Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 约翰·威尔档案馆
为什么德国入侵波兰
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>
信用:Wikimedia Commons。 CC BY-SA 3.0

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论

英国对波兰的空白支票

21年1939月24日,英国首相内维尔·张伯伦(Neville Chamberlain)在接待法国总理爱德华·达拉第(ÉdouardDaladier)的同时,与法国,俄罗斯和波兰讨论了联合战线,以共同对抗德国的侵略。 法国立即同意,俄罗斯人同意法国和波兰都先签署的条件。 但是,波兰外交大臣贝克(JózefBeck)于1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日否决了该协议。[1]泰勒(Taylor),AJP, 第二次世界大战的起源,纽约:Simon&Schuster,1961年,第207页。 XNUMX。 波兰政治家比俄罗斯更惧怕俄罗斯。 波兰元帅爱德华·Ś米格莱·雷兹(EdwardŚmigły-Rydz)对法国大使说: 与俄国人在一起,我们就失去了灵魂。”[2]德康德,亚历山大, 美国外交政策史,纽约:查尔斯·斯克里布纳的《儿子》,1971年,第576页。 XNUMX。

当立陶宛梅梅尔居民中的一个运动试图加入德国时,欧洲外交又出现了一个复杂问题。 凡尔赛条约的盟军胜利者已将梅梅尔从东普鲁士撤离,并将其置于一个独立的国际联盟保护国中。 立陶宛随后在第一次世界大战后不久就从国际联盟手中夺取了梅梅尔。梅梅尔历史上是德国城市,在其七个世纪的历史中从未与东普鲁士人的家乡分离。 第一次世界大战后,德国是如此虚弱,以至于它不能阻止立陶宛这个新生的小国占领梅梅尔。[3]霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第25页,第312页。

1939年22月,德国对布拉格的占领在大多数德国梅梅尔人口中引起了无法控制的兴奋。 梅梅尔的居民大声疾呼要返回德国,不再受束缚。 立陶宛外交大臣于1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日前往柏林,他同意立即将梅梅尔转移到德国。 次日梅梅尔吞并德国。 梅梅尔问题没有德国的任何蓄意吞并计划而自行爆发。[4]泰勒(Taylor),AJP, 第二次世界大战的起源,纽约:Simon&Schuster,1961年,第209页。 XNUMX。 波兰领导人一致认为,梅梅尔从立陶宛返回德国不会构成德国和波兰之间的冲突问题。[5]霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX

造成德国和波兰之间冲突的真正原因是所谓的但泽自由城。 Danzig成立于14年初th 世纪以来,一直是维斯瓦河(Vistula River)大河口的重要港口。 从一开始,但泽(Danzig)几乎就完全是德国人居住的地方,1922年,波兰少数民族占该市3万居民的不到365,000%。 凡尔赛条约将但泽从德国的一个省会转变成一个国际保护国联盟,但须遵守为波兰的利益而制定的许多限制条件。 但泽(Danzig)公民绝大部分都不想离开德国,他们渴望在1939年返回德国。德国经济健康,而波兰经济仍陷于萧条之中,这加剧了他们加入德国的渴望。[6]同上,第49-60页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX.)

丹麦但泽的许多德国公民始终如一地表现出对国家社会主义及其原则的坚定不移的忠诚。 在德国取得这一结果之前,他们甚至选举产生了全国社会主义议会多数。 众所周知,波兰一直在寻求加强对但泽的控制,尽管他希望获得丹麦的多数席位。 希特勒不反对波兰在但泽的进一步经济愿望,但希特勒下定决心绝不允许在但泽建立波兰政治体制。 希特勒对丹吉格的这种放弃将是对丹吉格公民对第三帝国的忠诚及其自决精神的否定。[7]同上,第328-329页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX.)

德国于24年1938月1922日提出了与波兰全面解决但泽问题的提议。希特勒的计划将允许德国吞并但泽并修建通往东普鲁士的高速公路和铁路。 作为回报,波兰将在但泽获得永久性的自由港,并有权建立自己的通往该港口的公路和铁路。 整个Danzig地区也将成为波兰商品的永久性自由市场,不向其征收德国关税。 德国将采取史无前例的步骤,承认并保证现有的德波边境,包括XNUMX年建立的上西里西亚边界。这一后来的规定极为重要,因为《凡尔赛条约》给了波兰许多德国提议放弃的领土。 希特勒提出的保证波兰边境的提议也带来了其他非共产主义国家所无法比拟的一定程度的军事安全。[8]同上,第145-146页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX.)

德国与波兰的和解提议对德国的不利影响远不及威尔逊在凡尔赛的第十三点方案。 《凡尔赛条约》在西普鲁士和西波森等地区给了波兰很大的领土,而这些地区绝大多数都是德国人。 尽管波兰失去了公民投票权,上西里西亚最富裕的工业区后来也被赠予波兰。[9]同上 p.页。 21. XNUMX。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX.)
德国愿意为了德波合作而放弃这些领土。 希特勒的这一让步足以弥补德国对但泽的吞并以及在走廊建设高速公路和铁路的补偿。 波兰外交官本人认为,德国的提议是达成永久协议的真诚和现实基础。[10]同上。,第21页,第256-257页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX.)

26年1939月XNUMX日,波兰驻柏林大使约瑟夫·利普斯基(Joseph Lipski)正式拒绝了德国的定居提议。 波兰人已经等待了五个多月,以拒绝德国的提议,而且他们拒绝承认现有条件的任何变化。 利普斯基对德国外交大臣约阿希姆·冯·里本伯特洛夫说:“提请注意这一事实,即进一步追求这些德国计划,特别是在涉及但泽回到帝国的那一刻,就意味着与波兰开战,这是他的痛苦之举。”[11]同上。,p。 323。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX.)

波兰外交大臣贝克(JózefBeck)于30年1939月31日接受英国的邀请,为波兰的独立提供无条件保证。 如果波兰人认为战争是必要的,则大英帝国同意作为波兰的盟国发动战争。 1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日,张伯伦在英国外交大臣哈利法克斯勋爵(Halifax Lord)起草的讲话中说:

我现在要通知众议院……如果采取任何明显威胁波兰独立的行动,并且波兰政府据此认为必须抵抗其民族力量,vital下政府将感到自己有义务立即向波兰政府提供贷款。所有人都在发挥自己的力量。 他们已经向波兰政府保证了这一点。[12]巴尼特,科雷利, 英国势力的崩溃,纽约:威廉·莫罗(William Morrow),1972年,第560页。 XNUMX; 另请参见泰勒(Taylor),AJP, 第二次世界大战的起源,纽约:Simon&Schuster,1961年,第211页。 XNUMX。

英国有史以来第一次将是否在自己国家以外打仗的决定权交给了另一个国家。 英国对波兰的保证具有约束力,没有波兰方面的承诺。 这一举动使英国公众感到惊讶。 尽管哈利法克斯具有空前的性质,但在说服英国保守党,自由党和工党接受英国对波兰的无条件保证方面几乎没有遇到任何困难。[13]霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第333页,第340页。

许多英国历史学家和外交官批评英国对波兰的单方面保证。 例如,英国外交官罗伊·丹曼(Roy Denman)称对波兰的战争保证是“英国政府有史以来最鲁re的承诺。 它把对欧洲的和平或战争的决定置于鲁re,固执,草率的军事独裁统治之下。”[14]丹曼·罗伊, 错过的机会:XNUMX世纪的英国和欧洲,伦敦:靛蓝(Indigo),1997年,第121页。 XNUMX。英国历史学家尼尔·弗格森(Niall Ferguson)表示,对波兰的战争保证将英国的“命运与一个与德国一样不民主和反犹太主义的政权联系在一起”。[15]弗格森,尼尔 世界大战:XNUMX世纪的冲突与西方的后裔,纽约:企鹅出版社,2006年,第377页。 XNUMX。英国军事历史学家利德尔·哈特(Liddell Hart)表示,波兰的保证“将英国的命运置于波兰统治者的手中,波兰统治者的态度十分可疑且不稳定”。 而且,只有在俄罗斯的帮助下,保证是无法实现的。[16]哈特,BH利德尔, 第二次世界大战的历史,纽约:GP普南的儿子,1970年,第11页。 XNUMX。

美国历史学家理查德·瓦特(Richard M. Watt)在谈到英国对波兰的单方面保证时写道:“这一极为广泛的保证实际上使波兰人有权决定英国是否参加战争。 对于英国来说,向中欧国家,特别是对波兰(这种被英国普遍视为不负责任和贪婪的国家)提供这样一张空白支票,真是令人难以置信。”[17]瓦特,理查德·M。, 悲惨的荣耀:波兰及其命运,1918年至1939年,纽约:Simon and Schuster,1979年,第379页。 XNUMX。

当比利时驻德国大臣Vicomte Jacques Davignon收到英国对波兰的保证书时,他大声疾呼“空白支票”是对英国承诺的唯一可能描述。 鉴于波兰人的鲁re行径,达维尼翁感到极为震惊。 德国国务卿恩斯特·冯·魏兹泽克(Ernst vonWeizsäcker)试图使达维尼翁安心,声称德国和波兰之间的局势不是悲惨的。 但是,达维尼翁正确地担心英国的举动会在很短的时间内引发战争。[18]霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX

魏茨克尔后来later讽地说:“英国对波兰的保证就像在向未受过训练的孩子学习听道理之前向他提供糖食一样!”[19]同上。,p。 391。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

德波关系恶化

波兰当局对德国少数民族的苛刻程度日益加重,使德波关系变得紧张起来。 波兰政府在1930年代开始通过公开征用以低廉的价格没收其德国少数民族的土地。 德国政府对德国土地所有者仅从波兰政府那里获得其财产价值的八分之一感到不满。 由于波兰公众了解德国的状况并希望利用它,因此波兰的德国少数群体无法在被征用之前出售土地。 此外,波兰法律禁止德国人私下出售大片土地。

德国外交官坚持要求在1937年遵守1939年15月与波兰达成的平等对待德国和波兰土地所有者的《少数民族公约》。尽管波兰保证保证公平和平等待遇,德国外交官还是在1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日获悉,德国最近一次征用土地波兰主要是德国人的财产。 在大多数较大的波兰土地完好无损的时候,这些征用实际上消除了德国在波兰的大量土地。 显然,在外交上无法采取任何措施来帮助波兰的德国少数民族。[20]同上,第260-262页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

波兰于23年1939月XNUMX日对德国进行了部分动员,威胁了德国。动员了成千上万的波兰军预备役人员,希特勒被警告说波兰将为防止但泽回到德国而战。 波兰人惊讶地发现德国没有认真对待这一挑战。 希特勒深切希望与波兰建立友谊,因此没有对波兰的战争威胁作出回应。 德国没有威胁波兰,也没有对波兰的部分动员采取任何预防性军事措施。[21]同上,第311-312页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

希特勒认为德波协议是德波战争的极受欢迎的替代方案。 但是,在英国向波兰提供保证之后,由于约瑟夫·贝克(JózefBeck)拒绝进行谈判,因此没有就德波协定进行进一步的谈判。 贝克无视德国一再提出的进一步谈判建议,因为贝克知道哈利法克斯希望彻底摧毁德国。 哈利法克斯自1936年以来就一直认为英德战争是不可避免的,内维尔·张伯伦(Neville Chamberlain)在17年1939月XNUMX日的讲话中宣布了英国的反德国政策。英国对德国的先发制人战争。[22]同上,第355、357页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

从23年1939月5日的波兰部分动员到约瑟夫·贝克1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日的演讲,德国和波兰之间的局势在六个星期内迅速恶化。贝克的主要目的是在下议院下议院前发表演讲波兰议会的领导人是要说服波兰公众和全世界,他有能力并且愿意挑战希特勒。 贝克知道哈利法克斯已经成功地在大不列颠创造了战争般的气氛,并且他可以在不使英国人不满的情况下尽其所能。 贝克在讲话中毫不妥协的态度有效地关闭了与德国进一步谈判的大门。

贝克在讲话中发表了许多虚假和虚伪的言论。 他在讲话中最令人惊讶的主张之一是,英国对波兰的保证没有什么特别的。 他形容这是追求与邻国友好关系的正常步骤。 这与英国外交官亚历山大·卡多根爵士对约瑟夫·肯尼迪的讲话形成鲜明对比,后者说英国对波兰的保证在英国外交政策的整个历史中都没有先例。[23]同上,第381、383页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

贝克以激动人心的高潮结束了演讲,这在波兰下议院引起了极大的兴奋。 观众中有人大声尖叫:“我们不需要和平!” 然后是pandemonium。 贝克让观众决心与德国作战。 这种感觉源于他们的无知,使他们无法批评贝克讲话中的许多虚假陈述和错误陈述。 贝克让听众感到,希特勒实际上是相当合理的和平提议,侮辱了波兰的荣誉。 贝克有效地使德国成为了波兰的致命敌人。[24]同上,第384、387页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

在贝克发表讲话时,有超过1万德国人居住在波兰,这些德国人是未来几周德波危机的主要受害者。 波兰的德国人受到统治波兰人不断增加的暴力侵害。 英国公众一再被告知,德国少数民族在波兰的不满在很大程度上是虚构的。 普通的英国公民完全没有意识到恐怖分子和对死亡的恐惧,这些恐惧和恐惧在波兰跟踪了这些德国人。 最终,在波兰,成千上万的德国人因这场危机而丧生。 他们是英国外交大臣哈利法克斯对德国的战争政策的首批受害者之一。[25]同上。,p。 387。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

内政部部长主任瓦茨拉夫·齐博尔斯基(Waclaw Zyborski)负有在波兰涉及德国少数民族的安全措施的直接责任。 Zyborski同意23年1939月XNUMX日与布隆伯格的德国少数族裔领导人之一沃尔特·科纳特(Walther Kohnert)讨论局势。 Zyborski向Kohnert承认,波兰的德国人处境令人羡慕,但他并不同情他们的困境。 Zyborski坦白地说,他的政策要求对波兰的德国少数族裔进行严厉对待,结束了他们漫长的谈话。 他明确表示,波兰的德国人不可能减轻自己的艰难命运。 波兰的德国人是波兰社区和波兰国家的无助人质。[26]同上。,第388的-389。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

在此期间,在波兰的其他德国少数派领导人多次呼吁波兰政府提供帮助。 保守派德国少数派领导人汉斯·哈斯巴赫(Hans Hasbach)和德国青年党领袖鲁道夫·维斯纳(Rudolf Wiesner)博士均向波兰政府发出了多次呼吁,要求结束暴力。 6年1939月13日,维斯纳(Wiesner)向波兰内政部负责人总理斯拉沃伊·斯科拉德科夫斯基(Sławoj-Składkowski)徒劳地呼吁,提到15月XNUMX日至XNUMX日在罗兹附近的托马索夫(Tomaszów)针对德国人的公开暴力浪潮th,21月22日至XNUMX日在Konstantynównd,以及22年23月1939日至XNUMX日在Pabianice举行。Wiesner的上诉没有产生任何结果。 德国政治团体的领导人最终承认,尽管他们对波兰持忠诚态度,但他们对波兰当局没有任何影响。 在波兰政府的批准下,这是波兰德国人的“开放季节”。[27]同上.
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

在自由城但泽也发生了针对德国多数人的波兰反德国事件。 21年1939月XNUMX日,曾任波兰士兵的齐格蒙特·莫拉夫斯基(Zygmunt Morawski)在但泽(Danzig)领土的卡尔索夫(Kalthof)谋杀了一名德国人。 除了波兰官员的举动,就好像波兰而不是国际联盟拥有对但泽的主权一样,这一事件本身并不会那么罕见。 波兰官员拒绝为这一事件道歉,他们鄙视但但泽(Danzig)当局将莫拉夫斯基(Morawski)送交审判的努力。 丹自格的波兰人认为自己凌驾于法律之上。[28]同上,第392-393页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

莫拉夫斯基谋杀案发生后,紧张局势在丹子格稳步上升。 但泽的德国公民深信,如果波兰占上风,波兰将不会给予他们任何怜悯。 波兰人得知丹子格正在组织自己的民兵进行国内防御,以示Poland视波兰时就大为恼火。 波兰人将这种情况归咎于希特勒。 波兰政府于1年1939月6日向德国大使汉斯·冯·莫尔特克(Hans von Moltke)抗议有关但泽政府的军事防御措施。 约瑟夫·贝克1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日告诉法国大使莱昂·诺尔,波兰政府已决定,有必要采取其他措施来应对据称来自但泽的威胁。[29]同上,第405-406页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

29年1939月5日,但泽政府向波兰人提交了两份抗议书,内容涉及波兰海关检查员和边防官员的非法活动。 波兰政府的回应是终止了从但泽向波兰的免税鲱鱼和人造黄油的出口。 波兰官员随后于1939年5月1939日凌晨宣布,除非在当天结束时丹麦政府承诺永远不干预波兰海关的活动,否则将关闭所有外国食品进口的但泽边境。检查员。 由于Danzig仅生产自己食物的一小部分,因此这一威胁是巨大的。 XNUMX年XNUMX月XNUMX日之后,所有波兰海关检查人员还将在执行职责时携带武器。波兰的最后通made明确表明,波兰打算取代国际联盟成为但泽的主权国家。[30]同上。,p。 412。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

希特勒总结说,波兰正试图挑起与德国的直接冲突。 丹麦政府根据希特勒的建议向波兰最后通submitted提交了最后通atum。[31]同上。 p.页。 413. XNUMX。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

约瑟夫·贝克(JózefBeck)向英国大使肯纳德(Kennard)解释说,如果波兰政府不接受波兰的条款,它准备对但泽采取军事措施。 但泽公民坚信,如果波兰最后通atum遭到拒绝,波兰将对达泽进行全面军事占领。 对于德国政府而言,显而易见的是,英法两国无法或不愿意限制波兰政府采取可能导致战争的任意步骤。[32]同上,第413-415页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

7年1939月XNUMX日,波兰检查员准许该报 Illustrowany 库里尔 科齐尼 在克拉科夫(Kraków)刊登了史无前例的坦率文章。 文章说,波兰部队经常越过德国边境,摧毁德国的军事设施,并将被俘的德国军用物资运入波兰。 波兰政府未能阻止这家在波兰发行量最大的报纸告诉世界,波兰正在煽动一系列侵犯德国与波兰边境的行为。[33]同上。 p。 419.在一个脚注中,提交人指出,关于同样事项的报告载于《公约》。 “纽约时报” 8年1939月XNUMX日。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

波兰大使杰西·波托基(Jerzy Potocki)未能成功地说服约瑟夫·贝克(JózefBeck)寻求与德国达成协议。 波托基后来简洁地解释了波兰的情况,称“波兰更喜欢但泽而不是和平”。[34]同上。,p。 419。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

罗斯福总统知道波兰已经造成了始于但泽的危机,他担心美国公众可能会了解情况的真相。 这可能是阻止罗斯福针对美国对欧洲进行军事干预的计划的决定性因素。 罗斯福指示美国大使比德尔(Biddle)敦促波兰人更加谨慎,以使德国人的举动似乎是丹吉格不可避免发生爆炸的原因。 11年1939月XNUMX日,比德尔(Biddle)向罗斯福(Roosevelt)汇报说,贝克对参与一系列旨在欺骗美国公众的精心设计但又空洞的演习毫无兴趣。 贝克表示,此刻他很满足于英国对其政策的全力支持。[35]同上。,p。 414。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

罗斯福还担心,美国政客可能会发现有关波兰的挑衅政策为德国造成的绝望困境的事实。 当美国民主党竞选经理和后大师詹姆斯·法利(James Farley)访问柏林时,罗斯福指示美国驻柏林大使馆防止法利与德国领导人之间未经监督的接触。 10年1939月XNUMX日,德国外交部得出结论,不可能穿透Farley周围的安全墙。 德国人知道罗斯福总统决心阻止他们与来访的美国领导人自由沟通。[36]同上。,p。 417。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

波兰暴行

14年1939月XNUMX日,东上西里西亚的波兰当局发起了针对德国少数民族的大规模逮捕运动。 波兰人随后关闭并没收了其余的德国企业,俱乐部和福利设施。 被捕的德国人被迫在囚犯列队中向波兰内部进发。 到那时,德国在波兰的各种团体都很疯狂。 他们担心波兰人在发生战争时会企图彻底消灭德国少数民族。 成千上万的德国人试图越过边境进入德国,以逃避逮捕。 波兰最近发生的最严重的暴行包括一些德国人被肢解。 敦促波兰公众不要将其德国少数民族视为无助的人质,而这些人质可能会遭到屠杀而逍遥法外。[37]同上。,第452的-453。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

波兰的德国少数族裔领导人中最杰出的鲁道夫·维斯纳(Rudolf Wiesner)谈到自1939年初以来的一场“不可思议的灾难”。维斯纳声称,最后的德国人被解雇了,而没有失业救济金,饥饿和匮乏被印在波兰德国人的脸上。 德国福利机构,合作社和贸易协会已被波兰当局关闭。 先前边境地区的特殊戒严条件已扩大到包括波兰三分之一以上的领土。 波兰过去几周的大规模逮捕,驱逐,肢解和殴打超过了以前发生的一切。 维斯纳坚持认为,德国少数派领导人仅希望恢复和平,消除战争的幽灵,以及享有和平生活和工作的权利。 维斯纳(Wiesner)因涉嫌对波兰进行间谍活动而于16年1939月XNUMX日被波兰人逮捕。[38]同上。, p. ,P。 463. XNUMX。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

德国新闻界将更多的空间用于详细记录针对波兰人的针对德国人的暴行。 这 弗尔基舍(VölkischerBeobachter) 报道称,到80,000年20月1939日,已有1,500多名来自波兰的德国难民成功到达德国领土。德国外交部收到了大量关于针对波兰民族和种族的德国人过度行贿的具体报告。 自1939年10月以来,已收到XNUMX多份有文件记录的报告,每天有XNUMX份详细报告到达德国外交部。 这些报告提供了令人震惊的残酷和人间苦难的画面。[39]同上。,p。 479。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

美国记者WL·怀特(WL White)后来回忆说,这一次消息灵通的人们无疑无疑每天都在对波兰的德国人施加可怕的暴行。[40]同上。,p。 554。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX.)

唐纳德·戴(Donald Day), “芝加哥论坛报” 记者报道了波兰人对波兰德国人的残酷对待:

…我去了波兰的走廊,德国当局允许我采访来自波兰许多城镇的德国难民。 故事是一样的。 沿着通往波兰内陆的道路发生了大规模的逮捕和长征。 铁路上挤满了部队。 那些跌倒在路边的人被枪杀了。 波兰当局似乎发疯了。 我一生都在质疑人们,我想我知道如何从经历过痛苦经历的人们讲述的夸大故事中得出推论。 但是即使有慷慨的津贴,情况还是很糟糕的。 在我看来,战争似乎只是几个小时的问题。[41]那天,唐纳德 前进的基督徒士兵,Newport Beach,Cal。:Noontide出版社,2002年,第56页。 XNUMX。

英国驻柏林大使内维尔·亨德森(Nevile Henderson)致力于从哈利法克斯(Halifax)获得对波兰波兰德裔少数族裔残酷命运的认可。 亨德森(Henderson)于24年1939月XNUMX日强烈警告哈利法克斯(Halifax),事实是德国人对在波兰对待德国少数民族的抱怨得到了充分的支持。 亨德森知道德国人准备进行谈判,他对哈利法克斯说,除非两国之间恢复谈判,否则波兰和德国之间的战争是不可避免的。 亨德森向哈利法克斯(Halifax)表示,企图完全军事侵占但泽有违波兰利益,并且他还严厉地有效谴责了波兰的政策。 亨德森没有意识到的是,哈利法克斯出于自身利益而发动战争是一种政策手段。 哈利法克斯希望彻底摧毁德国。[42]霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。

25年1939月XNUMX日,亨德森大使向哈利法克斯报告了上西里西亚比利茨的最新波兰暴行。 亨德森从不依赖德国对这些事件的官方声明,而是根据他从中立消息来源获得的信息撰写报告。 波兰人继续强行驱逐该地区的德国人,并迫使他们进军波兰内陆。 在其中一项行动中,八名德国人被谋杀,更多人受伤。

希特勒面临着一个可怕的困境。 如果希特勒不采取任何行动,波兰和但泽的德国人将被敌对的波兰的残酷和暴力所抛弃。 如果希特勒对波兰人采取有效行动,英法两国可能对德国宣战。 亨德森担心,比利兹的暴行将是促使希特勒入侵波兰的最后一根稻草。 强烈希望与德国和平的亨德森对英国政府未能对波兰当局施加克制感到遗憾。[43]同上。,p。 509
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)

23年1939月23日,德国和苏联签署了莫洛托夫-里本特罗普协定。 这项不侵略条约包含一项秘密协议,承认俄罗斯在东欧的势力范围。 在外交上解决德波争端的情况下,德国对苏维埃势力范围的承认将不适用。 希特勒曾希望通过莫洛托夫-里本特罗普不侵略条约恢复外交主动权。 然而,张伯伦在1939年XNUMX月XNUMX日的信中警告希特勒,无论莫洛托夫-里本特罗普协议如何,英国都将以军事力量支持波兰。 约瑟夫·贝克(JózefBeck)还继续拒绝与德国进行和平解决。[44]同上,第470、483、538页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)

29年1939月XNUMX日,德国向波兰提出了新的要约,以进行最后一次外交运动,以解决德波争端。 德国一项新的解决方案,即所谓的Marienwerder提议,其条款比提议进行谈判的重要性要小。 Marienwerder提案的条款只不过是德国为可能的解决方案而制定的暂定计划。 德国政府强调,这些条款旨在为平等之间的无障碍谈判提供基础,而不是构成波兰必须接受的一系列要求。 没有什么可以阻止波兰人提出自己的一套全新建议。

德国人主动提出与波兰进行谈判,表示他们赞成外交解决方案,而不是与波兰的战争。 波兰人进行谈判的意愿丝毫不暗示波兰撤退或愿意承认德国吞并但泽。 波兰人本来有理由接受接受与德国(而不是波兰)发现有必要要求进行新谈判的宣布进行谈判的理由。 为了拒绝谈判,波兰人宣布他们赞成战争。 英国外交大臣哈利法克斯拒绝鼓励波兰人进行谈判,这表明他也赞成战争。[45]同上,第513-514页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)

法国总理达拉第耶和英国总理张伯伦都私下批评波兰政府。 达拉第私下谴责波兰人的“犯罪愚蠢”。 张伯伦向约瑟夫·肯尼迪大使承认,不合理的是波兰人,而不是德国人。 肯尼迪向罗斯福总统报告说:“坦率地说,(钱伯兰)他比波兰人更担心让波兰人变得更合理。” 但是,达拉第和张伯伦都没有做出任何努力来影响波兰人与德国人进行谈判。[46]同上,第441、549页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)

29年1939月XNUMX日,波兰政府决定全面动员军队。 波兰的军事计划规定,只有在波兰决定战争时,才能下令进行总动员。 亨德森向战争中的哈利法克斯通报了一些经过核实的波兰侵犯人权行为。 波兰人炸毁了横跨维斯瓦河的迪绍(Tczew)桥,即使通往该桥的东部途径是在德国境内(东普鲁士)。 波兰人还占领了多个但泽(Danzig)设施,并在同一天与但泽(Danzig)公民进行战斗。 亨德森报道说,希特勒并不坚持对波兰进行全面军事打击。 如果波兰人表示愿意为达成令人满意的解决方案进行谈判,希特勒准备终止敌对行动。[47]同上,第537、577页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)

德国决定于1年1939月XNUMX日入侵波兰。所有英国领导人都声称,发动战争的全部责任是希特勒。 总理张伯伦当天晚间在英国广播电台播报说:“这场可怕的灾难(波兰战争)的责任在于一个人,即德国总理。” 张伯伦声称,希特勒已下令波兰无条件承担进入柏林的义务,即未经讨论即接受德国的确切条款。 张伯伦否认德国邀请波兰人进行正常谈判。 张伯伦的言论毫无保留地说谎,但是波兰案是如此微弱,以至于无法用事实来捍卫它。

哈利法克斯还于1年1939月1938日晚上在上议院发表了巧妙的虚伪言论。哈利法克斯声称,英国实现和平的最好证据就是让伟大的ase靖领袖张伯伦带领英国参战。 哈利法克斯(Halifax)隐瞒了他于XNUMX年XNUMX月从张伯伦(Chamberlain)手中接过英国外交政策的方向的事实,并且如果这没有发生,英国可能不会卷入战争。 他向听众保证,希特勒在历史大战之前必须承担起战争的全部责任。 哈利法克斯坚持认为英国人的良心是明确的,回想起来,他不希望改变就英国政策而言的任何事情。[48]同上,第578-579页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)

2年1939月XNUMX日,意大利和德国同意在他们之间以及英国,法国和波兰之间举行调解会议。 哈利法克斯坚持要求德国在英,法两国考虑参加调解会议之前从波兰和但泽撤军,从而破坏了会议计划。 法国外交大臣邦内特(Bonnet)知道,没有任何国家会接受这种待遇,而且哈利法克斯的态度是不合理和不现实的。

最终,调解工作破裂,大不列颠和法国于3年1939月XNUMX日对德国宣战。希特勒读到英国对德国的战争宣言时,他停顿了一下,没有人特别问:“现在怎么办?”[49]同上,第586、593、598页。
(Hoggan,David L., 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。)
德国现在正与三个欧洲国家进行不必要的战争。

与其他英国领导人类似,英国驻德国大使内维尔·亨德森(Nevile Henderson)随后声称,发动战争的全部责任是希特勒。 亨德森(Henderson)在1940年的回忆录中写道:“如果希特勒想要和平,他知道如何确保和平。 如果他想开战,他同样很清楚会带来什么。 选择权在于他,最终,战争的全部责任就是他。”[50]内维尔,亨德森, 任务失败,纽约:GP普南的儿子,1940年,第227页。 XNUMX。 亨德森在这段话中忘记了他曾多次警告哈利法克斯,波兰对波兰的德国少数民族的暴行是极端的。 希特勒入侵波兰以结束这些暴行。

波兰暴行继续抵抗德国少数民族

1939年XNUMX月上旬,波兰的德国人继续感到恐怖的气氛。在整个德国,德国人被告知:“如果战争爆发,波兰人将被绞死。” 这个预言后来在许多情况下得以实现。

3年1939月XNUMX日在托伦著名的血腥星期天,伴随着波兰其他地方的类似屠杀。 这些屠杀使许多德意志民族的长期苦难悲剧性地终结了。 战争爆发前德国人曾预料到会发生这种灾难,这反映在大量德国人从波兰逃跑或企图逃脱。 绝望的口号揭示了这些德国人的感受:“远离地狱,回到帝国!”[51]霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨,加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第390页。 XNUMX。

阿尔弗雷德·莫里斯·德·扎亚斯(Alfred-Maurice de Zayas)博士谈到波兰的德国人:

战争的第一批受害者是Volksdeutsche,他是居住在波兰的德意志民族平民,也是波兰公民。 波兰使用几年前准备的清单,部分是由下级行政部门提供的,立即将15,000名德国人驱逐回波兰东部。 对德国快速获胜的恐惧和愤怒导致了歇斯底里。 到处可见德国“间谍”,涉嫌组成第五专栏。 战争初期,有5,000多名德国平民被谋杀。 他们同时是人质和替罪羊。 3月XNUMX日,布隆贝格以及德国少数族裔居住的Pommerellen的Posen省的其他几个地方都播放了令人毛骨悚然的场面。[52]德·扎亚斯(De Zayas),阿尔弗雷德·莫里斯(Alfred-Maurice), 可怕的复仇:东欧德国人的种族清洗, 2nd 版,纽约:帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦(Palgrave Macmillan),2006年,第27页。 XNUMX。

书中记录了波兰对德国人的暴行 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为。 外界大多数人不屑一顾这本书,只不过是用来证明希特勒入侵波兰的宣传而已。 但是,持怀疑态度的人没有注意到国际红十字会的法医病理学家以及美国的医学和法律观察员证实了对波兰战争罪的这些调查结果。 这些调查也是由德国警察和民政部门进行的,而不是由国家社会党或德国军方进行的。 此外,反德语和其他受过大学训练的研究人员都承认,书中的指控完全基于事实证据。[53]马克·罗兰(Roland),马克,“波兰审查的大屠杀” 《巴恩斯评论》(Barnes)评论:2008-2010年,第132的-133。

这本书 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为 声明:

17年1939月5,437日,第一套文件出版时,波兰军队士兵和波兰平民针对德国少数民族的男子,妇女和儿童的1起谋杀案已经确定。 众所周知,完全确定后的总数会高得多。 在该日期至1940年12,857月12,857日之间,已确认的受害者人数达到45,000。 在现阶段的调查显示,除了这58,000人外,仍有XNUMX多人失踪。 由于没有踪影,他们也必须被视为波兰恐怖的受​​害者。 即使是XNUMX的数字也不是最终数字。 毫无疑问,现在进行的查询将导致额外的数千人丧生和失踪。[54]沙杜瓦尔特,汉斯, 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为,柏林和纽约:德国资讯图书馆2nd 版,1940年,第19页。 XNUMX

对死者的医学检查表明,从四个月到82岁的各个年龄段的德国人都被谋杀。 该报告的结论是:

事实证明,谋杀案是最残酷的行径,而且在许多情况下,它们纯属虐待狂行为—建立了眼神的掠夺,在证人证人的支持下,其他形式的残害被认为是真实的。

在许多情况下实施个人谋杀的方法揭示了经过研究的身心折磨; 在这方面,不得不提到几起杀戮案件持续了多个小时,由于忽视而导致缓慢死亡的案件。

迄今为止,最重要的发现似乎是证明,用棍棒或小刀等偶然武器谋杀是例外,而且通常,凶手可以使用现代,高效的步枪和手枪。 必须进一步强调的是,有可能显示出最细微的细节,[根据军事法]不可能被处决。[55]同上,第257-258页。
(Shadewalt,汉斯, 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为,柏林和纽约:德国资讯图书馆2nd 版,1940年,第19页。 XNUMX)

波兰的暴行不​​是个人报复,嫉妒专业或阶级仇恨的行为; 相反,它们是一致的政治行动。 他们是由政治仇恨心理引起的大规模谋杀案。 仇恨情绪促使人们销毁德国人的一切,这是受到波兰媒体,广播,学校和政府宣传的推动。 英国对支持的空白检查鼓励了波兰对其德国少数民族进行非人道的暴行。[56]同上,第88-89页。
(Shadewalt,汉斯, 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为,柏林和纽约:德国资讯图书馆2nd 版,1940年,第19页。 XNUMX)

这本书 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为 解释了波兰政府为何鼓励此类暴行:

英国政府向波兰提供援助的保证是推动英国包围政策的推动者。 它旨在利用但泽和走廊问题发动一场战争,这是英国所期望和长期准备的,以歼灭大德国。 在华沙,不再认为必须进行节制,并且认为可以安全地处理事务。 英格兰支持这场恶性游戏,保证了波兰国家的“诚信”。 英国的援助保证意味着波兰将成为德国敌人的重灾区。 从那时起,波兰就没有忽视德国的任何形式的挑衅,并且在盲目地梦想着“在柏林之门的胜利战役”。 如果不是要鼓励英国战争集团,这使波兰对帝国的态度更加坚定,并且其诺言使华沙感到安全,那么波兰政府几乎就不会让事情发展到波兰士兵和平民最终解释的地步。口号是消灭所有德国人的影响力,以煽动谋杀和残害人类的行为。[57]同上,第75-76页。
(Shadewalt,汉斯, 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为,柏林和纽约:德国资讯图书馆2nd 版,1940年,第19页。 XNUMX)

尾注

[1] 泰勒(Taylor),AJP, 第二次世界大战的起源,纽约:Simon&Schuster,1961年,第207页。 XNUMX。

[2] 德康德,亚历山大, 美国外交政策史,纽约:查尔斯·斯克里布纳的《儿子》,1971年,第576页。 XNUMX。

[3] 霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第25页,第312页。

[4] 泰勒(Taylor),AJP, 第二次世界大战的起源,纽约:Simon&Schuster,1961年,第209页。 XNUMX。

[5] 霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第50页。 XNUMX

[6] 同上,第49-60页。

[7] 同上,第328-329页。

[8] 同上,第145-146页。

[9] 同上 p.页。 21. XNUMX。

[10] 同上。,第21页,第256-257页。

[11] 同上。,p。 323。

[12] 巴尼特,科雷利, 英国势力的崩溃,纽约:威廉·莫罗(William Morrow),1972年,第560页。 XNUMX; 另请参见泰勒(Taylor),AJP, 第二次世界大战的起源,纽约:Simon&Schuster,1961年,第211页。 XNUMX。

[13] 霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第333页,第340页。

[14] 丹曼·罗伊, 错过的机会:XNUMX世纪的英国和欧洲,伦敦:靛蓝(Indigo),1997年,第121页。 XNUMX。

[15] 弗格森,尼尔 世界大战:XNUMX世纪的冲突与西方的后裔,纽约:企鹅出版社,2006年,第377页。 XNUMX。

[16] 哈特,BH利德尔, 第二次世界大战的历史,纽约:GP普南的儿子,1970年,第11页。 XNUMX。

[17] 瓦特,理查德·M。, 悲惨的荣耀:波兰及其命运,1918年至1939年,纽约:Simon and Schuster,1979年,第379页。 XNUMX。

[18] 霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,科斯塔·梅萨(Costa Mesa),加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第342页。 XNUMX

[19] 同上。,p。 391。

[20] 同上,第260-262页。

[21] 同上,第311-312页。

[22] 同上,第355、357页。

[23] 同上,第381、383页。

[24] 同上,第384、387页。

[25] 同上。,p。 387。

[26] 同上。,第388的-389。

[27] 同上.

[28] 同上,第392-393页。

[29] 同上,第405-406页。

[30] 同上。,p。 412。

[31] 同上。 p.页。 413. XNUMX。

[32] 同上,第413-415页。

[33] 同上。 p。 419.在一个脚注中,提交人指出,关于同样事项的报告载于《公约》。 “纽约时报” 8年1939月XNUMX日。

[34] 同上。,p。 419。

[35] 同上。,p。 414。

[36] 同上。,p。 417。

[37] 同上。,第452的-453。

[38] 同上。, p. ,P。 463. XNUMX。

[39] 同上。,p。 479。

[40] 同上。,p。 554。

[41] 那天,唐纳德 前进的基督徒士兵,Newport Beach,Cal。:Noontide出版社,2002年,第56页。 XNUMX。

[42] 霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第500-501页,第550页。

[43] 同上。,p。 509

[44] 同上,第470、483、538页。

[45] 同上,第513-514页。

[46] 同上,第441、549页。

[47] 同上,第537、577页。

[48] 同上,第578-579页。

[49] 同上,第586、593、598页。

[50] 内维尔,亨德森, 任务失败,纽约:GP普南的儿子,1940年,第227页。 XNUMX。

[51] 霍根(Hoggan),大卫(David L.), 强迫战争:和平修正失败时,哥斯达黎加梅萨,加州:历史回顾研究所,1989年,第390页。 XNUMX。

[52] 德·扎亚斯(De Zayas),阿尔弗雷德·莫里斯(Alfred-Maurice), 可怕的复仇:东欧德国人的种族清洗, 2nd 版,纽约:帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦(Palgrave Macmillan),2006年,第27页。 XNUMX。

[53] 马克·罗兰(Roland),马克,“波兰审查的大屠杀” 《巴恩斯评论》(Barnes)评论:2008-2010年,第132的-133。

[54] 沙杜瓦尔特,汉斯, 波兰针对波兰的德国少数民族的残暴行为,柏林和纽约:德国资讯图书馆2nd 版,1940年,第19页。 XNUMX

[55] 同上,第257-258页。

[56] 同上,第88-89页。

[57] 同上,第75-76页。

(从重新发布 不便的历史 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 发展史 •标签: 德国, 第二次世界大战 
隐藏993条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. aandrews 说:

    Although I’d more or less formed the notion, from previous reading, that Poland was “suckin’ around for a good whackin’” prior to the German attack, I’ve never encountered such a thorough explanation in one place.

  2. Talha 说:

    Hmmm, no mention of the possibility they were simply trying to LARP the Teutonic Knights multiple wars with Poland and it went a little too far…🤔.

    和平:

    • 哈哈: Redneck farmer
    • 回复: @NobodyKnowsImADog
  3. “Great Britain for the first time in history had left the decision whether or not to fight a war outside of her own country to another nation.”

    This leads to other questions. Why didn’t Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland? Secondly, once the Polish question was ended by the German/Soviet partition, why did a near bankrupt Great Britain not accept German peace proposals to withdraw from non-German areas in Poland and France? Why did Churchill destroy the British empire and much of Europe?

  4. FB 说:

    Didn’t read the ‘article’ but here’s a list of logical reasons why Nazi Germany invaded Poland…

    1…Poland was massing its army, poised to invade Germany and the Nazis had no choice but to strike first…as would be the case with Russia two years later…

    2…Poland had a lot of Jews and Shitler wanted to make sure they could all get to Palestine safely…or Madagascar…or Birobidjan Jewish Autonomous Oblast…or…fill in blank…etc…

    3…The Poles were making a lot of noise about how the German race was inferior…’subhumans’…whatever the word is in Polish…

    4…The Poles needed ‘living space’ and were planning to colonize Germany and make one third of the German population into slave labor…send another third east of the Urals…and the final third would be liquidated…by means of extermination camps and a gas called ‘kolbasa 1’…

    There are probably more, so you Shitler fan boys might want to read the ‘article’…and then ‘discuss’ amongst yourselves…

    TRALALALALA…

    What was that Mr Unz said about ‘deranged’ comments…?

    No…surely not on this website…with such fine ‘work’ as this ‘author’…

  5. The credibility of the piece is considerably weakened by the fact that footnotes five through eleven all refer solely to a publication of the Institute for Historical Review. If the claims made are valid, surely a more mainstream source could be offered. This would be particularly true of footnotes eight and ten, which make some startling claims about the content of Hitler’s settlement offer.

  6. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:

    The pledge to Poland was the most retarded and idiotic action ever taken by ANY British government in all of history. PURE INSANITY.

    Even CRAZIER was the fact that the brain-dead Poles actually believed it.

    Funny how London never declared war on the Soviet Union too…..

  7. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @Carlton Meyer

    说过:
    “This leads to other questions. Why didn’t Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland? ”

    More inconvenient facts:

    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians, Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion. Yet the Britain, France did nothing.
    – USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet Britain & France did nothing.
    –在德国对美国宣战之前很久,“中立”的美国一直在攻击德国的U型船和航运,同时向英国和苏联提供物资。
    – Britain invaded & was mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
    –法国在比利时边境安置了2万士兵,而BEF又有近XNUMX万。
    – France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch “neutrality” with impunity by flying military aircraft over the lowlands.
    – It is also important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.

    “希特勒不会发动战争,但他将被迫参战,不是今年,而是以后……”
    – (Jew Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

    推荐的: 1年1939月XNUMX日之前的波兰针对德国人的暴行: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
    罗斯福密谋发起欧洲第二次世界大战: https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    • 同意: Carroll Price, Fox
  8. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:

    The Poles were jackasses. They bear a large degree of responsibility for the war.

  9. The most egregious sin in this piece is not one of commission, but of omission.

    Yes, Britain became intransigent, and yes, it issued a guarantee to Poland that it would come to her aid if Germany threatened her sovereignty.

    What Wear spectacularly fails to discuss is 为什么 Britain did this. The previous October, the Czech crisis had apparently been settled when Czechoslovakia was forced to make extensive territorial concessions to Germany. Chamberlain had hailed this as guaranteeing ‘peace in our time.’ Hitler had no more territorial ambitions in Europe — or so he said.

    On March 6th, 1939, Germany simply ignored the pact of the previous October and marched into the rump of the Czech state, openly flouting its commitments.

    Later the same month, Britain issued its guarantee to Poland — this time unequivocally committing itself to war if Hitler threatened the independence of another state.

    The connection was — to say the least — obvious, but Wear simply omits it. Britain’s decision to finally draw a line in the sand becomes an arbitrary invitation to war. The motive is not to halt German aggression, but an arbitrary desire to ‘destroy Germany.’ In fact, of course, Britain had acquiesced in Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland and his annexation of Austria, and had found itself forced to accept his seizure of Czechoslovakia. It had merely at last decided enough was enough.

    There is much about the Second World War that should be reevaluated and reappraised. However, there’s little point in substituting a second set of lies for the first.

  10. @Carlton Meyer

    ‘This leads to other questions. Why didn’t Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland? ‘

    Because fighting one major power at a time was enough?

    In any case, Britain did come very close to going to war with the Soviet Union in the ensuing months. There were the schemes mooted to bomb Baku, and the French and British were girding up their loins to send an expeditionary force to help the Finns fight the Russians when that country finally capitulated.

    One has to recall the sheer 恐怖 the memory of the First World War inspired in Britain and France. The wonder isn’t that they didn’t declare war on Russia, but that they actually found the fortitude to declare war on Germany.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Oikeamielinen
  11. obwandiyag 说:

    Because Poland was so dangerous.

    • 回复: @Wally
  12. @Carlton Meyer

    I’m given to understand that it was written into the agreement with Poland that the guarantee (which was worthless anyway as it happens) that Britain would come to Poland’s aid only applied to an invasion from the West by Germany and that invasion from the East by Russia was explicitly excluded. My source for that is the British journalist Peter Hitchens.

    • 回复: @eah
    , @Carroll Price
  13. Dube 说:

    Great Britain’s Blank Check to Poland. Mr. Wear, I see no language in the passage that you cite from Chamberlain’s words of March 31, 1939 that offers an unconditional “blank check.” I emphasize conditions below, in bold.

    I now have to inform the House…that in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to 抵制 with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to that effect.[12]

    Where is official language expressing commitment that “The British Empire agreed to go to war as an ally of Poland if the Poles decided that war was necessary.?

    • 回复: @Parfois1
    , @MarkU
    , @Theodore
    , @Druid
  14. Franz 说:

    Knew parts of this. The rest is even more sickening.

    Roosevelt should have been strung up like Mussolini. The other guy too.

    Despite a few patriots like Pat Buchanan, the right has more to answer for in all of this. They led the clean-up campaign against the pre-war “isolationists” and allowed history to be as skewed and falsified as it is now. The left was already dirty, but the “right” established after the war was instrumental in flattening the reputations of any person or organization connected to the old America First campaign.

    Charles Beard saw this coming:

    The Rockefeller Foundation and Council on Foreign Relations . . . intend to prevent, if they can, a repetition of what they call “the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I.” Translated into precise English, this means that the Foundation and the Council do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and statements relative to “our basic aims and activities” during World War II. In short, they hope that the policies and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in coming years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell the policies and measures of President Woodrow Wilson and the Entente Allies after World War I.

    From: Charles Beard, “Who’s to Write the History of the War?” Saturday Evening Post (October 4, 1947).

    • 回复: @Hu Mi Yu
  15. GMC 说:

    A great article – again – Boy, this thing called the internet, is just exploding with the truer history facts, that have been buried, twisted, rewritten, propagandized, and used for the big NWO Show ! In Germany and other counties , its against the Law to show, write or speak against the real Holocaust History that was written by the Zionist Jews and their Cabal. We need an International Law that puts you away, for hiding the real facts about our history and past acts that have brainwashed the citizens of the world. We would need a thousand more prisons, but we would save trillions in the long run. Imagine a guy living in Russia that understands that the Soviets , were indeed going to over run/invade East Europe and maybe further, but the German Gov. {who were really terrified of the Bolshevik Zionists } – got wind of this and struck – first. Or a man in the US that calls out the Jewish Zionists for destroying, looting, and lobbying for laws that overrun the country with Unlimited, Open Immigration/ Refugee Laws while stopping any more European Immigration. Both these scenarios, could possibly be proven in an unbiased civil court procedure. Only in Malaysia tho. Thanks Unz Rev.

    • 回复: @Poupon Marx
  16. Korenchkin 说:

    Oh joy, another Anti-Poland article for Hitler fanboys to circlejerk around
    Yeah, the greatest power of the time just let itself accidentally get dragged into war and Churchill had no plans to attack the Soviet Union pre 1941
    The pile of rubble, formerly known as Warsaw and the tens of millions dead in the East shows how Hitler actually loved diplomacy and regarded Slavs as equals and was fighting to save them from Stalin and the Anglos

    PS: fuck communism

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @aandrews
    , @2stateshmustate
  17. Boult 说:

    Now I get it!

    Inferior beings like Poles and Palestinians should never be allowed to run their own countries.

    I mean, Germans and Jews could do it much better, couldn’t they?

    • 回复: @Mark Kaczmarek
  18. Eamon 说:

    伙计们,我们得到了它:犹太复国主义者已经修复了他们与德国人的围栏,因此犹太人和德国人可以再次继续他们与波兰的百年斗争,波兰最近有胆量要求德国提供战争赔偿,同时时间拒绝资助美国大屠杀工业。

    And why on earth should Trump now be visiting Poland again? I mean — anti-Semitic and anti-German Poland! Can’t something be done to stop this? CNN? “The Washington Post”? Antifa? Can’t anyone do anything?

    This calls for a radical solution — Judeo-Polonia:

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=191642#comment-934919

    • 回复: @Alden
    , @G
  19. GeeBee 说:

    Many thanks for this excellent – if necessarily heart-breaking – 裸露 of the lies that have been spewed out by ‘The Allies’ for more than seventy years, in an all-too-successful attempt to justify their monstrous crime of starting World War Two. Emulating the classic tactic of the psychotic oppressor, which is to say ‘projecting’ his misdeeds onto his wretched victims, they have succeeded in portraying Adolf Hitler as ‘the acme of evil’; a megalomaniac hell-bent on world conquest; a heartless tyrant who glibly massacred millions; an existential threat to our priceless bequest of centuries of Western civilisation.

    Except that in reality he was the exact opposite of these things. Churchill and Roosevelt, on the other hand, exemplified all of them. It would be hard to imagine an evil more terrible than the unfolding of American policy (eagerly abetted by its satraps in Europe) since its victory over that same priceless bequest on 8th May 1945 – the blackest day in the history of our race. As for world conquest, any vestige of meaningful political power in Europe was yielded up to Zio-America on that same date, since when this evil empire has regarded itself as having 全权委托 to meddle and murder its way into every country perceived as being either ripe for Zio-exploitation or a troublesome obstacle standing in the way of its business of plunder and rapine. It need scarcely be added that the ‘massacre of millions’ has since been the gruesome accompaniment to these repulsive undertakings. Just how, it is pertinent to enquire, might even the bogus caricature of Hitler that too many of us have glibly and meekly swallowed, have been worse than this?

    I have written before (in my eight-part essay on National Socialism at the now sadly moribund Mickey’s Clubhouse Disqus channel) that if we true Western people might regard Wotan as an avatar both of ourselves and our culture, then May 1945 was our 哥特达默隆. We live, therefore, in ‘The Twilight of the Gods’, and just as Wotan expected no second chance, neither should we: the atrocious triumph of evil looks set to endure forever. In the short video clip of Leon Degrelle (a Belgian national who enlisted in the Waffen SS, and who rose to high rank within it), titled ‘We Dreamed of Something Marvellous’, scenes from the days of The Third Reich are juxtaposed with scenes from our contemporary modern culture, fittingly set to the strains of Siegfried’s Tod from Wagner’s 哥特达默隆. It is well worth watching, if only for a heart-rending glimpse of what might have been and what we now have instead.

    https://archive.org/details/WeDreamedOfSomethingMarvellousLeonDegrelle

  20. Teleros 说:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Because the war was never about Poland. British policy re Europe for 100s of years had been to stop any hegemonic power in order to avoid an invasion of the British Isles. Hence war with France, Spain, France, France, France, and now Germany. Balance of power was the phrase used.

    Ever since Germany was formed back in the 19th century, war was all but inevitable under this policy. Germany had too much industry & manpower to maintain a balance of power & thus peace (ie, the peace that comes from being uncertain of victory due to the strength of the opposition, whether we’re talking France or Germany or whoever).

    Peace in 1939 would have merely been a short pause to prepare before it started up again – think Treaty of Amiens back in Napoleon’s day. For the British, Poland was only ever a pretext to hobbling the latest hegemonic power.

    Obviously think went a bit pear-shaped as the USSR conquered half of Europe & the Cold War model of rival alliances set in, but arguably even that worked out well from the balance of power / peace through uncertainty of victory model.

    • 回复: @lysias
  21. This historical investigation centers on Poland with great detail, but seems to steer away consciously from what happened in Czechoslovakia, how the British (& French) government betrayed the Czechoslovak government but also how the Germans undiplomatically occupied the Czech Republic and created the puppet regime of Slovakia. And all of a sudden one should believe the honest intentions of German diplomacy with regard to Poland? The truth is, that not only the German government acted as a crook, but all parties involved. Propaganda war was not Goebbels’ prerogative, but the pastime of all the warmongers.

    • 回复: @Deutscher
  22. A.R. 说:

    对导致 1939 年德国入侵波兰的情况进行了非常有趣的总结。
    推荐大家仔细阅读。

  23. Deutscher 说:

    Looks like Poland really deserved the Katyn Forest Massacre. I guess Stalin did something right. Karma is such a bitch. But then again, a Pole would plant an egg in the ground to grow a chicken, so they probably never even saw it coming. Just be happy Hitler wasn’t as evil as he’s made out.
    Also looking forward to Britain becoming New Pakistan. Anglos really remind me of jews in their dealings. But that’s not really surprising either considering how mixed Anglo bloodlines are with the jews they’ve worshipped so much since Cromwell. England is the Latin America of Mischlings.
    I guess Europe is undergoing some long overdue changes. We Germans will survive in tact. We were loyal to the man God sent us, Hitler. And so God will grant us a future. I can’t say the same about Anglos lol

  24. @Colin Wright

    Seriously, you might consider posting sources of your own rather than, or perhaps in addition to, saying that you do not approve of sources used. I believe that this practice would make your posts and the discussion far more productive.

    反叛乱

  25. Deutscher 说:
    @All we like sheep

    Why did we owe them anything? The Sudentenlands were German and the Czechs were bruralizing Germans there. We were pretty nice to the Czechs. They deserved so much worse.
    The more I speaked the Anglo’s fork-tongued language the more I am convinced that Hitler really should have been as brutal as you liars slander him.
    I’d love to one day see Germans firebomb London and Birmingham into hot ashes, but when I hear about Paki rape gangs all over your cities, I realize Karma needs no assistance.

    • 回复: @Anon
  26. Where’s the discussion of Germany’s agreement with the USSR to partition Poland? That had to have been a major part of this.

    平叛

  27. Deutscher 说:
    @Colin Wright

    I am so sorry the bibliography doesn’t conform to your delicately nuanced sensibilities sir. Lol Anglos are so entitled, they even like yo cherry pick reality as if they’re unhappy with the menu at one of their colonial port restaurants.
    Sorry Anglo, but those days are long over.
    You are gonna have to start judging sources by whether or not they are true, and not by whether you personally like the person who wrote them.

    • 回复: @refl
  28. @Colin Wright

    If the claims made are valid, surely a more mainstream source could be offered.

    Look at the header of this website.

    “The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
    大量有趣,重要且有争议的观点 被美国主流媒体排除=

    • 同意: GMC
  29. Paul 说:

    Why? Because Poland was on the way of getting to the Soviet Union (with its Communists and oil).

  30. Parfois1 说:
    @Dube

    Where is official language expressing commitment that “The British Empire agreed to go to war as an ally of Poland if the Poles decided that war was necessary.“?

    Finally someone can read English! Indeed there was no commitment for the UK going to war at all; only a pretence to encourage the Polish fools into the trap. All those diplomatic comments about England being held at the whim of bellicose Poles is pure theatre; the English knew what they were doing and why – getting Germany on the warpath and steer Adolph to the promised land further East.

    • 回复: @MarkU
  31. @anonymous1963

    You beat me to this sentiment. I can’t wait to see what they do for an encore against Russia. They seem to be adept at being the provocateur.

  32. refl 说:

    In Germany, the outbreak of war is commonly associated with the assault by a German battleship on the Polish garrison on the Westerplatte peninsula.
    To understand the true nature of the British betrayal of Poland you have to actually visit the place: Westerplatte covers the access to the harbour of Danzig, which made its Polish garrison a nuissance and prime target in the event of war. It had no territorial connection to Polish territory and was only accesible from Danzig territory. The garrison was bound to be defeated and held out 9 days waiting for the British navy – noone had told them that the British navy was meant to rule the high seas and never would have been deployed to the Baltics. There were no designs ever in Britain to actually fullfill their promise.
    Poland, or what was left of it, only was liberated 50 years later, when the Soviets retreated. The current Polish leadership is begging for a repeat by asking the US to send them nuclear weapons.
    Poland was for the British the trip wire they needed to get into a war and have the Russians fight it.

    • 同意: byrresheim
  33. refl 说:
    @Deutscher

    Now please, I would point him to Carol Quigley’s “Angloamerican Establishment” – it shows very neatly that the rise of German military power was a deliberate British plan, including arming Germany by delivering to it Czech armament.
    Quigley is not even against that establishment but he is honest enough to call them out. The story of what became of his books tells you all you have to know about the worth of the so called Mainstream.

    • 回复: @Freifrau Gabriele
  34. eah 说:
    @Rutger Spuds

    Why didn’t Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland?

    The original ‘guarantee’ — if you want to call it that — was in the form of a statement made by Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons on 31 Mar 1939:

    … in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.

    I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty’s Government.

    This was formalized later on 25 Aug 1939 in the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland-London, which had some room for interpretation (“European Power”, “all the support and assistance in its power”):

    第一条

    如果缔约一方由于欧洲国侵略而与欧洲大国进行了敌对行动,另一缔约方将立即向参与敌对行动的缔约方提供在其大国中的一切支持和协助。

    A ‘secret protocol’ clarified that the only “European Power” that would necessarily trigger “all the support and assistance in its power” was Germany (some emphasis):

    Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25th August 1939

    The Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Polish Government are agreed upon the following interpretation of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance signed this day as alone authentic and binding.

    1. (a) By the expression “a European Power” employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a “European Power” other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

    So the answer to the question “Why didn’t Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland?” is: because according to the specific (and secret) terms of the agreement finalized before the German invasion, they were not obligated to do so.

  35. @FB

    You do yourself no favour by commenting on an article that you admit to have not read.

  36. MarkU 说:
    @Parfois1

    Finally someone can read English! Indeed there was no commitment for the UK going to war at all; only a pretence to encourage the Polish fools into the trap. All those diplomatic comments about England being held at the whim of bellicose Poles is pure theatre; the English knew what they were doing and why – getting Germany on the warpath and steer Adolph to the promised land further East.

    An interesting hypothesis to be sure, and one which would be worthy of consideration except for one small detail that you have apparently overlooked. The British did actually declare war on Germany.

    • 回复: @Parfois1
    , @AnonFromTN
  37. szopen 说:

    Don’t forget about POles in Germany having the audacity to storm into the Nazi COncentration Camps, and then having the balls to dare to close their own schools in Germany (last one in Bytom closed in 1939) – and all that after those pesky Polish students cowardly jumping towards stones thrown innocently to air by brave German heroes.

    Next time you will argue it was POland which invaded Germany.

    • 同意: iffen
  38. Hillbob 说:
    @anonymous1963

    Really?……..and Mein Kampf written nearly 15 years before means nothing? Ah those pesky untermenschen sitting on land that belongs to us. BTW , any difference with a certain chosen lot in the ME?

    • 回复: @anonymous1963
  39. GeeBee 说:
    @Deutscher

    It is refreshing to hear from an actual German who is not just another Anglo-Zionist dupe. I am British, and whenever I read comments (there are several on this thread already) calling us names such as ‘Hitler fanboys’ I wonder two things. The first is whether the writer is a hasbara/JIDF troll or just another brainwashed American (or indeed European) dupe, who continues to believe in the fairy stories he has had hammered into his skull since kindergarten, and who is furthermore determined to remain a dupe, in the face of whatever evidence is presented to him. The second is whether any of those who bandy such terms – which are, more or less, 广告人身攻击 attacks, and thus the last refuge of the intellectually bereft – understand the often extremely difficult process, especially for those of us who are ‘of a certain age’, involved in having one’s worldview turned upside down. In my own case, I was an Officer in Her Majesty’s regular Army, and served my country with pride for some years. I was a robust English patriot, who believed that my country exemplified all that was noble, decent and fair.

    I, like Mr Unz, started to have my eyes opened about ten years ago, when I was already turned fifty. The more I attempted to discover material refuting the terrifying prospect that I had been not merely wrong, but spectacularly so, all my life, the more the dawning realisation concretised that this was indeed the case. Today, I have finally come to terms with reality, and I can say to you that I too believe that Herr Hitler was a gift from the gods, not merely to Germany but to all of European society. Had I lived then, knowing what I know now, I would have followed such heroes as William Joyce and John Amery in volunteering to join the Britisches Freikorps section of the Waffen SS.

    • 回复: @Gentleman Johnny
  40. Bluebook 说:

    I never realised how dishonest Chamberlain was in all this. I always thought he was the reasonable one until Churchill ousted him and drove Britain into war. But I see Chamberlain played his role in that festering rot pile called Britain.
    It’s sad that to this day the Western world is determined to ingest this poisonous WWII narrative that is killing them. The West really entered a behavioural sink in 1939.
    Prosperity is a sin.

    • 同意: Carolyn Yeager
    • 回复: @Anonymous
  41. szopen 说:

    And, about losing the plebiscite in Upper Silesia in 1921: overall most of population vote for Germany. But territories given to Poland were mostly voting Poland.

    The article is full os such half-truth, ommissions and worse.

    • 同意: utu
  42. j2 说:

    I looked at the 16 point proposal by Hitler. It would have been very dangerous for Poland to accept that proposal. It demanded demilitarization Polish defenses in the area (Hel and Gnynia) and would have lead to Germany completely controlling Polish trade to the North Sea. There was also to be a vote of the corridor belonging to Germany or Poland, while at the time the country side was populated by Poles. The proposal gave the right of vote to Germans who had been there in 1918 and the vote was to be after 12 months, which would give ample time for guaranteeing that the vote would go to Germany. The proposal was written to sound reasonable, as such proposals have to sound like, but it was unacceptable: it would have lead to Polish occupation without a war, similar to what had happened in Austria and Czechoslovakia. Proposals have to be considered based on their military implications, not based on reasonable sounding language.

    As for Polish atrocities against Germans, the view of historians is still that they were largely exaggerated by Nazi propaganda. Here one may ask where are the mass graves of these people, as Poles were not cremating the bodies. One mass grave in Malborg was found in 2007. Initially this grave of 1,800 German civilians was believed to have been a Polish atrocity before the war, but today it is found to have been Russian atrocity on German civilians in the last stage of the WWII. There was the Blood Sunday massacre in Bydgoszcz in the first days of the war (September 3-4 1939), but the consensus view of it is that German saboteurs first shot on Polish troops. This massacre was the basis of the figure 58,000 German civilian victims before the war, cited in the article from a Nazi document written 1940.

    As for the corridor belonging to Poland or to Germany, it was a part of the Royal Prussia before 1772, a part of Teutonic Knights land that joined Poland already 1400s. Whether Germany had any right to demand a corridor there? It is not so clear. Prussia took the area in divisions of Poland 1772 and Germany lost it in the First World War 1918. In Prussia/Germany it was 146 years, in Poland/Royal Prussia 1446-1772, that is 326 years.

    The evidence this article gives is not verified and may be questioned.

    • 同意: Commentator Mike, Adûnâi
    • 回复: @Colin Wright
    , @Alexandros
  43. Alden 说:
    @Eamon

    Agree agree agree. I’ve lived around jews all my life and they absolutely hate Poland. Poles and Polish culture and religion.

    I’ve noticed IHR has been defending Germany’s actions in WW2 for a long time now. By shifting responsibility to Poland instead of to England France Germany and the pro war faction in America IHR is just perpetuating falsehoods.

    Here’s my personal opinion. Hitler and Stalin made a secret plan to invade and divide Poland years before the war started. It worked out fine for Russia but Germany lost big.

    And 30 years after the Beast from the East withdrew from Central Europe, Germany has turned into a Muslim African dumping ground and Poland is preserving the Polish people culture and religion.

    Charles Beard is the best unbiased objective truthful historian.

    Articles like this make me wonder if IHR has been infiltrated by Poland hating Jews.

    I read the Jewish press. They stopped blaming Germany for the holofraud decades ago. The Jews blame every one in Europe from the Pope to Churchill to the railroad companies to the French Hungarian Bulgarian Yugoslav local police to the Poles because Auschwitz is in Poland.

    The Israelis have taught 2 generations of school kids that it was the Poles, not the Germans who ran the camps. Israel and the Jewish American press claims it was the local police and city officials of the occupied countries that rounded up and sent 6 gazillion Jews off to their death.

    When reading articles like this, don’t forget that Jews have been claiming that Germany was innocent and everyone else in Europe was responsible for the European holocaust as they now call it.

    I believe it has something to do with the billions Germany has given Israel. I believe it’s an agreement Germany pays; Israel shifts the blame from evil Hitler and nazis to everyone in Europe.

    Israel and American Jews have been paid more than a hundred billion reparations so far. They won’t stop their demands. When the Russian occupied nations became independent the American Jewish press started caterwauling about reparations from Poland, Hungary etc.

  44. ken 说:

    I read it plainly as a one sided propaganda piece. The article fairly drips with contempt of mean/idiot Poles while fair Hitler and the Germans just want peace, love and understanding. I accept that the Poles were not pure, white lambs of noble virtue, but don’t try to b.s. me that the Germans were either.

    • 回复: @Rogue
  45. Alden 说:

    I have one question. If Poland had hundreds of thousands of soldiers all prepared why was Germany able to run over and occupy western Poland in just 3 weeks?

    France Belgium Netherlands managed negotiated surrenders with all sorts of conditions beneficial to their people. Of course Israel and Jews now regard those treaties as the rest of Europe eagerly jumping in to genocide the Jews.

    • 回复: @szopen
    , @Noman
  46. Born2Vespa 说:
    @anonymous1963

    Isn’t that what is happening again today with Israel?

  47. Mulegino1 说:

    I would encourage everyone here to purchase a hard copy of Mr. Wear’s “Germany’s War.”

    It is quite obvious that the British war party and their puppet masters in international Jewry and the FDR administration maneuvered the chauvinistic fools in the “regime of Colonels” into denying Germany’s reasonable demands for a transportation corridor to East Prussia and the return of Danzig to the Reich.

    Germany had been marked for destruction since the days of Bismark and the unification of the Reich- not because it was an insatiable aggressor – but because 任何 great continental power capable of economic and territorial expansion represented a threat aimed at the heart of Rule Britannia and its Jewish financiers.

    Hitler’s spectacular economic recovery, along with his attempts to establish a barter system of international trade were daggers aimed at the heart of the pound sterling/dollar hegemony of the City of London and Wall St. An economically successful sovereign Germany was a no-no. Germany had to be destroyed.

    The Hitler that the (mostly) Jew propagandists of the hegemonic powers created was a Manichean comic book figurine having little, if anything, to do with the man himself.

  48. szopen 说:

    As for Henderson,

    https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.168373/page/n281

    The 1938 stories of Czech atrocities against the German minority were rehashed up almost verbatim in regard to the Poles. Some foundation there must necessarily have been for a proportion of these allegations in view of the state of excitable tension which existed between the two peoples. Excess of zeal on the part of individuals and minor officials there undoubtedly was— but the tales of ill treatment and expropriation, cas-
    tration and murder were multiplied a hundredfold. How far Hitler himself believed in the truth of these stories must be a matter for conjecture. Germans are prone in any case
    to convince themselves very readily of anything which they wish to believe. Certainly he behaved as if he did believe; and, even if one gives him the benefit of the doubt, these
    reports but served to inflame his resentment to the pitch which he or his extremists desired.

    Overall it does not seem Henderson was believing in widespread massacres and definetely had not considered them a reason for war.

  49. ken 说:
    @anonymous1963

    The kind Hitler was provoked to action that claimed the lives of over 8 million of his citizens; who’s the jackass?

  50. Alfred 说:
    @Colin Wright

    reoccupation of the Rhineland

    That would have been called “annexation” if the spin doctors of today were active in those days.

    俄罗斯联邦吞并克里米亚

    • 回复: @Quartermaster
  51. ken 说:
    @Deutscher

    How many mussies have been welcomed into your Teutonic shithole? Because your “men” don’t know how to breed with their women?

  52. Alden 说:
    @Deutscher

    Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers about half black in bases all over Germany, millions of first low life trash Turks and now the scum of Africa and the Middle East living on welfare. Germany’s nothing to brag about.

    The worst is that every German government employee from Merkel to the local police side with the black and brown trash against the Germans.

    Instead of hating Poles Czechs Slovaks because Germany lost a war 7o years ago, why not redirect your anger against your present day government that’s destroying Germany worse than Poland Czechoslovakia ever could.

    • 回复: @neutral
    , @Herzog
    , @anon
  53. Po’ lil Hitler was a good boy. He wuz aspirin to be an artist. Germany dindu nuffin.

    The German apologists are just as bad as a bunch of ghetto rats excusing the crimes of their spawn.

    • 哈哈: Parfois1, utu
  54. @Carlton Meyer

    One doesn’t expect such dopwy stuff from you. Do you really have difficulty in understanding why Britain didn’t declare war on both Germany and the USSR in September 1939? Are youbserious?

    And why do you describe Great Britain as “near bankrupt” in September 1939? Evidence? Of course, it it was, it makes your question about why GB didn’t declare war on the Soviet Uniion all the more peculiar.

  55. SteveM 说:

    我们什么时候可以期待 John Wear 的下一卷详细说明德国入侵法国、比利时、荷兰和其他国家的完全正当理由?

    而 OBTW,也发现有必要残暴和谋杀它征服的当地平民?

    • 同意: AnonFromTN
  56. Theodore [又名“ Theodore2”] 说:

    好文章:

    希特勒为何入侵这么多“中立”欧洲国家
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12421

    整个“希特勒想接管世界”的骗局很容易被揭穿。

    • 同意: Amanda
  57. Poland was not the start of the war. Poland was part 2 of the war that started in 1914. Germany did not start World War One, England, France, Russia and Belgium did. Read HIDDEN HISTORY: THE SECRET ORIGINS OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR by GERRY DOCHERTY AND JIM MACGREGOR to learn the names of those who started the war and the reasons why they started it. All the guilt heaped on Germany belongs to England, France, Russia and Belgium. German territories and millions of German ethnic citizens were seized from Germany. The Polish Corridor was German, it had a majority German population before it was given to the Poles and they started their ethnic cleansing. There is a reason why most people watch a movie from the beginning instead of starting halfway through. Germany’s occupation of the Polish Corridor can’t be understood without knowing who really started World War One and Why and what happened at Versailles. I strongly recommend the book referenced above as by far the best researched book on World War One that has been written by anyone. Your understanding of World War One and World War Two will be dramatically changed.

    • 回复: @anon
    , @David Erickson
  58. Anon[736]• 免责声明 说:
    @Deutscher

    Our daughter’s psychiatrist says she needs for her release to be sterilised and married to a sadistic psychopath. You seem to be advertising. Are you available?

    • 哈哈: Rogue
  59. alexander 说:
    @aandrews

    I , for one, had no idea of the atrocities being performed against the German people in Poland prior to the outbreak of the war.

    This narrative had been wholly eliminated from most textbooks when I was growing up.

    I just never learned about it, at all.

  60. Parfois1 说:
    @MarkU

    You are right. I was minded to extrapolate a bit but assumed you would grasp the full meaning. Yes the British did declare the “phoney war” and … did nothing!

  61. Anonymous[736]• 免责声明 说:
    @Bluebook

    As your starting point of thinking Churchill ousted Chamberlain and drove Britain into war is so monumentally ignorant for anyone with an IQ over 100 and modestly literate you would be well advised to calm yourself and taking a history course at some institution for late learners.

  62. anon[173]• 免责声明 说:

    I like how those Polish commentators from this site that always like to shit on other Slavs, whenever shown opportunity, especially on Karlin’s blog, never show up on articles like this one.

    • 回复: @szopen
  63. anon[736]• 免责声明 说:
    @Real History

    Hey, there. Try reading two books. You might find it quite taxing but at least you could end up laughing at yourself for including Belgium with England, France and Russia as equal partners in your fantasy.

  64. szopen 说:
    @Alden

    If Poland had hundreds of thousands of soldiers all prepared why was Germany able to run over and occupy western Poland in just 3 weeks

    Poland delayed mobilisation under pressure from England; this had some effectm but not much, since it was carried as “silent” mobilisation. Many units, nevertheless, were just forming.

    What’s most important, however, is:

    (1) While Polish soldiers and lower officers usually were brave and competent, the chief command was incompetent, mostly an effect of promoting people based on their loyalty to the Piłsudski and Śmigły-Rydz. The Śmigły wanted to have total control over the army, and because of lacks of communication it caused multiple problems. For example, when Kutrzeba asked for confirmation of his plans to attack German units, Śmigły refused and wasted precious few days. When he finally agreed, it was too late, and still resulting battle of Bzura was initially a success and shock to Germans. One only had to wonder what if Śmigły would agree earlier.

    (2) German mobilised more soldiers, had more tanks, more aircraft and more artillery. Numerical superiority, total air dominance, better tech plus better commanding abilities at the top – the result should not be a surprise.

    Actually, when you talk about France/Netherlands/Belgium in each of these countries German offensive was faster when it finally started.

    (3) Polish High command implemented half-arsed plan; the best thing would be to defend far from the borders, abandoning Pomorze for example. But the planners were affraid that in that case Germans would take the Pomorze without fight and would declare this is the end of the war, while western powers could agree to that. Therefore, the plan was to defend EVERYTHING and only then withdraw to the defensible lines. A cause for a disaster.

    (4) Borders. Poland was enveloped by Germany or German vassal from three sides, which made it easier for German planners to encircle Polish positions.

    (5) All Polish plans, fortifications and army development was based on assumption of defensive war against Soviets. Poland for years had not prepared any detailed plan of war with Germany. We had a lot of cavlary, because it was assumed it’s needed in the eastern front, where roads are in the bad shape. Fortifications were in the east.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Druid
  65. If Mr Wear could move on a bit from his interesting summary of other people’s heterodox versions of history he might write something really interesting about his belief that Halifax had been manoeuvring Britain into a war to destroy Germany since 1936. Having talked to people who were around in the late 1930s and well connected in one way or another it doesn’t ring true to me, but then I’d never heard it said before.

  66. Wally 说:
    @Colin Wright

    IOW, Colin Wright insists that all work pass inspection of the Zionist gatekeepers.

  67. @anonymous1963

    Britain’s pledge to Poland had nothing to do with retardation or idiocy. It was part of the entrapment policy against Germany which the Allied powers from WWI had hatched a second time. While Roosevelt’s admin was instructing Poland NOT to negotiate with Germany, Britain encouraged Poland to believe it had it’s back. Poland was not crazy, but lusting for German territory. GREED would be the word.

  68. @GMC

    It is a terrible thing to realize at some point of your life, as a result of sites like this, The Occidental Observer (incompetent moderator), American Renaissance, and others, that you have been lied to all your life. Note well how populations are whipped up in a frenzy and manipulated into supporting self-destructive actions for 98% of the population. Examples such as the SS Maine in Havana Harbor, blown up by American agents to provoke ware with Spain. And that was in 1905.

    Here is a quote from IrishSavant. Bertrand Russel:

    [更多]

    说到愚蠢,新的研究表明孕妇消耗的氟化水可能会降低儿童的智力。 显然,我无法判断这项研究的有效性,但我一直对使水氟化的运动深表怀疑。 声称获得的唯一好处是减少了蛀牙,为此,各国政府竭尽全力(包括旷日持久的法院案件)来强制收养。 这根本没有任何意义。 当然,除非目标是愚蠢的平民。 伯特兰·罗素(Bertrand Russell)在他的《科学对社会的影响》(1953年)一书中明确指出了撒旦“精英”的长期目标:“逐步地,通过选择性育种,统治者与被统治者之间的先天差异将逐渐增加,直到他们变成几乎不同的物种。 一场有组织的起义反抗食用羊肉的暴动将使下场暴动变得不可想象。”

    • 同意: Paul C.
    • 回复: @GMC
  69. neutral 说:
    @Alden

    You cannot separate Poland to what happened to Germany. Poland was more than happy to align itself with the anti white states of France and Britain before WW2. They wanted to keep their stolen land that belonged to Germany, and they couldn’t care less about the consequence of that stupidity. Poland will also become non white eventually by accepting the USA as its saviour.

    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Verymuchalive
  70. @Deutscher

    Your elevation of Deutschland above Britain with regard to ethnic preservation and integrity is ethereal, that is, it does not exist. If anything, Dland leads the way to genetic decline and importation of Turd World refuse.

    I estimate at max 15% of Germans have what it takes to go full speed against the Merkels of Germany.

  71. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…Poland was not crazy, but lusting for German territory. GREED would be the word…”

    And German lusting for 栖息地 was not GREED ?

    • 回复: @Wally
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  72. szopen 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Which is why instead of provoking war in say 1933, when Germany had no army and could be defeated easily, Poland signed non-aggression pact and waited until Hitler rebuilt the army, took over Austria, and Czechoslovakia. We Poles are really masterminds.

  73. Could this bring some further context to the Katyn Forest massacre? Why did Beria give the order to liquidate Polish prisoners shortly after the third Gestapo-NKVD conference in Zakopane?

  74. @j2

    ‘…As for Polish atrocities against Germans, the view of historians is still that they were largely exaggerated by Nazi propaganda. Here one may ask where are the mass graves of these people, as Poles were not cremating the bodies. One mass grave in Malborg was found in 2007. Initially this grave of 1,800 German civilians was believed to have been a Polish atrocity before the war, but today it is found to have been Russian atrocity on German civilians in the last stage of the WWII. There was the Blood Sunday massacre in Bydgoszcz in the first days of the war (September 3-4 1939), but the consensus view of it is that German saboteurs first shot on Polish troops. This massacre was the basis of the figure 58,000 German civilian victims before the war, cited in the article from a Nazi document written 1940…’

    This sort of thing is actually what I was referring to when I decried replacing one lie with another.

    The article relies on exaggeration and even worse, outright omission to make its case. However, conventional history isn’t a whole lot better.

    Interwar Poland was a hotbed of strident nationalism, and abuse of all of Poland’s minorities — of which there were a lot — was commonplace. I have no doubt that Polish atrocities against German civilians were real, even if Goebbels probably did exaggerate their extent.

    • 回复: @Haxo Angmark
  75. GMC 说:
    @Poupon Marx

    Actually, after Nam I went Alaska and lived with my partner { Athabaskan} from Nam. We hunted , fished in the inlet, flew airplanes and I homesteaded just like my Indian Father did. We had many years to think and discuss the events in the world – incl. wars. The internet finally has showed that history has been Hijacked and ‘ me and the indian” were pretty much – right about our lives and the years we spent in Nam. We just didn’t realize that All history was Hijacked . The only water we drank , that was detriment to our health – was Fire Water – lol I live in Russia now and started to travel back in the 90s. I’m still going to travel next month – to that place – me and the Indian met. Spacibo P M.

    • 回复: @Poupon Marx
  76. Thank you for posting this very interesting and enlightening article!

  77. j2 说:
    @szopen

    “Poland for years had not prepared any detailed plan of war with Germany. ”

    Hitler ordered plans to invade Poland to be prepared in April 1939:
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444338232.wbeow705

    which contrasts with what the author of the article writes of the time schedule:
    “The situation between Germany and Poland deteriorated rapidly during the six weeks from the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939, to a speech delivered by Józef Beck on May 5, 1939.”

    So, this happened after Hitler had decided to attack Poland (ordered the planning of the attack):
    “In a futile appeal on July 6, 1939, to Premier Sławoj-Składkowski, head of Poland’s Department of Interior, Wiesner referred to the waves of public violence against the Germans at Tomaszów near Lódz, May 13-15th, at Konstantynów, May 21-22nd, and at Pabianice, June 22-23, 1939.”

    also this happened after Hitler had decided to attack Poland:
    “Polish anti-German incidents also occurred against the German majority in the Free City of Danzig. On May 21, 1939, Zygmunt Morawski, a former Polish soldier, murdered a German at Kalthof on Danzig territory.”

    The time schedule clearly suggests that German saboteurs were creating these incidences because Hitler needed a reason for the attack.

    But about the Polish side, they felt very strong before the war. As they must have known that the balance in tanks and planes was not on their favor, I have wondered if they counted on intelligence. That is, Germans had so far modified Enigma in very small steps and Polish cryptologists managed to follow the changes. Just before the war Germans made a major change, and Polish cryptoanalysis did not work any longer. This imagined ability to read German communications might have explained why Poles believed that they had some hidden ace in the sleeve. What do you think, is it possible? I have not found any source discussing it, though there is much of cryptography naturally. I would imagine there had to be some issue that made Poles agree to make a war with Germany against military odds.

    • 回复: @szopen
  78. @FB

    Hey, your German hating is showing. Germans won’t stay ignorant for ever.

  79. @aandrews

    When the Poles on March 26.1939 formally rejected the German offer about Danzig (October 24, 1938), did the Poles have advance knowledge of the British plan to provide an unconditional war guarantee to Poland?
    Is there any evidence that through “back channels” the Poles had been tipped off by pro-war British insiders that such a “blank check” was imminent?

    Since the British guarantee was indeed made public on March 30, is it possible that the Poles already knew of and were counting on the warhawks in Britain (Halifax, Churchill, etc.) to carry the day when the Poles rejected the German offer on the 26th?

    Did Churchill, Halifax and others “stiffen” the Polish spine to foment war?

    • 回复: @Anon
  80. PeterMX 说:

    My mother was born in Memel, as were her 2 sisters. Her family lived there for generations. She was about 5 years old when her family moved to Silesia, also a German area for centuries. She mentioned the Lithuanians changing instruction in schools to Lithuanian but I’m not sure that was the reason they moved. The last time she saw Memel was around 1940. I visited the city (now known as Klaipeda) in 2002 and 2004. It was the easternmost city in Germany until 1919 and was mentioned in the old German national anthem. The city was completely demolished in the fighting there in 1944-45.

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  81. G 说:
    @Eamon

    你有很多扭曲的东西。 美国在波兰以及在较小程度上在罗马尼亚和其他巴尔干国家采取的行动是企图通过支持与美国结盟的受控民族主义并进一步对抗俄罗斯来分裂欧洲。 值得庆幸的是,到目前为止,波兰和德国在二战历史上相互对抗的尝试并没有真正成功。 在波兰和罗马尼亚的帮助下,为了美国的利益而将欧洲置于与俄罗斯发生冲突的道路上,情况并非如此。

    虽然我理解波兰和东欧被苏联占领半个世纪时的情绪,但我认为从长远来看,将俄罗斯人与苏联等同起来并不符合欧洲的利益。 因为归根结底,俄罗斯是一个地方大国,有一些友好的,一些敌对的派别。 虽然美国仍然是一个全球超级大国,而且无疑对欧洲和特朗普怀有敌意,对他怀有敌意,但实际上,美国的外交政策自一个多世纪以来一直没有太大变化。

    • 同意: A.R.
    • 回复: @Bronek
  82. Interesting article. So much conflicting information online about everything. Yes, the during the past 75 years have people been awash in propaganda and misinformation. But, in 2019, in the here and now, I understand that Poles and Slavs are among the resistance to the brown barbarian invasion of the Western World. And for that Unz readers should have fellowship with them. In 2019. And besides, the Polish women are very voluptuous and fair.

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  83. G 说:
    @Deutscher

    Oh just great. With posts like yours, and the replies to them, the comment section of UNZ is turning into /pol/ in no time: where you don’t know if the people posting are just deranged, “fellow white people” masquerading as Germans, Poles and Anglos to stir up hatred, or just professional government shills.

    Very unpleasent. And unproductive.

  84. @Mulegino1

    Today the Anglo-Zionists are targeting Russia in the exact same way.

    • 同意: Mulegino1
  85. peterike 说:
    @Colin Wright

    The credibility of the piece is considerably weakened by the fact that footnotes five through eleven all refer solely to a publication of the Institute for Historical Review. If the claims made are valid, surely a more mainstream source could be offered.

    Uh huh. Of course, the typical Jewish argument works like this:

    1. Censor/blacklist certain opinions from any airing in the “mainstream” media or publishing, and force authors to publish in “fringe” publications.

    2. Claim arguments are invalid because they’re published in fringe publications.

    Nice racket you got there.

    • 同意: GeeBee
  86. @Carlton Meyer

    The Anglo-Zionists won, but they moved their headquarters and empire to Washington.

  87. Durruti 说:
    @Colin Wright

    There is much about the Second World War that should be reevaluated and reappraised. However, there’s little point in substituting a second set of lies for the first.

    Nice concluding remark.

    In analysing/understanding History, not to mention Current Events, one must understand Context, and be careful to follow the Chronology of events.

    The Central (German) Europe vs England, France, Russia, and the United States was an easy dichotomy to exploit. As we know, all efforts to keep the peace were unsuccessful. In 1871, Germany seized the Alsace Lorraine, which ensured French enmity (and the division of Europe & Europeans), for the next century. In 1917, Germany imposed the draconian Treaty of Brest Litovsk on Russia. In WW II, by the end of 1940, Germany had annexed whole sections of France and Poland. These annexations blocked all possible efforts to fashion peace in Europe.

    Once the swallow is made, the die is cast (Hess was too late). The analogy with the Zionist Entity of 2019, is clear. The thieves have swallowed, and only a forced regugitation is possible (if not easy).

    The Lesson for European Civilization:

    If physically and politically isolated (bloated) Germany failed in any future conflict, it would be destroyed-utterly, and ruled by puppets (who hate their own Nation and their own people). I will not utter her name here. Look at the last 3 puppet leaders of France (who do they serve)? Germany’s leaders are from the same mold. Russians are still picking up the pieces, and have yet to recover, either from WW I, WW II, or from the looting of 1990.

    The Lesson for Americans:

    The future may only be fashioned by Free Peoples, residing in Sovereign Democratic Republics, enjoying and protecting the only home we have, and attempting an honest evaluation of History.

    杜鲁蒂

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  88. Cking 说:

    I am perplexed by this history. That after WWI, all the countries lined up wanting war, to war with Germany from the get-go is appalling. The fact that everyone forgets the 1920 Invasion of Poland by the Bolsheviks is inexcusable, especially by the fearful Poles, while Stalin and Hitler negotiated, is inexplicable. And the history that Hitler invaded Poland as a result of the Moscow Treaty, where suddenly Hitler realizes that Stalin assembled an army on his border, is again forgotten and does not fit into this historical narration. And no one recognizes that WWII, like WWI would not have been possible without the Federal Reserve Bank. And I still believe, whatever narrative we ascribe to, that WWI and WWII specifically provided for the total destruction of Catholic founded Western Civilization, the underlying and covert intention of this, international, financier, driven, historic genocidal atrocity. The Atom Bomb was saved for the two Catholic cities in Japan. In post the WWII era, All the Catholic heads of state were scheduled for assassination; de Gaulle, Adenauer, Aldo Muro, Lumumba, Diem, John F. Kennedy. In any war there are several layers of intention, intrigue, and action; but all wars are fought for gain. Who benefits? It could only have been the United States.

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  89. @Mulegino1

    “Jewish financiers”=”the City of London and Wall St.”

  90. Brewer 说:
    @Colin Wright

    无效的论点。
    The actual “source” is David Leslie Hoggan who was “awarded a PhD in 1948 for a dissertation on relations between Germany and Poland in the years 1938–1939. His adviser described his dissertation as “no more than a solid, conscientious piece of work, critical of Polish and British policies, but not beyond what the evidence would tolerate”.[1] The American historian Peter Baldwin noted that Hoggan’s dissertation, The Breakdown of German-Polish Relations in 1939: The Conflict Between the German New Order and the Polish Idea of Central Eastern Europe, was easily the most reasonable and sane of all Hoggan’s writings.” – Wikipedia
    The Institute for Historical Review simply republished Hoggan’s piece which was originally published by Harvard. So lets see how your argument stands up:
    “The credibility of the piece is considerably weakened by the fact that footnotes five through eleven all refer solely to a publication of Harvard….. If the claims made are valid, surely a more mainstream source could be offered. “

    • 同意: Carolyn Yeager
    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  91. German_reader 说:

    Ultimately, many thousands of Germans in Poland died in consequence of the crisis.

    That’s a pretty vague statement. In a narrow sense it might even be correct, it’s generally acknowledged even by mainstream historians that about 5000 ethnic Germans were killed by summary execution etc. in September 1939. Those killings certainly contributed to the intensification of ethnic hatreds, but they were quickly dwarfed by massacres committed by the ethnic German 自我保护, SS-别动队 and occasionally Wehrmacht units which killed tens of thousands of Poles (at least 40 000-50 000 iirc) until the end of 1939. So even if one accepted some Polish responsibility for the inter-ethnic violence, the German “reaction” (which continued for years after the defeat of Poland’s army and included large-scale ethnic cleansing schemes, mass killings of elites etc.) was absurdly disproportionate.
    In any case, the article fails completely to demonstrate that there were widespread killings of ethnic Germans in Poland before the German attack on September 1.
    imo “revisionist” articles like this contribute nothing to a better understanding of WW2, they’re too obviously one-sided propaganda.

    • 同意: reiner Tor, FB
  92. @Colin Wright

    Colin Wright wrote (explaining why Britain issued the war guarantee to Poland): ” It (Britain) had merely at last decided enough was enough.”

    I disagree, Colin.

    Neville Chamberlain issued the war guarantee to Poland not because “enough was enough”, but because he was no longer calling the shots in Britain – Halifax and Churchill were. Of all the German territorial claims in Europe, Danzig was probably the most legitimate. There was no reason for the British to go to war over who ruled Danzig.

    No, the reason Chamberlain issued the war guarantee to the Poles was because . . .

    HE NEVER THOUGHT HE’D ACTUALLY HAVE TO HONOR IT!

    He (and the British diplomatic corps) were certain that Joseph Stalin would NEVER permit Hitler to invade and occupy Poland!
    And that fear of Soviet reprisal would keep Hitler in check (thought Chamberlain.)

    Chamberlain knew (correctly) that Stalin and Hitler hated and distrusted each other, however Chamberlain and the British were wrong that these two devils could not reach an agreement.

    And, of course, on August 23, 1939, Chamberlain, the British, and the world were absolutely stunned to learn of the Nazi – Soviet non-aggression pact!

    Chamberlain realized, belatedly, that the Soviet deterrence on which he was counting was gone!

    And he, Chamberlain, had stupidly committed Britain to a war over Danzig, a war that Polish intransigence was making more inevitable by the day!

    No wonder Chamberlain sounded so depressed during his announcement of war on September 3. He had completely screwed up, and millions of British lives would be lost as a result.

    • 回复: @UncommonGround
    , @Toby
  93. @Carolyn Yeager

    What is obvious is that nobody has a completely clean shirt. It’s just a matter of degree…Basically good people can be pushed to do bad things or at least those not in their interest.

    I look for patterns and causal chains. My thinking is inductive, prioritizing concrete events. The more raw data, evidence, and observations, the more likely one will have a conclusion or working theory of what happened and why.

    In complex chemical reactions and operations of interrelated machines and systems, frequently one change in the stasis results in small and catalytic changes throughout the system or structure. Thus blaming solely A or B is not adequate. That is for dunces.

    Sometimes acting stupidly or allowing oneself to be manipulated is a causal agent. This initiative can be primed by avarice or insecurity. All these countries acted stupidly because they were ruled or led by stupid, inferior people.

    Had all of Europe adopted Buddhism, none of these colossal catastrophes would have occurred. Christianity is an indirect or contextual causal agent here. One of its serial catalogues of dysfunction and inadequacy.

  94. Bookish1 [又名“ sharkey”] 说:

    and the LIES have never stopped:

    Here is the lie that they claim Hitler made in his speech which is carried in the latest news bulletin of the ‘Polish Heritage Society’.

    “Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my ‘Death’s
    Head units’ with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men,
    women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such a
    way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?”
    German Chancellor Adolf Hitler,
    Obersalzberg speech (August 22, 1939)

    Here is Hitler’s speech and correct me if I am wrong but I don’t find that quote in the context of his speech: http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/39-08-22.htm

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  95. Colin 说:

    约翰威尔真的希望任何理智的人相信纳粹德国官员在 1939 年发表的“暴行”报告吗? 它们并不比苏联或当今以色列的宣传更可信。

    • 回复: @2stateshmustate
  96. Wally 说:
    @obwandiyag

    said: “Because Poland was so dangerous.”

    They certainly were, see my comment #7.

  97. JimDandy 说:

    “Had it not been for the encouragement of the English war clique, ”

    It seems pretty clear that this clique signed on to the binding alliance with Poland precisely because they wanted to go to war with Germany, right?

  98. @Korenchkin

    Bobby Fischer said it best. Communism is Bolshevism and Bolshevism is Judaism. That explains everything.

  99. @Colin

    Here’s the deal. The entire so-called conventional wisdom narrative regarding WW II ( should be called WW Jew) was written by Jewish Hollywood, Jewish Newspapers, Jewish Publishing and protected by Jewish owned politicians.

    You have heard the saying “history is written by the victors” haven’t you? That is a truism that can not be denied.

    因此,质疑有关 WW 犹太人的任何事情都是有意义的。

    • 回复: @UncommonGround
  100. @alexander

    Most history that is taught in public schools, especially the history related to the wars that America has been in, is terribly one-sided. (“History is written by the victors.”) The only solution to this problem, as well as most of the other problems with public schools, is complete separation of education and state, but unfortunately that is probably never going to happen.

  101. @German_reader

    I used to except all those anti-German atrocity stories unquestioningly. Now I think they can all be considered suspect in light of all the other BS stories used to justify the US getting involved in Europe.

    Regarding one sided propaganda. At least Mr. Wear doesn’t have the authority to put you in a cage if you disagree with him.

    BTW 5000 murdered Germans is a big deal.

    • 回复: @szopen
  102. @GMC

    Some people are more willing than others to bother and inconvenience themselves in pursuit of the truth or to dispel doubts. I salute you. And then when you find out the depth and breadth of discepton, comes a horrible reckoning of rearranging your life and beliefs. Very discombubulationand disruptive. It was so for me. I no longer have contact with those friends that have looked into the abyss and ran away, self-hypnotizing themselves into denying what they saw.

    • 同意: GMC
  103. Wally 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Also recommend from John Wear:

    对谎言,谎言和二战进行战争

    Author John Wear reveals evidence contradicting the narrative we have been taught about Germany, Japan & the Allies in World War II. WEARS WAR is the battle to bring FAKE HISTORY into accord with the facts.

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/

    • 回复: @Franklin Ryckaert
  104. @Paul Jolliffe

    He had completely screwed up, and millions of British lives would be lost as a result.

    Just a note: According to Wikipedia (“World War II casualties”) Britain together with the Clown Colonies had a total of 38o thousend military deaths and additionally 67 thousend civilian deaths and not millions like you say. Germany had between 6 and 8 million deaths, also according to conservative numbers provided by the same article. The Soviet Union of course had even a higher number of deaths.

  105. Wally 说:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    说过:
    “And German lusting for Lebensraum was not GREED?”

    – No it was not. Germany wanted it’s land back.

    See Franklyn Ryckaert’s ‘lebensraum’ propaganda’ demolished here:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=Lebensraum&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    – also recommended:
    关于Generalplan Ost和Lebensraum的神话: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12639

    • 回复: @szopen
  106. G 说:
    @German_reader

    Reading your posts on this site and their general tone and narrative, one questions always comes to my mind:

    How does someone in our country, who is fully employed, find the time to produce well over 5,000 of them? And why would a “German reader” be so invested in a US site; especially concerning revisionist articles.

    And another question could be added and it is linked to the tone and general narrative of them.

    Those killings certainly contributed to the intensification of ethnic hatreds, but they were quickly dwarfed by massacres committed by the ethnic German Selbstschutz, SS-Einsatzgruppen and occasionally Wehrmacht units which killed tens of thousands of Poles (at least 40 000-50 000 iirc) until the end of 1939. So even if one accepted some Polish responsibility for the inter-ethnic violence, the German “reaction” (which continued for years after the defeat of Poland’s army and included large-scale ethnic cleansing schemes, mass killings of elites etc.) was absurdly disproportionate.

    From what I perceived, whenever the war crimes of the allies came up, be it the atrocities of the red army, Dresden, the general mass bombardment of civilian targets, or the Rhein-Wiesen-Lager and so on, you generally would downplay them or defend those actions, because: Germany deserved it, for starting WW 2 and, in any case, as in this post by yours, the crimes of the Germans were vastly worse anyway. Usually followed by then calling articles you comment under “obvious one-sided propaganda” or a similar term. – One could also ask what kind of revisionism 在所有 would be deemed acceptable by you, which you sometimes concede (or pretend to).

    Both points combined leave a bad taste; to say the least.

    • 回复: @iffen
  107. @Wally

    Good, I’m looking forward to Wally’s War also.

    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Wally
  108. szopen 说:
    @j2

    Frankly I am of very low opinion of our prewar government. There was an internal struggle of power, with Beck and Śmigły trying to look as important as they could; I’ve read the opinion that Beck lied to Śmigły about POlish position in diplomacy, and Śmigły lied to Beck about Polish military capabilities. Not sure whether it’s true, but it jibes with what I else read about them.

    The fact which really shows the incompetence of the people at the top was that German HQ was able to quickly prepare military plans, while ours was still not ready in 1939.

    I think that there are few important factors here:

    (1) Psychological: They were the same generation which against all odds won the Polish independence, defeating Soviet Russia. When they once witnessed how unreasonable and brave acts result in a victory, it’s hard to be more cautious.

    Second, just few years before Germany had no military worthy of mention. Before Hitler came to power, Polish forces _really_ could reach Berlin, easily (whether they could win war it’s debatable, countries can mobilise quickly). While Polish intelligence had quite reliable information (German agents in Polish intelligence notwithstanding) it’s still possible that Polish leaders just could not adjust, psychologically, to a new situation. It’s one thing to know, and second to adjust.

    Third, Polish honour. They value honour and dignity in a degree hard to understand for the modern generations. Poland really would fight against all odds without British guarantees and if we would stand alone. The idea that we need British guarantees and that without them we would fold is laughable and shows only an ignorance of Polish psyche and Polish documents.

    (2) All people in those discussions tend to forget that we had alliance with France. France was considered military power; while Polish leadership knew we, lone, had no chance to winning the war, the idea was that we would fight long campaign in WW1 style, with trenches, long enough that French would strike from the west.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @refl
  109. szopen 说:
    @Wally

    The land which BTW even in 1918 was mostly majority Polish. But hey, we Poles are subhuman and when we rule over German minority it’s tyranny, but when Germans rule over Polish minority it’s just justice.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Wally
    , @reiner Tor
  110. ricpic 说:

    “Hitler, who deeply desired friendship with Poland……”

    Talk about a baseless assertion.

    • 回复: @szopen
  111. szopen 说:
    @2stateshmustate

    Except there is no proof that 5000 was murdered. Polish cities and villages were shielded and bombed, German citizens of Poland were drafted to army, and there is no reason to suspect bombs somehow fell on Poles, but miracolously omitted German houses.

    Once upon a time I spent a long of time reading everything I could about one such atrocity, “Bloody Sunday” in Bromberg (not in Thorn, as John Wear write above). The initial German propaganda claims were about thousands of murdered. After the war Germans produced lists of between 100 to 400 Germans who might’ve been murdered. Some of them are not known by name; the really really certain list, which really have all the names and of people living actually in Bromberg, and crosschecked, includes about 100 names (maybe 150, can’t remember, I discussed this 20 years ago and my memory can be fuzzy). But those are names of Germans who deied in September 1939; but Bromberg WAS BOMBED in September 1939.

    Anyway, when I read the documents and history books, i’ve noticed that Germans generally ignore all Polish witnesses telling about saboteurs and Polish military documents mentioning “fighting with sabouteurs”. While witnesses could lie, Polish military report were made in the heat of the moment; also hospital reports about wounded soldiers were not made for propaganda purposes. Somehow, all those documents, reports and witness testimonies are lies and propaganda, and German testimonies are reliable and absolutely to be believed!

    Anyways, continuing: I believe that there really were saboteurs in Bromberg/Bydgoszcz who really shot at Polish soldiers. In addition, there was atmosphere of panic, which enlarged every incident. In fact, I’ve identified at least one incident when Polish army unit was shot by “unknown people” and those unknown people were most likely other Polish soldiers. In September the 3rd, when Polish army still controlled the city, a number of Germans were rounded and ut in prison; but when Polish offices were started to be evacuated, there were simply released. Next day the official control over the city weakened and I beleive at that day there could be several incidents in which marauders and militias possibly shot few innocent people. But still – this was AFTER war started so hardly could be a pretext for starting the war.

    Another incident I remember was from supposed “death marches”, where German sources gave one Bromberg civilian to be murdered in cold blood by Polish soldier. However, when I read further, it seems that after few days of march (in chaos, where Luftwaffe attacked any column on road) Germans tried to convince the Polish soldiers that the furter march has no sense, Poland lost and they should release them. One of Germans during the discussion reached for the arms of Polish soldier and was shot. Well, yeah, a German civilian shot by Polish soldier. Yet I would say this was actually expected in the circumstances.

    My final remark is that in that kind of discussion the pro-German side usually accept any document supporting their view, even if it was produced by German courts and military courts, which quickly dispatched hundreds of Poles to death (at least 600 Poles shot by Wehrmaht in first week of the occupation!). At the same time, those people either don’t know or ignore Polish documents and testimonies, calling them fabricated or propaganda. Even in this article John Wear even for a moment does not try to understand Polish point of view; nowhere he tries to understand Polish position. He does not mention Piłsudski warning that Danzig is a gauge of Polish-German relationships; he does not mention that German demands (extraterritorial highway) were antyhing but reasonable from Polish point of view; that Germany just a year before assured us that Danzig is not a problem and we have great relationship. The Upper Silesia plebiscite example is very telling: he mentions that Germany won Upper Silesia plebiscite (true; in whole region there were 700 thousands votes for Germany, 500 thousand votes for Poland) and that Poland nevertheless got part of Upper Silesia after uprising. But he forgets to mention that in that very part Poles were majority and in that very part they won the plebiscite. He mentions German minority in Poland, but forgets to tell about situation of Polish minority in Germany (by German own statistics in 1925 hundreds of thousands of Poles), which by had about two schools, constantly harassed and abused.

    • 回复: @reiner Tor
  112. I am ever amazed at the utter futility of attempting to unravel Asian and European ethnic struggles. There is no international conses concerning ethnic ownership. There wasn’t in 1935 and that remains true to this day. Yet the repeated wars over the claims of ethnic ownership of people and territoy claims millions.

    It’s strange from a US citizen’s point of view.

    • 回复: @Bernie
  113. @2stateshmustate

    You have heard the saying “history is written by the victors” haven’t you? That is a truism that can not be denied.

    Writing history has been in fact difficult. Some time ago Haaretz had an article telling how Israel created a group with the function of cleaning their historical archives. Even documents which were already seen and quoted by historians earlier are now not any more available. The same happens in England where whole achives are kept secret. You can find some articles in The Guardian about that: “Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes”, or “Foreign Office hoarding 1m historic files in secret archive”. Ian Cobain wrote a book about that. J. Assang. is being persecuted by the US for divulging documents. Both French and Russian documents about their meeting in Russia in 1914 disappeared and were never found again.

    Of course, this may happen in any country. The result of such actions is an official history. The question is how much are historians ready to follow uncritically the official history and how strong is the official history. Ilan Pappe had to leave his country. Germany is possibly the only country in the world where the official history is very critical of the country.

    • 回复: @Bronek
  114. Matra 说:

    There are a lot of words here about Britain’s guarantee to Poland but nothing about why the British changed their minds on that. I’ll give you a clue: It had something to do with a previous agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler over Czechoslovakia. And yet the only reference to that country was:

    Germany’s occupation of Prague in March 1939 had generated uncontrollable excitement among the mostly German population of Memel

    So that’s all the relevance of Czechoslovakia to the events of the 1930s!

    • 同意: reiner Tor
  115. Matra 说:

    Britain spent the 1930s avoiding any kind of binding alliances with European states – the French were desperate for one – against Germany. They believed that alliances were a liability that would tie Britain’s hands. British leaders were making constant allowances for German behaviour – ‘Versailles was too harsh’, etc. A pragmatic approach would bring the Germans into the international system. They signed a naval agreement with them and talked about returning German colonies and yet what good did all of this do them? Clearly compromising didn’t work. Hitler wasn’t interested so basically all this nitpicking of British, French, and Polish policies of the 1930s is just an excuse to justify all of Hitler’s actions and goals.

    I notice that virtually all these revisionists are Americans. You won’t find many Europeans in 2019 still pushing this divisive stuff.

    • 同意: Parfois1
    • 回复: @JerseyJeffersonian
  116. @Real History

    I can’t “agree” with your comment because I don’t have enough comment history, but you are absolutely right that WW2 was simply a continuation of WW1, and WW1 was in fact started by the Allies, despite all of the official propaganda over the years that has attempted to blame the Central Powers for WW1. Furthermore, it was the Treaty of Versailles, which was written by the Allies, that led directly to WW2. In fact one of the diplomats from one of the Allied countries (I forget who) said that the treaty would only produce a 20 year lull in the hostilities, and he was exactly right, almost to the month.

    • 回复: @NoseytheDuke
  117. iffen 说:
    @German_reader

    imo “revisionist” articles like this contribute nothing to a better understanding of WW2

    That works well because that is not the objective of the article.

  118. iffen 说:
    @G

    And why would a “German reader” be so invested in a US site; especially concerning revisionist articles.

    It’s true. I recognize him and reiner Tor whenever I see them in the skekel payline.

    • 回复: @G
  119. @Brewer

    If so, then the credibility of the piece would be strengthened if the author bestirred himself to obtain a copy of that dissertation and then refer to it rather than a publication of the IHR. That’s my point here.

  120. j2 说:
    @szopen

    [It’s bad policy to provide non-English comments since the vast majority of commenters can’t conveniently follow them.]

    Edward Rydz-Śmigły byl wolnomularzem i oni bardzo chiali tego wojna:

    “Sami przyznają, że masonami byli król Stanisław August, książę Józef Poniatowski, twórca Legionów Polskich we Włoszech Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, ojciec teatru polskiego Wojciech Bogusławski, pisarz Jan Ursyn-Niemcewicz, wielu współpracowników Józefa Piłsudskiego, w tym Edward Rydz-Śmigły i Bolesław Wieniawa-Długoszowski, Janusz Korczak. ”

  121. @aandrews

    '@科林赖特
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/’

    You may be surprised to learn that I own five of Irving’s books and have read several more online.

  122. @Bookish1

    ‘Here is Hitler’s speech and correct me if I am wrong but I don’t find that quote in the context of his speech: http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/39-08-22.htm’

    That does sound like a pastiche of several separate remarks Hitler made at different times about different things.

  123. AnonFromTN 说:
    @MarkU

    The British did actually declare war on Germany.

    Did you hear the term “The Phoney War” (French: Drôle de guerre; German: Sitzkrieg)? What do you think it means?

  124. szopen 说:
    @ricpic

    Actually it’s not that baseless, though “friendship” is overstatement.. It seems that initially Hitler wanted Poland as vassal; he seem to think that it would be better first to strike against France, and he hoped he could entice us by vague promises of future gains in war against USSR. Beck reported that Ribbentrop or some of his minions, can’t remember, when they discussed about Danzig, said something in the sense “why insist on Danzig, Odessa is a port too”. But Poland had alliance with France and we treated this alliance seriously, and we had no intentions of becoming German vassal. If Poland would first gave up on Danzig, and year later would yield on inevitable new “last” demands (because I think everyone at this point knew that Hitler would make new demands) by resigning from another territories (though maybe Hitler would resign from some pre–1918 Prussian borders), if we would then break the alliance with France and obediently invaded Russia, then yes, Hitler would be happy. I think.

  125. Theodore 说:
    @szopen

    I am not sure why you are angry at the Germans and not the British / French.

    – In Sept 1939, both Germany and USSR invaded Poland
    – Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR, but only on Germany
    – The USSR committed various massacres of Poles, such as at Katyn and elsewhere
    – At the end of WWII, Britain and France allowed Poland to continue to be subjected to Soviet rule
    – Germany offered various peace proposals to Britain and France, which they ignored

    In May 1940, after having defeated France and chasing the British invaders off of the continent, Hitler, via Swedish third party, proposed generous peace terms to Britain. The Germans contacted the British ambassador in Sweden, Victor Mallet, through Sweden’s Supreme Court Judge Ekeberg, who was known to Hitler’s legal advisor, Ludwig Weissauer.

    According to Mallet:

    “Hitler, according to his emissary [Weissauer], sincerely wishes friendship with England. He wishes peace to be restored, but the ground must be prepared for it: only after careful preparation may official negotiations begin. Until then the condition must be considered that discussions be unofficial and secret.

    Hitler´s basic ideas [are that] today´s economic problems are different from those of the past […] In order to achieve economic progress one must calculate on the basis of big territories and consider them an economic unit. Napoleon tried, but in his days it wasnt possible because France wasnt in the center of Europe and communications were too hard. Now Germany is in the center of Europe and has the necessary means to provide communication and transportation services.

    England and America now have the best fleets and will naturally continue to, because they will need the oceans for their supply. Germany has the continent. In what concerns Russia (USSR), Weissauer has given the impression that it should be seen as a potential enemy.”

    Hitler’s peace proposal was as follows:

    1 – The British Empire retains all its Colonies
    2 – Germany’s position on the continent will not be questioned
    3 – All questions concerning the Mediterranean and its French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion
    4 – Poland. A Polish state must exist
    5 – The former Czechosolavkian states remain independent but under German protection

    Ekeberg understood that this implied that the states occupied by Germany would de-occupied. Churchill was not interested in making peace.

    • 回复: @szopen
    , @MarkinLA
  126. Noman 说:
    @Alden

    “If Poland had hundreds of thousands of soldiers all prepared why was Germany able to run over and occupy western Poland in just 3 weeks?”

    Mechanized military versus horse cavalry. Stukas versus biplanes(?).

    Hundreds of thousands of foot soldiers against German machinery.

    炮灰。

    No leader was (is) innocent. All were backed by the same financiers and industrialists.

    Hitler was no saint nor a Teutonic Knight, but Hitler was not Lucifer incarnate.

    Joseph Kennedy was a bootlegger during Prohibition. On the eve of WW2 this gangster was Ambassador to the Court of Saint James.

    Think of WW2 as the Phoenix building its own funeral pyre and igniting the flames with a clap of its wings. The new Phoenix, the USA Dollar empire, arose from the ashes of the old. We are now approaching another such transition.

    认识新老板。 和老boss一样。

  127. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Please stay on topic – which is “why Germany attacked Poland.” Was it for Lebensraum? I think not. It was in large part self-defense.

    You turn everything into 的课 attack on NS Germany.

  128. The winners of war write the history . Napoleon

    The British were also the first to bomb cities.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  129. szopen 说:
    @Theodore

    – Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR, but only on Germany

    I thought that anyone commenting on the issue would know the basic facts…

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_%281939%29

    “By the expression “a European Power” employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common. ”

    There is still a sense of betrayal in Poland (by the Brits and French), but I’m over it. After all, it was stupid decision by 我们的 government not to treat Soviet invasion as such; Polish armies were ordered not to fight the Soviets, and those who did that, did that against direct orders from High Command.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Wally
  130. @szopen

    Puhlease. Poles would never instigate a war with Germans without the backing of major powers such as UK, US, France. These countries weren’t interested in war until 1938-39. You Poles were never in control.

    • 回复: @szopen
  131. G 说:
    @iffen

    I think we have a case of a “fellow German person” with German_reader, so to speak; or a court historian employed by the German state. At least that is my suspicion. Ron Unz did mention after all that many professional shills are active posting on his site.

    Given the absolute state Germany is in right now, firmly in the hand of extreme leftist ideology and politics, I find it hard to believe anyone but someone on the (far) left, or employed by the German government would feel the need to defend ‘German guilt’ and the official narrative of WW 2; especially on a site like this.

    • 回复: @iffen
  132. John Wear doesn’t address what happenned in Czechoslvakia after the Munich agreement.

    That renders this article worthless.

    • 同意: AnonFromTN, Colin Wright
    • 回复: @Theodore
  133. Theodore 说:
    @Colin Wright

    Because fighting one major power at a time was enough?

    And how did that work out for Poland? See my comment #131
    https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3415136

    One has to recall the sheer terror the memory of the First World War inspired in Britain and France.

    One has to recall the various peace proposals offered by Hitler, which Britain ignored

  134. KenH 说:
    @Colin Wright

    In fact, of course, Britain had acquiesced in Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland and his annexation of Austria, and had found itself forced to accept his seizure of Czechoslovakia. It had merely at last decided enough was enough.

    The problem with this narrative is that Britain stuck its nose where it didn’t belong. It really had no business dictating to Germany what it could and couldn’t do in mainland Europe just like Germany didn’t dictate to Britain what it could and could not do in its vast colonies around the world. In fact, Hitler offered German military resources in defense of the British Empire around the world.

    The other issue is that Britain was quick to rattle their sabers and issue ultimatums and threats to Germany when it was annexing territory it lost in WWI or to protect German minorities. Yet Great Britain issued no “red lines” and was totally mute when the Jewish run concentration camp called the Soviet Union invaded Finland, the Baltic States and Poland.

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  135. Fritzl 说:

    Up until the advent of Hitler, World Jewry had consistently supported Prussian militarism, in which it had rightly placed its hopes for setting up a Jewish “homeland” in eastern Poland. Unfortunately (for them), Hitler was an Austrian whose anti-Semitism was radically different from that of the Prussians.

    Rejecting the Jewish hand of friendship — a departure from a German policy that had dated back to 1914 and even earlier — was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made.

    He was a brilliant liar, however, and kept the Jews guessing as to his real intentions until the middle of WWII, when he suddenly began to exterminate them on an industrial scale.

    Until the very end, Jewish leaders in occupied Poland fooled themselves into thinking that their “homeland” would eventually materialize or that — at the very least — they would ultimately replace the Polish (Christian) elites that had been systematically murdered by the Germans since the beginning of the war.

    World War II happened because Britain gave up on Hitler and — unlike the Jews — simply stopped believing him.

    World War III happened because …

    • 回复: @Bronek
  136. @GeeBee

    Herr Hitler was a gift from the gods….

    To quote General McAuliffe at Bastogne: “NUTS!”

    • 回复: @Rogue
  137. iffen 说:
    @G

    I think we have a case of a “fellow German person”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. GR does a pretty good job of presenting “the German” perspective.

    … extreme leftist ideology and politics … need to defend ‘German guilt’ and the official narrative of WW 2 …

    Actually he writes about his concerns with leftist ideology and politics and usually tries to deal with this amorfous “German guilt” in an enlightening manner.

    GR is a learned person who makes valuable contributions to the understanding of Germany and WWII. His only fault of which I am aware is that he gets frustrated with stupidity and declares that the subject is of no concern to him.

    You seem to be some sort of dimwit who doesn’t understand much of anything.

    • 回复: @G
  138. Alden 说:
    @neutral

    France and Britain were anti German in WWs 1 & 2, not anti White. Are you claiming French and British are not White Europeans? And using a criteria of skin tones blue eyes and light brown and blonde hair, Poles are whiter bluer and blonder than Germans.

    What land of Germany did Britain want? My opinion is that Britain was just continuing its 700 year old policy of stirring up a war on the continent every generation.

    1150 to 1520 England bounced between France and the Austrian Empire with occasional forays to N Italy. 1520 Spain was bringing riches from the Americas so every pirate in Europe especially the English hunted the Spanish treasure ships on their way home. But only the English government justified the piracy.

    1600 Netherlands rose and England instigated an off and on Naval war fought from Indonesia to the North Sea.

    Then back to instigating wars with the Austrian Empire Spain France Prussia Brabant Hainaut anywhere England could create a bogus reason to invade.

    1800 unite with Spain later Russia and Prussia against France and its occupied territories. 1815 Metternich and the Vienna treaties kept England out of the continent for almost a century.

    190o back to fomenting European wars.

    I just read Wear’s January 2019 article blaming WW2 on England and America. Now he blames it on Poland

    • 回复: @neutral
  139. @Sir Launcelot Canning

    The way I see it, in 2019, in the here and now, we are trying to correct, revise, authenticate the versions of events given to us from 75 years ago, up to the present time. It is a historical matter, not a political one.

    It has nothing to do with the situation today, except as what happened then, and what has been covered up, exaggerated, distorted, downright changed … impacts us today and how we get along. Those who think they benefit from the current “biased history” will resist changing anything; those who think they are suffering from it, will be interested in revisionist historical accounts. So please don’t suggest that we can just let sleeping dogs lie.

    I’m grateful to Ron Unz (a very special Jewish genius!) for respecting the importance of real history and using his resources to encourage and present all these revisionist works, along with abundant space for comments.

    • 回复: @FB
  140. refl 说:
    @szopen

    Here a quote from Charles Tansill, “Backdoor to War about Roosevelts policy towards war in Europe:

    President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939],then Ambassador to France, directing him to advise the French Governmentthat if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England didnot go to Poland’s aid, those countries could expect no help from America ifa general war developed. On the other hand, if France and England immedi-ately declared war on Germany [in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland],they could expect “all aid” from the United States.

    It is devastating that to this day you believe that France in its day was a relevant military power out to help you. They did what the British told them and Britain was in the course of engaging the US in the great continental shake up of Europe – the consequences of which we all feel daily right here and now.
    Else, I find the apologies by the author of Germany a bit weak. I would like the allegations of polish atrocities better sourced. On the other hand, there are eye witness reports by Red Army soldiers that say that in 1945 the Poles treated the Germans worse then they themselves would have done. I find them believable.

    Poland had a bad leadership, and you would do yourself a favor if you came to accept that the side that you claim for yourself as “We” might have been somehow wrong sometime.

    • 回复: @L.K
    , @163213
  141. @neutral

    the anti white states of France and Britain before WW2

    The governments of France and Britain were not anti-white, but the consequences of their actions were. The victors of WWII were the Soviets and the Americans. The former, in stirring up revolutionary sentiment in the European colonies, certainly were anti-white. The latter, pushing their phony human rights agenda, were no better.
    Britain and France bankrupted themselves, lost their status as great powers and were to lose their Empires. For what ? Going to war with Germany over an insignificant Central European state – an area of the world in which Britain and France had no vital interests.
    The British political establishment had not learned the lessons of WWI. If it wanted to retain its status as a Great Power and Empire, it had to avoid going to war with other Great Powers, unless directly attacked. Going to war over a country in which they had no vital interests was crass in the extreme.

    They wanted to keep their stolen land that belonged to Germany, and they couldn’t care less about the consequence of that stupidity. Poland will also become non white eventually by accepting the USA as its saviour.

    Excellent summation. But it’s even worse. By letting US nuclear missiles on their soil, Poles risk nuclear annihilation. And, yes, they couldn’t care less about the consequence of that stupidity, either.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  142. sulu 说:

    This is probably the most detailed account of the events that led Germany to invade Poland and begin what would eventually turn into the greatest conflict in history that I have ever come across. Is it any wonder that not a hint of this ever makes it into the curriculum of American schools? Hitler has been vilified at every turn, but if this story is correct even in large part, he was only protecting the lives of his people and invaded Poland only after every diplomatic avenue was exhausted.

    I have been aware for years that England gave the poles a “blank cheque” by agreeing to declare war on Germany if Hitler invaded Poland. I had assumed that England did so with the false belief that by so doing it would assure that Germany would never invade. I made this assumption due to the fact that in September of 1939 England was hardly prepared for war and in fact did not expect it. But now it sounds like England did what it did in a effort to ensure war, full knowing that Roosevelt had their back.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  143. lysias 说:
    @Teleros

    Britain could have avoided that problem by allying herself with France during the Franco-Prussian War and thus preventing the creation of the German Reich. Why didn’t she?

    • 回复: @Mike8
  144. G 说:
    @iffen

    I should have recognized your first reply as cynicism. My fault. If I had, I wouldn’t have wasted time on you and your insults.

    • 回复: @iffen
  145. @Colin Wright

    Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles – The Germans in Western Poland 1918-1939 (Lexington, 1993)

    is a pretty solid academic study of the situation that culminated in the Polish massacres of ethnic Germans during August-September 1939. He concludes that c. 5,000 Germans were murdered by local poles and organized regime death squads; the official German version, 波兰针对德国少数民族的残暴行为 (NY, 1940), puts the death bill @ 58,000. I suspect the actual # is, as per usual (see also: Wallyworld holocaust denialists vs. Zio-Holocaustians) somewhere in between.

    for a firsthand account of government-organized Polish atrocities and massacres in Eastern Poland during early September 1939 (against both ethnic Germans and Ukrainians), cf. George Nepomuk, 地狱之口 (London, 1974), esp. pp. 13-15.

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  146. Theodore 说:
    @szopen

    I thought that anyone commenting on the issue would know the basic facts…

    What makes you think I didn’t know that? It confirms the fact that there was essentially a “conspiracy” to wage war against Germany. The USSR violated its non-aggression pact (signed in 1932) with Poland when it invaded. The USSR also violated numerous other treaties. See:

    侵略性的苏联违反了与邻国的许多条约
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12434

    The ‘agreement’ which you quote is arguably an act of war all on its own, as they are basically giving each other a signed blank declaration for making war against Germany. Anyway, you can argue that there was no evidence that the USSR had world domination plans in 1939, but in hindsight they obviously did. The only justification here is “They were merely ignorant” although Hitler was warning the world about the terror of Bolshevism long before 1939.

    Would you have rather the British accepted Hitler’s peace proposal, ceding the corridor to Germany… or Poland be totally lost and absorbed into the “Soviet Union” after many more years of bloodshed?

    Like I said, your only argument is “They were ignorant” and I don’t really buy it, I think they did not care and only used it as an excuse to start a war with Germany. Poland was merely used by the British as bait. Remember, the British are extremely good at fomenting wars, they’ve had a lot of practice.

  147. Theodore 说:
    @jimmyriddle

    Please elaborate on how it renders the article worthless.

  148. Arnieus 说:

    “This enormously broad guarantee virtually left to the Poles the decision whether or not Britain would go to war. ”

    Well Duh! The Jewish elite declared war on Germany in 1933 when Hitler came to power. As the “German economic miracle” flourished Rothschild banker clans that economically dominate Europe began looking for a way to crush Germany once and for all. To imagine that Hitler set out to conquer the world is absurd in the extreme. Russia, France, and England all had larger better equipped military establishments. Germany had no navy besides submarines and a couple battle ships. No one was more surprised than the Germans by the quick defeat of France.

    Poland was encouraged to provoke the German attack for the PR value, just like FDR provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The only surprise on December 7th was that it took so long.

  149. Theodore 说:
    @Dube

    Please see my reply to szopen on this

    https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3415310

    从文档中:

    1. (a) By the expression “a European Power” employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. (b) In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a “European Power” other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common.

  150. Herzog 说:
    @Alden

    I see a distinct possibility that Deutscher isn’t actually what his nick claims he is.

  151. @Carlton Meyer

    Because Churchill had had his massive debts erased by the “international financiers”. At a price of course.

  152. L.K 说:

    The seeds for WW2 were sown by the victors of WW1, who were predominately responsible for the Great War, and the choices they made at the end of that conflict.

    正如美国历史学家 T. Fleming 在他的《胜利的幻觉》一书中所写:

    (US president) Wilson proclaimed self-determination as a great principle—and then gave away chunks of German-speaking Europe to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy and France, sowing the seeds of the next war.
    知道在维也纳失去帝国后奥地利倾向于与德国结盟,威尔逊在凡尔赛条约中写了一篇禁止结盟的文章,无论奥地利人如何投票。[...]”

    In regards to Poland, the fact of the matter is that the Polish state created after WW1 had totally inappropriate and unsustainable borders, so much so that it was involved in territorial conflict with all is neighbors( Soviets, Germans, Lithuanians and Czechs ).

    Here is what some prominent figures from the winning side in WW1 had to say about those things:

    Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, during the Paris negotiations:
    “我再一次告诉你,我们从来没有想过给波兰一个在过去 900 年里都不是波兰的省份......
    波兰委员会的提议,即我们应该将 2,100,000 名德国人置于一个不同宗教的人民的控制之下,这个人民在其历史上从未证明其稳定自治的能力,在我看来,迟早必须领导到东欧的新战争……” 11)

    “法国不太关心什么对波兰重要,而法国的立场完全取决于削弱德国的目标。”12)

    “用小国包围德国,其中许多国家由从未自治的人民组成,并且包括大量要求与祖国重聚的德国人,在我看来,这样的计划将成为未来战争最可怕的原因。” 13)
    “I was as sincere an advocate of Polish independence as any member of the Commission, but I was convinced that to add to Poland populations which would be an alien and hostile element inside its boundaries would be a source of permanent weakness and danger and not of strength to this resurrected State.
    I knew that a time would come when Germany would respond to the cry of its exiled people and restore them to the Fatherland by force of arms.
    出于这个原因,我在会议上再次施加压力,拒绝将波兰城镇和领土纳入其中的建议,这些城镇和领土在语言、种族和倾向方面绝大多数是德国人……”14)

  153. Bill Jones 说:
    @aandrews

    Poland was the tool used by Britain to ensure that Germany did not become the major European power it seemed destined to be,

    A re-run seems to be in order,

  154. Bill Jones 说:
    @anonymous1963

    ” the most retarded and idiotic action ever taken by ANY British government in all of history. PURE INSANITY.”

    Right up to Blair’s immigration policy,

  155. Bookish1 说:
    @Deutscher

    I like your optimism and believe that you are right. Only a fool would underestimate those great germans. Their past proves what they are capable of.

  156. L.K 说:

    US president Woodrow Wilson on 7 April 1919:

    “法国对波兰唯一真正的兴趣是通过给予他们无权拥有的波兰地区来削弱德国。” 15)

    美国国务卿罗伯特·兰辛于 8 年 1919 月 XNUMX 日发表讲话:

    “Do examine the treaty and you will find that whole populations, against their will, were delivered into the power of those who hated them, while their economic resources were snatched away and handed over to others.
    The result of such directives has to be hatred and bitterness, if not despair. It may take years until these oppressed nations are able to shake off the yoke, but as sure as night follows day, the time will come when they will try to break free. We have a peace-treaty, but it will not bring lasting peace, as it was founded on the quicksand of selfishness.” 16)

    Re the issue of Danzig and the Corridor Influential US Professor of diplomatic history, Charles Tansill, wrote:

    …In dealing with Danzig, they granted it to Poland because of economic considerations. They conveniently overlooked the fact that, from the viewpoint of population, Danzig was 97 per cent German. …
    To the Germans this large measure of Polish control over the city of Danzig was profoundly irritating, and at times the actions of the Polish authorities in connection with foreign relations and the establishment of export duties seemed unnecessarily provocative.
    From the viewpoint of economics, Polish control over Danzig had the most serious implications. …26 […] In 1938 and 1939 Hitler tried in vain to secure from the Polish government the right to construct a railroad and motor road across the Corridor. Relying upon British support, the Polish Foreign Office, in the spring of 1939, rejected any thought of granting these concessions. This action so deeply angered Hitler that he began to sound out the Soviet government with reference to a treaty that would mean the fourth partition of Poland. Polish diplomats had not learned the simple lesson that concessions may prevent a catastrophe.

    • 回复: @turtle
  157. MarkinLA 说:
    @Theodore

    Hitler was the scorpion. Britain would have been just another frog helping him cross the river and Churchill knew it.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Parfois1
  158. Toby 说:
    @Paul Jolliffe

    I have long been struck by this exerpt from the Forrestal Diaries (20 Dec 1945) p.122
    http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/cikkek/forrestal.html

    “Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph Kennedy, US Ambassador to Great Britain right before World War II and father of future US President John F. Kennedy]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, US diplomat, then US Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. …

  159. Rogue 说:
    @ken

    真正。

    It’s an interesting subject, but whilst the article kinda started with some objectivity, it soon turned into an anti everybody and everyone polemic – except Germany and Hitler, of course.

    Obvious bias, like exaggeration, actually weakens an argument – it doesn’t make it stronger.

    • 同意: Parfois1
  160. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Durruti

    How is this for context: Louis XIV invaded Alsace and Lorraine during The Nine Years’ War (1688–1697). By the terms of the Treaty of Ryswick (1697) Louis XIV retained the whole of Alsace but was forced to return Lorraine to its ruler and give up any gains on the right bank of the Rhine. Later France reclaimed Lorriane using the excuse that the Rhine was it’s natural boundary. Both Alsasce and Lorraine had been German for centuries. Bismarck was simply retaking German territory. Hitler spent millions build the Siegfried Line, renounced all claims to Alsace and Lorraine, and declared its borders with France fixed.

    Obviously, you didn’t read the article. If you had, you would have noticed that Germany wanted no war. What the article didn’t state was that Hitler offered a referendum on the corridor.Whichever country won, the other would be allowed the rail and highway corridor. In either case, Poland was guaranteed a seaport.
    Hasbara agent Wright, and you fail to note that Poland invaded Czechoslovakia before Germany did, and that the Sudetanland held a plebiscite and voted to return to Germany. They too had been abused by the Czechoslovakian government. Of course no one wants to talk about the bankers at Versailles deciding what was going to happen, or the complete illegality, under international law, t partitioning Germany.
    Chamberlain ordered the increased production of the long range Lancaster bombers in 1937. Was he planning to bomb Iceland or Norway? How about Paris or Rome? Britain was never interested in peace with Germany, they were just buying time. Just as in 1913, German industry was kicking the crap out of Britain with better quality lower cost goods for export. To rub salt in the wound, they were trading commodity for commodity, for example coal for iron ore, and by-passing the usurious international banking cartel. The City was not pleased.
    All wars are economic wars, and as Smedley Butler stated, a racket.

    • 同意: turtle
    • 回复: @Durruti
    , @Alden
  161. @KenH

    ‘… Yet Great Britain issued no “red lines” and was totally mute when the Jewish run concentration camp called the Soviet Union invaded Finland, the Baltic States and Poland.’

    That’s a grossly inaccurate statement.

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  162. McMahon 说:

    Like most “alternative” history published on American websites, John Wear’s article falls into one of two categories:

    (a) it’s just a rehash of old German Nazi propaganda (the Poles are to blame, not the peace-loving Germans).

    (b) it’s just a rehash of old (i.e. Soviet) and new Russian propaganda (the Poles are to blame, not the peace-loving Russians).

    Apart from crass stupidity, the only explanation must be financial gain, i.e. German and Russian agents are paying to keep these narratives in the minds of American readers.

    I can understand why more and more Americans are having doubts about the Holocaust narrative which has been rammed down their throats for the last fifty years, but I must say I’m shocked to see that “holocaust fatigue” often leads people to conclude that Hitler and the Germans were innocent victims of Poland’s bloodthirsty Allies.

    For some reason the ultimate villain is always Poland — just as in the Holocaust narrative.

    Makes you think, doesn’t it?

    • 同意: Alden
  163. @szopen

    ‘We Poles are really masterminds.’

    Well, you do tend to be somewhat quixotic.

  164. Rogue 说:
    @alexander

    I , for one, had no idea of the atrocities being performed against the German people in Poland prior to the outbreak of the war.

    There does appear to be some evidence for that. How reliable, I don’t know.

    However, I wouldn’t take Free Introduction article as the most authoritative account on it.

  165. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Cking

    Who benefits? It could only have been the United States.

    The purpose of WWI and WWII were to establish Israel. Israel is a Rothschild project, and Zionism is its political arm. Israel does not extradite, making it the retirement home for Jewish swindlers worldwide, who transfer their money there, then flee when the net closes. That’s who benefits.

    • 不同意: Carolyn Yeager
    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  166. @Haxo Angmark

    ‘Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles – The Germans in Western Poland 1918-1939…’

    Thanks. I’ll take a look for it.

  167. MarkinLA 说:
    @Common sense Joe

    The British were also the first to bomb cities.

    According to this, it isn’t clear and Germany had no problem dropping bombs on civilians as they had done in Spain and elsewhere. However, it is stupid to pretend that a war can be won without destroying the ability of the enemy to produce the weapons and resources needed for the war (and that includes the workers inside those factories whether at home or in the plant). It was only in a brief sliver of European history where such nonsense became the norm. WWII just reminded everybody.

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=199639

  168. For example, British diplomat Roy Denman called the war guarantee to Poland “the most reckless undertaking ever given by a British government. It placed the decision on peace or war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling military dictatorship.”

    This was no “reckless” accident. The Anglo-Zionists wanted to force Hitler into invading Poland, in the certainty that this would trigger a larger war between Germany and Russia. (Lidell Hart’s statement acknowledges as much.) That’s why London did everything in its power to sabotage the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Danzig question. The whole thing was a setup from the start.

    There was just one problem: Hitler and Stalin had both figured out what London’s strategy was and had secretly started the negotiations that would in short order lead to a mutual non-aggression pact. Ooops!

  169. anon[701]• 免责声明 说:

    Iran Israel Zionism Palestine Israel Syria Lebanon Iraq and Israel Yemen——- that’s now .
    Epstein Sheldon Haim Sabban Singer AIPAC and Clinton Bush Oabama Trump — Halifax and Bolton
    Henderson and those who eventually fall in line .

    Polish people : Israelis , British citizen and American
    German in Danzig and Palestinian in Israel .
    Media frenzy of 1939 and CNN NYT Fox .

    什么是新的 ?

    British decision to offer unconditional one way immediately available military support to Poland was not stupid .

    21 st century ‘s America offers the clues to the reasons . Why does America support Israel ? Why ford it go to war for Israel? Why does it declare with same constancy and hollowness how the war between Israel and Iran would be explained ?

    How in this future war the Israeli Angie would be buried can be anticipated now — America was helping and giving extraordinary unnecessary cover to Saudi behaviors and UAE behaviors , both of them equally antisenite as was Iran ,

  170. Theodore 说:
    @MarkinLA

    You’re not making any sense with your analogy. In hindsight, the decision was absolutely terrible; The British people did not benefit at all. Also, the British failed to protect the freedom / territorial integrity of Poland. Additionally, the USSR proved itself to be expansionist and militant in nature. Are you seriously arguing that Churchill “knew” Hitler wanted world domination (He actually didn’t) but was just too stupid, too ignorant, too naive to know that the Soviet government was based upon an ideology which has internationalist, “World Communism” as a goal? Churchill’s own writings against Bolshevism strongly suggest otherwise.

    French General Ferdinand Foch: “这不是和平。 这是20年的停战”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)

    Canadian Historian Margaret MacMillan: “Many in the English-speaking world came to agree with the Germans that the Treaty of Versailles, and the reparations in particular, were unjust, and that Lloyd George had capitulated to the vengeful French.”

    Sun Yat-sen, Former President of the Republic of China: “When the war was in progress, England and France agreed wholeheartedly with the Fourteen Points. As soon as the war was won, England, France, and Italy tried to frustrate Wilson’s program because it was in conflict with their imperialist policies. As a consequence, the Peace Treaty was one of the most unequal treaties ever negotiated in history.”

    Historian Norman Lowe: “In conclusion it has to be said that this collection of peace treaties was not a conspicuous success. It had the unfortunate effect of dividing Europe into the states which wanted to revise the settlement (Germany being the main one), and those which wanted to preserve it. On the whole, the latter turned out to be lukewarm in support… and it became increasingly difficult to apply the terms fully. But it is easy to criticise after the event. Gilbert White, an American delegate at the Conference, put it perfectly when he remarked that given the problems involved, ‘it is not surprising that they made a bad peace; what is surprising is that they managed to make peace at all’.”

    British Diplomat Harold Nicolson: “The historian, with every justification, will come to the conclusion that we were very stupid men… We arrived determined that a Peace of justice and wisdom should be negotiated; we left the conference conscious that the treaties imposed upon our enemies were neither just nor wise.”

  171. Rogue 说:
    @Gentleman Johnny

    真正。

    To your comment – not GeeBee, in case you’re wondering.

  172. MarkinLA 说:
    @Verymuchalive

    Going to war with Germany over an insignificant Central European state – an area of the world in which Britain and France had no vital interests.

    OK but once Hitler takes Poland, then what? Do you give him Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria? When do you expect Hitler to stop, when his Army and Navy can easily crush Britain and France? His word has already proven to mean nothing. Hitler was stupid. He should have stopped at the Sudetenland and he would be a national hero today.

    • 回复: @turtle
    , @Theodore
  173. Wally 说:
    @szopen

    LOL, you cite Zionist controlled Wikipedia. As if they are going be honest & unbiased about events surrounding WWII, and of course their propaganda about the fake 6,000,000.
    犹太复国主义维基百科编辑课程: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    以色列及其党派如何审查互联网: https://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia
    I remind the readers here that I have already shot down szopen’s unfactual nonsense:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=szopen+&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    [更多]

    这里是更多:

    在波兰的压力下,南部和东部地区的德国人受到压迫性待遇。 19年1920月1921日,波兰人的力量确实足够强大,试图用武力占领该国。 在波兰的各个方面,主要是从波兰国会招募的人,都在篡夺权威。 许多德国人被强行带过边境进入波兰,许多人被杀。 经过数周的时间,才有可能平息这一上升和恢复秩序……协约国曾建议,德意志帝国的非居民上西里西亚人应在科隆西里西亚之外投票。 德国对此表示抗议,协约国承认她的抗议是有效的。 20年1921月,全民公决的日期定为XNUMX年XNUMX月XNUMX日。
    波兰人利用恐怖主义立即复兴,特别是在里布尼克,普莱斯,卡托维兹和贝登地区。 在全民投票之前的几天,它达到了高潮。 来自德国帝国其他地区的选民经常被拒绝参加民意调查。 有时他们受到虐待,甚至在某些情况下被谋杀; 选民们住的房屋被烧毁……在全民公决后的第二天,波兰的暴行重新开始,从那以后一直持续不间断……实际上,所有城镇都投票支持德国……XNUMX月初见证了新的波兰起义。比前一个比例要大得多。 Korfanty秘密地筹集了一支井井有条的波兰部队,该部队从边境提供武器和弹药,并得到来自波兰的大批士兵的加固。
    到20月XNUMX日,英军再次占领了较大的城镇,而波兰人则在农村地区占了上风。 由于难以支付他的士兵和向他们提供食物,科凡蒂现在失去了对他的追随者的控制。 成立了独立的乐队,掠夺了村庄,虐待了德国人,并杀死了其中许多人。”

    – 1922年《大不列颠百科全书》,“ SILESIA,UPPER”

    这篇文章出现在 1930 年 XNUMX 月的波兰报纸 Die Liga der Grossmacht 上:

    “A struggle between Poland and Germany is inevitable. We must prepare ourselves for it systematically. Our goal is a new Battle of Tannenberg. However, this time, a Tannenberg in the suburbs of Berlin. Prussia must be reconquered for Poland, and Prussia, indeed, as far as the River Spree. In a war with Germany there will be no prisoners…”

    – “Tannenberg” refers to the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410 when a Polish army defeated the German Teutonic Knights. The article is full of many more anti-German remarks.

    • 回复: @szopen
  174. anon[701]• 免责声明 说:

    Now Britain back then was doing many things in Asia Africa and Latin America . Those had nothing to do with the Polish questions and were not influenced by the insider corrupting behaviors of those who were getting Britain ready to attack Germany .

    Now US does many things on Asia Africa and Latin America . These actions are not influenced by the paymasters who are active in getting declare war on Iran .

    Above is a thought for those who think that particular evil Zionism has to be apparent everywhere to confirm its footprints on Iran or Iraq or Syria or Nasser Egypt or Libya and thus to confirm it’s stranglehold on US.

    No it doesn’t have to .

  175. Wally 说:
    @szopen

    What land was that?

    You also just admitted that German areas should never have been taken from Germany.
    现在插入另一只脚。
    Besides, Germany offered to settle for a corridor to Danzig, pay attention.
    another strawman:
    No German leader ever said Poles were “subhuman”.

    As usual, you lie … in desperation.

    • 回复: @szopen
  176. turtle 说:
    @L.K

    Hitler tried in vain to secure from the Polish government the right to construct a railroad and motor road across the Corridor.

    Isolation of one part of its territory from the rest, as (East) Prussia was from the rest of (truncated) Germany, is not something a sovereign state could be expected to tolerate indefinitely, particularly when the “Forbidden Corridor” was home to large numbers of ethnically German inhabitants.

    Someone of a conspiratorial bent might be forgiven for suspecting this arrangement was a set up, intended to lure Germany into attacking Poland in order to restore its sovereignty over historically German lands and permit the free movement of its citizens.

    Of course, one who thought that way 可能 be committing the intellectual sin of confounding malicious intent with sheer stupidity.

    • 回复: @j2
  177. L.K 说:
    @refl

    They are not allegations, the killings took place and I think the author sourced it well enough. What we don’t know and will probably never know is the exact scale of it.

    In his book ‘The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945’, Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, a lawyer, historian & expert in the field of human rights and international law and retired high-ranking United Nations official, writes that the Federal German Archives in Koblenz have the data for at least 3.841 ethnic Germans murdered by the Poles during the Polish campaign. In fact, some had been killed before the hostilities even commenced. De Zayas states that the available data is very incomplete and posits a figure of at least 6.000 victims. p.139-140. As Mr. Wear mentions, there were forensic pathologists from various countries with the International Red Cross, from neutral European countries to forensic professionals from South America and Iran, present in Poland, confirming the reality of the crimes. A few photos from the autopsy reports:
    Family murdered in a cellar with hand grenades, husband also shot.
    Hermann Berger, husband, 26 years old, Hilde Berger, 24 years old and Egon Berger, 4 months old.

    Remains from a 25 year old pregnant German woman murdered with her entire family.

    Next autopsy photo is an enlarged picture of same murdered woman showing almost completely delivered embryo.

    Remains of a 9 year old murdered by the Polish military together with another 35 ethnic Germans ranging from 3 year olds to folks over 80. Close quarter shot to the head with high powered military rifle.

    Mass grave of murdered German civilians in Poland, 1939.

    • 回复: @j2
  178. anaccount 说:

    It’s really hard to explain FDR’s actions in World War II without assuming that he was taking orders directly from the Kremlin.

    It wasn’t just Europe, the US intentionally hobbled it’s nationalist ally in China. I guess they preferred Communism there too.

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @Parfois1
  179. turtle 说:
    @MarkinLA

    希特勒是愚蠢的。

    听见,听见。
    Militarily, at least. JAMI (Just Another Military Idiot) with power way beyond his pay grade.
    Not too bright politically, either, as far as I can see (which may not be all that far).
    Can you say Dunkirk?
    With Great Britain out of the war, things 可能 have turned out differently, except that Adi der Idiot decided it was a terrific idea to attack the Soviet Union, over-extended supply lines, lack of proper equipment, and gross numerical inferiority be damned.
    Sudetenland? Hell, they could have “gotten away with” carving up Poland, had they stopped there.
    The world might have decided that Germany restored to an approximation of its pre-WWI boundaries was at least tolerable.
    But nooooo.

    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Colin Wright
  180. @Curmudgeon

    The purpose of WWI and WWII were to establish Israel.

    My disagreement is that it’s way too simplistic a statement. It may have been a plan of Zionist Jews but more important players in the war had their own purposes. First, Britain and Soviet Russia believed they would benefit greatly in global influence. France wanted its disputed territory back and the permanent weakening of neighbor Germany whom they feared. Roosevelt was on a power trip, wanted to stay in office by bringing the US out of the depression, and was under the influence of hard core communists (which remember was all the rage then), many of which were Jews. Of course, none of these men should ever have been in charge of a large, wealthy nation since they were moral midgets.

    Of course, you may mean “the ultimate purpose”, but that is something only seen in hindsight.

    的问候。

  181. Theodore 说:
    @MarkinLA

    When do you expect Hitler to stop

    It is quite clear that he wanted the land which was taken from Germany and given to Poland at the end of WWI; see comment #178 – https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3415414

    It was really the USSR, not Germany, that wanted to take over all of Europe. Did you forget about the Cold War and Iron Curtain?

    See also comment #153 – https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3415310

    General Patton, 7 May 1945: “Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened and present a picture of force and strength to these people [the Russians]. This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans and have disarmed them, but have lost the war.”

    Patton, again: “I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  182. Durruti 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    We do not disagree on every area of European history.

    And althougth I taught European History, I am far from an authority on that enormous subject.

    I will pick up 3 points that stand out in your comment, & conclude.

    How about your 1st sentence;

    1.

    How is this for context: Louis XIV invaded Alsace and Lorraine during The Nine Years’ War (1688–1697). By the terms of the Treaty of Ryswick (1697) Louis XIV retained the whole of Alsace but was forced to return Lorraine to its ruler and give up any gains on the right bank of the Rhine.

    Your Context and my Chronology:

    That was 1697, when France acquired Alsace? Almost 200 years later (in 1871), Prussia took it back. Can you see the problem?

    2.

    In 1940, Hitler’s Germany also grabbed/ANNEXED the Alsace & Lorraine – once again, after, in your own words,

    Hitler spent millions build the Siegfried Line, renounced all claims to Alsace and Lorraine, and declared its borders with France fixed.

    You cannot have it both ways. Choose one & stick to your point.

    3.

    You mention Bombers. I quote.

    Chamberlain ordered the increased production of the long range Lancaster bombers in 1937.

    Imperialist nations tend to have Bombers. Germany & England &&& so many others had Bombers. You do recall the German Air Force FIREBOMBING Stalingrad? They also bombed Guernica & Madrid, and Mussolini’s Italian Air Force bombed the Ethiopians.

    PaaS

    There are some who respond to the Jewish/Zionist controlled History of Everything, (a false/biased History that blames Germany and the German People for almost every crime known to mankind), by attempting to fashion an image of a kinder and gentler Hitler and Nazi Party.

    Before you finish you will have nice things to say about the German Condor Legion and Mussolini’s Army in Spain; you might insist that The Spanish Anarchists (what’s my nom de guerre?), should have not defended the Spanish Republic.

    We Americans must Restore our Republic, that was destroyed on November 22, 1963, in a hail of bullets, or we will remain in Hell.

    上帝保佑!

    杜鲁蒂

    • 回复: @turtle
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
  183. utu 说:
    @German_reader

    In any case, the article fails completely to demonstrate that there were widespread killings of ethnic Germans in Poland before the German attack on September 1.

    Correct. Because there was no killings of ethnic Germans before Sept 1, 1939.

  184. utu 说:
    @Alden

    “Articles like this make me wonder if IHR has been infiltrated by Poland hating Jews.”

    It’s very easy to utilize idiots by turning them into useful idiots. Doesn’t require much infiltration.

    Just few days ago WaPo from the position of LBGT and GloboHomo was objecting to Trump’s visit to Poland to observe WWII commemoration.

    Here’s the other trip President Trump should cancel
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/22/heres-other-trip-president-trump-should-cancel/

  185. slorter 说:

    An interesting read also not mentioned much is the non aggression pact Poland signed with the Nazis in 1934! We only here about the Nazi Russian one.

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
    , @Anonymous
  186. AnonFromTN 说:
    @slorter

    Because that pact, like German behavior in Czechoslovakia, Polish participation in its dismembering (allowed precisely because of that Polish-German pact), and many other well known facts, do not fit the narrative the author chose to tell. So, facts and pacts be damned.

  187. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I’m grateful to Ron Unz (a very special Jewish genius!)…

    哇…

    Maybe you could knit him a 特别 yellow star of David, with 特别 genius-type embroidery?

    You’ve regaled us here with tales about your knitting prowess, and I’m sure Mr Unz would treasure such a keepsake…and perhaps even wear it to shul…

  188. Avrier 说:

    Although France had the key for a military intervention with millions under arms and the Brits 350 000 troops at the time of Dunkirk nine months after the war declaration and ready to fight to the last Frenchman, the focus is exclusively on Britain and the US without the smallest reference to what transpired between the two governments and what caused France after a three hour agonizing wait, declaring war while bypassing its parliament, so great was the opposition to war throughout this country
    What was the arm twisting which induced Paul Reynaud then French PM to take such a tremendous decision and what led the Brits to be so confidents that France would follow suit?
    So amazing that at the time of the left Rhine bank reoccupation by the Germans in 1936 and in the absence of a declared British cooperation, Gamelin, the then Army Chief of State had expressed his opinion that in view of the terrain, and save violating Belgium’s neutrality, despite the French superiority, no fast military decision could be expected
    How the same man,three years later in the same position facing a German army much more powerful and a Frenh spirit weakened after the Front Populaire government, didn’t object, would be interesting to know if France was not always treated as a non existing historical factor by the Anglo Americano sphere

  189. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:
    @FB

    For a guy who could not even be bothered to even read the article, you sure do to have a very big mouth buddy.

    And you have the audacity to accuse others of not having an open mind when you couldn’t even read – which is not to say you would have to AGREE with – the article.

  190. turtle 说:
    @Durruti

    Just keep in mind that when France declares war on Germany, invades, and gets its ass kicked, that is known as “Prussian militarism,” which is because all Germans are inherently EVIL.

    On 16 July 1870, the French parliament voted to declare war on Prussia and hostilities began three days later when French forces invaded German territory. The German coalition mobilised its troops much more quickly than the French and rapidly invaded northeastern France. The German forces were superior in numbers, had better training and leadership and made more effective use of modern technology, particularly railroads and artillery.

    A series of swift Prussian and German victories in eastern France, culminating in the Siege of Metz and the Battle of Sedan, saw French Emperor Napoleon III captured and the army of the Second Empire decisively defeated.

    • 回复: @Durruti
  191. Eckbach 说:
    @Colin Wright

    “However, there’s little point in substituting a second set of lies for the first.”
    Why did you comment then?

    • 巨魔: Colin Wright
  192. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:
    @Hillbob

    You can say whatever you want but it was not in Britain’s best interests to go to war for Poland in 1939.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  193. getaclue 说:

    No doubt all those Brits who died fighting Hitler to save Britain and their way of life would be so happy to see how things turned out?– The UK now?–don’t say a word critical of Muslims (and hide in your flat scared of what is outside) or Transgenders or you will be run down to the Station or possibly be tossed in the can to be murdered, Socialist/Communists homosexualize their children in Brit schools and don’t push your Christianity any farther than your Lesbian Anglican Minister allows–….The truth is very probable, certain actually, that if the British Soldiers then knew of the GloboHomo NWO future for Britain they would have joined old Adolf in droves….

    • 同意: anonymous1963
  194. Alden 说:
    @turtle

    And he did it just 21 years after Germany was defeated from the east, west and south. Germany can successfully invade and conquer south and west or east, but not in all directions.

  195. @turtle

    ‘Hear, hear.
    Militarily, at least. JAMI (Just Another Military Idiot) with power way beyond his pay grade.’

    Meh. The losing commanders are always considered ‘stupid’ and the winners geniuses. See people who will seriously rank Grant above Lee.

    Never mind if the winners had 破碎 material superiority and won in spite of virtually continuous blundering while the losers, playing a weak hand, merely failed to guess right at every turn.

    The fact is that as a generalissimo, while Hitler had his faults, he was head and shoulders above Stalin, Churchill, Marshall, and Gamelin. This ain’t the place, but I could easily spend pages demonstrating that beyond any question.

    • 回复: @turtle
  196. Parfois1 说:
    @MarkinLA

    Hitler was the scorpion. Britain would have been just another frog helping him cross the river and Churchill knew it.

    Full marks for an apt metaphor. Poland (the river) was (surprise!) in, and on, the way the the final destination.

  197. Alden 说:
    @Durruti

    Lorraine was never German territory until 1871. It was always an independent very very powerful Duchy from 800 until annexed by France in 1760s.

    • 回复: @Durruti
  198. Parfois1 说:
    @Colin Wright

    That’s a grossly inaccurate statement.

    Indeed it is gross. But the usual run of the mill variety commonly seen here, usually by the Hitler’s rearguard. No wonder he lost!

  199. Alden 说:
    @Durruti

    By 1935 Russian special forces (Spetnaz) had killed all the Spanish republicans socialists etc and set up a terrorist soviet satellite state in Spain.

    The greatest leader of the 20th century, General Francisco Franco led the rebels who drove the Russians and the Spanish communists out of Spain.

    The minor nations Spain and Finland defeated the soviets. Germany was defeated by the Soviets. America and England gave half of Europe plus China over to communism.

    • 同意: chris
    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Alden
    , @Durruti
    , @Bookish1
  200. Druid 说:
    @Dube

    Sounds like a blank check, considering the poles were behaving like war mongers and opportunists

  201. Parfois1 说:
    @anaccount

    It’s really hard to explain FDR’s actions in World War II without assuming that he was taking orders directly from the Kremlin.

    And Trump is another example proving the “history repeats itself” fallacy …

  202. Miro23 说:
    @Alden

    Agree agree agree. I’ve lived around Jews all my life and they absolutely hate Poland. Poles and Polish culture and religion.

    It’s necessary to keep this in mind.

    The article has the same flavour as current Jewish media articles about Russia, Iran, Anglo-Americans or Palestinians (and it’s a testament to Jewish power that this heterogeneous group can be found lumped together).

    Another important fact is that inter-war Poland was multicultural.

    35% of the population comprised of ethnic minorities (16% Ukrainians, 10% Jews, 3% Germans) with the Jews and Germans having lived there for generations while non-integrating and strongly identifying as ethnic Jews and Germans. Jews were concentrated in the cities (27% of the population of Poland’s towns and cities) and they were highly influential in the professions (56% of all doctors, 34% of lawyers, 22% of journalists, publishers etc.). Germans were prominent in city based trade and manufacturing.

    German “Poles” were big supporters of Hitler’s “Drang nach Osten” (Drive to the East) and were in fact already part of that process. They fully co-operated with the WW2 German invaders and many joined the paramilitary Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz which made lists of local Polish leaders and civil servants to be executed. They looked forward to being part of the new German racial elite in Hitler’s new 1000 year Imperial Eastern Empire.

    For their part, Jewish “Poles” had no loyalty whatsoever to Poland (most of them didn’t in fact even speak Polish) and they had their usual big internal divisions. The Bund wanted a Jewish state within a state in Poland, the Zionists wanted a new Jewish state outside Poland, and the Communist Jews were Bolsheviks who wanted to do to Poland/Germany what the their brothers did to Russia after 1917. As a group, they didn’t have any illusions about what the German invasion mean for them, and most left Poland or were rounded up and murdered by the German invaders. Poland’s Communist Jews fled to Russia expecting a big welcome but ended up on cattle trucks to Siberia the same as all other refugees (unreliable elements). It was only later that Stalin appreciated their usefulness, and reintroduced them to Soviet dominated Poland to form Poland’s new Communist Nomenklatura (elite).

    It’s interesting that Poland today is one of the few countries in which most of the population can unequivocally say that they live better than their parents or grandparents did (same as China and Russia).

    Poland is no longer multicultural. 97% of Poland’s population are ethnic Poles and 98% of them speak Polish at home. Poland led the revolt against their Communist dictatorship through national unity and a strong Catholic identity (using a parallel Church meeting/information network).

    Source: “The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland” by Jaff Schatz. A heavily Jewish viewpoint but still a worthwhile book.

    • 回复: @163213
  203. Druid 说:
    @szopen

    Germany had better generals and some of the best soldiers

  204. Alden 说:
    @Alden

    What’s laughable about Spain and Finland running the Soviets out and avoiding being satellites of Russia?

  205. Alden 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    Lorraine was never German territory until 1871 and then for only 47 years. Lorraine was a very very very wealthy and powerful independent Duchy from 800 till annexed by France in the 1760s. The King of France was the feudal overlord of the Duke of Lorraine. Lorraine was never ever German territory till 1871

    Lorraine had a monastery with a superb printing press. Renee, Duke of Lorraine went to school in Italy and knew Amerigo Vespucci. When Vespucci came back from America with his maps and charts, Renee hired the best German map maker and paid for the first maps of America to be printed in that monastery.

    Most of the time, Alsace was loosely affiliated with the Hapsburg Empire, not Germany which didn’t exist till the 1860s.

  206. Alden 说:

    My parents always felt FDR got us into WW2 because none of his programs to end the depression worked. War production ended the depression. That’s true

    But as we learn more about the communists in his administration it’s hard to believe he wasn’t acting under Stalin’s orders. Think if FDR had died in his third term and commie VP Wallace became president

  207. turtle 说:
    @Colin Wright

    The losing commanders are always considered ‘stupid’ and the winners geniuses.

    I’ll give you that, but I’ve never heard of Churchill being referred to as any kind of military leader, good, bad or otherwise. Political, yes, although how good he was at that depends who you talk to, it seems.
    From what I have read (admittedly not all that much) it appears to me that Hitler’s greatest flaws were:
    1. Unwillingness to defer to professional military, which he certainly was not, and
    2. Elevating his political beliefs above sound military judgment.
    Dunkirk seems to me to be prime example of both of these flaws.
    You may disagree, I do not know

    playing a weak hand

    I have difficulty seeing the Wehrmacht as a “weak hand,” but I do think it was monumentally stupid to expect they could defeat the Red Army, if only because of sheer numbers, of both men and tanks.

  208. j2 说:
    @L.K

    “the Federal German Archives in Koblenz have the data for at least 3.841 ethnic Germans murdered by the Poles during the Polish campaign. In fact, some had been killed before the hostilities even commenced. ”

    The problem here is what this quote says: almost all of these murders happened after Germany attacked Poland. Hitler gave the order to make plans to attack Poland in April 1939. This means that he had a clear intention to attack Poland in April 1939. Polish atrocities that led Hitler to his decision to attack Poland (witnessed by giving the order to make the plan) should have happened before April 1939. What the quote says is that some killings happened before 1. September 1939. It is a long way of showing that significant atrocities happened before April 1939. As for Germans being murdered at the time when Germany attacked Poland and made several similar killings of Poles, it is what often happens in a war.

  209. Anonymous[253]• 免责声明 说:
    @slorter

    Yes, strangely German pacts and agreements with other states were not worth the paper they were written on. Which does not stop Wehraboos from claiming Hitler wanted peace with Britain and how unsporting it was of them not to entertain his offers…

  210. j2 说:
    @turtle

    “Isolation of one part of its territory from the rest, as (East) Prussia was from the rest of (truncated) Germany, is not something a sovereign state could be expected to tolerate indefinitely,”

    I see. Russia should demand a 4-lane motor road to connect Kaliningrad (the same Eastern Prussia, but now populated by Russians) with the rest of Russia and England should connect Gibraltar with the Isles by a similar road.

  211. @aandrews

    That was the settling of accounts in the Serbian criminal underground, nothing to do with muslims. But yes, still immigrants.

    • 回复: @aandrews
  212. @aandrews

    My other reply to this referred to an earlier shooting of a Serbian crime boss in Stockholm who was executed while walking with his wife and child. If this one in Malmo is fallout from the same or something else I have no idea.

  213. szopen 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    We would fight if Germany would threated us with war, period. We did not want war, we were not prepared for war, but only someone who never ever read a single Polish book can think that we would just fold to aggressive German demands without British guarantees.

    If you think otherwise, it just means that you have surprisingly one-sided view of history.

  214. j2 说:

    Well, I do not know if this article is quite correct. What I think is more or less the following:

    Why did Hitler attack Poland in 1939?

    [更多]

    The German side justified the 1939 attack to Poland by the repressive treatment of the German minority by the Poles. Germans claimed that Poles had done murders and other atrocities against Germans. There is evidence of murders of German civilians by Poles, but this evidence relates to events after Germany attacked. The most often mentioned case is the Bloody Sunday of Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) 3-4. September 1939. Hitler gave the orders to plan the attack to Poland in April 1939. If atrocities from the Polish side were the reason for Hitler’s attack, these atrocities should have happened before April 1939. There is no evidence of such cases.
    The Polish government had the goal of polonization of the country. How much this affected the German minority is unclear. We can assume that the feelings toward Germans were more positive than towards Jews and can assume that polonization was less severe towards Germans than towards Jews. Indeed, Jews picture Poland of the pre-war times as a highly anti-semitic country. The reality does not confirm this opinion. The only “anti-Semitic” law in Poland before 1939 was a law from 1938 limiting the number of ritual slaughters of animals in an area to depend on the number of Jews in the area. A law forbidding ritual slaughter of animals was to come in force 1939, but because of the attack it was not introduced. Many medical studies confirm that the ritual slaughter causes unnecessary suffering for the animal. The only reason, that this practice is still allowed, is political. It should certainly be banned for animal protection reasons. It is an ancient barbaric practice.
    There is another example of anti-Semitism in Poland before the WWII. The citizenship law of 1939 removed Polish citizenship from people who spent five years abroad and who lost contact with Poland. There were many Polish Jews, who had moved abroad: to Germany or to France. If they felt like Polish citizens, all they needed to do was to return to Poland. But Jews did not feel like Poles: they welcomed Soviet troops in 1939 and helped to compose lists of Poles to be taken to Siberia. That is why Germans, explaining this to Poles in 1941, managed to instigate many pogroms against Jews in Poland, made by native Poles. So, Jews never felt like Poles, and they did not support the Polish government of the new Polish state established in 1918. Why should such Jews, who moved abroad, were there at least five years, and lost all contact with Poland, be Polish citizen? I see no reason for them to be Polish citizen and for this law to be anti-Semitic. Had the law been enforced, we would know how many Jews left Poland before 1939, but this law came just when Germany attacked.
    So, this was the suppression of Polish Jews. I will not especially look at the suppression of Polish Ukrainians, but it was not much worse. Suppression of Polish Germans must have been less severe. Thus, there was some discrimination, but not much. Not enough for starting a war. Danzig was taken over by people closely tied with Nazis. They tried, and succeeded, in creating the crisis of Danzig.
    I do understand that Germans, who lost areas in the WWI, which they probably did not intend to start, felt that the corridor of Poland should be German, as Poles are untermenchen. Or do I understand it? Poland lost this area in 1772. For 326 years (from 1446-1772) the Royal Prussia (where Danzig is) was a part of Poland. That was so because the Teutonic Knights lost the battle of Grunwald (1410) against the Polish cavalry. Let me make a small correction: I do not understand why Germans should have considered this land theirs, it was not theirs, but I do acknowledge that many of them did so.\
    Nevertheless, Polish atrocities or discrimination of the German minority were not the reason for the 1939 attack. These atrocities did not happen – what happened were atrocities after Germans attacked, and the German minority was not suppressed more than Polish Jews, and that means, almost not at all. There was the aspect of pride: Germany had lost area and it was given to untermenchen, but I do not think Hitler taught in such a naive way.
    The issue of the attack to Poland in 1939 is that Hitler ordered planning the attack in April 1939, while Chamberlain stated that England will go to war over Poland in the end of May 1939. Poland had a defense agreement with France. Thus, in April 1939 Hitler knew that by attacking Poland he would get to a war with England and France.
    Some people try to claim that Hitler hoped that England and France would not have respected their commitment because of such an unimportant country like Poland (the same with Finland, or any other country, well, that is so, they do not, but this time they did). I do not accept this argument. It is more like Hitler made several operations and waited for England to finally draw a line. Then when England had drawn a line, Hitler made an attack. That means, Hitler wanted to get England into a war.
    I know, many people ask: why would Hitler do so, he was a gambler and hoped that England would not stand up to its words. This is nonsense. Hitler knew exactly well that Churchill would object to any peace offer. Germany had made a peace offer to England in the WWI, it had not been accepted. Instead, Zionist bankers had blackmailed England to make the Balfour declaration against the promise that these Zionist bankers (not the Herzl Zionist organization, but a Jewish Masonic body) would bring the USA to the side of England and in this way crush Germany.
    Hitler did believe in the International Jewry. He did believe in the stab in the back. He necessarily had to believe that Zionists would try to blackmail England in case England would end up in a very difficult situation. Zionists would demand England to accept the founding of the state of Israel, and in return, they would bring the USA to the European theatre of war. That is, Hitler had to think like this. This is the only way you can think if you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and in the stab in the back.
    So, what does Hitler do? He attacks Poland and gets England and France into a war. Thus, he intentionally starts a world war. Earlier he had spoken that if the International Jewry second time manages to plunge the world into a world war, the result will be different: Jews will be pushed out of Europe. This, naturally, is exactly what the International Jewry wanted: Jews were to be pushed to Palestine because otherwise there could not be Israel.
    When Hitler already is in war with Poland, France and England, the Western powers do absolutely nothing. They could have attacked Germany in the beginning. Germany had weak defenses in the West, but they did nothing. Then Hitler let the British troops evacuate in Dunkirk. There was no need for it. England did not make a separate peace, and Hitler must have known that Churchill demands for continuation of the war. So, why did Hitler let the British go? For the same reason as Hitler forbid Finns and Germans in Lapland to attack the second Murmansk railroad: to keep the Allied in the war. It was the same reason why Hitler delayed the attack to Moscow and split the forces: to keep the Soviets in the war. For exacttly the same reason Hitler did not allow Paulus to break through in Stalingrad, to let Soviets win, and why Hitler delayed the attack to Kursk and stopped the battle when Germans were winning. That is, Hitler made very many, more than can be explained, serious mistakes in the war. He actually wanted to occupy countries, collect their Jewish populations, and lose the war.
    You do not think so? So what about the Battle of England? By military considerations Hitler never had the chance of attacking over the channel. Even Goebbels, in the diaries, says that Hitler did not really intend to invade England. So, why did he do the battle of England? It had one goal. That goal was not pressing England to a peace agreement: Churchill was there to stop any such peace agreement (Freemason Churchill had been in debts, but got out of them because of help from Jews, so he was in a debt of gratitude for them, maybe more). The goal was to blackmail England to go to the logical conclusion of the Balfour declaration: after the end of the war Israel was created.
    We should not forget Roosevelt. But Roosevelt did have some connections to a group of people, didn’t he.

    • 巨魔: L.K
  215. szopen 说:
    @Wally

    In your dreams, Wally. You just employ in Gish gallop and quote old documents, some of them already debunked, while ignoring all the arguments. You method of discussion is one of “Here is my document proving 5000 Germans were killed in Bromberg alone, despite after the war the WEST GERMAN were able to count by name between 100 to 400 victims, and it’s not proven that they actually were murdered by Poles, so we can absolutely ignore all the Polish testimonies, witnesses and even postwar German documents and accept Nazi propaganda – but hey, it’s impossible that Germans killed two and half million Poles, that’s a lie, there is no proof, no mass graves, not testimonies” and when you are given testimonies or news about new mass graves being found decades after war, you just put you fingers into ears and go “nah nah nah nah”

    • 回复: @Wally
  216. szopen 说:
    @Wally

    (1) Greater Poland (land of our first capital, the integral part of POland, in medieval times it was just called “Poland”) – majority Polish.

    (2) Pomerania: Polish until the partitions, majority Polish population. The German trick was to claim Kashubians were not Polish, but Kashubians voted Polish parties and later were loyal to Polish state and declared being Polish in Polish censuses; thousands of them were murdered by Germany in Stutthof.

    (3) Upper Silesia: the parts given to Poland voted majority Poland

    All according to the Prussian pre-war censuses. Those lands were majority Polish; and that’s despite the decades long efforts of colonisation by Prussia, anti-Polish laws, forbidding Polish in schools; and despite that German military personel and German clerks, often transferred here from other parts of Germany, were counted as part of population; while Polish drafted to army usually served in other parts of Prussia (to make them easier to “assimilate”) and were not counted.

    At the same time it shows you the utter hipocrisy of Hitler’s “referendum” proposal. He would want German officials and military personal, plus Prussian colonists to be able to vote in referendum, while forbidding the vote to similar categories of Polish people. And yet some idiots still think his proposals were honest and reasonable.

    I have not admitted antyhing. That was sarcasm, you idiot.

    • 回复: @Wally
  217. neutral 说:
    @Alden

    Both Britain and France had zero problems enlisting non white soldiers to kill whites, that alone pretty much makes them very anti white. Besides that, their propaganda made it very clear that they were fighting for “freedom” and “democracy”, not blood and soil. In a world which is majority non white fighting for world brotherhood means you are anti white.

    • 回复: @Alden
  218. iffen 说:
    @G

    Just my 2 cents that a German doesn’t have to a Nazi in order to be a “good” German.” The last time that happened in Germany it was a bad thing for the world. I will now return to worrying about who can be a “good” American and leave the German identity problem to Germans.

  219. Threestars 说:
    @FB

    Funny enough, your comment is in itself quite deranged.

    You needlessly put completely neutral descriptors in scare coats, most funny of them being “article” — I mean it might be a good article, or a bad article, but you would expect we would all agree that this is indeed an article. It’s not a poem or a novel or anything like that.

    Your “reasons” don’t follow a consistent logical pattern. Your first “reason” is obviously mocking one of the Nazi apologists’ most common talking points, while the rest (none of them actual reasons for war, but only consequences of it) simply switches sides between the Germans and Poles when it comes to some of the attitudes and actions Germans supposedly held or did towards the Slavs in general.

    Were you drunk when you wrote it?

  220. @David Erickson

    Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch said it, he was out by just three months. I believe his actual comment was, “Nothing is settled, the war will break out again within 20 years”.

  221. Durruti 说:
    @turtle

    Just keep in mind that when France declares war on Germany, invades, and gets its ass kicked, that is known as “Prussian militarism,” which is BAD because all Germans are inherently EVIL.

    Yes, Germans are a favorite whipping boy of Zionist Hollywood & Zionist History texts.

    Was the Blockquote – also you? Or, where did it come from?

    And of course, all this led to 巴黎公社. The Bismarck-Germans freed the captured French Army (with its arms), to enable it to crush the Commune. They feared the French Citizens’ alliance of Anarchists & Republicans might set off another ripple of revolutionary energy through Europe.

    Napoleon III was an incompetent, as well as being morally corrupt. Republics are infinitely superior to Empires.

    • 回复: @turtle
  222. Durruti 说:
    @Alden

    By 1935 Russian special forces (Spetnaz) had killed all the Spanish republicans socialists etc and set up a terrorist soviet satellite state in Spain.

    哎哟!

    My dad served in the Belgian & American Armies. He fought the Germans. Germany overwhelmed the Belgian Army (as the Soviets the Finns). However, the Belgians fought bravely in both World Wars. In WW I, the Belgian Army was forced south – into Northern France. They never surrendered, and persevered until victory. In WW II, the Belgian flanks were exposed and they were forced to surrender – when the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) of 250,000 retreated without fighting.

    You are living in a Dream World of anti-Russian hatred. In 1935, a Conservative Government was in charge of Spain.

    尝试: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npmsx Pay attention to Chapts 4 & 5.

    I appreciate Fiction, good fiction. My favorite is Tolkien, because his fiction contains beautiful Elves.

    杜鲁蒂

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  223. Walton 说:
    @Alden

    don’t forget that Jews have been claiming that Germany was innocent and everyone else in Europe was responsible for the European holocaust as they now call it.

    The people who created the new “Holocaust” narrative in the early 1970s — when memories of WW II were beginning to fade — knew perfectly well that Poland was the exception that proved the rule: unlike the French (for example), the Poles rejected all cooperation with the Germans and the Russians who simultaneously invaded their country in September 1939 and — instead — immediately set up an underground resistance movement (the Home Army) as well as a government-in-exile in London. Anyone caught collaborating with the Germans in any way was shot by the Resistance.

    After Hitler’s decision to exterminate all the Jews in Poland during the middle of the war, the Polish underground State did all it could to help save Jewish lives, as did the Catholic Church and an untold number of ordinary Poles, all of whom risked certain death (for themselves and their families) if they were caught doing so by the Germans. This collective death penalty only applied to Poland, by the way — in other occupied countries the Germans could count on the locals to help them round up any Jews they could find.

    Despite all this, the authors of the new narrative were 强迫 to start telling the world that during WW II their worst enemies were the Poles. This completely false narrative still holds: a few years ago, President Obama found himself talking about the “Polish Death Camps” which he had obviously read about at school.

    The reason for this gross distortion of the truth was the fact that too many people in Poland still remembered how “their” Jews had behaved in September 1939, especially in the Soviet zone of occupation, where organized Jewry immediately collaborated with the Soviet secret police, drawing up lists of Poles to be deported to Siberia, murdering Polish officials and retreating soldiers etc.

    http://www.geocities.ws/jedwabne/english/jedwabne_a_zbrodnie_na_kresach_2.htm

    This happened on a gigantic scale — and, of course, did not pass unnoticed in the German zone of occupation (where Jews were herded into “autonomous” ghettos and were given the false hope that they might eventually be moved to some kind of “autonomous” zone after the war).

    As Poles were bound to question the new narrative, their name had to be blackened — purely as a preventive measure — and to such an extent that no one would ever want to pay any attention to what they had to say (and most of that is still in Polish anyway).

    If the average American ever heard about the “holocaust” that was meted out by Jews and Jewish commissars to Poles and other nations during WW II, he or she would be much less willing to submit to the moral pressure that was continually being put on them by the official Jewish Holocaust narrative:

    “Most of us were murdered because of centuries of Christan (and in particular Catholic) anti-Semitism and nobody in America or Europe lifted a finger to help us, so at least help us to survive now in Israel.”

    • 回复: @Counterinsurgency
  224. @Matra

    I suspect that the reason that critics of the “approved narrative” are less and less to be found in Europe is that their skepticism has been criminalized; they can be imprisoned for their views and for their researches by supposedly “free”, “truth-seeking” European regimes.

    Voltaire’s reported quote to the effect that you will find out who your masters are by discovering who you may not criticize (to your peril) has been weaponized by those in charge of “liberal democracies”. Very clarifying.

    • 回复: @Counterinsurgency
  225. Parfois1 说:
    @Durruti

    Hard work trying to teach doctrinaire blockheads whose knowledge of historical facts is next to zilch.
    What surprises me is their impudence in writing about things they know nothing about (e.g. Spanish Civil War) but full of confidence in regurgitating parrot-like lies and myths.

    Is it worth trying to correct them, knowing that their motive is only to propagate a distorted view of history and society that suits their fancy?

    • 回复: @Durruti
  226. Bookish1 说:
    @Alden

    They gave more than half of Europe over to the communists. Who do you think is in control of things in the west.

  227. @szopen

    同样, Puhlease. The problem for Germans dealing, talking, negotiating – whatever – with Poles is that they/you make things up, lie and use excuses. You don’t speak in a rational, adult way, as many quotes from responsible diplomats of the time, given by commenters in this thread and in the article, attest to. But you seem oblivious to that and continue to behave that way. One can only conclude it is an ethnic disability.

    “We did not want war” when it is proven Poland did want war and said so.

    “We were not prepared for war” when Poland claimed it prepared for war, bragged it would take over Berlin, and had mobilized its troops.

    Germany under Hitler did 不能 make aggressive demands of Poland so that’s a mute point. If you can’t name them …

    • 回复: @szopen
  228. @szopen

    We would fight if Germany would threated us with war, period. We did not want war, we were not prepared for war, but only someone who never ever read a single Polish book can think that we would just fold to aggressive German demands without British guarantees.

    Right. Back when i was going to college, one of my two room mates was Polish urban c9ommunity (the other Sweedish urban community [1]). The Polish guy started using the toilet brush (that had been months ins service in the bathroom) to wash dishes, apparently because it was the only brush available. I called him on it, raising health issues. He stoutly defended his use of the toilet brush on the dishes! But I believe that he never used it again. He was an engineering student in a very difficult program, so he must have had some brains somewhere, but that didn’t help him or me. Fortunately, nobody got sick.

    So, yes, the Poles would have gone to war against Germany, and the USSR simultaneously if Stalin had invaded at the same time the Germans did. Doesn’t mean as much as who won and who lost.

    平叛

    1] These two communities would be destroyed over the next decade or so by job loss and attacks by internal US migrants.

  229. Durruti 说:
    @Parfois1

    Is it worth trying to correct them, knowing that their motive is only to propagate a distorted view of history and society that suits their fancy?

    Only if you have the time, & an informational outlet with which to do so. Will they learn, or can they learn? – depends on who/what they are (what their “motive” is).

    For correcting the brainwashed masses, a Media not controlled by the Zionist/Oligarchs, textbooks not censored by them, teachers not ignorant, (or in fear of the loss of their jobs-if they voice the unapproved opinion), would be helpful).

  230. turtle 说:
    @Durruti

    Block quote is from Wikipedia.
    Aplogy for not attributing it.

  231. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    – All those that value free speech are in a war with Zionists like Franklin Ryckaert and their lies.
    I’m glad to do my part.

    – Besides that I have already shredded Zionist Franklin Ryckaert’s lies about the laughable & impossible “holocaust gas chambers” & non-existent “holocaust” human remains of millions upon millions which are claimed by Jews like him to exist. In fact, so have many others here including Ron Unz himself.

    推荐的:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=Franklin+Ryckaert+&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

  232. This is a bias article. History did not begin in 1939. The old Slavonic town of Kodan (later Gdansk / Danzig) was built by Polish Slavs and became the first capital of Great Lechia – the commonwealth od Slavik tribes that later, in X century, became the state of Poland.The region around the Polish city of Poznań has originally belonged to Poland. In fact, a nearby town of Gniezno was the first capital of the newly established state of Poland. The advances of German crusaders, the Knights of the Cross (Krzyżacy) in what later became Prussia can be traced historically. They were reversed in XV century by the joined Polish and Lithuanian army. Later, the areas changed hands many times, but it has not made it “German”. Today, we can see clear efforts of Germany and its various fifth columns in Poland to recapture the areas that had temporarily belonged to them in the past. These claims are not justified.

    • 回复: @Greg S.
  233. Wally 说:
    @szopen

    – You continue to ignore the fact that Germany would have accepted a simple roadway to the areas that were stolen from them.

    – You continue to ignore the mass atrocities by Poles against Germans which I have proven.

    – So now you been caught contradicting yourself by saying Poles were the majority in all of the debated areas when I have shown absolutely that they were not.
    That simple fact alone renders your arguments laughable.

    • 回复: @szopen
  234. Wally 说:
    @szopen

    – Pay attention, dumsky, I have demonstrated many pre-war atrocities before Bromberg which was indeed an enormous atrocity unto itself.
    – My sources come from non-German sources, such as the 大英百科全书, which you ignore of course. Also see below. *
    – You claim “testimonies”, but produce none. Why?
    – You mentioned “German documents”, but produce none of them. Why?
    – You mentioned “news about new mass graves being found decades after war”, yet you show us no such mass graves filled with vast numbers of human remains as alleged. Why?

    Please actually read what I post:

    1年1939月XNUMX日之前的波兰针对德国人的暴行
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

  235. Deirdre 说:

    I think the shortest and best answer to the question as to why Germany invaded Poland was given by the German Chancellor Willy Brandt:

    It was a gamble that didn’t pay off.

    Hitler gambled away those lands which in the past used to be Polish and were subsequently colonized (not always successfully) by Germans.

    Hopefully Germany’s next gamble will result in further territorial losses to Poland.

  236. szopen 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “We did not want war” when it is proven Poland did want war and said so.

    Except it didn’t, and the only proof you have are fabricated lies. And it seems that for you “reasonable” talk would be to fold and accept whatever Germany demands, accept Germany’s point of view and never complain.

    “We were not prepared for war” when Poland claimed it was prepared for war, bragged it would take over Berlin, and had mobilized its troops.

    Which is why Polish plan was defensive and it’s main principle was to withdraw towards more defensive lines, and which is why Poland had not attacked when we COULD took Berlin, because Germany had no army.

    Obviously, government spread some heavy-handed propaganda, but it was to be expected: did you seriously expected government would told it’s nation “we are screwed”?

    For Darwin’s sake, it’s one thing to believe fabrication (including the infamous fabricated Śmigły-Rydz quote, which despite debunking continue to appear in such threads), and second to just look at the facts: Poland had plans for wars with USSR, no plans for war with Germany. Fortifications were built at eastern border. Army had large number of cavalry units, wwhich were very expensive, because it was expected they would be good for fights in the east. Our fleet had units which had sense only with fighting with USSR, to block their ports. When our government finally created a plan, it had no offensive elements, except going into Danzig to help Polish garrison stationed there. Many units were still in forming when Germany invaded.

    我的意思是,来吧。

    Germany under Hitler did not make aggressive demands of Poland so that’s a mute point

    Referendum in Corridor (with outrageous conditions), extra-territorial highway… naaah no aggressive demands.

  237. j2 说:
    @szopen

    “We would fight if Germany would threated us with war, period.”

    I think this is true. Poles would do have fought. This was known to German High Command. The concept of the Blitzkrieg was developing since the latter part of the WWI. The area, where it especially suits, is East Europe, especially Poland. A tank attack supported by dive bombers works well in such a flat area. In general, the concept is flawned: if tanks advance far without infantry, they can be stopped e.g. by minefields, and destroyed even with burning bottles, but in a country like Poland you can keep up the speed. Thus, German knew this before they started rearming in 1935. Thus, Hitler knew it in 1938 when proposing Danzig to be joined to Germany.

    Why then did Hitler wait to April 1939 before ordering plans to be made to invade Poland ? He gave the command, which can be taken as the time when he decided to attack Poland, immediately after England had given Poland guarantees. Thus, unlike what the article claims, England did not try to get into a war with Germany, Hitler wanted to get into a war with England. What proves that England and France actually did not want a war with Germany is the phase called phony war. Had they wanted war, there had not been any phony war stage. They could have attacked Germany soon after the attack to Poland. Instead, they waited for Hitler to attack them.

    So, why did Hitler want to get England to the war? To me it looks like Hitler had four goals, all necessary for the creation of Israel:
    1) Move some German Jews with money to Palestine to build infra there, Haavara agreement did this.
    2) Uproot Jews from Poland and other countries so that they can after the war be moved to Palestine, transfer of Jews, started immediately after Poland was conquered, did this.
    3) Get England into a so difficult situation that Zionist can again blackmail it (to agree creation of Israel this time). The war of Britain did this. This is why Hitler wanted England to thew war.
    4) Lose the war and destroy Germans forever (Hitler was Austrian and Y-DNA haplogroup E, not an Aryan blond, his friends in Vienna were Jewish). Hitler made so many incorrect decisions in the war that it is very hard to think they were mistakes. (delay attack to Moscow, split forces, not allow Paulus to break through, delay the attack to Kursk, stop the battle of Kursk, refuse to believe that Normandy is the site)

    “We did not want war, we were not prepared for war, but only someone who never ever read a single Polish book can think that we would just fold to aggressive German demands without British guarantees.”

    Atrocities by Poles against Germans before the war are largely exaggerated and this article gives a very incorrect propaganda view. As Hitler had decided on the attack in April 1939, it is irrelevant if Poland acted against Germans in the period April 1939-Augist 1939, it did not affect Hitler’s decision. It is very likely that these incidences were created by German saboteurs. However, it may be that in the Polish government and high command there were people, who took orders from a certain group of people, who wanted this war. This war, just like the WWI, was planned. It did not just come as a result of an unfortunate series of events.

    • 回复: @A.R
  238. MarkinLA 说:
    @Theodore

    Nothing Hitler said or any treaty he wrote is worth a damn so all these “he only wanted”s are ridiculous. Also, why are Germany’s pre WWI borders so sacrosanct given that much of it was Poland before it was dismembers by Russia, Austria and Prussia. Some of those places were Polish a lot longer than they were German.

    • 同意: Pater
    • 回复: @Theodore
  239. szopen 说:
    @Wally

    (1) You have not proven anything. You kept on quiting Nazi propaganda documents and pseudohistorian BS which believed those documents. West-German historians who tried to prove the massacre in Bromberg came to the conclusion of at most 467 “murdered” (while ignoring Polish documents and testimonies about German saboteurs shooting at Polish soldiers).

    Please do not link to forums such as codoh. They are nest of pseudohistorians who would believe if it would whitewash Hitler.

    For example of my earlier attempts of discussion with idiots, where I was posting quotes from history books, see for example here:

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=48684&start=45
    https://www.forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42829&start=150
    https://www.forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=42829&start=120
    It was before I got tired with monomaniacs as you. 5000 Germans were killed out of 9500 living in Bydgoszcz, sure.

    (2) You now do not believe Prussian censuses and think a map is better than an actual source. While there were isolated strips with German majorities here and there, overall the territories had Polish majority: in Pomerania, for example, 528 thousand Poles versus 385 thousand Germans, where, as I already explained, German number was inflated because it included German garrisons (with soldiers often from other parts of Germany), government officials and colonists settled there by Prussian colonisation commission.

    (3) Germany didn’t just want a highway. They wanted EXTRATERRITORIAL highway, plus referendum in Pomerania, with outrageous conditions.

    Plus just year before we were assured that there are absolutely no problem.

    You really are not worthy talking to. You just keep repeating the same lies.

    • 巨魔: L.K
    • 回复: @Wally
  240. MarkinLA 说:
    @anonymous1963

    Yes but when you give an ultimatum (even one you think the other guy would be insane to violate) you have to back it up when the nut actually does. It turns out it wasn’t in Germany’s interest to start a war with Britain either.

    Hitler should have stopped at the Sudetenland. He could have spent the rest of his life as one of the greatest German leaders of all time – right up there with Frederick the Great.

    • 同意: reiner Tor
  241. DeMar 说:

    It has long been my contention that Great Britain and The United States (and whoever may have been pulling their economic and political strings) wanted to put an end to Germany once and for all. They thought they had done the job after WWI, but Germany refused to stay down for the count. While the U.S. and G.B. were still struggling with the depression, the German people were overcoming it. Thus Germany was the primary challenge to Anglo-American economic hegemony. Russia was not seen as an immediate economic threat, as was Germany, so the political decision was made to ally ourselves with the lesser of two evils in order to destroy the stronger first. Russia could wait. Guaranteeing an alliance with Poland was not ill-informed. It was done knowing that Germany was being forced into a confrontation with that country and would provide the excuse for starting another war that virtually no one, outside of Churchill and Roosevelt (and their handlers) wanted.

    • 同意: Parfois1
    • 回复: @j2
    , @turtle
    , @Greg S.
  242. A.R 说:
    @j2

    Do you actually believe the crap you`re serving?
    It is impressing how much delusional idiocy you manage to fit into such a “relatively” short comment.
    Are you just improvising or did you spend time and energy “learning” this stuff you are promoting?

  243. Theodore [又名“ Theodore2”] 说:
    @MarkinLA

    Same can be said about the Soviets, who actually desired world domination and had plans to conquer the entire European subcontinent.

    What is ridiculous is to claim that Germany, not the USSR, was the greater threat. You can argue that Britain/France was ignorant at the time, but you can’t really justify the decision in hindsight.

    Britain and France declared war on Germany to “protect the freedom/territorial integrity of Poland” — how did that work out? Remind me

  244. j2 说:
    @DeMar

    “Guaranteeing an alliance with Poland was not ill-informed. It was done knowing that Germany was being forced into a confrontation with that country and would provide the excuse for starting another war that virtually no one, outside of Churchill and Roosevelt (and their handlers) wanted.”

    You have three correct names Churchill and Roosevelt and their handlers. The UK did not want war, which is shown by the phony war, the refusal to fight for Norway when there was a chance, and the halfhearted attempt to fight the German attack to the West. But the handlers wanted this war. And you should add Hitler to this group.

    We have Hitler sent by German army to spy on a party created by the Thule Society, but Hitler, the spy sent there, become converted and joined the party. Only spies do not get converted. Thule was created by a Freemason and Theosophist Sebottendorf, and it strongly believed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document that was written by Theosophists in order to create anti-Semitism that would push Jews to Palestine. Theosophy was Masonic, with very close connections to it, and no Masonic organization is in reality anti-Semitic. They were the original pre-Zionists: Masons wanted to restore Jews to Palestine already since 1820. Hitler had Jewish clients and Jewish friends when he was an artist in Vienna. He took lessons of performing from a Jewish astrologer Hanussen. Hitler, not himself very Aryan, got from somewhere the idea that Aryans are superhuman, but let us not forget that he did take lessons from a Jewish magician and the trick of a magician is to make believe things that are not true. It is even possible, by a DNA study, but unconfirmed, that Eva Brown was of Jewish descent. Members of the extremely anti-Semitic Thule Society included Karl Haushofer, whose wife was half-Jewish, and Rudolf Hess, student of Karl Haushofer and a good friend of 1/4 Jewish Albrecht Haushofer. These extreme anti-Semites made the Haavara agreement helping Zionists to prepare Palestine for a larger number of Jewish immigrants. One extreme anti-Semite, Eichmann, highly admired Judaism. These Nazis did not kill the Jews, they moved them to the East, so that they could be moved somewhere after the war. I wonder where. But they went to Palestine. Is there not something wrong with this background for these highly anti-Semitic Nazis? They made the creation of Israel possible, that cannot be denied.

    In the war Hitler had early success. The attack to Poland would have gone just like it went, but the other attacks (like to France) needed some help from the Western Allied in order to succeed. But then Hitler made far too many mistakes, serious mistakes, for them to be only lack of competence. He overruled very reasonable opinions of his High Command. It is quite correct to say that Hitler caused the German defeat, and by not stepping out and making peace he cause the destruction of Germany. Yes, Churchill, Roosevelt, their handlers, but also Hitler, all wanted Germany to be ruined. It may not be so much economic (as these wars ruined the world power of England just as well, Theosophists worked against British power, e.g. by helping India to become independent). It is just so that the persecutor of Jews is a new Haman and the persecutor of Jews, even if taken for that very goal, must be destroyed before the founding of Israel. The crazy handlers were reading prophecies.

    • 回复: @Wally
    , @SolontoCroesus
    , @Bronek
  245. turtle 说:
    @DeMar

    是的。
    And when two wars didn’t accomplish their objective, the only way remaining was to breed them out of existence. But that had to be postponed in order to secure German “assistance” in thwarting the greater (not lesser) evil of International Communism, which of course the National Socialists were against all along.
    With the Soviet Union gone, the “games” could begin.
    The way things are going, I predict that in 100 years, possibly less, there will be no “German people” in the historical sense, which will no doubt make certain groups extremely happy.

    • 回复: @Bookish1
    , @Bookish1
  246. Republic 说:

    After reading this article I can’t help but thinking about current Polish policy regarding Russia and how reckless their behavior is.

    Like letting US forces establish military bases in their country and allowing the US to station medium range missiles that are designed for a first strike on Russian territory.

    The Russians have warned Poland many time regarding those missile bases in Poland and in Romania and how dangerous and reckless they were.

    Bad Polish diplomacy in 1939 led to the lost of Polish independence, now 80 years later the crazy Poles are risking national disaster and annihilation

    • 回复: @Bronek
  247. 736,

    I can see that you’re a modestly intelligent graduate of such an institute of higher learning. Apparently your diploma means you know all & have no questions left to ask. Settled history.

  248. Durruti 说:
    @Carlton Meyer

    这是 pathetic, the insistance of Wear & Meyer that had Britain accepted Germany’s peace offerings in June 1940, Peace would have been a long lasting result.

    The Peace offerings required the British to recognize the Non existence of Poland, and a German dominated Europe, from Warsaw, to Bucharest, to Madrid. France would have been rendered into a minor European power.

    I recall Hitler had some demands for return of African colonies (I may be corrected on that point?).

    What would have prevented the victorious Germany from making New Demands – 5 minutes after the British agreed to accept their & France’s military humiliation? Do bullies ever stop bullying, without being defeated?

    Yes, the British & Americans were imperialist. As was Germany. Once Germany flattened Poland, & Czechoslovakia, and France, she would not, nor could she have stopped. Yes, Jewish Oligarchs were knee deep in the profiteering on human misery and war profiteering. Either way the Rothschilds et. al. were in the driver’s seat. What don’t we know? Can these fools, not only Wear & Meyer GUARANTEE that the acceptance of German Peace overtures in 1940 would have produced a World at Peace?

    After June 1940, any accomodation of the British Royal Oligarchs with Germany’s, would have been the end of Britain. They could not make Peace with Germany after their military performance in Belgium, without becoming a colony of Germany.

    Freedom, Liberty for the world’s Peoples in 1940, was not a possibility. They did not have a clear Road (or any road), to follow that would lead to a better world. Marxism, Bourgeois (what else) Democracy, Fascism, eh? Trotsky could write, but he could only advocate what Stalin had already provided. Hilton’s 失落的地平线“ was as hopeful as one got in 1940, Tolkien had not finished his 《魔戒》系列, and my Anarchists had been badly beaten around the head & shoulders (we lost our finest in Madrid in 1936).

    Hemingway was the most optimistic. He fashioned heroic individuals, who often failed to make it to the last Round. But he advocated Resistance.

    杜鲁蒂

    • 谢谢: Adûnâi
    • 哈哈: Wally
  249. Theodore [又名“ Theodore2”] 说:
    @Durruti

    You’re just plain wrong. I don’t know where you got your “Facts” but you’re simply incorrect. Hence, I can merely ask you to “prove it” and you will be unable to.

    I would also point out that the “non existence of Poland” was ensured by the British after Germany’s surrender once they turned Poland over to the communist butchers who massacred the elite of the Polish nation in places like Katyn. It was a Soviet satellite

    • 回复: @Durruti
  250. @Durruti

    Hemingway was the most optimistic. He fashioned heroic individuals, who often failed to make it to the last Round. But he advocated Resistance.

    Hemingway had a hard time maintaining a commitment to one woman over the demands of his other brain.
    And, he committed suicide.

    Hemingway was a failure as a human being.

    • 回复: @Durruti
  251. GERMAN 说:

    Hitler forced people to take responsibility for their actions, and to this day the Anglo is absolutely horrified by this thought. Don’t you know that’s collectivism, and collectivism is bad?
    You see, the Anglo has a God-given right to exploit other people’s labour in order to grow rich. Locke or Hobbes proved it somewhere. Because wealth, grifting with your siblings over inheritances, and competing against your own to earn a sheckel is what life is all about. Again, Darwin, another brilliant Anglo genius, proved that as well.
    These Germans are out of their minds. Cooperation leads to free hands outs, and that’s really bad because it violates key free market tennants. And if anyone anywhere should ever interfer with your sacred right to stuff cheeseburgers down your throat, then I’m afraid it’s time to mobilize our democracy army. Time to firebomb civilians, load up the DU munitions. We came! We saw! They died! We are so great and enviable. We must ensure no one anywhere at anytime ever again speaks of socialism or cooperation because those things don’t work. In fact, Socialism doesn’t work ever. Just look at Berlin and Dresden circa 1945. Ha! Case closed! God bless (((Ayn Rand))). Jews are so intelligent.

    • 同意: utu
  252. Durruti 说:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Hemingway was a failure as a human being.

    You served honorably in 2 armies (Italian & American)?

    You wrote Great Novels (Nobel prize for Literature + other honors)?

    You fathered fine children & provided for them?

    You avoided comment on his life work, his Writing.

    No one is perfect, but I would hardly call Hemingway “a failure as a human being.” What did he do – to produce this anger from you? He had more than one brain?

    Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times to 7 husbands. Was she a failure?

  253. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @j2

    打哈欠。
    Unhinged True Believer j2 is still lying about WWII, a common endeavor by Zionists.

    I’ll avoid repeating my demolition of j2 and simply refer to the record, see:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=j2&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    BTW, Hitler never referred to Germans “super human”, nor did he ever refer others as being “sub-human”.
    But don’t confuse j2 with facts.

    推荐的:
    Master Race” / Herrenrasse / Herrenvolk – a deliberate mistranslation: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12400

    • 回复: @j2
  254. @j2

    In the war Hitler had early success.

    In a videod lecture at Hillsdale college (for chumps) titled, Why World War II Matters, (self-styled) historian Victor Davis Hansen recites that

    ( @ 11.58)

    “Germany invaded Poland, with the Soviet Union — 30 days — 28 days, the war was over.
    Germany invaded . . . Denmark, one day; Norway, about six weeks, in April, it was over.
    Germany invaded the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and France — nobody could believe that could be possible . . . they took the entire Western democracies, all that area, 7 weeks.
    The Battle of Britain — . . . they took the Balkans in April of 1941, and Greece and Crete . . . in all of that period, Germany only lost 100,000 soldiers.
    战争结束了。
    Hitler had achieved what nobody else had done, not Napoleon, not Caesar.
    He had basically combined what is now the European Union.
    Any country that opposed him were pro-Nazi anyway — Switzerland, the Iberians — Portugal and Spain; . . . Sweden was not only selling them iron ore but doing it with free transit and credit.
    Turkey was pro-Nazi at this time.
    Hitler had achieved it, the war was over.
    There was a problem in Britain 仅由 because there was this problem called Winston Churchill.”

    Isn’t the obvious conclusion is that all the deaths that VDh catalogued — more deaths than the wars of the past 300 years combined — would not have occurred but for Winston Churchill.

    The organization status of Europe today — the European Union — could have been achieved 50 years earlier and with 60 million more Europeans and Slavs still alive, but for Winston Churchill.

    (Niall Ferguson came to a similar conclusion regarding the Great War: had Britain not joined that conflict, Germany would have organized Europe in much the same way as it is organized today. )

    Yet anybody who knows anything about Hillsdale College and especially its president, Larry Arn, knows that Arn worships Churchill and leads the young people under his tutelage to likewise worship at Churchill’s altar.

    跆拳道?

    The F element, in WWI as in WWII, was and remains zionism.

    Churchill was deeply in debt to zionism’s financier, Baron Rothschild.

    [Among other howlers, VDh explains that WWII was “different” in that

    “there were ideologies that had never existed before. Most of the wars of the past in Europe had been fought over territory or religion, or race or ethnicicity [sic] but never quite over ideology. There were new ideologies in the 20th century that were secular and atheistic, mostly Italian Fascism, German National Socialism and Soviet Communism, and they were a mish-mash of bastardized views of everybody from Wagner to Nietzsche to Darwin to the progressive idea of eugenics and natural selection and sterilization. But they all had one thing in common: they introduced to the equation a relativism about good and bad; they were relativist movements. So if you wanted to kill 6 million Jews you could find a exegesis to support that without fearing to be condemned by religion. There was the idea of the survival of the fittest, or of a national destiny, or, in Russia . . . But in all of these ideologies the so-called ends justified the means.
    Put all of that together and nobody has ever explained, for the large part, the . . .terrific tally [of death & destruction].”

    VDh is as impaired logically as he is chronologically.

    If “the war was over” and “Hitler had achieved” what he wanted to achieve by mid-1941;
    how many Jews had been gas-chambered or rendered into soap or stretched into lampshades by mid-1941?
    Rabbi Stephen Wise did not begin to circulate mendacious tales of “gas chambers” until 1942.

    We have to conclude that inasmuch as it was Churchill who prolonged the war, it must have been Churchill who maintained that “the end justified the means,” and it must have been Churchill who contrived an exegesis for his desire to “kill 6 million Jews without fear of religious repercussions.

    • 回复: @Counterinsurgency
  255. Durruti 说:
    @Theodore

    I would also point out that the “non existence of Poland” was ensured by the British after Germany’s surrender once they turned Poland over to the communist butchers who massacred the elite of the Polish nation in places like Katyn.

    The British turned no Poland over to the Stalin’s Russians. The Russian Army, as it pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, passed through Poland (look at a map), and made any British, or American views toward Poland – irrelevant.

    “was ensured” or not, Poland is alive and well – in 2019. It remains a beautiful place and has the best boundaries in its history. Poland has an extensive Coastline – for world economic and political connections, is reasonably prosperous, and sports a cohesive cultural unity. Past history has been harsh on Polish and many other peoples, as current history continues to punish. Poland has come out -on top.

    上帝保佑!

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @L.K
  256. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @szopen

    – Like a desperate dumsky you just keep repeating your lies which I have slapped down.
    I have presented numerous non-‘Nazi’ sources which you dodge.
    – You mention CODOH links which contain tons of sourced information, yet you cannot refute anything in those links. You are like a dumb deer staring into the headlights of an oncoming vehicle.
    – You laughably cite links to your childish arguments made elsewhere which I have utterly shot down here. Your lies, no matter how any times you repeat them are still easily shown to be lies. LOL
    – You speak of alleged Prussian censuses which you cannot produce. I suggest that you quit digging.
    Indeed, the 1st map demolished your nonsense.
    Here’s another, 1914:and another, 1930:
    – Again you ignore Polish atrocities and the mild requests by Germany, which of course would & did include flight paths for German aviation.
    – And you admit that a vote in Pomerania would have once again shown that the people wanted to be part of Germany.

    You’re simply in over your head here. Cheers.

    • 回复: @szopen
  257. Theodore 说:
    @Durruti

    The Peace offerings required the British to recognize the Non existence of Poland

    First allegation is just flat out WRONG. Here’s a description of one (of the many) peace proposals offered by Hitler.

    Why would you just invent lies like that?

    • 回复: @Durruti
  258. Deirdre 说:

    @Theodore, @Wally etc.

    Anybody who takes all this Nazi propaganda seriously really needs to have his (or her) head examined.

    For God’s sake, the fact that something is printed doesn’t mean it’s true!

    Reproducing fancy Nazi / Soviet / Israeli maps proves nothing.

    The Nazi German propaganda machine was no more credible than today’s Jewish / Israeli / Russian propaganda machine.

    Hitler — who once said that the Jews were the greatest liars in human history — was himself an incorrigible liar and was seen as such (outside Germany). Only an imbecile would ever believe that he ever kept his promises.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Wally
  259. @Colin Wright

    You mean respectable, non-biased sources like Wikipedia, The History Channel, and The Jewish Historical Society?

  260. “Why Germany Invaded Poland” – great article of Bullshit
    Sometimes it’s good idea to step back and you can see different picture .
    我有两个问题–

    1) Why Hitler invested so much money and time to modernize Germany’s army , navy and air force – for Peace ???!! or for War . Example – USA spends annually $600 billion + on military , is this for Peace or War. They jumping from one place to another looking for pretext to start War.
    Hitler plans were about power and expansion , so he was looking for excuse and pretext. He found in Poland.

    2) Why Poland should trust Hitler with his empty promises !!!!??
    The Russians learnt hard way in 1941 to trust Hitler who invade them !!!

    If you try to blame somebody for the the Second World War – blame Germany , Great Britain and France not Poland and try not to defend criminal who killed 60 million people.
    Regarding the Atrocities both sites committed crimes and is very hard to do anything now !! and who you going to charge now?? It’s nonsense
    I wonder what is next another article about – blaming Serbia for starting First World War ??

    • 回复: @Wally
  261. @Colin Wright

    Nice try covering your ass, Collin.

    Your original point was that the “source” was not “mainstream.”

    Faced with the fact that Mr. Hoggan’s work is, in fact, considered basically “mainstream,” you now resort to claiming you meant the *publisher* was not mainstream.

    GMAFB

  262. Theodore 说:
    @Deirdre

    So you call anything you don’t want to believe “Nazi propaganda” and yet you think we are the ones that need our heads examined? Laughable

    为什么人们即使在面对驳斥他们的无可辩驳的事实后,仍继续支持明显错误的主张? 因为你无法说服一个真正的信徒——因为他们的信仰不是基于科学和理性——他们是基于盲目的信仰和意志薄弱的需要去相信。 因此,大多数宣传并非旨在愚弄批判性思想家——而是; 只是给自欺欺人的懦夫一个根本不思考的借口。

  263. anon[274]• 免责声明 说:
    @Alden

    It seems those blacks have robbed you of your disability money . Is your welfare check coming late or is it shrinking in value ?

    Check with Schumer . He , Cotton , and Ben Cardin didn’t want the dole to Israel be affected by the cut in the foreign aid .

  264. @GeeBee

    Evil will not endure forever.

    What was the death will be the resurrection.

  265. Durruti 说:
    @Theodore

    I suggest you read your own article.

    Apologies: Apparently the German government would have recognized some-sort-of-Poland.
    Poland would have been a barely recognizable puppet. Involved in the deal was – according to the NYT article, a “Vast transmigration of peoples” How could that go wrong?

    Did you read that? Put on your glasses!

    “Czechs, Slovaks, & Magyars to constitute tripartite state allied to the Reich for 25 years with Germany enjoying certain privileges in industry and communications.” Unfree puppets?

    Point # 9, A Danube federation of Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bohemia, Slovakia, & Hungary.

    南斯拉夫 had not been conquered and dismembered yet, & would not have agreed to assume a puppet status. As you know, they fought rather than submit.

    “an anti-Bolshevist policy and liberating Russia by arms,” How could that go wrong?
    Did you read this? And Russia haters dare complain of Russia’s building their Army as fast as they could.

    I was correct about African Colonies being demanded by Germany. “Restitution within 20 years of German colonies.” Africans, of course, had no say in this.

    And the best for last, Jews to Palestine. Just how could that go wrong? Were the Palestinian People consulted? In 1936, they held a General Strike for Independence (that was bloodily repressed by the British).

    总共: Hitler’s 11 point Peace Plan was – anything but. History shows that it was rejected. It provided little wriggle room for the British Empire, or their ally France. The German ‘Peace’ plan was for the ears of the gullible Unz Commentators.

    You ask!

    Why would you just invent lies like that?

    I do not have to invent lies. They come to me naturally. You have my apology for any lies I have made, or will make in the future, (I vaguely recall saying that to my EX.).

    上帝保佑!

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @j2
  266. Theodore 说:
    @Durruti

    The Russian Army, as it pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, passed through Poland (look at a map), and made any British, or American views toward Poland – irrelevant.

    You’re not making any sense here.

    Why would the Soviet invasion of Poland be “Irrelevant” but the German invasion was not?

    Please see post #270 – https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3417109
    Where Hitler’s offer for peace included an independent Poland. Hitler wanted Peace, Britain did not. Simple stuff, really.

    Also look into Operation Unthinkable, where the Western Allies did in fact have plans to liberate the Polish people from Soviet tyranny. The goal of the operation was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though ‘the will’ of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland” — so much for their views being “Irrelevant” LOL!

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  267. @Rutger Spuds

    It wasn’t apparent then, but its more than apparent today, that Jew controlled England and the Jew controlled United States both favored Communism over classic Western Civilization Germany was defending in both world wars. Recent events and social conditions in both countries prove they did and still do.

    • 同意: Malla
    • 哈哈: FB
  268. L.K 说:
    @Durruti

    The British turned no Poland over to the Stalin’s Russians. The Russian Army, as it pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, passed through Poland (look at a map), blah, blah

    Oh yeah, the Soviet did indeed “pass through Poland”… already in their invasion of it with Germany in Sep. 1939…
    Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav M. Molotov’s statement before the Supreme Soviet on October 31, 1939:

    对波兰的一次打击,首先是德国人,然后是红军,这个凡尔赛条约的流氓孩子没有留下任何东西,它的存在归功于对非波兰民族的镇压。

  269. @Deutscher

    We Germans will survive in tact. We were loyal to the man God sent us, Hitler. And so God will grant us a future.

    Hope you’re right. Western Civilization (what little’s left of it) depends on you.

    • 回复: @AnonFromTN
  270. @alexander

    You mean respectable, non-biased sources like Wikipedia, The History Channel, and The Jewish Historical Society?

    • 同意: Alden
  271. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    – IOW, you cannot refute what John Wear wrote in the article , which is the subject of this thread.
    Laughably you don’t even try, you know you can’t, that’s why.

    – You also cannot refute what I posted in comment #7 for the same reason.

    In essence you are just making things up as you go. Not exactly the stuff of verified facts, but definitely the stuff of Zionist propaganda which everyone is now on to.

    • 回复: @Mark Kaczmarek
  272. Theodore 说:
    @Durruti

    This was of course after Britain and France declared war on Germany.

    The Germans offered to protect Poland from the Soviet/Bolshevik menace. How many Poles died in World War II? Was it worth it, just to destroy Germany and let the USSR take over half of Europe? The Katyn Forest Massacre could have been avoided, completely. Funny how you whine about “puppet states” when that is exactly what happened to Poland under the Red Terror, along with many other countries. Obviously, Hitler was not happy with the Poles after their intransigent behavior in response to the “blank check” given by Britain. He did offer to protect Poland from the USSR, but they said no. I think Hitler actually would have protected them from Bolshevism, unlike the Western “Allies”

    You gaffed:

    In Sum: Hitler’s 11 point Peace Plan was – anything but. History shows that it was rejected. It provided little wriggle room for the British Empire, or their ally France. The German ‘Peace’ plan was for the ears of the gullible Unz Commentators.

    This is called ‘grasping at straws’. The reality is that Hitler offered various peace proposals, including peace proposals to Poland BEFORE the war broke out, but Britain wanted no peace. Only to destroy Germany, which allowed half of Europe to be enslaved to the communist butchers who exterminated the elite of the Polish nation at Katyn.

    In hindsight, Britain made a terrible decision in terms of protecting Poland.

    • 回复: @j2
  273. Wally 说:
    @Deirdre

    Poor hasbarist.

    John Wear, myself, & Theodore present verified fact after fact, with sources, and this is your response.

    You don’t like the iron clad proof presented so you simply make claims about it which have been demonstrated to be not true …. and you cannot show us what is presented in the maps & documents are wrong.

    IOW, you are simply irrational in the face of proof contrary to the fake history that some people have profited from.

  274. Parfois1 说:
    @Theodore

    Also look into Operation Unthinkable, where the Western Allies did in fact have plans to liberate the Polish people from Soviet tyranny. The goal of the operation was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though ‘the will’ of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland”

    So, the Soviets, while in hot pursuit of the German armies to Berlin – therefore liberating Poland – were already busy imposing a tyranny justifying the Western Allies’ liberation of Poland!

    Yet, I’ve seen reels of the time showing the people welcoming the Red Army.

    You must be very thick to come up with that argument. Look at the date when the final “Unthinkable” was completed.

    The nice Western Allies who promised to protect Poland in 1939 had more than 6 years to fullfil their commitment but it was the nasty Soviets who liberated Poland.

    Considering the historical record going back centuries, Stalin was very generous to the Poles. Germany is still occupied territory by the nice Western Allies.

    And now the Poles are again at it: useful idiots to provide a trip wire for another one, likely the last. Must be genetic…

    • 回复: @Theodore
  275. anonymous1963 [又名“ anon19”] 说:
    @MarkinLA

    That is precisely WHY you don’t give ultimatums sir.

  276. @Wally

    嗨,
    I was not trying to prove anything , I was born in 1955 and only rely on information from history books and whatever my parents told me.
    You can’t prove now anything anyway , all people involved are dead.
    Hitler had to plan war if he was going to modernise Germany’s military.
    After all he wasn’t good for anybody including Germans.
    I am not trying to justify criminals on both sides , whatever happened was terrifying for everybody involved but that was Power Game between Great Britain and Germany. Unfortunately Poland was one of pawns in that game.
    Today we have got Big Mafia running everything – Zionist, American and Anglo Empire.
    They have puppet gorvements everywhere and only few “free” countries left.
    It’s more important than ever to educate people what is coming than fight with past ghosts.
    And please don’t try to defend Hitler

    • 同意: Parfois1
    • 回复: @Wally
  277. Dube 说:
    @MarkU

    #6. @Dube
    这个怎么样?

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_(1939)

    MarkU, thanks for the responsible contribution of the actual terms of the agreement. I will look again if so directed, but I see no language that concedes executive authority to the Poles, as in the sense of a “blank check.”

    John Wear’s metaphor of a “blank check” is imprecise, provocative, and undercuts his other claims.

    Like, you know, that agreement is a literally blank check, 真。

  278. Greg S. 说:
    @Lech Biegalski

    What a ridiculous argument. And before the Poles had it, who had it then? And who had it before them? And who had it before them? Perhaps the rightful owners were some obscure tribe of nomad cavemen, the very first humans to step foot there. You Poles are squatting on caveman land, and should evacuate the land immediately, no?

    Also explained in comic format: http://stonetoss.com/comic/its-great-turtles-all-the-way-down/

    And we wonder how wars start when people have this kind of mentality.

  279. Greg S. 说:
    @DeMar

    This is pretty much it. The exact same playbook is being enact by the exact same countries against Russia today. You can watch history repeat in real time. The annexation of Crimea and all that.

  280. Alden 说:
    @neutral

    Dumbest comment on this thread so far. America had black and American Indian soldiers in the war too. Russia had Asians in its army.

    I don’t think Germany used black soldiers from its African colonies. So you side with Germany because it was the only 100% White military involved?

    • 回复: @Parfois1
    , @Malla
  281. j2 说:
    @Durruti

    “And the best for last, Jews to Palestine. Just how could that go wrong? Were the Palestinian People consulted? In 1936, they held a General Strike for Independence (that was bloodily repressed by the British).”

    Nice you noticed this. This was the meat of the whole war, so no Madagascar plan or a Jewish state in Eastern Europe. But it was so arranged from the very start of this war that Churchill would be able to reject this peace proposal and the UK would continue the war. The UK had to be blackmailed with the Battle of Britain into accepting Israel, as they were backing off from the Balfour declaration. The USA had to be raised to a superpower, as they were Masons and friends of Jews. And the other friends in the Soviet Union had to get compensation as a rule over the whole Eastern Europe. Stalin did accept founding Israel, but later he refused to let the Jews move to Israel and was poisoned.

  282. j2 说:
    @Theodore

    People, who either have no idea of military matters, or are simply dishonest, try to say that a four-lane road on extra-territorial land (that is, fully controlled by Germany) from west to east completely cutting the Polish corridor is just a small road without any offensive intentions.

    Such a road would have made it impossible for Poland to defend its northern part. It is not a custom to any country to ask for another country to give its land to build a road.

    It just happens to be so that if Poland had given Germany rights to build this road, then all the area above this road would immediately fall to German hands as Poland could not defend it: it is cut from the rest of Poland. To make it impossible to defend the area even for a while, Polish defenses were to be removed from Hel and Gdynia.

    As this road also was to have a railroad next to it, a single armored train could control a strip of 50 km on both sides of it, thus Poland would lose at least a 50 km strip to the south of the road.

    The 16 point proposal by Hitler has this absurd point that Poland is also allowed to build a similar road to Gdynia. Naturally, Poland had the right to build any kind of a road to Gnynia, as it was Polish area, and there was no sense to build a 4-lane motor road to Gdynia.

    It should be obvious to anybody that this proposal could not be accepted by Poland. There was a road to East Prussia. If Hitler wanted a wider road to East Prussia, he could have offered money for Poland to build such a better road, but without any demands on joining the free city of Danzig (a city that was in Royal Prussia, part of Poland, for 326 years and at that time was again in Poland) to Germany, or having the road on extra-territorial ground.

    • 同意: szopen
  283. Golly 说:

    For years now Putin has been trying to restore the anti-Polish “special relationship” that the Russians had with Germany after the Versailles Treaty, which probably explains the proliferation of old Nazi and old Soviet propaganda in all this “alternative” or “revisionist” history.

    Will the Germans give in to temptation and try another gamble?

    And will China betray Russia as Hitler did?

    That is the real question.

  284. szopen 说:
    @Wally

    You see, that’s why I stopped treating seriously idiots like you. Fifteen years ago I was spending nights searching for documents, history books etc but now I’m just too tired. You can’t even use google: the census numbers are quoted for example here: https://books.google.pl/books?id=wYaxAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=census+west+prussia+1910&source=bl&ots=j5iqczhX4d&sig=ACfU3U2ZsJfgFcWP7jhnks_Hu-_PmntLUQ&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOq7bl-6TkAhVHlIsKHddmDbkQ6AEwEXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=census%20west%20prussia%201910&f=false – especially look at the point (4), where it explains why censuses were showing inflated German numbers: it discusses bilinguals and garrisoned soldiers. The same census is referred in another easily found book from 1934 here: http://pbc.gda.pl/dlibra/plain-content?id=304. The difference is because of “bilinguals” which are here counted as Germans and because it includes military personnel. More detailed (data by kreises) in a page from “orphans of Versailles” here: http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg, with the same limitation: it includes bilinguals and military personnel as Germans. As you can see, except of three kreises, Pomerania in 1910 was majority Polish even in a biased Prussian census.

    But hey, continue to google for maps. A map is a better source than official Prussian census. ALso, continue to ignore everything I wrote, every source, misinterpret every sentence and just restate what you said, thinking that by repeating the same sad lies you “shot down” my arguments.

    You are just an idiot who can’t even read. A fair voting in Pomerania would show Polish winning. I’ve written that conditions were outrageous, not that Germans would win; anyways, Hitler’s demands were made to ensure the voting wouldn’t be fair.

    我受够你了。

  285. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    Cut the juvenile crap. You have nothing, you present nothing.

    – You absolutely dodge all the sourced specifics that are cited by John Wear, myself, and Theodore in this thread. We can back up what we say, you simply hide behind vague claims of “history books” which you dare not quote, specifically reference.

    – As for your parents, who cares? You can’t even tell us specifically what they supposedly said.

    – I’m defending accuracy in history, you are haplessly accepting easily debunked propaganda.

    – As for your equally dumb & desperate ‘trying to defend Hitler’ strawman , there was Hitler with the impossible ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there was Hitler without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    “我们常常幻想着对希特勒本人提出起诉。 并在该起诉书中加入主要指控:欧洲犹太人问题的最终解决方案,犹太人的人身an灭。 然后它突然降临在我们身上,我们该怎么办? 我们没有证据。”
    –所谓的“大屠杀历史学家”劳尔·希尔伯格(Raul Hilberg)

    You’ve been out classed and exposed as a childish fool.

    • 回复: @Mark Kaczmarek
  286. @Talha

    What’s your definition of multiple? Germany as a united country had 1 war with Poland, in 1939. The last time Prussia had a war with Poland was several centuries prior and they were allies with Britain. Or are you talking about the cross-border raids engaged in by the Poles throughout the 1920’s?

    • 回复: @Talha
  287. j2 说:
    @Wally

    Wally, finally read the Protocol No. 9 from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:

    “Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only PROFORMA at our discretion and by our direction, for THEIR ANTI-SEMITISM IS INDISPENSABLE TO US FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR LESSER BRETHREN. I will not enter into further explanations, for this matter has formed the subject of repeated discussions amongst us.”

    The document was most probably written by Theosophists, but this part, as most of the document, it is quite correct. The wave of anti-Semitism in the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century was created by Masonic forces for the purpose of managing Jews, namely for pushing Jews to Palestine. This is why Freemason Henry Ford published anti-Semitic literature (you do not expect that a Freemason is in reality anti-Semite. They are not.) This is why Wagner’s circle published anti-Semitic material (which so closely resembles ideas of Theosophists). As the Thule Society was an offshoot of Theosophy, anti-Semitism of Nazi leaders, like Hitler and Hess, was only a way to push Jews to Palestine. Hitler did not want to help Germans. He destroyed Germany. He lost the war on purpose. What he did, the only thing he did, was to help to create Israel.

    • 哈哈: Wally
  288. Ron Unz 说:

    On a somewhat related note, here’s a comment I just left on one of my WWII articles from a couple of months ago:

    在本文的正文和评论中,我大量讨论了派克行动,这是 1940 年盟军计划对苏联发动的攻击,其中涉及旨在摧毁巴库油田的大规模战略轰炸攻势,我强调了这一非凡的历史事实几乎完全被排除在所有二战历史之外。

    显而易见的原因是,这样的袭击肯定是一场灾难,使盟军付出了战争的代价,而西方历史学家太不诚实或太胆怯而无法掩盖它。

    I’ve just now finished reading David Irving’s 1987 volume Churchill’s War, and unsurprisingly he’s the exception that supports the rule, with his book containing numerous (though brief) mentions of the Allied discussions of an attack on Baku, and indeed a two-pronged assault on Russia.

    我认为这进一步证实了哪些历史学家对二战事件提供了诚实可靠的描述,哪些没有,前一组在数量上绝对是微不足道的。

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?display=showcomments#comment-3417970

  289. “World War II was decided prior to invasion of Poland”
    by Voltaire Network

    12 2013月

    “In a few weeks, Sotheby’s will be auctioning the draft of a speech delivered by King George the VI, announcing England’s entry into the Second World War.

    The document is dated 25 August 1939, that is to say one week before the III Reich invaded Poland.

    It would thus appear that, contrary to the official version, the UK did not go to war because Germany invaded Poland, which only served as a pretext, but for other reasons.”

    来源:

    https://www.voltairenet.org/article181450.html

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  290. @Ron Unz

    “We are all liars”

    by Thierry Meyssan for Voltaire Network

    7年2019月XNUMX日

    [更多]

    Thierry Meyssan reacts to the commemoration of D-Day in Normandy, the commemoration of the massacre at Tiananmen, and to the campaign for the election of the European Parliament. He points out that we continue to lie deliberately and even to take pride in it. Yet only the Truth will set us free.

    The Normandy landings

    We are presently celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings. According to the almost unanimous Press, it was here that the Allies launched the liberation of Europe from the Nazi occupation.

    Yet we know this is untrue

    – The landings were not the work of the Allies, but almost exclusively that of the British Empire and the US Expeditionary Force.
    – It was not aimed at « liberating Europe », but at « marching on Berlin», in order to grab those shreds of the Third Reich which could still be poached from the victorious Soviet armies.
    – The invasion was not welcomed with joy by the French, but on the contrary, with horror. Robert Jospin (father of ex-Prime Minister Lionel Jospin) denounced, on the front page of his newspaper, the Anglo-Saxon importation of war into France. The French buried their 20,000 dead, killed by Anglo-Saxon bombings, which were only intended as a diversion. An immense demonstration gathered in Lyon around the « head of state », ex-Maréchal Philippe Petain, to refuse Anglo-Saxon domination. And never, absolutely never, did the head of La France Libre, General Charles De Gaulle, accept to participate in any commemoration of this sinister invasion.

    History is more complicated than a Western movie. There are no « good guys » or « bad guys », but men who attempt to save their own with as much humanity as possible. At best, we were able to dodge the drivel of Tony Blair who, during the commemorations of the 60th anniversary, provoked the anger of the British Press by pretending in his speech that the United Kingdom had entered the war to save Jews from the « Shoah » — but not to save the gypsies from the same massacre. The destruction of the European Jews did not begin until after the Wansee Conference in 1942.
    The Tienanmen massacre

    We celebrate the painful anniversary of the Tienanmen massacre. We read continually that the cruel Chinese Imperial régime massacred thousands of its own citizens who were peaceably gathered in Beijing’s main square, only because they were asking for a little freedom.

    Yet we know this is untrue

    –天安门广场的静坐不是中国人的静坐,而是前任总理赵紫阳的游击队的未遂政变。
    –在“邓小平”士兵对他们实施任何干预之前,数十名士兵被“和平示威者”私自在广场上私刑处死或烧死,数百辆军车被摧毁。
    –包括吉恩·夏普(Gene Sharp)在内的美国“色彩革命”专家都在广场上,组织赵紫阳的男人。

    继续:

    https://www.voltairenet.org/article206695.html

    However, sincere congratulations for your great work!

    TheTruthSeeker,来自意大利的问候。

  291. Talha 说:
    @NobodyKnowsImADog

    I was talking about the medieval post-Crusades entity called the Teutonic Knights and the Kingdom of Poland.
    “In 1226 Conrad of Mazovia called in the German crusading order, generally known as the Teutonic Order, provided them with a territorial base, and assumed that after a joint conquest of the Prussian lands (later known as East Prussia) they would become his vassals. The Teutonic Knights, however, tacitly secured imperial and papal recognition and forged Conrad’s acquiescence to their independent status. After a series of ruthless campaigns, Prussia was conquered and resettled by Germans—the old Prussian population having been virtually wiped out. It became a powerful state of the Teutonic Knights. While German historians have traditionally stressed the civilizing and organizational achievements of the Knights, the Poles have emphasized their ruthlessness and aggressiveness. The arrival of the Teutonic Knights changed the balance of forces in that part of Europe and marked the beginning of the rise of Prussia as a great power.”
    https://www.britannica.com/place/Poland/The-arrival-of-the-Teutonic-Knights

    These battles went on well into the 16th century.

    和平:

  292. reiner Tor 说:
    @szopen

    Except there is no proof that 5000 was murdered. Polish cities and villages were shielded and bombed, German citizens of Poland were drafted to army, and there is no reason to suspect bombs somehow fell on Poles, but miracolously omitted German houses.

    Once upon a time I spent a long of time reading everything I could about one such atrocity, “Bloody Sunday” in Bromberg (not in Thorn, as John Wear write above). The initial German propaganda claims were about thousands of murdered. After the war Germans produced lists of between 100 to 400 Germans who might’ve been murdered. Some of them are not known by name; the really really certain list, which really have all the names and of people living actually in Bromberg, and crosschecked, includes about 100 names (maybe 150, can’t remember, I discussed this 20 years ago and my memory can be fuzzy). But those are names of Germans who deied in September 1939; but Bromberg WAS BOMBED in September 1939.

    I think there’s a relatively strong case, however, that lots of Germans were, indeed, murdered by the Polish forces. The likely thing is that they were members of some German insurgent/paramilitary organization, and they did it in retaliation after some of the Germans shot at them (maybe from a few houses, as you wrote), and this led to the likely mass murder.

    I base this on the following train of thought, please correct me if any of it is wrong:

    1) There were relatively few Germans living in Bromberg (Bydgoszcz, actually the latter is the more correct name, because even back then the majority of the population was Polish, and it was also the official name; so I’d go by the Polish name); you wrote in #252 that there were only 9500 Germans living there.

    2) This means that if 400 of them indeed died, it’d be a very high percentage (over 4%); much higher than the number of civilians killed in Warsaw. (Regarding Warsaw, according to Richard Overy, the numbers supposedly killed by the Luftwaffe are vastly exaggerated: they were mostly killed by the artillery rather than by the air force. Which is logical.)

    3) Therefore, I’d suspect that many of the 400 were executed. Or else how to explain their very high rate of losses?

    4) The Germans after the war could count 100, but I guess a lot of records were by then destroyed or unavailable (when was the investigation? did they have full access to all local archives?), in general having a later (like, a couple decades after the fact) investigation identifying victims by names in a city from which the ethnic group has already been cleansed is a very high bar of evidence. By that criterium the Jewish holocaust only had maybe 2-3 million victims. So being able to count 100 names means that probably many more had died. (Remember, that they had to find names who had died in 1939, which made the search way more difficult. The 100 names belong to those who were identified as having been killed in 1939.)

    5) Still, there’s the possibility of only 100 being killed. However, according to Wikipedia:

    A Polish investigation concluded in 2004 that Polish troops had been shot at by members of the German minority and German military intelligence (Abwehr) agents; around 40–50 Poles and between 100 and 300 Germans were killed.[13]

    So Poles also think that roughly 100-300 Germans were killed back then. The fact that they think only 40-50 Poles were killed points to there really being a fight (i.e. armed Germans shooting at Poles), but in all likelihood many of the Germans killed were not all killed in combat. That’s because it’s unlikely they would’ve fought to the last bullet (I mean, they were winning the war; so they must’ve expected that even if taken captive, they would be liberated by the victorious Wehrmacht troops soon anyway), and so probably they would’ve surrendered. In my opinion, such lopsided casualty numbers are only likely if the losing group (the Germans) fights to the last bullet; or else, if some or all of the prisoners are then executed. I’d wager it was the latter that happened.

    6) So the most likely thing is that the Poles killed lots of Germans, but those were combatants, with some (but probably not all) of them unlawful combatants. Anyway, after having surrendered themselves, summarily shooting all of them is not a very nice thing to do – after all, members of the AK taken after the surrender of Warsaw in 1944 were granted POW status. And especially killing all of them simply because some of them were unlawful is still probably a war crime.

    7) I’d think it’d have been out of character for Poles to have shot just random German civilians. But I wouldn’t completely dismiss the possibility – there was certainly ample motivation to feel anger at Germans in general and the ethnic German minority in particular, especially in Bydgoszcz.

    8) It’s obvious that this war crime is dwarfed by the crimes committed by Germans on a massive scale 1939-45.

    9) Poles didn’t commit such crimes (i.e. mass murder) before the war anyway.

    10) Therefore it’s also obvious that Germans (specifically Hitler) bore all or almost all responsibility for the war and thus the whole situation in Bromberg and elsewhere. (It still doesn’t mean the probable mass shooting was justified, but still.)

    • 回复: @szopen
    , @Wally
    , @Fox
    , @Dube
  293. Theodore 说:
    @j2

    Such a road would have made it impossible for Poland to defend its northern part.

    The same Poland which the USSR steamrolled through and turned into a puppet state
    The same Poland which denied Hitler’s freedom guarantee, to protect it from Bolshevism
    The same Poland which the Western “Allies” turned over to the communist butchers and refused to military support with “Operation Unthinkable” – see #279 – https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3417236

    When people have no idea of diplomatic matters, or are intentionally pretending to be ignorant, they forget about a concept called “Negotiation”

    Typically, one side gives a list of demands. Then, the next side says “I agree with half of these points, but counter with ____” And then it goes back and forth. Mature adults understand this and do it to some extent in their own lives. Petulant children just whine and complain when they disagree with someone and refuse to come to an understanding.

    What we have is one side trying to negotiate, and another side was not. That side which was not trying to negotiate was invaded on two sides by two larger powers, and those who claimed to have wanted to protect them allowed them to be occupied by a murderous regime (which exterminated the Polish elite at Katyn) and turned into a puppet state after being stuck in the crosshairs of the two most serious belligerents of the deadliest war in human history.

    You need to grow up

    • 回复: @j2
  294. Theodore 说:
    @j2

    without any demands on joining the free city of Danzig (a city that was in Royal Prussia, part of Poland, for 326 years and at that time was again in Poland)

    Justify the denial of a plebiscite.

    Why do you hate the idea of self determination and self-governance for everyone that isn’t Polish? Except you’re actually not even supportive of self determination for Poles as they were turned into a Soviet puppet state due to their inability to properly negotiate with Germany (after the British “Guarantee” for Poland’s freedom / territorial integrity, which they failed to protect anyway).

    • 回复: @szopen
  295. Theodore 说:
    @Parfois1

    You must be very thick to come up with that argument. Look at the date when the final “Unthinkable” was completed.

    The nice Western Allies who promised to protect Poland in 1939 had more than 6 years to fullfil their commitment but it was the nasty Soviets who liberated Poland.

    Not really sure what you’re saying here. Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945

    The date makes perfect sense. The Western “Allies” had no desire to protect Poland or to do anything to benefit the Poles. The Poles did not matter to them. They used the Poles to lure Germany into a war.

    Yes, the Soviets “Liberated” Poland in Sept 1939 when they violated their non-Aggression pact. They also “Liberated” Poland from their intellectual elite at Katyn.

    You confirm my very point with your 2nd line that I had quoted, thanks! It’s just amazing how many people who claim to be Polish today fall all over themselves to defend the actions of Britain and the other Western Allies, who clearly did not care about the Polish people!

  296. szopen 说:
    @reiner Tor

    My opinion on Bromberg is that some number of innocent Germans were murdered by a mob and armed vigilantes; but the number was neither 2000, as de Zayas claimed, nor 5000, as was given by German propaganda. You have to remember that those were two days, and that on the second day there was a chaos in the city. Given that it was full of marauders, panicking milias etc, plus that IMO indeed there were some sabotageurs attacking Polish forces – that there were crimes is fully believeable. You are also right that the number, compared to the total Bydgoszcz/Bromberg German minority, is sizeable (3 to 4%! Though the percentage of civilian losses in Warsaw Uprising was higher).

    However, we don’t really know how many Germans died, how many of them were murdered. Hugo Rasmus compared pre-war address books and then counted people, who were missing from address books in either December 1939, or in the beginning of 1940, can’t remember (and I do no care that much to once again start digging through my library; I used to buy monographies on the subject, though they were prohibitively expansive compared to my university salary in 2004). He came with a list of names, can’t remember whether it was 300 or 400; there are also other number in circulation, and it seems that they oscillate around the “300” number. However…

    (1) The fact that someone is missing from 1940 address book does not mean he or she was murdered in September 1939. People die from natural causes; move out.

    (2) Those who died in September 1939 not necessarily were murdered; Bromberg was bombed; some of the killed could be saboteurs and if there were caught with weapons and shooting at Polish soldiers, their execution was lawful. Germans were also drafted into Polish army and they could died while in fight.

    (3) OTOH, were all Germans in Bromberg contained in address book? And what about possibility that some of the killed could arrive from outside of Bydgoszcz/Bromberg?

    All in all, to repeat, I believe SOME Germans were massacred, but the number was at least ten times lower than the number given by Wally (who seemingly believes that either victims were hiding for all 1939, were not in address book, or maybe suddenly thousands of Germans arrived in Bydgoszcz just in September only to be slaughtered; moreover, for all his demands about “show me the mass graves” here he ignores that there were about 300-400 Germans officially buried – 618 in the highest estimate, but which also includes 94 “unknowns”, ie people who were not identified, so could be Polish). I believe this was made by a mob which couldn’t be controlled by Polish authorities, after civil authorities were evacuated or escaped from the city.

    Mobs of any nationality are rather dangerous and can participate in massacres. The difference is that here crimes happened because Polish auhorities LOST control, while German response (random killing of PoWs etc) happened as effect of deliberate act of German authorities.

    I agree with most of your other points.

    In the past I was thinking that it was outrageous when I read about German soldiers shooting PoWs, or mob massacring someone; but now, after so many years of reading histories not just from WW2, but from numerous other conflicts, I must contend that it’s simply to be expected that soldiers of any armies will sometimes shoot prisoners, kill civilians, and that in every society there are people who in the right circumstances will behave like animals. The difference is of scale and of the role of authorities. Here, there is no proof that the killings was organized by state. And while I think that it could be that also before the war some Germans could be killed (pre-war Poland was full of people regularly fighting in the streets and interethnic conflicts were often deadly), I see no proof that it was on the scale claimed by Nazi propaganda, and no proof it was with the allowance of Polish government.

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
    , @reiner Tor
  297. szopen 说:
    @Theodore

    Justify the conditions of plebiscite given by Hitler, which would allow Germans from other regions who stationed in military garrisons in Pomerania to vote, which would allow the vote to the German colonists settled there by German government before the war in order to change the ethnic composition, which would allow the vote to the administrators, while would deny the vote to any Pole who arrived in the province in the last 20 years; plus a plebiscite which would demand that Poles would evacuate the province and, given the experiences of previous plebiscites under “international auspices” would lead to violence and terror. Why German who settled in Pomerania ten years before 1918 would have right to vote, while Pole who settled in Pomerania ten years before 1939 would be denied the vote?

    Ah, damn. I really should go back to work instead of arguing with the people repeating the same arguments, over and over.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Dube
    , @reiner Tor
    , @Fox
  298. szopen 说:

    BTW, I can’t find online the source for my claim of 9500 German in Bydgoszcz in 1939; it was taken from my book, which I have in my other flat and I am too lazy to drive there just to check one figure from one book. Nevertheless I want to justify the number, so here it is:

    However if you look at the online stats (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg), you can find two number: in 1921 and 1931 for Bydgoszcz county, where in 1921 you had 43 thousands Germans in the whole country, and in 1931 a bit above 18 thousands in the whole of country; and on Bydgoszcz wiki site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz#Population) you can find the number of German in 1921 in city, which was given as 24 thousands (roughly half of the German population for the whole county). I think it’s reasonable to assume that German population emigrated in the roughly same proportion from the countryside and the city, so the number 9500 (as half of the German minority in the county) I believe is reasonable.

  299. Theodore [又名“ Theodore2”] 说:
    @szopen

    would lead to violence and terror

    Good thing that was totally avoided… oh wait!
    Please see my comments above on the concept of “negotiation”
    It’s time to grow up!

  300. @SolontoCroesus

    See: Suvorov, _The Chief Culprit_, for information that will utterly invalidate your assertions.

    There’s information you do not have. Note that Suvorov’s publisher is the Naval Institute Press, and he has presented this information at the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. He’s taken seriously by the military establishment.

    平叛

    1]维克多·苏沃洛夫(Viktor Suvorov)。
    _The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II_
    Naval Institute Press, 2008

    • 回复: @SolontoCroesus
  301. j2 说:
    @Theodore

    “The same Poland which the USSR steamrolled through and turned into a puppet state
    The same Poland which denied Hitler’s freedom guarantee, to protect it from Bolshevism
    The same Poland which the Western “Allies” turned over to the communist butchers and refused to military support with “Operation Unthinkable””

    希特勒发动了一场世界大战,但他失败了,因为他犯了许多非常严重的错误:
    – 进攻莫斯科太晚,导致道路变成泥泞
    – 在进攻莫斯科前分兵
    – 禁止芬兰人和德国人攻击第二条摩尔曼斯克铁路
    – 不允许保卢斯从斯大林格勒突破
    – delayed the starting of the attack in Kursk until Soviet had built strong defences
    – 尽管德国人能够赢得它,但停止了库尔斯克战役
    - 没有阻止苏联的一次重大进攻(芬兰人做了两次,德国人应该也能做到,但不,希特勒命令他们一直撤退)
    – 不相信诺曼底是登陆地点的好消息
    – 下令对西方进行疯狂的反击。
    ——他不想走出去和解。 这导致德国完全被超越。 一个严重的错误形成一个领导者。
    希特勒是一个非常糟糕的领导者,甚至他自己的军官也想让他出局并试图暗杀他。

    Poland become overrun by Soviets exactly because Hitler attacked the Soviet Union and lost the war by his own decisions. Thus, Hitler is responsible for the Eastern European countries ending up as Soviet satellites. Hitler planned a war as he had built an army for a war, and he wrote everything already in Mein Kampf. Hitler’s offer to Poland was as dishonest as were his promises after Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s proposal for negotiations was only aggression and unreasonable demands, as his demands were not accepted, he attacked Poland. That is not the way negotiations are made.

    “You need to grow up”

    You are still living in Nazi fantasies. That is not grownup.

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Wally
    , @Bronek
  302. Theodore [又名“ Theodore2”] 说:
    @j2

    But it is quite obvious that Hitler did not start WWII in Europe; rather, it was the British & French who declared war over a local territorial dispute.

    As for “Hitler did not want peace” but he did, with Britain. He offered various peace proposals, some of which were posted here.

    And yes Hitler made mistakes in the war against the USSR. If he didn’t have to fight on two fronts, it would have been different.

    You really need to educate yourself and stop believing baseless nonsense which has been debunked in this thread and elsewhere. You also have a tendency to invent “facts” (lies) to attempt to prove your position, showing how weak it is.

    I reiterate: grow up

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  303. Ballshit and complete bollocks!
    John Wear is not a historian. “John graduated with a degree in accounting from Southern Methodist University in May 1974 and passed the CPA exam later that year. He graduated from the University of Texas Law School in December 1977 and passed the Texas bar in February 1978. John, who is currently retired, worked most of his career as a CPA. His most recent employment was from 1994 to 2008 with Lacerte Software, a tax division of Intuit Corporation.”
    Why has not the historian been so cheeky as to have written especially about Poland being invaded by Nazi Germany? In an abominable and lying text “Why Germany Invaded Poland” he has not even signaled that Poland had been really invaded and bombarded and that pagan Germans had killed thousands of Poles during September invasion: thousands of civilians in towns, in villages and on roads! Warsaw – a capital city – had been completely destroyed during German planes bombardments! Instead he has written nonsense about alleged Polish atrocities! “Polish atrocities” written and taken from not from carefully searching through archives but from Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.- Goebbelslike propaganda!!!
    It is abominable and awful that UNZ has allowed this bullshit to be showed on “UNZ”.

    • 同意: FB
    • 回复: @Alden
  304. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @reiner Tor

    说过:
    “It’s obvious that this war crime is dwarfed by the crimes committed by Germans on a massive scale 1939-45.
    Poles didn’t commit such crimes (i.e. mass murder) before the war anyway.
    Therefore it’s also obvious that Germans (specifically Hitler) bore all or almost all responsibility for the war and thus the whole situation in Bromberg and elsewhere. ”

    打哈欠。
    – What alleged “crimes committed by Germans on a massive scale ” are you referring to?
    Name them, and please present proof, if you can. We await.

    – Ah yes, you dodge the article under discussion, the additional info. from myself (especially #7) & Theodore that’s been posted here. You merely wish those facts would go away. It will not.

    – Yet you ignore all the prove that Hitler didn’t start the war, such as:

    罗斯福密谋发起欧洲第二次世界大战: https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
    苏联密谋煽动第二次世界大战并渗入美国政府
    约翰·威尔(John Wear) https://codoh.com/library/document/6807/?lang=en
    戴维·欧文的杰出史学: by Ron Unz:
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

  305. astro3 说:

    Wonderful to have the full story told at last. There was just no way Germany could have avoided the UK’s war-precipitating strategy. I put as much as I could find into my little book ‘How Britain Initiated both World Wars. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britain-Initiated-both-World-Wars/dp/1530993180 (NB, 61 customer reviews!)

    • 回复: @A.R
  306. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @j2

    – You continue to ignore the article under discussion.

    – You continue to ignore the overwhelming information presented in comment #7 and elsewhere in this thread.

    LOL
    – We’re discussing the issue with Poland, 1939, and you try to distract with amateurish arguments about WWII strategy post 1939.

    • 回复: @j2
  307. A.R 说:
    @astro3

    If this is truly you, Prof. Kollerstrom, then let me express my deepest respect for your integrity and for your important work. I have read a couple of your books and I highly recommend them to everyone here.

  308. @Carlton Meyer

    “Why didn’t Great Britain declare war on the Soviet Union when it invaded Poland?”

    Exactly. It was never about coming to Poland’s aid.

    • 回复: @163213
    , @utu
  309. j2 说:
    @Theodore

    “But it is quite obvious that Hitler did not start WWII in Europe; rather, it was the British & French who declared war over a local territorial dispute.”

    Hitler knew that France and England had given guarantees to Poland when he ordered preparing plans to attack Poland. Thus, he intentionally started the world war. England and France did not first attack Germany with arms so that Hitler had to defend Germany. They did not force Germany to attack Poland. Thus, it is very clear: Hitler started the world war. The question is only why did Hitler attack Poland when he knew, or should have concluded, that it will start a world war. The answer I give to this is that Hitler’s mission was to 1) send some German Jews with money to Palestine to build infra for more emigrant Jews, 2) gather by brutal force Jews from Europe, especially Poland where the Jewish population was the largest (which explains why he attacked Poland), 3) put England into a so difficult military situation that it would agree to the demands of Zionists, and 4) lose the war so that Germany will be destroyed, as the persecutor of Jews must be destroyed. These all tasks agree fully with the Theosophist origins of the Nazi party.

    “As for “Hitler did not want peace” but he did, with Britain. He offered various peace proposals, some of which were posted here.”

    If Hitler wanted peace, all he had to do is not to attack. But he chose to attack Poland.

    “And yes Hitler made mistakes in the war against the USSR. If he didn’t have to fight on two fronts, it would have been different.”

    Hitler made too many mistakes. He made so many mistakes that they cannot be mistakes. He did them on purpose, as he had perfectly good plans made by German generals and he did not follow these plans but sabotaged them. For instance, the attack to Kursk would have easily worked and it would have been very useful for Germany if done when the generals wanted it to be made. But Hitler delayed it, while it was clear that Soviets are building defenses and the battle will be much harder. For this reason I find it very difficult to believe that Hitler was simply so incompetent. He wanted Germany to lose. Just simply face this fact.

    “You really need to educate yourself and stop believing baseless nonsense which has been debunked in this thread and elsewhere.”

    Your arguments, as well as the arguments of the author of the article, have been debunked in this thread. There were no wide scale Polish atrocities before the war started. The demands of Hitler in 1938 were unreasonable and without any justification, Poles decided to fight. They lost, but finally Germany lost the war. So, finally Hitler was the more stupid one. If you start a war and lose it, you were stupid to start it.

    ” You also have a tendency to invent “facts” (lies) to attempt to prove your position, showing how weak it is.”

    Facts that I mention are facts. The one who lies is you.

    “I reiterate: grow up”

    I reiterate, a person who admires Hitler and Nazis is not grownup and understands nothing of history. Those are things that school age boys do.

    • 回复: @Theodore
  310. j2 说:
    @Wally

    Wally, we have had many discussions and you have lost every one of them. Also this one.

  311. @Counterinsurgency

    Which “assertions” of “mine?”

    Do you mean Victor Davis Hansen’s assertions; that is, the drivel he is teaching to young people at Hillsdale college?

    • 回复: @Counterinsurgency
  312. @Theodore

    Why do honest revisionist commenters here keep trying to engage j2 and tell him to “educate himself” when he’s made it clear he thinks he is the most educated person here. He specializes in taking a few “facts” and repeating them over and over to back up his phony argument. Like his saying that because England had already given Poland the “guarantee”, Hitler’s situation was hopeless and his only path forward was to continue to try to negotiate with lying Britain.

    It would be best to ignore j2.

    希特勒发动战争 与波兰 that he could reasonably expect Britain to stay out of because of his pact with Soviet Russia. And Britain DID stay out of it! And France too. However, both countries were building up their armed forces AND accumulating allies in a war against Germany. A world war ! So Hitler could not wait but needed to pacify his very threatening western front, knowing that Stalin was planning to attack from the East.

    IOW, all these future allies were preparing for a world war against Germany and they are the ones responsible for bringing one about. Hitler made reasonable decisions all along the way.

    • 回复: @j2
  313. fcd 说:

    Thank you for the splendid report throwing light into many ‘dark’ stories of the west. Look forward to more of the same …

  314. L.K 说:

    Far from being satisfied with the wrongfully obtained German territories, the Polish leadership actually desired to grab even more German land in their quest for “Greater Poland”:

    The Polish politician, statesman & delegate at the Paris Peace Conference and a signatory of the Versailles Treaty, Roman Dmowski, stated in 1923:

    “I never fought for the return of Poland – since that was taken for granted– what I was fighting for was the creation of a Greater Poland. The present day Poland is not small, but we must all keep in mind that it is only the first instalment for a truly Greater Poland.”

    The French professor of Slavonic studies, René Martel, stated in 1929:

    “All Polish ideas end up, basically, as plans for expansion. Far from wishing to resolve the question of the Corridor in a manner acceptable to Germany, they are dreaming in Poland of extending that territory by annexing Danzig and East Prussia in one way or another.”

    “Amongst the thorny questions that have troubled us since the war, none is as regrettable and terrible as that of the eastern borders of Germany. There is not one person nowadays that does not know this truth.”

    In a rare moment of honesty, Winston Churchill stated in the House of Commons on 24 November 1932:

    “If the British government is really interested in promoting peace, then the government should assume the lead and re-open the question of Danzig and the Corridor, while the victorious states are still superior. If these questions are not solved, then there is no hope of a lasting peace.”

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  315. Theodore [又名“ Theodore2”] 说:
    @j2

    Using your same fallacious reasoning, WW2 was started by the Versailles treaty. see comment #178

    French General Ferdinand Foch: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)

    • 回复: @L.K
    , @Colin Wright
  316. L.K 说:

    It must be noted that the German rejection of the theft of its Eastern territories and the desire to review those borders had nothing to do with the rise to power of Hitler and the National Socialists.

    For ex, the following are statements from German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann (Foreign Minister 1923–1929, during the Weimar Republic. Co-laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926):

    “One of my most important tasks is the rectification of the eastern borders: the recovery of Danzig, the Polish Corridor and the re-adjustment of the border in Upper Silesia.”

    “That we do not recognize the eastern borders is a fact I had once expressed in a public speech to the foreign affairs committee, much to the chagrin of the Polish government, when I stated that no German government, from the German Nationalists to the Communists, would ever accept these borders laid down by the Versailles Treaty设立的区域办事处外,我们在美国也开设了办事处,以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

  317. j2 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Why do honest revisionist commenters here keep trying to engage j2 and tell him to “educate himself” when he’s made it clear he thinks he is the most educated person here.”

    Funny Caroline, but I will still not take you as my Ph.D. student. You just do not have the material for a researcher and I am retired now.

    No patriotic German would have tied Germany to a war against all major powers at the same time: France, England, the USA and the Soviet Union. Hitler knew when giving the order to attack Poland that attacking Poland would take Germany to war with France and England. Then Hitler declared a war to the USA when Japan started a war against the USA. He did not need to do so, Japan did not declare a war against the Soviet Union. Then Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. While Soviets apparently did plan an attack on Germany, the German attack to the Soviet Union was clearly expected. Had it not been expected, Stalin would not have attacked to Finland or taken the Baltic countries, as those were defensive actions for Stalin. Thus, we have Hitler intentionally getting Germany to a war with all major powers. The final outcome of such a war is obvious: Germany will lose it. To make sure that Germany would lose, Hitler made an impressive series of very bad mistakes in the Eastern front (and continued with similar mistakes in the Western front).

    The only question that remains is, was Hitler a German patriot? Well, he was not German. Was he really a supporter of Aryan people? He was not Aryan, his Y-DNA haplogroup E is Mediterranean. He joined a party that was established by a secret society, the Thule Society. Thule was split from a real Germanic secret society by a Freemason and Theosophist, Rudolf Sebottendorf. A Mizraim lodge Freemason, a cabal Freemason. Thule members dead the Secret Doctrine, which e.g. says of the Jewish race that it is an ancient degenerated race. Thus, it had to be cleansed by natural selection. Theosophy is Masonic. Just check and see, Blavatsky belonged to the Golden Dawn and was setting O.T.O. (Remember, Ian Fleming tried to arrange a meeting between Crowley, the head of O.T.O. and Rudolf Hess, it did not realize, but apparently Hess wanted to talk to high Masons about the world war.) Blavatsky was also involved in restructuring Memphis and Mizraim, and the Protocols come from Theosophic circles. Masonry had since 1820 tried to restore Jews to Palestine. By 1840 Rothschild and Cremieux supported this idea. But Jews did not want to leave, so they were given 100 years time to leave, then they would be pushed to Palestine, as Kalischer said, Rothschild and Cremieux will help this to happen. The time was up in 1939. After that they were to be pushed to Palestine. It happened, through Hitler. So, was he a German patriot, or did he have the goal of pushing Jews to Palestine?

    Hitler become the prime minister with the help of a group of German industrialists. They were German, but many had international business. It means they had close connections to international banks. Industrialists always say the same as international banks. Joint interests.

    • 巨魔: L.K
  318. Malla 说:

    Brilliant piece Mr. Wear. Poland was the last place where the International Globalists could trap Hitler into a war and destroy his unique economic system. Once all the Germans were united in one Reich, which is what Adolf Hitler wanted anyways, Germany would have no issues with its neighbours and it would be hard to get it into a war. The Third Reich could then concentrate on developing Germany economically further without any international banker influence.

    • 回复: @Pater
  319. @Wally

    沃利
    you must be nuts and great admirer of Hitler and Nazis.
    Strangely I haven’t found in this article any statements from Polish side.
    Who attacked Belgium, Holland etc. – Indians !??
    Do you blame them too !!??
    and tell me what is the point of this article if you smart enough to tell me ?? , you can’t change anything!!
    Spend more time concentrating on present time and future because you can change it.
    I think you watched too many crap Hollywood movies and can’t think rationally anymore.

    • 回复: @L.K
  320. L.K 说:
    @Theodore

    Normally I just ignore j2’s trolling but I caught sight of the following in reply to ‘turtle’.

    @龟
    “Isolation of one part of its territory from the rest, as (East) Prussia was from the rest of (truncated) Germany, is not something a sovereign state could be expected to tolerate indefinitely,”

    j2’s “reply”:
    “I see. Russia should demand a 4-lane motor road to connect Kaliningrad (the same Eastern Prussia, but now populated by Russians) with the rest of Russia and England should connect Gibraltar with the Isles by a similar road.”(!!!!!)

    A real intellectual “giant”, eh?

  321. Ron Unz 说:

    Since this article substantially drew on 强迫战争, an analysis of the origins of World War II by Prof. David Hoggan, a Harvard Ph.D. in diplomatic history, here’s a link to a PDF copy of the 1989 edition of his book, originally published in 1961:

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David%20Hoggan-The%20Forced%20War.pdf

    I’ve also now added an HTML version to this website, which may be more convenient to read in some ways:

    https://www.unz.com/book/david_l_hoggan__the-forced-war/

    I should warn you that the text runs well over 300,000 words, and although the work seems to be exceedingly thorough and detailed, it’s also *非常* 乏味的。

    I somehow managed to read a couple of chapters yesterday, learning more about the ideological complexities of the intra-war political factions of Poland that I’d ever wanted to know, but finally abandoned the effort after my eyes kept glazing over. I suggest that those of you who suffer from insomnia keep this book around as the perfect cure.

  322. Pater 说:
    @Malla

    The German economy had always been export oriented from Bismarck’s time, as it was facing increased sanction & isolation without a war of conquest & expansion in Europe it would likely have faced crisis then collapse somewhere in the 1940’s.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Malla
  323. Ron Unz 说:
    @Pater

    The German economy had always been export oriented from Bismarck’s time, as it was facing increased sanction & isolation without a war of conquest & expansion in Europe it would likely have faced crisis then collapse somewhere in the 1940’s.

    No, I don’t think that’s correct, and indeed it’s probably upside-down.

    From everything I’ve read, Hitler’s rather unorthodox domestic economic policies had proven extremely successful, and under him Nazi Germany had become one of the world’s most prosperous countries, without any unusual military build-up. Meanwhile, FDR’s New Deal had been a failure, leading Roosevelt to desperately seek to foment a large international military conflict to rescue him from his domestic problems. This was certainly the contemporary view of many of America’s leading journalists and academics at the time:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    As a consequence, Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war, while FDR did everything he could to foment one:

    https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    The Hoggan book and the one by renowned Oxford historian AJP Taylor make the same case that Hitler had no desire for war. The books by John Beaty and Revilo Oliver, both high-ranking figures in American military intelligence, say much the same thing, as does the volume edited by Harry Elmer Barnes.

    Meanwhile, Churchill and numerous other elected British politicians were taking huge bribes from Jewish and Czech interests to start a war against Germany. I just finished David Irving’s Churchill book, and the evidence he provides seems absolutely irrefutable. I’m not exactly sure about Britain’s relevant laws, but given those facts maybe Churchill should have been executed for treason at the time, which would certainly have avoided an enormous amount of senseless bloodshed.

    To quote the concluding paragraph of one of my recent articles:

    It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image more commonly found in our textbooks.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

    • 同意: Malla
  324. Parfois1 说:
    @Alden

    我不认为德国使用来自其非洲殖民地的黑人士兵。 所以你站在德国一边,因为它是唯一 100% 白人军队参与其中?

    并不真地。 我看过一张希特勒与喀麦隆军队握手的照片。

    • 回复: @A.R.
    , @Malla
    , @Alden
  325. j2 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “The Hoggan book and the one by renowned Oxford historian AJP Taylor make the same case that Hitler had no desire for war. The books by John Beaty and Revilo Oliver, both high-ranking figures in American military intelligence, say much the same thing, as does the volume edited by Harry Elmer Barnes.”

    Ron, here is the error of your research approach. The idea is not to take opinions of one side and the other side, pick up those that you like, and justify your claim with references to established researcher. In all controversial topics you find opinions from both sides and therefore to refer to these authors does not mean referring to an authority: it is referring to one side of the dispute.

    What you have to do is to think yourself, as a controversial question means that there is no agreed solution to it. You should take a few facts that can be shown correct without doubt. Then derive from these facts conclusions in a logical and sound way. Then the conclusions must be correct, or you made some mistake and can locate mistake by investigating the assumptions and logic. Use the same approach to research as in science. Historical research is no good model for studying history, as history has always been a playground of propaganda.

    You say: Hitler tried to avoid the war as he could. This contradicts with what his actions were:
    – he decided to attack Poland even though he knew that Germany will be in war with the UK and France. This was no avoidance of a war.
    – when the UK and France did not attack Germany after the invasion to Poland, Hitler attacked to the West. This did not show a great intent to avoid a war. Notice that the Western countries did not try to fight Germany with any such determination as you would expect if they were looking for a war with Germany. England gave up Norway, though it had a base in the North of Norway.
    – Hitler started the Battle of Britain, though (ask any military person) the chances of the invasion of England were never realistic. Indeed, the bombing of German cities shows just how much damage Luftwaffe had managed to do to the Allied air forces. And the British Navy was superior, so no chance for a Sea Lion. There was also no good reason why England should have made a peace with Germany at this point: it was not so seriously threatened, and Germany was going to lose since the UK could count on the USA joining the war and Germany ending up to a war with the Soviet Union.
    – Hitler declared a war against the USA. He did not need to do it, in the WWI Germany tried to avoid a war with the USA, but Hitler did not try to avoid it, he declared it.
    – Hitler finally attacked the Soviet Union. It was according to the policy outlines in Mein Kampf. He collected several countries to the attack and the plans of an attack take about 4 months, so it was not any last time response to the Soviet attack plan, though Stalin did have such a plan. Before the invasion of Poland Germany did not have a border with the Soviet Union and was not under an immediate threat: Poland was still at that time somewhat prepared to stop a Soviet invasion. Thus, Hitler’s invasion to Poland caused the threat of a Soviet attack.

    Hitler’s peace proposals are not showing any intention for a peace because the Allied side could expect that finally Germany must lose. All they needed to do was to wait for the tide of the war to change. To England this was clear already in 1939: it could count on the USA being on its side in the end game, it could count on Stalin’s pact with Hitler to break down. Thus, Germany would be in war with too many powers at the same time and would surely lose. The only peace proposal Hitler could have made after the attack to Poland and the West was to withdraw to the prewar borders, pay for all damage Germany had so far done, to replace Hitler as the head of the state, and to give some part of the prewar German area to the Allies. Because what the UK could expect is that Germany would have to do this in any case. The only way Hitler could have made a better peace agreement would have been to stop the attacks of Allied after the tide of the war changed. This Hitler did not do, and indeed he seems to have intended Germany to lose.

    • 同意: Durruti, Miro23
    • 回复: @Durruti
  326. j2 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I looked up this David L. Hoggan. Apparently he was Acting Associate Professor in Berkley for a short time, then Associate Professor in San Francisco State College, and then basically ignored. The following story is from a guy who had a room next to Hoggan.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/17455.cfm
    “Hoggan in 1959 had resigned his position at San Francisco State College. He never got a decent job again. That was why he worked at the obscure Center for American Studies in 1962-1963. After the Center closed its doors in 1965, he taught at a local private junior college.”

    Hoggan does not seem especially reliable as a historian according to this guy, and from Wiki it seems that his Ph.D. thesis of German-Polish relations was much different from the book, which this article is based on.

    “Hoggan was not trustworthy. Nobody could safely trust anything he wrote that didn’t have a footnote, and which could be verified as valid. It took me a couple of decades to figure this out. He had a photographic memory, but he made up events. He would say that something happened, but he would never supply a footnote. Nobody else had ever heard that a particular event had happened. An example was this: “During the first world war, British submarines attacked both German and neutral commerce in the Baltic Sea.” This statement appears on page 148 of his book, The Myth of the ‘New History’ (Craig Press, 1965). A few years later, I asked him about this. What was his documentation for this? He answered blithely: “Everybody knows that.” In 1975, I spoke at a tiny seminar of students at the University of Southern California. It was on revisionist history. It had been organized by James J. Martin. He was an outstanding revisionist historian, one of the last. He died in comparative security. He could not secure a teaching position at any university. After my presentation, he asked if I ever knew what the source was for Hoggan’s statement about submarine warfare conducted by the British. I simply recited the statement that Hoggan had given to me. He had never heard of it, either. That cheered me up. ”

    So, this kind of a source was the main basis of the article. But Hoggan at least had learned Polish to say something of German-Polish relations. I wonder if in this discussion threat any other than Poles and me read the two essential languages (German, Polish) of this two country conflict in order to even theoretically check anything.

    • 巨魔: L.K
    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Bennet
  327. @szopen

    ‘…All in all, to repeat, I believe SOME Germans were massacred, but the number was at least ten times lower than the number given by Wally (who seemingly believes that either victims were hiding for all 1939, were not in address book, or maybe suddenly thousands of Germans arrived in Bydgoszcz just in September only to be slaughtered; moreover, for all his demands about “show me the mass graves” here he ignores that there were about 300-400 Germans officially buried – 618 in the highest estimate, but which also includes 94 “unknowns”, ie people who were not identified, so could be Polish). I believe this was made by a mob which couldn’t be controlled by Polish authorities, after civil authorities were evacuated or escaped from the city…’

    I’d put the picture you paint at one end of the range of reasonable possibilities.

    On the one hand, I cannot see why the Polish High Command would see it as in its interest to spend time massacring German civilians.

    On the other, I will point out that retreating troops frequently become convinced the civilian population is attacking them in some way; even when such suspicions turn out to be demonstrably groundless. For example, there were several cases of British troops ‘catching’ fifth columnists in Northern France in 1940 and summarily executing them.

    There were no fifth columnists. Moreover, these were the actions of a relatively well-trained and disciplined force, operating among an at least nominally friendly civilian population.

    One can imagine Polish troops, caught half mobilized by the German onslaught and retreating in confusion through an area populated by German civilians, behaving considerably worse, and indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were several instances of officers organizing reprisals for either real or imagined instances of sniping, etc.

    So things could well have been worse than the picture you paint. Obviously, German propaganda was a lurid exaggeration — but how lurid remains an open question.

  328. @L.K

    ‘Far from being satisfied with the wrongfully obtained German territories, the Polish leadership actually desired to grab even more German land in their quest for “Greater Poland”…’

    The quotations you provide are all interesting — but not one of them justifies Germany’s attack on Poland.

    You may well be interested in acquiring my house. That doesn’t confer on me the right to take yours. Had Poland actually attacked Germany, you would have a point.

    • 回复: @L.K
  329. @Theodore

    ‘…French General Ferdinand Foch: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)’

    Foch’s words are usually misunderstood. His point was that he felt the Versailles treaty was insufficiently harsh and punitive; Germany should have been well and truly crippled for all time.

  330. Dube 说:
    @szopen

    Just make sure that your horses are watered.

  331. Avrier 说:

    @杜鲁提

    “In WW II, the Belgian flanks were exposed and they were forced to surrender – when the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) of 250,000 retreated without fighting. ”

    After that,one would have expected your dad to fight with the Langmarke or Wallonien division on the East Front but not with the Brits’ allies,

    • 回复: @Durruti
  332. Bennet 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Churchill and numerous other elected British politicians were taking huge bribes from Jewish and Czech interests to start a war against Germany

    Ron, could you give us a rundown on the deep rationale that lay behind the 犹太 push for a war against Germany? What were their hopes for the post-war scenario? “Their” meaning the top Jewish elites who had the resources to influence the course of events.

    I suppose we could ask a similar question today, but that’s another story …

    By the way, thank you for your exceedingly informative article on the plan to bomb Russian oilfields:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?display=showcomments#comment-3417970

  333. Malla 说:
    @Pater

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=1ac9a4ed4ba3185c8e32dceae9a30aff

    二战美国和德国经济比较

    All the economic data to your heart’s content. Notice the massive rise in German GNP after Hitler came to power. In 1933, Germany was 31.95% of the US economy while in 1940 it was 52.30% of the US economy, all this time while the American economy nearly doubled.

    Also this video is worth a look. The Third Reich used a barter system independent of and thus by passing the International Finance system, for trade with other nations.

  334. A.R. 说:
    @Parfois1

    希特勒的黑人士兵:希特勒军队和帝国的纳粹种族法和非德国血统的人,作者 Weronika Kuzniar。

  335. reiner Tor 说:
    @szopen

    I think it could have been an armed mob, or simply Polish soldiers – killing so many people is not very easy for a mob. If you have, say, 200 prisoners, and there’s a mob, unless they are put into a wooden building which is then burnt down, I don’t think mobs in general are capable of killing so many people in a day or two. It’s probably somewhat organized, was done with weapons by people who knew how to hold a rifle, etc. So I’d think soldiers.

    Yes, it’s possible that innocent Germans (i.e. non-combatants) were among them, or were the majority of those killed. As you say, such things happen.

    And yes, the big difference is that the Nazi regime wanted mass murder all the way from the top. Basically here we have Hitler’s and his henchmen’s personal responsibility. (It was a totalitarian dictatorship.)

    Wally, and the others similar to him, are, in my opinion, incapable of reasoned discussion. The number of victims in Bydgoszcz is in the hundreds, not thousands, that much seems reasonable from the available evidence.

    This one point, just a nitpick:

    the percentage of civilian losses in Warsaw Uprising was higher

    When I wrote about civilian casualties in Warsaw, I meant September, 1939, not the Warsaw Uprising, because that is more relevant as a comparison for the losses of the Bydgoszcz German population’s losses. According to Wikipedia, there were 18,000 civilian casualties in a city of 1,300,000 (due to refugees the population might’ve swollen or decreased, but probably the number is good enough for our purposes here), so less than 2% of the population, and I think Overy concluded that it was mostly artillery fire and not the air force which killed the majority of them. (He thinks the majority of destroyed and damaged buildings were also destroyed and damaged by artillery fire, though of course the air force was significant.) But even if all were killed by he air force, and it was 2% (because the population dropped to 900,000), it’d still mean that the 3-4% losses for the local Germans in Bydgoszcz were far too excessive to be caused by just one bombing, when Warsaw was bombed several times for a prolonged period. So probably the majority of those killed were either German militia members (i.e. insurgents), unlawful combatants, or innocent civilians. (And as discussed previously, even if militia members, they were probably shot after they surrendered.)

  336. Malla 说:
    @Parfois1

    Actually there were Indian and Arab SS Waffen divisions in WW2 and there were even a few blacks too. There were even East Asians.
    Hell, there were even 150,000 soldiers fighting for the Third Reich who were of partial Jewish descent but they would be considered White.

    General Field Marshal Erwin Rommel inspecting a unit of the Indian Legion in France, February 1944

    Overall, there were about 15,000 Indian POWs in Europe, primarily held in Germany by 1943. While many (about 4,500) Indian POWs joined the German Army mostly in the SS Waffen, the Indische Freiwilligen Legion der Waffen-SS to be precise, most Indian POWs of the Royal Indian Army remained loyal to the Indian King-Emperor George VI and treated the Legion with contempt for being traitors.

    At the time of the surrender of Germany in 1945, the remaining men of the Indian Legion were captured by American and French troops, with cases of extreme brutality faced by German Indian soldiers at the hands of French Moroccan troops.
    Most were eventually shipped back to India to face charges of treason along with Indian soldiers who had switched to the Imperial Japanese side.
    But these trials caused a huge uproar among the masses of India and thus the Indian Government was forced to eventually suspend the trials of Indians who served with the Axis Armies.

    SS-Standartenführer Wilhelm Hintersatz (1886-1963) the commander of the Muslim Osttürkischer Waffen-Verband der SS performing Namaz (prayers towards Mecca) with his soldiers in Slovakia in 1944.

  337. Malla 说:
    @Alden

    I don’t think Germany used black soldiers from its African colonies.

    Germany had no African colonies during WW2. The Germans lost their Empire during WW1.

  338. reiner Tor 说:
    @szopen

    Hitler was not agreement capable. He made it clear on March 15, 1939. He clearly didn’t understand the Western Allies.

    There was an anecdote about Ribbentrop, that during the war, to celebrate some anniversary (maybe of him having worked in the Foreign Office or as a foreign minister for X years), his underlings compiled a list of all the major agreements he had signed or helped bring about. There were some fifty of those, and his underlings found that not one of them was still in force, because each had been broken by Germany by that time. When Ribbentrop told Hitler about this, Hitler laughed. He didn’t understand that that was what made it impossible for him to survive the war – no one wanted to make a negotiated peace with him, because no one wanted to negotiate with him at all.

  339. Durruti 说:
    @j2

    blockquote>”Ron, here is the error of your research approach. The idea is not to take opinions of one side and the other side, pick up those that you like, and justify your claim with references to established researcher. In all controversial topics you find opinions from both sides and therefore to refer to these authors does not mean referring to an authority: it is referring to one side of the dispute.”

    “What you have to do is to think yourself, as a controversial question means that there is no agreed solution to it. You should take a few facts that can be shown correct without doubt. Then derive from these facts conclusions in a logical and sound way. Then the conclusions must be correct, or you made some mistake and can locate mistake by investigating the assumptions and logic. Use the same approach to research as in science. Historical research is no good model for studying history, as history has always been a playground of propaganda.”

    谢谢。 你让我不必以类似的方式写作。

    这个网站上的许多人写了很少研究的意见来支持他们。 希特勒和纳粹不是简单的政治无辜群体。 他们是德帝国主义的代表。

    1. Reactionaries to the core, they slaughtered thousands of SA Brownshirts – during the Night of the Longknives in a successful elimination of anti-capitalist elements in their movement. Hitler & his Nazis worked for much the same Zionist Financial Oligarchs as did Churchill & Roosevelt.

    2. 捷克斯洛伐克随后被肢解。

    3. 后来,波兰。

    4. 后来,挪威-丹麦-荷兰-比利时-南斯拉夫-希腊

    5. 纳粹将所有反对党定为非法(如果可以的话)。 如果您不支持共和党的政府形式,请说!

    6. They supported/allied with Mussolini – supported his invasion of Ethiopia.

    7. 他们帮助英格兰和罗斯福摧毁了西班牙共和国。

    我,2019 年,希望看到德国人民从犹太复国主义寡头新​​世界秩序手中重新控制他们的国家,但这并不能使希特勒和他的纳粹分子比他们是凶残的帝国主义败类更差。

    • 回复: @j2
  340. Durruti 说:
    @Avrier

    I understand your point. My dad fought in WW I (as a teenager). He joined the American Army (artillery) after exiting thru Holland-(which was not involved in WWI).

    During WW II, my dad was working in a Shipyard in Staten Island NYC that was building Destroyers.

    After his divorce, my father returned to Antwerp 1965. He once took me to an anti-NATO demonstration – in Brussels. He would never fight against America, Belgium, or Russia. My father’s 4 brothers all served in the Belgian Army. My cousins (much older than me) served in the Belgian Army in WW II. They hated fascists.

    In the late 1960s my cousins, me, & dad went to West Germany. We were at a restaurant, & my dad was the only one of us who could speak German. He refused to order food – refused to speak German. We finally prevailed on him to calm down & order.

    I know some Germans, like them, & wish they & we Americans could get our Countries back.

    上帝保佑!

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Seraphim
  341. German_reader 说:
    @reiner Tor

    I think it could have been an armed mob

    According to the article by Markus Krzoska here
    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2012_2.pdf
    which summarizes the state of research as it was in 2012, it was most likely a local militia which had been formed at the start of war, consisting of members from paramilitary groups and also youths active in scouting.
    Number of ethnic German victims is estimated to be somewhere between 300 and 400, maybe a bit higher if surroundings of the town are included. There actually doesn’t seem to be that much controversy about this among serious researchers, even if many details are unknown.
    What happened exactly before the killings, will probably never be known with certainty; maybe there really were active fifth-columnists among the local ethnic Germans (and even if not, some at least seem to have acted provocatively and expressed joy over the German attack), maybe it was unfounded panic in the chaos of war. But the crucial issue is of course that in all probability there would have been no massacre without the German attack.

    • 回复: @reiner Tor
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  342. @reiner Tor

    雷纳托尔,

    German Nazis and these new neo-Nazis are always playing the victim card; oh Germany the eternal victim, oh the superior intelligent Germans being envied and hated by everybody, oh the Fatherland always wronged but deserving so much more of everything especially neigbours’ lands. What a mega huge persecution complex these Nazis have. Now who else does that remind you of? Is there a connection between these bitter enemies oh so wronged by the whole world? Is the animosity between them real or just paper thin? So 6 million of one and 9 million of the other, or more or less, dead. So?

    • 同意: Alden
    • 回复: @j2
    , @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Greg S.
  343. @j2

    It is not a custom to any country to ask for another country to give its land to build a road.

    它不一定是“一个习俗“, just a reasonable proposal. What if you wanted to get from the border city of Basel to the closest airport, which is entirely located in France? France allows Switzerland to maintain its own sector at this airport, along with a connecting corridor road.

    Israeli politicians have occasionally proposed a corridor road to connect Gaza with the illegally occupied West Bank.

    The corridor road proposal through Poland made in 1939 was completely reasonable. Obviously it would have been a minor issue to also build a bridge over it or an underpass beneath it.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Alden
    , @turtle
  344. j2 说:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “The corridor road proposal through Poland made in 1939 was completely reasonable. Obviously it would have been a minor issue to also build a bridge over it or an underpass beneath it.”

    No, it is not. In a military sense it means that the Polish area between the road and the sea is already lost to Germany, especially as Polish fortifications in Hel and Gdynia were to be removed, because the Polish army could not supply these areas, they would be in a siege and have to surrender. Additionally, this road and the area between the road and the sea would enable Germany to take a larger area from Poland quite easily: the road and the railroad provide a very good way to move troops, which gives a definite advantage. You can try to ask some of your neighbors to give you a piece of their land just because you would like to have it, see if they agree.

    This proposal of Hitler can be compared to a person coming to you and asking your wallet. If you do not want to give your wallet, he takes it by force. In the end of the day the police puts him to jail. Then the bandit cries, it is not me, this guy did not want to give me his wallet, I wanted it, so I had the right to take it. I had robbed him already once before, so he did not have any right to have a wallet, it belonged to me. Do you think this bandit would be sentenced to jail or maybe would qualify to a mental hospital?

    This is exactly what Germany did to Poland. Germany asked for a piece of land which belonged to Poland. Poland did not want to give it, so Germany attacked and took it. But at the end of the war Germany lost everything as the other countries acted as a kind of a police to stop Hitler. Then you cry that it was not Germany’s fault, it was the Poles, they refused to give their land, though in 1772 Germany already once had stolen this land, so Poland should not have had this land.

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  345. L.K 说:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    Why Hitler invested so much money and time to modernize Germany’s army , navy and air force – for Peace ???!! or for War ….
    Hitler plans were about power and expansion , so he was looking for excuse and pretext. He found in Poland.

    Evidently, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. In regards to German rearmament your view is totally at odds with the actual facts. Without even taking into account the fact that Germany had been nearly disarmed after the Great War, and that various hostile powers were themselves carrying out large armament programs, German rearmament proceed slowly and even by 1939 it was still quite insufficient.
    A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War:

    “The French had fired the starting-pistol for the arms race. …”
    “Germany, for instance, was little more prepared for a great war between 1933 and 1936 than she had been before Hitler came to power. The difference was that he had strong nerves and his predecessors had not.”
    In considering German armament we escape from the mystic regions of Hitler’s psychology and find an answer in the realm of fact. The answer is clear. The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all.”

    The Harvard economic researcher Burton H. Klein, in his book ‘Germany’s Economic Preparations for War’, provides ample evidence that German rearmament and mobilization were relatively modest:

    In 1939 the civilian economy still possessed large reserves of labour…
    There was no pronounced concentration of investment in those activities associated with economic preparations for war.
    In the pre-war period, the German economy produced both ‘butter’ and ‘guns’ – much more of the former and much less of the latter than has been commonly assumed. By 1937, civilian consumption, investment in consumer goods industries, and government non-war expenditures equalled or exceeded previous peak levels.

    As for Hitler desiring a war of conquest and using Poland as a pretext to begin one, you should think again, since even biased court historians such as Richard Overy are forced to make admissions such as:

    如果希特勒要为 1939 年的战争负责,这仍然引出了一个更大的问题:他想要什么样的战争。 现在很少有历史学家接受希特勒有任何征服世界的计划或蓝图,其中波兰是某些遥远的德国世界帝国的垫脚石。 事实上,最近的研究表明,几乎没有计划如何处理被征服的波兰,在中欧和东欧建立新德意志帝国的愿景几乎必须从头开始。
    Richard Overy, “1939: Countdown to War” – 2009

    • 回复: @Mark Kaczmarek
  346. j2 说:
    @Commentator Mike

    “这些被全世界冤枉的死对头,难道有什么联系吗?”

    我认为在这两种情况下都有。

    纳粹并非来自一些正常的德国右翼运动,目的是阻止共产党人和反对犹太人。 他们来自一个由共济会神智学家建立的秘密社团创建的政党,该社团的目标是将犹太人移至巴勒斯坦以创建以色列。 他们的计划意味着德国将到处进攻并最终被彻底摧毁,但犹太人将获得以色列。 所以,他们是犹太复国主义者。

    这些新纳粹分子提出的主张迄今已禁止质疑大屠杀。 他们拒绝接受任何实际的犹太人死亡人数(如 1-2.5 万),但坚持认为低于 200,000 万,没有真正的研究人员会接受(因为这是错误的)。 这些荒谬的主张破坏了诚实修正主义者的可信度(这些新纳粹分子不是)并使否认大屠杀的法律继续有效。 他们声称,就像在这篇文章中一样,希特勒只保护德国人对抗嗜血的波兰人,尽管已经研究了这些事件,并且这种情况下的历史与官方版本中的一样。 此外,这些主张也是为了抹黑所有真正的修正主义历史学家,有时他们攻击犹太人,使非理性的外邦反犹太主义神话继续存在。 唯一受益的是犹太复国主义者,尤其是 B'nai B'rith 和 ADL。

    • 不同意: Carolyn Yeager
  347. j2 说:
    @Durruti

    “我,2019 年,希望看到德国人民从犹太复国主义寡头新​​世界秩序手中重新控制他们的国家,但这并不能使希特勒和他的纳粹分子比他们曾经是凶残的帝国主义败类更逊色。”

    确切地。 其中一些人称赞希特勒改善了经济。 嗯,这很容易,通过命令工作职责来消除失业,并通过将反对者关进集中营来停止罢工,这样经济就会好转,你可以为军队建造道路和武器以备战。 这里也没有什么好。

    • 同意: Durruti
  348. “…can be compared to a person coming to you and asking your wallet”

    你编造的比喻很荒谬。 尽管我明确提到了桥梁和隧道,但您的回应基本上忽略了这些有效实施合理建议的基本措施。 相反,您不恰当地传达了一种感觉,即该提案是要建造坚固的墙而不是基本的道路。 你似乎痴迷于维持一个失败的论点。

    • 回复: @j2
  349. Alden 说:
    @Been_there_done_that

    Would the Germans have allowed a bridge or underpass to be built? Why just one bridge or underpass for such a long stretch of highway? Just reading the pro German comments on this thread I’ve gathered that Germany was more concerned with a strip of fortified territory than the free movement of freight and people.

    I’m more aware than most that Jews are responsible for the American government’s media and educational war. against Whites.

    But just because Germany was anti Jewish 80 years ago is no need to put all the blame for starting WW2 on Poland because it had not agreed to an German extra territorial long narrow fortified road and railway in Poland.

    The hagiography and elevation of Hitler and Germany to innocence. virtue and sainthood is getting as bad as those endless books and movies glorifying Churchill and brave, plucky little England’s role in starting WW2.

    Or all those Jews who write books about the evil Lindbergh, Kennedy and others who wanted us to stay out of WW2. Or the morons who believe the Spanish Republic hadn’t been taken over by the Soviets by 1935.

    There’s 3 sides to every story. His, hers and the truth. WW2 isn’t really an interest of mine. My reaction to this hate Poland adore Germany is about the same as my reaction to all those hate Germany adore Churchill and England hate Roosevelt because he didn’t declare wear in Germany in 1936 pro Jewish books written during the 1950s 60s

  350. @Commentator Mike

    oh the Fatherland always wronged but deserving so much more of everything especially neigbours’ lands.

    These so-called “neighbors’ lands” were in most cases 60 to 95% German populated, so who took who’s land?

    • 回复: @Commentator Mike
    , @szopen
  351. Alden 说:
    @Leopoldaskari

    Ron likes to post interesting and controversial articles. That’s why he has this website.

  352. @Durruti

    As a racial/ethnic Belgian-American whose family “hated fascists” and fought on the Allied side in WW1 and 2, it’s no surprise you hold the views you do. We are all highly influenced by these things.

    You know “some Germans” and realize they are just like you. Maybe you should familiarize yourself more with the Germans who were loyal to their country and supported their leadership, and fought for it in both wars, seeing they were just like your father and uncles, as you are like today’s Germans. Were the Germans hypnotized by evil but your Belgian relatives were not? Who were the worst leaders — the Kaiser and the Fuehrer, or the German chancellor today, installed by the victors that your relatives fought for? What about the leadership of Belgium back then, that agreed to do whatever Britain asked of them, and suffered for it? What about the incredible lies/slander told about the German troops by the Belgians then, that your family served, which are proven beyond doubt to have been known lies at the time they were spoken? The Belgian media dealt in lies. What about what Belgium has become today under this global rulership?

    Why do you hang on to all this prejudice if you want things to improve? Who and what are you serving?

    • 同意: L.K
    • 回复: @Durruti
  353. Alden 说:
    @Parfois1

    Cameroon was a French colony at the time. Maybe a POW who took up the offer to join the Germans.

  354. @j2

    这些说法是为了抹黑所有真正的修正主义历史学家

    False. No ‘real revisionist historians’ have said that. Does J2 consider himself a 真实 修正主义历史学家? 真正的历史学家使用他们的真名。

    随着读者离开,这些线索的结尾总是恶化为仅仅重复已经说过的话的评论。 像这个。 但这正是 j2 真正开始的时候,这表明他的论点实际上非常冗长且很小,尽管他包含了所有使它们看起来更实质的措辞。

  355. Ron Unz 说:
    @j2

    I looked up this David L. Hoggan. Apparently he was Acting Associate Professor in Berkley for a short time, then Associate Professor in San Francisco State College, and then basically ignored…So, this kind of a source was the main basis of the article.

    Hmmm… Here’s what you said in one of your subsequent comments:

    纳粹并非来自一些正常的德国右翼运动,目的是阻止共产党人和反对犹太人。 他们来自一个由共济会神智学家建立的秘密社团创建的政党,该社团的目标是将犹太人移至巴勒斯坦以创建以色列。

    As far as I can tell, you’re just some sort of random nut who hangs around my website for some reason. Meanwhile, the sources I’m citing are top journalists and academic scholars.

    Hoggan earned his Harvard Ph.D. in diplomatic history under one of the foremost professors in the field. It’s certainly true that his “discordant” views soon caused him to be purged and his career destroyed, but that’s exactly what you’d expect under the circumstances. I’ve actually now read a bit more of his 300,000 word book, and it seems exceptionally detailed and thorough and also much less dull than the earliest chapters. Here’s his Introduction for those so interested:

    https://www.unz.com/book/david_l_hoggan__the-forced-war/#preface

    Another good example is the 1961 text by Oxford’s AJP Taylor, widely regarded as one of the top British historians. His book became a huge bestseller and many years later was still assigned reading in my introductory history course at Harvard. Yet despite his enormous popularity as a teacher, he was soon purged from Oxford. Decades later, David Irving was purged, bankrupted, and even imprisoned for somewhat related reasons.

    许多其他顶级主流人物也采取了类似的立场,也被清除并从记录中抹去。 碰巧的是,我倾向于发现他们对历史的分析很有说服力,当然比像你这样的随机互联网疯子的分析更有说服力。

    • 同意: L.K
  356. @German_reader

    German reader? How about reading the first-hand experiences of these Germans: https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/deutsch/archiv/lowitsch/mnl00.html

    English only readers can find the excellent translation here:
    https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/longnightsjourney/lnjid00.html

    The Death March of Lowicz by Erhard Wittek. A powerful true story revealing what the ethnic Germans of the Polish 2nd Republic were really like and what they went through in the early stages of the war. How could they help from wishing in their hearts for a German victory that would liberate them? A German cannot become a Pole anymore than a Pole can become a German.

  357. j2 说:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “尽管我明确提到了桥梁和隧道,但你的回应基本上忽略了这些有效实施合理建议的基本措施。 相反,您不恰当地传达了一种感觉,即该提案是要建造坚固的墙而不是基本的道路。 ”

    看来你对军事问题缺乏基本的了解。 你应该阅读作战艺术和战术方面的书籍,并与军官讨论,这样我们才能更好地谈论希特勒提议的军事含义。

    [更多]

    自然会有一座桥梁或一条隧道,因为在这个提议中“允许”波兰人修建一条通往格丁尼亚的类似道路。 当然,波兰也不需要通往格丁尼亚的 4 车道公路,从波兰到大海的公路不具有将海岸与波兰其他地区分隔开的公路的军事重要性。 不接受希特勒的提议,波兰人可以在他们自己的地区修建任何道路,他们有一条通往格丁尼亚的道路。

    然而,无论是隧道还是桥梁,还是其中的几条,都没有关系:因为道路,因为它是高速公路,所以它周围有一些东西,属于德国,它会在德国的控制之下。 在战争的情况下,它是一个德国地区,将波兰的一部分与其他地区分开。 可以拒绝使用桥梁隧道。 波兰可以拒绝使用格丁尼亚和格但斯克的港口。 对于空军规模较小的波兰来说,轰炸道路不会那么容易。 波兰炮兵可以尝试轰炸,但铁路上的装甲炮车将是一个难对付的对手,因为它可以移动。 这条公路对德国来说将是一项重要的军事资产,对波兰来说将是一个严重的问题。 桥梁和隧道无关紧要。 我非常理解波兰不喜欢道路的想法。

    然而,大国做他们该做的事,不公平与否,小国不得不应付。 一个较小的国家可能决定战斗,然后它可能会失败。 这就是现实。 我觉得比德国是否有道德权利要求一条道路和但泽(它没有,但它更大)更有趣的是,当英国和法国表示他们将向德国宣战时,希特勒袭击波兰的原因如果希特勒进攻波兰。 这是问题。

    我重申:问题不在于德国是否有任何理由攻击波兰,例如保护在波兰的德国人,或者其他什么。 问题是当希特勒知道德国将与英国和法国开战时,为什么还要袭击波兰。 他是否认为英国和法国不会干预对波兰的进攻? 可能是的,他们并没有为立即开战做好准备。

    但德国仍将与英国和法国交战。 希特勒有没有想过他什么也做不了,假战争会继续,他会和解? 不。希特勒不这么认为。 他袭击了比利时和法国。 希特勒向曼纳海姆解释说,他想早点进攻法国,但一直在下雨。 于是,希特勒发动了战争。

    他认为他可以迫使英格兰实现和平吗? 丘吉尔在那里? 如果他有任何理智,他知道英格兰不需要和平,也不会和平。 因此,希特勒没有办法摆脱与英国的战争状态。 他一定知道美国迟早会站在英格兰一边。 希特勒通过向美国宣战来更快地做到了。 希特勒也进攻苏联。

    此时德国正与英国、美国、苏联、法国交战。 从长远来看,德国不可能获胜。 没有办法让这些敌人接受希特勒的和平提议,因为这些敌人知道从长远来看德国会失败。 这意味着德国将被彻底摧毁。 希特勒应该在 1941 年末就知道了。芬兰军官在希特勒访问后的 1942 年夏天就知道了。

    那么,再一次,希特勒为什么要袭击波兰? 我的回答是:他正计划毁掉德国。 他的任务是收集犹太人,以便他们可以创建以色列。 如果是这样,希特勒就没有犯错,他所做的一切都是合乎逻辑的。

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  358. Greg S. 说:
    @Commentator Mike

    While any thinking man will recognize that “history” is by no means a black and white objective science, there is a large amount of evidence that advocates of “German persecution” have some valid arguments.

    There is a lot of evidence to show that the Establishment powers (England and France), greatly resented and feared the growing German power in the 20th century and sought to curtail it. By any means necessary.

    Also some topics to explore:

    How did ethnic German populations outside of Germany fare post WW1 and post WW2? In particular places like the Volga Germans in the USSR? (hint: words like extermination come to mind).

    How did German POWs on the eastern front fare? (hint: almost none of them ever came home).

    How were German POWs on the western front treated (hint: quite badly).

    For all these things, nobody cares because they were just “evil Nazis,” but one must ask if all those humans were really evil or if you are in fact experiencing the effects of propaganda and brainwashing.

    This is not to say the Nazis were any good either, but always be suspicious when you are told with little evidence that any group of people is “evil” and that anything is justified against them.

    • 回复: @Bronek
  359. turtle 说:
    @Been_there_done_that

    The corridor road proposal through Poland made in 1939 was completely reasonable.

    我同意。

    The issue, as I understand it, was right of free passage for German citizens between parts of their country which were separated by territory formerly part of their country but now ruled by another nation which denied Germans the right to travel through, or over, territory controlled by them.
    As I understand it, a German living in Berlin who wished to visit his cousin in East Prussia was 被禁止 by Poland to travel there via Poland, whether by rail, automobile, or air transport.
    His only option was to travel by sea. Similarly, ethnic Germans in Danzig (>90%) of population, were only allowed to travel via sea.
    Who built the infrastructure was of secondary importance, if this is correct. The important issue was freedom of movement for German citizens and ethnic Germans, which they were being denied.

    • 回复: @szopen
    , @Bronek
  360. L.K 说:
    @Colin Wright

    You may well be interested in acquiring my house. That doesn’t confer on me the right to take yours. Had Poland actually attacked Germany blah, blah

    Unless “your” house is actually my house that you had previously unjustly taken, or do you fail to understand even that, you mental midget?

    British journalist Bertram de Colonna who traveled in Poland shortly before World War Two and wrote ‘Poland from the Inside’:

    ..There were originally altogether 3,200,000 Germans in the area now composing Poland, of whom 1,700,000 left after the plebiscite in Upper Silesia owing to the oppression under the Poles. …

    The 1,500,000 Germans do not, of course, include the 400,000 in Danzig. Danzig comes in a different category, being entirely German. In fact, it is as German as Liverpool is English, and has a somewhat lower percentage of non-Germans than some English cities have of non-English.

    It must not be forgotten that the German minority in Poland is only one of several. It would be a mistake to regard the German problem as the only one to be settled. Poland has never been a national State. Even in 1815, when she was divided with the express approval of France and Britain, there were non-Polish citizens within the country’s boundaries, and minority problems existed.

    It may safely be asserted that the repeated and long-drawn-out struggles between the minorities on the one hand, and the Poles on the other, led to the threefold partition of the country, robbing the State of its powers of resistance until the other countries had an easy task. In fact, dissolution seemed almost natural [26] in view of the internal dissension.

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  361. eah 说:

    Die Lüge vom „Überfall auf Polen“ 1939

    Der deutschen Militäroffensive gegen Polen 1939 aber gingen eine monatelange diplomatische Krise, Propagandakampagnen beider Seiten, Dutzende von Grenzzwischenfällen, Pogrome gegen die deutsche Minderheit in Polen mit mehreren tausend Opfern (zu denen es keine Entsprechungen in Deutschland gab) und nicht zuletzt der britisch-polnische Beistands- (und Blankoscheck-) Pakt und der deutsch-sowjetische Nichtangriffs- (und Teilungs-) Pakt voraus.

    Schreibt Manfred Kleine-Hartlage im aktuellen Compact und hat völlig recht.

    • 回复: @German_reader
  362. Durruti 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Why do you hang on to all this prejudice if you want things to improve? Who and what are you serving?

    Germany has a Prime Minister who hates Germany. America has a President who serves a Foreign Power. Belgium is a small country, pretty much like Tolkien’s Shire – populated with Hobbits. Whoever attacks Belgium – is my enemy.

    We do not agree on who has prejudices. Not as important as:

    The litmus test for all in 2019 is support for the Restoration of the Palestinians to 全部商品 their Land, with due punishment for the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs.

    All other issues follow after this one.

    If you support the Palestinians, we shall march together.

    杜鲁蒂

    为无政府主义者集体

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  363. @Carolyn Yeager

    OK, some of it is disputable, especially who should control mixed territories but they went a little further than that, and anyway AH wrote as much in Chapter 14. Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy of Vol. 2 his book, but then again you may say I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding what I read in it.

  364. @j2

    I agree with most of what you say but I’m not sure were Hitler and his closest associates offered a guarantee of a way out if they accomplished the destruction of Germany, like say an exit to Argentina? I can’t see him accepting at the start of the project that suicide would be the eventual reward for his efforts. Or perhaps Hitler just wasn’t smart enough to figure out what he was being used for. Although there is some wisdom in his works and deeds, I don’t get the impression that he was particularly intelligent, calm and controlled, and I know I will offend his ardent fans by saying this. Like I mentioned on some other thread, I don’t even think he wrote 我的奋斗 他自己,并且它可能是由几位作者代写的。 他似乎更像是一个被其他人从幕后操纵的演员和演说家,而不是他传播的许多想法的发起者,尽管这本书显然建立了一些从街头崛起的赤贫退伍老兵无家可归流浪者的神话和多斯房屋领导一场争取绝对权力的民众运动。

    Also, as I mentioned in older threads regarding the invasion of Poland, I am of the opinion that Hitler and Stalin had a secret agreement to invade Poland simultaneously. Stalin then played Hitler for a fool and waited to see the response of France and Britain before making his own move, while also secretly negotiation with Churchill behind Hitler’s back. That is probably another reason why Hitler was furious with Stalin and later broke their pact by invading the USSR.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Counterinsurgency
  365. German_reader 说:
    @eah

    German right-wingers are retarded if they bring up stuff like that again. I thought they (or “we” as I had assumed) had moved beyond that, disappointing that something like this pops up again among AfD sympathizers (e.g. people like Stefan Scheil or Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof seem to get some attention in AfD circles), which is absolutely counter-productive.
    Granted, it’s difficult to have a positive view nowadays of Polish right-wingers at least who seem to be stuck in permanent grievance-mongering mode with their anti-German reparations campaign (850 billions, lol), but countering this with revisionist fairy tales about “pogroms” with thousands of German victims before September 1 1939 is idiotic.

    • 回复: @eah
  366. 看来你对军事问题缺乏基本的了解。 你应该阅读作战艺术和战术方面的书籍,并与军官讨论,这样我们才能更好地谈论希特勒提议的军事含义。

    Military matters“???

    …talk about…“???

    This kind of amateurish response reeks of what many would likely expect from new 单位8200 trainees, after their military indoctrination and service.

    Have you ever heard of, or read about, the following basic terms?

    • Constructive Negotiations
    • Win-Win Situation

    Thank you for having exposed yourself so blatantly to all readers.

  367. eah 说:
    @German_reader

    帽子 雀鳝 mit der AfD zu tun — sollte nicht (politisch) mit der AfD in Verbindung gebracht werden.

    • 回复: @German_reader
  368. Anon[210]• 免责声明 说:

    There is no rational anti-National-Socialist position for any tribe. Every person with a respectable IQ and with any tribal affiliation whatsoever, and who wishes their extended tribe to survive, is a National Socialist at their core.

    Anyone else is a foreign subversive, is self-hating, is a hypnotized / under-educated robot, or doesn’t have enough information.

    The Jews, Africans, AmeriIndians and Asians are all National Socialists with a varying ability to implement it: Jews high, AmerIndians low, Africans lowest, and Asians varying.

    This is how they vote and behave in their own nations, with more functional-nationalist voting and behavior the smarter that they are.

    What doesn’t vary is that they vote and act against their nationalist opponents outside of their nations. What also doesn’t vary is that the miscagenated nature of all of these tribes allows them much more internationalist reach than for colonial Europeans who aren’t going to eradicate the tribes that existed prior.

    Jews, being the most functional National Socialists and therefore the most difficult opponents of people outside their tribe, give everyone outside of Israel the most political trouble to the point that they are always a mortal threat to their host nations.

    Which is why we are in the situation that we are in, and one reason why Germany found itself in theirs. Their innate danger is always why Jews find themselves hated by host populations. Of course, none of this would matter if Jews simply remained in their own territories. Their religious doctrine tells them that they must destroy all other nations and rule the world, and so they invariably migrate to other nations.

    Our National Socialism was never politically strong enough to counter the miscagenated internationalism of the Jewish tribe. It was likely never going to be.

    At its core, this was always a conflict between the political power inherent in a necessarily miscagenated internationalist yet highly insular tribe, and tribes who cannot engage in the same internationalism because they prioritize a level of racial purity. This is a political competition between the highly bred mutts and the purebreds. The highly bred mutts are winning and likely will win.

  369. Incitatus 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “因此,希特勒竭尽所能避免战争,而罗斯福则竭尽所能煽动战争”

    真的吗? 那是新闻! 请评论 Hoßbach 备忘录 [5 年 1937 月 XNUMX 日]:

    “The Fuhrer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space…The German racial community… constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples…Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space…The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space…Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk…there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.”
    - 阿道夫·希特勒,副官奥伯斯特 [后来的步兵将军] 弗里德里希·霍斯巴赫 (Friedrich Hoßbach) 5 年 1937 月 XNUMX 日记录的对军种长官的讲话

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    一个权力不受限制的独裁者告诉军事首领“德国的问题只能通过武力来解决……永远不会没有伴随的风险”? 听起来不像是圣雄时刻,但请自行判断。 想想希特勒与原始斗争的可怕浪漫:

    “因此,想要活下去的人应该战斗,而在这个永恒斗争的世界中不想战斗的人不应该活着。”
    -阿道夫·希特勒(Adolf Hitler'Mein Kampf')第11章第1卷,1925年

    “的确,这个地球是勤劳的人的奖杯。 这是正确的,为自然选择服务。 没有力量在这个世界上保卫自己的Lebensraum,并在必要时扩大它的力量的人,不配拥有生活必需品。 他必须走到一边,让更强大的人民通过他。”
    -阿道夫·希特勒(Adolf Hitler)在18年1940月XNUMX日在柏林运动宫的军官学员中的讲话

    和平主义者希特勒? 不要这么认为。 和平缔造者希特勒以他的戏剧性承诺达到了顶峰:

    “这[Sudetenland]是我在欧洲要提出的最后一个领土要求,但这是我不会屈服的要求。”
    –阿道夫·希特勒(Adolf Hitler),柏林,26年1938月XNUMX日

    四个月前,希特勒指示他的外交和军队:

    “关于绿色行动的福勒指令……我坚信在不久的将来通过军事行动粉碎捷克斯洛伐克”
    -Adolf Hilter 30 年 1938 月 1938 日 [Akten zur deutschen Außenpolitik 45-221 DII, no.381; Longerich 'Göbbels' p.XNUMX]

    连锁? 一场精心策划的宣传、叛乱、欺凌、暴力、恐吓和勒索运动。 自 1925 年以来,NSDAP 对国内竞争对手、魏玛法律机构和法治使用的方法相同。

    苏台德? 整个欧洲(包括普通德国人)都紧张地考虑着毁灭性的战争。 当元首满足他的“最后的领土要求”并 [30 年 1938 月 XNUMX 日] 签署张伯伦的“集体协议以保证捷克斯洛伐克的边界”、“一种新的英德关系——“我们时代的和平”时,所有人(包括普通德国人)都欢欣鼓舞,希望“不再彼此开战”,并承诺进行协商以“消除可能的差异来源”。

    一天后希特勒说了什么?

    “ [怀疑张伯伦避免战争的契约-'我们时代的和平'-]“在另一端是认真的。”
    -阿道夫·希特勒 1 年 1938 月 1 日(签署《慕尼黑协定》并承诺避免战争后的第 1 天)[Göbbels Tagebücher Teil 6, Vol 2 entry for 1938 Oct 125 p.745; 乌尔里希《希特勒:上升》第 XNUMX 页]

    “[我们未能实现]大的解决方案[(捷克斯洛伐克的彻底解体)但是]我们必须首先消化我们赢得的东西。 时机成熟时,我们将使用久经考验的方法软化波兰。”
    -阿道夫·希特勒 1 年 1938 月 1 日(在慕尼黑协议中赢得苏台德地区后 40 天)[Gerhard Engle 'Heeresadjutant bei Hitler' p.XNUMX]

    即使在那时,波兰也在菜单上。 希特勒对他在苏台德地区不流血的胜利感到遗憾,因为普通的德国猫对不参战表示宽慰:

    “我无法与这个[德国]人发动战争。”
    -希特勒(Adolf Hitler)对张伯伦(Chamberlain)的“我们时代的和平”和不流血的慕尼黑协议大加赞赏。 沃尔克·乌尔里希(Volker Ullrich)“希特勒(Hitler):上升”,第260页]

    圣雄希特勒? 毫无疑问,战争,战争,战争——血腥的战争——从 1925 年起就在元首的议程上。不要让普通德国人(炮灰)更喜欢和平!

    在他“最后的领土要求”六个月后,希特勒在午夜后召集 67 岁的捷克总统哈查到柏林,告诉他捷克斯洛伐克将在早上 6:00 被入侵,并威胁如果抵抗,则进行恐怖轰炸:

    “Excellency, please sign…Prague, your capital – I should be terribly sorry if I were compelled to destroy this beautiful city. But I would have to do it, to make the English and French understand that my air force can do all it claims to do. Because they still don’t want to believe this is so, and I should like an opportunity of giving them proof.”
    -Hermann Göring 15 年 1939 月 167 日致捷克总统 Emile Hàcha [Mosley 'On Borrowed Time' p.XNUMX]

    心脏病发作后苏醒过来的哈查下令停职。 德军同日入侵。

    五天后 [20 年 1939 月 22 日],德国要求克莱佩达地区(梅梅尔领土); 立陶宛于 1939 年 XNUMX 月 XNUMX 日割让。

    苏台德是希特勒“最后的领土要求”? 不要这么认为。

    John Wear 的文章:“波兰人的骗局挑战纯洁、和平的雅利安人,强迫‘防御性’入侵和自我毁灭?” 请提示瓦格纳!

    无意冒犯,Wear 先生省略的比他引用的多得多。

    “希特勒认为德波协议是德波战争的一个非常受欢迎的替代方案。”

    3 年 1939 月 1 日,希特勒下令准备入侵波兰的 Fall Weiß(发射目标 39 年 1934 月 28 日)。 1939 年 XNUMX 月 XNUMX 日,希特勒单方面退出了 XNUMX 年的德波互不侵犯条约。

    作者忘记了吗?

    “德国于 29 年 1939 月 XNUMX 日向波兰提出新的提议,进行最后一次外交运动以解决德波争端……所谓的 Marienwerder 提议……旨在为平等之间不受阻碍的谈判提供基础,而不是构成一系列波兰将被要求接受的要求。”

    然而八天前,元首命令法尔魏斯军事指挥官:

    “让你的内心怜悯! 残酷行事!……严厉无情! 坚守一切同情心! …[我想要]敌人的身体歼灭……我率领我的死亡之首阵型指挥了将波兰血统和语言的男人,女人和孩子无情地,毫不留情地送往他们的死亡。”
    -阿道夫·希特勒于 21 年 1939 月 532 日在秋季魏斯致军事指挥官 [Shirer:“第三帝国的兴衰”第 11 页; 埃文斯:“战争中的第三帝国”第 246 页; 威特曼和金尼:《魔鬼日记》第 XNUMX 页。]

    一天后:

    “我将提供一个宣传性的宣战理由。 它的可信度并不重要。 胜利者不会被问到他是否说实话。”
    -阿道夫·希特勒在 Fall Weiß,22 年 1939 月 100 日入侵波兰 [Wirtz,龙芯“二十一世纪挑战”第 39 页; Lightbody '第二次世界大战' p.XNUMX]

    Marienwerder 是“宣传性的”绒毛。 作者忘记了吗?

    “29年1939月XNUMX日,波兰政府决定对其军队进行总动员。”

    德国在三天前 [26 年 1939 月 XNUMX 日] 进行了动员。 作者忘记了吗?

    “在波兰的德国人在 1939 年 XNUMX 月上旬继续体验恐怖气氛。”

    德国人的账户 入侵后被杀 变化很大(2,000-13,000;最常见的是±5,000)。 此线程上的海报提供了有价值的向下估计。 被德国入侵激怒的暴徒杀死,因叛乱帮助德国入侵而被杀,谁知道? 都是悲剧。 观点? 他们在 1 月 XNUMX 日之后被杀, 他们不是入侵的理由.

    另一方面,德意志民族/国防军对囚犯和平民的屠杀普遍存在。 尊敬的国防军军官(有很多)对无法无天的纪律和非法行为表示担忧。

    4 年 1939 月 XNUMX 日元首赦免(鼓励)致命行为而扼杀了他. 愤世嫉俗,因为他已经获得了在波兰被七个别动队谋杀的许可。 凶手越多越好? “党派”行动在 ±16,000 次杀戮行动中大肆传播。

    作者忘记了吗?

    65,000 Poles are estimated to have been murdered by 1940 (20,000-30,000 by helpful ethnic German volunteers). Catholic priests, POWs, aristocrats, intelligentsia, Jews, even boy scout couriers were executed. 30,000 Poles were imprisoned in KZs. Over 100,000 Polish civilians (±25,000 in Warsaw alone) were casualties of Luftwaffe bombing and strafing of 156+ towns and cities. At least four (Wielun, Dzialoszyn, Kamiensk and Frampol) – known to be un-militarized and undefended – were targeted apparently to test Ju-87 destructive effectiveness. Polish armed forces suffered 70,000 killed, 133,000 wounded, 700,000 captured.

    作者忘记了吗?

    德国外交部发表了“关于波兰残酷行为的文件”,以证明 1939 年 5,800 月对波兰进行“防御性”攻击是合理的。证词和照片证实了 58,000 名德国人被波兰人杀害的说法。 1940 年 XNUMX 月,批评波兰平民伤亡惨重的世界报告刺激了第二版,将“波兰恐怖的受​​害者”扩大了 XNUMX 倍,达到 XNUMX。

    然而,Wear 先生的账户和 Unz 先生的网站上似乎都没有这一切。

    不需要在农场长大(像我一样)来识别废话。

    • 同意: Durruti, Miro23, Adûnâi
    • 回复: @Parfois1
    , @L.K
    , @j2
    , @Anonymous
    , @Miro23
  370. German_reader 说:
    @eah

    Hat gar nichts mit der AfD zu tun

    Mag bzgl. des PI-Artikels formal korrekt sein, aber Stefan Scheil z.B. ist AfD-Politiker:
    http://stefan-scheil.de/
    und geht immer noch seinen Obsessionen nach:
    https://www.bdk-berlin.org/veranstaltungsberichte/stefan-scheil-sprach-zum-75-jahrestag-des-deutschen-angriffs-auf-polen/

    Ist m.E. einfach nur abwegig und schadet nur.

    (Sorry for using German here, won’t do it again)

  371. Anon[428]• 免责声明 说:

    On the topic of “Why Germany Invaded Poland” I am curious as to why Jews are determined to censor these two videos about the Second World War in spite of the fact that we supposedly have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech in America?

    http://www.renegadetribune.com/israeli-holocaust-museum-theres-no-physical-evidence-of-the-holocaust/


    视频链接

  372. aandrews 说:
    @Commentator Mike

    The intention of my post was to stress to Korenchkin that any historical anti-Polish malarkey certainly doesn’t obtain nowadays. Poland and Hungary are the few remaining stalwarts of the White West.

    • 回复: @aandrews
  373. Anon[256]• 免责声明 说:
    @Paul Jolliffe

    Please try not to waste our time with questions as from a smart kid who hasn’t yet read anything much. Churchill wasn’t even in government until 3 September 1939 , the beginning of the war.

  374. @L.K

    ‘…you mental midget?’

    Isn’t the internet neat?

    You can talk all the shit you want, and you won’t get your nose broken.

    • 回复: @L.K
  375. Durruti 说:

    科林·赖特

    Isn’t the internet neat?

    You can talk all the shit you want, and you won’t get your nose broken.

    同意。

    There have been an increasing number of Personal Attacks on this forum-specially on this topic- against Commentators who have the temerity to disagree with the Guest Article.

    Attacks with personal insults, such as

    ‘…you mental midget?’

    are usually signs that the person delivering the insult/s cannot intelligently debate the Topic under discussion.

    A personal insult on a forum like this is, like a Wall, an admission of weakness.

    上帝保佑!

    杜鲁蒂

    • 回复: @Bronek
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  376. Dayal 说:

    And, how do we know that THIS “history” is true? For one thing, an SOB who was virulently anti-Semitic and had some 6 MILLION Jews gassed and shot, and homosexuals and others murdered was really a good guy who was protecting his people?

  377. @L.K

    Hi L.K

    I like your words -Evidently, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.
    You trying blindly to convince me with your quotes and so called “experts” that Germany by miracle achieved military strength in last 3 months before attacking Poland.
    Hitler did start building up his military since 1933 secretly from Allies and if I remember in 1939 his army and air force was stronger than of Great Britain.
    My question is then , why Hitler invaded Soviet Union in 1941 ??! , because he planned that for many years before and to do it he needed corridor (Poland). Try to explain that. You don’t have to be genius to figure it out. I like looking what people do, not what they say and at the end you join all dots.

    • 回复: @L.K
    , @Parfois1
    , @Alden
  378. Parfois1 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I’ve actually now read a bit more of his [Hoggan’s] 300,000 word book, and it seems exceptionally detailed and thorough and also much less dull than the earliest chapters. Here’s his Introduction for those so interested:

    Thank you for your kindness to provide us access to another work on WWII. I have read the first three chapters and agree with you that “A Forced War” appears to be fairly detailed (so far anyway) but that might be the only positive thing one could say about it.

    But the man is a hypocrite through and through when he states his impartiality in the preface and very soon he shows his true colours as an apologist for Nazism and a strident anti-Soviet. No wonder he was sent to the corner – not for his anti-Sovietism, that was mainstream orthodoxy – but for his outright Nazism albeit hidden in insidious prose for the least aware. Of course he must have offended the Zionist gatekeepers of the US intelligentsia.

    Nevertheless, it might be useful for most of the commentariat here to splash more quotes for their grand project to beatify their idol Fuehrer. As for others, the critical mind variety, it provides a good timeline of events and actors leading the charge for the man-made greatest calamity in human history – the cruel effects of it still affecting our lives and future generations, if we and they are lucky enough to survive the current cabal of rulers. They are worse than the protagonists in “The Forced War”.

    • 巨魔: L.K
    • 回复: @Durruti
  379. Parfois1 说:
    @j2

    我重申:问题不在于德国当时是否有任何理由攻击波兰,比如保护在波兰的德国人,或者其他什么。 问题是当希特勒知道德国将与英国和法国开战时,为什么还要袭击波兰。

    Indeed, you are right there to question why Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland then. But you assume that the “guaranties” to Poland meant an automatic declaration of war and it did not. Indeed, there was little military activity during the “phoney war”. France and England did declare war, but it was Germany who opened hostilities.

    Hitler had the option of freezing the conflict, instead of marching to France, and hope for an eventual accommodation with London and Paris with a promise to go East, his main trump card (Hesse’s mission?). But Churchill came into the act and the Rubicon was crossed.

    希特勒显然被他自己和其他人误导了。 但丘吉尔是一个有使命的人:不惜一切代价进行战争。

    • 回复: @j2
  380. Malla 说:
    @Anon

    There is no rational anti-National-Socialist position for any tribe. Every person with a respectable IQ and with any tribal affiliation whatsoever, and who wishes their extended tribe to survive, is a National Socialist at their core.

    Exactly. Your comment is one of the smartest of all among many Western blockheads on this page. Most of us Asians are naturally Nazi. Most societies are naturally Nazi if they have their own self interest in view. It were Europeans who became all universalists, dying fighting for some higher cause rather for own tribe (and ironically being hated for it by the brown black world). Hitler was just making the Germans more Asian (Here Asia includes from the Middle East to North East Asia).
    The truth is we Asians will always will be Nazis at heart and hence we will survive and the Western Whites will become extinct. And after they become extinct, dying fighting for their higher causes and universalist morality, we will still remain Nazi and fight each other.
    I think many Whites arrogantly look down upon concepts like blood and soil as below them. Lot of ego involved. For these snobs, something like Nazism is “ewww”. But Nature has a way to efficiently remove such tribes and species from the global gene pool fast. Mother Nature always have and always will.
    “We the Western man will fight for righteousness or some idea (Communism/ banning slavery/ Democracy/ multiculturalism). And we the western man will become extinct in the process.” LOL.
    But after the White man becomes extinct, the world will be full of Nazis, us brown Nazis and black Nazis. We will fight it out. And the White following Yellows, if they want to survive, they will be Nazis too. And the Yellows will win.
    The Jews are obviously naturally Nazis too. They are just using these rapidly dying idiotic dumb (but high IQ) White goyim to strengthen their position, absorbing their technology. These Jewish Nazis know once the White fools become extinct or insignificant, they will be facing Arab and other Nazis.

    I find it extremely funny how Britons or White Americans beat chest and howl like Gorillas about destroying the German Nazis but run away like pussyboys in front of much lower IQ blacks and Muslims. Englishmen fought their German brothers like lions only to give up their own capital to Muslim and black youths who look down on White natives as weaklings. White Americans bombed Germany and Japan to hell only to run away like pussyboys in their White flights from black mobs. This is comedy gold.

    • 回复: @Commentator Mike
  381. Parfois1 说:
    @Durruti

    If you support the Palestinians, we shall march together.

    That’s a good start. I’ll join that and suggest to start a subscription/list of volunteers, etc. sponsored by our helpful host?

  382. Parfois1 说:
    @j2

    这正是德国对波兰所做的。 德国要求一块属于波兰的土地。

    作为一项法律原则,赃物/土地不会赋予新占用者权利。 凡尔赛条约偷走了德国的土地,并将它们(真正的享受!)交给了一个名为波兰的新国家。 波兰的所有权有缺陷,真正的所有者有权收回,即使是通过武力。 当然,国际政治的运作方式不同,但道德基础是德国。 可能会再次爆发。

    • 回复: @j2
  383. L.K 说:
    @Colin Wright

    Mental Midget Colin Wright:

    Isn’t the internet neat?
    You can talk all the shit you want, and you won’t get your nose broken.

    Exactly… after all, that’s how you write things like the above without getting my knuckles on your face…
    You would never threaten me to my face asshole.
    So yeah, you should thank the bloody internet for that.

    P.S. it’s obvious you did this because you have nothing in terms of arguments. I accept your surrender.

  384. Parfois1 说:
    @Incitatus

    Well, what can one say but agree with a very convincing submission of facts and words from the horse’s mouth. But the indefatigable Wally’s platoon will march on regardless… and recklessly. True Aryans.

  385. L.K 说:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    I ain’t trying to convince you of anything. It’s worthless & you are totally clueless.

    I just stated the facts re rearmament for the record.

    • 回复: @Mark Kaczmarek
  386. Parfois1 说:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    My question is then , why Hitler invaded Soviet Union in 1941 ??! , because he planned that for many years before and to do it he needed corridor (Poland).

    Exactly, by hook or by crook, he needed to occupy Poland because it was in the way to the invasion of the Soviet Union, his ultimate mission. Hitler was very consistent with that aim, just connect the dots. Poland was just a snag on the road to Moscow.

  387. L.K 说:
    @Incitatus

    The Hossbach memorandum is a forgery as you already know – because I gave you the details – and yet you keep pushing this garbage every single time. You are a shameless propagandist as we both know.

    The alleged notes made by Colonel Hossbach, an anti-Hitler conspirator, do NOT exist. The copies from Kirchbach & Victor von Martin have also disappeared.

    Von Martin, who had turned his copy to the allies, stated in 1968:

    The protocol presented at the Nuremberg court was put together in such a way as to totally change the meaning [of the original] and can therefore be characterized only as a crude forgery.

    In in his memoirs, Hossbach admitted that Hitler did not outline any kind of war plan at the meeting.

    最初被这种伪造欺骗的英国著名历史学家AJP Taylor后来修改了立场,并写道:

    没有证据表明希特勒计划进行侵略战争 ……[此修订]破坏了纽伦堡法庭的整个裁决,该裁决仍被庄严地引用为盟军对德国战争的理由。”

    并补充说

    “those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum.” …
    They should also warn their readers[….] that the memorandum, far from being an ‘official record’, is a very hot potato.”[1]

    Taylor’s classic “The Origins of the Second World War”, edition containing the added ‘Second Thoughts’ chapter, which comes right after the preface. Pgs.XXIII, XXIV.
    A.J.P. Taylor, An Old Man’s Diary (London: 1984).

    • 同意: Ron Unz
    • 回复: @Incitatus
  388. j2 说:
    @Incitatus

    优秀的评论。 我完全同意。 这是希特勒不想战争的胡说八道。 他什么时候不想和苏联开战了? 《我的奋斗》要求东方的 Lebensraum。 在 Ribbebtrop-Molotov 条约签署之前,每个人都在等待这些国家之间未来的战争,这是有充分理由的。 一位历史学家告诉我(虽然不知道确切的参考),在芬兰在冬季战争中实现和平之前,希特勒告诉我会有一场反对苏联的战争,即 1940 年初希特勒想要一场战争。 希特勒唯一一次可能不想要战争的时间是从 23 年 1939 月 1 日的罗本特洛甫-莫洛托夫条约到 1939 年 1939 月 XNUMX 日对波兰的袭击,但是当希特勒在 XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月下令制定进攻计划时,完全没有时间当希特勒不想要战争时。 然后有一位哈佛历史教授声称希特勒不想打仗。 美国大学的历史水平如何?

    • 回复: @Incitatus
  389. j2 说:
    @Commentator Mike

    “我同意你说的大部分内容,但我不确定希特勒和他最亲密的同伙是否提供了一个出路的保证,如果他们完成了对德国的毁灭,比如退出阿根廷?”

    纳粹得到了帮助,并得到了像马耳他骑士团这样的梅森联系组织和像美国这样的共济会国家的帮助。 目前尚不清楚希特勒是否死在地堡中。 根据一项 DNA 研究,苏联人长期保存的一块头骨作为希特勒死亡的证据,来自一名妇女。

  390. @Anon

    ‘There is no rational anti-National-Socialist position for any tribe. Every person with a respectable IQ and with any tribal affiliation whatsoever, and who wishes their extended tribe to survive, is a National Socialist at their core.

    Anyone else is a foreign subversive, is self-hating, is a hypnotized / under-educated robot, or doesn’t have enough information…’

    …or maybe he’s just not very fond of any form of collective power.

  391. @Ron Unz

    ‘…As it happens, I tend find their analyses of the historical quite persuasive, certainly more so than those of a random Internet nut such as yourself.’

    Well, yeah — but appointing j2 as the spokesman for one side of the debate kind of rigs the game, doesn’t it?

    • 回复: @j2
  392. @Malla

    马拉,

    You’re just tribalists, that’s all. Don’t give yourself airs that you’re National Socialists of some exalted modern type, and even if, then of the lowest of the Nazi vermin, and a lot more nationalism than socialism in your Nazism. But yes if whites are a joke so is everyone else. The future world you depict without whites is also like a comedy skit. And the jury is still out on where all this is heading. Whites can be right two faced bastards and all that empathy and humanism could just be a cover for something quite opposite. Like Bill Gates prides himself on vaccinating all those Indian children and saving them from disease when he’s actually killing them in his eugenics experimental trials, and probably laughing himself silly in private at mass murdering Indians – now that’s a proper Nazi operating under the cover of some supposedly do good global foundation he presides over. Look I’m just commenting and Indians sure don’t annoy me as long as they stay put and stay there in their own subcontinent, and maybe a bit more socialism there would do them some good, and yes even nationalism, of the type I love my own kind and my own turf and don’t want to go and encroach on someone else’s patch and mingle with all those foreigners. As if?

    干杯

    • 回复: @Malla
  393. j2 说:
    @Parfois1

    “希特勒显然被他自己和其他人误导了。 但丘吉尔是一个有使命的人:不惜一切代价进行战争。”

    我们同意丘吉尔的意见,可以加上罗斯福。 但希特勒被误导的理论是有问题的。 希特勒在进攻波兰时被误导,戈林误导希特勒说他可以通过摧毁英国的防空系统来入侵英国,他没有解雇戈林,所以希特勒再次被戈林误导,认为可以从空中支持保卢斯。

    [更多]

    希特勒犯了很多错误。
    1)希特勒想在冬季战争结束前进攻苏联(正如他告诉芬兰人的那样),但他不想在 1941 年夏天进攻,因为英国还没有和解。 他被迫进攻,如果是这样,他应该按照马基雅维利的建议做出:占领莫斯科,建立一个非共产主义的地方政府,帮助建立一支当地的非共产主义军队,并尽快离开那里可能的。 这是正确和已知的方法。 希特勒没有这样做。
    2)希特勒让英国人在敦刻尔克撤离
    3)希特勒禁止芬兰人和德国人攻击第二条摩尔曼斯克铁路
    4)希特勒推迟对莫斯科的进攻,直到最后道路变得泥泞
    5)希特勒在进攻莫斯科前分兵
    6)没有让保卢斯挣脱
    7) 延迟对库尔斯克的攻击
    8)停止库尔斯克战役
    9)没有阻止苏联的一次重大攻击(有可能,芬兰人做到了)
    10) 不相信诺曼底是那个地方
    11) 对西方进行反击

    于是,希特勒被自己和别人误导,犯了错误。 那么,他一开始是怎么成功的呢? 一个会犯错的人,往往会一直犯错。 答:对方犯了错误。 又一次失误,这次对手犯的错误比希特勒还多。 大概没有检查坦克能不能穿过阿东森林(军队一直在检查这些事情),盟军虽然知道波兰的战争,但没有准备纵深防御,法国没有在没有步兵向巴黎推进的情况下阻止坦克和飞机(坦克没有步兵停在雷区)。 这已经令人难以置信了,所以让我们假设希特勒在战争开始时得到了一些帮助。 一些强大的团体允许希特勒获胜。 现在我们有一个问题:如果有这样一个强大的团体,那么德国为什么会输? 只是因为这个强大的集团希望德国输。 因此,让德国征服大片地区,然后德国就输了。 如果不收集犹太人,这样一个计划的目标可能是什么? 这不是为了摧毁共产主义,因为希特勒的错误(如果是错误的话)帮助斯大林获胜。

  394. j2 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “碰巧的是,我倾向于发现他们对历史的分析很有说服力,肯定比像你这样的随机互联网疯子的分析更有说服力。”

    为了你自己的利益,我再说一遍。 您在大多数文章中都犯了同样的错误。 你对所发生的事情采取两种理论,然后将它们进行比较,你认为哪一种更可信。

    你在这里再次比较我的解释(正如你所说的,来自一个互联网疯子,另一个解释,正如你所说的来自一位著名的教授和专家)。 进行这样的比较只是一个错误。 您不是法庭上听取两名律师的法官。 你应该是一名研究人员,这不是进行研究的方式。

    通过这种方式,您自己的感受和偏好会指导您的选择。 你无法比较其他人提出的理论。 你应该这样做:
    – 选择一些你认为非常有力的事实
    – 从这些事实中得出结论
    – 然后寻找与您的结论相矛盾的任何事实或假设,并找出原因:您的事实是否错误,您是否错误地解释了它们,您是否有错误的推理。 不能有任何一个事实存在真正的矛盾。
    – 只有在此之后,您才能查看其他人提出的理论,并了解它们与您(您自己)从您选择的事实(您自己)得出的结论有何不同。 请注意,在检查与您的结论相矛盾的所有可能事实时,您并不是在挑选任何东西。 你选择的事实排除了一些选择,这就是选择少量事实的原因。 这一步要小心。 有很好的事实和事实,其中有许多不太容易被发现的解释。

    我希望这次你能得到它。 你每次都犯同样的错误。 我之前已经提到过。 为了您的利益。

    • 回复: @Commentator Mike
    , @Anonymous
  395. szopen 说:
    @turtle

    a German living in Berlin who wished to visit his cousin in East Prussia was forbidden by Poland to travel there via Poland, whether by rail, automobile, or air transport

    Oh for Darwin’s sake, learn something about the subject before commenting.

    There was a direct train from Germany to East PRussia. You got into Berlin and the train went directly into KOnigsberg, without Visa or anything – the only problem was that the train was locked (i.e. once you got in, you were forbidden to go out anywhere in Poland until you crossed the German border again). If you thought this was too expansive (as hundreds of thousands of Germans thought) then you applied for the Visa, went through customs and traveled via local trains.

  396. szopen 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The source?

    Because the Prussian census of 1910 put most of those areas as majority Polish:

    In Pomerania/Corridor, there were only three kreises (Counties) with German majority population: THorn/Torun (55%), Grudziądz/Graudenz (70%) and Sępólno/Zempleburg (70%). In whole Pomerania/Corridor, Germans according to the Prussian census were 42% (a number which includes colonists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Settlement_Commission you have there also a list of anti-Polish legislation passed by Germany just before WW1).

    In GReater Poland/Posen Germans were more than 30%, while in Upper Silesia areas given to Poland, some 44%.

    But, of course, y’all will continue to speak about “90-95%” which only shows what your credibility is.

  397. Anonymous[278]• 免责声明 说:
    @Incitatus

    Good. Wear forgot a lot of things.
    Two Polish-Americans stranded in Poland by the outbreak of war were caught up in a German massacre of Poles in December 1939 (at Wawer). Naturally this did not do PR work for the Third Reich any favours in the USA. Few people at the time who were not Germans believed the Third Reich’s justifications, so in 1940 even more frantic claims about tens of thousands of Germans being murdered were made.

  398. Malla 说:
    @Commentator Mike

    Look I’m just commenting and Indians sure don’t annoy me as long as they stay put and stay there in their own subcontinent, and maybe a bit more socialism there would do them some good, and yes even nationalism, of the type I love my own kind and my own turf and don’t want to go and encroach on someone else’s patch and mingle with all those foreigners.

    You do not have that option. Your leaders have different plans and they are hell bent in executing their plans. You are just helpless. You can still delude yourself that there is no conspiracy of this effect of race replacement, you can still delude yourself that democracy will somehow save you, that will not change facts on the ground. Listen I love democracy and freedom but the way democracy has been infiltrated and undermined especially after WW2 is truly spectacular.

  399. Bennet 说:
    @j2

    I wonder if in this discussion threat any other than Poles and me read the two essential languages (German, Polish) of this two country conflict in order to even theoretically check anything.

    Quite. Without access to the vast number of Polish sources, this discussion is — to put it mildly — seriously crippled.

    But anyway, who’d want to hear what subhuman Polacks might have to say? Listening to the rants of their sworn enemies is so much easier!

  400. Parfois1 说:

    我们同意丘吉尔的意见,可以加上罗斯福。 但希特勒被误导的理论是有问题的。 希特勒在进攻波兰时被误导,戈林误导希特勒说他可以通过摧毁英国的防空系统来入侵英国,他没有解雇戈林,所以希特勒再次被戈林误导,认为可以从空中支持保卢斯。

    Misleading has a wider meaning, as being tricked, say, by an opponent. Deception and diversion works well in the diplomatic and military fields. Hitler made mistakes, although some of those “mistakes” were errors of judgement because of false expectations and inflated ego.

    My Occam’s Razor theory is that Hitler was “groomed” (US patsy?) to cause havock in Europe and take on the USSR. If you ask “Cui bono?” after the slaughter, you come with two clear winners: US and Jewry. Hitler was ideologically committed to fight Bolshevism and get the extra bounty of Lebensraum, therefore his plan was to go East. As a preliminary step, take Poland. The Greater German Reich was both a smokescreen and objective. The only fly in the ointment was the Anglo-Franco alliance and that explains why he did not want to antagonise them – in fact he tried to lure them to his crusade as “protector” of their empires. Clearly, if Churchill were not such a snob sob what Hitler was proposing was very enticing and he was justified in believing that he would get a carte blanche to roam the stepps without hindrance on the Western side.

    The second fly in the ointment – and his bane – was the stoic Russian resistance. Had the Russians succumbed, England could not resist (even with the obdurate snob as PM) alone for long regardless of US help. Without a bridgehead in Europe, the US would be happy with the extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the western Pacific. As a bonus to the many readers here, the white race would resume ownership of the world and the Jews happily settled in Madagascar.

    With that rosy picture rising in the horizon, Hitler’s grand plan had geostrategic logic… except for Foucault’s rule: “we don’t know what we do does”. Had he kept his animosity towards the Slavs and Communists to himself, perhaps Stalin would not hasten to industrialise and prepare the USSR for the inevitable war… and win it.

  401. j2 说:
    @Parfois1

    那么普鲁士在 1772 年从波兰偷走了这块土地呢? 对于国家来说,没有 100 年左右的限制。

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  402. pappagone 说:
    @FB

    before talk, please!! read the article and the evidences, that are clear and undisputed also by mainstream media and the official history, which is very partial. Malheuresement, we live in western fascist regime, worse than the nazi one, so if people open eyes (it’s sufficient in this times follow internet indipendent sources to discover the crimes acts of many western countries from end 800’s to now) and I repeat, evidences tell us another history which is impossible to deny.
    so FB, your ignorant intervent it is illuminating in clarifying who and why we live in a profoundly unjust world where malice and greed are the basis of the society in which we live, George Orwell could never have conceived how much our society is much more criminal than he could imagine in his writings

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  403. ivan 说:

    The one obvious good about articles like this, is that it gives an opportunity to commentators like szopen to tear the Nazis a new one. Hitler the misunderstood nice guy simply wont fly in the face of overwhelming evidence. The Germans lacked even the basic gratitude they owed to the Poles for standing athwart the Bolshies in 1920, led by Pilsudski. When all is said and done the Germans brought all the punishment on themselves, much of it well deserved for their overwhelming racial arrogance. Being a slight racist like myself is I suppose okay, but the Nazis brought it up to a whole new level.

    • 回复: @163213
  404. @j2

    j2

    你只是出于某种原因在我的网站上闲逛的某种随机疯子

    哇,我想知道是什么让这位优秀的编辑感到不安。

    Anyway if Hitler didn’t want war, as so many on this thread are telling us, why did he arm himself as fast as he could, both openly and covertly, including military industries set up beyond prying western eyes in the USSR to avoid Versailles Treaty limitations, if I am not wrong?

    1936 年,经过凡尔赛条约的多年限制,德国的军费开支上升到 GNP 的 10%,高于当时任何其他欧洲国家,从 1936 年起,甚至高于民用投资

    按照 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

    So he needed to defend Germany from aggressive neighbours like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, even Norway across the sea, who all wanted to chip bits of German territory away and so he had to invade them all, since offence is the best defence. I’m just trying to think how one can justify his militarisation of Germany and war on his neighbours while somehow seeing it as “peaceful coexistence” while developing industry, which tended to be mostly military, and gainfully employing people, which was mostly in those military industries. I mean he wasn’t going to invade Poland with Volkswagen beetles and Germans armed with pitchforks was he?

    OK, so they all wanted a war, especially Churchill and Stalin, and Hitler obliged – I could go along with that explanation.

    What is the alternative reasoning? That Hitler created a National Socialist utopia free from the bankers that world Jewry and other powers wanted to destroy? Then WWII is not a continuation of WWI and has nothing to do with it except that the first war set up the conditions for Hitler to rise to power and construct his utopia. Hmm… I’m still open to persuasion along these lines, but …

    We did get Israel at the end of WWII and it was all set in motion with the Balfour declaration during WWI, and even earlier by the Zionist movement and its influence on world politics – that’s the bigger picture I guess. So is one a conspiracy nut to suggest this is what it was all about and that strings were pulled behind the scenes by those in secret societies? And so many had to die for this, and still do, to keep the Israel project going. I don’t know. I think Douglas Reed in 锡安之战 或多或少是这样解释的。

    Reed, who was a journalist in Germany and Austria during Hitler’s rise to power, mentions close links between Hitler, Jews and communists. Some quotes follow:

    [更多]

    如果要宣布弥赛亚,这个选择可能会令人惊讶; 1939 年我在布拉格时,一位拉比传讲希特勒是犹太人的弥赛亚,因此一位担心的犹太熟人问我对此有何看法。

    对于犹太复国主义者希特勒来说,如果他没有出现,就需要被创造出来

    From the start of Hitler’s regime (on that night) all professional observers in Berlin, diplomats and journalists, knew that it meant a new war unless this were prevented

    柏林训练有素的观察员一致认为,如果允许,他将发动战争

    From there (Vienna), late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin “by the autumn of 1939; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor.

    In 1937, in Prague menaced by Hitler, a Jewish acquaintance told me his rabbi was preaching in the synagogue that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah” (a pious elder who sought to interpret events in terms of Levitical prophecy)

    it is of interest that the mass of literature about him ignores his early associations and the strong evidence of his Communist background. The Viennese police dossier of his early days has apparently disappeared. His later Brown Army commander, Captain Roehm, told a Storm Troop leader (who told me) that when the Bavarian troops drove the Bolshevist Government out of Munich in 1919 the unknown Adolf Hitler was taken prisoner with the bodyguard of the Moscow emissary Levine, and saved his skin by turning informer (this might explain why Roehm, the possessor of incriminating knowledge, was killed by Hitler after he came to power). Hitler’s own original proposal for the name of the National Socialist party was “the Social Revolutionary Party”; he described himself as “the executor of Marxism” (not its executioner); and he told Hermann Rauschning that he had built his organization on the model of Communism. I met Hitler once or twice and studied him at close quarters for many years, before and after his rise to power; I believe that no genuinely informative work
    关于他和他扮演的角色还没有出现。

    the deep significance of his words to Hermann Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt’s words) “. . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism . . . The whole of National Socialism is based on it”.

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  405. duath 说:

    Interesting that the author started this piece writing about lies, so let’s talk about blatant lies.
    Well, I happen to be Polish.
    I also happen to speak my own native language and I happened to verify if such an article in “Ilustrowany Kuryer Codzienny” (216 issue) actually exists, to my lack of surprise IT DOES NOT exist.
    I checked multiple times and so can anyone since “Kuryer..” was digitilized and all of it’s issues are available online for free, but I found many interesting articles in just that one issue, so thank you.
    For example there is one (on page 16) about a great mobilization of german military IN THE EAST OF GERMANY and Opolian Silesia, so these polish “thieves” that were crossing the border were either extremely good “thieves” or Germans were so stupid that they allowed their military equipment to be stolen right from under their noses.. or the author was counting on that the readers would not verify this piece of information, since majority of readers do not speak Polish . 😉
    Another article (on page 16) states that on the 4th of august, 1939 some of the customs offices in Free City of Gdańsk informed polish customs officers that from 6th of august they would no longer be permitted to do their job and it triggered another “crisis”, which was even noticed by London and Paris, which took Poland’s side on this one.
    There is however a small piece in NYT about shooting some nazi plane by Poles, but it’s.. to be polite let’s call it.. vague and it’s NYT. 😉
    To understand more about US goverment and Nazis, just research Prescott Bush and Union Bank.
    I think that majority of Americans would be very interested in Walter Trohan’s article about Japan and the atomic bomb in Chicago Tribune, august of 1945.
    Another thing, Zygmunt Morawski (“Bem”), if it’s about him, but I cannot find any other so I assume it’s him, the first lie is that in 1939 he was a former soldier. He was a polish soldier until his death in 1943 and the circumstances of his death are unknown to this day. 😉

    I agree on one thing, well not exactly since Beck wasn’t stupid nor greedy, he was a foreign agent, London’s puppet actually, to put it simply a f****g traitor.
    Roosvelt was the same, just like Churchill, all f****g traitors not only to their respective nations, but IMO traitors of humanity.
    Both of the world wars were 100% artificial and the main culprits behind them were/are in London and Switzerland.
    They are doing the same thing right now, exactly the same bullshit is being done under different labels and you people eat it just like our grandfathers 70 years ago, and 100 years ago.
    How many of you know about NATO “Gladio”? Now that’s a subject which is beyond interesting, no matter which country you live in. 🙂

    • 回复: @Parfois1
  406. j2 说:
    @Colin Wright

    “嗯,是的——但是任命 j2 作为辩论一方的发言人有点操纵游戏,不是吗?”

    正是如此。 如果问题是像我这样的网络疯子提出了一种理论而大学教授有另一种理论,那么人们可以放心地选择一位教授。

    但在有争议的问题上,情况并非如此。 如果是这样,那就不会有争议了。 总是这样,两边都有教授,他们都有厚厚的书,有很多脚注,你读一个,似乎有说服力,当你读另一个时,也有说服力。 那么就开始评价脚注和计算小错误就完全荒谬了,大多数作品都有小错误,但如果目标是寻找真相,那不是选美比赛。

    你应该按照互联网疯子的建议去做:选择少数确定的事实,抛弃一些理论。 在德国进攻波兰的这个简单案例中,一个事实是,希特勒于 1939 年 XNUMX 月上旬下令制定入侵波兰的进攻计划,就在英国向波兰提供保证的几天后。 然后将声称的波兰对德国少数民族的暴行置于一个时间范围内,并注意到其中大多数是在制定计划的命令之后。 这表明袭击的原因不是暴行,即使有暴行,但我们不需要知道他们后来的情况,如果有的话。 相反,人们可以推测,如果袭击的原因是英国有保证会怎样。 可能是这样:希特勒曾试图让英国参战,但没有成功,英国总是屈服。 但最终他们没有屈服,所以希特勒发动了进攻并与英国开战。 这种替代理论比波兰强迫德国进攻的依据更好。

    • 同意: Durruti
  407. Parfois1 说:
    @pappagone

    I think you misunderstood what FB meant – he was being sarcastic. Sometimes even the sharpest minds miss the double entendre. Salut!

  408. Durruti 说:
    @Parfois1

    The insults roll on! They are compliments.

    Personal insults from someone who disagrees with you – means they cannot hold an intelligent discussion or debate with you.

    Nevertheless, it might be useful for most of the commentariat here to splash more quotes for their grand project to beatify their idol Fuehrer. As for others, the critical mind variety, it provides a good timeline of events and actors leading the charge for the man-made greatest calamity in human history

    the cruel effects of it still affecting our lives and future generations, if we and they are lucky enough to survive the current cabal of rulers. They are worse than the protagonists in “The Forced War”.

    nicely put – as we say in Brooklyn.

  409. Mulegino1 说:

    Better yet, buy his book: “The War That Had Many Fathers”, which forever puts to rest the silly and hackneyed narrative of sole German guilt for the Second World War.

    Never forget that the official narrative of the Second World War is the foundation of the so called “New World Order” which is in reality, the disorder of Antichrist and the death of all civilization and culture in favor of globo-homo and the Synagogue of Satan.

    It is quite ironic that Russia has become the chief target and the new “Nazi” Germany in the sights of the neocons and Zionist hegemonists. Russia in the Soviet period was “out of itself” as Edmund Burke would have put it, but it was the chief instrument employed for the destruction of Germany as a culturally authentic people and sovereign power.

    The name “Hitler” is simply an easy substitute for “Amalek.” It is easily transferable to any prominent figure the chosen deem to be a threat. And to a bunch of paranoiac rabid and ethnocentric psychopaths, external threats are constitutive of and necessary for their identity.

  410. follyofwar 说:

    I clicked on the link to Amazon on “Germany’s War.” It had 19 reviews, all 5 stars. Alas, either Amazon has run out of copies or they are no longer selling it. Either way it does sound quite suspicious, no?

  411. Parfois1 说:
    @j2

    It depends how the land was taken . Prussia might have had a prior claim of right, besides Poland ceased to exist as a state for about 100 years. In fact Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc. were recent fiat creations by the “Powers” at Versailles, the same way European nations carved up Africa.

    International law recognised the right of conquest until the modern supranational bodies set up last century. As a general rule, only countries with a strong national identity who could defend themselves were independent states; that’s how, e.g. the Iberian kingdoms of the Middle Ages (Aragon, Navarre, Leon, Galicia, Muslin Granada) were conquered by Castille over the centuries to make up modern Spain. Prussia did the same with the weaker Germanic states. Poland – as the Baltic states – is in the unfortunate position of lacking enduring natural boundaries and has been at the mercy of the vagaries of chance events outside their control, hence the many partitions in its history.

    A propos the Polish example, after the occupation by Germany in September 1939 and the government’s flight to Romania, Poland ceased to exist again as a state. So, when the Russians occupied the Eastern half (some of which had been allocated to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles), they were entitled to do so legally under international law. If a country does not have an effective government it has no legal personality under international law and can be “administered” by an external power.

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Thirdeye
    , @szopen
  412. Parfois1 说:
    @duath

    How many of you know about NATO “Gladio”? Now that’s a subject which is beyond interesting, no matter which country you live in.

    Some here know a bit about Gladio, one at least at close range. But NATO (“to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in”) alone is enough to make you puke and curse the governments who make up that malignant body.

  413. Thirdeye 说:
    @Durruti

    What would have prevented the victorious Germany from making New Demands – 5 minutes after the British agreed to accept their & France’s military humiliation?

    Mainly, that Hitler desperately needed to have things settled with Britain before embarking on his main agenda, which was against the Soviet Union. His calculation that a chastened France and Britain would align with Germany against the Soviet Union was almost correct, and might have been fully correct had the air war of 1940 not made a political settlement with Britain impossible. The bombs falling on cities (on both sides) pissed people off.

    • 回复: @Durruti
  414. j2 说:
    @Parfois1

    国际法只知道 1939 年该地区是波兰的。 它是在和平协议中交给波兰的。 这正是法律规定的范围:1939 年是波兰的土地。

    然后我们可以查看历史,看看是否有人对这片土地提出任何要求。 虽然这些主张是不合法的(1918 年后它是波兰土地),但它们仍然提供了一些道德主张。 在这次评估中,情况尚不清楚:德国和波兰都根据历史对该土地提出了强烈要求。

    但我们可以适用于你的世界观。 由于您很可能是反共济会和反犹太主义者,或者您应该是新纳粹分子,请注意波兰在 18 世纪末因共济会和法兰克主义者(犹太皈依者)的阴谋而分裂。 你应该反对。 在犹太人被邀请之前,波兰做得很好,在格伦瓦尔德战役中以其著名的骑兵击败了条顿骑士团。 这就是皇家普鲁士如何加入波兰,成为获胜一方。 所以,它是一个很好的国家,在它邀请犹太人之前,它因为法兰克主义的阴谋而分裂。 你对那个有什么想法? 我们现在都是波兰人了?

    当您了解弗雷德里克大帝是普鲁士共济会的负责人并且他与雅各布·弗兰克(Jacob Frank)合作时,您可能不会钦佩腓特烈大帝,雅各布·弗兰克是一名阴谋家的犹太人,他是罪犯、犹太弥赛亚并错误地皈依了基督教。 波兰的分裂是一个肮脏的阴谋。 普通的共济会试图保持波兰的独立和民主,但在腓特烈大帝的支持下,雅各布·弗兰克希望波兰消失。 我相信你反对这种弗兰克主义的阴谋。

  415. @j2

    ‘Exactly so. If it would be a question where some internet nut, like me, proposed one theory and university professors have another theory, then one can safely select the one of professors…’

    Yep. Unz’s M.O. in particular is to ‘be impressed’ by only those sources that support a revisionist point of view.

    I agree with your post — more or less. To be precise, I’d add that Ribbentrop appears to have confirmed Hitler’s belief that when it came to the point, France and Britain would back down and allow Germany to attack Poland without declaring war.

    当然,当英国和法国真的宣战的消息传来时,这就是我们所看到的场景中的含义。 希特勒转向里宾特洛甫说: ‘what now?’

    He clearly didn’t expect their declaration of war and had anticipated being able to destroy Poland without having to worry unduly about his rear. As it was, the German defenses in the West were breathtakingly inadequate: as I recall, some of the conscripts didn’t even have uniforms, and were outfitted with 臂章。 Germany was ready to destroy Poland; it wasn’t ready to destroy Poland whilst fending off Britain and France.

    但是担心这个为时已晚。 希特勒最终承担了比他可能打算承担的更大的风险。

    • 回复: @j2
    , @Ron Unz
  416. Parfois1 说:
    @Commentator Mike

    Anyway if Hitler didn’t want war, as so many on this thread are telling us, why did he arm himself as fast as he could, both openly and covertly, including military industries set up beyond prying western eyes in the USSR to avoid Versailles Treaty limitations,

    In spite of the Brest Litovsk humiliation, the USSR got along fine with the Weimar government. In fact they made a “secret” agreement at Rapallo for co-operation in many areas, including military production. Even after 1933 the Soviets were hopeful that Hitler would, as a leader, change his discourse and keep the German-Soviet relations on an even keel. The last commercial agreement was signed just a few months before Barbarossa!

  417. Thirdeye 说:
    @Parfois1

    Poland’s annexation of the western Ukraine and western Belarus was ratified by the Treaty of Riga in 1921, over the objections of Ukrainians who wanted their own independent state. The Game of Thrones didn’t go so well for Poland in 1939, but they played it enthusiastically with their expansionist wars of 1919-1921 against the Ukrainian Republic and the Soviet Union.

    All indications from September to December 1939 were that Stalin was treading very carefully concerning the Polish issue, judiciously delaying the occupation of eastern Poland until after the government went into exile and acting under the standards of neutrality between Poland and Germany, with highly restricted rules of engagement concerning Polish troops, no interference with the retreat of Polish troops to Romania, and internment status of captured Polish troops and officials. It seems Stalin was considering future relations with a hypothetical independent Polish state. But that approach was mooted when the Polish Government in Exile declared war on the Soviet Union in December 1939.

    • 回复: @szopen
  418. Durruti 说:
    @Thirdeye

    Impressed that you opened the discussion on my Main Point.

    The air war of 1940 was Germany’s attempt to force Britain to surrender whole portions of their Empire. The Nazi leaders wished for return of their extensive former African colonies, and for Britain to recognize the status of France – as Germany’s puppet, and, in short, German hegemony over Europe (all of Europe – from Ireland to the Urals). England would have maintained Formal Independence-only, if it had succumbed to the air attacks, or agreed to the earlier Nazi ‘Peace’ Proposals. Churchill made this very point. Regardless of who he was, he was correct.

    It appears that the German Imperialists wished to become the World Power, greater, or at least as large and powerful as America & the Soviet Union. How could the Germans of 我的奋斗 accept anything less? Mussolini’s Italy was less greedy. They only wished for a Rebirth of the Roman-Mediterranean Empire. How did that turn out?

    My Point Is: that the Actions/aims of the German State and their Armed Forces was to attempt a complete weakening/humbling of the British Empire, BEFORE attacking the Soviet Union. That is what happened. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. It is when Hitler’s Air Forces and Naval Forces failed to bring England to its knees, (which guaranteed eventual American entrance to the war to rescue Britain – just as they had done in WWI), that one might question – just what were the German leaders thinking, when they attacked the USSR?

    Hitler thought that if Germany could defeat the USSR, then Britain might give up. Once one begins a fight, or acquiesques in the beginning of one, all rational thinking, goes out the window. Once the soldiers are marching, it is near impossible to call them back. The Great Bombastic Leaders who rely on military equations, usually end by destroying millions of their own people, and badly weakening their own Nation.

    What do we not know – in 2019? What have we not seen?

    The clash of Empires is not new to History.

    As to Morality:

    Try mentioning 巴勒斯坦人 to a Jew.

    In my State, a Principal lost his job – when he objected to the inclusion of Holocaust Propaganda as a special program for all his students.

    The answer to my question is: NOTHING!

    上帝保佑!

    • 回复: @Thirdeye
  419. @sulu

    I have a problem with any suggestion that British leaders did anything because of a confident belief that America would give massive assistance let alone be sure to join in the war against Germany. It defies reality and would have been incredibly nauve of experienced politicians. That the Roosevelt administration might have put on critical pressure by insisting that Britain and France must threaten war in case Germany should invade Poland at least makes some sense if the British also hoped that Hitler might be deterred.

  420. @TheTruthSeeker

    Interesting detail but you draw the wrong conclusion. It was clear that war with Germany might break out soon – as you would know if you remembered the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. It was routine work for public servants who prepared the King for big occasions to draft speeches well before they might be delivered. A better account is
    George VI adviser said King’s Speech early draft was too long-winded http://dailym.ai/1i759BK 通过 http://dailym.ai/android

  421. j2 说:
    @Colin Wright

    “希特勒转向里宾特洛甫说,'现在怎么办?'”

    可能是这样。 但请记住,英国正在准备 1939 年 1939 月的白皮书(从 XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月开始准备),限制犹太人移民到巴勒斯坦。 英国是第一次世界大战期间授予犹太人贝尔福宣言后获得的委任统治权的持有者。 这是因为英国受到德国的严重威胁。 假设犹太复国主义者希望英国同意扩大犹太移民数量并在巴勒斯坦建立一个犹太国家,那么就需要对英国进行一些威胁。 只有德国才能成为这样的威胁。 为了对英国构成任何威胁,希特勒必须与英国开战。 战争一开始是假的,这根本无关紧要。 不列颠之战已经够火了。 它从来没有机会导致入侵,但它对英国人民产生了心理影响,因此英国政客有兴趣阻止袭击,即使它需要同意会有以色列。

    关于希特勒的所有这一切都始于假设希特勒真的想为德国赢得土地,希特勒觉得自己是德国人。 那不是很清楚。 我会相信,如果不是纳粹党是 DAP 的新名称,DAP 是由 Thule Society 创建的,它是 Theosophic。 神智学是共济会的。 现在,我不是任何秘密共济会的成员,可能你也不是。 人很少。 纳粹出身于共济会背景是极其奇怪的。 这就是为什么我认为,当他们形成共济会背景时,他们有共济会的目标:将犹太人带回巴勒斯坦。 这个目标从来没有包括让德国再次强大,也不包括让美国再次强大。 共济会目标就是共济会目标,它们通常意味着对国家的彻底毁灭。 他们本可以很容易地想要摧毁德国,并不是因为他们有任何经济目标,只是为了建立新世界。

  422. @j2

    引用关键词 无所畏惧 字体:

    …one fact is that Hitler gave the order to make the attack plan of of the invasion of Poland in early April 1939, just days after 英国向波兰提供担保。 然后将声称的波兰对德国少数民族的暴行置于一个时间范围内,并注意 我们他们中的 t 人是在下令制定计划之后。 那 节目 that the reason for the attack were not the atrocities…

    Yesterday, while attempting to support a losing argument on the corridor issue, you pretended to be a military strategist; now, as an encore, you’ve come up with additional nonsense based on flawed reasoning.

    Top military commanders constantly have various attack and defense contingency plans; that’s what they do. It would have been stupid for Germany not to have formulated various response options after the guarantees by Britain to Poland became known.

    显然,德军进入波兰后,波兰境内针对德裔的暴行将比以往更多。 相关的是,在 XNUMX 月之前已经确认了许多暴行,而波兰没有迹象表明它们会停止。

    您引用的这两个观察结果并不能保证您得出的结论; 你不是分析家,而是一个劣质的宣传员。

    一个国家发动重大袭击或发动战争几乎没有一个单一的理由,但一个最重要的理由可能足以成为一个正当理由。

    In 2005 all member countries of the United Nations endorsed the “保护责任” doctrine, including Poland. Basically, in light of the evidence presented by John Wear in this article, under this principle, known as R2P, Germany was apparently entitled to attack Poland to protect the German minority population as a last resort, given that prior attempts to de-escalate tensions through diplomatic channels had been rejected.

    当时和现在的主要区别在于,联合国安理会在八十年前不存在,而联合国安理会拥有根据保护责任原则允许使用武力的唯一权力。

    • 回复: @j2
  423. @Ron Unz

    I scratch my head when I read such extravagant provocations as
    “As a consequence, Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war, ”
    Is it a jeu d’esprit calculated to soothe a brain fevered by cranky commenters who contradict and cavil?

    Howver that may be it cannot be intended as literal truth when one has read read Mein Kampf and noted that, after solemnly promising that the Sudetenland was his last invasion, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia 6 months later.

  424. Alden 说:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    About the German military. After WW1. Germany was forbidden to have an airforce and the navy and army was severely restricted. Lenin made an agreement with the German government in the early 1920s that the German Air Force aircraft factories and development and army training could be done in Russia.

    The Germans established big bases in Russia The Germans didn’t leave Russia till after Hitler was appointed chancellor.

    There’s been some books “proving” Martin Bohrman was a Russian agent all along.

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  425. j2 说:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “昨天,你在走廊问题上试图支持一个失败的论点时,你假装是一个军事战略家; 现在,作为再演一次,你已经根据有缺陷的推理提出了额外的废话。
    最高军事指挥官不断有各种攻防应急预案; 这就是他们所做的。 在英国向波兰提供担保后,德国不制定各种应对方案是愚蠢的。”

    可能我比你更了解军事问题。 是的,有计划,但这个特别的计划是在 1 年 1939 月 XNUMX 日袭击波兰。也就是说,这是一个实际的战争计划,而不是你所说的应急计划之一。 请注意,这个详细的攻击计划是在《里宾特洛甫-莫洛托夫条约》之前完成的。 事实是你已经失去了这个讨论,所以放弃吧。

  426. szopen 说:
    @Parfois1

    were recent fiat creations by the “Powers” at Versailles

    Except, no. Polish state was re-established without Versailles because of collapseof Austrian and Russian state (and total collapse of German army morale, when soldiers could be approached by civilians and were willingly giving up their arms); in Prussian partition, the Greater Poland’s uprising won the Posen area on its own. Without Versailles help, Poland probably would be smaller, but it was not created by great powers. By saying taht, you show you ignorance of history and how Poland was re-established.

    A propos the Polish example, after the occupation by Germany in September 1939 and the government’s flight to Romania, Poland ceased to exist again as a state

    Again, no. Treaty was not signed, territorial changes was not recognised, Polish government-in-exile was legal continuation of previous government, it had international recognition, it had embassies and it had it’s own army.

  427. szopen 说:
    @Thirdeye

    明智地推迟对波兰东部的占领,直到政府流亡之后

    一个谎言。 你在重复苏联的宣传。 波兰政府只有在听说苏联入侵时才逃脱(同一天,深夜,但仍然在 ivnasion 之后)。 其次,是波兰政府下令其军队不得与苏联交战,而苏联则没有这种顾忌。 第三,波兰政府没有对苏联宣战。

    这些是很容易检查的事实,您只需使用谷歌就可以在几秒钟内找到它们。

    顺便说一句,请记住苏联宣布对波兰的分区无效; 同时,将其军队派往西部,在现在的白俄罗斯地区推动由当地波兰人组成的波兰自卫队。

    • 回复: @Thirdeye
    , @Anounder
    , @PatrickB
  428. Mostly bullcrap.

    The true part is that Hitler wanted Poland to be neutral when he would be invading France, and protect the eastern flank against the Soviets.

    Poles would have gained a lot and lost little.

    The world would have looked much much different now.

    Britain and France gained much needed time to prepare for the war by throwing their friends under the bus, first Czechoslovakia, then Poland and later Yugoslavia: a Pro’s move!

    It’s the epitome of hypocrisy: provoke war in the East and then complain about it.

    Hopefully it wont happen again.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  429. Thirdeye 说:
    @Durruti

    Hitler had a very Europe-centric vision of Germany’s role in the world. Restoration of overseas colonies was not one of his priorities. He knew that Germany’s naval strength could not hope to compete with Britain’s, which led his war strategy into a muddle after the fall of France. He had good reason to believe, based on the rabidly anti-Soviet stance of the Tory-dominated British government, that their enthusiasm for continuing war with Germany would take a back seat to their hatred of the Soviet Union.

    IMO the air campaign against Britain was a strategic and political blunder. It wasn’t the whisker-margin defeat of the Luftwaffe that it is purported to be. Defeating the enemy from the air was a novel mission for air power, and it simply could not be accomplished with the means the Luftwaffe had against the means the means the RAF had. An effective air campaign was only waged much later in the war, with much greater resources than the Luftwaffe ever had. Britain’s war production increased and the planned growth of the RAF proceeded apace. The air offensive fed into Churchill’s narrative that Britain was imperiled by Germany while in fact doing very little to imperil Britain, and the nighttime bombing campaign hardened the air war into a blood feud. Without war being brought to the homeland, in whatever futile form, Churchill’s narrative would have been much harder to sell. What if “The Battle of Britain is about to begin” was followed by……no battle?

    On the other side, the nighttime nuisance raids that the RAF had been doing since the early months of the war had their own political consequences. The time when a peace settlement was possible rapidly slipped away on both sides as a result of the air war.

  430. Thirdeye 说:
    @szopen

    Third, Polish government had NOT declared war on USSR.

    Not until December 1939. It was a pointless and foolish move.

    The Soviets could have cut off the retreat to Romania, but they did not.

    • 回复: @szopen
  431. Not a Nazi 说:

    I’m so glad the wannabe nazis posting here are incels- would hate to see them reproduce. Behold the master race. You are so sad that the only way you can feel better about yourself is to imagine someone with darker skin than you is beneath you. Bunch of pathetic cucks.

    • 回复: @Malla
    , @Wally
  432. Miro23 说:
    @Incitatus

    That’s an excellent commentary that entirely agrees with the transcriptions in Hitler’s Table Talk (evening conversations recorded at his Eastern headquarters Rastenburg and Winnitza while Operation Barbarossa was underway), Conversation Nº :

    “According to the laws of nature, the soil belongs to he who conquers it. The fact of having children who want to live, the fact that our people is bursting out of its cramped frontiers – these justify all of our claims to the Eastern spaces.” Nº 130

    “I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance.” – “The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.”Nº 25

    “We’ll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.” Nº 11

    “The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious farms. The German services will be lodged in marvelous buildings, the governors in palaces. Beneath the shelter of the administrative services, we shall gradually organize all that is indispensable to the maintenance of a certain standard of living. All around the city to a depth of thirty to forty kilometers we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely necessary that we should rule them.” Nº 24

    “I don’t see much future for the Americans. In my view it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. Those were what caused the downfall of Rome, and yet Rome was a solid edifice that stood for something. Moreover the Romans were inspired by great ideas. Nothing of the sort in England today. As for the Americans, that kind of thing is non-existent. That’s why, in spite of everything, I like an Englishman a thousand times better than an American.” Nº 99

    • 回复: @turtle
    , @Incitatus
    , @Malla
    , @Wally
  433. @L.K

    Hi L.K

    Yes of course you not trying to convince of anything , because you have nothing to prove but only big bullshit.
    I asked you simple question to answer , nothing else.
    Why Hitler attacked Soviet Union in 1941 ?? if he was so friendly guy towards everybody.
    If you don’t response to it I will assume , that all accusation in this article are big Bullshit Propaganda.
    and what is the point of it !!?? dividing people instead unite them. You must be great believer.
    I only have one advice for you – follow and trust nobody and live longer !!! because otherwise you are only one stupid tool in their hands who blindly follow them.

  434. Bronek [AKA "Bruno Chapski"] 说:
    @G

    Enjoyed your commentary. I resided in E. Europe for several years. Nearly married an E. German gal. Her dad was a high ranking officer during WWII. Without AH there would have been no world war. No time to adequately comment on that. However, in brief, it should be known that Germany was an industrial power above all others in Mother Europe’s home. Moreover, there were more Germans reading newspapers than all those of GB, Fr. and Italy combined. had there been no Hitler and his Lebensraum dreams, in all probability, Germany would today be one of the World powers.

    Nearly everything in this article is dishonesty. There’s a sea of German documentation denoting Hitler’s plan for war in April 1939. Prior to that he indicated and advocated war in the east.

    想补充一点,在我在德国、白俄罗斯、普斯科夫、列宁格勒、莫斯科和许多其他城市(西伯利亚等)之间的旅行中,我发现几乎所有的俄罗斯人都喜欢波兰人。 至于波兰人,绝大多数 1939 年以后出生的人会说俄语,并且 (2) 他们喜欢俄罗斯人; 他们(也)鄙视共产主义。 你击中了要害。

    • 回复: @Theodore
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  435. turtle 说:
    @Miro23

    but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.”

    Adolf Hitler, meet Henry Morgenthau.

  436. Bernie 说:
    @EliteCommInc.

    There’s lots of info about the German exacerbations pertaining to the affair in Bromberg. Generally it’s acknowledged that the killings were a reaction to neoNazi types who were a 5th column entity.

    Years ago, as a youngster, I consumed more than a few books on the topic. Scanning some of the comments it’s interesting to see the actual belief that it was Warsaw’s fault for WWII. With the overwhelming evidence denoting Hitler’s dreams of lebensraum and actual plans for attack (months before Sept. 1939), the mentality is fascinating. My take is that many thoughts are from GermanAms who have a defense mechanism. After all, the unrelenting propaganda about their camps could wear anyone down.

    Further, so far I have not seen any commentary about the murders of the Polish intellectual class and university professors. This seems to have been side stepped although it’s adequately documented. Reminds me of how the Eastern Front is down played in the West, despite the fact that about 80% of AH’s army was in that theater and over 90% of German soldiers were killed in the East.

    BTW, for something similar, read the evidence about the Russian POWS being exterminated. many studies put the number at around 2 mln. My dad use to call WWII Eurocide II.

    • 回复: @turtle
  437. Bronek [AKA "Bruno Chapski"] 说:
    @UncommonGround

    How true. I once labored in a think tank and it was easy to see how Soviets eradicated documentation.

  438. @Alden

    I’m disappointed in you, Alden. You previously seemed to be a friend to Germany and alternative history, not a wild conspiracy theorist. Has someone else taken over your account?

    “There’s been some books …” 什么书? “… ‘proving’ Martin Bohrman was a Russian agent all along.” What kind of proof, generally speaking? You spelled Bormann wrong. Misspelling names of those you claim to know about is a bad sign. Perhaps you’re thinking of a different Martin Bohrman?

    • 回复: @Alden
  439. WW1 was supposed to destroy Germany, and it almost did. When that failed with the rise of Hitler it was on to round 2. Now Germany is thoroughly subservient to Britain and the US, whose leaders are bought and paid for by the Jewish banksters, and now it’s 70 years on there’s no end in sight.

    • 回复: @Malla
  440. Bronek [AKA "Bruno Chapski"] 说:
    @j2

    I read a book a few years ago entitled Paris 1919. Your HWY point was brought up. Check it out, if you have time. It was an interesting read.

  441. turtle 说:
    @Bernie

    Further, so far I have not seen any commentary about the murders of the Polish intellectual class and university professors.

    Oh, of course not.
    Because, y’know, if you ain’t Jewish, you ain’t shit, at least as far as WWII is concerned.
    I saw a video once which estimated that as many as 2,000,000 Polish Catholics might have been victims of the Nazis, murdered in cold blood. No doubt many of these would have been your intellectuals and uni professors, who might have caused trouble for the occupying forces, so they were simply eliminated.
    But, according to Orthodox Holocaustianity, their lives mean nothing, and if you dare to say otherwise, you are a Vicious Anti-Semite* who deserves to be put to death, because Jewish “souls” are infinitely more precious than non-Jewish “souls,” which are more like those of dogs.
    Q: Suppose I do not believe in the existence of “souls?” Which, in fact, I do not.
    还有什么呢?

    *IOW, “Bad Person,” assuming you buy into this narrative.
    But what about those of us who do not?
    No doubt we will burn in Hail for our sins.
    Praise Lowered Jaysus, and the Holy Ghost (Riders in the Sky).

  442. Max Denken 说:

    This is BS on stilts, cherrypicking to support a Nazi-whitewashing thesis.
    Here is what the premier French encyclopedia Larousse says about Gdansk (Dantzig) http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/ville/Gda%C5%84sk/121004 :

    L’ordre Teutonique s’empare de la ville le 14 novembre 1308, massacre la population polonaise et annexe le delta de la Vistule. Dantzig obtient une charte municipale en 1343 ; elle adhère à la Hanse en 1361 et se place, par son opulence, à la tête des villes prussiennes. Elle se dote d’un magnifique ensemble d’architecture gothique.
    Premier port de la Pologne
    En 1454, elle se révolte contre les chevaliers Teutoniques et prend pour protecteur Casimir IV de Pologne. Dans le cadre de l’État polonais, auquel elle sera toujours loyale, elle jouit d’une quasi-autonomie et s’assure le monopole du commerce maritime de la Pologne au moment de l’âge d’or de ce pays (1466-1648). La Réforme y pénètre dès 1523. Avec 70 000 habitants en 1650, c’est le premier port et la ville la plus peuplée de la Baltique. En 1656-1657, l’invasion suédoise se heurte à la résistance de Dantzig.
    En 1793, la ville est annexée par la Prusse lors du second partage de la Pologne, malgré l’opposition de la population.

    Here is a rough translation:

    The Teutonic Order captured the city November 14, 1308, killing the Polish population and annexes the delta of the Vistula. Danzig gets a municipal charter in 1343; it adheres to the Hanseatic League in 1361 and its place, by its opulence, as the head of Prussian cities. It develops a collection of magnificent Gothic architecture.

    First port of Poland

    In 1454, she rebels against the Teutonic Knights and takes for protector Casimir IV of Poland. As part of the Polish state, to which she will always be loyal, she enjoys a quasi-autonomy and ensures the monopoly of maritime trade of Poland during the golden age of that country (1466- 1648). Reform penetrates from 1523. With 70 000 inhabitants in 1650, is the first port and the largest city of the Baltic. In 1656-1657, the Swedish invasion collides with resistance of Danzig.
    In 1793, the city was annexed by Prussia in the second partition of Poland, despite the opposition of the population.

    Here’s yours truly, in an article published in 2011 (nom de plume): https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/100955/sec_id/100955)

    “In 1308, singing “Jesu Christo Salvator Mundi” the Teutonic Knights seized the Polish city of Gdańsk (Danzig) and slaughtered 10,000 of its inhabitants. In their 1327 plundering raids on the region then known as Polonia Maior, the Order terrorized the people by burning down their villages and murdering women and children. There was much more of this.”

    • 回复: @Franklin Ryckaert
  443. Theodore 说:

    Do the Poles regret snubbing Hitler and not signing the Comintern Pact?

    Post-war Communism (which was overwhelmingly Jewish) in Poland did not work out well for the Poles. Over a million sent to “Death Camps” in the GULAG system. After Communism was ended in Poland, they experienced the highest economic growth of any European country. The Poles were clearly held back from achieving prosperity & high living standards due to this Judeo-Bolshevik system of economic/social enslavement.

    Poland under Communism / Jewish domination of Polish Communism
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12693

    • 同意: Miro23
  444. Theodore 说:
    @Bronek

    Without AH there would have been no world war.

    Are you psychic? Someone was:

    French General Ferdinand Foch: “这不是和平。 这是20年的停战”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)

    Nearly everything in this article is dishonesty. There’s a sea of German documentation denoting Hitler’s plan for war in April 1939. Prior to that he indicated and advocated war in the east.

    A sea of documentation? How about you post one document then?

    Read more comment #178 – https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/?display=showcomments#comment-3415414

  445. @Ron Unz

    ‘…I emphasized that this remarkable historical fact has been totally excluded from virtually all World War II histories.’

    …and it was pointed out at the time that this ‘remarkable fact’ never was excluded from history at all. Indeed, it was the subject of a published limerick at the time. You can still look up A.P. Herbert’s ‘Baku, or the Map Game’ if you want to. You can find it in several histories — in the part where they discuss the various proposals including Operation Pike that circulated at the time.

    None of this has ever been hidden. The operation always been known about and referred to in passing, but has received limited attention — for the excellent reason that it never took place, and the circumstances that gave rise to it were shortly obliterated by events. It would be something like Germany’s thoughts about making a descent on Iceland, or Russia’s late-1940 demand that Germany cede her a port in Denmark. It was a half-formulated proposal, that never happened, and that shortly ceased to be relevant.

    It’s of some interest to speculate just what the consequences of such an operation would have been, but first, as I pointed out at the time, one reason the operation never took place is that the practical difficulties were formidable, and second, even if it had happened, would the fall out have been all that great?

    Russia was already advising Communist loyalists to support Germany anyway, and Germany would still have overrun France. I suspect Hitler would still have decided to attack Russia in the Spring of 1941. At that point, I think both Russia and Britain would have found it expedient to let bygones be bygones.

    So the operation didn’t happen, it’s questionable if it 可以 have happened, and had it happened, the ultimate consequences are obscure. Doesn’t this furnish sufficient grounds for it having received only modest attention? After all, historians generally focus on what did happen rather than what 可以 发生了。

    • 巨魔: Ron Unz
  446. Incitatus 说:
    @L.K

    “The Hossbach memorandum is a forgery as you already know – because I gave you the details – and yet you keep pushing this garbage every single time.”

    You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, L.K. Even if you lean a bit too heavily on the Institute for Historical Review. Not what most might call a disinterested source, but please yourself.

    Antony Beevor, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Volker Ullrich, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Telford Taylor, Robert Conot, Joseph Persico, Airey Neave, Ian Kershaw, Gustave Gilbert, Joachim Fest, Thomas Weber, Nicolas Stargardt, Christopher Browning, Peter Longerich, and many others seem much more compelling. None, to my knowledge, say the Hoßbach Memorandum was phony. Tell me if I’m wrong.

    Hoßbach aside, do you contest Hitler’s “Führer directive concerning Operation Green…It is my irrevocable intention to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future” 30 May 1938? That alone proves he was no pacifist. He wanted war.

    Why was Hitler disappointed with the peaceful settlement of Sudetenland 30 Sep 1938? According to Paul Otto Schmidt (Hitler’s translator in the negotiations) Hitler was “pale and ill-tempered”, distracted, hardly speaking when Chamberlain crowed ‘peace in our time’, produced a communiqué promissing “never to go to war with one another again”. Hitler silently signed it. Ordinary people in all nations – including Germany – rejoiced. No war!

    Hitler, god of diplomatic success, regretted it the following day. He especially resented ordinary Germans rejoicing over peaceful settlement. Why L.K? Hitler was a brilliant statesman. Why wasn’t he satisfied? Why did he say “There is no way I can wage war with this [German] people”? Why was it important he “wage war with this people”?

    “The alleged notes made by Colonel Hossbach, an anti-Hitler conspirator…”

    “Anti-Hitler conspirator”? Ala 20 Jul ’44? Sources please.

    Interesting figure, to be sure. Defied Hitler to make Fritsch aware of phony charges in 1938, reported the latter’s assertions of innocence to Hitler, risking his career. Same courage, after two years on the Eastern Front as (General der Infanterie) commanding the 4th Army. Refused to sacrifice his men to Hitler’s suicidal Wagnerian melodrama in a second Stalingrad-encirclement in Eastern Prussia 28 Jan 1945. Dismissed two days later. Survived the war, died 1980 (age 85).

    In the month of January 1945 the Wehrmacht lost 451,774 killed in action. From January to May Germany lost an average of 10,000 soldiers killed per day [Beevor ‘’The Second World War’ p.690].

    Was Hoßbach a traitor for saving his men from needless slaughter? For defying a suicidal megalomaniac? Would you feel better if thousands more ill-supplied landsers were encircled and killed prior to Mr. Big poisoning his new frau and pulling the plug with his Walther 0.765?

    • 谢谢: Adûnâi
    • 回复: @Wally
    , @Ron Unz
  447. Incitatus 说:
    @Miro23

    谢谢。

    Poles and Germans (there were many moral Germans) deserve better than this article.

    Original sources say it all.

    Austrian Hitler waxed homespun theories ad infinitum, be it ‘Mein Kampf’ vol.1-2 or hours and hours and hours of belabored Table Talk. A new Aryan Gautama Buddha with eager sycophants recording every word. Speer is candid on the boring evenings.

    To their credit, the inner circle sucked-up and tried to slit rival throats silently between gaseous epistles. Messiah Hitler, master of the ‘uncertainty principle’ and secure in inaction, cultivated subordinate ambition/greed/jealousy that afforded him to sort out conflict. Worked well enough. Seems to have crossed the line in assuming direct military command, nixing the experience/advice of very talented men. Nobody’s perfect.

    He directly orders most of the 150,000 artillery and transport horses in Sixth Army be sent several hundred kilometers to the rear 9 Nov 1942, ostensibly to save transporting fodder to the front at Stalingrad. It deprives all unmotorized divisions of mobility, removes any possibility of reaction or retreat. Paulus (unsupplied) is ordered to send his Panzer forces into the ‘final’ battle for Stalingrad.

    “投降是不可能的。 部队战斗到最后。 如果可能的话,在部队仍然具有战斗力的情况下占领缩减的要塞 [斯大林格勒]。 要塞的勇敢和坚韧提供了建立新战线并发动反击的机会。 第六集团军由此完成了其在德国历史上最伟大的篇章中的历史贡献。”
    ——22 年 1943 月 372 日,阿道夫·希特勒致保卢斯将军 [Beevor 'Stalingrad' p. 373-XNUMX]

    Only problem? They’d long gone without ammunition, food, medical supplies, adequate clothing, etc. For months. 90,000 surrendered. Hitler’s reaction?

    “They [Sixth Army] have surrendered there formally and absolutely. Otherwise they would have closed ranks, formed a hedgehog, and shot themselves with their last bullet. When you consider that a women has the pride to leave, to lock herself in, and to shoot herself right away just because she has heard a few insulting remarks, then I can’t have any respect for a soldier who is afraid of that and prefers to go into captivity…This [Sixth Army surrender at Stalingrad] hurts me so much because of the heroism of so many soldiers is nullified by one single characterless weakling [Paulus]…What is Life? Life is the Nation. The individual must die anyway…What hurts me most, personally, is that I still promoted him to field marshal. I wanted to give him this final satisfaction. He could have freed himself from all sorrows and ascended into eternity and national immortality, but he prefers to go to Moscow.”
    – 阿道夫·希特勒在斯大林格勒 1 年 1943 月 391 日(听说第六集团军投降后的第二天)[Beevor 'Stalingrad' p. 392-XNUMX]

    Hitler, untroubled about failing to supply, support, or rescue 6th Army whines about “What hurts me most…I still promoted him [Paulus] to field marshal.” Hitler expected (planned for) Paulus to commit suicide with the rest of his army. Why?

    Suicide isn’t a proven path to victory.

    Here’s what Hitler told Club-foot Joe a month later:

    “(德国总理说)如果德国人民变得软弱,除了被更强大的人民扑灭之外,他们别无他法; 那就对他们没有同情心了。”
    –阿道夫·希特勒(Adolf Hitler)到8年1943月7日,Tagebücher的约瑟夫·格贝尔斯(JosephGöbbels)[第二部分296第544页; Beevor“第二次世界大战”第XNUMX页]

    Comforting?

  448. Incitatus 说:
    @j2

    谢谢j2。

    欣赏你的作品,欣赏你的坚持。

    “然后有一位哈佛历史教授声称希特勒不想打仗。”

    名人历史学家? 争议出售书籍、获得演讲机会、媒体露面、名气等。例如,尼尔·弗格森 (Niall Ferguson)。 哈佛(和大多数人一样)有才华横溢和不那么出色的教师。 蒂莫西·利瑞 (Timothy Leary) 和艾伦·德肖维茨 (Alan Dershowitz) 浮现在脑海中。

    “美国大学的历史水平如何?”

    巨大的问题。 不是历史专业,也不是学者,所以我问错人了。

    在美国和英国学习历史课程并获得学位。 两者都是伟大的教授,尽管英格兰(我认为)在历史上具有优势。 那是 40 多年前的事了,不知道现在怎么样了。

    无论如何,正规教育难道不是一个门户,一个探索的开始吗? 希望建立在强大的基础上。 公共图书馆(以及现在危险的互联网)是完美的资源。 不知道有多少人追求大学毕业后的旅程。

    几年前,一项美国民意调查报告称,大多数美国大学毕业生认为我们在 1775-83 年与法国作战。 一个让这个(和所有其他)愤世嫉俗者高兴的黄金时刻!

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  449. utu 说:
    @Ron Unz

    …Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war…

    Hitler could do much much more. At least resist the temptation to be the one who started the war.

  450. Wally 说: • 您的网站
    @Incitatus

    LOL

    – Incitatus laughably, yet routinely, refers to “documents” which he, nor anyone else cannot produce.

    Read the truth about his desperately refereced “Hossbach”:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=hossbach

    See unhinged Zionist Incitatus taken apart here:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=Incitatus&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • 回复: @Incitatus
  451. @Max Denken

    “Historical rights” are valid according to how far back into history you want to go. Each party in a conflict can choose the most advantageous “historical depth” it wants. It’s the same with the conflict about Palestine.

    • 回复: @Max Denken
  452. aandrews 说:
    @aandrews

    “Poland and Hungary are the few remaining stalwarts of the White West.”
    Let me retract that. That’s a little carried away. I simply meant, that was then, this is now.

    https://vdare.com/articles/the-lamps-are-going-out-all-over-europe-jared-taylor-martin-sellner-travel-bans-show-the-free-world-is-finished

    On trying to change planes in Switzerland, he was informed that he was banned from Europe’s Schengen Zone at the request of the supposedly conservative government of Poland.

  453. szopen 说:
    @Thirdeye

    Could you please give me a source about POlish declaration war with soviets in December 1939?!

    Because I’ve read numerous articles and monographies by Polish historians blaming our government for NOT declaring war on Soviet Union.

    I’ve googled in Polish and find out we declared war on Japan (which was not accepted and was not followed by any action) which was annotated as “the only POlish declaration of war in XX century”. I’ve googled in English and also found no source which would support your assertion that our g-i-e decalred war on USSR. So, what’s your source of this information?!

  454. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @Fritzl

    Lots of truth in your remarks. Just before the Zyds had robbed Poland blind with their kultura of bribing, they took literally a sea of wealth with them to Prussia. There have been several authors writing about that. I think Prof. Poganowski was one of them, but it’s been decades since consuming that info and I’ve forgotten most.

    Most people don’t know that for over a century Prussia was a vassal to Warsaw. Zyds changed all that by breaking the economic back of Warsaw.

    As for the open assault by AH on Zyds, you are correct. Initially several of the Zyd elite figured they’d have their own homeland within Poland. AH’s assault upon them, before and during Eurocide II, simply united the transnational world Zyd community. Thank you for your comments.

  455. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, consider reading the books by professors Glantz, Kotkin (Stalin series, both books contain about a thousand pp) and Richard Evans. Evans isn’t the best as he kisses Z arse. However, he has a ton of info. Glantz is the best source on Stalingrad, with Kotin being the best on Stalin. Oh, Glantz is a poor writer, very dry. However, his last book on Stalingrad is a classic.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  456. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @j2

    Besides being a history buff, having read thusand of books on both Eurocide I and II, In the 1960s -‘70s I spent a lot of time with E. German Vets (behind closed doors). You are correct about AH. He was an amateur in matters of conflict. Not only that, he often was rejecting the advise of those generals in actual battle.

    What is really sad is the fact of AH’s so called Fortified cities, like Berlin. The Berlin fighting, against 2 mln war hardened Red army soldiers, simply meant the needless deaths of tens of thousands within the city confines. Pristine insanity. After all, once Germany lost control of the sky the war was over.

  457. Bookish1 说:
    @turtle

    Dont forget that we have just entered the `age of hitler`. It has just begun and won’t finish until hitlers dreams come true. That is the way it works with great men and their movements. Most social movements are like weeds that grow fast and die fast. The great movements grow slow like an oak tree and last a long time. Hitlers movement is like an oak tree.

  458. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @Republic

    How true. In addition to that, on a smaller scale, there’s the ethno factor of Washington’s military installations. I can recall traveling through West Germany and seeing whores just about copulating with what resembled apes, as scores of what some called niglets were wilding and running around. German soldiers in RR stations -I think it was near Frankfort (but can’t recall)- had machine guns and always looked in the opposite direction when sexual-dry animal-like behavior commenced…

  459. Anonymous[220]• 免责声明 说:
    @j2

    我同意你的观点,就像法国大革命以来几乎所有的主要战争一样,都是共济会的起源。

    Since secret societies like Freemasons, Jesuits, Skull and Bones, Knights of Malta, Moslem Brotherhood, and Illuminati all involve sacred oaths and rituals required for access to the higher levels, we can never be certain what is really going on behind the curtains. I believe this is why UR suppresses any discussion about secret societies, they just aren’t “scientific”.

    You and I disagree on the extent of von Mannerheim’s association with Freemasonry. The Finnish President during the war was an admitted Freemason, and it now appears that von Mannerheim was well aware of the grand plan and was in secret communication with Stalin throughout the war. Finland’s remarkable turnabout in 1944 testifies to this.

    今天我在检查 关于马耳他骑士团的推特主题。 两者都充满了非凡的信息。 当我去 Free Introduction 我发现 Richard Gehlen 是哥伦布骑士的网页

    [更多]

    1948 年秋天,“教会骑士团”将马耳他骑士团的最高奖项——大十字勋章——授予西德情报部门负责人 Reinhard Gehlen 将军,以表彰他的贡献。

    文章进一步声称:

    因此,共济会会所和北约情报部门的领导层结合在一起。

    一个典型的例子是中央情报局的创始人艾伦杜勒斯。 成为中央情报局局长后,他将一直是梅森,直到他生命的尽头。

    授予中央情报局所有杰出领导人的奖章,从其创始人威廉·多诺万开始,他于 1945 年从教皇庇护十二世手中获得了圣西尔维斯特勋章的马耳他大十字勋章,见证了联合情报局的成功中央情报局和共济会之间的行动。

    中央情报局反间谍负责人詹姆斯·安格尔顿因“反间谍工作”获得了同样的奖项。 他活跃于在克格勃和格鲁乌军官中与苏联叛逃者合作的领域。

    I believe this to be true. Do you have any comments about the Knight’s of Malta?

    https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/churchills-special-relationship-with-malta.19354

    • 回复: @j2
  460. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @j2

    您的简介非常出色且真实(如下)。 我本来要提到这些点,但我认为不值得努力回应那些支持纳粹意识形态的人,他们否认 lebensrum 等。二战是完全没有必要的。 如果没有 AH,它很可能不会发生。 我相信,如果没有 Eurocide II,德国仍将是世界强国。

    我没有提到谋杀两所大学的波兰教授和/或消灭大约 2 万俄罗斯战俘。 也没有提到,我可以看到,波兰人的第一次种族清洗和日耳曼波罗的海人的引入。

    如果 AH 在 1944 年 XNUMX 月被杀,他的将军们会祈求和平。 原因:一旦德国失去对天空的控制,他们就不可能有任何赢得 Eurocide II 的理智希望。 最重要的是,成千上万的德国人和其他人不会被杀害。 你所注意到的是真的,AH 的“官员想要他出去!”

    希特勒发动了一场世界大战,但他失败了,因为他犯了许多非常严重的错误:
    – 进攻莫斯科太晚,导致道路变成泥泞
    – 在进攻莫斯科前分兵
    – 禁止芬兰人和德国人攻击第二条摩尔曼斯克铁路
    – 不允许保卢斯从斯大林格勒突破
    – 推迟对库尔斯克的进攻,直到苏联建立了强大的防御工事
    – 尽管德国人能够赢得它,但停止了库尔斯克战役
    - 没有阻止苏联的一次重大进攻(芬兰人做了两次,德国人应该也能做到,但不,希特勒命令他们一直撤退)
    – 不相信诺曼底是登陆地点的好消息
    – 下令对西方进行疯狂的反击。
    ——他不想走出去和解。 这导致德国完全被超越。 一个严重的错误形成一个领导者。
    希特勒是一个非常糟糕的领导者,甚至他自己的军官也想让他出局并试图暗杀他。

    • 回复: @j2
  461. @Alden

    I’ve noticed IHR has been defending Germany’s actions in WW2 for a long time now. By shifting responsibility to Poland instead of to England France Germany and the pro war faction in America IHR is just perpetuating falsehoods.

    IHR is composed of one man since around 2000 — Mark Weber. Since he managed to steal it away from the revisionist community that had written all the EXCELLENT articles now found in its archives, he turned it into a purely online operation featuring himself giving a speech once in a blue moon. If you don’t know anything about the IHR, don’t pretend that you’re “noticing” things. If you have a problem with it, talk to Mark Weber–he’s the only one there but has plenty of time on his hands.

    Articles like this make me wonder if IHR has been infiltrated by Poland hating Jews.

    Again, you’re showing complete ignorance of the IHR. What else are you completely ignorant about?

    I read the Jewish press. They stopped blaming Germany for the holofraud decades ago. The Jews blame every one in Europe from the Pope to Churchill to the railroad companies to the French Hungarian Bulgarian Yugoslav local police to the Poles because Auschwitz is in Poland.

    Do they really? If so, I wonder why the “Council of German Jews” stays so busy making sure a procession of Germans are continually prosecuted in Germany for “Holocaust denial” and variations of “Anti-Semitism,” while we see nothing of the sort in Poland. The Israelis and the Poles jointly benefit, financially and politically, from Auschwitz in Poland. The Polish government loves it!! The people too. There are more Polish visitors than of any other nationality.

    The Israelis have taught 2 generations of school kids that it was the Poles, not the Germans who ran the camps.

    Where is your proof of this? And where is this “Israeli teaching machine” that is doing this? The Jewish-led holocaust industry lobbies to force all schoolchildren to visit Auschwitz where they are given the official tour by POLISH guides. If these schoolkid tours didn’t continually take place, Auschwitz as a money-making tourism project for Poland would dry up, and the Auschwitz theme park might even return to its earlier neglect.

    • 回复: @Carolyn Yeager
  462. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @Greg S.

    You have an interesting point. War is hell and often the innocent are harmed by authorities. It is true that German POWS in the West and USSR didn’t live in heaven. In fact, about 5,000, from th Stalingad battle(s) sent to the Soviet Workers’ Paradise were returned to E. Germany. Although many others married Russian women and others settled down that was not the case for countless thousands. There’s also another side of this POW story. As with the Germans in the West, being in open fields, the same applied to Russians under German control. The difference: Russians were starved.

    Going further in touching the horror, I spent time between Grodno and Minsk (Byelorussia). Speaking with families who had members taken to Germany, for slave labour, enlighten one’s sentiments. Many never returned due to fear. However, most of those could see the difference between capitalism and communism. POWs/ Soldiers are often nothing but pawns.

  463. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @turtle

    They traveled to Prussia in a sealed train.

  464. Max Denken 说:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Absolutely. What Americans don’t understand is that in the eastern 1/3 of Europe the battles of Grunwald or Kosovo or Mohács or Poltava or Vienna happened yesterday–hence our total incomprehension when stepping into such ancient conflicts as in Bosnia and Kosovo. BTW, victory over the Teutonic Order (see “Danzig”) in the Battle of Grunwald was so pivotal in the history of that part of the world and crucial to the survival of its peoples that its 600th anniversary in 2010 was celebrated by the heads of state of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, Czechia, Slovakia, and Moldova.

  465. AnonFromTN 说:
    @Carroll Price

    No hope of that. Merkel did more damage to Germany than one could imagine. What’s more, Germans can’t blame anyone for this: those cucks keep voting for her traitorous party. Germany, RIP.

  466. @Alden

    Continuing from above:

    When reading articles like this, don’t forget that Jews have been claiming that Germany was innocent and everyone else in Europe was responsible for the European holocaust as they now call it.

    You repeat your previous unproven claim. Where are Jews claiming Germany was innocent of their fake holohoax?

    I believe it has something to do with the billions Germany has given Israel. I believe it’s an agreement Germany pays; Israel shifts the blame from evil Hitler and nazis to everyone in Europe.

    You believe based on what? This doesn’t sound like the sane Alden I’ve read in comment threads previously. Plus, this article isn’t even about the Holocaust.

    Israel and American Jews have been paid more than a hundred billion reparations so far. They won’t stop their demands.

    No, and now Poland has joined them and is demanding even more in reparations from Germany for themselves. They also have no intention of letting up.

    When the Russian occupied nations became independent the American Jewish press started caterwauling about reparations from Poland, Hungary etc.

    That must be it — simple anti-Americanism, along with pro-Slavism. But that is not good enough reason to distort history. I object to your blatantly false statements.

  467. Bronek [又名“布鲁诺”] 说:
    @Durruti

    Yes, the amount of hostility is amazing. Where is the culture, respect and decency?

    • 同意: Durruti
  468. @Carolyn Yeager

    If so, I wonder why the “Council of German Jews” stays so busy making sure a procession of Germans are continually prosecuted in Germany for “Holocaust denial” and variations of “Anti-Semitism,” while we see nothing of the sort in Poland.

    My mistake; I should have written “Holocaust crimes” rather than “Holocaust denial” and “Anti-Semitism.” I lost my focus.
    No Pole or non-German European has ever been prosecuted for Holocaust crimes, that I can name offhand.

    • 回复: @szopen
  469. @Durruti

    In order to know where the majority of insults are coming from, you would have to do a thorough, technical analysis of the many thousands of comments at this site, not use your personal prejudice.

    I once received a rather nasty, insulting reply from the article author Philip Giraldi himself, simply because I sincerely questioned his sincerity. So you never know.

  470. Ron Unz 说:
    @Colin Wright

    是的。 Unz 的 MO 尤其要对那些支持修正主义观点的来源“印象深刻”。

    Well, this discussion caused me to dig out my old copy of AJP Taylor’s book, and since it was fairly short, perhaps 1/3 the length of the Hoggan book, I decided to fully reread it for the first time since college. Just as I remembered, it was quite good and rather persuasive. But other details caught my eye.

    It was a huge international bestsller and is generally considered Taylor’s most important work, still so highly regarded that it was assigned reading in my Harvard intro history course a couple of decades later, and the cover-blurbs provided additional contemporaneous information. The Washington Post lauded Taylor as “Britain’s most prominent living historian,” The New Statesman called it “a masterpiece,” and World Politics described it as “powerfully argued, brilliantly written, and always persuasive.”

    At the time, Taylor had been a professor at Oxford for nearly 25 years, one of the most popular history lecturers, yet because of his “controversial” book, he was quickly purged and fired. In his Introduction, he had noted the strange fact that no previous historian had tried to carefully investigate why World War II broke out, and perhaps his fate provides something of an explanation.

    Given what happened to Britain’s “most prominent living historian,” it’s hardly surprising that a young academic like David Hoggan was totally destroyed for writing a very detailed book along similar lines, or that many years later world-renowned David Irving was also totally destroyed for roughly similar reasons.

    When evaluating the works of historians, I think it’s important to take into account those sorts of “practical” considerations. At the very least, they may explain why the weight of scholarly opinion takes one side rather than another, not to mention that even those going against orthodoxy might probably be pulling their punches. How many Soviet economists in the 1930s publicly declared that they’d concluded that Communist just didn’t work in agriculture?

    Since you’re a ferocious “anti-revisionist” who is also (purportedly!) a zealous anti-Zionist, perhaps the analogy with the mainstream media and academic discussion of Israel might be relevant to you. Probably 95-99% of the information people get about Israeli activities is positive and those who dissent are frequently purged, so I think one must give a little extra weight to the credibility of the latter.

    Based on our MSM, the Iranians has been doing its best to provoke a war with the US and Israel for many years now, but if a war finally broke out, I’m not sure I would agree with this mainstream verdict. So perhaps the same sort of caution should be applied to events around the time of WWII.

    On the other hand, I don’t necessarily believe all “unorthdox” discussions of Nazi Germany. For example, your new-found friend “j2” apparently claims that the Nazis were only pretending to be right-wing, anti-Communist, and anti-Jewish, but were actually “Masonic Theosophists” under Zionist control. Perhaps you agree with him, but I’m actually pretty skeptical.

    • 回复: @szopen
    , @j2
    , @Colin Wright
  471. szopen 说:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    First of all, I found this whole obsession about Jews both unhealthy and disgusting, but that’s jut a digression.

    As for Poles prosecuted for Holocaust revisionism…

    dariusz ratajczak.

    But, you see, while in theory we have very repressive law, in theory much more restricting freedom of speech than in America, in practice most people says and writes everything they damn pleases. In case of Ratajczak, he was found guilty of breaching the law by denying the holocaust, but the court have decided to not to punish him because of the “low social danger” of his crime. OTOH, his story is far from being optimistic. He lost his job at the uni, was forbidden to teach and had to work as a night watchman, and within ten years died as a poor man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dariusz_Ratajczak

  472. j2 说:
    @Bronek

    “原因:一旦德国失去对天空的控制,他们就不可能有任何赢得 Eurocide II 的理智希望。”

    这是非常真实的,不列颠之战大大削弱了德国空军。 我真的很怀疑希特勒的这些误判或错误是否是对德国战争努力的错误或故意破坏。 如果希特勒的目标是德国赢得并获得生存空间,则情况并非如此,但如果他的实际目标是将犹太人收集到东方,然后再转移到巴勒斯坦,那么这个目标可能包括德国最终必须输掉。 我注意到伦纳德·萨克斯 (Leonard Sax) 证明了 1836 年阿洛伊斯·希特勒上台时格拉茨没有犹太人的说法是错误的。 如果是这样,汉斯·弗兰克的回忆录很可能是正确的,而希特勒是 1/4 犹太人。 以他在维也纳的朋友来说,希特勒的朋友和客户主要是犹太人。 希特勒确实说过,如果德国软弱,它就应该被消灭,所以不是一个德国爱国者。 也许希特勒在德国军队中参加了第一次世界大战,因为当时德国并不反犹太,而奥地利是。 然后是背后捅刀子,结果证明是贝尔福宣言。 希特勒可能已经得出结论,犹太人不想与德国人同化或通婚,他们想去巴勒斯坦,他们让德国输掉战争(第一次世界大战)只是为了获得他们的家园。 然后希特勒加入了一个与神智学有关的反犹太主义政党,并将犹太人推向东方,然后被运送到巴勒斯坦。

  473. Anounder 说:
    @szopen

    你只是在和一个道歉者说话。 接下来你会听到他说斯大林不应该对俄罗斯东正教好,对同性恋者刻薄,因为像他这样的左撇子这么说。

  474. Ron Unz 说:
    @Incitatus

    Antony Beevor, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Volker Ullrich, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Telford Taylor, Robert Conot, Joseph Persico, Airey Neave, Ian Kershaw, Gustave Gilbert, Joachim Fest, Thomas Weber, Nicolas Stargardt, Christopher Browning, Peter Longerich, and many others seem much more compelling. None, to my knowledge, say the Hoßbach Memorandum was phony. Tell me if I’m wrong.

    Well, as I mentioned in my other comment, I just finished rereading AJP Taylor’s classic book, and I think he makes a pretty strong case that at the very least the Memorandum in question has been so severely misinterpreted as to be virtually fraudulent. And his persuasive overall analysis is that the circumstances behind the outbreak of WWII were roughly similar to those behind WWI, namely a mixture of brinksmanship, misunderstandings, and bad luck.

    Neither the British nor the French nor the Germans wanted a war. The Polish were being pushed into provoking the war by FDR while (as Irving demonstrates) Churchill and his associates were being bribed by Jewish interests into producing a similar line:

    https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    As to why more subsequent historians haven’t taken a similar position, well, maybe they took note of the fate of Taylor and Hoggan and decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

    I’d also note that Taylor was extremely careful to almost totally avoid any “touchy” discussion of Jewish influence behind the outbreak of the war. Surely, he must have been aware that according to US Amb. Kennedy, Chamberlain explicitly said that America and the world Jews had forced Britain into the war. Offhand, I’d tend to think that the British PM at the time probably had a better idea of what was really going on behind the scenes than you do, I guess that’s just my personal opinion.

    My impression is that you’re some sort of fanatic Jewish-activist type, who normally just rants and raves about Israel. So perhaps you should confine your attentions to take subject rather than get into other areas that make you look ridiculous.

    • 回复: @Incitatus
  475. szopen 说:
    @Ron Unz

    For all your interest in history, Mr Unz, have you ever read a book from a Polish point of view? I do not even know if any such book exists in English (except for popular general-history books like by Davies ), but if you will know the affair only from the point of views of German and English sources, I believe you are missing important parts of the puzzle.

    BTW, re Hoggan: John Wear quotes Hoggan as the source of Henderson reports about Polish atrocities. But I’ve read “Failure of a mission” by Henderson, where he wrotes about 索赔 of abuse of German and Polish minorities rights (in Poland and Germany, respectively) and only that he thinks German claims are a bit more substantiated. I already quoted it above, but let me repeat two quotes from his book:

    The 1938 stories of Czech atrocities against the German mi- nority were rehashed up almost verbatim in regard to the Poles. Some foundation there must necessarily have been for a proportion of these allegations in view of the state of excitable tension which existed between the two peoples. Excess of zeal on the part of individuals and minor officials there undoubt- edly was— but the tales of ill treatment and expropriation, cas- tration and murder were multiplied a hundredfold. How far Hitler himself believed in the truth of these stories must be a matter for conjecture. Germans are prone in any case to convince themselves very readily of anything which they wish to believe. Certainly he behaved as if he did believe; and, even if one gives him the benefit of the doubt, these reports but served to inflame his resentment to the pitch which he or his extremists desired.

    When representations were made to the one party on the subject, the invariable retort was to refer to the faults on the other side. To a great extent such unfortunate situa- tions are always a pot and kettle affair. The Germans laid claim to a German minority of over a million in Poland, and the Poles to a somewhat similar number of Poles in Germany. Both were probably exaggerated, but the point was of little importance, since the minorities were undoubtedly there. In some districts, such as the Silesian mining areas, where those with Polish names were mostly Germans and vice versa, they were in inextricable confusion. On balance, however, I have no doubt in my own mind that the complaints of the Ger- mans in Poland probably had the greater foundation in fact. The Poles in Germany were nearly all of the laboring class, and as such less liable to ill treatment by the German Govern- ment, which required all the labor which it could muster. The Germans in Poland were largely either landowners or belonged to the middle class of liberal professions. They were objects of envy rather than of service to the Polish state. Above all, they were being used by the German Government, not as forerunners of German culture but as advance guards for German interference and dominion.

    In other words, it seems that Henderson (who is used by John Wear, taken from Hogan, to justrify claims about POlish widespread atrocities) thinks that there were few incidents, but at least in his book he does not think to believe German minority situation in Poland was tragic or demanded immediate intervention from Germany. Of course, the book was written AFTER the war started, but still, if Henderson would report about atrocities and cruel fates of Germans, I doubt he would forget about that so quickly and he would so quickly changed his mind unless he was a complete scoundrel, and if he was a complete scoundrel, he wouldn’t be a reliable source for information about atrocities in the first place.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Greg S.
  476. @szopen

    You replied to my correction to “Holocaust crimes” so you can’t say you didn’t see it. You have trouble, as I said to you previously, in following logic, facts or the English language, which is a problem with Poles in general. Ratajczak was persecuted in Poland for not going along with the state-approved Polish version of events, not for participating in ‘Holocaust crimes.’

    • 回复: @szopen
  477. j2 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “例如,你的新朋友“j2”显然声称纳粹只是假装是右翼、反共和反犹太人,但实际上是犹太复国主义控制下的“共济会神智主义者”。 或许你同意他的看法,但我实际上很怀疑。”

    让我更正一下这个说法。 如果你提到我,那么试着正确表达我所说的。 如果您在正确理解我所写的内容时遇到问题,就像我的许多学生一样,请多读几遍:这些想法并不难。

    我并不是说纳粹不是右翼,也不是反共。 我也没有声称他们不讨厌共产主义犹太人和资助共产主义的犹太精英,我也没有声称大多数纳粹分子并不讨厌所有犹太人。 这一切都是你自己错误的想象,是因为没有看评论,只是粗略的看一眼就以为你已经知道内容了。

    我的主张如下:
    1)纳粹党由DAP发展而来,由Thule创建,Thule由Sebottendorf创建,他是Mizraim Freemason和Theosophist。 迪特里希·埃卡特说,他向希特勒介绍了布拉瓦茨基的秘密学说。 虽然这没有提到希特勒,但它暗示图勒非常神智,而且它也想要权力。 神智学有一个种族教导,犹太人是一个古老的堕落种族,所以它应该被净化。 自 1820 年以来,共济会一直试图将犹太人恢复到巴勒斯坦。 神智学和共济会密切相关:在 20 世纪初,神智学是共济会在政治上活跃的部分。 每个国家的警察都过分关注共济会。

    2) 麦兹莱姆和孟菲斯在 18