The Bromberg and Danzig massacres in Poland

These were atrocities committed by the Polish before the Second World War even started.It is estimated that 58,000 ethnic Germans were killed.This is what I believe started the Second World War.Historian Thomas Goodrich explained these atrocities in his documentary Ww2 from the Germans point of view.This is on YouTube if anyone is interested.Though the title may be misleading I can assure you it's all factual and has been proven.All I ask is that you have a open mind.To me there is always a reason for everything especially when it comes to warfare.No ones stupid enough even Hitler to start a war for no reason especially when it's against the whole world.

 

Is this 58000 figure not accepted Nazi propaganda written in 1940? Also, please note at the Bromberg incident happened on September 3/4 1939 -- after the invasion began. I have never heard of the "Danzig Massacre" so I will let the others weigh in on that.

 

Seriously. All I ask is that not spread this is utter garbage and Nazi propaganda.

Bloody Sunday was a name given by Nazi propaganda officials to a sequence of events that took place in Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), a Polish city with a sizable German minority, between 3 and 4 September 1939, in otherwords, after the war started. It was a series of events.

The sequence started with an attack of German Selbstschutz snipers on retreating Polish troops and then was followed by a Polish reaction and then the final retaliatory execution of Polish hostages by the Wehrmacht and Selbstschutz, after fall of the city.

In total these events resulted in the deaths of both German and Polish civilians. The Polish Institute of National Remembrance found and confirmed 254 Lutheran victims, assumed to be German victims, and 86 Catholic victims, assumed to be Polish civilian, as well as 20 Polish soldiers. Approximately 600–800 Polish hostages were shot in a mass execution in the aftermath of the fall of the city.

After the Germans took over the city, they killed 1200–3000 Polish and Jewish civilians, as part of Operation Tannenberg. The event and place of execution became known as the Valley of Death. The murdered included the president of Bydgoszcz, Leon Barciszewski. Fifty Polish prisoners of war from Bydgoszcz were later falsely accused by Nazi Sondergericht Bromberg summary courts for taking part in "Bloody Sunday" and shot.

So let's keep this "atrocity" in perspective.

Hitler did not declare War on the World, he didn't believe that France and the UK would honor their agreement with Poland. Hitler expected that the Western powers would just acquiesce once Poland was rapidly destroyed by Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

Well I do know that Danzig did happen before the war even started.Now Bromberg I may be wrong on so I apologize for that one.

 

This was just copy and pasted from wikapedia not that that's bad but I would like to see other sources if you can provide that would be great.Also what about Historian Thomas Goodrich who has already proven this to be true.These massacres have been also been found in the polish archives.

 

Really? Thomas Goodrich? Have you googled the guy? The very first result describes him as a "white nationalist" activist.

 

What exact dates and places were the rest of these so-called "Danzig massacres"? Because I can't find any reference to 58,000 murdered Germans in Poland in 1939, outside of stormfront-type sites, or similar thoroughly descredited places.

 

Well, wikipedia is a far and above refering to facists, white supremacists, and dubious youtube clips. As a shorthand to comment when pressed for time to combat the spread of Nazi propaganda, it is definitely good enough, IMNSHO.

 

Well slime Hitler not expecting them to not honor their agreement was a bad move.When he invaded Poland wasn't that like declaring war on the UK and France anyways since they were allies?

 

Well I don't know how far he takes it.I mean I don't see anything wrong with being proud of your race as long as you don't think your race is superior to all other races.Im proud of my race.You are probably proud of your race.Asians are proud of their race.Theres nothing wrong with that.However there is something wrong with saying all other races besides your own in inferior.Ill have to look into how far he takes this white nationalism.If he is a racist then I will gladly renounce what I said.

 

His "seminal work" is also described as shedding light on the "jewish conspiracy". That speaks for itself. Prior to half an hour ago I never heard of this "historian". 3 minutes of research told me all I need to know. I'd suggest you do the same.

 

Not saying I believe in that conspiracy but Jews aren't a race or Semitic so I don't see your point.Just because he believes in something that seems out of the ordinary doesn't mean he's not credible as long the person,who ever it is has proof and evidence I don't think their personal beliefs should matter.Sometimes your beliefs can get in the way of reason but if you have evidence like I said before then it shouldn't matter.

 

I know nothing about, you Gen. Clint, but this is not an auspicious start.

Biologically, there is only one race; the human race "homo sapiens".

But where is the evidence? Dates, places, people. Verifiable evidence. Not based on heresay or second-hand information from Nazi journals.

 

I have seen the dates before I'll have to find them again i will pm you when i do find out.Anyways I have really have to go ,talk later if you want.Ill get my sources together again then we can talk.sorry to cut it short I was really enjoying talking to you.

 

Anyone described as a "white nationalist", babbling about a "jewish conspiracy" in such a context, and giving interviews to Stormfront has zero credibility to a serious student of history. Period. A public display of such mentality shows that the person in question lacks the requisite objectivity and the judgement required to research, review and draw coherent conclusions from historical data. The guy sounds like a total flake even by the standards of the community whose views he represents. Indeed, I have to wonder why you're so fixated on him as opposed to a slightly more credible revisitionist of the same political ilk?

 

Aww. Now look what you did, green slime.....

 

Nonsensical pride is usually a means of refusing to look at one's own inadequacies. The implication is an inability to see the truth in ones self. How can you be truthful to others if you can't be truthful to yourself? The ability to understand and acknowledge the truth is IMO a very important and positive thing. The inability to do so quite negative.

Thinking your race is superior is IMO a character flaw on the order of what I described above. It tends be a by product of such beliefs. Worse still is acting on such beliefs.

Yes and no. It rather depends on how the words are being used. At one point in time Jews as a group were certainly Semitic at this point not all have a Semitic heritage but many and indeed most probably do.

Have to disagree with you there. "Race" has often been used to mean sub species with regards to "Homo sapiens". Historically there's still the question for instance of whether Neandertals should be described as Homo Sapien Neandertalensis or Homo Neandertalensis although the latter is in favor now I believe are these separate "races" separate "species" or separate "sub species"? The answer can be yes or no for all of the above depending on exactly how you define "race". Up until the 60's there was a tendency to break humans up into 3 different "races" there were definite biological signatures that were used to do so. Some of those signatures lead to some rather odd groupings (such as the Australian Aborigines being included in the Caucasian race). In the 60's there was an effort to come up with a more detailed set of criteria that lead to some scientitist describing humanity as composed of over 50 races. It is a valid term if used to study human evolution. As a source of pride it seems rather nonsensical to me especially for most Americans who if one uses the latter scheme are descendants of more than one of the 50 races. When you consider that "races" don't really accomplish anything nor are they capable of making decisions what is the point of "pride". If you are using it to counter an inferiority complex I guess it has some value but anyone at all familiar with Mendal's work would have more pride in being of mixed race decent than of "pure race"

 

No. The subspecies of Homo Sapiens is Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Homo Neanderthalis, Home Heidelbergensis, and Homo Rhodesiensis were all subspecies derived from Homo Erectus. Modern HOMO Sapiens are the genetic result of interbreeding between those and possibly other offshoots of Homo Erectus.

What everybody talks about as "race" has nothing to do with it. It is morphology, which is generally on the same level as phrenology when it comes to describing differences between people.

 

The argument as to how the various lines of the genus Homo line up has been going on for some time. Whether or not they are separate species or not is as much a matter of how you define species as anything else at least in some cases. The last information I saw for instance indicated that modern humans have a significant component of Neanderthal DNA. By some definitions if Neanderthals and Homo Sapien Sapien interbred then they are the same species by others they are different. Again some times the term "race" has been used to designate subspecies other times less significant differences although since the term species varies significantly depending on who is using it what is significant can very as well. "Race" is even less well defined than sub species.

 

Well historian David Irving says that these massacres did occur.In fact he told me just today because I emailed him that Bromberg happened on Sunday in the first week of the war.He also says Danzig occurred . He has the most documents on WW2