beginning to grow tired of your constant rebukes and predictable almost pro forma responses. Make the case and respond to the counter-arguments or retire from the conversation.

Subsim and said management have been magnanimous in giving you a platform to air your views when in all honesty, said views would probably be better welcomed in certain online sites that conflict with SubSim policy and as such are banned and unacceptable to making reference to on this forum.

Post reports are growing in intensity and frequency and as I alluded to earlier, I would rather not develop a heart or chest condition.

Do you not think you would better fit in with those acceptable forums?

[Cybermat47]

Care of yourself, you're saying the same thing as me. ;)

No I'm not, that much is obvious.

But you just admitted to being a Holocaust denier, so thank you for that :dead:

[Fahnenbohn]

But he did insinuate that in the future that "a struggle for world domination might take place between the United States and a European alliance comprising a "new association of nations, consisting of individual states with high national value".

Furthermore, in the Zweites Buch he also states that long term, the greatest potential opponent was the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch

Interesting. FDR understood quickly that a strong Germany liberated from the international finance was a huge threat against the capitalist world. That's why, already in January 1939, the US were actively preparing for war.

[Catfish]

Interesting. FDR understood quickly that a strong Germany liberated from the international finance was a huge threat against the capitalist world. That's why, already in January 1939, the US were actively preparing for war.

Why would a strong or whatever Germany be "liberated from the international finance"? That only happens in case of war, and the money markets are not "international" anymore during war time.

Also, contrary to some views (i was astonished to see this just of all in the US), Germany was capitalistic as it always had been. Big industry was not touched, a lot of former jewish companies were "of course" being shut down, joined other companies, or nationalised. Miltary and politics had to pay for all services and hardware, it was just that the money for all that was stolen from the jews, and with printing more money.

In case of the Junkers works, the company was still a capitalistic one, just with another head. Hugo Junkers had shown no love for the Nazi regime, so he was neutralised, and most probably murdered.

Despite the name "national socialism", this was no socialism at all. The name was just used to also get the left to support the party as long as such support counted, before Hitler's enabling act and the begin of the official dictatorship.


FD Roosevelt certainly had no love for dictatorships, and especially wanted to help England, so he managed to help against the will of the congress, which at first wanted to stay out of the war. But it sure was not his fear of a financially independent Germany that made him try to support England. Without the war the german financial system would have collapsed quickly.

[Fahnenbohn]

Despite the name "national socialism", this was no socialism at all. The name was just used to also get the left to support the party as long as such support counted, before Hitler's enabling act and the begin of the official dictatorship.

That's obviously wrong. National-socialism ("nazism") has been the only political movement that really applied socialism. No people were happier than the Germans during the early years of the Third Reich. Of course, Jews were disadvantaged, and then persecuted. On this, I disagree with Hitler. There was no need to persecute the jewish people when the german people had become strong again.

Hitler said something like that in 1933 : "The people are not at the service of the economy, and the economy is not at the service of capital. But capital serves the economy, and economy serves the people."

Without the war the german financial system would have collapsed quickly.

That's absolutely wrong. On the contrary, the german financial system was the healthiest and most stable (practically no inflation) in the world. A french economist (which was not nazi...) named Francis Delaisi * wrote a book on this subject. The german economic recovery ("the economic miracle") was achieved without borrowing money, but thanks to the system of "traites de travail" (i don't know how to translate this expression in english, maybe "milkings of work", lol).

* EDIT : You can see a brief presentation of Francis Delaisi on the french wikipedia : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Delaisi

FD Roosevelt certainly had no love for dictatorships...

Yes, and you know why ? Because they can't be manipulated, unlike the "democracies".

[Cybermat47]

Hitler said something like that in 1933 : "The people are not at the service of the economy, and the economy is not at the service of capital. But capital serves the economy, and economy serves the people."


He also said he wouldn't annex Czechoslovakia.

He also said he wouldn't invade Russia.

He also said he would make Germany great.

Hitler said a lot of things.

[Catfish]

[...] National-socialism ("nazism") has been the only political movement that really applied socialism. ...

:haha: HFBS (and HF=high flying)
Yeah right, now tell me how anyone could possibly mistake Hitler's dictatorship, for "socialism"? What about Krupp, and all those other capitalistic companies who arranged themselves with Hitler to make money? Porsche? Mercedes? Rheinmetall? a.s.o.

No people were happier than the Germans during the early years of the Third Reich.Some of them, sure, but not the majority. It also were not the most intelligent ones, but yes.
The brown SA (the killer and terror branch of Hitler's nazi party) threatened and terrorized jews, other minorities, the communists, socialists, the social democrats, the conservative parties and anyone who dared to speak up againt the NSDAP or Hitler.

After all those german Freicorps fighting each others in the street, and all against socialists and communists, had either joined the SA, forced into submission or were plain killed, intellectuals driven out or killed, and political competition threatened or killed, there was just not much resistance left in the population due to threats, sheer terror and a general atmosphere of real Angst.

A lot of people certainly believed Hitler, a lot of others just saw the superficial avantages, like aviation was pushed and developed, and there were jobs, lots of them! All paid by pillaging jewish and other people's property, by freezing bank accounts of people who had to leave Germany in a haste, by printing more money and borrowing from banks, with the promise of a big return.
They built streets and infrastructure, not to forget all kinds of military hardware, but of course with the clear object to use it, against the Soviet Union. Which was, after all, commmunistic, socialistic and soviet, and thus the contrary of Hitler and his régime.

And with that there was prosperity, the street fights stopped, and Germany was a suddenly a peaceful and strong country (b.t.w. this is cynism, if you do did not get it!).


Of course, Jews were disadvantaged, and then persecuted.Wow, now that's some insight.

There was no need to persecute the jewish people when the german people had become strong again.Oh yes there was a need, because someone had to be the scapegoat for a mess that had been inherited from others, last not least fanned by Hitler and his later followers. There was even a song "An allem sind die Juden schuld" and lots of other critical and aggressive chansons that made fun of Hitler, his accusations, claims and his régime. You can probably imagine, what happened to the artists.
There were also attempts to kill Hitler, but he always escaped, if by a hair.

A lot of people did not see what was going on behind the stage, i'd give you that. The media were strictly controlled (Gleichschaltung of newspaper press, radio, publishers, burning of books considered as critical of the Nazis), any public meetings verboten, and so on.

My father who was born in 1911, told me a lot of those things. There were other relatives, of the time, and most male ones of course became soldiers, at the time. What i write is not all school, university and what you like to call re-education.

We now know how it all worked, and it is a lot easier in hindsight. But a lot knew, and preferred not to see it or look away. Just like today, i might say.

[Oberon]

Wasn't one of Skybirds rants a while ago featuring how National Socialism was a form of socialism, or something? :hmmm:

[Dowly]

Wasn't one of Skybirds rants a while ago featuring how National Socialism was a form of socialism, or something? :hmmm:What has he not ranted about?

[Oberon]

Oh, and here seems a good as place as any to drop these:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq1ym0_the-nazis-a-warning-from-history-1-helped-into-power_lifestyle

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq226f_the-nazis-a-warning-from-history-2-chaos-and-consent_lifestyle

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq25el_the-nazis-a-warning-from-history-3-the-wrong-war_lifestyle

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq2uch_the-nazis-a-warning-from-history-4-the-wild-east_lifestyle

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq34vw_the-nazis-a-warning-from-history-5-the-road-to-treblinka_lifestyle

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq3or8_the-nazis-a-warning-from-history-6-fighting-to-the-end_lifestyle

Worth a watch.

What has he not ranted about?

Fair point.

[Betonov]

What has he not ranted about?

steak and model railroad

[Dowly]

steak and model railroadHe's slipping. :)

PS. Also, on topic, here are two links that I think are quite good.

British Blue Book
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blbkmenu.asp

and

French Yellow Book
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ylbkmenu.asp

Both give a good view on the diplomatic stuff prior and during the war.

[August]

My father who was born in 1911, told me a lot of those things. There were other relatives, of the time, and most male ones of course became soldiers, at the time. What i write is not all school, university and what you like to call re-education.

That pretty much matches my mothers family experience. All three of her uncles were killed fighting "peaceful" hitlers war (as was her grandfather in the previous war) and while my grandfather survived he was left horribly scarred both mentally and physically. I've seen it myself. No need to rely on the writings of obscure neo-nazi apologists to see what I have seen with my own eyes.

I think it's a disservice to my grand uncles and the millions of their fellow Germans who also died in that war for these "revisionists", to be allowed a soapbox to re-spread the social disease that is nazism.

[MH]

Wasn't one of Skybirds rants a while ago featuring how National Socialism was a form of socialism, or something? :hmmm:

It was , national socialism was a mutation of socialism.
The ultimate goals had been different yet the economy was regulated in a way to achieve certain goals for the benefit of average Germans , not only heads of industry.

I suppose an analogy can be china's economic system as a off shot of communism.

[Oberon]

It was , national socialism was a mutation of socialism.
The ultimate goals had been different yet the economy was regulated in a way to achieve certain goals for the benefit of average Germans , not only heads of industry.

I suppose an analogy can be china's economic system as a off shot of communism.

That's what I thought, and comparing it to China is probably the closest analogy you can get really, from an economic standpoint.
I recall that NSDAP came to power on a very pro-workers, pro-working class platform, and did a lot of union work...but only if you were in the correct union, which became easier after a while because all the other ones were made illegal.
I think if you detach the hindsight and look at the NSDAP manifesto in the early years, from 33-36 you can see why there was popularity amongst the people, if you were the correct religion and political and ethnic background then the Nazis brought you a great deal of good things, but if you weren't then you wound up in prison or a work-camp, or dead, or all three. :dead:

[Bilge_Rat]

In the NSDAP, the "socialist" part was the group under Röhm.



Röhm and the SA regarded the hierarchy as the vanguard of the "National Socialist revolution". After Hitler's takeover they expected radical changes in Germany including power and rewards for themselves, unaware that Hitler as Chancellor now no longer needed their street-fighting expertise as storm troopers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_trooper). However, Hitler did name Röhm to the cabinet on 1 December as a minister without portfolio.

Along with Gregor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser) and Otto Strasser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser), Joseph Goebbels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels), Gottfried Feder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Feder), and Walther Darré (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Walther_Darr%C3%A9), Röhm was a prominent member of the party's radical faction. This group put emphasis on the word "socialist" and "workers" in the party's name; putting them ideologically closer to the Communists. They largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for nationalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization) of major industrial firms, expansion of worker control, confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy), and social equality. Röhm spoke of a "second revolution" against the "Reaktion" (the National Socialist label for conservatives) to follow the violent Nazi "first revolution" purging of left-wing Communists and Socialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm

useful when Hitler was trying to gain power and wanted to build a broad coalition, but they were quickly ditched in 1934 during the purge:

Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm), because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power. Hitler also wanted to conciliate leaders of the Reichswehr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehr), the official German military who feared and despised the SA—in particular Röhm's ambition to absorb the Reichswehr into the SA under his own leadership. Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm's outspoken support for a "second revolution" to redistribute wealth (in Röhm's view, President Hindenburg's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg) appointing of Hitler as German Chancellor on January 30, 1933 had accomplished the "nationalistic" revolution but had left unfulfilled the "socialistic" motive in National Socialism). Finally, Hitler used the purge to attack or eliminate critics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Resistance) of his new regime, especially those loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen), as well as to settle scores with old enemies.[a] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives#cite_note-Papen-2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Hitler was never a socialist.

[MH]

Hitler was never a socialist.

He was as long as it did not contradicted his goals.
When it comes to socialism he was more balanced and not so much ideologically fixed like Röhm.
When you look from the perspective of the 30s he was very much socialist.
....it doesn't make the Nazi party any less evil though....

[Oberon]

True, but you can't deny that even after Rohm was removed, the NSDAP agenda did have some socialist quantities to it, like the DAF, I think the true socialist part of the NSDAP era was probably the NSBO, a form of National Bolshevikism, but that was quickly done away with and replaced with the DAF.

[Bilge_Rat]

well again it depends what you mean by "socialist", Hitler and the Nazis had no problem intervening in the economy to achieve their goals, but they did not touch the basic structure, i.e. no land reform, no massive wealth distribution, big business kept their corporations and profits. The Nazis also suppressed independent labor unions.

In many ways government intervention under Hitler in the 30s was similar to what FDR did in the USA. Is FDR a socialist?

you can compare that with the situation in the USSR where all private farms were turned into "collective" farms and pretty much all businesses were nationalized. That is more a typical "socialist/communist" state.

[Bilge_Rat]

True, but you can't deny that even after Rohm was removed, the NSDAP agenda did have some socialist quantities to it, like the DAF, I think the true socialist part of the NSDAP era was probably the NSBO, a form of National Bolshevikism, but that was quickly done away with and replaced with the DAF.

well again it would depend on what the real role of the DAF was. Although it nominally meant that all german workers were unionized, some have argued the real purpose was to break all independent labor unions. Apparently, business owners liked dealing with the DAF since there were no strikes and owners could pretty much hire and fire workers at will.

[Oberon]

well again it would depend on what the real role of the DAF was. Although it nominally meant that all german workers were unionized, some have argued the real purpose was to break all independent labor unions. Apparently, business owners liked dealing with the DAF since there were no strikes and owners could pretty much hire and fire workers at will.

Indeed, it was a veneer of socialism, rather than true socialism, but then again you could say that even the Soviet Union didn't have true socialism, because true socialism isn't really a viable thing as soon as it leaves the paper.
No doubt at all that NSDAP was a fascist organisation, no doubt at all, but there were some elements of socialism here and there, to appeal to the people.

[MH]

Well...FDR somewhat did put on social-democratic hat at the time with the new deal.

[Bilge_Rat]

Indeed, it was a veneer of socialism, rather than true socialism, but then again you could say that even the Soviet Union didn't have true socialism, because true socialism isn't really a viable thing as soon as it leaves the paper.

That is true, it is interesting studying the evolution of the USSR in 1917-35 and trying to see how they tried to come up with a compromise between marxist theory and economic realities.

Apparently, they did try applying pure communisn at the very beginning in 1917, i.e. "from each based on his skills, to each based on his wants." Not surprisingly, all goods disappeared into the black market and the official economy collapsed so the "experiment" did not last long. :ping:

[Fahnenbohn]

Lol, this thread is going nowhere ...

[Oberon]

Bit like the Third Reich then. :yep:

[Betonov]

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

[mapuc]

As I see it, this thread can first continue after Fahnenbohn has translated these French documents, not before.

This is how I see it.

Markus

[Betonov]

mapuc is right.
The entire thread revolves around those documents.

[Tchocky]

I'd like to retract my previous cynicism about this thread.

I've learned quite a bit.


This has had nothing to do with Fahnenbohn's posts, mind.

The fact that he thinks the thread is going nowhere is a great reflection on the high quality of discussion produced by the usual GT gang.

[eddie]

I say the Italians started it. First they invaded Ethiopia in 1935, then invaded Albania in April of 1939! So you see, Germany didn't start the war after all! :D

[MLF]

Post #162

I have been following this "debate" with "interest".

I would like to suggest that this thread is locked/closed until Fahnenbohn has his documentation translated and available and a new thread opened as a formal debate rather than this constant revolving around a fluid motion which can only fail/end up in tears. This could also give others time to get together material as a counter argument - if anyone is really interested.



Until those documents are translated there just doesn't seem to be anything really to debate other than Fahnenbohn's opinions and the "facts" that he says are contained within those documents/books. And when you debate another's unsubstantiated opinion, then insults will fly.

[Catfish]

"Who started WW II?"
@Fahnenbohm (b.t.w. what a name :03:): It is not so simple, as you might have found out by now.

You could also ask yourself, who if not Germany, was then responsible for WW2?
The US?
England?
Japan?
Hungary?
Bulgaria?

1. Hitler started a war against Poland. And what followed (and is now called WW2) is considered and agreed to have at least started with this, by most historians.

2. You could say England and France turned it into a worldwide war.

3. You could also argue it only became a world war with the japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, and Hitler then declaring war to the US. This was his biggest mistake, although the US were already leaning towards a war against Germany.

Hitler did not want a worldwide war, but as you can see (also in all those posts here), he was not able to stop the avalanche he had kicked lose with Poland, and with his own ego.
After this, it was merely a kind of tactical reacting, after initially trying to force Britain to take back its declaration of war became a failure. He could have foreseen this, but he was also belied by his own advisors about his military capabilities, who had their own plans and ideologies (naval and air power - read: Goering).
But, as it is in dictatorships, no one dares to speak up against the great leader.

If you look at Europe, Asia and North Africa: how much german soldiers should have defended all that, in the long run? It was already a wonder that the german military had succeeded, so far.

You can maybe "admire" german tactics and isolated military accomplishments. But winning a battle is not winning the war. And the dictatorial, torturing and genocidal background puts those military accomplishments in a doubtful context and relation, to each other. Which is why a lot of german soldiers felt betrayed and stained, by this régime. Oh, they still did their duty. My father said he knew the war was lost when France was taken. He was by far not the only one.

After all the final outcome of the war was not so sure, as it can be read today. It took quite some effort. Apart from Hitler's inhuman world view, the Allies and especially Stalin (another dictator) had their own share of war crimes and atrocities. War is a racket. But for my family and relatives (mostly german), all agree it was good that Hitler was stopped.

[u crank]

I've learned quite a bit.

This has had nothing to do with Fahnenbohn's posts, mind.

The fact that he thinks the thread is going nowhere is a great reflection on the high quality of discussion produced by the usual GT gang.

Couldn't agree more. I had a rough idea of the events and conditions prior to the war but have learned so much more. Thanks guys. :salute:

[Fahnenbohn]

"Who started WW II?"
@Fahnenbohn : It is not so simple, as you might have found out by now.

@ you and others : It is more complexe than what the appearances show, and what the official history books say.

1. Hitler started a war against Poland. And what followed (and is now called WW2) is considered and agreed to have at least started with this, by most historians.

Yes, exact.

2. You could say England and France turned it into a worldwide war.

That's what I'm saying. Germany was fighting for her rights, she didn't want war with the empires of the west. But these empires forced Germany to war, because they refused her rights, although they didn't affect the vital interests of Poland. Germany made war on Poland ? I don't dispute that. But were the acts of the Polish government defensible ? I don't think so.

3. You could also argue it only became a world war with the japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, and Hitler then declaring war to the US. This was his biggest mistake, although the US were already leaning towards a war against Germany.

I agree. Hitler knew that war against US would be the most difficult matter. But did he have a choice ? No.

Hitler did not want a worldwide war, but as you can see (also in all those posts here), he was not able to stop the avalanche he had kicked lose with Poland, and with his own ego.

So, in fact, you are saying that Germany should have accept for the eternity the treaty of Versailles ? Germans were no more a submissive and docile people, but sovereign, and humiliation had to cease. This is what the 1918 winners didn't want to understand, this is their arrogance that is responsible for this war. Many people in France were for peaceful negocations concerning the German-Polish conflict, even after the invasion of Poland. A local conflict didn't require a total war !

After all the final outcome of the war was not so sure, as it can be read today. It took quite some effort.

Exact. There could have been a status quo. But the Allies didn't want peace, they only wanted to crush the new Germany. Germans had no choice : no armistice, but unconditional surrender !

Apart from Hitler's inhuman world view, the Allies and especially Stalin (another dictator) had their own share of war crimes and atrocities.

And perhaps Allies (others than USSR) didn't commit war crimes and atrocities ? We're not going to count the dead people, but I say this : the winners are the best butchers.

F.

[Fahnenbohn]

Until those documents are translated there just doesn't seem to be anything really to debate other than Fahnenbohn's opinions and the "facts" that he says are contained within those documents/books. And when you debate another's unsubstantiated opinion, then insults will fly.

It is a quite relevant reflection. But first I say what I think, and then, I'll give you the evidence of what I'm saying. I'm still working on the translation.

[MLF]

It is a quite relevant reflection. But first I say what I think, and then, I'll give you the evidence of what I'm saying. I'm still working on the translation.

And what is it you really hope to achieve? What is your end goal?

[Fahnenbohn]

And what is it you really hope to achieve? What is your end goal?

Yes, but this a is a huge work, as I already said here : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2372901&postcount=229

I know you are going to say that this is a bluff. Don't you say the same thing about Hitler ? :)

By the way, you are french : I could send you the files, you will see that this is not a lie. If you want, send me your e-mail adress in a subsim PM.

[MLF]

I believe there is more than enough trouble in the world as it is without raking over the past. What is done is done. I, like many on the thread, have learnt quite a bit about the written history of the start of WWII. However, I see the news everyday and that depresses me enough, thank you, without reading any documents about the past. I have been taught at school, and by my parents, aunts and uncles what happened before, during and after WWII and I have no reason whatsoever to dis-believe them.

What are your qualifications for this debate? Are you a professor in history for example, or just someone who believes everything controversial that he reads and then adopts it as his opinion? I do not mean this as an insult, but I am curious.

[Cybermat47]

Yes, but this a is a huge work, as I already said here : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2372901&postcount=229

I know you are going to say that this is a bluff. Don't you say the same thing about Hitler ? :)

By the way, you are french : I could send you the files, you will see that this is not a lie. If you want, send me your e-mail adress in a subsim PM.

You didn't answer MLF's question. What are you hoping to achieve with this? Everyone who has participated in this thread has made it clear that they disagree with you, and never will agree with you, so why do you keep this going?

[Fahnenbohn]

I see the news everyday and that depresses me enough, thank you, without reading any documents about the past. I have been taught at school, and by my parents, aunts and uncles what happened before, during and after WWII and I have no reason whatsoever to dis-believe them.

Everyone who has participated in this thread has made it clear that they disagree with you, and never will agree with you.

So, if you don't want to debate, you can just say that what I say is not consistent with your beliefs, but you can't say that it's wrong. :) Very few people are able to questioning themselves.

[MLF]

So, if you don't want to debate, you can just say that what I say is not consistent with your beliefs, but you can't say that it's wrong. :) Very few people are able to questioning themselves.

I have asked several questions which you have side-stepped e.g "And what is it you really hope to achieve? What is your end goal?". I have noticed this happening throughout the thread - the side stepping.

It is not a question of not wanting a debate, it's needing a goal at the end of a debate (a vote?) and knowing what you hope to achieve by it. Then a decision can be made as to whether an individual thinks it worthwhile or not. You actually stated that you believed the debate was going no-where - perhaps this is the reason?

[Fahnenbohn]

"And what is it you really hope to achieve? What is your end goal?" It is a question of needing a goal at the end of a debate (a vote?)

The purpose of a debate is to present arguments and cons-arguments. That's all. About a vote, I don't care about the result. The number is not the truth. Just like in a modern democracy elsewhere, where your only right is to say yes or no to questions controlled by the power.

[MLF]

What about putting together a document with bullet points detailing the sections which you feel support your argument, providing the source, from the comprehensive list of books/documents you have supplied ? Then there will be a solid foundation for debate - a paper supplied by Fahnenbohn?:yep:

[Cybermat47]

The number is not the truth. Just like in a modern democracy elsewhere, where your only right is to say yes or no to questions controlled by the power.

As opposed to Hitler's Germany, where your only right was to agree with everything the power said, or find a noose around your neck.

[MLF]

About a vote, I don't care about the result. The number is not the truth. Just like in a modern democracy elsewhere, where your only right is to say yes or no to questions controlled by the power.

Didn't really mean a vote - that's from the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of a debate. You also quoted a little out of context but never mind. In the UK there is a petition website where, if the number of signatories reaches a certain number, then the matter has to be debated in parliament e.g whether Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK :06: - that's a somewhat better vision of democracy than what you present. Anyway, I digress - that's here and now.

[Fahnenbohn]

After all those german Freicorps fighting each others in the street, and all against socialists and communists, had either joined the SA, forced into submission or were plain killed, intellectuals driven out or killed, and political competition threatened or killed, there was just not much resistance left in the population due to threats, sheer terror and a general atmosphere of real Angst.

SA were created to protect Hitler's meetings which were always attacked by communists. Their goal was not to terrorise the population.

There were jobs, lots of them! All paid by pillaging jewish and other people's property, by freezing bank accounts of people who had to leave Germany in a haste, by printing more money and borrowing from banks, with the promise of a big return.

That's a pure phantasm. You don't take into account my previous post (about M. Delaisi). Only work creates richness, not money !

[Fahnenbohn]

I'm sorry to speak about subjects that are not directly linked to the thread's subject. But when people are saying such things, I have to answer.

[Fahnenbohn]

In the UK there is a petition website where, if the number of signatories reaches a certain number, then the matter has to be debated in parliament.

Yes, in Switzerland too ! And it is already a little more credible for a country that claims to be democratic.

[HunterICX]

@ you and others : It is more complexe than what the appearances show, and what the official history books say.

I think the books have gone into far more detail then you give them credit for or perhaps even bothered to invest in.

Yes, exact.So you admit that Germany started the war which answers what this thread is about.

That's what I'm saying. Germany was fighting for her rights, she didn't want war with the empires of the west. But these empires forced Germany to war, because they refused her rights, although they didn't affect the vital interests of Poland. Germany made war on Poland ? I don't dispute that. But were the acts of the Polish government defensible ? I don't think so.
Germany was fighting to get what it wanted and not for her rights.
The only thing the Empires of the West forced onto Germany was that it'll risk war if it yet again breached the rights of another country. A risk Hitler knew well of and found worth to take as he was allowed to get away with the previous cases where he took what he wanted. Yes it was affecting the vital interest of Poland as it was well aware then Germany will take more then these false proposals suggested especially after Munich and in Hitlers own words against Germany which I have to repeat to you again ''Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.''

Poland wasn't a threat towards Germany, her refusal to start negotiations to which it knew wouldn't work with a country that showed itself untrustful is perferctly defensible.

I agree. Hitler knew that war against US would be the most difficult matter. But did he have a choice ? No.Yet Germany and not the USA declared war.

So, in fact, you are saying that Germany should have accept for the eternity the treaty of Versailles ? Germans were no more a submissive and docile people, but sovereign, and humiliation had to cease.
This is what the 1918 winners didn't want to understand, this is their arrogance that is responsible for this war. Many people in France were for peaceful negocations concerning the German-Polish conflict, even after the invasion of Poland. A local conflict didn't require a total war !Then she should've played it smarter back in 1914 and not let some local balkan conflict escalate into a total war by supporting with a blanque-cheque the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. It's Germany own arrogance in 1914 it got itself into the mess of 1918.

Exact. There could have been a status quo. But the Allies didn't want peace, they only wanted to crush the new Germany. Germans had no choice : no armistice, but unconditional surrender !It's when I actually agree with the US generals during World War 1 that they should continue the war untill they are upon German soil and have them actually defeated and unconditionaly surrender as the armistice would not bring the peace they'd hoped for.

And perhaps Allies (others than USSR) didn't commit war crimes and atrocities ? We're not going to count the dead people, but I say this : the winners are the best butchers.

F.When an Allied soldier commited a war crime he got court martialed for it and shot.

SA were created to protect Hitler's meetings which were always attacked by communists. Their goal was not to terrorise the population.

Wrong again, they where scum that terrorized the people whether they where Communists, Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews or people who just didn't support Hitler.

[Tchocky]

"The SA never terrorised anyone"


For someone who complains that people are arguing out of emotion and not historical record, OP certainly is telling some bald-faced lies.

Fahnenbohn - Why such sympathy for the Nazis? Are you a big fan?

[Fahnenbohn]

I think the books have gone into far more detail then you give them credit for or perhaps even bothered to invest in.

Not the decisive ones !

So you admit that Germany started the war which answers what this thread is about.

No, I say that Britain and France took advantage of this local conflict to initiate the European war, which turned into World War. Hitler has always made peace proposals, and they were never negotiated, even considered.

Yes it was affecting the vital interest of Poland as it was well aware then Germany will take more then these false proposals suggested especially after Munich and in Hitlers own words against Germany which I have to repeat to you again ''Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.''

Yes, that was after Poland showed herself that she was Germany's ennemy by refusing any negotiations. Hitler's proposals were not affected Poland's vital interests. If Hitler had went further in Poland after she accepted his proposals, then yes, the Allied could protest, and help Poland at the front to defend herself against this unjustified attack. But as Hitler would NOT have went further, Britain and France were no more able to declare war. But britain and french warmongers wanted it !

Yet Germany and not the USA declared war.

Once again, this are appearances. Just an official fact.

Then she should've played it smarter back in 1914 and not let some local balkan conflict escalate into a total war by supporting with a blanque-cheque the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. It's Germany own arrogance in 1914 it got itself into the mess of 1918.

This is not right, and off-debate. (Now, I will answer only this to everyone, this thread has already been too much diverted from its original purpose. See here :

1) This topic is about who started WWII and nothing else.)

When an Allied soldier commited a war crime he got court martialed for it and shot.

Ahaha, of course not ! If so, all bomber pilots, their officers, Harris (the butcher) and Churchill would have been immediately arrested. But this is off-topic, so according to the first rule, I say only : :-?, and not :haha: because you might have right on specific cases and I don't want to insult you).

[Tchocky]

Ahaha, of course not ! If so, all bomber pilots, their officers, Harris (the butcher) and Churchill would have been immediately arrested.

Ugh. No. You don't know what you're talking about. This might be a reason to stop posting, turn off the computer, and maybe reconsider a few things.

Bombing civilians wasn't a war crime at the time - so not only was there no legal framework to prosecute Harris or Allied pilots, there was never any way to do the same to German bomber pilots.

So enough with the apologist rubbish.

[August]

Fahnenbohn - Why such sympathy for the Nazis? Are you a big fan?

The sixty four thousand dollar question but one I think we all know the answer to. :yep:

[Tchocky]

Yes, this was not discussed in the international conventions at the time.
So you knew this but decided to pretend you didn't. Ugh.

But it has always been a crime to intentionally kill defenseless innocents ! And if we follow your logic, then the Holocaust (Jimbuna, this is just an example !) was not a crime because it was not prohibited by the conventions. Ugh.

There's a difference between attacking a city that can have military/political/economic targets and intentionally killing *only* civilians. One is a byproduct of total war - the other is an inhumanity straight from Hell. International law deals with each situation differently.

You know this but you want to stick up for genocidal maniacs so, again, you're pretending. This is worse than your assertion that not accepting an unfair proposal means an invasion is justified.


Stop it. The internet is full of places where this kind of stuff goes on. Go lick Nazi boots there.

[Fahnenbohn]

Bombing civilians wasn't a war crime at the time.

Not in the international conventions at the time, but in practice : yes they were. And killing defenseless innocents had always been a crime, even if not named "war-crime" in a convention.

[Tchocky]

But your entire point above was based on Allied soldiers being court-martialed and shot if they committed a war crime.

To which you said - Churchill and Harris should be arrested.

If you arrest someone then you're arresting them for a crime. Stop back-tracking.

[Fahnenbohn]

There's a difference between attacking a city that can have military/political/economic targets and intentionally killing *only* civilians.

Dresden, open city, a huge massacre.

[HunterICX]

No, I say that Britain and France took advantage of this local conflict to initiate the European war, which turned into World War. Hitler has always made peace proposals, and they were never negotiated, even considered.

Britain and France took it upon them to protect Poland's sovereignty which was under threat by Nazi Germany. Hitler never made peace proposals, he wanted something and he was out there to get it one way or another and he kept on breaking treaties and promises.

Yes, that was after Poland showed herself that she was Germany's ennemy by refusing any negotiations. Hitler's proposals were not affected Poland's vital interests. If Hitler had went further in Poland after she accepted his proposals, then yes, the Allied could protest, and help Poland at the front to defend herself against this unjustified attack. But as Hitler would NOT have went further, Britain and France were no more able to declare war. But britain and french warmongers wanted it !
You do not become an enemy if your refuse to negotiate. Especially when Hitler had shown multiple times in the past he took more then he proposed so yes they in fact did affect Poland's interest as Hitler wanted to go further, even in his book Mein Kampf he talks about his desire for Lebensraum in the East.

Britain and France where trying to avoid war but Germany gave them no other choise when Hitler yet again broke his promises and violated the sovereignty of a country that was no threat at all to Germany.

Once again, this are appearances. Just an official fact.What? Yes it's an official fact that Hitler declared war upon the USA and not the other way around.

This is not right, and off-debate. (Now, I will answer only this to everyone, this thread has already been too much diverted from its original purpose. See here : No it isn't off-topic as WW1 is related and the cause of WW2.

Ahaha, of course not ! If so, all bomber pilots, their officers, Harris (the butcher) and Churchill would have been immediately arrested. But this is off-topic, so according to the first rule, I say only : :-?, and not :haha: because you might have right on specific cases and I don't want to insult you).Warsaw, Rotterdam, London I can go on and on.

[Tchocky]

Dresden, open city, a huge massacre.

And there is plenty of discussion on whether that was a war crime or not. Some say yes, some say no.

Whereas no-one disputes whether the Holocaust was a crime against humanity.

And that is the distinction I was making - that there is a difference between the two.

Are you being wilfully obtuse in order to avoid answering my previous question or do you just have....problems?

Again - you seem to keep sticking up for the Nazis. Why is that? Are you a big fan?

[Fahnenbohn]

Hitler never made peace proposals, he wanted something and he was out there to get it one way or another and he kept on breaking treaties and promises.

You do not become an enemy if your refuse to negotiate.

Yes you do, if the negociations are required by an injustice. Moreover, this is Poland who said herself that the pursuit of the negotiations would mean war.

[Oberon]

The first strategic bombing was carried out by Austrian balloons on Venice in 1849, the first aircraft borne strategic bombing (heavy than air craft) was by Bulgaria in 1912.

The first city bombing in World War II was of Polish cities by the Luftwaffe, including the Polish city of Wielun which was 'reduced by 75%' with a Gothic church and a clearly marked hospital being targetted by the bombers.

As much as I disagree with Bomber Harris on most things, but when he said "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind." I can't disagree with him, really.

[Raptor1]

Yes, that was after Poland showed herself that she was Germany's ennemy by refusing any negotiations. Hitler's proposals were not affected Poland's vital interests. If Hitler had went further in Poland after she accepted his proposals, then yes, the Allied could protest, and help Poland at the front to defend herself against this unjustified attack.

Unless I've missed something completely, no actual negotiations were attempted by Germany. Germany asked for the annexation of Danzig and the construction of the extraterritorial Berlin-Königsberg highway and railway for a few months in late 1938 and early 1939, then demanded it outright. Danzig was seen by the Polish as important to its access to the Baltic sea at the time, for reasons I've already outlined earlier. They also didn't want to give up their territory for Germany's East Prussian highway and railway, though Józef Beck said in a speech given in May, 1939 that they would be willing to grant Germany more travel concessions through the Corridor. Of course, they had more reasons than these: Germany was completely untrustworthy by the time these demands were issued, because of its treatment of Czechoslovakia, and Poland gained nothing from accepting them. Of course, this is irrelevant. Poland was under no obligation to prove its justice to Hitler or surrender anything he'd like them to.

Meanwhile, the annexation of Danzig, which at the time was literally ruled by the Nazi party, and the construction of a road going through the Polish Corridor were so completely irrelevant to Germany's vital interests that the notion that they justified war, and the complete occupation of the country by both Germany and the Soviet Union, is ridiculous.

But as Hitler would NOT have went further, Britain and France were no more able to declare war. But britain and french warmongers wanted it !

The evidence says otherwise.

[Fahnenbohn]

Unless I've missed something completely, no actual negotiations were attempted by Germany. Germany asked for the annexation of Danzig and the construction of the extraterritorial Berlin-Königsberg highway and railway for a few months in late 1938 and early 1939, then demanded it outright.

No. Since 1937, there were talks between Germany and Poland on the matter.

Danzig was seen by the Polish as important to its access to the Baltic sea at the time, for reasons I've already outlined earlier.

Meanwhile, the annexation of Danzig and the construction of a road going through the Polish Corridor were so completely irrelevant to Germany's vital interests...

First, Germany didn't want to annexe the corridor. Second, Danzig has always been a german city. Third, the communication with East Prussia was as important for the Reich, as the communication with the sea for Poland.

The evidence says otherwise.

What do you think ? Germany should have declared war on Poland, then invade only the territory between Germany and Danzig, and then wait for the french, british and polish army to attack them ? Really. :rotfl2: When war has begun, then the two countries have to fight. If one of them want to limit the damages, she has to demand an armistice.

[Aktungbby]

As much as I disagree with Bomber Harris on most things, but when he said "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind." I can't disagree with him, really.A little insight from the 'whirlwind's jedi-master, Curtis "bombs away' Lemay:
Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender) in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey) put the figures at 220,000 people killed.Some 40% of the built-up areas of 66 cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry. LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders. The New York Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose." The argument was that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life. He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay)

[Captain Jack Tar]

Yeah, the French had really an indecisive attitude during the war. Unfortunately, they didn't understand at all that Hitler didn't want to have a revenge against France, but an united and powerful Europe. And the English were the ennemies of this alliance, as they constantly show during the actions they led against the French fleet, and other facts. England was not the ally of France, but its rival.

Poland invaded then Holland followed by all the low countries,Norway and Denmark fell next and Finland got squashed between two rivals with France split in two and Spain an Italy both pro Hitler.

Of course Britain started the war now i see it! Doh!:stare::subsim:

[August]

What do you think ? Germany should have declared war on Poland, then invade only the territory between Germany and Danzig, and then wait for the french, british and polish army to attack them ?

It would have at least indicated that hitler wasn't interested in starting the war he started but in any case it ended up being Germany against all those countries, as well as the Russians and a dozen other nationalities all combining to bring death and destruction on the very people he claimed to be protecting.

Really. :rotfl2: When war has begun, then the two countries have to fight. If one of them want to limit the damages, she has to demand an armistice.

But again this wasn't two countries, this was four (Germany, Poland, Great Britain and France) so along with the above you only prove that it was indeed that crazy hitler and the bloodthirsty animal nazis who started the war. May all of them burn in hell.

[mapuc]

The question is, as I see it, will we read his translated documents with an open mind or will we read them with our personal/political/you name it-filter ?

I'll try to read them with an open mind.

Markus

[August]

A little insight from the 'whirlwind's jedi-master, Curtis "bombs away' Lemay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay)

I think LeMays statement should be understood in the light of the fact that had the US lost the war it would have meant the Axis won and that would have meant the wholesale slaughter of millions of Americans both civilians and soldiers.

[Raptor1]

No. Since 1937, there were talks between Germany and Poland on the matter.

I know there were talks. There was no negotiation, because all Germany was doing was insistently pushing identical demands.

First, Germany didn't want to annexe the corridor.

It did, but I'll grant you that it wasn't part of their demands at the time.

Second, Danzig has always been a german city. Third, the communication with East Prussia was as important for the Reich, as the communication with the sea for Poland.

Poland gave Germany travel concessions through its territory. Not only that, Beck communicated to the Germans in early 1939 that it was willing to give it more.

My point is that having an extraterritorial road running through the Corridor and the immediate annexation of Danzig were not pressing matters for Germany. Hitler made them so for the purpose of invading Poland.

What do you think ? Germany should have declared war on Poland, then invade only the territory between Germany and Danzig, and then wait for the french, british and polish army to attack them ? Really. :rotfl2: When war has begun, then the two countries have to fight. If one of them want to limit the damages, she has to demand an armistice.

What I think Germany should have done is irrelevant, though not occupying Czechoslovakia or invading Poland (while selling out half of it to the Soviets) would have been a start. Hitler's words and actions on every matter starting from Czechoslovakia (and before) supports the notion that he was after the occupation of Poland and knew that it would result in a war. If the Allies were really so intent on destroying Germany, they would have refused the Munich Agreement entirely, then destroyed the relatively weak German army had Germany gone ahead with its planned Case Green offensive.

[Fahnenbohn]

What they called it is irrelevant. Germany intimidated Czechoslovakia into surrendering under the threat of war, then promptly occupied it with military force. It did this after it has peacefully been given all its demands in regards to the country at Munich. I really don't see how this action can be justified in any way.

The Czech people never looked for German occupation, in fact protests sprang up pretty much immediately, and never benefited from it in the slightest. That's completely irrelevant.

Czechoslovakia was not a transgression. When the artificial state of Czechoslovakia dislocated, the surrounding countries - Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania - took their legitimate parts of the cake and Slovakia gained its independence. Afraid of losing further lands of the Czech territory, Czech President Emil Hacha requested his country to become a German protectorate. The Allied History fakers like saying Hacha was bullied and forced to do that, but Hacha's daughter was part of the trip to Berlin and she testified her father freely put his country under German protection when interviewed by Allied interrogators after WW2.

[MLF]

The question is, as I see it, will we read his translated documents with an open mind or will we read them with our personal/political/you name it-filter ?

I'll try to read them with an open mind.

Markus

I'd be very surprised to see any translations - there is a lot of material in the list of books etc Fahnenbohn provided. However, in the list is " 100 Documents relatifs à l’histoire des origines de la guerre (édité par le Service d’Informations allemand, Berlin, s.d.). I searched in Google for
"100 Documents Relative to the history of the origin of the war" and there is a site that has a .pdf of this document in English from the German Foreign Office of the time.

I will not put the link here as I don't like the address name,:hmmm: but it might help explain where some of this is coming from. I have not read this fully - the opening and final sections were enough.

[HunterICX]

Czechoslovakia was not a transgression. When the artificial state of Czechoslovakia dislocated, the surrounding countries - Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania - took their legitimate parts of the cake and Slovakia gained its independence. Afraid of losing further lands of the Czech territory, Czech President Emil Hacha requested his country to become a German protectorate. The Allied History fakers like saying Hacha was bullied and forced to do that, but Hacha's daughter was part of the trip to Berlin and she testified her father freely put his country under German protection when interviewed by Allied interrogators after WW2.

http://i.imgur.com/bseCYdn.png

source: Law and War: International Law & American History by Peter Maguire
(it can also be found in documents provided for the Nuremberg Trials)

http://i.imgur.com/yyYepSs.jpg?1

[Tchocky]

Hunter don't you see, that's all lies.

The Allied History fakers like saying Hacha was bullied and forced to do that

See?

[HunterICX]

Hunter don't you see, that's all lies.



See?

:damn: Dang it!, Got me there :haha:

but technically he said ''Alied fakers'' who will tell you he signed under pressure of his capital being bombed and not his own flesh and blood Radlova.

*Ahum* Right...
Well in anycase what I really don't see is him yet again NOT providing his source of that testimony of Radlova which sais that Hacha signed it freely without any sort of pressure.

[Tchocky]

What I can't understand is why you go to such effort.

The guy is clearly not serious, not open-minded, and not worth anyone's time.

Crack a cold one and move on :up:

[Fahnenbohn]

@ HunterICX : This testimony is so grotesque that it is obvious that this is a fake ! :haha:

[Tchocky]

@ HunterICX : This testimony is so grotesque that it is obvious that this is a fake ! :haha:

Stop it.

[HunterICX]

What I can't understand is why you go to such effort.

The guy is clearly not serious, not open-minded, and not worth anyone's time.

Crack a cold one and move on :up:

:Kaleun_Cheers:Just did, have a few yourself too! Cheers!

@ HunterICX : This testimony is so grotesque that it is obvious that this is a fake ! :haha:

Where's yours then????

[MLF]

@ HunterICX : This testimony is so grotesque that it is obvious that this is a fake ! :haha:

I'm out of here - absolutely no qualified argument on Fahnenbohn side. He can hmmm "debate", if you will excuse the term, by himself.:nope::nope:

Au Revoir.

[Fahnenbohn]

Where's yours then????

"The Czech President was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due to a visiting chief of state. Hitler met his train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hacha's daughter, who accompanied the Czech statesmen. Hacha's daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin."

David Hoggan, The Forced War.

[Tchocky]

"The Czech President was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due to a visiting chief of state. Hitler met his train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hacha's daughter, who accompanied the Czech statesmen. Hacha's daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin."

David Hoggan, The Forced War.

Ah David Hoggan, high priest of Holocaust denial, well known for rearranging documents and fabricating evidence

:roll:

This is grotesque.

Stop it.

[HunterICX]

David Hoggan

Ah....the holocaust denier and author of the ''The Myth of the Six Million''
known for re-arranging the sentences of testimonies and had very close associations with Neo-Nazi groups.

Well played Fahnebohn, well played.

*EDIT* Dang it Tchocky you beat me to it!

[Fahnenbohn]

Ah....the holocaust denier

That's not an argument.

[Tchocky]

That's not an argument.

How the hell would you know what an argument is? Your idea of an argument is saying that other people are wrong.

Hunter doesn't need an argument though. He's correctly stating that your source is widely discredited and not to be taken seriously.

Just like you.

Stop posting.

[Raptor1]

"The Czech President was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due to a visiting chief of state. Hitler met his train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hacha's daughter, who accompanied the Czech statesmen. Hacha's daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin."

David Hoggan, The Forced War.

Hoggan seems to be thoroughly debunked, and I don't know what his sources are. Regardless, let's not make half-quotes, shall we:

"The Czech President was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due to a visiting chief of state. Hitler met his train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hacha's daughter, who accompanied the Czech statesmen. Hacha's daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin. The meeting with the German leaders lasted from 1:15 a.m. to 2:15 a.m. on March 15th; Hacha described the full details to his daughter after returning to his hotel. Hitler, Hacha, Chvalkovsky, Ribbentrop, Marshal Göring, and General Keitel had attended the meeting. Hacha made a plea for the continuation of full Czech independence, and he offered to reduce the Czech army. Hitler rejected this plea, and he announced that German troops would enter Bohemia-Moravia the same day. The Germans made it quite clear that they were prepared to crush any Czech resistance."

[Fahnenbohn]

Hoggan seems to be thoroughly debunked, and I don't know what his sources are. Regardless, let's not make half-quotes, shall we:

"The Czech President was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due to a visiting chief of state. Hitler met his train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hacha's daughter, who accompanied the Czech statesmen. Hacha's daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin. The meeting with the German leaders lasted from 1:15 a.m. to 2:15 a.m. on March 15th; Hacha described the full details to his daughter after returning to his hotel. Hitler, Hacha, Chvalkovsky, Ribbentrop, Marshal Göring, and General Keitel had attended the meeting. Hacha made a plea for the continuation of full Czech independence, and he offered to reduce the Czech army. Hitler rejected this plea, and he announced that German troops would enter Bohemia-Moravia the same day. The Germans made it quite clear that they were prepared to crush any Czech resistance."

Yep, and it's explained why in the book. No relation with the "Lebensraum".

[Catfish]

I am out of here too.
I am sure psychologists have a term for his behaviour. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

That's not an argument.

Perhaps, but it's a quantification, if someone can be as deeply in denial to think that the Holocaust either didn't happen or was some sort of allied forgery, then the rest of their work can hardly be taken at face value.

[mapuc]

(An off topic comment)

I truly wish i had a time machine so I could travel back in time to these specific time and place.

Markus

(End off topic comment)

[Betonov]

The millions of dead are an argument against holocaust deniers, so that IS an argument.
An argument that doesn't stand on some ''phantasm'' like every single post you made here.

[Fahnenbohn]

Perhaps, but it's a quantification, if someone can be as deeply in denial to think that the Holocaust either didn't happen or was some sort of allied forgery, then the rest of their work can hardly be taken at face value.

Easy

http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2016/01/16//16011610243118069013900643.png (http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16011610243118069013900643.png)

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, this is starting to wander into forbidden territory, with people trying push other people into making a fatal error, at least as far as Subsim policy goes.

Also, several have said they're leaving the thread anyway, so I think it's time to let the thread do the same.

If anyone has anything else they want to say, PM me.

[Sailor Steve]

The thread is now reopened to allow Fahnenbohn to produce his documents. Make comments if you like, but stick to the subject, please.

[Bilge_Rat]

I have a documentary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

:O:

[Oberon]

I think, to sum up where we are so far in this thread...

The Treaty of Versailles was very unfair to Germany and did help the Nazi party rise to power, however Hitlers solutions to the loss of German territories also directly contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War.

In short, two wrongs don't make a Reich.

:shucks: