[ArtAllm]

I have omitted the unimportant details.

They were not unimportant, you changed the meaning on the quoted text to suit your argument. I would rather read slowly then mislead people.

Let's look again at my and your translation.

Here is your translation:

"Soviet foreign policy comes from the indisputable proposition that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union - its special funds [I think maybe the intended term is 'resources' here] to provide all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question "who is who" on an international scale "

Your translation is wrong, they do not talk about "proposition", they talk about the actual position or the situation.

"Положение" does not mean "propostion", any Russian speaker who reads this forum can see that you are consciously or unconsciously misleading the people who do not speak Russian.

"Предположение" would translate as "proposition", but they are talking about положение (position or situation), not about предположение.

But the biggest blunder in your translation is the following:

You have translated "кто кого" as "who is who".



That is a gross distortion of the original text, and that proves that you do either not have even the basic knowledge of Russian, or you are consciously distorting the original text.

Here is the original text again:

"Внешняя политика СССР исходит из того непререкаемого положения, что столкновение между миром социализма и миром капитализма неизбежно. Основная цель внешней политики СССР — своими
особыми средствами обеспечить все необходимые предпосылки для победоносного решения вопроса "кто кого" в международном масштабе".

Here is my word by word translation:

The Soviet foreign policy is derived from the indisputable position, that a clash between the socialist world and the world of capitalism is inevitable. The main objective of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is to provide with their own special means all the necessary prerequisites for the victorious solution to the question [i]"who will destroy whom"[i] on an international scale.

And here is the shorter version of this that I have given earlier:

The final struggle between socialism and capitalism is inevitable. The goal of the foreign policy of the USSR is to create all conditions for the victory of socialism.

There is no distortion at all, I have just given a short version of the word by word translation. Everyone who can speak Russian can see who was distorting the original text.

Besides that you have just ignored to address the other blunders in your interpretation of the original Russian text that I have pointed out. For example the verbal peace propaganda of the Soviets, that was just a deception, and their factual preparation for an aggressive war, the fact that was pointed out by Meltuykhov.

Your explanation about the intended use of the Russian-German phrase book proves that you do not have any idea what the content of this phrase book is about!

You can find an online version of this phrase book and look what it is about. The content of this phrase book was pointed out by Rezun in his "Ledokol".

For example, there is a section about how to gain the control of a German railway station, how to gain the control of a telegraph station, etc. There are phrases like "Stop the sending of telegrams, or you will be shot".

Other example, gaining the control over a German settlement. They had to ask the German civilians following questions:

"Were do the soldiers hide?" "Were is the Bürgermeister?"

As I've already noted Mein Kampf is not illegal to read in Germany. In fact you could happily own a copy of it.

Then just give me a link to Amazon, I will order a German version of this book, and we will discuss it.

Or just give me a link to the online German version of this book.

BTW, there are two versions of this book, so you have to tell me what version you are talking about, and I will read the context, too.

And please do not repeat the BS about "copy-right-issue" that allegedly prevents the publishing of this book. This is a ridiculous and lame excuse.


Rule 15 - warning issued and off topic text removed - SD

[pugsville]

what ethnic cleansing after ww1?

By and large in the vast majority of cases self determination on ethnic lines was followed.

The rise of the Nazis were due to the structures of German society and descions made in Germany in the interwar period,

The Versailles treaty was not particularly harsh on Germany.

WW2 ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans was brutal but fairly much a consequence of German ww2 policies.

[Rich]

Sorry my history's a bit fuzzy. Who was it who negotiated the Soviets into Eastern Poland? Who was it that negotiated the Baltic's into the Soviet sphere? Who gave Stalin a free hand in Finland in 1940? Who persuaded the Romanians to abandon Bessberabia and northern Bukhovina to Communist terror? And who treated the Poles, Jews, White Russians and Ukrainians so badly that most of them saw the arrival of Stalin's Red army as a liberation? Damn! His name's on the tip of my tongue but I just can't remember it.

[Smilin' Dave]

Then just give me a link to Amazon, I will order a German version of this book...

Or just give me a link to the online German version of this book.

As already noted the book is currently out of print but you could get a copy in German here for example.

My google search returns mostly hate sites unfortunately, which I cannot link to here on PoFo. Maybe you could stop claiming it is illegal for you to read it and look it up yourself?

we will discuss it.

No, no we will not. I thought debating Meltyukhov with you might be interesting since you had apparently read it but I now realise you have no intention of actually debating anything, you would rather just repeat your nonsense points over and over. Even if it breaks the rules.

[ArtAllm]

what ethnic cleansing after ww1?
By and large in the vast majority of cases self determination on ethnic lines was followed.

No, that was not the case.
And it was not the case with Danzig and the bridge between Danzig and the rest of Germany.

The rise of the Nazis were due to the structures of German society and descions made in Germany in the interwar period

No decent historians believes in that silly and primitive leftist propaganda any more.

The Versailles treaty was not particularly harsh on Germany.

That is a very hateful anti-German statement.

WW2 ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans was brutal but fairly much a consequence of German ww2 policies.

That is another hateful anti-German statement.

Collective punishment is (according to the international law) a crime.

The leaders of the NS-Germany were executed after WWII because they were found guilty of comitting a collective punishment of Jews.

How can in this case an honest and decent person close an eye on the collective punishment of German civilians?

BTW, any criminals justify their crimes and believe that these crime were just a "consequence" of something.

The NS-Regime tried to justify the collective punishment of all Jews with the declaration of a boycott against Germany by the Zionist leaders, but that did not help them.

A crime is a crime, and the biggest in the history of Europe ethnic cleansing (12 Millions displaced German civilians) is an obvious and indisputable HUGE crime, but the perpetrators of this crime got away with it.

Who was it who negotiated the Soviets into Eastern Poland? Who was it that negotiated the Baltic's into the Soviet sphere? Who gave Stalin a free hand in Finland in 1940? Who persuaded the Romanians to abandon Bessberabia and northern Bukhovina to Communist terror?

Read the entire thread, or look for a time-line for the events of WWII.

You will easily find out that one action or inaction entailed another action. If the Poles and Brits agreed to grant the population of Danzig the right to decide about their future, there would be no need for anything you have quoted.

Stalin did not mind the reunification of Danzig with the rest of Germany, and he wanted something in exchange for this.

BTW, why did GB not declare war on the USSR?

Did the Brits not promise to the Poles that they would protect them from any invader and declare war to anybody that invades Poland?

And who treated the Poles, Jews, White Russians and Ukrainians so badly that most of them saw the arrival of Stalin's Red army as a liberation? [b]

Well, there was a collective punishment of all Jews, no question about this, and the responsible for this crime were executed after WWII.

But I am not sure about non-Jews.

Were they really liberated by Stalin?

Did most of them really see Stalin as a liberator?

According to Solzhenitsyn and some prominent historians this was not the case.

A huge number of people from the enslaved by the Soviets territories were send after WWII to the GULAG-camps, were they had remain many years, and a huge number of them died there.

Many Ukrainians, who were deported to Germany during WWII to help in agriculture or households, admitted after the collapse of the SU that their time in Germany was the most happy time in their entire life.


Most of them were immediately put into GULAG-camps, and they had to remain there for many, many years, and many of them did not survive the "liberation" and the forced evacuation from Germany to Siberia.

Others told that German occupation was not as bad, as the Soviet occupation. Others told that German occupation was not as bad, as the Soviet occupation.

And it is obvious that the Soviet Christians were literally saved from the annihilation by the invading Germans.

Stalin and his cohorts declared an open war on Christianity, they killed the Christian clergy and destroyed and defiled the holy places of Christians.

The revival of Christianity began on the occupied territory, and German Christians contributed a lot of money to help their coreligionists in the East to restore their holy places that were defiled by the Soviets.

After Stalin had "liberated" these territories, many clergymen were arrested and sent to GULAG, and most restored Churches were immediately closed.

But Stalin could not continue his brazen and open militant anti-Christian campaign any more, like it was before WWII.

[pugsville]

what ethnic cleansing after ww1?
By and large in the vast majority of cases self determination on ethnic lines was followed.

No, that was not the case.
And it was not the case with Danzig and the bridge between Danzig and the rest of Germany.

repeat what ethnic cleansing are you referring to after ww1?

and i stand by the statement the vast majority of the area lost by Germany after ww1 the Germans were a minority. there is fair agreement that the strict borders ethnic self determination you will wind up with all sorts of pockets and unworkable borders. geography and practical borders will lend to bending and occasional subversion of the principle. now generally the Versailles people chose to pretty heavily favor the Poles. the decision to give Poland a seaport creating one such kink, there was a reasonable argument for it. perhaps building a new port and Danzig remaining with Germany would have been more fair.

the eastern settlement generally the treaty makers were overtaken by events on the ground.


The rise of the Nazis were due to the structures of German society and decisions made in Germany in the interwar period

No decent historians believes in that silly and primitive leftist propaganda any more.

I disagree with both the statement and that historians agree with you. the financial problems of Wiemar republic were mostly of the Germans own making, the repayments were over by the time the Nazis were gaining power. the allies were much more reasonable in adjusting the German repayments that the US were about their debt repayments. France had much much greater war damage, and a similar economic burden in US debt repayments. the Toleration of paramilitaries, failure to apply the rule of law to right wing extremists was a German decision.

The Versailles treaty was not particularly harsh on Germany.

That is a very hateful anti-German statement.

how? it's about the level economic penalties effecting the lives of average Germans, it wasnt that crippling, Germany borrowed large amounts of money, the Versailles debt less than the German deficit. (iirc)


WW2 ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans was brutal but fairly much a consequence of German ww2 policies.

That is another hateful anti-German statement.

the Germans were extremely brutal with the Russians. when the wheel turned it was pretty predictable that the Russians would be brutal with the Germans. i don't condone, i do condemn Russian actions. you kill millions of people it *is* predictable that there wuold be blow back.

You will easily find out that one action or inaction entailed another action. If the Poles and Brits agreed to grant the population of Danzig the right to decide about their future, there would be no need for anything you have quoted.

no at all Hitler would not stop. Danzig was a pretext. why didnt Hitler carry on about Germans in Italy? last territorial demand. really?

the German treatment of the vast majority of the peoples of the east was much more brutal the Stalin's. (which is really saying something, Stalin was brutal) many did welcome the Germans but the German extreme brutally quickly reversed that.

[ArtAllm]

repeat what ethnic cleansing are you referring to after ww1?

Have your read the thread?

OK, I will refer to more factual material:

History of Pomerania (1806–1933)

The Polish Corridor of the Second Polish Republic was established from the bulk of West Prussia, causing an exodus of the German minority there.

1900: The native language of the vast majority of the population was German

The Free City had a population of 357,000 (1919), 95% of whom were German-speakers,[50] with the rest mainly speaking either Kashubian or Polish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pomerania_(1806–1933)




A Polish language poster, illustrating the drop in German population in selected cities of western Poland in the period 1910-1931

'If a German or Jew dares to say anything against the Polish State, [to] tie him up and drag him through the streets to the starost's office or to the court.'

Although the Versailles Treaty gave Germans until January 1922 to make their choice for Polish or German citizenship, many were compelled to declare right away, either for Germany (and expulsion) or for Poland and induction into the Polish army."[47] In one village, four Germans were killed in mob violence and numerous others arrested on basis of denunciations by Polish neighbors.

In addition, the area was abandoned by numerous Germans (a number estimated at 10% of Germans[48]) who were public officials and other workers with no ties to the province or military personnel (German garrisons were included in Prussian censuses as part of population).
...

Total population in 1905: 1.433.681
Poles (including Kashubians): 34,4%
Germans: 66,2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pomerania_(1806–1933)

About 1 Million Germans fled from Poland between 1918 and 1939, this is a very huge number!
In this time about 60.000 German civilians were killed (according to some sources), and more than 10.000 were killed in the last weeks before the invasion of Poland.

And here are the proposals of the Third Reich to solve the problem:


October 24, 1938
An exterritorial route of communication through the Corridor by rail and motor to reunite Germany and East Prussia.


This proposal was rejected by the Polish government, though in this proposal the Third Reich did not ask for any territory of the former German Pommern, except the tiny strip of land for an exterritorial route.
The Polish customs prevented a normal communication between Germany and East Prussia, and there were terrorist acts against German trains that resulted in the death of civilians.

Was it really reasonable to refuse to give Germany a tiny strip of land on the former German Pomerania to connect Germany with Danzig or East Prussia?

Any honest person would say that the Poles behaved very egoistic and very unreasonable.

Another proposal on 31. Aug 1939

On the night of 30/31 August, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop read a 16-point German proposal to the British ambassador. When the ambassador requested a copy of the proposals for transmission to the Polish government Ribbentrop refused on the grounds that the requested Polish representative had failed to arrive by midnight.[36] When Polish Ambassador Lipski went to see Ribbentrop later on 31 August to indicate that Poland was favorably disposed to negotiations, he announced that he did not have the full power to sign, and Ribbentrop dismissed him. It was then broadcast that Poland had rejected Germany's offer, and negotiations with Poland came to an end. Hitler issued orders for the invasion to commence soon afterwards.

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

If Poland had sent a representative to sign the 16 point German proposal, the the WWII could be avoided.

You cannot find an English version of this 16-point-proposal, but here is the German version:

1. Die Freie Stadt Danzig kehrt auf Grund ihres rein deutschen Charakters sowie des einmütigen
Willens ihrer Bevölkerung sofort in das Deutsche Reich zurück.

[The free city of Danzig -due to the pure German structure of the population and the unanimous wish of the population- will immediately reunite with the German Reich].

2. Das Gebiet des sogenannten Korridors, das von der Ostsee bis zu der Linie Marienwerder-
Graudenz-Kulm-Bromberg (diese Städte einschließlich) und dann etwa westlich nach Schönlanke
reicht, wird über seine Zugehörigkeit zu Deutschland oder Polen selbst entscheiden.

[The population of an area of the so-called corridor that stretches from the Baltic See to the line Marienwerder-
Graudenz-Kulm-Bromberg (including this city) and then to the west of Schönlanke, will get the opportunity to decide themselves about being part of Poland or the Third Reich]

3. Zu diesem Zweck wird dieses Gebiet eine Abstimmung vornehmen. Abstimmungsberechtigt sind
alle Deutschen, die am 1. Januar 1918 in diesem Gebiet wohnhaft waren oder bis zu diesem Tage dort
geboren wurden, und desgleichen alle an diesem Tage in diesem Gebiet wohnhaft gewesenen oder bis
zu diesem Tage dort geborenen Polen, Kaschuben usw. Die aus diesem Gebiet vertriebenen
Deutschen kehren zur Erfüllung ihrer Abstimmung zurück.
...
[For this purpose in this area will be organized a vote. All Germans, that lived in this area on 1. January 1918 or were born there, and the same with all Poles and Kushubs etc. who lived in this area on 1. January 1918 or were born there, will have the right to participate in this vote. Germans, who were expelled from this region, will return to to the purpose of this vote to this region.]

4. Von diesem Gebiet bleiben ausgenommen der polnische Hafen Gdingen, der grundsätzlich
polnisches Hoheitsgebiet ist, insoweit er sich territorial auf die polnische Siedlung beschränkt.
...
[The Polish seaport Gdingen - that is part of Polish territory and is populated by Poles- will be excluded from this area.]

(Auswaertiges Amt - Weissbuch Nr. 2 - Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges (1939, 369 S., Scan, Fraktur))
https://archive.org/details/Auswaertige ... -Nr-2-Scan

As we see, the most parts of former German Pomerania (like the Provinz Posen ) would remain in Polish possession, including the seaport Gdingen.

The Third Reich wanted only a very small part of the former territory back. This strip of land was called Pommerellen in Polish and Kleinpommern in German. This territory is situated to the north of the river Netze and Weichsel.

[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Flüsse_in_Polen_(Karte).png[/url]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Flüsse_in_Polen_(Karte).png[/img]

Poland would still have an access to the Baltic Sea, and an exchange of population was proposed.

Was this proposal not moderate and reasonable?

Some of my opponents claimed that the vote would be just a vase of time, because there was never a German majority in this area, but this claim is wrong.

It is obvious that the mentioned strip of land had a predominant German population in January 1918, and Poland would have lost this strip of land due a free vote.

1918 sind je nach Statistik 73 bis 65 Prozent der Bevölkerung deutscher und weitere sechs Prozent kaschubischer Muttersprache.

[According to different statistics of 1918 about 73-65% of the population of the province was German, and 6% was Kashuban.
http://www.webarchiv-server.de/pin/arch ... 6paz38.htm

That is why Poland rejected this proposal. Poland dreamed about further expansion and did not pay any attention to the human rights of its German population.

If you can speak German you can find a lot of documents that talk about the ethnic cleansing of former German territory from its German population.

https://archive.org/details/Auswaertige ... zten-Phase

now generally the Versailles people chose to pretty heavily favor the Poles. the decision to give Poland a seaport creating one such kink, there was a reasonable argument for it. perhaps building a new port and Danzig remaining with Germany would have been more fair.

Well, the Poles had built their own seaport in Gdingen, the Poles did not need Danzig any more. And according to the proposal of 31. August 1939 this Polish seaport would have remained part of Poland, like the huge part of former German territory.

The Versailles treaty was not particularly harsh on Germany.

That is a very hateful anti-German statement.

how? it's about the level economic penalties effecting the lives of average Germans, it wasnt that crippling, Germany borrowed large amounts of money, the Versailles debt less than the German deficit. (iirc)

Well, there were no reasons to punish Germany, all powers shared the responsibility for the WWI. Germany stopped the war because it was promised that everybody will profit from peace. But then they decided to punish Germany, and that was sadistic.
If Germans knew what will be after WWI, they would have fought till the last soldier.

the Germans were extremely brutal with the Russians. when the wheel turned it was pretty predictable that the Russians would be brutal with the Germans.

Solzhenitsyn is a Russian, and he has a different opinion. What to the brutality of the soldiers of the Red Army that were instigated against Germans by the hatemongering propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg - these criminals were mostly non-Christians and Asians.

They had no opportunity to have sex with white women in the SU, so they used the opportunity and raped German women after the invasion in Germany.

Most victims of rape told that the rapists had dark skin and slit-eyes.

Danzig was a pretext.

How can you know that? And was it not moral to respect the human rights of the population of Danzig?
In any case, that was a good chance to prevent WWII with many millions of killed civilians and destroyed cities.

Was it not REASONABLE to give peace another chance?

why didnt Hitler carry on about Germans in Italy? last territorial demand. really?

Well, because there wre only a couple of thousands of Germans in South Tirol. And Danzig was part of Prussia, like Pommern. Königsberg and Danzig were cut off from Germany, and that was a serious problem.
There was a lot of arable land in this provinces that were vital for the supply of Germany with grain.

the German treatment of the vast majority of the peoples of the east was much more brutal the Stalin's.

That is your opinion. But what is the opinion of the population that was under occupation?

Do you know that ALL Chechens were deported after WWII to Kazakhstan because they collaborated with the NS-Regime? Chechnya was totally ethnically cleansed after WWII!

They could not deport the entire Ukriane to the GULAGS, because its population was too huge, but many millions were deported.

[pugsville]

Germans leaving Poland -

somewhere around 800,000 left. who says they were ethnic cleansed? Germans had been migrating out of these areas out of the empire fairly consistently before the war (increasing the German population was seeking life in cities of Germany further west or America).

if you have specific sources for large scale expulsions please provide source.


the end of ww1.

the Germans were made well aware that the peace treaty would be a dictated to them in 1918. the German government was told by the German army that further resistance was impossible. there was a clear expectation was Germany would face penalties.

Hitler Nazi negotiations - Poland.

Hitler simply could not be believed. sooner or later he would invade eastern Europe. he was committed to establishment a very large German empire which would be fundamentally racist. he had shown bad faith, dreams of empire, used murder for political ends, massive rearmament. nothing the poles could have possible given up would have stopped a German invasion. initial demands are nothing.

'When the ambassador requested a copy of the proposals for transmission to the Polish government Ribbentrop refused on the grounds that the requested Polish representative had failed to arrive by midnight' - from your quote, really how is reasonable actions by someone seeking peace? Hitler consistently issued demands, threats, ultimatums, consistently upped his demands during negotiations, negotiating with Hitler was the mistake made by anyone who did it. if the German right wing leaders had not made that mistake some of them might have been alive in 1934.



German crimes in the soviet drive west.

Ehrenburg was used as a propagandist to incite hate against the German population by Stalin. however there is no truth that the perpetrators were Asian or non christian only. i agree that a large amount of brutal crimes and killings followed the soviet occupation.

Soviet rule / Nazi rule.

Stalin was a brutal mass murderer of millions, and some ethnic groups were going to suffer more under Stalin than Hitler, but in general most people were better off under Stalin. horrible choices.

[ArtAllm]

Germans leaving Poland -
somewhere around 800,000 left. who says they were ethnic cleansed?

Ethnic cleansing is a process or a policy of eliminating unwanted ethnic groups, that is the officials definition of ethnic cleansing.
It is obvious that Poland wanted the Germans either assimilate or abandon the land that they lived on. People who refused to become Polish citizens, were forced to abandon what became Poland.

The necessary quotes have been delivered.

the end of ww1.
the Germans were made well aware that the peace treaty would be a dictated to them in 1918. the German government was told by the German army that further resistance was impossible. there was a clear expectation was Germany would face penalties.

No, that is not true.
Not a single foreign soldiers stepped on German soil, and there was no reason to capitulate, and the Kaiserreich would have never capitulated, if Germans knew what will happen after the war.

The German High Seas Fleet was not destroyed, there was no capitulation, there was just an armistice.


On the 11 November 1918 a ceasefire came into effect.

The German army was not defeated. Germany signed the armistice because the allies promised that there will be a just solution of all problems, and there were interior forces in Germany that intentionally sabotaged the war effort.

Hitler Nazi negotiations - Poland.
Hitler simply could not be believed. sooner or later he would invade eastern Europe.

Well, it is obvious that nobody from the powers could be trusted.
Could Stalin be trusted?
Have you read this thread?

Stalin planned an invasion of Europe, he even openly told this to the Commintern-members.

From the point of view of Stalin Hitler was just a "poor" capitalist, and he was after the fat capitalists, and in the first place after the UK.

So Stalin was a real danger for the UK.
If we assume that Hitler really wanted to attack the headquarters of Communism and destroy communism in its cradle, why should this be against the best interests of UK?

Who was a real threat to the UK, Hitler or Stalin?

Hitler hoped that the UK would support his effort against Communism, without this condition he had no chance to win a war against Communism.

Most people in the post war USSR believed that sooner or later there would be a war between Communists and Capitalists, but nothing happened.

USSR did not invade West Europe, though Khrushchev threatened to do this.

Churchill told in Fulton that WWII could have been prevented, and Germany could have easily been made to a prosperous nation. So why did they start WWII, and why did they not help Germany to become a prosperous nation?

It is obvious that a lot of things could have happened if western powers (pushed by their banksters) were not so eager to start a big war in September 1939.

Any other outcome would have been better than what happened during WWII.

Banksters were the only ones who really profited from this madness.

It was irresponsible not to give peace another chance.

he was committed to establishment a very large German empire which would be fundamentally racist.

Were UK, USA and France less racist countries, than NS-Germany in 1939?

What is your point?

Do you really believe that UK started a war against the Third Reich, because they did not like the racist ideology of the Third Reich?

That is the most idiotic claim that many people still repeat.

Was Churchill pushing for war against Germany because he believed in the equality of races?

I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

To the Peel Commission (1937) on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Then as an MP he demanded a rolling programme of more conquests, based on his belief that "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph". There seems to have been an odd cognitive dissonance in his view of the "natives". In some of his private correspondence, he appears to really believe they are helpless children who will "willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18317.html

As we see, there were no big differences between the world-view of Churchill and his colleagues and Hitler.

And as it was already many times pointed out in this threat, Hitler was not a threat to the interests of the UK, he even promised to help the Brits to preserve their empire.

It is just idiotic to believe that UK started a war against the Third Reich, because they were "good guys" who fought against racism and imperialism.



UK basically agreed with the doctrine of the Nazi Germany, they believed that there are superior and inferior races, and that superior races have the right to take away the land from inferior races.

UK, France and USA committed a lot of crimes against their own minorities, and SU was an evil power that killed millions and millions of Christians.

In fact, the crimes of Communists were well known before WWII, and that is why Churchill's intention was to destroy Bolshevik Russia, he believed that Bolshevism must be "strangled in its cradle".

So there is still no explanations why UK and France were so eager to declare war against the Third Reich, the idiotic thesis about "fighting racism" does not work, because racist do not start a world war in order to save our planet from racism.



We still have to find a rational explanation why the UK and France declared war on Germany.

Besides that, you have to distinguish between the wishes or intentions of some leaders, and the physical possibilities to fulfil these intentions.

The Soviets had the intention to invade western Europe and promote Communism on the planetary scale, and they had the needed capability to do this.

Germany did not have the capability to fight against many adversaries on many fronts, because of the astronomical superiority of its adversaries.

nothing the poles could have possible given up would have stopped a German invasion. initial demands are nothing.

Your thesis does not make any seance.

Why would Hitler make peace proposals at all, if he had the intention to invade Poland?

Does that make any sense?
And why would Hitler make a proposal to withdraw the troops from Poland and pay Poland reparations?

Why bother about all these things?

Everything must have an explanation, and nobody was able to find a rational explanation for the many peace proposals of Hitler.

'When the ambassador requested a copy of the proposals for transmission to the Polish government Ribbentrop refused on the grounds that the requested Polish representative had failed to arrive by midnight'

The same proposals were made earlier, and Poland had always rejected these proposals. There was enough time to think about this.

If the Poles were interested in peace, they would have sent a plenipotentiary and signed this proposals on 31.08.1939.

But they acted as if they were fools, they really hoped that UK and France will really protect them.

Hitler consistently issued demands, threats, ultimatums...

Well, as already said, the same proposals were made many times, without any threats and ultimatums.

In fact, Poland always threatened with an invasion if a vote will take place.

On 31.08.1939 there was no time for diplomacy any more, the Polish Army was already mobilised, and German civilians were killed in Poland.

But there was still a chance to prevent the invasion, and the Polish leadership had made their choice.

The UK just used the stupid Poles as an excuse to declare WWII, Poland was invaded by the the Third Reich AND by the SU, and during the war the Soviets annihilate the total Polish elite at the Katyn forest, and they tried to blame this on Germans.

Soviet rule / Nazi rule.

Stalin was a brutal mass murderer of millions....

Yes, and he murdered these millions before WWII.

The crimes of the Bolshewiks were known in the West, and there were no doubts that Stalin is a threat to the West, because he openly talked about the final struggle between Capitalism and Communism.

It was obvious that Stalin was a threat to the UK and France, and it was obvious that Hitler was neither a threat to the UK nor to France.

Yes, Hitler was a potential threat to Poland and to the SU, but why should this have bothered France and UK, if their Status Quo was not endangered?

It is idiotic to believe that France and UK were "anti-imperialistic" and "anti-racist", and that is why they could not tolerate the racist and imperialistic intentions of Hitler.

... in general most people were better off under Stalin. horrible choices.

We are talking about 1939.

Do you really believe that most people were better under Stalin in 1939?

Between 1932 and 1939 the Bolshewiks had already killed dozens of millions!!!

Estimated number of victims

The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union

...
Repressions and famines occurring in the Soviet Union under the regimes of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin described in the book include:
the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners
the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922
the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people
the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.[5] (see also Population transfer in the Soviet Union)
Comparison of Communism and Nazism[edit]

Courtois considers Communism and Nazism slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis".[6] Courtois claims that Nazi Germany's methods of mass extermination were adopted from Soviet methods. As an example, he cites Nazi state official Rudolf Höss who organized the infamous death camp in Auschwitz. According to Höss,[6]

The Reich Security Head Office issued to the commandants a full collection of reports concerning the Russian concentration camps. These described in great detail the conditions in, and organization of, the Russian camps, as supplied by former prisoners who had managed to escape. Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the Russians, by their massive employment of forced labor, had destroyed whole peoples.

Courtois argues that the Soviet genocides of peoples living in the Caucasus and exterminations of large social groups in Russia were not very much different from similar policies by Nazis. Both Communist and Nazi systems deemed "a part of humanity unworthy of existence. The difference is that the Communist model is based on the class system, the Nazi model on race and territory."[6] Courtois stated that[7]

The "genocide of a "class" may well be tantamount to the genocide of a "race"—the deliberate starvation of a child of a Ukrainian kulak as a result of the famine caused by Stalin's regime "is equal to" the starvation of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto as a result of the famine caused by the Nazi regime.

He added that

after 1945 the Jewish genocide became a byword for modern barbarism, the epitome of twentieth-century mass terror... more recently, a single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide in an attempt to characterize the Holocaust as a unique atrocity has also prevented the assessment of other episodes of comparable magnitude in the Communist world. After all, it seems scarcely plausible that the victors who had helped bring about the destruction of a genocidal apparatus might themselves have put the very same methods into practice. When faced with this paradox, people generally preferred to bury their heads in sand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_ ... _Communism

As we see, Bolsheviks had already killed millions and millions till the begin of WWII, and their was no doubt about their intention to promote the total destruction of Capitalism. The establishment of Communism in China was very bloody, too.

And how many people were killed by Hitler till 1. Sept. 1939?

Can you answer this simple question?

[pugsville]

Hitler had a history of using forces, threats and invasions, he had not kept his word, a aggressive, unpredictable Germany led by Hitler was a worry, the Polish Guarantee was a red line that simple. The Basic point was Britain and France were opposing military force as way of changing the political borders of Europe. They were not that concerned about poland. They had tried to meet Hitler halfway, well Hitler took them for all they were worth, they felt cheated, and the Hitler wasn't a gentleman or a man to be trusted. They just didnt know what he would do next, the Polish Guarantee was a warning that further use of force would not be tolerated. To accept anything short of a complete Germany withdrawal from all non german terrority was to give in on this point.

Hitler had only had a few thousands killed by 1939, Stalin had many many more (exactly how many is very much disputed but large 100,000s at the very least), But the Western perceptions and interests were not particularly threatened, and Russia was a long way away Soviet Russian was constant depreciated as a real power in the West and Stalin crimes,like Italian Crimes and aggression, like Japanese crimes and aggression happened to non Europeans, in places a long way away that people didnt care about. Hitler was much much closer to home and Germany was seen as a powerful nation and as a threat. (the Closed nature and scantly and often propagandist information about Soviet Russia meant that what really going on was rarely appreciated in Western Europe, Germany had much more regular visitors, and what was going on was much easier to see)

We were talking 1941+ with the treatment of eastern peoples by Stalin and Hitler, you started it with the welcome received by German troops in 1941 and yes they were welcomed, but the locals in general quickly regretted that, they generally hated soviet rule and Stalin but quickly learned Nazi EGrman rule was much much worse.

The Poles believed that any Russian or German Army on it's soil would never leave, that either Russia or Germany (no matter the regime) would if the chance presented destroy the Polish state. The Poles we not willing in any way to let Russian or German troops on it's soil.

[ArtAllm]

Hitler had a history of using forces, threats and invasions, he had not kept his word...

Was Stalin or any other western leader better before 1939?

Did the Germans have any reason to believe any western leader after what has happened after WWI?

Did the allies stick to their words and promises they had made before the armistice?

Do not forget that UK declared war on Germany during WWI, and after WWI the Bolsheviks nearly succeeded in establishing their control over Bavaria.
That was a turning point in the history of the Weimar Republic.

...a aggressive, unpredictable Germany led by Hitler was a worry...

Do you really believe that Poland was less aggressive before 1939?

Are you aware that Polish leaders constantly threatened the Weimar Republic with an invasion?

The Basic point the Polish Guarantee was a red line that simple.

That is circular reasoning.

If Germany was not a threat to the security and to the best interests of the UK, then there is no rational explanation for the idiotic policy of the UK that was the reason for the collapse of this empire.

....Britain and France were opposing military force as way of changing the political borders of Europe.

Well, were it not France and the UK that arbitrarily and willfully changed the natural historical borders of Europe, creating artificial states, like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, not to mention the problems, that were created in the Middle East?

They had cut off huge chunks of German land, and they had created the problem with Danzig and East Prussia, cutting off all the terrestrial roads to these German regions.
Anybody with half a brain could predict that this will lead to further conflicts.

They were not that concerned about poland.

Well, you basically agree that Poland was just used as a pretext to start a big war.

But the question remains:

Was it in the interests of the UK to side with a communist regime and unite with a mass murderer, like Stalin, who had killed till 1939 millions and millions and was openly talking about establishing of Communism in the entire Europe and then in the entire world, after the fattest capitalist (UK) is destroyed?

Does that make any sense?

Was the UK more secure in 1939, or more secure in 1948, when the Soviets enslaved half of Europe and when there was a REAL Soviet threat?

They had tried to meet Hitler halfway, well Hitler took them for all they were worth, they felt cheated...

Can you be more specific?

...Hitler wasn't a gentleman or a man to be trusted.

Was Stalin a gentleman that could be trusted?
Could any western leader be trusted in 1939?

They just didnt know what he would do next, the Polish Guarantee was a warning that further use of force would not be tolerated.

To accept anything short of a complete Germany withdrawal from all non german terrority was to give in on this point.

Well, Hitler (after he received an ultimatum from the UK and France) agreed not only to withdraw all troops from Poland, he also proposed to pay reparations for the caused damage.

Besides that, Stalin also used force and invaded Poland (after the UK and France rejected the proposal of Hitler), but the western powers tolerated the movement of Stalin towards their borders, and Stalin was a real threat to the West.

Does that make any sense?

Hitler had only had a few thousands killed by 1939, Stalin had many many more (exactly how many is very much disputed but large 100,000s at the very least).

EXACTLY!

That is the crucial point!

But western leaders trusted Stalin, and they decided to become allies of a well known murderous regime that did not make any secrets about its final goal: the total destruction of Capitalism with the means of war.

But the Western perceptions and interests were not particularly threatened, and Russia was a long way away Soviet Russian was constant depreciated as a real power in the West...

Are you kidding?

After Hitler invaded Poland Germany's borders did not move a bit closer to the UK.
But after the Soviets invaded East Poland and the Baltic Sates, their border moved closer to the UK.

Besides hat the Soviets pushed to the south, the Soviets planned to establish Communism in British colonies (India etc).

Soviet Union with its huge resources was a real threat to the interests of the UK, and any educated person in the UK was aware of this.

... and Stalin crimes,like Italian Crimes and aggression, like Japanese crimes and aggression happened to non Europeans...

What are you talking about?
Was the genocide against the Christians in the Ukraine not a crime against Europeans?
Are Russians and other white Europeans less European than Brits or French?

... in places a long way away that people didnt care about.

Ukraine is Europe, dude.

I agree with you, the western media was not talking a lot about the crimes of Bolsheviks, and because of that it was easy to stampede the uneducated masses in the UK into a war with Germany and into an alliance with Uncle Joe, who was in 1939 already a well known mass murderer of their fellows, the white Christians.

But educated people in the UK knew what was going on, and it remains an enigma why they acted like idiots, creating an alliance with Stalin (who was a real threat to the UK) in order to fight Hitler (who wanted to be a friend of the UK and who even proposed to send troops to protect the British Empire).

Hitler was much much closer to home and Germany was seen as a powerful nation and as a threat.

Well, I agree with you, that was the picture that was created by the controlled British media and that was the reason why the uneducated masses could be so easily stampeded into a war that was not in their interests.

But any educated person in Britain knew that Hitler wanted a union with Britain to join forces in the fight against the communist threat.

And any educated person in GB could see, that SU has a common border with India and is subverting the British colonies with communist propaganda.

(the Closed nature and scantly and often propagandist information about Soviet Russia meant that what really going on was rarely appreciated in Western Europe, Germany had much more regular visitors, and what was going on was much easier to see)

Yes, the controlled British, French and American media created a distorted picture about the Third Reich and the SU, and here you have to ask the question:

Cui bono?

Yes, the uneducated masses in the mentioned countries were badly informed, and therefore they could be easily stampeded into a war that was not in their interests.

But what about the educated elites in the mentioned countries?

Do you really believe that they were fools, too?

How was it possible to stampede educated people, who knew what is going on, into a war that was not in their interests?

Well, in a pseudo-democracy the uneducated people and the controlled media have probably more power, than the educated elite.

That may be the reason why it was possible to stampede the GB into a war that would predictably destroy the Empire.

We were talking 1941+ with the treatment of eastern peoples by Stalin and Hitler, you started it with the welcome received by German troops in 1941 and yes they were welcomed...

Good that we agree on this issue!

... but the locals in general quickly regretted that, they generally hated soviet rule and Stalin but quickly learned Nazi EGrman rule was much much worse.

Well, it depends on what locals you are talking about.
Yes, the Communists had nothing to lose, and there was a criminal policy of collective punishment of ALL Jews, no questions about this.

But what about the rest of the population, speak about the majority?

Sozhenitsyn believes that the majority of the local population suffered more under the Communists occupation.

The Poles believed that any Russian or German Army on it's soil would never leave...

Well, you ignore the fact that Hitler agreed to the ultimatum of the western allies and IMMEDIATELY proposed to withdraw all troops from Poland and even agreed to pay reparations, if Poles accepted the will of the Germans who lived in Danzig.

And it was predictable that Poland will lose its eastern provinces after the Soviet invasion.
Do not forget that Poland was an evil empire with a huge number of non-Poles that were severely subjugated and discriminated by the Poles.

The Poles we not willing in any way to let Russian or German troops on it's soil.

What is "Polish Soil"?

Was Danzig and the Little Pommerania (the strip of land along the Baltic Sea) Polish soil?

No way, it was the soil of Kashubs and Germans, Poles were a tiny minority in this regions.

The same with the provinces that are today Belorussia or Ukraine.

In fact, Poles were occupying German, Kashub, Belorussian and Ukrainian soil, because the powers in Versailles decided that it is in their interests to dismember Germany and to create artificial states.

As already many times mentioned, neither the Weimar Republic nor the local German population in Danzig or Little Pomernia agreed to this decision.

From their point of view of Germans they were still Germans and they still lived on German land, occupied by Poles.

Can you blame them for that?

They never moved from their German land, it was just one day declared (without their agreement) that this land is not part of Germany any more, but they never accepted this despotic and undemocratic decision.

[pugsville]

Britain declared war in response to German violation of Belgium neutrality in accordance with a signed treaty that Germany was breaking. Germany had declared war of France and Russia. Germany was the Aggressor. Britain may well have declared war without this, (but with 2 cabinet resignations even with Belgium it is far from certain)

Yes the Allies did stick to the promises they made after the armistice, they made none. They told Germany they would make peace as they saw fit, they would be dictating the terms and Germany would be accepting what they decided, it was not of any basis of equaliyt. On hearing the basis of armistice negiotaions in November 1918 the civilian German government asked the German High command if the war could be continued, they were told it could not that the German army was incapable of continued war in anyway what so ever. They had been totally beaten. The whole stab in the back myth is just that a myth.

Poland was no Military threat what so ever to Germany in 1939.

The British Empire was over in 1939. The war quickened the collapse but it was going to happen, quickly or slowly.

All states are artificial creations. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia were all attempts at ethnic self determination. They were flawed to various degrees, a marked improvement of what was before, but given the situation there was no perfect solution, and the Versailles powers had pretty limited means to enforce there designs, the Eastern nations to some extent determined there own borders.

East Prussia was a problem. But the Corridor was not German. All wars no matter the outcome create problems that result in further wars,

It was Germany that was closely allied to the Soviets in 1939 who had signed an agreement to partition Poland. There was serious discussions about intervening in Finland. But for the actions of Nazi Germany the western Nations would have supported Finland.

Meeting Hitler Halfway. Munich. Hitler consisting lied, threatened the use of force continually, increased his demands after his initial demands were met.

The Allies only entered into an alliance with Russia, when in the depths of a desperate war against Hitler. A war hitler started that led to the invasions on most of europe, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece. It was an act of desperation. They diodnt trust or like the soviets. It was a way of stopping Hitler. Hitler entered into an agressive allaince with Stalin to crave up eastern europe.

Ukrainians and Russians were "less european" in the Eyes of the French and British.

For the vast majority of Eastern Peoples Soviet rule was less repressive and murderous than Nazi rule. For some groups the Soviets were worse but not many. The Soviets were Brutal , murderous and totally suppressed political, property and civil rights with a large amounts of mass murder. The Nazis would have murdered more.

The Point was that Germany had used unilateral Military force. The Allies would not accept any gain what so ever not one centimetre of land by the use of Military force. They had run out of patience with Hitler. This was not a mistake. It was a mistake to allow any gains based on the threat of Military force at any stage. Hitler could have been much more easily dealt with in 1938. The Mistakes were not using the league of Nations and strict economic sanctions to stop aggression. Japan and Italy should have been dealt with.

Poland was not some perfect creation, A independent Ukraine would have been better and the Polish Eastern border it was a choice of Poland or the Soviets. Polish rule was better than Soviet rule for these people.

National Boundaries are never going to perfectly follow ethnicity, you cant draw a border around every house, minorities in regions are going to exist. The overwhelmingly vast majority of land ceded by German in Versailles was not majority ethnic German. There were some votes for some regions. Versailles was a flawed political process far from perfect. But the Borders post Versailles were more ethnic self determinate than before and the imperfections were small. The amount of land in Poland that could be considered majority ethnic German was pretty darn small.

The problems with Versailles and ethnic self determination were the Slovaks, Rurthines,Ukrainians.

Why did Hitler go on and on about Danzig but never mention or take action about the many more Germans living in Italy?

[ArtAllm]

Britain declared war in response to German violation of Belgium neutrality in accordance with a signed treaty that Germany was breaking. Germany had declared war of France and Russia. Germany was the Aggressor. Britain may well have declared war without this, (but with 2 cabinet resignations even with Belgium it is far from certain)

That is too simple.

June 28, 1914: Serbian irredentists assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
...
July 25: Russia enters a period preparatory to war and mobilization begins on all frontiers. Government decides on a partial mobilization in principle to begin on July 29.

July 25: Serbia mobilizes its army; responds to Austro-Hungarian démarche with less than full acceptance; Austria-Hungary breaks diplomatic relations with Serbia.

July 26: Serbia reservists accidentally violate Austro-Hungarian border at Temes-Kubin.[32]

...

July 28: Austria-Hungary, having failed to accept Serbia's response of the 25th, declares war on Serbia. Mobilisation against Serbia begins.

July 29: Russian general mobilization is ordered, and then changed to partial mobilization.

...
July 30: Russian general mobilization is reordered at 5:00 P.M.

July 31: Austrian general mobilization is ordered.

July 31: Germany enters a period preparatory to war.

July 31: Germany sends an ultimatum to Russia, demanding that they halt military preparations within twelve hours.
...
July 31: Gemany asks France, whether it would stay neutral in case of a war Germany vs. Russia
...
August 1: French general mobilization is ordered.

August 1: German general mobilization is ordered.

August 1: Germany declares war against Russia.
...
August 3: Germany, after France declines (See Note) its demand to remain neutral,[34] declares war on France. Germany states to Belgium that she would "treat her as an enemy" if she did not allow free passage of German troops across her lands.

August 3: Britain, expecting German naval attack on the northern French coast, states that Britain would give "... all the protection in its powers."

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

As we see, German mobilisations was ordered on 1. August 1914.
Russian, Serbian and French general mobilisation were ordered earlier.
Germany acted in accordance with a signed treaty, too. It had a treaty with Austria.
If Russia agreed to the demobilization of the army, the war with Serbia would have remained a local conflict.
If France promised to stay neutral, there would be no attack on France, and the territory of Belgium would not be needed for the free passage of German troops across her lands.

If somebody pointed his pistol at your head, would you wait till he presses the trigger?

The war was started by powers who first prepared for a war, and that was Serbia, Russia and France.
Germany only responded to these war preparations, and it would be silly to wait till Russia launched the first strike.

Yes the Allies did stick to the promises they made after the armistice, they made none.

Of course there were Wilson's Fourteen Points, and of course the allies just neglected the promises made in these points.
That was just propaganda, which was spread by the leftist media in Germany, and that is the reason why the Germans wanted the end of the war.

They told Germany they would make peace as they saw fit, they would be dictating the terms and Germany would be accepting what they decided, it was not of any basis of equaliyt.

That was later, and that was the reason why Ludendorff declared the conditions of the Allies unacceptable and demanded to resume the war.

They had been totally beaten.

BS, no foreign soldier was on German territory, but German soldiers occupied the territory of the allies.

The whole stab in the back myth is just that a myth.

It was reality. The leftist media just promoted the Wilson's Fourteen Points, which were a deliberate lie.
That was the reason why most Germans believed that there would be a just peace and they demanded the end of the military effort.

Poland was no Military threat what so ever to Germany in 1939.

I have shown with quotes that it was a threat.

The British Empire was over in 1939. The war quickened the collapse but it was going to happen, quickly or slowly.

That does not make any sense. And even if this was true, there is still no explanation of the behaviour of the British government, it acted against their own interests. Why should GB "quicken" the collapse of their own empire, if Germany promised to help to preserve it? Does that make sense?

All states are artificial creations.

No, that is not true. National states, like Germany, are and were natural creations.
If you divide Germany (like it was the case with DDR), the people will vote for unification.

The same was the case with Danzig, and the German population of Pommerania would also have voted for reunification with Germany, if such a vote was permitted.

What to artificial creations, like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, these creation immediately collapse, if you give the people the opportunity to vote.

Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia were all attempts at ethnic self determination.

That does not make any sense, because these states were not national states. If one ethnic group subjugates other ethnic groups, then this was an attempt of ethnic subjugation, not of ethnic self determination.

History had proven that the forceful division of Germany was wrong, and that the artificial states, like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia were dead born creations that cannot exist without a sadistic and dictatorial government that acts against the will of the people.

East Prussia was a problem. But the Corridor was not German. All wars no matter the outcome create problems that result in further wars...

The Small Pommerania and Danzig were German, too, and I have proved this with facts.

It was Germany that was closely allied to the Soviets in 1939 who had signed an agreement to partition Poland.

Yes, but this was a desperate tactical move, after the western powers refused to acknowledge the rights of Germans in Danzig.

Meeting Hitler Halfway. Munich. Hitler consisting lied, threatened the use of force continually, increased his demands after his initial demands were met.

Can you be more specific? And how was this a threat to British interests?

The Allies only entered into an alliance with Russia, when in the depths of a desperate war against Hitler.

No, they consciously chose this situation. They opted for war, speak for "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat".
All this could be easily avoided.

A war hitler started that led to the invasions on most of europe, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece.

Have you already forgotten that this was after GB and France declared war on Germany, and that there was a proposal to withdraw German Wehrmacht from Poland and pay compensation to Poland, and that the West rejected this proposal, too?

It was an act of desperation. They diodnt trust or like the soviets. It was a way of stopping Hitler. Hitler entered into an agressive allaince with Stalin to crave up eastern europe.

That does not make any sense at all, because Hitler proposed a union with the West against Stalin.
The alliance with Stalin was just a temporary tactical move to solve the Danzig problem, after the West refused to cooperate in this issue.

Ukrainians and Russians were "less european" in the Eyes of the French and British.

Because the controlled "British" media promoted this point of view, and they promoted this attitude, because it was in their interests (but not in the interests of British people).

The Allies would not accept any gain what so ever not one centimetre of land by the use of Military force.

That does not make any sense because the allies themselves gained their colonies by military force, subjugating ethnic groups and territories far away from their borders.

Besides that, the action of Germany did not endanger the interest of GB, as already many times mentioned.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of land ceded by German in Versailles was not majority ethnic German.

As already many times mentioned, Germany wanted back only the territory that had a German majority.
Please read the thread, all facts are already pointed out.

But the Borders post Versailles were more ethnic self determinate than before and the imperfections were small.

No, that was not the case, and I have already proven this with facts.

The amount of land in Poland that could be considered majority ethnic German was pretty darn small.

Well, as already many, many time mentioned, Germany wanted back only this small land, called Small Pomerania.
That was a small strip of land along the coas, and this part of land did not have any Polish population at all, and never had in the past. It was the land of Kashubs and Germans, an these people wanted to be part of Germany.

Why did Hitler go on and on about Danzig but never mention or take action about the many more Germans living in Italy?

I have already answered this, read the thread.
It is obvious that there a small German speaking population in Italy, but these people were historically part of Austria, not Germany.

The central point is, that GB was not threatened by Hitler, but was threatened by the Soviets, and you have failed to address this important and central point.

The actions of the British government were totally irrational.

[pugsville]

I'm pretty busty to answer but Studenten Land was also part of Austria not part of Germany historically. Why complain about minor areas in Poland when there were greater areas in Italy? Because Hitler was only using Sudetenland and dazing as pretexts.

How was GB threatened by the Soviets?

Hitler colluded with Stalin to divide Poland. He had signed a written agreement with Stalin about the exact Division of Poland. How could any offer by Hitler to Withdraw have been genuine? He had only months before said Sudetenland was he last territorial demand. He just lied often and had no respect at all for any treaty he signed.


In ww1 the German Army was comprehensively and totally beaten and was unable to offer serious ongoing Resistance had the war continued. Where the German soldiers stood, in or out of Germany is simply not relevant, in late 1944 the allies had still not entered Germany but Germany was clearly beaten.

The Germans were made quite aware very quickly in talks what sort of terms the Allies would impose after ww1. The Stab in the back was a total fabrication containing no truth at all. The Germany army had run the war it's way imposing itself over civilian rule. Then we they had totally broken it, denied ownership and installed a 'fall guy' civilian administration which they deliberately constructed for just this purpose.

The Outbreak of WW1 could have been avoided in Germany did not back Austria and conceal it's knowledge of the Austrian Note to Serbia (the Note was such demands that everyone knew it meant war), If the Austrians had accepted the pretty substantial Serbian terms (they accepted almost all of the Austrian demands) Germany was well aware of the Note and how serious the crisis was and just backed Austria while denying their knowledge of the unrealistic Austrian Terms. Germany declared war on Both Russia and France. Mobilization did NOT mean war (only the Germans had any war plans that demanded that attacks must start from mobilization) Mobilization had happened in previous crisis's and not led to war. The way to avoid war was an international conference that had been use din previous crisis's, Austria chose to issues demands that were unrealistic and could not be met , Germany backed Austria. The Invasion of Belgium on the basis it was militarily advantageous to attack a neutral, and one that your nation had signed a treaty to protect. Germany had a very large share of responsibility for ww1, France and Britian NONE at all.




Nazi Germany was a heavily armed Nation in the Hands of a mad Dictator who could not be trusted. His Neighbors at the very least had to maintain a crippling arms expenditure.

the artificial states, like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia? artificiall how are they more artificial than France, Brittan, Spain or Germany? Nationality and Ethnicity are constructs. Before mass media, Education, Nationalism was generally a pretty empty concept. And After ww1 if you are not going to have those states how do propose governing those states? the Existing Despotic Empires?

[ArtAllm]

I'm pretty busty to answer but Studenten Land was also part of Austria not part of Germany historically.
Why complain about minor areas in Poland when there were greater areas in Italy?

What are you talking about?




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... hsgaue.png



Have you ever visited Südtirol?
There live about 150 000 Germans in South Tyrol.

But when the Treaty of Saint-Germain was signed on September 10, 1919 Italy was given by Article 27, section 2 the ethnic German territories south of the Alpine watershed.

It has been claimed that Wilson later complained about the annexation:

"Already the president had, unfortunately, promised the Brenner Pass boundary to Orlando, which gave to Italy some 150,000 Tyrolese Germans-an action which he subsequently regarded as a big mistake and deeply regretted. It had been before he had made a careful study of the subject...."[10]

...
Adolf Hitler never claimed any part of the Southern Tyrol for his Third Reich, even before the alliance with Benito Mussolini;[14] in fact in Mein Kampf (1924) he claimed that Germans were just a small and irrelevant minority in Southern Tyrol[citation needed] (this definition including also Trentino) and he acknowledged the German portion of Southern Tyrol as a permanent possession of Italy.

In 1939, both dictators agreed to give the German-speaking population a choice in the South Tyrol Option Agreement: they could emigrate to neighbouring Germany (including annexed Austria) or stay in Italy and accept complete Italianisation.

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

The territory is about 7,399.97 km2

There are beautiful alpine valleys in this region, but most territory is uninhabitable.


Besides that, these Germans were not threatened and not discriminated before Wll.
I have often visited this Italian province, there are still people who speak German (about 5 000), and there was no need to protect these people from a genocide and expulsion.

The population of the province was about 1,487,452 (without Danzig).
The German population of Danzig was about 350 000.

The area of Danzig and Pomerelian was about 21,237 km2, and it was a bridge to East Prussia.

The population of East Prussia was about 0,8 Million Germans, and had a big territory that was cut off from the German mainland.

Germany had huge territorial losses in the East, not in the South or in the West.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germanborders.svg

How was GB threatened by the Soviets?

Have you read this thread?
I have quoted a Russian historians who quoted Stalin. Stalin believed that if he managed to crush GB, then the capitalism is finished. Stalin believed that Hilter will help him to crush Capitalism.

Hitler colluded with Stalin to divide Poland. He had signed a written agreement with Stalin about the exact Division of Poland. How could any offer by Hitler to Withdraw have been genuine?

Read the text of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.


Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

As we see, they use the conditional mood in this secret protocol. The validity of the agreement was dependent on some condition.

If the western powers agreed to solve the Danzig question, there would be no event of territorial rearrangement, Poland could have saved its face and save the most territory that was former German territory (see the map above)

He had only months before said Sudetenland was he last territorial demand.

What are you talking about?
No government of the Weimar Republic accepted the Eastern borders, and the problem of Danzig and the Little Pomerania was non-stop negotiated since the Weimar Republic, and it was always on the agenda.

It seems that you have no idea about the real history of WWII, and you are reluctant to read this thread.

Where the German soldiers stood, in or out of Germany is simply not relevant...

Of course it was relevant.

... in late 1944 the allies had still not entered Germany but Germany was clearly beaten.

It was a totally different situation.

The Outbreak of WW1 could have been avoided in Germany did not back Austria and conceal it's knowledge of the Austrian Note to Serbia (the Note was such demands that everyone knew it meant war).

Russia and France mobilized their armies to invade Germany, dude!

Germany had a very large share of responsibility for ww1, France and Britian NONE at all.

BS, neither British, nor French interests were threatened in Serbia. These were huge colonial powers that grabbed a lot of land overseas, but they hated Germans, and that is why they supported the enemies of Germans.
Austria and Germany were basically the same nation, they spoke the same language, and it is natural that they helped each others. Russia was pushing into Europe, that is why they played the Slavophile card.

In other words, Austria and Germany were just protecting their interests, their status quo.
Russia was expanding, and France and GB did not lose anything in Serbia, they just hated the Germans and wanted the destruction of Germany.

Nazi Germany was a heavily armed Nation in the Hands of a mad Dictator who could not be trusted.

Please read this thread, for Christ's sake!

All military statistics were already quoted!

NS Germany was not even nearly as heavily armed in 1939 as the Soviet Union, ruled by a murderous dictator who dreamed about the World Revolution and the destruction of GB.

The SU had an astronomical military superiority, and so the western allies.


SU had huge resources, NS- Germany didn't have any resources.

It is obvious that Stalin was a much bigger potential threat, than the Anglophile NS-Germany.

Everybody with a half brain can see that, if he checks the historical facts, and does not trust the picture that was created by controlled Media.

the artificial states, like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia?

....
artificiall how are they more artificial than France, Brittan, Spain or Germany?

I have already answered these question. The artificial states can only exist if they suppress the will of the subjugated population and do not permit votes.

Any vote in Danzig, in Pommerania, in Czechoslovakia, in Yugoslavia etc would have immediately destroyed these constructs.

No vote in Germany would have destroyed this country.

Only the ethnic cleansing of German land could solve the problem, and that is why after WWII the biggest ethnic cleansing in the history of modern Europe took place, and the allies are responsible for this unprecedented genocide.

[pugsville]

Sudetenland was not part of historical Germany Your Map of 1941 is after the German takeover, at the time the the claims were made Sudetenland had never been part of Germany, your very own argument that things NOT part of historical Germany were not valid areas to claim, that Tyrol Had NOT been claimed BECAUSE it had not been part of historical Germany, I pointed out that you were being inconsistent as Hitler had been because Sudetenland had not been part of historical Germany either. It was your reasoning about 'historical Germany' by your own logic the claim against Sudetenland was wrong, but of course when I point out the inconsistency and error in your position you find another different reason why your position is right, which goes to show your position isnt about logic or facts but a fixed agenda and the arguments your raise you don't believe in, you were shown to be wrong, you said Tryol as it wasnt part of historical Germany it wasnt a valid area to claim, now when I point out that neither was Sudetenland wasnt either your just shift arguments and manufacture another argument without either blinking after your first had been demolished.

You Map is totally irrelevant it's a map of 1941 NOT 'historical Germany;.

The Germans in Poland or Czechoslovakia were not discriminated against or threatened any more than Germans in Tyrol and certainly less than Poles or Czechs under the German or Austrian Empires.

There was no Genocide or Expulsion in Czechoslovakia or Poland until the backlash against Nazi Germany and WW2. There were not the product of Czech or Polish Nationalism, but a backlash against Nazi policies and actions, and would not have occurred without ww2 and German aggression. They are not an argument in 1939 that Germany had to protect Germans, because they simply were not threatened. I dont personally agree with or support the Expulsions and Killings of Germans at the end of ww2 I condemn them, but to large product of Nazi Germany actions.

On East Prussia being 'cut off' from Germany you raising an argument that strategic considerations as a valid argument when determining National Boundaries, the very sort of Argument the Czechs raise with the Sudetenland (defensive borders) or Danzig (port access ) these arguments are very grey , very subjective value Judgements,

Threat to GB by the Soviets, statements by Stalin as those by Hitler are really hardly evidence of anything, neither was very honest or grounded in reality. There was no soviet threat towards GB. Britian was along way away and on an Island, the Soviets had no real fleet, They would have to conquer all of Europe and then build a fleet, any Soviet started attempt at conquering Europe would have forced an alliance of European states which could have stopped the Soviets. The Soviet conquest of Europe was only made possible by the division and weakening of Europe by Hitler. Without Hitler the Great soviet Empire would never have happened. In 1939 the Soviet Union was totally incapable of threatening Britain.

Defeat of the German army in 1918/1945 If were the soldiers stand was a total decider If an army is defeated then the germans were undefeated at the start of 1945. It's a simple cause of understanding logic here, you say 'the Germans were not beaten in 1918' because their "armies were still standing on foreign soil", i raised a counter example where "armies stranding of foreign soil" was never less defeated and you agreed with my example, your argument that the reason the germans army is undefeated BECAUSE it stood on foreign soil had shown to be wrong. You agreed with my counter example. You now need to find a better argument as to why the German army was undefeated in 1918. But eh German High Command told their recently installed Government in 1918 that further resistance was NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE, German High command knew and formally told it's own Government that they were totally defeated. It's well documented and just do some reading.

Wikipedia.
"On 29 September 1918 the German Supreme Army Command informed Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Imperial Chancellor Count Georg von Hertling at army headquarters in Spa, Belgium, that the military situation facing Germany was hopeless. Quartermaster general Erich Ludendorff, probably fearing a breakthrough, claimed that he could not guarantee that the front would hold for another 24 hours and demanded a request be given to the Entente for an immediate ceasefire."
Hopless Beaten in the opinionof their own High Command,.


In 1914 the Germans declared war on France and Germany, German was the aggressor, it invaded other countries. The Russians position that Austria should not invade Serbia, a status quo position, the Germans went to war on the right of Austria to Invade Serbia, it was the Germans and Austrians that were seeking to change the status quo by military force. Austria had already flagrantly just annexed Bosnia Herzegovina. Germany was threatening to upset the Balance of power and the status quo. Really how about Negotiation instead of invading other Nations.

A vote of Poland or Czechoslovakia would have passed. If you pick some hand picked sub area of these states yes a vote against the Nation could have been carried at certain times, but sub areas of German and many other states it would also be carried. The majority of the population of Poland and Czechoslovakia supported their states, they were also a clear progression in the rights of the population including the minorities than the Empires that preceded them.

Wiemar Republic was never going to invade neighboring states as a method of solving disputes. Wiemar Germany did want to address some border disputes and was in favor of some rearming, Hitler was committed from the very start to arming Germany to the greatest possibles extent and the conquest and a vast Racial Based Empire. That was the Gutz of Hitler philopshy and goals, to say he had the same goals as the Wiemar Republic is NOT correct at all,

[Rich]

Sudetenland was not part of historical Germany

The Sudetenland had essentially been part of Germany for nine hundred years. It was under the German Hapsburg dynasty for four hundred years. It was part of the Kingdom of Germany. It was part of the Holy Roman Empire and it was part of the German Confederation. It was part of the Austrian Kingdom after the dual monarchy was established. By any reasonable measure it was German territory.

[pugsville]

Context Rich, ArtAllm said that Tyrol was part of Austria NOT Germany in this context the exactly same applies to Sudetenland.

Yes there is arguable stuff. But in the context of Artie;s statements NO.

[Rich]

The problem wasn't the German demands, but Hitler and the Nazis. None of the other great power nations: Britain, France, Russia or the United States would have excepted their core territories being separated in the way that Germany was.

Lets also remember the con job that was 1918. When the revolution rose against the Kaiser's regime and the Germans accepted the armistice and the surrender of occupied territory the understanding was that the peace deal would be based on the fourteen points.

Yes Hitler was a national traitor selling out on the South Tirol. Hitler was very determined. He was absolutely committed to outdoing the Kaiser's stupidity before World War I. he achieved that. His alliance with Mussolini was even more stupid than Imperial Germany's alliance with Austro-Hungary.

[pugsville]

The vast majority of areas lost by Germany the clear majority of the population was non German, Poland isnt a Core German treaty by an imperial Provence. Most Germans did not care the Warsaw was not part of Germany.

I pretty Sure the Allies Promised the Germans almost nothing in 1918, the basic deal of the nov 11 Armistice was teh Allies agreed to start peace took and grant an immediate armistice, if (a) Germany retreated from all occupied areas (b) gave up a lot on weapons (c) interned most of their navy, (d) the Allied blockade remained in place,

see
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Condit ... th_Germany

These were the terms under which the allies would grant an armistice of 30 days to talk about peace, Germany provided ALL the concessions, which were massive. once Germany accepted these terms they were totally under the mercy and whim of the allies, it was obvious from these terms, it is the terms of a surrender.The Germans were guaranteed nothing for giving vast amounts of stuff.

"based on 14 points" is a loose wording and no loss Germany suffered was inconsistent with the 14 points. In fact the said they would be an Independent Poland with access to the Sea. The Allies made clear they would be doing the deciding about what part of the 14pts applied.


The Betrayal of the 14 points was to colonial populations,



It was one sided and pointedly so. The Germans came begging for an pretty immediate Armistice, German High Command told the government the further resistance was impossible and to get immediate peace no mater what the terms.

the con job about 1918 was German propaganda afterwards and the pack of lies they told their own population, The truth is they were absolutely beaten, the allies, should have insistent on surrender, for it was in all but name.