Red line for WWII? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14309564
This tread is a response to this statement:

wat0n wrote:Hitler was warned that invading Poland was a red line ...
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=150905&start=200


Was there really a need to start WWII because of a local conflict between Poland and the Third Reich?

Why did they not draw any "red line" for Poland and the SU?

Poland had to respect the human rights of Polish citizens, for example the Polish Jews and the Germans.
And the SU was an Empire of Evil that killed dozens of millions of its own citizens and was pushing for the enslavement of the entire world. And this Empire of Evil became the ally of the free West?



They did not set any "red line" to the Polish or Soviet government.
Why?
Poland was violating the Treaty of Versailles and the international law, and the same was the case with the SU.

Polish government had to respect the rights of minorities, but it did not. Poland was an heterogenious Empire, discriminating the national minorities, and this empire was eager to grab more foreign territory, like it was the case after the collapse of Czechoslovakia, when the Zaolzie region was annexed by Poland.

The same is true for the SU.

And Poland threatened to invade Danzig, if the citizens of Danzig voted for the reunification with Germany!

Why was the will of the citizens of Danzig not respected?

Wat0n, you yourself have admitted that even the Jewish population was severely discriminated in Poland (Jews from Poland wanted to live in Germany, and refused to return to their native Poland!!).

wat0n wrote:ArtAllm wrote:
"Well, Jews always preferred to live Germany, even during the NS-Regime.
Polish Jews refused to return back to Poland in October 1938, they preferred to stay in Germany".

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polenaktion
------

Polish nationalists were also mistreating Jews in Poland at the time...
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=150905&start=200



As already told, they started a Word War because they presumably wanted to save Poland, and that was not the case. They did not declare war on the SU that also invaded and occupied Poland, they have not rescued Poland!!!

wat0n wrote:...I said above that Poland was in a very concrete way punished by letting it fall under Stalin's sphere of influence...


Does that make any sense?
They first started WWII because they presumably wanted to save Poland, but then they punished Poland, letting it fall under Stalin's slavery?



Neither UK nor France or USA were threatened by the Third Reich.

It is obvious that Poland was just a patsy, nobody in the West cared a rat's ass about the "freedom" of Poles.

Polish fools were used to start WWII, and then given to Stalin.

Even leading Russian historians agree that the western powers could prevent WWII, if they wanted.

"Everyone who has studied the history of World War II without bias knows that the war began because of Poland's refusal to satisfy Germany's claims," he writes.

Kovalyov called the demands "quite reasonable."

He observed: "The overwhelming majority of residents of Danzig, cut off from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, were Germans who sincerely wished for reunification with their historical homeland."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe ... _for_wwii/



We could see in the recent time how the Israel Lobby was able to stampede Americans and Brits into many wars for Israel. They just promoted lies about a "New Hitler" (Saddam Hussein), who presumably was planning to invade UK or USA and kill every American and Brit with his non-existing WMD.

It seems that the same was the case before WWII, the suckers in the UK and the USA were stampeded into a World War, because they were afraid of the "Huns" who presumably wanted to invade their countries.

Only if somebody wants a World War, then he sets as a pretext "red line".

Who profit from World Wars? The banksters!

They had also set such a "red line" in the Syrian conflict.

After that the warmongers do everything to provoke the violation of this "red line" to get their "casus belli" for transforming a local conflict into Word War.

But it seems that they do not have the guts to start WWIII, because they had blinked on Syria.

Their "false flag" operation was immediately exposed, and they were unable to stampede the population into a new Big War.
#14309570
ArtAlim. Haven't seen your German exceptionalism here in a while...

ArtAllm wrote:the SU was an Empire of Evil... was pushing for the enslavement of the entire world

Citation needed. What you're describing seems contrary to the policy outlined under Socialism in One Country.

ArtAllm wrote:this empire [Poland] was eager to grab more foreign territory, like it was the case after the collapse of Czechoslovakia, when the Zaolzie region was annexed by Poland.

The same is true for the SU.

Can you give examples for the Soviet Union and Poland that did not occur during the early 1920s (ie. when both parties were new nations without clearly defined borders and at war) or didn't relate to the lead up to WWII? You can't really describe a nation as eager for territorial expansion hence all they did was take advantage of an opportunity offered to them by Germany. Germany's eagerness for expansion seems to be the trigger here.

ArtAllm wrote:And Poland threatened to invade Danzig, if the citizens of Danzig voted for the reunification with Germany!

I believe you are referring to a vote in 1939 that:
- Was part of a policy of provocation created and endorsed by Nazi Germany, which was seeking a pretext for war and to break up the territories of their targets. This was all outlined in detail at the Nuremberg Trials.
- The vote was conducted at a time when Poles and Jews in Danzig couldn't vote.
- And no non-nazi parties were not allowed to campaign.
In what sense could this vote be seen as legitimate?

ArtAllm wrote:Neither UK nor France or USA were threatened by the Third Reich.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the contents of the Zweites Buch, the follow up to Mein Kampf. It clearly states an intent to go to war against France and the US. It doesn't specifically threaten the UK, however it is only able to do this by apparently missing the point of British policy towards Europe for several centuries - that a hegemonic power on the continent was not acceptable.

ArtAllm wrote:It is obvious that Poland was just a patsy, nobody in the West cared a rat's ass about the "freedom" of Poles.

You may be right. But Poland clearly was intended as a tripwire. After Hitler essentially disregarded the Munich deal and caused the dissintergration of the rest of Czechoslovakia, Britain and France set Poland as a 'red line'. They may have even believed that by doing so they would halt German expansionism.

ArtAllm wrote:Even leading Russian historians agree that the western powers could prevent WWII, if they wanted.

This Sergei Kovalyov you're referencing doesn't seem to be a 'leading historian', indeed the only Sergei Kovalyov I can find through searches is a totally different person (and a politician).

ArtAllm wrote:We could see in the recent time how the Israel Lobby was able to stampede Americans and Brits into many wars for Israel.

It seems that the same was the case before WWII, the suckers in the UK and the USA were stampeded into a World War...

Who profit from World Wars? The banksters!

Der Stürmer just called and said you were stealing their propaganda.

ArtAllm wrote:Their "false flag" operation was immediately exposed.

You mean this one?
User avatar
By ThirdTerm
#14309574
At Munich, Chamberlain reached an agreement with Hitler that Nazi Germany should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain also made a commitment in 1939 to defend Polish independence with the London Poles, who had a significant influence on British foreign policy at the time, and Churchill cared about the fate of Poland after it was occupied by the Red Army. Poland was a small and weak country whose independence was repeatedly threatened by its strong neighbours and it desperately needed British protection, while Stalin felt no need to ask for British help to defend his country. It was Chamberlain's containment policy towards Germany to maintain the status quo with the threat of the use of force but it failed because Chamberlain was too soft to make any credible threats against Hitler unlike Churchill and Britain was no longer a military behemoth after the Royal Navy's "two-power standard" to maintain a number of battleships at least equal to the combined strength of the next two largest navies in the world was abandoned in the 1920s.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14312363
Smilin' Dave wrote:Citation needed. What you're describing seems contrary to the policy outlined under Socialism in One Country.


No, the Bolsheviks dreamed about Word revolution (speak the enslavement of the entire world), and that is basic knowlage.

Smilin' Dave wrote:You can't really describe a nation as eager for territorial expansion hence all they did was take advantage of an opportunity offered to them by Germany.


Well, if somebody takes advantage of an opportunity to expand, then this nation is eager for territorial expansion.
They took their advantage of opportunity, offered by the outcome WWI and WWII, too.

Smilin' Dave wrote:... caused the dissintergration of the rest of Czechoslovakia...


Czechoslovakia was a dead born child of the Treaty of Versailles.

They reanimated this monster of Frankenstein after WWII, but after the collapse of Communism this creation disappeared without any foreign involvement. This dead born child of Versailles eventually disintegrated without any foreign involvement.

The Czechs were subjugating the Slovaks, and the Slovaks, who had a treaty with Germany, just asked for help.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Germany's eagerness for expansion seems to be the trigger here.


Germany did not expand, Germany just reunified a small part of the lost territories. The population of this territories (like Danzig) was German, and this population wanted to be part of Germany.

That policy was advocated by the Weimar Republic, too.

Smilin' Dave wrote:- The vote was conducted at a time when Poles and Jews in Danzig couldn't vote.


Total BS, the majority of the population was German and wanted a reunification with Germany.


Smilin' Dave wrote:This Sergei Kovalyov you're referencing doesn't seem to be a 'leading historian', indeed the only Sergei Kovalyov I can find through searches is a totally different person (and a politician).


Read my quote again.

BTW, speaking about expansion.
Who subjugated half of the World?
The Brits and the French, or the Germans?

Why did nations that subjugated territories far away from France or UK, and that killed millions of coloured people in their colonies, tell Germans from Danzig, Austria or German territories, lost after WWII, that they are not allowed to live in one state?

What about the rights of people for self-determination?

Here is the territory, that was populated by Germans before WWI.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nd1880.png
#14312393
ArtAllm wrote:No, the Bolsheviks dreamed about Word revolution (speak the enslavement of the entire world), and that is basic knowlage.

Thats not a citation and it is "common knowledge" that Socialism in One Country represented a reduced emphasis on world revolution in the Soviet Union. Now provide some actual evidence that circa WWII the Soviet Union was planning to take over the world, or move on.

ArtAllm wrote:Well, if somebody takes advantage of an opportunity to expand, then this nation is eager for territorial expansion.
They took their advantage of opportunity, offered by the outcome WWI and WWII, too.

Thats pretty faulty logic. I would suggest 'Queen Victoria'a Little Wars' as a text with numerous examples of how a power can find it self being sucked into power vacuums and conflicts without any actual desire to do so.

ArtAllm wrote:Czechoslovakia was a dead born child of the Treaty of Versailles.

They reanimated this monster of Frankenstein after WWII, but after the collapse of Communism this creation disappeared without any foreign involvement. This dead born child of Versailles eventually disintegrated without any foreign involvement.

There was nothing 'dead' abut Czechoslovakia. Perhaps we could apply some equally gross exaggeration to Germany? The point here is that Czechoslovakia was a state, and Germany dismantled it as part of their territorial ambitions. Had it not done so there probably wouldn't have been a WWII. For you to make Germany the victim when it was the architect of its own misfortune, while ironically doing exactly the things you decry, is totally ridiculous.

ArtAllm wrote:The Czechs were subjugating the Slovaks, and the Slovaks, who had a treaty with Germany, just asked for help.

Nazi propaganda isn't going to get you very far in this debate.

ArtAllm wrote:Germany did not expand, Germany just reunified a small part of the lost territories.

- Poland and the Soviet Union claimed they were simply reclaiming 'lost terrirtories' too. Why have you not used the same caveat for them? Recall I'm not a nationalist tool, so 'Germany is special' won't convince me.
- Eagerness for Germany to expand is actually well documented in Mein Kampf (lebensraum ring any bells), Karl Haushofer and many others. These called for territory to be acquired beyond "lost territories".
- To accept your argument we would have to somehow ignore German occupation of parts of Poland in 1939 that had not historically belonged to Germany. Never mind their puppet state in Slovakia created prior.

ArtAllm wrote:Total BS, the majority of the population was German and wanted a reunification with Germany.

Your point is totally irrelevant. A vote in which absolutely no opposition was allowed and was simply another provocation sponsored by Nazi Germany is not legitimate. Attempting to use it to legitimise the subsequent invasion of Poland is even more illegitimate.

ArtAllm wrote:Read my quote again.

I read your carefully pruned quote, its drivel. Your claimed all star historian is apparently a nobody and his points are either polemical in nature or sensationalist.

ArtAllm wrote:BTW, speaking about expansion.
Who subjugated half of the World?
The Brits and the French, or the Germans?

Germany came late to the colonialism party but was certainly bucking for its share of things when it had the opportunity, adding to the tensions that resulted in WWI. Whats your point exactly other than giving me another opportunity to point out German expansionism?

ArtAllm wrote:Why did nations that subjugated territories far away from France or UK, and that killed millions of coloured people in their colonies, tell Germans from Danzig, Austria or German territories, lost after WWII, that they are not allowed to live in one state?

Because something that had largely occurred in the previous century didn't have a lot to do with what was happening then and there? Because usually the party that doesn't want to start a war over something like this tends to look like the 'good guy' to any objective observer?

ArtAllm wrote:What about the rights of people for self-determination?

Had nothing to do with a demand for an extra-territorial highway through the Polish Corridor which Hitler was asking for.



No more waffle about Jews and bankers ArtAlim? Yeah, it was a bit too obvious I guess
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14312602
Smilin' Dave wrote:Thats not a citation and it is "common knowledge" that Socialism in One Country represented a reduced emphasis on world revolution in the Soviet Union. Now provide some actual evidence that circa WWII the Soviet Union was planning to take over the world, or move on.


The ultimate goal was World Revolution, that was postponed, and in the 30th they took their chance, and they even succeeded.
Stalin wanted to launch the first strike, but he was surprised by Hitler.

Rudolf Hess mixed up their cards.

Military actions would have begun with the surprise blow by the Soviet Air Force on the airfields of Eastern Prussia, Poland and Romania. The overall Soviet superiority in aviation would have made it possible to subject German airfields in a 250 km-deep border zone to continuous airstrikes, which would have led to a significant weakening of the enemy and would have facilitated Red Army ground forces operations. The ground forces were supposed to have two major strike directions: one striking towards Eastern Prussia and Poland and the other into Romania in the South.[15]

The basic idea of Soviet military planning consisted in the fact that the Red Army was to concentrate near the border under the disguise of maneuvers and to go over into a sudden, decisive attack. "The absence of any references to the possible defensive operations of the Red Army shows that the discussion was not about the preparation for a pre-emptive strike but for the assault on Germany and its allies. This idea is clearly expressed in the document of May 15, 1941, by which the Red Army was to be guided in the beginning of war." Meltyukhov suggests that the assault on Germany was initially planned to take place on June 12, 1941, but was postponed because the Soviet leadership feared an Anglo-German reconciliation against the Soviet Union after the flight of Rudolf Hess on May 12, 1941.[16]

The basis for this assumption is revealed by Molotov's recollection 40 years later in a conversation with Russian journalist Ivan Stadnyuk:

"I don't remember all the motives for cancelling this decision, but it seems to me that Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess' flight to England played the main role there. The NKVD reconnaissance reported to us, that Hess on behalf of Hitler had proposed the United Kingdom to conclude peace and to participate in the military march against the USSR... If we at this time would have unleashed ourselves a war against Germany, would have moved forces to Europe, then England could have entered the alliance with Germany without any delay... And not only England. We could have been face to face with the entire capitalist world".[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin's_Missed_Chance


Smilin' Dave wrote:...how a power can find it self being sucked into power vacuums and conflicts without any actual desire to do so.


That is the excuse of all aggressors. They just say that there was a "vacuum", or they had to wage "preventive wars", because they were threatened.



Smilin' Dave wrote:There was nothing 'dead' abut Czechoslovakia.


So why did this entity disappear after the collapse of Soviet dictatoriship?


Smilin' Dave wrote:The point here is that Czechoslovakia was a state, and Germany dismantled it as part of their territorial ambitions.


No, that is not true. Slovaks declared their independence, this state was dismantled by the internal forces, not by the Third Reich.
The French have immediately recognized this state.

On 14 March 1939, the Slovak Republic (Slovenská republika) declared its independence and became a nominally independent state in Central Europe under Nazi German control of foreign policy and, increasingly, also some aspects of domestic policy. Jozef Tiso became Prime Minister and later President of the new state.

On 15 March, Nazi Germany invaded what remained of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia after the Munich agreement. The Germans established a protectorate over them which was known as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... .931939.29


As we see, Czechoslovakia collapsed on 14. March, there was no Czechoslovakia at the time the Third Reich invaded f Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, and it is idiotic to talk about some "violations" of agreements not to invade Czechoslovakia. How can you invade something, that does not exist any more?

Slovakia and Ruthenia declared independence from Czechoslovakia; as Czechoslovakia had fallen into pieces, the United Kingdom and France considered it to be the evidence that Czechoslovakia no longer existed as a nation, thus they no longer had any alliance obligations to the now defunct nation.

http://ww2db.com/event/timeline/1939/


If UK and France agreed that there is no Czechoslovakia, and all treaties concerning this state are void, why do some idiots talk about Third Reich invading Czechoslovakia and violating a treaty about Czechoslovakia?



- Poland and the Soviet Union claimed they were simply reclaiming 'lost terrirtories' too. Why have you not used the same caveat for them? Recall I'm not a nationalist tool, so 'Germany is special' won't convince me.


Well, the confederation of Poland and Lithuania was not Poland, it was a multi-ethnic empire, that collapsed, and the Polish elite signed all documents. The partition of Poland was legal, and Polish elite agreed to this partition.

Poland was a creation of Versailles, and this creation has nothing to do with the old Polish-Lithuanian Empire.
There was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, too.

To claim that Poland has any rights on territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire is as stupid as to claim that Germany has any rights on the territory of the Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ.



In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ),[15][16] a form first used in a document in 1474.[13] The new title was partly adopted because the Empire had lost most of its Italian and Burgundian (Kingdom of Arles) territories by the late 15th century,[17] but also to emphasize the new importance of the German Imperial Estates in ruling the Empire due to the Imperial Reform.[18] However, by the end of the 18th century, the term 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' had fallen out of official use. As Weisert points out, "Documents were thirty times as likely to omit this 'national' suffix as include it." [19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire


Poland was an artificial creation of Versailles, it was not a national sate, it was an multi-ethnic empire that severely subjugated its minorities (more than 30% of the population), including Jews and Germans.

What to the Soviet Union, it could not have any claims, either, because this state, that subjugated many minorities, was created only in 1922, and after 1992 the subjugated people of the SU immediately declared their independence.

As we see, The Weimar Republic (and later the Third Reich) just tried to get back territories, that were Germans for many centuries, but Poland and SU just tried to subjugate more foreign territories with foreign population.


Smilin' Dave wrote:- Eagerness for Germany to expand is actually well documented in Mein Kampf (lebensraum ring any bells), Karl Haushofer and many others. These called for territory to be acquired beyond "lost territories".


Do not confuse the term "sphere of influence" with incorporation of territory into the own state.

The USA believe that half of the world is in the sphere of their interests, even countries that are situated thousands of miles from the USA on the other side of the world.

France and UK conquered territories on the other side of the world, they severely subjugated the native population and killed millions of civilians, but they had the nerve to tell the Germans that they do not have the right to reunite, though USA, UK and France were no not even threatened by the Third Reich.

The policy of the USA, UK and France was just lunatic and hypocritical.



Smilin' Dave wrote:- To accept your argument we would have to somehow ignore German occupation of parts of Poland in 1939 that had not historically belonged to Germany.


Well, this proposal was made, but UK and France rejected this proposal


2 Sep 1939
During the day, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier issued a joint ultimatum to Germany, demanding the withdraw of troops from Poland within 12 hours.

...
Germany annexed the Free City of Danzig.

Adolf Hitler advised the United Kingdom and France that he would withdraw from Poland if allowed to keep Danzig and the Polish corridor.

» In-depth article

http://ww2db.com/event/today/09/02/1939


So what about this proposal of withdrawal from Poland on 2. Sept. 1939?
Why was it rejected?


Smilin' Dave wrote:Never mind their puppet state in Slovakia created prior.


Czechoslovakia was a puppet state, created by Versailles. Slovakia was a viable state, and that is the reason why this state was recreated after the collapse of communist dictatorship.


Smilin' Dave wrote:A vote in which absolutely no opposition was allowed....


Was there any opposition?
ALL political parties in the Weimar Republic constantly talked about returning Danzig and other German territories back to the German Reich.

ALL German parties, even the left parties in the Weimar Republic believed that the dismemberment of Germany was just a despotism of Versailles and all these parties promised to their voters that they will fight for the reunification of Germany. Hitler just continued the policy of the Weimar Republic regarding Danzig, nothing else. About 90% of the population of Danzig was German, and this population wanted a reunification with Germany even during the Weimar Republic.


Smilin' Dave wrote: Your claimed all star historian is apparently a nobody and his points are either polemical in nature or sensationalist.


He is an historian of the Russian Defence Ministry's Institute of Military History, dude. He has access to some documents other historian cannot even dream about.


The statement, written by Col Sergei Kovalev, a senior researcher at the defence ministry, appears to be part of a new Kremlin campaign to push its view of Soviet era history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... d-War.html


Smilin' Dave wrote:Germany came late to the colonialism party but was certainly bucking for its share of things when it had the opportunity, adding to the tensions that resulted in WWI.


What has this to do with my question?
Who was subjugating half of the World in the 30th, UK and France, that killed millions of coloured people around the world on territories that were on the other side of the globe, or the German Reich?

Smilin' Dave wrote:Because something that had largely occurred in the previous century didn't have a lot to do with what was happening then and there?


What are you talking about?
Did France and UK free the subjugated territories before WWII, or were they continuing to brutally kill the native people who were fighting for their independence?

Countries, that had an apartheid system, like the USA, or brutal colonial powers, like UK and France, that killed millions of coloured people in their despotic colonies, or the Empire of Evil, like the SU that killed dozens of millions of Christians in the 20th and 30th, were telling the German people, who were eager to reunite even before Nazis came to power, that they do not have any right to reunite.

Is that not lunacy?

Smilin' Dave wrote:Had nothing to do with a demand for an extra-territorial highway through the Polish Corridor which Hitler was asking for.


That has everything to do with this issue, because:


2 Sep 1939
Adolf Hitler advised the United Kingdom and France that he would withdraw from Poland if allowed to keep Danzig and the Polish corridor.

http://ww2db.com/event/today/09/02/1939


Smilin' Dave wrote:No more waffle about Jews and bankers ArtAlim?


Do you really want to open up a whole new can of worms?

Shall I do this in a separate thread?
#14312616
Nevermind the fact that Poland was offered admission into the Anti-Comintern Pact if it acceded to the fair request of relinquishing ethnic German territory made by a neighboring great power. If it had done so, there is little reason to believe it would have been treated any worse than Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania who also joined the umbrella of Axis. Himmler's anti-Polish depopulation policies which became a popularized example of ethnic cleansing after the war would not have occurred if the Second Polish Republic was not dominated by a militarist clique with an army chief of staff who thought the Polish armed forces could enter Berlin in three weeks and dreamed of seizing more German (and Soviet) territory. Poland had the misfortune to be led by political fools who thought the country could take on German and Soviet might at the same time, and thus got what it deserved. It was used as a pawn by the "Allies" no different than Belgium in the opening phase of the Great War, used as a casus belli for global conflict and then gift-wrapped and handed to Stalin at the war's end.

It's also amazing that this event can be portrayed since the war in a somehow more sinister or aggressive fashion than other acts of annexation by leading Allied powers which were in fact far more aggressive.

How is, for example, defense of and attempts to incorporate a German population in Danzig which had not been planted there as a political casus belli but inhabited the region for centuries prior worse than the settlement of whites in northern Mexico deliberately encouraged and invoked to initiate a war decades later and annex 55% of Mexican territory?

The answer? It isn't, but one has to keep up the phony narrative seventy years on and the vilification of a national group designated as chief ideological enemy number one, before the Russians and the Arabs.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14312729
Far-Right Sage wrote:
The answer? It isn't, but one has to keep up the phony narrative seventy years on and the vilification of a national group designated as chief ideological enemy number one, before the Russians and the Arabs.


Why do they need that?
#14312766
ArtAllm wrote:

Not sure what you are grinning about, what follows in your post would only fool a pre-schooler.

ArtAllm wrote:The ultimate goal was World Revolution, that was postponed, and in the 30th they took their chance, and they even succeeded.
Stalin wanted to launch the first strike, but he was surprised by Hitler.

The text by Meltyukhov that you're referencing actually doesn't endorse the "world revolution/taking over the world" claim your making - his claims were that there was a pre-emptive strike planned rather than some ideological war. The source you're probably referring to but are likely reluctant to disclose is actually Viktor Survorov/Vladimir Rezun whose allegations range from unsupported to totally disproven.

The quote you've reproduced from Molotov actually demonstrates that. A strike was not imminent, it was considered then rejected for fear of a wider war with 'capitalism', which in turn seems to contradict your ideological war assertion. States often have assorted contingency plans for wars with other countries.

I'm particularly perplexed by your claim that the Soviets 'succeeded' in this goal...

ArtAllm wrote:That is the excuse of all aggressors. They just say that there was a "vacuum", or they had to wage "preventive wars", because they were threatened.

You've provided nothing to suggest the logic is incorrect or that it wasn't correct in this instance. Since you apparently have no real objection we'll move on.

I further note you don't apply your apparent cynicism to Germany's behaviour and instead deploy excuses of your own.

ArtAllm wrote:So why did this entity disappear after the collapse of Soviet dictatoriship?

Czechoslovakia wasn't run directly by the Soviet Union. Would you like to try for a third exaggeration? Maybe it will work if you keep trying.

ArtAllm wrote:No, that is not true. Slovaks declared their independence, this state was dismantled by the internal forces, not by the Third Reich.

Hysterical.
Nuremberg Trials wrote:That Hitler never intended to adhere to the Munich Agreement is shown by the fact that a little later he asked the defendant Keitel for information with regard to the military force which in his opinion would be required to break all Czech resistance in Bohemia and Moravia. Keitel gave his reply on 11th October, 1938. On 21st October, 1938, a directive was issued by Hitler, and countersigned by the defendant Keitel, to the armed forces on their future tasks, which stated:

"Liquidation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. It must be possible to smash at any time the remainder of Czechoslovakia if her policy should be come hostile towards Germany."

On 14th March, 1939, the Czech President Hacha and his Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky came to Berlin at the suggestion of Hitler, and attended a meeting at which the defendants Ribbentrop, Göring and Keitel were present with others. The proposal was made to Hacha that if he would sign an agreement consenting to the incorporation of the Czech people in the German Reich at once, Bohemia and Moravia would be saved from destruction. He was informed that German troops had already received orders to march and that any resistance would be broken with physical force. The defendant Göring added the threat that he would destroy Prague completely from the air. Faced by this dreadful alternative, Hacha and his Foreign Minister put their signatures to the necessary agreement at 4.30 in the morning, and Hitler and Ribbentrop signed on behalf of Germany.


Nuremburg Trials wrote:As in the case of Austria and the Sudetenland, the Nazi conspirators did not intend to rely on the Wehrmacht alone to accomplish their calculated objective of "liquidating" Czechoslovakia. With the German minority separated from Czechoslovakia, they could no longer use the cry, "home to the Reich." One sizeable minority, the Slovaks, remained within the Czechoslovak State. The Czechoslovak Government had made every effort to conciliate Slovak extremists in the months after the cession of the Sudetenland. Autonomy had been granted to Slovakia, with an autonomous cabinet and parliament at Bratislava. Nonetheless, despite these concessions, it was in Slovakia that the Nazi conspirators found men ready to take their money and do their bidding. The following picture of Nazi operations in Slovakia is based on the Czechoslovak official report.
...
This document shows the complicity of the German Foreign Office in the subsidization of illegal organizations abroad. More important, it shows that the Germans still considered it necessary to supply their under-cover representatives in Pressburg with substantial funds even after the declaration of the so-called independent State of Slovakia.
...
Slovak efforts towards independence were to be supported, although his motives were scarcely altruistic. The undated minutes of this conversation between Goering and Durcansky, captured among the files of the German Foreign Office, are jotted down in somewhat telegraphic style:
...
"The Fieldmarshal considers; that the SLOVAK negotiations towards independence are to be supported in a suitable manner. Czechoslovakia without Slovakia is still more at our mercy.

"Air bases in Slovakia are of great importance for the German Air Force for use against the East."


Nuremburg Trials wrote:It is noteworthy that Tuca addressed Hitler as "My Fuehrer". During this meeting the Nazi conspirators apparently were successful in planting the idea of insurrection with the Slovak delegation. The final sentence of this document, spoken by Tuca, is conclusive:

"I entrust the fate of my people to your care."
...
In addition to the Slovaks, the Nazi conspirators made use of the few Germans still remaining within the mutilated Czech republic. Kundt, Henlein's deputy who had been appointed leader of this German minority, created as many artificial "focal points of German culture" as possible. Germans from the- districts handed over to Germany were ordered from Berlin to continue their studies at the German University in Prague and to make it a center of aggressive Naziism. With the assistance of German civil servants, a deliberate campaign of Nazi infiltration into Czech public and private institutions was carried out, and the Henleinists gave full cooperation with Gestapo agents from the Reich who appeared on Czech soil. The Nazi "political activity" was designed to undermine and to weaken Czech resistance to the commands from Germany. In the face of continued threats and duress on both diplomatic and propaganda levels, the Czech government was unable to take adequate measures against these trespasses on its sovereignty.
...
After the annexation of the Sudeten Gau, the tasks of the FS were transferred essentially to the German student organizations as compact troop formations in Prague and Brunn, aside from the isolated German communities which remained in the second republic. This was also natural because many active students from the Sudeten Gau were already members of the FS. The student organizations then had to endure this test, in common with other Germans, during the crisis of March 1939

Last one, this is a real gem
Nuremberg Trials wrote:I, ALFRED HELMUT NAUJOCKS, being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

"1. From 1934 to 1941 I was a member of the SD. In the winter of 1939 I was stationed in Berlin, working in Amt VI, Chief Sector South East. Early in March, four or five days before Slovakia declared its independence, Heydrich, who was chief of the SD, ordered me to report to Nebe, the chief of the Reich Criminal Police. Nebe had been told by Heydrich to accelerate the production of explosives which his department was manufacturing for the use of certain Slovak groups. These explosives were small tins weighing approximately 500 grams.

"2. As soon as forty or fifty of these explosives had been finished, I carried them by automobile to a small village called Engerau, just across the border from Pressburg in Slovakia. The Security Police had a Service Department in this village for the handling of SD activities. I turned over the explosives to this office and found there a group of Slovaks, including Karmasin, Mach, Tuka and Durcansky. In fact, three of these people then present later became ministers in the new Slovak government. I was informed that the explosives were to be turned over to the Hlinka Guards across the border in Slovakia and were to be used in incidents designed to create the proper atmosphere for a revolution.

"3. I stayed in Engerau for a day and a half and then returned to Berlin.

"4. One or two weeks later I met in Berlin the same Slovak delegation, including Mach, Tuka, Durcansky and Karmasin, which I had seen in Engerau. They had flown to Berlin for a conference with Goering. Heydrich asked me to look after them and to report to him what developed during the conference with Goering. I reported this conference in detail to Heydrich. It dealt principally with the organization of the new Slovak state.. My principal recollection of the conference is that the Slovaks hardly got a word in because Goer ing was talking all the time.

"The facts stated above are true; this declaration is made by me voluntarily and without compulsion; after reading over the statement I have signed and executed the same at NURNBERG, Germany this 20th day of November 1945.

So long story short - Nazi Germany was so lacking in confidence as to the 'artificial' nature of Czechoslovakia that they engaged in fifth column activity and were planning to invade anyway. Fifth columnist activity included the provision of explosives which doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise were intended for what we would call terrorism today. Slovak 'independence' was a fiction before the Slovak Republic was formed in 1939, with their leadership accepting puppet status and the whole exercise being pursued in part to give Germany access to airfields in all likelyhood intended for use against a future war with Poland.

That western states might have recognised a fait accompli, likely as an extension of the policy of 'appeasement', doesn't magically make this legitimate.

ArtAlim is once again trotting out rubbish originally cooked up by the Nazis to mask their true activities.

ArtAllm wrote:Well, the confederation of Poland and Lithuania was not Poland, it was a multi-ethnic empire, that collapsed, and the Polish elite signed all documents.

Sounds exactly like the German empire in Poland. Once again you're either totally clueless or are employing a double standard.

ArtAllm wrote:What to the Soviet Union, it could not have any claims, either, because this state, that subjugated many minorities, was created only in 1922

Is exactly what I could say about the Weimar Republic or Nazi Germany. Clueless or double standard?

ArtAllm wrote:Do not confuse the term "sphere of influence" with incorporation of territory into the own state.

Lebensraum was by no definition or translation just a sphere of influence - it was explicitly about settlement of territories in the East.

ArtAllm wrote:Well, this proposal was made, but UK and France rejected this proposal

Because Nazi Germany had such a fantastic track record for abiding by agreements it made with other western powers prior to the invasion of Poland. Pretending to ask nicely before invading occupying everything possible doesn't make it legitimate.

ArtAllm wrote:Czechoslovakia was a puppet state, created by Versailles.

I don't think you know what puppet state means then...

ArtAllm wrote:Was there any opposition?

ALL political parties in the Weimar Republic constantly talked about returning Danzig and other German territories back to the German Reich.

Bit hard to tell when opposition activity has banned. Your point about Weimar Germany is kind of irrelevant since this was a plebicite conducted in Danzig, not in the German centre. Perhaps we could note Poland's opinion on the matter since there were Poles living in Danzig too?

ArtAllm wrote:He is an historian of the Russian Defence Ministry's Institute of Military History, dude. He has access to some documents other historian cannot even dream about.

Nowhere does his work suggest his 'revelations' are based on some great find in the archives. Further being employed by the public service is not necessarily a seal of approval or quality. Again you claimed this guy was important and he clearly isn't.

Your follow up quote actually suggests this item was only published for political reasons anyway. Do you read this stuff? Perhaps you could quote from some cook books or something next?

ArtAllm wrote:What has this to do with my question?

It is about as relevant as when you brought it up in the first place? You wanted to paint Germany as being stood over by colonial powers, which is total rubbish when you consider Germany had its own colonial possessions at one time and was only unable to pursue more overseas territories for material reasons.

ArtAllm wrote:That has everything to do with this issue, because:

Your original point was about popular sovereignty, not Hitler's phony offers of withdrawal. Don't change the subject.

ArtAllm wrote:Do you really want to open up a whole new can of worms?

If it makes you look like even more of a Nazi apologist, yes. I'll go get my can opener if you like.



On a totally unrelated note, here is FRS!
Far-Right Sage wrote:Nevermind the fact that Poland was offered admission into the Anti-Comintern Pact if it acceded to the fair request of relinquishing ethnic German territory made by a neighboring great power.

Being the super duper nationalist that you are FRS, I'm sure you can see why being made another country's bitch under the guise of a 'mutual pact' wasn't particularly attractive to the Polish government. Really the only reason you bring this up is as a fig leaf to excuse later aggression by the magically blameless Germans.

Far-Right Sage wrote:If it had done so, there is little reason to believe it would have been treated any worse than ... Hungary

The country that got invaded when it decided it didn't want to be embroiled in a war of annihilation with the Soviet Union? Fantastic example FRS, way to prove my point.

Far-Right Sage wrote:Himmler's anti-Polish depopulation policies which became a popularized example of ethnic cleansing after the war would not have occurred if the Second Polish Republic was not dominated by a militarist clique with an army chief of staff who thought the Polish armed forces could enter Berlin in three weeks and dreamed of seizing more German (and Soviet) territory.

Ethnic cleansing was appropriate post war because of the style of government they had prior to the war? You aren't even describing some kind of totalitarian ideology that might have persisted after the collapse of that government. What a pathetic excuse. What next, "oh they had to kill as all the slavs because they used to be pagans hundreds of years ago". No doubt if post 1945 the Allies had ethnically cleansed Germany on the basis of it previously been run by Nazis you would be all up in arms about it.

Far-Right Sage wrote:It's also amazing that this event can be portrayed since the war in a somehow more sinister or aggressive fashion than other acts of annexation by leading Allied powers which were in fact far more aggressive.

It is amazing how apologists think they can excuse one act of aggression by point to others. It isn't even "well he hit me first" it is the logic of "well he hit other people a couple of decades ago so its fine for me to do it in a completely different place".

Far-Right Sage wrote: the settlement of whites in northern Mexico deliberately encouraged and invoked to initiate a war decades later and annex 55% of Mexican territory?

Case in point. FRS apparently thinks Texan succession is somehow contemporaneous and comperable to the Danzig question. I suppose if you're a fan of an ideology that thinks Teutonic knights had something relevant to offer modern Gemany I guess that might pass as reasonable.

I look forward to more contradictions and faux-logic FRS.
#14312947
Smilin Dave wrote:]Being the super duper nationalist that you are FRS, I'm sure you can see why being made another country's bitch under the guise of a 'mutual pact' wasn't particularly attractive to the Polish government. Really the only reason you bring this up is as a fig leaf to excuse later aggression by the magically blameless Germans.


So a Poland which relinquishes its hold on ethnic German territory as per the demands of a great power in can obviously not defeat and in exchange receives the maintenance of the government in Warsaw, continued territorial integrity of actual ethnic Polish territory, alliance, and protection from a hostile state (the Soviet Union) it itself had territorial designs on is more of a "bitch" than a Polish exile government in London which controls nothing or the communist puppet state the Soviets later promoted (which couldn't even protest the Red Army in '44 deliberately allowing Warsaw to be reduced to rubble)?

The revisionism is in full swing when popular history doesn't even recognize and downplays the fact that Poland itself was an expansionist power which annexed Zaolzie in '38 from Czechoslovakia following the Munich Agreement. When it became too big for its britches, it had the choice to become a German client with full control of its non-German, actual Polish territory and a treaty of friendship, but it chose annihilation instead and as a result faced the full brunt of its hostility toward neighbors which was massively disproportionate to its own strength. So it was ripped apart, kept as a puppet state until the beginning of the 90's and used as a faux casus belli by powers which didn't give one half of a crap about its existence.

Smilin' Dave wrote:The country that got invaded when it decided it didn't want to be embroiled in a war of annihilation with the Soviet Union? Fantastic example FRS, way to prove my point.


Operation Panzerfaust has nothing to do with it, because the Hungarian state with Horthy's cowardly attempt of defection and betrayal, violated the nature and spirit of the Anti-Comintern Pact.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Ethnic cleansing was appropriate post war because of the style of government they had prior to the war? You aren't even describing some kind of totalitarian ideology that might have persisted after the collapse of that government. What a pathetic excuse. What next, "oh they had to kill as all the slavs because they used to be pagans hundreds of years ago". No doubt if post 1945 the Allies had ethnically cleansed Germany on the basis of it previously been run by Nazis you would be all up in arms about it.


Not its form of government, but its unreasonable position toward Germany which, again, was delusional and radically disproportionate to its relative power. What does one expect in such a scenario? Russia is the largest state on the planet and provided plenty in the way of living space for resettlement by German colonists, oil, minerals, industry, foodstuffs, land for fishing and farming, etc. There is absolutely no reason ethnic Poles had to be displaced on a mass scale within their own country if they had abandoned their untenable position and came to the bargaining table rather than allow themselves to be used as a pawn and hollow symbol throughout the war, as well as lose their independence entirely for half a century.

Smilin' Dave wrote:It is amazing how apologists think they can excuse one act of aggression by point to others. It isn't even "well he hit me first" it is the logic of "well he hit other people a couple of decades ago so its fine for me to do it in a completely different place".


Perhaps it comes down to a difference in viewpoints, because I consider neither action bad, but natural. I bring up the conquest of half of Mexico and colonization, because I do not inhabit a fairy tale world where certain powers can seize everything within their capabilities and then declare a generation or two or three later that "Now violence and the initiation of conflict is bad and wrong (because we have already seized everything and have a world peace - Pax Britannica or Pax Americana - on terms favorable to us)" and then go on to create a faux-moralist narrative around that concept which poisons the minds of subsequent generations and drives them toward lethargy, inaction, misplaced pacifism, and acceptance of a peace that may indeed by unacceptable.

Quite like how the smooth-talking British manage in the history books to portray themselves as a reluctant custodian of peace and the defense of small peoples in the Great War when by 1918 one quarter of the world's surface area was held in bondage to the British crown. Where did those pacifists get all that land, gold, and power? I suppose the peoples of the world volunteered their homes to them.

I have seen its evolution to absurd heights, and now in the 21st century we are still smothered by British propaganda.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Case in point. FRS apparently thinks Texan succession is somehow contemporaneous and comperable to the Danzig question. I suppose if you're a fan of an ideology that thinks Teutonic knights had something relevant to offer modern Gemany I guess that might pass as reasonable


Who gives a hoot if it's contemporaneous? There's no statute of limitations on the movement of history. One country seizes land by colonization and conquest, part of a series of wars and annexations from Hawaii to the subjugation of the Philippines in a bid to expand its global power projection and enforce certain terms and a peace favorable to its interests around the world, and the next century (and later in that same century as the seminal event of U.S. expansion kicked off at the turn of the 19th-20th with the Spanish-American War) another country does the same in a struggle against the world order previously established by force.

I do love though how connecting the dots is discouraged by those who have an interest in condemning one action and claiming it has no relation to a bid for hegemony which began before it (Germany) was even a united state.

You're right though in that the events initially being discussed were not comparable, because in one, whites were deliberately encouraged by successive U.S. administrations to settle Mexican land which displaced natives and then used as a pretext to conquer half the country they were encouraged to settle in, whereas the question of Danzig revolved around reclamation of land which had been German for centuries. The National Socialist state did not place the German population of Danzig there or encourage them to settle as a later pretext for annexation. So in fact, more to my point, the scale of aggression isn't even comparable.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14313040
Far-Right Sage wrote:Quite like how the smooth-talking British manage in the history books to portray themselves as a reluctant custodian of peace and the defense of small peoples in the Great War when by 1918 one quarter of the world's surface area was held in bondage to the British crown. Where did those pacifists get all that land, gold, and power? I suppose the peoples of the world volunteered their homes to them.



A very good question, and French or Soviets behaved in a similar manner.

But some hypocrites believe that this questions are "irrelevant".




Smilin' Dave wrote:The text by Meltyukhov that you're referencing actually doesn't endorse the "world revolution/taking over the world" claim your making - his claims were that there was a pre-emptive strike planned rather than some ideological war. The source you're probably referring to but are likely reluctant to disclose is actually Viktor Survorov/Vladimir Rezun whose allegations range from unsupported to totally disproven.


You have to read the text in the link, dude.
BTW, More and more historians agree with Vladimir Rezun.

Smilin' Dave wrote:I'm particularly perplexed by your claim that the Soviets 'succeeded' in this goal...


They have enlarged the sphere of their influence after WWII, dude, they enslaved half of Europe and were pushing further.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Czechoslovakia wasn't run directly by the Soviet Union.


So what? USA is not directly run by Israel, too, it is run by the Israel Lobby in the USA.
Any dissent in Czechoslovakia was crushed by Soviet tanks. If the Empire of Evil had not supported the evil communist regime in Czechoslovakia, this country would have died a long time ago.

Smilin' Dave wrote:...Nuremberg Trials...


Would the methods, applied in these trials, be legal in any civilized country?



Smilin' Dave wrote:That western states ...


Why did these western states on the one hand subjugate native coloured people in their colonies that were many thousands miles away from UK or France, ruthlessly killing the freedom fighters, and on the other hand point the moral finger at Germans, who wanted to reunite in a national state on the lands that belonged to Germans for many, many centuries?
This desire of Germans was present in the Weimar Republic, too.


Smilin' Dave wrote:Is exactly what I could say about the Weimar Republic or Nazi Germany.


It the Weimar Republic was as bad, as Poland, why did Jews from Poland refuse to return to their homeland?
Why were polish Jews eager to live in Germany, and why did they refuse to return to their native country even after Hitler came to power?

Can you answer this simple question?

Smilin' Dave wrote:Lebensraum was by no definition or translation just a sphere of influence - it was explicitly about settlement of territories in the East.


Can you be more specific? What "East" do you mean? East Prussia? Can you support your claims with original quotes?

Smilin' Dave wrote:ArtAllm:

Well, this proposal was made, but UK and France rejected this proposal

----
Because Nazi Germany had such a fantastic track record for abiding by agreements it made with other western powers prior to the invasion of Poland. Pretending to ask nicely before invading occupying everything possible doesn't make it legitimate.


Well, there was a proposal to withdraw all forces from Poland, a very clear proposal. If UK and France agreed to this, the WWII with many millions of victims could have been avoided, and the enslavement of East Europe by Communists could have been avoided, too.

The invasion of Poland would have just remained a local insignificant conflict.

Why not use the chance?

Maybe because the ruling elites (speak financial elites) of France, UK and USA wanted a big war, and they could not afford to lose the pretext for this war?

Do you not see the parallels with Syria today? They just needed a pretext to invade Syria, speak to start WWIII, but they were not crazy enough, because USSR is a nuclear power.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Bit hard to tell when opposition activity has banned.


No, it is not hard to say, because the opposition was very small.


Smilin' Dave wrote:Your point about Weimar Germany is kind of irrelevant since this was a plebicite conducted in Danzig, not in the German centre.


There was a total agreement about this issue in Germany, too.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Perhaps we could note Poland's opinion on the matter since there were Poles living in Danzig too?


How many Poles were living there? Did they represent the majority?

Smilin' Dave wrote:Your follow up quote actually suggests this item was only published for political reasons anyway.


Well, the secret documents about the Katyn massacre were also published for political reasons, dude!
Before the Soviets published these documents, the talk about NKVD killing Polish officers was called (even in the "free" West) Nazi propaganda, that was presumably debunked at the trials in Nuremberg.

Smilin' Dave wrote:It is about as relevant as when you brought it up in the first place?


Of course it is relevant! If one racist and criminal is suing another racist and criminal, then this "process" is just a stupid show.

The supporters of bloody racists, like Churchill, or bloody dictators, like Stalin, are making fools of themselves, because they close an eye on the crimes, committed by these people, who were pointing the moral finger at other criminals, but did not mind their own crimes.
By Rich
#14313153
ArtAllm wrote:The supporters of bloody racists, like Churchill, or bloody dictators, like Stalin, are making fools of themselves, because they close an eye on the crimes, committed by these people, who were pointing the moral finger at other criminals, but did not mind their own crimes.
Its not about some abstract notion of morality. At Munich, Adolph Hitler signed an agreement with Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury Neville Chamberlain on behalf of his Majesty George VI's government. No one forced Hitler to make that deal. He broke that agreement 6 months later. This was the most grievous insult to our King and Country. Honour demanded that we avenge this insult. Prudent practicality also demanded that we avenge this insult. If we allowed Hitler to get away with this sort of impudence we wouldn't have an empire for very long. As the younger George Bush would have said: we wanted Hitler dead or alive. There was nothing to negotiate over while Adolph Hitler was still at large.

I fail to see what people find so complicated about this.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14313267
Rich wrote:Its not about some abstract notion of morality. At Munich, Adolph Hitler signed an agreement with Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury Neville Chamberlain on behalf of his Majesty George VI's government. No one forced Hitler to make that deal. He broke that agreement 6 months later.


Can you be more specific? What was the subject of this agreement, and what was promised by the UK and by the Third Reich?


Rich wrote: If we allowed Hitler to get away with this sort of impudence we wouldn't have an empire for very long.


The opposite is true. The alliance with Americans and the Soviets was the reason, why the Brits had lost their empire.

Rich wrote:As the younger George Bush would have said: we wanted Hitler dead or alive. There was nothing to negotiate over while Adolph Hitler was still at large.

I fail to see what people find so complicated about this.


Bush is an imbecile.

BTW, the British monarchy became just a silly joke after WWII, and their island is now invaded by hordes of Pakistanis, and Englishmen are now a minority in London.

Is that what you call "honour"?

And the Brits promised to the Poles that they will declare war on any country that invades Poland and save the Poles from the enslavement, but they did not declare war on the USSR that invaded Poland, and the Communists enslaved this country after WWII.

Is that what you call "honour"?



British monarchy could have preserved its dignity, the UK and the whole western world could be today in a better shape, if the English elite was not a corrupt bunch of imbeciles.

That is precisely what Pat Buchanan tells his readers in his book:

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War:
How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, is a book by Pat Buchanan, published in May 2008.

Buchanan argues that Hitler's public demands on Poland in 1938-39, namely the return of the Free City of Danzig (modern Gdańsk) to the Reich, "extra-territorial" roads across the Polish Corridor, and Poland's adhesion to the Anti-Comintern Pact were a genuine attempt to build an anti-Soviet German-Polish alliance, especially since Buchanan argues that Germany and Poland shared a common enemy in the form of the Soviet Union.[27] Buchanan contends that Hitler wanted Poland as an ally against the Soviet Union, and not an enemy.[28] Citing the book March 1939 by the British historian Simon K. Newman, and Andrew Roberts, in his "The Holy Fox: The Life of Lord Halifax", Buchanan argues that the British "guarantee" of Polish independence in March 1939 was a deliberate ploy on the part of Foreign Minister Lord Halifax to cause a war with Germany in 1939.[29] Buchanan calls Chamberlain's "guarantee" of Poland "rash" and the "fatal blunder" which caused the end of the British Empire.[30] Buchanan argues that Halifax and Chamberlain had different motives for the guarantee. Without deciding between the various theories regarding Chamberlain's motivation, Buchanan recites several, including those of Liddell Hart, Simon Newman, and Andrew Roberts.[31]

Buchanan favourably cites the remark of British historian E. H. Carr in April 1939 about the Polish "guarantee" that: "The use or threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may be morally more culpable than the use or threatened use of force to alter it".[32] Buchanan maintains that Hitler did not want a war with Britain, and it was wrong on the part of Britain to declare war in 1939 on an Anglophile Hitler who only wanted to ally the Reich with Britain against their common enemy the Soviet Union.[33]


Buchanan argues that World War II could have been avoided if the Treaty of Versailles had not in his view been so harsh towards Germany. Buchanan views the Versailles treaty as monstrously unjust towards Germany, and argues that German efforts to revise Versailles were both moral and just. Buchanan calls those historians who blame Germany for the two world wars "court historians", who Buchanan argues have created a myth of sole German guilt for the world wars. By contrast to his opposition to Versailles, Buchanan wrote that by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany had merely applied to that "prison house of nations", the Russian Empire, the principle of self-determination,[14] releasing from Russian rule Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caucasus (largely modern Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan).


Citing such historians as George F. Kennan, Andreas Hillgruber, Simon K. Newman, Niall Ferguson, Charles Tansill, Paul W. Schroeder, Alan Clark, Michael Stürmer, Norman Davies, John Lukacs, Frederick P. Veagle, Correlli Barnett, John Charmley, William Henry Chamberlin, David P. Calleo, Maurice Cowling, A. J. P. Taylor, and Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Buchanan argues that it was a great mistake on the part of Britain to fight Germany in both world wars. In Buchanan's opinion, the results of British involvement in both world wars were a disaster for Britain, Europe and the world. One of Buchanan's express purposes is to undermine what he describes as a "Churchill cult" amongst America's elite,[1] and therefore he focuses particularly on the role of Sir Winston Churchill in involving Britain in wars with Germany in 1914 and again in 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill, ... essary_War

When it became apparent to the Nazi leadership that the United Kingdom was not interested in a military alliance, anti-British policies were adopted to ensure the attainment of Germany’s war aims. Even during the war however, hope remained that Britain would in time yet become a reliable German ally.[98] Hitler preferred to see the British Empire preserved as a world power, because its break-up would benefit other countries far more than it would Germany, particularly the United States and Japan.[98] In fact, Hitler's strategy during 1935-1937 for winning Britain over was based on a German guarantee of defence of the British Empire.[99] After the war, Ribbentrop testified that in 1935 Hitler had promised to deliver twelve German divisions to the disposal of Britain for maintaining the integrity of her colonial possessions.[100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Germanic_Reich
#14313332
Far-Right Sage wrote:So a Poland which relinquishes its hold on ethnic German territory as per the demands of a great power in can obviously not defeat and in exchange receives the maintenance of the government in Warsaw, continued territorial integrity of actual ethnic Polish territory, alliance, and protection from a hostile state (the Soviet Union) it itself had territorial designs on is more of a "bitch" than a Polish exile government in London which controls nothing or the communist puppet state the Soviets later promoted (which couldn't even protest the Red Army in '44 deliberately allowing Warsaw to be reduced to rubble)?

Nazi Germany would totally keep all those promises. Not like after Munich in 1938 for example. Poland and Germany were notionally still party to a non-aggression pact in 1935 (when the Anti-Comintern Pact offer was made) so you might also consider that the idea that it was a good deal because otherwise they would be attacked is strange. It is pretty simple FRS if you're willing to stop feeling you need to take 'Germanys side' on the matter. Poland tried to pick benefactors it may have perceived as more powerful or at least a potential counter-balance to Germany. The gamble didn't pay off, but that is more a practical matter. But really the idea that they are somehow the bad guys for not accepting a shit deal that Nazi Germany would likely have reneged on anyway is silly.

FRS wrote:The revisionism is in full swing when popular history doesn't even recognize and downplays the fact that Poland itself was an expansionist power which annexed Zaolzie in '38 from Czechoslovakia following the Munich Agreement.

Popular history has always been rubbish so who fucking cares to be blunt? The only reason to trot it out is for political purposes.

The Czechoslovak government agreed to the transfer of Zaolzie. Poland annexed it in part to deny it to the Germans. Poland would likely have never had the opportunity to takke Zaolzie were it not for Germany's actions - making attempts to turn Poland into a villain to shift blame of Germany bizarre.

FRS wrote:When it became too big for its britches, it had the choice to become a German client with full control of its non-German, actual Polish territory and a treaty of friendship

Your chronology is off. The Anti-Comintern Pact offer, to which we were both referring, was back in 1935. So before Munich in 1938.

FRS wrote:Operation Panzerfaust has nothing to do with it, because the Hungarian state with Horthy's cowardly attempt of defection and betrayal, violated the nature and spirit of the Anti-Comintern Pact.

It has everything to do with it - when Germany didn't exactly get what it wanted for its allies it invaded them. Many rational state actors would have questioned the wisdom of an alliance on those terms...

FRS wrote:Not its form of government, but its unreasonable position toward Germany which, again, was delusional and radically disproportionate to its relative power.

Which is still a shit excuse for ethnic cleansing. Come on FRS, you can come up with better lame excuses than this, have another go.

FRS wrote:What does one expect in such a scenario? Russia is the largest state on the planet and provided plenty in the way of living space for resettlement by German colonists, oil, minerals, industry, foodstuffs, land for fishing and farming, etc. There is absolutely no reason ethnic Poles had to be displaced on a mass scale within their own country if they had abandoned their untenable position and came to the bargaining table rather than allow themselves to be used as a pawn and hollow symbol throughout the war, as well as lose their independence entirely for half a century.

Your ramble about Russia has nothing to do with Poland and really just goes to show for all your excuses this is all about lebensraum... making your logic no better than the toilet paper of Mein Kampf.

Your logic still fails, because post invasion there was no practical reason for this to be done. It really only made sense to the Nazis who were huge fans of collective punishment and stupid yet violent solutions in general.

FRS wrote:Perhaps it comes down to a difference in viewpoints, because I consider neither action bad

Can we skip this bullshit? You've tried this line before and nobody could possibly believe it. Nobody really buys that you are some nihlist or ultra-realist, you make these moral equivilency arguments when it suits you engage in a bit of negationism or whatever for your chosen side. Anyone who opens up one of your threads on Syria would see your polemical approach to world affairs. Okay? Don't waste time with this 'oh I don't see anything bad about either example... but I'm clearly saying one side is worse' garbage. I'm not stupid, and surely you have better things to do than to spin this one again.

FRS wrote:Who gives a hoot if it's contemporaneous?

Because nobody turned up to a war protest in the 1930s with a sign that said "What about the Punic Wars!". Certain standards were expected in the interaction between nation-states in that specific time and place. Trying to compare it to something that happened half a world away many decades prior is just nonsense. It isn't even particularly logical moral equivilence.

FRS wrote:You're right though in that the events initially being discussed were not comparable...

Great, let me cut you off there on a high note while we cross over to ArtAlim.






ArtAlim wrote:You have to read the text in the link, dude.

Yo dawg I read dat link and I still think your shit is whack. You feel me homie?

Are we clear now? Can you stop pretending I didn't read your shitty link? And stop calling me 'dude', this is a serious discussion.

ArtAlim wrote:BTW, More and more historians agree with Vladimir Rezun.

Do any well regarded historians agree with him, or is it still the lunatic crowd of amatuers and politicians? Also if he is so well regarded why were you concealing your true source?

ArtAlim wrote:They have enlarged the sphere of their influence after WWII...

A result of a power vacuum and a response to German aggression.

ArtAlim wrote:they enslaved half of Europe and were pushing further.

Not really. The Soviet Union didn't 'push' into Greece after the war did it?

ArtAlim wrote:So what? USA is not directly run by Israel, too, it is run by the Israel Lobby in the USA.

Can you restrain your Nazi-esque propaganda to the era in question at least?

ArtAlim wrote:Any dissent in Czechoslovakia was crushed by Soviet tanks.

Think you'll find most of the run of the mill stuff was dealt with domestically. You see it isn't the principle of what you said that was wrong, it was the specifics. But if I let you play fast and loose with terminology you tend to fly right off track.

ArtAlim wrote:Would the methods, applied in these trials, be legal in any civilized country?

A lot of what I just quoted was well documented by Nazi Germany so I'm unclear what you think you can dispute here. Care to be more specific?

ArtAlim wrote:It the Weimar Republic was as bad, as Poland, why did Jews from Poland refuse to return to their homeland?

What on earth are you talking about? We're talking about multi-ethnic empires and newly formed states and their relative legitimacy.

ArtAlim wrote:Can you be more specific?

I think you need to have a read of Mein Kampf or something if you don't understand what the Nazis meant by lebensraum. FRS can probably lend you his copy.

ArtAlim wrote:Well, there was a proposal to withdraw all forces from Poland, a very clear proposal.

The red line was the invasion of Poland and it had already been crossed. Again, there was absolutely no reason to believe Nazi Germany's offer was genuine given the way they trashed other prior agreements up to that point.

ArtAlim wrote:No, it is not hard to say, because the opposition was very small.

I'm unclear who you measure that since any statistics gathered could have been falsified - the kind of governments that ban dissent usually don't promote the potential scale of dissent.

ArtAlim wrote:There was a total agreement about this issue in Germany, too.

There was total agreement on the issue in Poland. Which is about as relevant, being a different state and all.

ArtAlim wrote:How many Poles were living there? Did they represent the majority?

Oh yeah, lots of Poles in Poland. Must be quite a surprise for you.

ArtAlim wrote:Well, the secret documents about the Katyn massacre were also published for political reasons

The historian you're so enamoured with hasn't published any secret documents.

ArtAlim wrote:Of course it is relevant!

No it really isn't and no amount of shouting about it will change that.


ArtAlim wrote:Can you be more specific? What was the subject of this agreement, and what was promised by the UK and by the Third Reich?

...you don't know about the Munich Agreement of 1938? Rich gave you the year and everything so I can only assume you have absolutely no idea what we're talking about here? I guess your argument makes a lot of sense now - you're just totally unaware of the bulk majority of the historical events involved. Silly me thinking you had a double standard, you just had no idea all along.

ArtAlim wrote:a book by Pat Buchanan

Who is not a historian. Was a journalist who became a politician.

ArtAlim wrote:After the war, Ribbentrop testified that in 1935 Hitler had promised to deliver twelve German divisions to the disposal of Britain for maintaining the integrity of her colonial possessions.

Nazi Germany would have to be totally insane to think Britain would think that a good deal. I'm amazed Chamberlain was still willing to negotiate in 1938 after stupidity of that magnitude.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14313670
Smilin' Dave wrote:And stop calling me 'dude', this is a serious discussion.


It seems that you are unable to understand simple texts.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Do any well regarded historians agree with him...


What do you mean with "well regarded" historians? Do you mean those prostitutes who are on the payroll of the system?

Smilin' Dave wrote:Can you restrain your Nazi-esque propaganda to the era in question at least?


Godwin ++

If somebody denies the obvious fact that the USA is run by the Israel Lobby, then he is making a fool of himself.

BTW, you have not answered my question:
ArtAlim wrote:Would the methods, applied in these trials, be legal in any civilized country?


The question is very specific.

Smilin' Dave wrote:What on earth are you talking about?


Go back to your previous post if you have forgotten what you were talking about.

Smilin' Dave wrote:I think you need to have a read of Mein Kampf ....


If you have read this book, then you have to quote it to prove your claims.

Smilin' Dave wrote:The red line was the invasion of Poland and it had already been crossed.


You basically agree that UK, USA and France were eager to start WWII, they were not interested in preventing WWII and saving the life of many millions of people.

BTW, UK gave an ultimatum to the Third Reich, and the Third Reich unexpectedly agreed to the conditions of this ultimatum.

The United Kingdom and France issue a joint ultimatum to Germany, requiring German troops to evacuate Polish territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... r_II_(1939)


The Third Reich agreed to withdraw troops from Poland.

If the red line was already crossed, why this silly ultimatum? The UK and France were making fools of themselves, they wanted war, and their ultimatum was just a propaganda trick.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Again, there was absolutely no reason to believe Nazi Germany's offer was genuine given the way they trashed other prior agreements up to that point.


And what about the promises of UK and France? Were these countries reliable partners?

As already said, the actions of UK and France were idiotic. If they did not believe in the promises of Third Reich, why did they demand the withdrawal of the Wehrmancht from Poland, and after the Third Reich agreed to a withdrawal, they just ignored their own demands and put forward another ultimatum?


Smilin' Dave wrote:I'm unclear who you measure that since any statistics gathered could have been falsified...


Nobody questions the existing statistics.

There were about 9 thousand Jews in Danzig, and about 12 thousand Poles.
The total population was about 367 thousand.
Everybody with half a brain can find out the percentage of opposition (less than 10%).

Smilin' Dave wrote:There was total agreement on the issue in Poland. Which is about as relevant, being a different state and all.


So you really believe that the opinion of 5% of Poles in Danzig was more important than the opinion of the German majority?



Smilin' Dave wrote:Who is not a historian. Was a journalist who became a politician.


He is quoting a lot of prominent historians.

Smilin' Dave wrote:Nazi Germany would have to be totally insane to think Britain would think that a good deal.


Well, my opponent claimed that if UK started WWII in order to preserve their Empire. But the opposite is true. UK lost the Emprie because of their idiotic policy. UK was not threatened by the Third Reich, and UK could not save the Poland from enslavement.
And after WWII UK was very afraid of the Soviet Union.

In a nutshell: UK looked after WWII like a fool, and Churchill even admitted this in his Fulton speech.

Churchill was a white supremacist who believed in the superiority of the "Arian race". He could never imagine that Englishmen will become in the 2012 a minority in London.

He would rotate in his grave if he could see what England has become because of his own idiocy.
By Rich
#14313761
ArtAllm wrote:Churchill was a white supremacist who believed in the superiority of the "Arian race". He could never imagine that Englishmen will become in the 2012 a minority in London.

He would rotate in his grave if he could see what England has become because of his own idiocy.
LOl. Um scuse me but I think you'll find that it was Adolph Hitler that flooded his country with foreign workers during World War II, not Winston Churchill. Part of the reason that this happened was that Hitler didn't want to impose reparations on the countries that he defeated. So he used other far more damaging, inefficient and bureaucratic methods of extracting wealth from the occupied countries which destroyed their economies. He then had to import huge numbers of the occupied into Germany to fill the Labour shortage. Particularly with France and the Low countries he'd have been far better giving them back sovereignty and independence while exacting reparations. This would have given him access to the world market and vital raw materials, but this was far too subtle for Hitler's gangster mode of operation.

After Hitler occupied Czech we knew all we needed to know about him. But just suppose we were wrong. Just suppose Hitler just had a strong sentimental attachment to Bohemia and Moravia which had been part of the Holy Roman empire and the German Confederation. He could have defeated Poland, taken back the 1914 Prussian territory, restored Polish independence but taken reparations. If Hitler could have treated Poland just a quarter decently, then maybe there could have been a rethink in France and Britain. But no Hitler was determined to prove correct his most apocalyptic of opponents at every turn.

Pat Buchanan spiels on with his anti Communist tripe. It was Hitler who negotiated the Communist occupation of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, northern Romanian and Parts of Finland, not Britain or France.
User avatar
By ArtAllm
#14314003
Rich wrote:...Adolph Hitler that flooded his country with foreign workers during World War II, not Winston Churchill.




I was talking about the permanent residents of the UK that replace the native population in time of peace, dude. Permanent residence in peaceful times and foreign worker without permanent residence in the timme of war are different things.

If Churchill or his colleagues could see what became of Great Britain due to their idiocy, they would rotate in their graves, because all of them were white supremacists and racists, and they would not like the idea of replacement of the native English population by coloured people that is taking place today.

Rich wrote:
After Hitler occupied Czech we knew all we needed to know about him.
But just suppose we were wrong.


Whom do you mean with "we"?
Are you a British Christian?
If yes, how this endangered the security or the interests of the Brits?

Rich wrote:Just suppose Hitler just had a strong sentimental attachment to Bohemia and Moravia which had been part of the Holy Roman empire and the German Confederation. He could have defeated Poland, taken back the 1914 Prussian territory, restored Polish independence but taken reparations. If Hitler could have treated Poland just a quarter decently, then maybe there could have been a rethink in France and Britain.


Have you read my previous posts?

-The Third Reich did not invade Czechoslovakia, this state ceased to exist. Slovaks declared their independence, and they proved to be (unlike Czechoslovakia) a viable state.

-Poland was violating the human rights of its minorities, including Germans and Jews, and was violating the Agreements of Versailles.

-Polish Jews were fleeing from Poland to Germany, even at the end of October 1938 17 000 Jews refused to go home to Poland, they preferred to stay in the Third Reich, and Polish authorities refused to take back their Polish citizens. That tells a lot about Poland before WWII.

-The population of the free city of Danzig voted repeatedly (even during the time of the Weimar Republic) for reunification with Germany, but Poles threatened to invade Danzig, if the Population of Danzig declared that they are part of Germany.

-The Third Reich made a proposal to Poland (railway to Danzig and Danzig becomes part of Germany), but the Poles refused and continued the persecution and killing of Germans who lived on their territory for many centuries, but were annexed by Poland. Nobody was able to force Poland to respect the human rights of Germans in Poland and stop the atrocities and military provocations.

-Poland announced mobilisation on 30. August 1939, before the invasion.

-After the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, UK and France asked the Third Reich to remove the troops from Poland. That was their first ultimatum.

And guess what?

The Third Reich agreed to remove the troops from Poland.

2 Sep 1939
During the day, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French
Prime Minister Édouard Daladier issued a joint ultimatum to Germany,
demanding the withdraw of troops from Poland within 12 hours.
...
Germany annexed the Free City of Danzig.


Adolf Hitler advised the United Kingdom and France that he would withdraw from Poland if allowed to keep Danzig and the Polish
corridor.

» In-depth article
http://ww2db.com/event/today/09/02/1939


BTW, Danzig was not Poland, and the overhelming majority of the population of Danzig WANTED a reunification with Germany.

So if UK and France agreed to the proposal (which was a reaction of the Third Reich to their own ultimatum), there would be no Soviet invasion of Poland (this invasion began only two weeks later), and WWII would have been prevented.

On 2. September 1939 Ribbentrop called the Ambassador Fritz Hesse and told him to contact Horatio Wilson to tell Chamberlain, that the Third Reich will accepts the ultimatum and withdraw from Poland, and will even PAY REPARATIONS to the poles for the inflicted damage, if UK and France agree that Danzig can reunite with Germany.

But Wilson told that it is too late, because the Brits had already made the decision to start WWII.

So on the one hand they declared an ultimatum, but on the other hand they refused to negotiate the response to this ultimatum.

UK and France rejected the proposal of the Third Reich to withdraw troops from Poland and declared WWII, because they needed a pretext for a big war.

That is very similar to the "red line" tactics in the Syrian conflict, they need a pretext.

But in the case of Syria they were not crazy enough to ignore the proposal of Russia, which is a nuclear power.

On 2. September 1939 the Soviets were afraid that the NS could achieve an agreement with the Brits, and waited.

But the Brits demonstrated to the Soviets that there will be no agreement with the Third Reich and they de facto gave the green light to the Soviets to invade Poland.

As we see, the Poles were just used as a decoy to start WWII.

What were the declared goals of the Brits?

-To save Poland from enslavement?
This goal was not achieved, Poland was enslaved by Communists.

-To save the Empire?
This goal was not achieved, Brits lost their Empire because of their alliance with the SU and the USA. The proposal of the Third Reich to support the Empire, was foolishly rejected.

-To achieve more security?
Well, the Brits were not threatened by the Third Reich, but after WWII they were seriously threatened by the Soviets, the UK became just a joke, and the world became more insecure than before WWII.

As we see, British elite has not achieved any of their goals, because their behaviour was idiotic.

They did not act in their best interests!!!
Last edited by ArtAllm on 15 Oct 2013 15:07, edited 2 times in total.
By wat0n
#14314016
So Nazi Germany wanted to grab even more land (hence its refusal to leave Danzig), thanks for showing us why the UK and France stayed firm in their previous commitments to Poland.

The rest is a ridiculous a-historical bullshit, and following your own logic Nazi Germany shouldn't have gone into Poland because it was against its own interests: Britain may have lost its empire, but Nazi Germany doesn't even exist
By layman
#14314026
Well, my opponent claimed that if UK started WWII in order to preserve their Empire. But the opposite is true. UK lost the Emprie because of their idiotic policy. UK was not threatened by the Third Reich, and UK could not save the Poland from enslavement.
And after WWII UK was very afraid of the Soviet Union.

In a nutshell: UK looked after WWII like a fool, and Churchill even admitted this in his Fulton speech.

Churchill was a white supremacist who believed in the superiority of the "Arian race". He could never imagine that Englishmen will become in the 2012 a minority in London.

He would rotate in his grave if he could see what England has become because of his own idiocy.


With hindsight there appears to be a lot of truth in this. Britain would likely have been much better off if it had allied or stayed neutral to Germany. The evidence shows that Hitler had no interest in any British territory and saw the empire as a positive thing.

Rather than going into huge debt to American it could have been the “America to Germany”. Selling supplies and profiteering.

Of course you can never be 100% when it comes to historical counterfactuals.
User avatar
By fuser
#14314028
1.There is absolutely no guarantee that Britain would had hold on to her Empire without an European war.

2. There was absolutely no Guarantee that a Super Power Germany would not had looked at British Empire after neutralizing Poland and France. Even if Hitler liked Britain, that was not guaranteed with his successors.

3. Fighting Germany 1939 would had been more easier than a superpower hegemonic Germany.

I think Britain did the right thing from the pov of their interests.

I support this initiative. Small migrant boats can[…]

I saw that too, but I do not think Sinn Fein winn[…]

Bernie has the momentum and I don't think he could[…]

Liars and ruthless people change the world too. […]