Ah, you fall further into self-entrapment. Good! Good! Keep talking nonsense. You will have to own those words. This post alone is your downfall. I believe it is worthy of special treatment.

On all this, I would have to tell A LOT of things. And we could engage in a long and exciting discussion, if only you were not so conditioned about the "nazis" (hhhaaaaaa !!!!!! the evil !!!!!!).

But this is not the debate here.

Really?

And yet they occupied the whole country and killed its population anyway.

Curiously enough, Lipski himself says about this meeting with Ribbentrop that Poland suggested a counter-proposal to the German demands but Ribbentrop wasn't willing to listen if they were not completely accepted as they were. But I guess he's a liar and we can only ever trust what Hitler or a representative of the Nazi government said if we want the truth. Oh, wait, except for all those times they said things that were completely contradictory to your theory, in which case we should ignore them as well.

It was involuntarily occupied by military force and subjected to harsh oppression. The semantics are irrelevant.

100 Documents on the Origins of the War Selected from the Official German White Book

Here : http://www.allworldwars.com/German%20White%20Book.html

No. 38 (208)
Conversation of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs with the Polish Ambassador, 26 March 1939
Memo
(Translation)

I received M. Lipski, the Polish Ambassador, at 12.30 p.m. to-day.

Ambassador Lipski handed me- the Polish Government's Memorandum attached hereto, which I read in his presence.

Having taken note of its contents I replied to Ambassador Lipski that, in my personal opinion, the Polish attitude could not be considered a suitable basis for a solution of the German-Polish question. The only possible solution of the pro­blem was the re-union of Danzig with the Reich and the construction of an extra-territorial motor-road and railway connection between the Reich and East Prussia. M. Lipski replied that it was his painful duty to draw attention to the fact that any further prosecution of these German plans, especially as far as the return of Danzig to the Reich was concerned, meant war with Poland.

As Sailor Steve says : That's a statement without support. What is the source ?

From Lipski's memoirs:

"At my next meeting with Ribbentrop, on March 26, I handed my government's counterproposals for a solution of the Danzig problem in the bounds of a bilateral Polish-German agreement and suggesting the creation of a Polish-German commission in order to provide the best possible facilities for communications between the Reich and East Prussia. Ribbentrop, however, presented his case in such a manner that the German demands were to be acccpted as a whole, refusing to commit himself in any way whatsoever as to the merits of the Polish counteroffer, regarding which, in consequence, complete silence was deliberately imposed by the German government."

Józef Beck and Lipski both said at various points after this date that Poland was still willing to enter negotiations, though this was around the time Germany stopped trying to issue demands. The notion that Lipski said anything like this:

requires a ridiculously selective interpretation of something that Ribbentrop said that Lipski said and ignoring everything that can possibly indicate otherwise.

Ah, a good argument, I admit. Could you give me a link please ?

Now, we have to know who is not saying the truth, or partially.

But I'm pointing out the fact that these are only Memoirs, so they must be very less precise than a daily report, as Ribbentrop made. When did he write them ? After the war ? It's very easy to rearrange facts after they have taken place. Are there any official documents ?

*

In order to “justify” the invasion of Poland, Hitler and his thugs set up a variety of “incidents” for the benefit of their pet news media to report Polish atrocities against the German people.


Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler: The SS, Gestapo, His Life and Career, Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2007, ISBN 1-60239-178-5, Google Print, p.76 reports the overall action was called Operation Himmler, to include:

• The strategic railway at Jablunka Pass (Jabłonków Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia[12]
• The German radio station Sender Gleiwitz (Gliwice)
• The German customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodoły)[9][10]
• The forest service station in Pitschen (Byczyna)[9]
• The communications station at Neuberstisch
• The railroad station in Alt-Eiche, Rosenberg in Westpreußen district
• A woman and her companion in Katowice

I give Wikipedia links because their articles are extensively footnoted with many references which support the authenticy of the claims that these false flag operations, where Germans attacked Germans to give the false impression of Polish atrocities against Germans were carefully planned cynicle and murderous staged events to portray something which did not happen.



Of course there is the testimony of Alfred Naujocks, who Himmler put in charge of the Gleiwitz farce, testifying at the Nuremberg War Trials of his direct involvement. Note that he seeks to minimize the worst aspects of the attack, saying that the canned goods were drugged only and just shot in a non-lethal manner and were “just fine.” This was not true. The Polish national murdered for the stage play was shot in the head and left dead at the scene. The prisoners from the concentration camp were shot dead, then their faces beaten so badly they were not able to be identified. Then they were all dressed in Polish uniforms to lend credulity to the lie that the Radio Station had been attacked by Polish terrorists, who made the broadcast to incite a Polish reprisal against Germans. In fact, the content of the broadcast was directed by Heydrich.
Here is extensive quotation from Naujacks' testimony for the Nuremberg Trials:

• Alfred Naujocks: Nuremberg Interogation 9/11/45

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/h...Gleiwitz.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident


It's appropriate to quote those who cannot be implicated as presenting “Allied Propaganda.” Let's demonstrate the bankruptcy of claiming that accounts of Nazi thuggery are merely alterations of history by the victorious Allies. Nobody had less to lose than Hermann Goering. He was a dead man and for good reason, although he was probably the second best ally of the Allies behind Hitler himself. World War II can be looked at objectively as a long act of suicide by Nazis who made fatal mistake after fatal mistake until surrounded by stupid errors, they were overrun by their own incompetence. Here's Allied propagandist, Hermann Goering:


~Hermann Wilhelm Göring at the Nuremberg trials 1946


But that is not authority enough. Let us quote the last and only real Fuhrer the Reich ever had: Admiral Karl Doenitz. To impugn his words is to impugn Germany itself, but the Nazi wannabes who deny Hitler's greatest achievement, the slaughter of every Jew he could, as they impugn Hitler would not hesitate to attempt to brand Admiral Doenitz as well. I am under no illusions as to how low they would sink, how much they would lie, and how cowardly they are (that is why they are not danger to the world). They certainly will claim Admiral Doenitz is a traitor to Germany with these words, which clearly show that Poland was a planned act and all the politcal window dressing merely play acting for the benefit of the gullible like Fahnendude.


Doenitz, Ten Years and Twenty Days, pg 41

Pg 42:
Pg 44
Finally direct proof that mass killings of undesirables, especially including Jews, was indeed performed in Nazi Germany, where "without hate" (you say) they were shot, gassed, clothing, shoes, jewelry, even the fillings on their teeth, carefully extracted, sorted, painstakingly accounted for in a sick and twisted exercise of human evil.


Karl Doenitz:

• • The World at War: the Landmark Oral History from the Classic TV Series (2007) by Richard Holmes, Page 316

Unfortunately, I must disagree with Doenitz' generous granting of the German people with “went on behind the backs of the German nation, which would never have tolerated them, but the government kept these crimes completely secret from the German people. “ I think the police state was plenty strong enough to intimidate the German people into accepting anything they did. After all, they needed the cooperation of the German people to round up those Jews in the first place, to confiscate their belongings, to brutalize them on their way to the concentration camps.


Ironically, the one nation which Germany occupied where Nazi intimidation did not result in the rounding up and murder of just about every Jew in the country was Italy, where a genuinely decent people sheltered and hid the vast majority of Jews at the risk of their own lives, through the entire period of Nazi thuggery. Those Italians are true heroes of World War II. We will never know who they were but we are all indebted to them.


In view of this, let's dissect Fahnendude's self-indicting post of this morning and see what admissions of German thuggery it contains.


“- repressive police ? yes, against communists “
The Polish citizen murdered in the Gleiwitz incident was not communist. Neither were the Jewish prisoners of Dachau who were murdered and put into Polish uniforms for the presentation of “canned goods” the laughingly mocking term the hoodlums used as they performed what they saw as a joke.


“- racial superiority ? not at all : racial purity, without hate for other races“
Racial purity based on twisted ideas of “Aryan” supermen. Hitler, a man not of Arayan origins (whatever that means) and with Jewish ancestors, who would have killed himself had he met a duplicate in the wild, without hate, chose not to expel those he hated, but to KILL them. Kill them not within the borders of Germany, but within the borders of all territory he conquered, including Greece, France, the low countries (which he also brutally attacked without warning or justification), Poland and Czechoslovakia. He even killed them in Russia! Your words expose you as one who believes himself entitled, as you boldly say the Nazis were entitled, to kill everyone you choose for any reason you choose and the ones you kill are guilty because they failed to yield to your will. Hitler would be jumping up and down and cheering at my statement here, saying “You understand! Indominable will and the brutal application of force is all that improve the state of the world. Long live war!” That is a near perfect quote from Mein Kampf, by the way. He would kill you with the Jews as a coward. Which you are.


“- anti-semitism ? of course, they had several reasons “
Jews were instrumental in the German prosecution of World War I. They were a tremendous asset to the German nation and would have been front and center backing the war effort the second time. The reasons Hitler had were known only to himself. But one thing we do know. His murder of Jews was his primary motivating factor: the thing that unified all his other actions. Nothing was as important to Hitler as the extermination of the Jewish people, not Russia, not England, not France. Jewish murder came first, before the attack on Poland. In fact, murdered Jews were the centerpiece of his fake attack on the Gleiwitz radio station. Murder of Jews came first because it was a primary goal.


“Oppressed and massacred German minorities in Poland, Germany cut in two parts, Poland refusing negotiations = sufficient to invade Poland to get what they historically and ethnically had the right to have.”


It has been sufficiently proved that oppression and massacring of Germans in Poland was mostly German farce. http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/h...Gleiwitz.shtml, James J. Wirtz, Roy Godson, Strategic Denial and Deception: The Twenty-First Century Challenge, Transaction Publishers, 2002, ISBN 0-7658-0898-6, Google Print, p.100 , Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, Zenith Imprint, 2001, ISBN 0-7603-1167-6, Google Print, p.112 , John S. Craig, Peculiar Liaisons in War, Espionage, and Terrorism of the Twentieth Century, Algora Publishing, 2005, ISBN 0-87586-331-0, Google Print, p.180


Your position is bankrupt. Your entire "justification" is a sick sense of entitlement to do whatever the Nazis planned to do in advance and that the act of refusing to surrender to that will is an act of war against Germany. It is the sickness of a criminal who believes that because he wants something he is entitled to that. In such a twisted mind that makes all who resist his will at fault because their non-compliance required unavoidable force to obtain what the thug wanted. Nazi Germany was that way. They were dealt with in the only way they would understand. Complete imposition of the irresistible force that they themselves used as the instrument of their criminality.


Aggressors in wars determine the rules under which the war is fought. The alternative is surrender to those aggressors. That is because those who defend must exert sufficient force, opposite to the force of the aggressor, to render them dead. That was done. It was rightly done.


Now Germany is a great, independent nation. Its people are citizens of the world, equal to any, including the United States. At great expense, the Allies helped rebuild Germany, set them back on their own feet. They are not puppets, they have established in peace one of the greatest industrial powerhouses on Earth. But most gratifying is how they accomplished the reunification of East and West Germany, not by conquest, threat and bloodshed, but by reaching out at great expense to those Germans in the East and accepting the hardship of adopting them back into the German nation. In doing so, Germany thoroughly repudiated its past, tossing the Nazi mythology in the trash bin as a twisted, evil nightmare that never will be repeated. Brutal force is not the duct tape, Vise Grips and hammer that fixes the human condition. They found a better way and it works.

Here you go.

Ribbentrop also wrote about it much later. It's easy to rearrange the facts when you're trying to justify a war. Lipski also mentions a speech made by Beck in May, 1939 that mentions Poland's willingness to negotiate, though, which is harder to rearrange.

This is very unclear, this is only a word. What did they propose ??

Does it matter? You said that Poland regarded talk about Danzig as war. This is manifestly false even by a logical interpretation of what Ribbentrop said, let alone everything else.

This seems to be the text of the speech, in any case.

I finally see a debate unfolding with statements AND sources:yeah:

Thank you.