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.

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

Yeah peace because everyone is dead kind of peace.

This is nazi peace:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-con...1-1024x959.jpg

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.

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.

Origins of WWII
 

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.

:up:

One of the best posts in this thread.

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/ima...y.EUR.1940.jpg

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.

Origins of WWII
 

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-inc...n-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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/w...st-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.

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/Moloto...ibbentrop_Pact

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

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

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

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