Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Chamberlain

Discussion in 'Prelude to War & Poland 1939' started by bedhead, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I asked for sources in regards to peace proposals mentioned and got the following response.
    Note that this rather long wordy response actually mentions only two sources. One 1939 - The War That Had Many Fathers is a shotgun source of a not very well regarded book. See:
    Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof - Wikipedia
    It does look like the apologists have taken over the responses on Amazon.
    The other was a 2 hour long speech of Hitler's which as I've noted above contains one sentence declaring the war doesn't need to go on.

    So at this point I consider the request for sources as unfulfilled.
     
  2. EKB

    EKB Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    40
    Pat Buchanan has always been fast and loose with the truth.

    On page 387 he claimed that Winston Churchill launched the Dieppe raid. At that moment Churchill had no knowledge of the raid let alone the battle plans. He was overseas, touring British bases in the Middle East along with Field Marshall Brooke.

    It’s been known for over thirty years that Churchill did not give consent for Operation Jubilee. No record of signed orders has been found and Churchill started his own inquest on this matter. The best information suggests that Admiral Mountbatten was to blame. He was junior to the service chiefs and had no legal authority to launch the raid without permission, but it appears that he did so. Churchill was definitely embarrassed about this act of insubordination (he covered it up in his memoirs). But he was not responsible for the disaster at Dieppe.
     
  3. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    ----------- So at this point I consider the request for sources as unfulfilled.

    PART 1

    I have added numbered source references to my writeup ...

    Now we come to the crux of the matter. The British and French declarations of war followed the German invasion of Poland, and that invasion followed months of failed negotiations between Germany and Poland over the fate of Danzig and the Danzig corridor.

    The German dispute with Poland concerned the city of Danzig, 95% German, and the 'Polish Corridor', with a German majority, that divided Germany from East Prussia. Hitler saw Communist Russia as the primary threat to Germany. He saw the Poles as natural allies in the struggle against Communism. He had absolutely no desire to conquer Poland or to go to war with the west.
    [​IMG]
    In October 1938 Germany made the following offer to Poland: Poland would allow the reunification of Danzig with Germany, and allow Germany to build an 'extraterritorial' railway through the corridor connecting Germany with East Prussia. In return, Germany offered Poland an alliance against Russia. he Poles refused the offer. [1 - Buchanan]

    In January 1939 Hitler invited Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck to Berchtesgarten to emphasize the importance of Danzig and access to East Prussia to Germany, and to attempt to come to an agreement. However, again, the Poles refused to negotiate. [2 - Buchanan]

    The drama now shifts to Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia had been created by the Versailles treaty and consisted of an unhappy union of Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, Ruthenians, and Germans, all under Czech control. Following the reunification of the Sudetenland with Germany, Czechoslovakia began to disintegrate, to the point where all that was left was the central Czech state, which became, at the request of its President Emil Hacha, a protectorate of Germany in March 1939. [3 - Buchanan]

    [​IMG]
    At this point the British government threw down the gauntlet on Poland. On March 11, 1939, Chamberlain rose in the House of Commons to make the following declaration: [4 - Buchanan]

    "I now have to inform the House that ...at the event of any action which clearly threatens Polish independence ..... His Majesty's government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power."

    From Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" - [5 - Buchanan]

    "Englishmen who possessed strategic vision were, with few exceptions, appalled", writes Manchester.

    "This is the maddest single action this country has ever taken" M.P. Robert Boothsby told Churchill.

    "We are taking a fightful gamble" said Lloyd George. Told by Chamberlain that the pact with Poland will deter Hitler. the prime minister "burst out laughing". If the British army general staff approved this, said Lloyd George, they "ought to be confined to a lunatic asylum".

    Chamberlain's "reversal was so abrupt and unacceptable as to make war inevitable" wrote Liddell Hart: "The Polish guarantee was 'foolish, futile, and provocative, an ill-considered gesture that placed Britain's destiny in the hand of Polish rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgement. The Polish Guarantee was the surest way to produce an early explosion, and a world war. It contained the maximum temptation with manifest provocation. It incited Hitler to demonstrate the futility of such a guarantee to a country out of the reach of the West, while making the stiff-necked Poles even less inclined to consider any concession to him, and at the same time making it impossible from him to back down without 'losing face'."
     
  4. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    PART 2
    The legendary military strategist and historian Major-General J.F.C. Fuller relates "Well I guess your Mr. Prime Minister has made the greatest military blunder since the Stamp Act". There is no reason you should not guarantee a powder factory, as long as the rules are observed, but to guarantee one full of lunatics is a little dangerous"

    Churchill, writing nine years after the fact - "And now Great Britain advances, taking France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland, of that very Poland which with hyena appetite which only six months before had joined in the pillage and destruction of Czechoslovakia. Moreover, how could we protect Poland and make good on the guarantee? Here was a decision made at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which would surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people'.

    Leaving Buchanan, the above begs the question, What was the real dynamic behind Britain's actions? The short answer was given in the book 'Day of the Saxon' by Homer Lea, written in 1912: [6 - Lea]

    There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the repression of territorial and political expansion of other nations - a condition that must culminate in war, one war if the Empire is destroyed, a series of wars if it is victorious.

    From March on there was a realization by British, Germans and Poles that a war was likely. Poland and Germany mobilized mobilized their militaries, Britain and France began issuing guarantees to stop attacks on Rumania, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, and Turkey.[7 - Buchanan]

    In April 28 Hitler publicized the proposed agreement with Poland in a speech to the Reichtag: [8 - Hitler]

    "Consequently, I have had the following proposal submitted to the Polish Government:-
    (1) Danzig returns as a Free State into the framework of the German Reich.
    (2) Germany receives a route through the Corridor and a railway line at her own disposal possessing the same extraterritorial status for Germany as the Corridor itself has for Poland.
    In return, Germany is prepared:-
    (1) To recognise all Polish economic rights in Danzig.
    (2) To ensure for Poland a free harbour in Danzig of any size desired which would have completely free access to the sea.
    (3) To accept at the same time the present boundaries between Germany and Poland and to regard them as ultimate.
    (4) To conclude a twenty-five-year non-aggression treaty with Poland, a treaty therefore which would extend far beyond the duration of my own life.
    (5) To guarantee the independence of the Slovak State by Germany, Poland and Hungary jointly-which means in practice the renunciation of any unilateral German hegemony in this territory.

    The Polish Government have rejected my offer and have only declared that they are prepared (1) to negotiate concerning the question of a substitute for the Commissioner of the League of Nations and (2) to consider facilities for the transit traffic through the Corridor."

    On May 5 prime minister Beck again refused the agreement and rejected Hitler's offer to restart the negotiating process. There would be no more negotiations with the Polish government, and none with the British until the week before the war started. [9 - Buchanan]

    A decisive wild care came into play. Britain had begun negotiations with Stalin to form an alliance against Germany in March. Stalin balked and the negotiations dragged on. Late in the game the Germans offered Stalin a non-aggression pact. Hitler believed that a German-Soviet non-aggression pact would prevent Britain from attacking Germany. Stalin correctly calculated that a German-Soviet pact would not deter Britain, and would result in a war in which the capitalist west would destroy itself. The German-Soviet pact was signed on Aug 23.

    Military preparations in Poland and Germany had begun in March. At this point the German military was prepared to attack, but the general belief was that Hitler would be able, as he had before, to achieve his objective without military action.

    The book '1939 - The War that Had Many Fathers' by G. Schultze-Rhonof gives a day by day account from Aug. 23 to the outbreak of the war, the account spans 54 pages describes a seemingly endless series of meetings and shuttle diplomacy between British and German officials, including Chamberlain, Neville Henderson, Lord Halifax, Hitler, Goring, Ribbenthrop, as well as a Swedish diplomat, Birger Dahlarus, brought in by Goring. Poland continued to refuse to meet with the Germans. [10 - Schultze-Rhonhof] Hitler published a Sixteen Points Peace Plan in the west. [11 - Milwaukee Journal, Aug 30, 1939]
    [​IMG]

    In this short clip Schultze-Rhonof describes the British reaction to the publication of the Sixteen Points -
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  5. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    PART 3
    There was considerable back and forth and nuanced changes in position, but no substantial concessions were made by either side, and no agreement was reached. Hitler's final gambit was a proposal for a Polish representative with full powers to negotiate for Poland be sent to Berlin, which was rejected by the Poles.[12 - Buchanan]

    Schultze-Rhonhof describes the Danzig negotiations in this one hour video

    On Sept. 1 Germany invaded Poland, and in less than one month the war with Poland was over.

    In late September Birger Dahlerus was shuttling between London and Berlin discussion options for ending the war. He met with met with Chamberlain and Halifax themselves. [13 - wiki]

    wiki:
    Hitler's peace proposals, as presented by Dahlerus in a mellow form at the meeting amounted to the following: a rump Poland in complete vassalage to Germany, annexation to Germany of the old Reich territories in Poland, restoration of the lost German colonies or compensation for them, a promise of no further aggression, subject to "suitable guarantees" and the settlement of the Jewish question by using Poland "as a sink in which to empty the Jews".

    On October 6 1939 Hitler made a 'victory' speech to the Reichstag and indicated that Germany wanted resolve the difficulties with the west without military action. {14 - Topeka Kansas Daily Caller, Aug 24, 1939]

    [​IMG]

    Excepts from the speech : [15 - Hitler]

    It is impossible for any French statesman to get up and declare I have ever made any demands upon France the fulfillment of which would be incompatible with French honor or French interest. It is, however, true that instead of demands I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts.

    Among the German people, I have done my utmost to eradicate the idea of everlasting enmity and to inculcate in its place a respect for the great achievements of the French nation and for its history, just as every German soldier has the greatest respect for the feats of the French Army. I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of an Anglo-German understanding, nay, more than that, of an Anglo-German friendship.

    John Toland's 'Adolf Hitler' describes secret negotiations: [16 - John Toland, "Adolf Hitler"]

    “There is only one chance,” Fritz Hesse in London phoned Hewel of the Wilhelmstrasse, “namely that we immediately move out of Poland and offer reparation payment for damages. If Hitler does that there is probably one chance in a million of avoiding the catastrophe.” Within two hours Hewel called back. A deep voice broke in, Ribbentrop’s. “You know who is speaking,” he said but asked not to be mentioned by name. “Please go immediately to your confidant—you know who I mean [he was referring to Sir Horace Wilson]—and tell him this: the Führer is prepared to move out of Poland and to offer reparation damages provided that we receive Danzig and a road through the Corridor, if England will act as mediator in the German-Polish conflict. You are empowered by the Führer to submit this proposal to the British cabinet and initiate negotiations immediately.” ..... Hesse asked Ribbentrop to repeat the offer. He did, adding, “So there will be no misunderstanding, point out again that you are acting on the express instructions of Hitler and that this is no private action of mine.”

    Britain categorically refused all peace offers, [17 - New York Times, Oct. 2, 1939]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    The war continued, but, as Britain was not prepared to attack Germany, and France was disinclined to attack Germany, a stalemate existed for the next six months of the war, this period is referred to as the phoney war in English, the drôle de guerre in French, and sitzkrieg in German.

    In late May of 1940 the Italians made an offer to the British to mediate a settlement "that would not only be an armistice,but would protect European peace for a century"; the offer was blocked by Churchill, see May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis - Wikipedia [18 - wiki]

    Churchill outmaneuvered Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet two days later, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground", convincing all present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost.

    On May 10 1940 the Germans began an attack on France and the low countries. After six weeks this phase of the war was complete and on June 22, 1940 an armistice was signed between Germany and France.

    HItler addressed the Reichstag in a speech that is known as the Last Appeal to Reason, excerpted below [19 - Hitler]

    "... From London I now hear a cry – it’s not the cry of the mass of people, but rather of politicians – that the war must now, all the more, be continued ... Believe me, my deputies, I feel an inner disgust at this kind of unscrupulous parliamentarian destroyers of peoples and countries ... It never has been my intention to wage wars, but rather to build a new social state of the highest cultural level. Every year of this war keeps me from this work ... Mr. Churchill has now once again declared that he wants war ... I am fully aware that with our response, which one day will come, will also come nameless suffering and misfortune for many people ...
    “... In this hour I feel compelled, standing before my conscience, to direct yet another appeal to reason in England. I believe I can do this as I am not pleading for something as the vanquished, but rather, as the victor speaking in the name of reason. I see no compelling reason for this war to continue. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices it will claim ... Possibly Mr. Churchill again will brush aside this statement of mine by saying that it is merely an expression of fear and of doubt in our final victory. In that case I shall have relieved my conscience in regard to the things to come.”

    The Germans went to the extraordinary step of taking the appeal to the British people and dropped leaflets over London

    [​IMG]


    From 'Black Boomerang' by Sefton Delmer: [20 - Delmer, 'Black Boomerang']

    ..Within an hour of Hitler having spoken I was on the air with my reply. And without a moment’s hesitation I turned his peace offer down. My colleagues at the BBC had approved of what I meant to say. That was enough authority for me.

    “Herr Hitler,” I said in my smoothest and most deferential German, “you have on occasion in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public. So permit me to render your excellency this little service once again tonight. Let me tell you what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our reason and common sense. Herr Führer and Reichskanzler, we hurl it right back at you, right in your evil smelling teeth...”

    ...Duff Cooper rallied to my support with all his suave authority. He assured the House that my talk had the Cabinet’s full approval. And when the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax replied to Hitler a couple of days after me the sense of what he said was the same, although he used rather more restrained language.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Doesn't help much when you use a questionable source though does it. Putting a number into a shotgun sourcing isn't much of an improvement.
    The fact that Hitler wasn't getting what he claimed he wanted from the negotiations was not adequate for a declaration of war. Hitler clearly realized that and thus the cladstine siezure of a Polish radio station and the broadcast from it of material that he used as a pretext for his declaration. Not that I say what he claimed he wanted becasuse it's pretty clear that his ultimate goal was siezing lands form the USSR and he needed a border with them to do so. Poland was that border so it is not unlikely that the negotiations were a smoke screen from the beginning.
    Sources please.
    I believe I've seen quotes form his writings and/or speeches that indicate otherwise.
    Given the German demads why should they?
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I found the (deleted contents) of the following post remarkabley one sided
    Furthermore they suggest that the words of such as Hitler and Musoline can be taken at face value. In other words we have another rant by an apologist for Hitler.
     
    OpanaPointer likes this.
  8. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Silesia Inferior
    Straight from the horse's mouth:

    Speech by the Führer to the Commanders in Chief on August 22, 1939 (Obersalzberg Speech)
    Captured by the United States forces inside the OKW headquarters


    It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later. I had already made this decision in the spring, but I thought that I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only after that against the East. But the sequence of these things cannot be fixed. Nor should one close one's eyes to threatening situations.
    I wanted first of all to establish a tolerable relationship with Poland in order to fight first against the West. But this plan, which appealed to me, could not be executed, as fundamental points had changed. It became clear to me that, in the event of a conflict with the West, Poland would attack us. Poland is striving for access to the sea. The further development appeared after the occupation of the Memel Territory and it became clear to me that in certain circumstances a conflict with Poland might come at an inopportune moment.
    ...
    Essentially all depends on me, on my existence, because of my political talents. Furthermore, the fact that probably no one will ever again have the trust of the whole German people as I have. There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a factor of great value. But I can be eliminated at any time by a criminal or a lunatic.
    ...
    It is easy for us to make decisions. We have nothing to lose; we have everything to gain. Because of our restrictions our economic situation is such that we can only hold out for a few more years. Göring can confirm this. We have no other choice, we must act. Our opponents will be risking a great deal and can gain only a little. Britain's stake in a war is inconceivably great. Our enemies have leaders who are below the average. No personalities. No masters, no men of action.
    ...
    Besides the personal factors, the political situation is favorable for us: In the Mediterranean, rivalry between Italy, France and England; in the Far East, tension between Japan and England; in the Middle East, tension which causes alarm in the Mohammedan world.
    ...
    All these favorable circumstances will no longer prevail in two or three year's time. No one knows how much longer I shall live. Therefore, better a conflict now.
    ..
    The political objective goes further. A start has been made on the destruction of England's hegemony. The way will be open for the soldiers after I have made the political preparations.
     
  9. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now we get to the fine print. But first, consider two points:

    Point #1 - I note that this speech was given one a few days away from the initial date, Aug. 24, Hitler had scheduled for the attack on Poland, so, it can be viewed as a 'locker room' pep talk to fire up the top military brass for the war that lay ahead.

    Point #2 - A 'secret' speech is a collection of spoken words, they can be true or false, representative or not representative, to access their significance it is necessary to see how the words align or fail to align with the actual events that transpire.

    The fine points - Schultze-Rhonhof devotes 12 pages to the 'Speech of 22 Aug. 1939 and the Seven Protocols'. Our knowledge of the speech comes from seven 'protocols', or accounts of the speech. SR discusses all seven, I'll briefly summarize:

    #1 - The first protocol is the most inflammatory, quoting (SR has more) - "The speech was received with enthusiasm. Goring climbed on the table. Bloodthirsty thanks and bloodthirsty promises. He danced around like a wild man." This protocol was introduced at Nuremberg and rejected as evidence. The author of the protocol is unknown and SR classifies it as a forgery.

    #2 - Protocol #2 was entered as evidence at Nuremberg and has become the accepted account of the speech. LIke #1 it has no heading or date, no document number, no journal number, no secrecy classification, and it bears no signature. It was pointed out that the typewriter used to type protocols #1 and #2 were the same. This protocol was accepted into evidence and it has become the accepted account of the speech. It also contain inflammatory statements, e.g. "I have only one concern, the Chamberlain of some swine will come to me with concessions.". This quote appears in Buchanan. SR argues that it is a forgery.

    #3 - Written by Admiral H. Boehm, this account is totally different from the previous two and representative quotes are given in SR. Boehm gives the protocal to General Raeder who confirms its correctness and signs it. Raeder states that protocol #2 is largely bogus. A motion is made, and refused, to call Boehm as a witness. Raeder's lawyer interrogates Boehm and the record of the interrogation exist. He goes through protocol #2 refuting it piece by piece. Excepts are given in SR.

    #4 - A diary entry by by Army Chief of Staff General Halder - according to SR does not confirm the compromising statement in protocol #2.

    #5 - in the OKW war diary maintained by H. Greiner, according to SR confirms Boehm on all points but one.

    #6 and #7 written by General Liebman and Admiral Albert, all SR says is that no verbatim reproductions exist.

    SR also notes that Admiral Raeder testified at Nuremberg - "The words certainly were not used. The Fuhrer was not accustomed to use such phrases in speeches he gave to the generals", and this was confirmed by Field Marshall Keitel.

    All things considered - the provenance of Protocol #2 is unknown, the authentic protocols of Boehm and Halder contradict it, information regarding the speech was suppressed by the refusal to call Boehm as a witness, and the testimony of Raeder and Keitel confirm protocol #2 is a forgery.

    Note: SR also points out a number of other factors having to do with the content of protocol #2 that conflict with reality, i.e. if you want to see the full argument you need to read the book.
     
  10. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,060
    Likes Received:
    1,794
    der Fuhrer ist kaput. Get over it.
     
    LRusso216 likes this.
  11. EKB

    EKB Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    40

    What you just wrote means that actions speak louder than words. Yet you argue more about words than action.

    Hitler could have made peace by withdrawing German invasion forces from Poland or better yet cancelling the attack. That would be a good definition of action, for which no other words would be necessary.

    This discussion would be less tedious if you show us a newspaper clipping which confirms that Nazi Germany respected international borders and upheld political agreements with their European neighbors ... and a newspaper clipping which verifies the Nazis did not authorize government-sponsored organized crime such as robbery of banks, museums, and personal property. ... and a newspaper clipping which proves the Nazis did not commit mass murder of unarmed persons after they were placed under arrest.

    I don't think it's important to know the exact turn of phrase used by Hitler to explain away his unkept promises and bluffing.
     
  12. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,683
    Likes Received:
    2,229
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thanks for spoiling the ending for me. :rolleyes:
     
  13. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Der Fuhrer is kaput, but the lies live on and their repercussions may doom us all.

    .
    The actions are unequivocal, Hitler attacked Poland, not Britain, not France. Britain and France, not threatened in any way, declared war on Germany, Germany did not declare war on Britain or France Yet a web of lies has been constructed to turn reality, the actions, upside down to make Germany the aggressor in WW II. Germany was the aggressor in Poland, Britain and France were the aggressors in WW II.

    WW II history is in and of itself very interesting. But, getting the history right or wrong doesn't change what has happened up to now. However, WW I and WW II define the modern world, which, you may or may not have noticed, is very precarious, and getting the history right or wrong can have a decisive effect on what happens from this point on. For that reason getting the history right is of the greatest importance. And, crucial aspects of the history of WW II are pure fantasy, a deliberate deception. That should trouble you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Indeed. One of the things this board is good at however is shining a light on them. We do occasionally get people here who try to promelgate them. It's pretty easy to detect them though. Flawed sources. Very selective interpretations of things. Denial of obvious facts. Kind of like your argumetns.
    When a country has a defense treaty with another country and especailly when that third party has made very public prononuncements to that effect an attack on the first might as well be an attack on their ally.
    ??? Are you serious. Do you really believe that?
    NO. You are constlructing the web of lies and denying the truth of things.
    YOUR fantasies are the ones that are troubling and the fact that you can't or won't admit the truth. You are the danger but this board and others like it are a bulwark against deceptions sluch as you promelgate.
     
  15. EKB

    EKB Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    40
    A British and French alliance with Poland had no bearing on the Nazi invasion of Russia, or Japanese military expansion in China, Manchuria, Korea, Burma, Indochina, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. Likewise the IJN attack on Pearl Harbor had no political connection with Hitler, other than his declaration of war on the United States a few days later.


    This is meaningless because Poland did not declare war on Germany before the Nazis invaded.


    Part of that deception is your suggesting that a global war started in Poland. Many people say the fighting began in Asia, and others believe that WWII was simply a continuation of WW1 and its unresolved problems.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  16. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Silesia Inferior
    The truth is Hitler planned wars of aggression in times such wars became seriously out of vogue and were basically forbidden by international law.

    He created an enormous army damaging Germany's economy in the process. The Germans were experiencing the results of that every day, and Germany was facing a debilitating economic crisis. In his own words:

    Because of our restrictions, our economic situation is such that we can only hold out for a few more years. Göring can confirm this. We have no other choice, we must act.

    The Allies were aware of that so they drew a line in the sand fearing Hitler would pick up all their allies/assets in Europe one by one and they would be left with nothing.
    It wasn't only Poland, it was Hungary, Romania and its oil reserves, Greece (all they were given guarantees too) and more.
    It was a purely defensive move in face of pre-planned, naked aggression.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  17. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    And yet the only evidence you have produced to support this position is an anonymous protocol for a speech given a few days before the attack on Poland. The protocol has no provenance whatever and is contradicted by the authenticated protocols of Boehm and Halder.

    So, what other evidence do you have? ... :)
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  18. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Silesia Inferior
    Halder has nothing to do with this, his diary is mostly a bunch of single sentences per important event.

    Two versions of Obersalzberg Speech was captured inside the OKW headquarters, but who knows maybe the High Command of the Armed Forces was deranged and collected fakes.

    So let's see what Hitler's fanboy, good Admiral H. Boehm wrote and testified trying to save his pals from the noose:

    The purpose of the speech ... Intention (of Hitler) in the spring was to defer the solution of the Polish question, as it were to put it on ice, in order to first carry out the, in his opinion, inevitable conflict in the West.
    However, as a politician, one should not tie oneself down with respect to a timeline, one must be elastic. The prerequisites for his original intentions had changed, besides he never believed that Poland would adhere to the non-aggression pact if Germany were in some other way tied down ...
    If this conflict with Poland was undesired, it was also necessary, and the political situation in Germany is now more favorable than perhaps in several years.

    It is clear, first, that a political relationship with Poland, as it now exists, is unsustainable in the long term. Therefore, the proposal of the Fuhrer with regard to the cession of Danzig and the creation of a connecting route through the Corridor. This attempt at a compromise was disrupted by England, which worked itself up into hysteria and prompted Poland to insolent notes and military measures ... For England, however, a lasting period of instability [between Poland and Germany] was and is desired in order that, when it itself wants to attack, a be able at any time to unleash Poland on the other side ...

    Idle compromises are to be rejected ...

    The likelihood of intervention by the western powers in a conflict, according to the Fiihrer, is not great.
    Of course, the western powers in a Germany-Poland conflict will try to save face. They will perhaps recall ambassadors, perhaps set up a trade embargo. Against that only iron determination helps ... Moreover, we must remember. Also, on the other side, there are people with their concerns and worries. Ultimately, it is not machines which grapple with each other, but people. And we have the better people... The goal is the elimination and crushing of the military forces of Poland.

    Providence has made us the leaders of this (German) people.
    We thus have the duty to give the necessary Lebensraum to the German people who are crowded together with 140 men per square kilometer.


    (from 1939 - the War that Had Many Fathers by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof)


    He version is actually different in details only:
    - the purpose of the war was "to give the necessary Lebensraum to the German people",
    - the intention was to defer the solution of the Polish question, in order to first carry out the conflict in the West,
    - the conflict with Poland was necessary because Poland - a staunch French ally wouldn't stand idle during the inevitable conflict in the West.
     
  19. gurfinkle

    gurfinkle Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    That doesn't make any sense, it says Hitler wanted to postpone the war with Poland to attack England. Either it was nonsense to begin with, or became nonsense in translation.

    There's a revelation for you !

    You have absolutely nothing.

    By the way, are you familiar with Hoggan's 'The Forced War', this crazy link gets the pdf or you can google...
    http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrU...0War.pdf/RK=2/RS=rrh5Sp4sb6Ixg0azwXxyQ6jGnzs-

    I just came across it......absolutely extraordinary, and I've just read the preface !
     
  20. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Silesia Inferior
    So Lebensraum, ethnic cleansing of large territories in order to populate them with Germans means nothing to you, good to know.

    And it wasn't Britain it was France, Hitler wrote openly in his Mein Kampf that the "degenerate" France was going to get it:

    Finally, we must be quite clear on the following point: France is and will remain the implacable enemy of Germany.
    It does not matter what Governments have ruled or will rule in France, whether Bourbon or Jacobin, Napoleonic or Bourgeois-Democratic, Clerical Republican or Red Bolshevik, their foreign policy will always be directed towards acquiring possession of the Rhine frontier and consolidating France's position on this river by disuniting and dismembering Germany.
    ...
    it is just for this reason that France is and will remain by far the most dangerous enemy. The French people, who are becoming more and more obsessed by negroid ideas, represent a threatening menace to the existence of the white race in Europe, because they are bound up with the Jewish campaign for world-domination. For the contamination caused by the influx of negroid blood on the Rhine, in the very heart of Europe, is in accord with the sadist and perverse lust for vengeance on the part of the hereditary enemy of our people, just as it suits the purpose of the cool calculating Jew who would use this means of introducing a process of bastardization in the very centre of the European Continent and, by infecting the white race with the blood of an inferior stock, would destroy the foundations of its independent existence.

    France's activities in Europe to-day, spurred on by the French lust for vengeance and systematically directed by the Jew, are a criminal attack against the life of the white race and will one day arouse against the French people a spirit of vengeance among a generation which will have recognized the original sin of mankind in this racial pollution.
    ...
    If the German nation is to put an end to a state of things which threatens to wipe it off the map of Europe it must not fall into the errors of the pre-War period and make the whole world its enemy.
    But it must ascertain who is its most dangerous enemy so that it can concentrate all its forces in a struggle to beat him. And if, in order to carry through this struggle to victory, sacrifices should be made in other quarters, future generations will not condemn us for that.
    They will take account of the miseries and anxieties which led us to make such a bitter decision, and in the light of that consideration they will more clearly recognize the brilliancy of our success.
     

Share This Page