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.

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.

The evidence says otherwise.

No. Since 1937, there were talks between Germany and Poland on the matter.

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.

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.

A little insight from the 'whirlwind's jedi-master, Curtis "bombs away' Lemay:

Quote:

Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the 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 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 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/Curtis_LeMay

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:

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.

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.

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 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.

I know there were talks. There was no negotiation, because all Germany was doing was insistently pushing identical demands.

It did, but I'll grant you that it wasn't part of their demands at the time.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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: