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? 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.

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.

Origins of WWII
 

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?

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.

Origins of WWII
 

No further comment at this time.

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.

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.

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 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.

A quick question

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

Markus

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 ...

"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.

Where exactly is this Principle written? Who agreed on it?

I already pointed that out, and answered in the part you didn't quote.
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.

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.

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

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/s.../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:

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.

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.