The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Wear Archive
Why Germany Invaded Poland
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Credit: Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Great Britain’s Blank Check to Poland

On March 21, 1939, while hosting French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain discussed a joint front with France, Russia and Poland to act together against German aggression. France agreed at once, and the Russians agreed on the condition that both France and Poland sign first. However, Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck vetoed the agreement on March 24, 1939.[1]Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 207. Polish statesmen feared Russia more than they did Germany. Polish Marshal Edward Śmigły-Rydz told the French ambassador, “With the Germans we risk losing our liberty; with the Russians we lose our soul.”[2]DeConde, Alexander, A History of American Foreign Policy, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971, p. 576.

Another complication arose in European diplomacy when a movement among the residents of Memel in Lithuania sought to join Germany. The Allied victors in the Versailles Treaty had detached Memel from East Prussia and placed it in a separate League of Nations protectorate. Lithuania then proceeded to seize Memel from the League of Nations shortly after World War I. Memel was historically a German city which in the seven centuries of its history had never separated from its East Prussian homeland. Germany was so weak after World War I that it could not prevent the tiny new-born nation of Lithuania from seizing Memel.[3]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 25, 312.

Germany’s occupation of Prague in March 1939 had generated uncontrollable excitement among the mostly German population of Memel. The population of Memel was clamoring to return to Germany and could no longer be restrained. The Lithuanian foreign minister traveled to Berlin on March 22, 1939, where he agreed to the immediate transfer of Memel to Germany. The annexation of Memel into Germany went through the next day. The question of Memel exploded of itself without any deliberate German plan of annexation.[4]Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 209. Polish leaders agreed that the return of Memel to Germany from Lithuania would not constitute an issue of conflict between Germany and Poland.[5]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.

What did cause conflict between Germany and Poland was the so-called Free City of Danzig. Danzig was founded in the early 14th century and was historically the key port at the mouth of the great Vistula River. From the beginning Danzig was inhabited almost exclusively by Germans, with the Polish minority in 1922 constituting less than 3% of the city’s 365,000 inhabitants. The Treaty of Versailles converted Danzig from a German provincial capital into a League of Nations protectorate subject to numerous strictures established for the benefit of Poland. The great preponderance of the citizens of Danzig had never wanted to leave Germany, and they were eager to return to Germany in 1939. Their eagerness to join Germany was exacerbated by the fact that Germany’s economy was healthy while Poland’s economy was still mired in depression.[6]Ibid., pp. 49-60.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.)

Many of the German citizens of Danzig had consistently demonstrated their unwavering loyalty to National Socialism and its principles. They had even elected a National Socialist parliamentary majority before this result had been achieved in Germany. It was widely known that Poland was constantly seeking to increase her control over Danzig despite the wishes of Danzig’s German majority. Hitler was not opposed to Poland’s further economic aspirations at Danzig, but Hitler was resolved never to permit the establishment of a Polish political regime at Danzig. Such a renunciation of Danzig by Hitler would have been a repudiation of the loyalty of Danzig citizens to the Third Reich and their spirit of self-determination.[7]Ibid., pp. 328-329.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.)

Germany presented a proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the Danzig question with Poland on October 24, 1938. Hitler’s plan would allow Germany to annex Danzig and construct a superhighway and a railroad to East Prussia. In return Poland would be granted a permanent free port in Danzig and the right to build her own highway and railroad to the port. The entire Danzig area would also become a permanent free market for Polish goods on which no German customs duties would be levied. Germany would take the unprecedented step of recognizing and guaranteeing the existing German-Polish frontier, including the boundary in Upper Silesia established in 1922. This later provision was extremely important since the Versailles Treaty had given Poland much additional territory which Germany proposed to renounce. Hitler’s offer to guarantee Poland’s frontiers also carried with it a degree of military security that no other non-Communist nation could match.[8]Ibid., pp. 145-146.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.)

ORDER IT NOW

Germany’s proposed settlement with Poland was far less favorable to Germany than the Thirteenth Point of Wilson’s program at Versailles. The Versailles Treaty gave Poland large slices of territory in regions such as West Prussia and Western Posen which were overwhelmingly German. The richest industrial section of Upper Silesia was also later given to Poland despite the fact that Poland had lost the plebiscite there.[9]Ibid., p. 21.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.)
Germany was willing to renounce these territories in the interest of German-Polish cooperation. This concession of Hitler’s was more than adequate to compensate for the German annexation of Danzig and construction of a superhighway and a railroad in the Corridor. The Polish diplomats themselves believed that Germany’s proposal was a sincere and realistic basis for a permanent agreement.[10]Ibid., pp. 21, 256-257.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.)

On March 26, 1939, the Polish Ambassador to Berlin, Joseph Lipski, formally rejected Germany’s settlement proposals. The Poles had waited over five months to reject Germany’s proposals, and they refused to countenance any change in existing conditions. Lipski stated to German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop that “it was his painful duty to draw attention to the fact that any further pursuance of these German plans, especially where the return of Danzig to the Reich was concerned, meant war with Poland.”[11]Ibid., p. 323.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.)

Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck accepted an offer from Great Britain on March 30, 1939, to give an unconditional guarantee of Poland’s independence. The British Empire agreed to go to war as an ally of Poland if the Poles decided that war was necessary. In words drafted by British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, Chamberlain spoke in the House of Commons on March 31, 1939:

I now have to inform the House…that in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to that effect.[12]Barnett, Correlli, The Collapse of British Power, New York: William Morrow, 1972, p. 560; see also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 211.

Great Britain for the first time in history had left the decision whether or not to fight a war outside of her own country to another nation. Britain’s guarantee to Poland was binding without commitments from the Polish side. The British public was astonished by this move. Despite its unprecedented nature, Halifax encountered little difficulty in persuading the British Conservative, Liberal and Labor parties to accept Great Britain’s unconditional guarantee to Poland.[13]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 333, 340.

Numerous British historians and diplomats have criticized Britain’s unilateral guarantee of Poland. For example, British diplomat Roy Denman called the war guarantee to Poland “the most reckless undertaking ever given by a British government. It placed the decision on peace or war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling military dictatorship.”[14]Denman, Roy, Missed Chances: Britain and Europe in the Twentieth Century, London: Indigo, 1997, p. 121.British historian Niall Ferguson states that the war guarantee to Poland tied Britain’s “destiny to that of a regime that was every bit as undemocratic and anti-Semitic as that of Germany.”[15]Ferguson, Niall, The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, New York: Penguin Press, 2006, p. 377.English military historian Liddell Hart stated that the Polish guarantee “placed Britain’s destiny in the hands of Poland’s rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment. Moreover, the guarantee was impossible to fulfill except with Russia’s help.…”[16]Hart, B. H. Liddell, History of the Second World War, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1970, p. 11.

American historian Richard M. Watt writes concerning Britain’s unilateral guarantee to Poland: “This enormously broad guarantee virtually left to the Poles the decision whether or not Britain would go to war. For Britain to give such a blank check to a Central European nation, particularly to Poland—a nation that Britain had generally regarded as irresponsible and greedy—was mind-boggling.”[17]Watt, Richard M., Bitter Glory: Poland and Its Fate 1918 to 1939, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979, p. 379.

When the Belgian Minister to Germany, Vicomte Jacques Davignon, received the text of the British guarantee to Poland, he exclaimed that “blank check” was the only possible description of the British pledge. Davignon was extremely alarmed in view of the proverbial recklessness of the Poles. German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker attempted to reassure Davignon by claiming that the situation between Germany and Poland was not tragic. However, Davignon correctly feared that the British move would produce war in a very short time.[18]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.

Weizsäcker later exclaimed scornfully that “the British guarantee to Poland was like offering sugar to an untrained child before it had learned to listen to reason!”[19]Ibid., p. 391.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

The Deterioration of German-Polish Relations

German-Polish relationships had become strained by the increasing harshness with which the Polish authorities handled the German minority. The Polish government in the 1930s began to confiscate the land of its German minority at bargain prices through public expropriation. The German government resented the fact that German landowners received only one-eighth of the value of their holdings from the Polish government. Since the Polish public was aware of the German situation and desired to exploit it, the German minority in Poland could not sell the land in advance of expropriation. Furthermore, Polish law forbade Germans from privately selling large areas of land.

German diplomats insisted that the November 1937 Minorities Pact with Poland for the equal treatment of German and Polish landowners be observed in 1939. Despite Polish assurances of fairness and equal treatment, German diplomats learned on February 15, 1939, that the latest expropriations of land in Poland were predominantly of German holdings. These expropriations virtually eliminated substantial German landholdings in Poland at a time when most of the larger Polish landholdings were still intact. It became evident that nothing could be done diplomatically to help the German minority in Poland.[20]Ibid., pp. 260-262.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Poland threatened Germany with a partial mobilization of her forces on March 23, 1939. Hundreds of thousands of Polish Army reservists were mobilized, and Hitler was warned that Poland would fight to prevent the return of Danzig to Germany. The Poles were surprised to discover that Germany did not take this challenge seriously. Hitler, who deeply desired friendship with Poland, refrained from responding to the Polish threat of war. Germany did not threaten Poland and took no precautionary military measures in response to the Polish partial mobilization.[21]Ibid., pp. 311-312.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Hitler regarded a German-Polish agreement as a highly welcome alternative to a German-Polish war. However, no further negotiations for a German-Polish agreement occurred after the British guarantee to Poland because Józef Beck refused to negotiate. Beck ignored repeated German suggestions for further negotiations because Beck knew that Halifax hoped to accomplish the complete destruction of Germany. Halifax had considered an Anglo-German war inevitable since 1936, and Britain’s anti-German policy was made public with a speech by Neville Chamberlain on March 17, 1939. Halifax discouraged German-Polish negotiations because he was counting on Poland to provide the pretext for a British pre-emptive war against Germany.[22]Ibid., pp. 355, 357.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

The situation between Germany and Poland deteriorated rapidly during the six weeks from the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939, to a speech delivered by Józef Beck on May 5, 1939. Beck’s primary purpose in delivering his speech before the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament, was to convince the Polish public and the world that he was able and willing to challenge Hitler. Beck knew that Halifax had succeeded in creating a warlike atmosphere in Great Britain, and that he could go as far as he wanted without displeasing the British. Beck took an uncompromising attitude in his speech that effectively closed the door to further negotiations with Germany.

Beck made numerous false and hypocritical statements in his speech. One of the most astonishing claims in his speech was that there was nothing extraordinary about the British guarantee to Poland. He described it as a normal step in the pursuit of friendly relations with a neighboring country. This was in sharp contrast to British diplomat Sir Alexander Cadogan’s statement to Joseph Kennedy that Britain’s guarantee to Poland was without precedent in the entire history of British foreign policy.[23]Ibid., pp. 381, 383.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Beck ended his speech with a stirring climax that produced wild excitement in the Polish Sejm. Someone in the audience screamed loudly, “We do not need peace!” and pandemonium followed. Beck had made many Poles in the audience determined to fight Germany. This feeling resulted from their ignorance which made it impossible for them to criticize the numerous falsehoods and misstatements in Beck’s speech. Beck made the audience feel that Hitler had insulted the honor of Poland with what were actually quite reasonable peace proposals. Beck had effectively made Germany the deadly enemy of Poland.[24]Ibid., pp. 384, 387.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

More than 1 million ethnic Germans resided in Poland at the time of Beck’s speech, and these Germans were the principal victims of the German-Polish crisis in the coming weeks. The Germans in Poland were subjected to increasing doses of violence from the dominant Poles. The British public was told repeatedly that the grievances of the German minority in Poland were largely imaginary. The average British citizen was completely unaware of the terror and fear of death that stalked these Germans in Poland. Ultimately, many thousands of Germans in Poland died in consequence of the crisis. They were among the first victims of British Foreign Secretary Halifax’s war policy against Germany.[25]Ibid., p. 387.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

The immediate responsibility for security measures involving the German minority in Poland rested with Interior Department Ministerial Director Waclaw Zyborski. Zyborski consented to discuss the situation on June 23, 1939, with Walther Kohnert, one of the leaders of the German minority at Bromberg. Zyborski admitted to Kohnert that the Germans of Poland were in an unenviable situation, but he was not sympathetic to their plight. Zyborski ended their lengthy conversation by stating frankly that his policy required a severe treatment of the German minority in Poland. He made it clear that it was impossible for the Germans of Poland to alleviate their hard fate. The Germans in Poland were the helpless hostages of the Polish community and the Polish state.[26]Ibid., pp. 388-389.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Other leaders of the German minority in Poland repeatedly appealed to the Polish government for help during this period. Sen. Hans Hasbach, the leader of the conservative German minority faction, and Dr. Rudolf Wiesner, the leader of the Young German Party, each made multiple appeals to Poland’s government to end the violence. In a futile appeal on July 6, 1939, to Premier Sławoj-Składkowski, head of Poland’s Department of Interior, Wiesner referred to the waves of public violence against the Germans at Tomaszów near Lódz, May 13-15th, at Konstantynów, May 21-22nd, and at Pabianice, June 22-23, 1939. The appeal of Wiesner produced no results. The leaders of the German political groups eventually recognized that they had no influence with Polish authorities despite their loyal attitudes toward Poland. It was “open season” on the Germans of Poland with the approval of the Polish government.[27]Ibid.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

ORDER IT NOW

Polish anti-German incidents also occurred against the German majority in the Free City of Danzig. On May 21, 1939, Zygmunt Morawski, a former Polish soldier, murdered a German at Kalthof on Danzig territory. The incident itself would not have been so unusual except for the fact that Polish officials acted as if Poland and not the League of Nations had sovereign power over Danzig. Polish officials refused to apologize for the incident, and they treated with contempt the effort of Danzig authorities to bring Morawski to trial. The Poles in Danzig considered themselves above the law.[28]Ibid., pp. 392-393.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Tension steadily mounted at Danzig after the Morawski murder. The German citizens of Danzig were convinced that Poland would show them no mercy if Poland gained the upper hand. The Poles were furious when they learned that Danzig was defying Poland by organizing its own militia for home defense. The Poles blamed Hitler for this situation. The Polish government protested to German Ambassador Hans von Moltke on July 1, 1939, about the Danzig government’s military-defense measures. Józef Beck told French Ambassador Léon Noël on July 6, 1939, that the Polish government had decided that additional measures were necessary to meet the alleged threat from Danzig.[29]Ibid., pp. 405-406.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

On July 29, 1939, the Danzig government presented two protest notes to the Poles concerning illegal activities of Polish custom inspectors and frontier officials. The Polish government responded by terminating the export of duty-free herring and margarine from Danzig to Poland. Polish officials next announced in the early hours of August 5, 1939, that the frontiers of Danzig would be closed to the importation of all foreign food products unless the Danzig government promised by the end of the day never to interfere with the activities of Polish customs inspectors. This threat was formidable since Danzig produced only a relatively small portion of its own food. All Polish customs inspectors would also bear arms while performing their duty after August 5, 1939. The Polish ultimatum made it obvious that Poland intended to replace the League of Nations as the sovereign power at Danzig.[30]Ibid., p. 412.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Hitler concluded that Poland was seeking to provoke an immediate conflict with Germany. The Danzig government submitted to the Polish ultimatum in accordance with Hitler’s recommendation.[31]Ibid. p. 413.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Józef Beck explained to British Ambassador Kennard that the Polish government was prepared to take military measures against Danzig if it failed to accept Poland’s terms. The citizens of Danzig were convinced that Poland would have executed a full military occupation of Danzig had the Polish ultimatum been rejected. It was apparent to the German government that the British and French were either unable or unwilling to restrain the Polish government from arbitrary steps that could result in war.[32]Ibid., pp. 413-415.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

On August 7, 1939, the Polish censors permitted the newspaper Illustrowany Kuryer Codzienny in Kraków to feature an article of unprecedented candor. The article stated that Polish units were constantly crossing the German frontier to destroy German military installations and to carry captured German military materiel into Poland. The Polish government failed to prevent the newspaper, which had the largest circulation in Poland, from telling the world that Poland was instigating a series of violations of Germany’s frontier with Poland.[33]Ibid. p. 419. In a footnote, the author notes that a report of the same matters appeared in the New York Times for August 8, 1939.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Polish Ambassador Jerzy Potocki unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Józef Beck to seek an agreement with Germany. Potocki later succinctly explained the situation in Poland by stating “Poland prefers Danzig to peace.”[34]Ibid., p. 419.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

President Roosevelt knew that Poland had caused the crisis which began at Danzig, and he was worried that the American public might learn the truth about the situation. This could be a decisive factor in discouraging Roosevelt’s plan for American military intervention in Europe. Roosevelt instructed U.S. Ambassador Biddle to urge the Poles to be more careful in making it appear that German moves were responsible for any inevitable explosion at Danzig. Biddle reported to Roosevelt on August 11, 1939, that Beck expressed no interest in engaging in a series of elaborate but empty maneuvers designed to deceive the American public. Beck stated that at the moment he was content to have full British support for his policy.[35]Ibid., p. 414.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Roosevelt also feared that American politicians might discover the facts about the hopeless dilemma which Poland’s provocative policy created for Germany. When American Democratic Party Campaign Manager and Post-Master General James Farley visited Berlin, Roosevelt instructed the American Embassy in Berlin to prevent unsupervised contact between Farley and the German leaders. The German Foreign Office concluded on August 10, 1939 that it was impossible to penetrate the wall of security around Farley. The Germans knew that President Roosevelt was determined to prevent them from freely communicating with visiting American leaders.[36]Ibid., p. 417.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Polish Atrocities Force War

On August 14, 1939, the Polish authorities in East Upper Silesia launched a campaign of mass arrests against the German minority. The Poles then proceeded to close and confiscate the remaining German businesses, clubs and welfare installations. The arrested Germans were forced to march toward the interior of Poland in prisoner columns. The various German groups in Poland were frantic by this time; they feared the Poles would attempt the total extermination of the German minority in the event of war. Thousands of Germans were seeking to escape arrest by crossing the border into Germany. Some of the worst recent Polish atrocities included the mutilation of several Germans. The Polish public was urged not to regard their German minority as helpless hostages who could be butchered with impunity.[37]Ibid., pp. 452-453.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Rudolf Wiesner, who was the most prominent of the German minority leaders in Poland, spoke of a disaster “of inconceivable magnitude” since the early months of 1939. Wiesner claimed that the last Germans had been dismissed from their jobs without the benefit of unemployment relief, and that hunger and privation were stamped on the faces of the Germans in Poland. German welfare agencies, cooperatives and trade associations had been closed by Polish authorities. Exceptional martial-law conditions of the earlier frontier zone had been extended to include more than one-third of the territory of Poland. The mass arrests, deportations, mutilations and beatings of the last few weeks in Poland surpassed anything that had happened before. Wiesner insisted that the German minority leaders merely desired the restoration of peace, the banishment of the specter of war, and the right to live and work in peace. Wiesner was arrested by the Poles on August 16, 1939 on suspicion of conducting espionage for Germany in Poland.[38]Ibid., p. 463.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

The German press devoted increasing space to detailed accounts of atrocities against the Germans in Poland. The Völkischer Beobachter reported that more than 80,000 German refugees from Poland had succeeded in reaching German territory by August 20, 1939. The German Foreign Office had received a huge file of specific reports of excesses against national and ethnic Germans in Poland. More than 1,500 documented reports had been received since March 1939, and more than 10 detailed reports were arriving in the German Foreign Office each day. The reports presented a staggering picture of brutality and human misery.[39]Ibid., p. 479.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

W. L. White, an American journalist, later recalled that there was no doubt among well-informed people by this time that horrible atrocities were being inflicted every day on the Germans of Poland.[40]Ibid., p. 554.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.)

Donald Day, a Chicago Tribune correspondent, reported on the atrocious treatment the Poles had meted out to the ethnic Germans in Poland:

…I traveled up to the Polish corridor where the German authorities permitted me to interview the German refugees from many Polish cities and towns. The story was the same. Mass arrests and long marches along roads toward the interior of Poland. The railroads were crowded with troop movements. Those who fell by the wayside were shot. The Polish authorities seemed to have gone mad. I have been questioning people all my life and I think I know how to make deductions from the exaggerated stories told by people who have passed through harrowing personal experiences. But even with generous allowance, the situation was plenty bad. To me the war seemed only a question of hours.[41]Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2002, p. 56.

British Ambassador Nevile Henderson in Berlin was concentrating on obtaining recognition from Halifax of the cruel fate of the German minority in Poland. Henderson emphatically warned Halifax on August 24, 1939, that German complaints about the treatment of the German minority in Poland were fully supported by the facts. Henderson knew that the Germans were prepared to negotiate, and he stated to Halifax that war between Poland and Germany was inevitable unless negotiations were resumed between the two countries. Henderson pleaded with Halifax that it would be contrary to Polish interests to attempt a full military occupation of Danzig, and he added a scathingly effective denunciation of Polish policy. What Henderson failed to realize is that Halifax was pursuing war for its own sake as an instrument of policy. Halifax desired the complete destruction of Germany.[42]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.

On August 25, 1939, Ambassador Henderson reported to Halifax the latest Polish atrocity at Bielitz, Upper Silesia. Henderson never relied on official German statements concerning these incidents, but instead based his reports on information he received from neutral sources. The Poles continued to forcibly deport the Germans of that area, and compelled them to march into the interior of Poland. Eight Germans were murdered and many more were injured during one of these actions.

Hitler was faced with a terrible dilemma. If Hitler did nothing, the Germans of Poland and Danzig would be abandoned to the cruelty and violence of a hostile Poland. If Hitler took effective action against the Poles, the British and French might declare war against Germany. Henderson feared that the Bielitz atrocity would be the final straw to prompt Hitler to invade Poland. Henderson, who strongly desired peace with Germany, deplored the failure of the British government to exercise restraint over the Polish authorities.[43]Ibid., p. 509
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)

On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. This non-aggression pact contained a secret protocol which recognized a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. German recognition of this Soviet sphere of influence would not apply in the event of a diplomatic settlement of the German-Polish dispute. Hitler had hoped to recover the diplomatic initiative through the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonaggression pact. However, Chamberlain warned Hitler in a letter dated August 23, 1939, that Great Britain would support Poland with military force regardless of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. Józef Beck also continued to refuse to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Germany.[44]Ibid., pp. 470, 483, 538.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)

ORDER IT NOW

Germany made a new offer to Poland on August 29, 1939, for a last diplomatic campaign to settle the German-Polish dispute. The terms of a new German plan for a settlement, the so-called Marienwerder proposals, were less important than the offer to negotiate as such. The terms of the Marienwerder proposals were intended as nothing more than a tentative German plan for a possible settlement. The German government emphasized that these terms were formulated to offer a basis for unimpeded negotiations between equals rather than constituting a series of demands which Poland would be required to accept. There was nothing to prevent the Poles from offering an entirely new set of proposals of their own.

The Germans, in offering to negotiate with Poland, were indicating that they favored a diplomatic settlement over war with Poland. The willingness of the Poles to negotiate would not in any way have implied a Polish retreat or their readiness to recognize the German annexation of Danzig. The Poles could have justified their acceptance to negotiate with the announcement that Germany, and not Poland, had found it necessary to request new negotiations. In refusing to negotiate, the Poles were announcing that they favored war. The refusal of British Foreign Secretary Halifax to encourage the Poles to negotiate indicated that he also favored war.[45]Ibid., pp. 513-514.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)

French Prime Minister Daladier and British Prime Minister Chamberlain were both privately critical of the Polish government. Daladier in private denounced the “criminal folly” of the Poles. Chamberlain admitted to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy that it was the Poles, and not the Germans, who were unreasonable. Kennedy reported to President Roosevelt, “frankly he [Chamberlain] is more worried about getting the Poles to be reasonable than the Germans.” However, neither Daladier nor Chamberlain made any effort to influence the Poles to negotiate with the Germans.[46]Ibid., pp. 441, 549.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)

On August 29, 1939, the Polish government decided upon the general mobilization of its army. The Polish military plans stipulated that general mobilization would be ordered only in the event of Poland’s decision for war. Henderson informed Halifax of some of the verified Polish violations prior to the war. The Poles blew up the Dirschau (Tczew) bridge across the Vistula River even though the eastern approach to the bridge was in German territory (East Prussia). The Poles also occupied a number of Danzig installations and engaged in fighting with the citizens of Danzig on the same day. Henderson reported that Hitler was not insisting on the total military defeat of Poland. Hitler was prepared to terminate hostilities if the Poles indicated that they were willing to negotiate a satisfactory settlement.[47]Ibid., pp. 537, 577.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)

Germany decided to invade Poland on September 1, 1939. All of the British leaders claimed that the entire responsibility for starting the war was Hitler’s. Prime Minister Chamberlain broadcast that evening on British radio that “the responsibility for this terrible catastrophe (war in Poland) lies on the shoulders of one man, the German Chancellor.” Chamberlain claimed that Hitler had ordered Poland to come to Berlin with the unconditional obligation of accepting without discussion the exact German terms. Chamberlain denied that Germany had invited the Poles to engage in normal negotiations. Chamberlain’s statements were unvarnished lies, but the Polish case was so weak that it was impossible to defend it with the truth.

Halifax also delivered a cleverly hypocritical speech to the House of Lords on the evening of September 1, 1939. Halifax claimed that the best proof of the British will to peace was to have Chamberlain, the great appeasement leader, carry Great Britain into war. Halifax concealed the fact that he had taken over the direction of British foreign policy from Chamberlain in October 1938, and that Great Britain would probably not be moving into war had this not happened. He assured his audience that Hitler, before the bar of history, would have to assume full responsibility for starting the war. Halifax insisted that the English conscience was clear, and that, in looking back, he did not wish to change a thing as far as British policy was concerned.[48]Ibid., pp. 578-579.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)

On September 2, 1939, Italy and Germany agreed to hold a mediation conference among themselves and Great Britain, France and Poland. Halifax attempted to destroy the conference plan by insisting that Germany withdraw her forces from Poland and Danzig before Great Britain and France would consider attending the mediation conference. French Foreign Minister Bonnet knew that no nation would accept such treatment, and that the attitude of Halifax was unreasonable and unrealistic.

Ultimately, the mediation effort collapsed, and both Great Britain and France declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939. When Hitler read the British declaration of war against Germany, he paused and asked of no one in particular: “What now?”[49]Ibid., pp. 586, 593, 598.
(Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.)
Germany was now in an unnecessary war with three European nations.

Similar to the other British leaders, Nevile Henderson, the British ambassador to Germany, later claimed that the entire responsibility for starting the war was Hitler’s. Henderson wrote in his memoirs in 1940: “If Hitler wanted peace he knew how to insure it; if he wanted war, he knew equally well what would bring it about. The choice lay with him, and in the end the entire responsibility for war was his.”[50]Henderson, Nevile, Failure of a Mission, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940, p. 227. Henderson forgot in this passage that he had repeatedly warned Halifax that the Polish atrocities against the German minority in Poland were extreme. Hitler invaded Poland in order to end these atrocities.

Polish Atrocities Continue against German Minority

The Germans in Poland continued to experience an atmosphere of terror in the early part of September 1939. Throughout the country the Germans had been told, “If war comes to Poland you will all be hanged.” This prophecy was later fulfilled in many cases.

The famous Bloody Sunday in Toruń on September 3, 1939, was accompanied by similar massacres elsewhere in Poland. These massacres brought a tragic end to the long suffering of many ethnic Germans. This catastrophe had been anticipated by the Germans before the outbreak of war, as reflected by the flight, or attempted escape, of large numbers of Germans from Poland. The feelings of these Germans were revealed by the desperate slogan, “Away from this hell, and back to the Reich!”[51]Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 390.

Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas writes concerning the ethnic Germans in Poland:

The first victims of the war were Volksdeutsche, ethnic German civilians resident in and citizens of Poland. Using lists prepared years earlier, in part by lower administrative offices, Poland immediately deported 15,000 Germans to Eastern Poland. Fear and rage at the quick German victories led to hysteria. German “spies” were seen everywhere, suspected of forming a fifth column. More than 5,000 German civilians were murdered in the first days of the war. They were hostages and scapegoats at the same time. Gruesome scenes were played out in Bromberg on September 3, as well as in several other places throughout the province of Posen, in Pommerellen, wherever German minorities resided.[52]De Zayas, Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 2nd edition, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 27.

Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans have been documented in the book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland. Most of the outside world dismissed this book as nothing more than propaganda used to justify Hitler’s invasion of Poland. However, skeptics failed to notice that forensic pathologists from the International Red Cross and medical and legal observers from the United States verified the findings of these investigations of Polish war crimes. These investigations were also conducted by German police and civil administrations, and not the National Socialist Party or the German military. Moreover, both anti-German and other university-trained researchers have acknowledged that the charges in the book are based entirely on factual evidence.[53]Roland, Marc, “Poland’s Censored Holocaust,” The Barnes Review in Review: 2008-2010, pp. 132-133.

The book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland stated:

When the first edition of this collection of documents went to press on November 17, 1939, 5,437 cases of murder committed by soldiers of the Polish army and by Polish civilians against men, women and children of the German minority had been definitely ascertained. It was known that the total when fully ascertained would be very much higher. Between that date and February 1, 1940, the number of identified victims mounted to 12,857. At the present stage investigations disclose that in addition to these 12,857, more than 45,000 persons are still missing. Since there is no trace of them, they must also be considered victims of the Polish terror. Even the figure 58,000 is not final. There can be no doubt that the inquiries now being carried out will result in the disclosure of additional thousands dead and missing.[54]Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.

Medical examinations of the dead showed that Germans of all ages, from four months to 82 years of age, were murdered. The report concluded:

It was shown that the murders were committed with the greatest brutality and that in many cases they were purely sadistic acts—that gouging of eyes was established and that other forms of mutilation, as supported by the depositions of witnesses, may be considered as true.

The method by which the individual murders were committed in many cases reveals studied physical and mental torture; in this connection several cases of killing extended over many hours and of slow death due to neglect had to be mentioned.

By far the most important finding seems to be the proof that murder by such chance weapons as clubs or knives was the exception, and that as a rule modern, highly-effective army rifles and pistols were available to the murderers. It must be emphasized further that it was possible to show, down to the minutest detail, that there could have been no possibility of execution [under military law].[55]Ibid., pp. 257-258.
(Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.)

The Polish atrocities were not acts of personal revenge, professional jealously or class hatred; instead, they were a concerted political action. They were organized mass murders caused by a psychosis of political animosity. The hate-inspired urge to destroy everything German was driven by the Polish press, radio, school and government propaganda. Britain’s blank check of support had encouraged Poland to conduct inhuman atrocities against its German minority.[56]Ibid., pp. 88-89.
(Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.)

The book Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland explained why the Polish government encouraged such atrocities:

The guarantee of assistance given Poland by the British Government was the agent which lent impetus to Britain’s policy of encirclement. It was designed to exploit the problem of Danzig and the Corridor to begin a war, desired and long-prepared by England, for the annihilation of Greater Germany. In Warsaw moderation was no longer considered necessary, and the opinion held was that matters could be safely brought to a head. England was backing this diabolical game, having guaranteed the “integrity” of the Polish state. The British assurance of assistance meant that Poland was to be the battering ram of Germany’s enemies. Henceforth Poland neglected no form of provocation of Germany and, in its blindness, dreamt of “victorious battle at Berlin’s gates.” Had it not been for the encouragement of the English war clique, which was stiffening Poland’s attitude toward the Reich and whose promises led Warsaw to feel safe, the Polish Government would hardly have let matters develop to the point where Polish soldiers and civilians would eventually interpret the slogan to extirpate all German influence as an incitement to the murder and bestial mutilation of human beings.[57]Ibid., pp. 75-76.
(Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.)

Endnotes

[1] Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 207.

[2] DeConde, Alexander, A History of American Foreign Policy, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971, p. 576.

[3] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 25, 312.

[4] Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 209.

[5] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 50.

[6] Ibid., pp. 49-60.

[7] Ibid., pp. 328-329.

[8] Ibid., pp. 145-146.

[9] Ibid., p. 21.

[10] Ibid., pp. 21, 256-257.

[11] Ibid., p. 323.

[12] Barnett, Correlli, The Collapse of British Power, New York: William Morrow, 1972, p. 560; see also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1961, p. 211.

[13] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 333, 340.

[14] Denman, Roy, Missed Chances: Britain and Europe in the Twentieth Century, London: Indigo, 1997, p. 121.

[15] Ferguson, Niall, The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, New York: Penguin Press, 2006, p. 377.

[16] Hart, B. H. Liddell, History of the Second World War, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1970, p. 11.

[17] Watt, Richard M., Bitter Glory: Poland and Its Fate 1918 to 1939, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979, p. 379.

[18] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 342.

[19] Ibid., p. 391.

[20] Ibid., pp. 260-262.

[21] Ibid., pp. 311-312.

[22] Ibid., pp. 355, 357.

[23] Ibid., pp. 381, 383.

[24] Ibid., pp. 384, 387.

[25] Ibid., p. 387.

[26] Ibid., pp. 388-389.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., pp. 392-393.

[29] Ibid., pp. 405-406.

[30] Ibid., p. 412.

[31] Ibid. p. 413.

[32] Ibid., pp. 413-415.

[33] Ibid. p. 419. In a footnote, the author notes that a report of the same matters appeared in the New York Times for August 8, 1939.

[34] Ibid., p. 419.

[35] Ibid., p. 414.

[36] Ibid., p. 417.

[37] Ibid., pp. 452-453.

[38] Ibid., p. 463.

[39] Ibid., p. 479.

[40] Ibid., p. 554.

[41] Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2002, p. 56.

[42] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 500-501, 550.

[43] Ibid., p. 509

[44] Ibid., pp. 470, 483, 538.

[45] Ibid., pp. 513-514.

[46] Ibid., pp. 441, 549.

[47] Ibid., pp. 537, 577.

[48] Ibid., pp. 578-579.

[49] Ibid., pp. 586, 593, 598.

[50] Henderson, Nevile, Failure of a Mission, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940, p. 227.

[51] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 390.

[52] De Zayas, Alfred-Maurice, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 2nd edition, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p. 27.

[53] Roland, Marc, “Poland’s Censored Holocaust,” The Barnes Review in Review: 2008-2010, pp. 132-133.

[54] Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.

[55] Ibid., pp. 257-258.

[56] Ibid., pp. 88-89.

[57] Ibid., pp. 75-76.

(Republished from Inconvenient History by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Germany, World War II 
Hide 955 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. aandrews says:

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

  2. Talha says:

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

    Peace.

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

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

  4. FB says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    TRALALALALA…

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

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

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

  6. anon19 says:

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

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

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

  7. Wally says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer

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

    More inconvenient facts:

    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians, Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion. Yet the Britain, France did nothing.
    – USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet Britain & France did nothing.
    – The “neutral” US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany’s declaration of war on the US.
    – Britain invaded & was mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
    – France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
    – France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch “neutrality” with impunity by flying military aircraft over the lowlands.
    – It is also important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.

    “Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later…”
    – (Jew Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

    recommended: Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    • Agree: Carroll Price, Fox
  8. anon19 says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  10. @Carlton Meyer

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

    Because fighting one major power at a time was enough?

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

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

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Oikeamielinen
  11. Because Poland was so dangerous.

    • Replies: @Wally
  12. @Carlton Meyer

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

    • Replies: @eah
    , @Carroll Price
  13. Dube says:

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @MarkU
    , @Theodore
    , @Druid
  14. Franz says:

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

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

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

    Charles Beard saw this coming:

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

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

    • Replies: @Hu Mi Yu
  15. GMC says:

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

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

    PS: fuck communism

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @aandrews
    , @2stateshmustate
  17. Boult says:

    Now I get it!

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

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

    • Replies: @Mark Kaczmarek
  18. Eamon says:

    And there we have it, folks: the Zionists have repaired their fences with the Germans and so once again Jews and Germans can continue their century-old struggle against Poland, which recently has had the nerve to demand war reparations from Germany and at the same time refuses to finance the American Holocaust Industry.

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

    This calls for a radical solution — Judeo-Polonia:

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

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @G
  19. GeeBee says:

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

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

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

    https://archive.org/details/WeDreamedOfSomethingMarvellousLeonDegrelle

  20. Teleros says:
    @Carlton Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Deutscher
  22. A.R. says:

    A very interesting summation of the circumstances that led to the german invasion of Poland in 1939.
    Recommended for everyone to read carefully.

  23. Deutscher says:

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

  24. @Colin Wright

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

    Counterinsurgendy

  25. Deutscher says:
    @All we like sheep

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

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

    Counterinsurgency

  27. Deutscher says:
    @Colin Wright

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

    • Replies: @refl
  28. @Colin Wright

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

    Look at the header of this website.

    “The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
    A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

    • Agree: GMC
  29. Paul says:

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

  30. Parfois1 says:
    @Dube

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

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

    • Replies: @MarkU
  31. @anon19

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

  32. refl says:

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

    • Agree: byrresheim
  33. refl says:
    @Deutscher

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

    • Replies: @Freifrau Gabriele
  34. eah says:
    @Rutger Spuds

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

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

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

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

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

    ARTICLE I.

    Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

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

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

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

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

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

  35. @FB

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

  36. MarkU says:
    @Parfois1

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

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

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @AnonFromTN
  37. szopen says:

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

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

    • Agree: iffen
  38. Hillbob says:
    @anon19

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

    • Replies: @anon19
  39. GeeBee says:
    @Deutscher

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

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

    • Replies: @Gentleman Johnny
  40. Bluebook says:

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

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  41. szopen says:

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

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

    • Agree: utu
  42. j2 says:

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

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

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

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

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  43. Alden says:
    @Eamon

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

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

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

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

    Charles Beard is the best unbiased objective truthful historian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  44. ken says:

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

    • Replies: @Rogue
  45. Alden says:

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

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

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Noman
  46. @anon19

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

  47. Mulegino1 says:

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

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

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

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

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

  48. szopen says:

    As for Henderson,

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

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

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

  49. ken says:
    @anon19

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

  50. Alfred says:
    @Colin Wright

    reoccupation of the Rhineland

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

    Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  51. ken says:
    @Deutscher

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

  52. Alden says:
    @Deutscher

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

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

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

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

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

    • LOL: Parfois1, utu
  54. @Carlton Meyer

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

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

  55. SteveM says:

    When can we expect the next volume from John Wear that details the totally legitimate reasons why Germany invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands and assorted other countries?

    And OBTW, also found it necessary to brutalize and murder the local civilian populations that it had conquered?

    • Agree: AnonFromTN
  56. Theodore2 says:

    Good article:

    Why did Hitler invade so many ‘Neutral’ European countries
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12421

    The whole “Hitler wanted to take over the world” hoax is so easily debunked.

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

    • Replies: @anon
    , @David Erickson
  58. Anon[736] • Disclaimer says:
    @Deutscher

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

    • LOL: Rogue
  59. alexander says:
    @aandrews

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

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

    I just never learned about it, at all.

  60. Parfois1 says:
    @MarkU

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

  61. Anonymous[736] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bluebook

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

  62. anon[173] • Disclaimer says:

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

    • Replies: @szopen
  63. anon[736] • Disclaimer says:
    @Real History

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

  64. szopen says:
    @Alden

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

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

    What’s most important, however, is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  66. Wally says:
    @Colin Wright

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

  67. @anon19

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

  68. @GMC

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

    Here is a quote from IrishSavant. Bertrand Russel:

    [MORE]

    Speaking of dumbed-down, new research suggests that fluoridated water consumed by pregnant women might reduce children’s intelligence. Obviously I’m not in a position to judge the validity of the research but I’ve always been deeply suspicious of the campaign to fluoridate our water. The only benefit claimed is a reduction in dental cavities and for this governments have gone to extraordinary lengths, including protracted court cases, to enforce adoption. This makes no sense at all. Unless of course the goal is a dumbed-down populace. Bertrand Russell, in his book ‘The Impact of Science on Society’ (1953) gave a clear indication of the long term goals of the Satanic ‘elite’: “Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

    • Agree: Paul C.
    • Replies: @GMC
  69. neutral says:
    @Alden

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

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

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

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

  71. @Carolyn Yeager

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

    And German lusting for Lebensraum was not GREED ?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  72. szopen says:
    @anon

    Why you lie so stupidly?

  73. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

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

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

  75. @j2

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  76. GMC says:
    @Poupon Marx

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

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

  78. j2 says:
    @szopen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @szopen
  79. @FB

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

  80. @aandrews

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Anon
  81. PeterMX says:

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

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  82. G says:
    @Eamon

    You have a lot of things twisted. American actions in Poland, and to a lesser degree Romania and other balkan countries, are attempts to divide Europe by propping up a controlled nationalism aligned with the USA and to further antagonize Russia. Thankfully so far, the attempts to play Poland and Germany against each other over WW2 history haven’t really been successfull. The same cannot be said for setting Europe onto a conflict path with Russia for US interests, aided by Poland and Romania.

    Although I understand the sentiment when Poland and Eastern Europe were occupied by the Soviet Union for half a century, I think it isn’t to the benefit of Europe in the long run to identify the Russians with the Soviet Union. Because at the end of the day, Russia is a local power with some friendly, some hostile factions. While the USA is a global superpower still and become undoubtedly hostile to Europe und Trump and beore him Obama, actually contuining foreign policy that hasn’t changed that much since over a century now.

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

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  84. G says:
    @Deutscher

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

    Very unpleasent. And unproductive.

  85. @Mulegino1

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

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  86. peterike says:
    @Colin Wright

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

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

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

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

    Nice racket you got there.

    • Agree: GeeBee
  87. @Carlton Meyer

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

  88. Durruti says:
    @Colin Wright

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

    Nice concluding remark.

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

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

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

    The Lesson for European Civilization:

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

    The Lesson for Americans:

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

    Durruti

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  89. Cking says:

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

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  90. @Mulegino1

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

  91. Brewer says:
    @Colin Wright

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

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  92. Ultimately, many thousands of Germans in Poland died in consequence of the crisis.

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

    • Agree: reiner Tor, FB
  93. @Colin Wright

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

    I disagree, Colin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    , @Toby
  94. @Carolyn Yeager

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

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

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

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

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

  95. sharkey says:

    and the LIES have never stopped:

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  96. @FB

    ……………..???

  97. aandrews says:
    @Korenchkin

    Meanwhile, in the present day…

  98. Colin says:

    Does John Wear really expect any sane person to believe “atrocity” reports published by Nazi German officials in 1939? They’re no more credible than Soviet or present-day Israeli propaganda.

    • Replies: @2stateshmustate
  99. Wally says:
    @obwandiyag

    said: “Because Poland was so dangerous.”

    They certainly were, see my comment #7.

  100. JimDandy says:

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

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

  101. @Korenchkin

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

  102. @Colin

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

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

    Therefore it would make sense to question anything and everything about WW Jew.

    • Replies: @UncommonGround
  103. @alexander

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

  104. @German_reader

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

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

    BTW 5000 murdered Germans is a big deal.

    • Replies: @szopen
  105. @GMC

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

    • Agree: GMC
  106. Wally says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Also recommend from John Wear:

    WEARS WAR on the Lies, Liars & WW2

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

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  107. @Paul Jolliffe

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

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

  108. Wally says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

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

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

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

    – also recommended:
    Myths about Generalplan Ost and Lebensraum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12639

    • Replies: @szopen
  109. G says:
    @German_reader

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @iffen
  110. @Wally

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

    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Wally
  111. szopen says:
    @j2

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

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

    I think that there are few important factors here:

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @j2
    , @refl
  112. szopen says:
    @Wally

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

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Wally
    , @reiner Tor
  113. ricpic says:

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

    Talk about a baseless assertion.

    • Replies: @szopen
  114. szopen says:
    @2stateshmustate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Bernie
  116. @2stateshmustate

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Bruno Chapski
  117. Matra says:

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

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

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

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  118. Matra says:

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

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

    • Agree: Parfois1
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
  119. @Real History

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

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  120. iffen says:
    @German_reader

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

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

  121. iffen says:
    @G

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

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

    • Replies: @G
  122. @Brewer

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

  123. j2 says:
    @szopen

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

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

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

  124. @aandrews

    ‘@Colin Wright
    Cf. http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/’

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

  125. @sharkey

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

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

  126. @MarkU

    The British did actually declare war on Germany.

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

  127. szopen says:
    @ricpic

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

  128. Theodore says:
    @szopen

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

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

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

    According to Mallet:

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

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

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

    Hitler’s peace proposal was as follows:

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

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

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @MarkinLA
  129. Noman says:
    @Alden

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

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

    Hundreds of thousands of foot soldiers against German machinery.

    Cannon fodder.

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

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

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

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

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  130. @Franklin Ryckaert

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

    You turn everything into your attack on NS Germany.

  131. The winners of war write the history . Napoleon

    The British were also the first to bomb cities.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  132. szopen says:
    @Theodore

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Wally
  133. @szopen

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

    • Replies: @szopen
  134. G says:
    @iffen

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

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

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

    That renders this article worthless.

    • Agree: AnonFromTN, Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Theodore
  136. Theodore says:
    @Colin Wright

    Because fighting one major power at a time was enough?

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

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

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

  137. KenH says:
    @Colin Wright

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  138. Fritzl says:

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

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

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

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

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

    World War III happened because …

    • Replies: @Bruno Chapski
  139. @GeeBee

    Herr Hitler was a gift from the gods….

    To quote General McAuliffe at Bastogne: “NUTS!”

    • Replies: @Rogue
  140. @PeterMX

    Thank you for this. It touches me.

    • Replies: @PeterMX
  141. iffen says:
    @G

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @G
  142. Alden says:
    @neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

    190o back to fomenting European wars.

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

    • Replies: @neutral
  143. @Sir Launcelot Canning

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

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

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

    • Replies: @FB
  144. refl says:
    @szopen

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @163213
  145. @neutral

    the anti white states of France and Britain before WW2

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

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

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

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  146. sulu says:

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

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

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  147. lysias says:
    @Teleros

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

    • Replies: @Mike8
  148. G says:
    @iffen

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

    • Replies: @iffen
  149. @Colin Wright

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

    is a pretty solid academic study of the situation that culminated in the Polish massacres of ethnic Germans during August-September 1939. He concludes that c. 5,000 Germans were murdered by local poles and organized regime death squads; the official German version, Polish Acts of Atrocity Against the German Minority in Poland (NY, 1940), puts the death bill @ 58,000. I suspect the actual # is, as per usual (see also: Wallyworld holocaust denialists vs. Zio-Holocaustians) somewhere in between.

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

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  150. Theodore says:
    @szopen

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

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

    Aggressive Soviets violated numerous treaties with neighboring countries
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12434

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

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

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

  151. Theodore says:
    @jimmyriddle

    Please elaborate on how it renders the article worthless.

  152. Arnieus says:

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

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

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

  153. Theodore says:
    @Dube

    Please see my reply to szopen on this

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

    From the document:

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

  154. Herzog says:
    @Alden

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

  155. @Carlton Meyer

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

  156. L.K says:

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

    As US historian T. Fleming writes, in his book ‘The Illusion of Victory”:

    (US president) Wilson proclaimed self-determination as a great principle—and then gave away chunks of German-speaking Europe to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Italy and France, sowing the seeds of the next war.
    Knowing that Austria favored a union with Germany after Vienna lost its empire, Wilson wrote into the Treaty of Versailles an article barring the union, no matter how the Austrians voted.[…]”

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

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

    Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, during the Paris negotiations:
    “I tell you once more, we would never have thought of giving to Poland a province that had not been Polish for the last 900 years…
    The proposal of the Polish Commission that we should place 2,100,000 Germans under the control of a people which is of a different religion and which has never proved its capacity for stable self-government throughout its history, must, in my judgment, lead sooner or later to a new war in the East of Europe…” 11)

    “France is not so much concerned with what is important to Poland, rather the French position is determined solely by the aim of weakening Germany.”12)

    “To surround Germany with small states, many of which are composed of peoples that have never governed themselves and that comprise large numbers of Germans who are demanding reunion with their homeland, such plans would be, it seems to me, a breeding ground for the most terrible reason for a future war.” 13)
    “I was as sincere an advocate of Polish independence as any member of the Commission, but I was convinced that to add to Poland populations which would be an alien and hostile element inside its boundaries would be a source of permanent weakness and danger and not of strength to this resurrected State.
    I knew that a time would come when Germany would respond to the cry of its exiled people and restore them to the Fatherland by force of arms.
    For that reason I renewed my pressure in the conference to reject the recommendations which incorporated in Poland towns and territories which were overwhelmingly German by language, race and inclination…” 14)

  157. @aandrews

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

    A re-run seems to be in order,

  158. @anon19

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

    Right up to Blair’s immigration policy,

  159. Bookish1 says:
    @Deutscher

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

  160. L.K says:

    US president Woodrow Wilson on 7 April 1919:

    “France’s only real interest in Poland was to weaken Germany by giving the Poles areas to which they had no claim.” 15)

    U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, remarked on 8 May 1919:

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

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

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

    • Replies: @turtle
  161. MarkinLA says:
    @Theodore

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

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Parfois1
  162. Toby says:
    @Paul Jolliffe

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

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

  163. Rogue says:
    @ken

    True.

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

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

    • Agree: Parfois1
  164. @Durruti

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

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

    • Agree: turtle
    • Replies: @Durruti
    , @Alden
  165. @KenH

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

    That’s a grossly inaccurate statement.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  166. McMahon says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Makes you think, doesn’t it?

    • Agree: Alden
  167. @szopen

    ‘We Poles are really masterminds.’

    Well, you do tend to be somewhat quixotic.

  168. Rogue says:
    @alexander

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

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

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

  169. @Cking

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

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

    • Disagree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  170. @Haxo Angmark

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

    Thanks. I’ll take a look for it.

  171. MarkinLA says:
    @Common sense Joe

    The British were also the first to bomb cities.

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

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

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

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

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

  173. anon[701] • Disclaimer says:

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

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

    What’s new ?

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

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

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

  174. Theodore says:
    @MarkinLA

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

    French General Ferdinand Foch: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)

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

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

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

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

  175. Rogue says:
    @Gentleman Johnny

    True.

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

  176. MarkinLA says:
    @Verymuchalive

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

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

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Theodore
  177. Wally says:
    @szopen

    LOL, you cite Zionist controlled Wikipedia. As if they are going be honest & unbiased about events surrounding WWII, and of course their propaganda about the fake 6,000,000.
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: http://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia
    I remind the readers here that I have already shot down szopen’s unfactual nonsense:
    http://www.unz.com/?s=szopen+&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    [MORE]

    here’s more:

    ”under Polish pressure the Germans in the southern and eastern districts were subjected to oppressive treatment. On Aug. 19 1920 the Poles felt strong enough, indeed, to make an attempt to seize the country by force. On all sides bands of Poles, chiefly recruited from Congress Poland, usurped authority. A number of Germans were forcibly carried across the frontier into Poland, and many were killed. Several weeks elapsed before it was possible to quell this rising and restore order…It had been suggested by the Entente that non-resident Upper Silesians of the German Reich should vote outside Silesia, at Cologne. Germany protested against this, and her protest was recognized as valid by the Entente. In January 1921 the date of the plebiscite was fixed for March 20 1921.
    An immediate revival took place in the use of terrorism by the Poles, especially in the districts of Rybnik, Pless, Kattowitz, and Beuthen. It reached its climax in the days preceding the plebiscite. Voters from other parts of the German Reich were frequently refused admission to the polls; sometimes they were maltreated and even in some instances murdered; and houses where outvoters were staying were set on fire… The day after the plebiscite the Polish excesses recommenced, and from that date onwards continued without interruption… Practically all the towns voted for Germany… the first days of May witnessed a new Polish insurrection which assumed far greater proportions than the former one. Korfanty had secretly raised a well-organized Polish force which was provided with arms and munition from across the border, and was reinforced by large bodies of men from Poland…
    By June 20 the British troops had again occupied the larger towns, while the Poles had the upper hand in the rural districts. As a result of the difficulties in paying his men and providing them with food Korfanty now lost control over his followers. Independent bands were formed which plundered the villages, ill-treated the Germans, and murdered many of them.”

    – 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “SILESIA, UPPER”

    This article appeared in the Polish newspaper Die Liga der Grossmacht in October, 1930:

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

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

    • Replies: @szopen
  178. anon[701] • Disclaimer says:

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

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

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

    No it doesn’t have to .

  179. Wally says:
    @szopen

    What land was that?

    You also just admitted that German areas should never have been taken from Germany.
    Now insert other foot.
    Besides, Germany offered to settle for a corridor to Danzig, pay attention.
    another strawman:
    No German leader ever said Poles were “subhuman”.

    As usual, you lie … in desperation.

    • Replies: @szopen
  180. turtle says:
    @L.K

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @j2
  181. L.K says:
    @refl

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

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

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

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

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

    Mass grave of murdered German civilians in Poland, 1939.

    • Replies: @j2
  182. anaccount says:

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

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

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Parfois1
  183. turtle says:
    @MarkinLA

    Hitler was stupid.

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

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Colin Wright
  184. @Curmudgeon

    The purpose of WWI and WWII were to establish Israel.

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

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

    Regards.

  185. Theodore says:
    @MarkinLA

    When do you expect Hitler to stop

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  186. Durruti says:
    @Curmudgeon

    We do not disagree on every area of European history.

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

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

    How about your 1st sentence;

    1.

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

    Your Context and my Chronology:

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

    2.

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

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

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

    3.

    You mention Bombers. I quote.

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

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

    Conclusion:

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

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

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

    God Bless!

    Durruti

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Alden
    , @Alden
  187. utu says:
    @German_reader

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

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

  188. utu says:
    @Alden

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

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

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

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

  189. slorter says:

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

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    , @Anonymous
  190. @slorter

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

  191. FB says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

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

    Aww…

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

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

  192. Avrier says:

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

  193. anon19 says:
    @FB

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

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

  194. turtle says:
    @Durruti

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Durruti
  195. Eckbach says:
    @Colin Wright

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

  196. anon19 says:
    @Hillbob

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

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  197. getaclue says:

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

    • Agree: anon19
  198. Alden says:
    @turtle

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

  199. @turtle

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @turtle
  200. Parfois1 says:
    @MarkinLA

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

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

  201. Alden says:
    @Durruti

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

    • Replies: @Durruti
  202. Parfois1 says:
    @Colin Wright

    That’s a grossly inaccurate statement.

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

  203. Alden says:
    @Durruti

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

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

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

    • Agree: chris
    • LOL: FB
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Durruti
    , @Bookish1
  204. Druid says:
    @Dube

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

  205. Parfois1 says:
    @anaccount

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

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

  206. Miro23 says:
    @Alden

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

    It’s necessary to keep this in mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @163213
  207. Druid says:
    @szopen

    Germany had better generals and some of the best soldiers

  208. Alden says:
    @Alden

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

  209. Alden says:
    @Curmudgeon

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

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

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

  210. Alden says:

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

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

  211. turtle says:
    @Colin Wright

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

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

    playing a weak hand

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

  212. j2 says:
    @L.K

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

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

  213. Anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @slorter

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

  214. j2 says:
    @turtle

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

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

  215. @aandrews

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

    • Replies: @aandrews
  216. @Boult

    I really wonder if you have any brain !??

  217. @szopen

    You are talking to a bot.

  218. @aandrews

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

  219. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

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

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

  220. j2 says:

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

    Why did Hitler attack Poland in 1939?

    [MORE]

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

    • Troll: L.K
  221. szopen says:
    @Wally

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

    • Replies: @Wally
  222. szopen says:
    @Wally

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Wally
  223. neutral says:
    @Alden

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

    • Replies: @Anon
  224. iffen says:
    @G

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

  225. @FB

    Funny enough, your comment is in itself quite deranged.

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

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

    Were you drunk when you wrote it?

  226. @David Erickson

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

  227. Durruti says:
    @turtle

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @turtle
  228. Durruti says:
    @Alden

    1760s-1871 = 111ish years.

  229. Durruti says:
    @Alden

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

    OUCH!

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

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

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

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

    Durruti

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  230. Walton says:
    @Alden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  231. @Matra

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

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

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  232. Parfois1 says:
    @Durruti

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

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

    • Replies: @Durruti
  233. Bookish1 says:
    @Alden

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

  234. @szopen

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @szopen
  235. @szopen

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

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

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

    Counterinsurgency

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

  236. Durruti says:
    @Parfois1

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

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

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

  237. turtle says:
    @Durruti

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

  238. Wally says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

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

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

    recommended:

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

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

    • Replies: @Greg S.
  240. Wally says:
    @szopen

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

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

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

    • Replies: @szopen
  241. Wally says:
    @szopen

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

    Please actually read what I post:

    Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

  242. OZ says:

    Really? You ARE kidding, right?

  243. Deirdre says:

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

    It was a gamble that didn’t pay off.

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

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

  244. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I mean, come on.

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

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

  245. j2 says:
    @szopen

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @A.R
  246. MarkinLA says:
    @Theodore

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

    • Agree: Pater
    • Replies: @Theodore2
  247. szopen says:
    @Wally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Wally
  248. MarkinLA says:
    @anon19

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

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

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @anon19
    , @Counterinsurgency
  249. DeMar says:

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

    • Agree: Parfois1
    • Replies: @j2
    , @turtle
    , @Greg S.
  250. A.R says:
    @j2

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

  251. Theodore2 says:
    @MarkinLA

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

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

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

  252. j2 says:
    @DeMar

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

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

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

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

  253. turtle says:
    @DeMar

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

    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Bookish1
  254. Republic says:

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

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

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

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

    • Replies: @Bruno Chapski
  255. 736,

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

  256. Durruti says:
    @Carlton Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Durruti

    • LOL: Wally
  257. Theodore2 says:
    @Durruti

    You’re just plain wrong. I don’t know where you got your “Facts” but you’re simply incorrect. Hence, I can merely ask you to “prove it” and you will be unable to.

    I would also point out that the “non existence of Poland” was ensured by the British after Germany’s surrender once they turned Poland over to the communist butchers who massacred the elite of the Polish nation in places like Katyn. It was a Soviet satellite

    • Replies: @Durruti
  258. @Durruti

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

    Hemingway had a hard time maintaining a commitment to one woman over the demands of his other brain.
    And, he committed suicide.

    Hemingway was a failure as a human being.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  259. GERMAN says:

    Hitler forced people to take responsibility for their actions, and to this day the Anglo is absolutely horrified by this thought. Don’t you know that’s collectivism, and collectivism is bad?
    You see, the Anglo has a God-given right to exploit other people’s labour in order to grow rich. Locke or Hobbes proved it somewhere. Because wealth, grifting with your siblings over inheritances, and competing against your own to earn a sheckel is what life is all about. Again, Darwin, another brilliant Anglo genius, proved that as well.
    These Germans are out of their minds. Cooperation leads to free hands outs, and that’s really bad because it violates key free market tennants. And if anyone anywhere should ever interfer with your sacred right to stuff cheeseburgers down your throat, then I’m afraid it’s time to mobilize our democracy army. Time to firebomb civilians, load up the DU munitions. We came! We saw! They died! We are so great and enviable. We must ensure no one anywhere at anytime ever again speaks of socialism or cooperation because those things don’t work. In fact, Socialism doesn’t work ever. Just look at Berlin and Dresden circa 1945. Ha! Case closed! God bless (((Ayn Rand))). Jews are so intelligent.

    • Agree: utu
  260. Durruti says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Hemingway was a failure as a human being.

    You served honorably in 2 armies (Italian & American)?

    You wrote Great Novels (Nobel prize for Literature + other honors)?

    You fathered fine children & provided for them?

    You avoided comment on his life work, his Writing.

    No one is perfect, but I would hardly call Hemingway “a failure as a human being.” What did he do – to produce this anger from you? He had more than one brain?

    Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times to 7 husbands. Was she a failure?

  261. Wally says: • Website
    @j2

    Yawn.
    Unhinged True Believer j2 is still lying about WWII, a common endeavor by Zionists.

    I’ll avoid repeating my demolition of j2 and simply refer to the record, see:

    http://www.unz.com/?s=j2&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    BTW, Hitler never referred to Germans “super human”, nor did he ever refer others as being “sub-human”.
    But don’t confuse j2 with facts.

    recommended:
    Master Race” / Herrenrasse / Herrenvolk – a deliberate mistranslation: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12400

    • Replies: @j2
  262. @j2

    In the war Hitler had early success.

    In a videod lecture at Hillsdale college (for chumps) titled, Why World War II Matters, (self-styled) historian Victor Davis Hansen recites that

    ( @ 11.58)

    “Germany invaded Poland, with the Soviet Union — 30 days — 28 days, the war was over.
    Germany invaded . . . Denmark, one day; Norway, about six weeks, in April, it was over.
    Germany invaded the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium and France — nobody could believe that could be possible . . . they took the entire Western democracies, all that area, 7 weeks.
    The Battle of Britain — . . . they took the Balkans in April of 1941, and Greece and Crete . . . in all of that period, Germany only lost 100,000 soldiers.
    The war was over.
    Hitler had achieved what nobody else had done, not Napoleon, not Caesar.
    He had basically combined what is now the European Union.
    Any country that opposed him were pro-Nazi anyway — Switzerland, the Iberians — Portugal and Spain; . . . Sweden was not only selling them iron ore but doing it with free transit and credit.
    Turkey was pro-Nazi at this time.
    Hitler had achieved it, the war was over.
    There was a problem in Britain only because there was this problem called Winston Churchill.”

    Isn’t the obvious conclusion is that all the deaths that VDh catalogued — more deaths than the wars of the past 300 years combined — would not have occurred but for Winston Churchill.

    The organization status of Europe today — the European Union — could have been achieved 50 years earlier and with 60 million more Europeans and Slavs still alive, but for Winston Churchill.

    (Niall Ferguson came to a similar conclusion regarding the Great War: had Britain not joined that conflict, Germany would have organized Europe in much the same way as it is organized today. )

    Yet anybody who knows anything about Hillsdale College and especially its president, Larry Arn, knows that Arn worships Churchill and leads the young people under his tutelage to likewise worship at Churchill’s altar.

    W.T.F.?

    The F element, in WWI as in WWII, was and remains zionism.

    Churchill was deeply in debt to zionism’s financier, Baron Rothschild.

    [Among other howlers, VDh explains that WWII was “different” in that

    “there were ideologies that had never existed before. Most of the wars of the past in Europe had been fought over territory or religion, or race or ethnicicity [sic] but never quite over ideology. There were new ideologies in the 20th century that were secular and atheistic, mostly Italian Fascism, German National Socialism and Soviet Communism, and they were a mish-mash of bastardized views of everybody from Wagner to Nietzsche to Darwin to the progressive idea of eugenics and natural selection and sterilization. But they all had one thing in common: they introduced to the equation a relativism about good and bad; they were relativist movements. So if you wanted to kill 6 million Jews you could find a exegesis to support that without fearing to be condemned by religion. There was the idea of the survival of the fittest, or of a national destiny, or, in Russia . . . But in all of these ideologies the so-called ends justified the means.
    Put all of that together and nobody has ever explained, for the large part, the . . .terrific tally [of death & destruction].”

    VDh is as impaired logically as he is chronologically.

    If “the war was over” and “Hitler had achieved” what he wanted to achieve by mid-1941;
    how many Jews had been gas-chambered or rendered into soap or stretched into lampshades by mid-1941?
    Rabbi Stephen Wise did not begin to circulate mendacious tales of “gas chambers” until 1942.

    We have to conclude that inasmuch as it was Churchill who prolonged the war, it must have been Churchill who maintained that “the end justified the means,” and it must have been Churchill who contrived an exegesis for his desire to “kill 6 million Jews without fear of religious repercussions.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  263. Durruti says:
    @Theodore2

    I would also point out that the “non existence of Poland” was ensured by the British after Germany’s surrender once they turned Poland over to the communist butchers who massacred the elite of the Polish nation in places like Katyn.

    The British turned no Poland over to the Stalin’s Russians. The Russian Army, as it pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, passed through Poland (look at a map), and made any British, or American views toward Poland – irrelevant.

    “was ensured” or not, Poland is alive and well – in 2019. It remains a beautiful place and has the best boundaries in its history. Poland has an extensive Coastline – for world economic and political connections, is reasonably prosperous, and sports a cohesive cultural unity. Past history has been harsh on Polish and many other peoples, as current history continues to punish. Poland has come out -on top.

    God Bless!

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @L.K
  264. Wally says: • Website
    @szopen

    – Like a desperate dumsky you just keep repeating your lies which I have slapped down.
    I have presented numerous non-‘Nazi’ sources which you dodge.
    – You mention CODOH links which contain tons of sourced information, yet you cannot refute anything in those links. You are like a dumb deer staring into the headlights of an oncoming vehicle.
    – You laughably cite links to your childish arguments made elsewhere which I have utterly shot down here. Your lies, no matter how any times you repeat them are still easily shown to be lies. LOL
    – You speak of alleged Prussian censuses which you cannot produce. I suggest that you quit digging.
    Indeed, the 1st map demolished your nonsense.
    Here’s another, 1914:and another, 1930:
    – Again you ignore Polish atrocities and the mild requests by Germany, which of course would & did include flight paths for German aviation.
    – And you admit that a vote in Pomerania would have once again shown that the people wanted to be part of Germany.

    You’re simply in over your head here. Cheers.

    • Replies: @szopen
  265. Theodore says:
    @Durruti

    The Peace offerings required the British to recognize the Non existence of Poland

    First allegation is just flat out WRONG. Here’s a description of one (of the many) peace proposals offered by Hitler.

    Why would you just invent lies like that?

    • Replies: @Durruti
  266. Deirdre says:

    @Theodore, @Wally etc.

    Anybody who takes all this Nazi propaganda seriously really needs to have his (or her) head examined.

    For God’s sake, the fact that something is printed doesn’t mean it’s true!

    Reproducing fancy Nazi / Soviet / Israeli maps proves nothing.

    The Nazi German propaganda machine was no more credible than today’s Jewish / Israeli / Russian propaganda machine.

    Hitler — who once said that the Jews were the greatest liars in human history — was himself an incorrigible liar and was seen as such (outside Germany). Only an imbecile would ever believe that he ever kept his promises.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Wally
  267. @Colin Wright

    You mean respectable, non-biased sources like Wikipedia, The History Channel, and The Jewish Historical Society?

  268. “Why Germany Invaded Poland” – great article of Bullshit
    Sometimes it’s good idea to step back and you can see different picture .
    I have two questions –

    1) Why Hitler invested so much money and time to modernize Germany’s army , navy and air force – for Peace ???!! or for War . Example – USA spends annually $600 billion + on military , is this for Peace or War. They jumping from one place to another looking for pretext to start War.
    Hitler plans were about power and expansion , so he was looking for excuse and pretext. He found in Poland.

    2) Why Poland should trust Hitler with his empty promises !!!!??
    The Russians learnt hard way in 1941 to trust Hitler who invade them !!!

    If you try to blame somebody for the the Second World War – blame Germany , Great Britain and France not Poland and try not to defend criminal who killed 60 million people.
    Regarding the Atrocities both sites committed crimes and is very hard to do anything now !! and who you going to charge now?? It’s nonsense
    I wonder what is next another article about – blaming Serbia for starting First World War ??

    • Replies: @Wally
  269. @Colin Wright

    Nice try covering your ass, Collin.

    Your original point was that the “source” was not “mainstream.”

    Faced with the fact that Mr. Hoggan’s work is, in fact, considered basically “mainstream,” you now resort to claiming you meant the *publisher* was not mainstream.

    GMAFB

  270. Theodore says:
    @Deirdre

    So you call anything you don’t want to believe “Nazi propaganda” and yet you think we are the ones that need our heads examined? Laughable

    Why do people continue to espouse demonstrably false claims even after being confronted with the incontrovertible facts that refute them? Because you can’t convince a true-believer of anything – for their beliefs are not based on science and reason – they’re based on blind faith and a weak-willed NEED to believe. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool critical thinkers – but rather; Only to give self-deceiving cowards an excuse not to think at all.

  271. anon[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    It seems those blacks have robbed you of your disability money . Is your welfare check coming late or is it shrinking in value ?

    Check with Schumer . He , Cotton , and Ben Cardin didn’t want the dole to Israel be affected by the cut in the foreign aid .

  272. @GeeBee

    Evil will not endure forever.

    What was the death will be the resurrection.

  273. Durruti says:
    @Theodore

    I suggest you read your own article.

    Apologies: Apparently the German government would have recognized some-sort-of-Poland.
    Poland would have been a barely recognizable puppet. Involved in the deal was – according to the NYT article, a “Vast transmigration of peoples” How could that go wrong?

    Did you read that? Put on your glasses!

    “Czechs, Slovaks, & Magyars to constitute tripartite state allied to the Reich for 25 years with Germany enjoying certain privileges in industry and communications.” Unfree puppets?

    Point # 9, A Danube federation of Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bohemia, Slovakia, & Hungary.

    Yugoslavia had not been conquered and dismembered yet, & would not have agreed to assume a puppet status. As you know, they fought rather than submit.

    “an anti-Bolshevist policy and liberating Russia by arms,” How could that go wrong?
    Did you read this? And Russia haters dare complain of Russia’s building their Army as fast as they could.

    I was correct about African Colonies being demanded by Germany. “Restitution within 20 years of German colonies.” Africans, of course, had no say in this.

    And the best for last, Jews to Palestine. Just how could that go wrong? Were the Palestinian People consulted? In 1936, they held a General Strike for Independence (that was bloodily repressed by the British).

    In Sum: Hitler’s 11 point Peace Plan was – anything but. History shows that it was rejected. It provided little wriggle room for the British Empire, or their ally France. The German ‘Peace’ plan was for the ears of the gullible Unz Commentators.

    You ask!

    Why would you just invent lies like that?

    I do not have to invent lies. They come to me naturally. You have my apology for any lies I have made, or will make in the future, (I vaguely recall saying that to my EX.).

    God Bless!

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @j2
  274. Theodore says:
    @Durruti

    The Russian Army, as it pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, passed through Poland (look at a map), and made any British, or American views toward Poland – irrelevant.

    You’re not making any sense here.

    Why would the Soviet invasion of Poland be “Irrelevant” but the German invasion was not?

    Please see post #270 – http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3417109
    Where Hitler’s offer for peace included an independent Poland. Hitler wanted Peace, Britain did not. Simple stuff, really.

    Also look into Operation Unthinkable, where the Western Allies did in fact have plans to liberate the Polish people from Soviet tyranny. The goal of the operation was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though ‘the will’ of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland” — so much for their views being “Irrelevant” LOL!

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  275. @Rutger Spuds

    It wasn’t apparent then, but its more than apparent today, that Jew controlled England and the Jew controlled United States both favored Communism over classic Western Civilization Germany was defending in both world wars. Recent events and social conditions in both countries prove they did and still do.

    • Agree: Malla
    • LOL: FB
  276. L.K says:
    @Durruti

    The British turned no Poland over to the Stalin’s Russians. The Russian Army, as it pursued the Germans all the way to Berlin, passed through Poland (look at a map), blah, blah

    Oh yeah, the Soviet did indeed “pass through Poland”… already in their invasion of it with Germany in Sep. 1939…
    Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav M. Molotov’s statement before the Supreme Soviet on October 31, 1939:

    A single blow against Poland, first by the Germans, and then by the Red Army, and nothing remained of this misbegotten child of the Versailles Treaty, which owed its existence to the repression of non-Polish nationalities.

  277. @Deutscher

    We Germans will survive in tact. We were loyal to the man God sent us, Hitler. And so God will grant us a future.

    Hope you’re right. Western Civilization (what little’s left of it) depends on you.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  278. @alexander

    You mean respectable, non-biased sources like Wikipedia, The History Channel, and The Jewish Historical Society?

    • Agree: Alden
  279. Wally says: • Website
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    – IOW, you cannot refute what John Wear wrote in the article , which is the subject of this thread.
    Laughably you don’t even try, you know you can’t, that’s why.

    – You also cannot refute what I posted in comment #7 for the same reason.

    In essence you are just making things up as you go. Not exactly the stuff of verified facts, but definitely the stuff of Zionist propaganda which everyone is now on to.

    • Replies: @Mark Kaczmarek
  280. Theodore says:
    @Durruti

    This was of course after Britain and France declared war on Germany.

    The Germans offered to protect Poland from the Soviet/Bolshevik menace. How many Poles died in World War II? Was it worth it, just to destroy Germany and let the USSR take over half of Europe? The Katyn Forest Massacre could have been avoided, completely. Funny how you whine about “puppet states” when that is exactly what happened to Poland under the Red Terror, along with many other countries. Obviously, Hitler was not happy with the Poles after their intransigent behavior in response to the “blank check” given by Britain. He did offer to protect Poland from the USSR, but they said no. I think Hitler actually would have protected them from Bolshevism, unlike the Western “Allies”

    You gaffed:

    In Sum: Hitler’s 11 point Peace Plan was – anything but. History shows that it was rejected. It provided little wriggle room for the British Empire, or their ally France. The German ‘Peace’ plan was for the ears of the gullible Unz Commentators.

    This is called ‘grasping at straws’. The reality is that Hitler offered various peace proposals, including peace proposals to Poland BEFORE the war broke out, but Britain wanted no peace. Only to destroy Germany, which allowed half of Europe to be enslaved to the communist butchers who exterminated the elite of the Polish nation at Katyn.

    In hindsight, Britain made a terrible decision in terms of protecting Poland.

    • Replies: @j2
  281. Wally says:
    @Deirdre

    Poor hasbarist.

    John Wear, myself, & Theodore present verified fact after fact, with sources, and this is your response.

    You don’t like the iron clad proof presented so you simply make claims about it which have been demonstrated to be not true …. and you cannot show us what is presented in the maps & documents are wrong.

    IOW, you are simply irrational in the face of proof contrary to the fake history that some people have profited from.

  282. Parfois1 says:
    @Theodore

    Also look into Operation Unthinkable, where the Western Allies did in fact have plans to liberate the Polish people from Soviet tyranny. The goal of the operation was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though ‘the will’ of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland”

    So, the Soviets, while in hot pursuit of the German armies to Berlin – therefore liberating Poland – were already busy imposing a tyranny justifying the Western Allies’ liberation of Poland!

    Yet, I’ve seen reels of the time showing the people welcoming the Red Army.

    You must be very thick to come up with that argument. Look at the date when the final “Unthinkable” was completed.

    The nice Western Allies who promised to protect Poland in 1939 had more than 6 years to fullfil their commitment but it was the nasty Soviets who liberated Poland.

    Considering the historical record going back centuries, Stalin was very generous to the Poles. Germany is still occupied territory by the nice Western Allies.

    And now the Poles are again at it: useful idiots to provide a trip wire for another one, likely the last. Must be genetic…

    • Replies: @Theodore
  283. anon19 says:
    @MarkinLA

    That is precisely WHY you don’t give ultimatums sir.

  284. @Wally

    Hi,
    I was not trying to prove anything , I was born in 1955 and only rely on information from history books and whatever my parents told me.
    You can’t prove now anything anyway , all people involved are dead.
    Hitler had to plan war if he was going to modernise Germany’s military.
    After all he wasn’t good for anybody including Germans.
    I am not trying to justify criminals on both sides , whatever happened was terrifying for everybody involved but that was Power Game between Great Britain and Germany. Unfortunately Poland was one of pawns in that game.
    Today we have got Big Mafia running everything – Zionist, American and Anglo Empire.
    They have puppet gorvements everywhere and only few “free” countries left.
    It’s more important than ever to educate people what is coming than fight with past ghosts.
    And please don’t try to defend Hitler

    • Agree: Parfois1
    • Replies: @Wally
  285. Dube says:
    @MarkU

    #6. @Dube
    How about this?

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_(1939)

    MarkU, thanks for the responsible contribution of the actual terms of the agreement. I will look again if so directed, but I see no language that concedes executive authority to the Poles, as in the sense of a “blank check.”

    John Wear’s metaphor of a “blank check” is imprecise, provocative, and undercuts his other claims.

    Like, you know, that agreement is a literally blank check, really.

  286. Greg S. says:
    @Lech Biegalski

    What a ridiculous argument. And before the Poles had it, who had it then? And who had it before them? And who had it before them? Perhaps the rightful owners were some obscure tribe of nomad cavemen, the very first humans to step foot there. You Poles are squatting on caveman land, and should evacuate the land immediately, no?

    Also explained in comic format: http://stonetoss.com/comic/its-great-turtles-all-the-way-down/

    And we wonder how wars start when people have this kind of mentality.

  287. Greg S. says:
    @DeMar

    This is pretty much it. The exact same playbook is being enact by the exact same countries against Russia today. You can watch history repeat in real time. The annexation of Crimea and all that.

  288. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @neutral

    Dumbest comment on this thread so far. America had black and American Indian soldiers in the war too. Russia had Asians in its army.

    I don’t think Germany used black soldiers from its African colonies. So you side with Germany because it was the only 100% White military involved?

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @Malla
  289. j2 says:
    @Durruti

    “And the best for last, Jews to Palestine. Just how could that go wrong? Were the Palestinian People consulted? In 1936, they held a General Strike for Independence (that was bloodily repressed by the British).”

    Nice you noticed this. This was the meat of the whole war, so no Madagascar plan or a Jewish state in Eastern Europe. But it was so arranged from the very start of this war that Churchill would be able to reject this peace proposal and the UK would continue the war. The UK had to be blackmailed with the Battle of Britain into accepting Israel, as they were backing off from the Balfour declaration. The USA had to be raised to a superpower, as they were Masons and friends of Jews. And the other friends in the Soviet Union had to get compensation as a rule over the whole Eastern Europe. Stalin did accept founding Israel, but later he refused to let the Jews move to Israel and was poisoned.

  290. j2 says:
    @Theodore

    People, who either have no idea of military matters, or are simply dishonest, try to say that a four-lane road on extra-territorial land (that is, fully controlled by Germany) from west to east completely cutting the Polish corridor is just a small road without any offensive intentions.

    Such a road would have made it impossible for Poland to defend its northern part. It is not a custom to any country to ask for another country to give its land to build a road.

    It just happens to be so that if Poland had given Germany rights to build this road, then all the area above this road would immediately fall to German hands as Poland could not defend it: it is cut from the rest of Poland. To make it impossible to defend the area even for a while, Polish defenses were to be removed from Hel and Gdynia.

    As this road also was to have a railroad next to it, a single armored train could control a strip of 50 km on both sides of it, thus Poland would lose at least a 50 km strip to the south of the road.

    The 16 point proposal by Hitler has this absurd point that Poland is also allowed to build a similar road to Gdynia. Naturally, Poland had the right to build any kind of a road to Gnynia, as it was Polish area, and there was no sense to build a 4-lane motor road to Gdynia.

    It should be obvious to anybody that this proposal could not be accepted by Poland. There was a road to East Prussia. If Hitler wanted a wider road to East Prussia, he could have offered money for Poland to build such a better road, but without any demands on joining the free city of Danzig (a city that was in Royal Prussia, part of Poland, for 326 years and at that time was again in Poland) to Germany, or having the road on extra-territorial ground.

  291. Golly says:

    For years now Putin has been trying to restore the anti-Polish “special relationship” that the Russians had with Germany after the Versailles Treaty, which probably explains the proliferation of old Nazi and old Soviet propaganda in all this “alternative” or “revisionist” history.

    Will the Germans give in to temptation and try another gamble?

    And will China betray Russia as Hitler did?

    That is the real question.

  292. szopen says:
    @Wally

    You see, that’s why I stopped treating seriously idiots like you. Fifteen years ago I was spending nights searching for documents, history books etc but now I’m just too tired. You can’t even use google: the census numbers are quoted for example here: https://books.google.pl/books?id=wYaxAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=census+west+prussia+1910&source=bl&ots=j5iqczhX4d&sig=ACfU3U2ZsJfgFcWP7jhnks_Hu-_PmntLUQ&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOq7bl-6TkAhVHlIsKHddmDbkQ6AEwEXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=census%20west%20prussia%201910&f=false – especially look at the point (4), where it explains why censuses were showing inflated German numbers: it discusses bilinguals and garrisoned soldiers. The same census is referred in another easily found book from 1934 here: http://pbc.gda.pl/dlibra/plain-content?id=304. The difference is because of “bilinguals” which are here counted as Germans and because it includes military personnel. More detailed (data by kreises) in a page from “orphans of Versailles” here: http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg, with the same limitation: it includes bilinguals and military personnel as Germans. As you can see, except of three kreises, Pomerania in 1910 was majority Polish even in a biased Prussian census.

    But hey, continue to google for maps. A map is a better source than official Prussian census. ALso, continue to ignore everything I wrote, every source, misinterpret every sentence and just restate what you said, thinking that by repeating the same sad lies you “shot down” my arguments.

    You are just an idiot who can’t even read. A fair voting in Pomerania would show Polish winning. I’ve written that conditions were outrageous, not that Germans would win; anyways, Hitler’s demands were made to ensure the voting wouldn’t be fair.

    I’m done with you.

  293. Wally says: • Website
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    Cut the juvenile crap. You have nothing, you present nothing.

    – You absolutely dodge all the sourced specifics that are cited by John Wear, myself, and Theodore in this thread. We can back up what we say, you simply hide behind vague claims of “history books” which you dare not quote, specifically reference.

    – As for your parents, who cares? You can’t even tell us specifically what they supposedly said.

    – I’m defending accuracy in history, you are haplessly accepting easily debunked propaganda.

    – As for your equally dumb & desperate ‘trying to defend Hitler’ strawman , there was Hitler with the impossible ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there was Hitler without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    – so called “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg

    You’ve been out classed and exposed as a childish fool.

    • Replies: @Mark Kaczmarek
  294. @Talha

    What’s your definition of multiple? Germany as a united country had 1 war with Poland, in 1939. The last time Prussia had a war with Poland was several centuries prior and they were allies with Britain. Or are you talking about the cross-border raids engaged in by the Poles throughout the 1920’s?

    • Replies: @Talha
  295. j2 says:
    @Wally

    Wally, finally read the Protocol No. 9 from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:

    “Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only PROFORMA at our discretion and by our direction, for THEIR ANTI-SEMITISM IS INDISPENSABLE TO US FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR LESSER BRETHREN. I will not enter into further explanations, for this matter has formed the subject of repeated discussions amongst us.”

    The document was most probably written by Theosophists, but this part, as most of the document, it is quite correct. The wave of anti-Semitism in the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century was created by Masonic forces for the purpose of managing Jews, namely for pushing Jews to Palestine. This is why Freemason Henry Ford published anti-Semitic literature (you do not expect that a Freemason is in reality anti-Semite. They are not.) This is why Wagner’s circle published anti-Semitic material (which so closely resembles ideas of Theosophists). As the Thule Society was an offshoot of Theosophy, anti-Semitism of Nazi leaders, like Hitler and Hess, was only a way to push Jews to Palestine. Hitler did not want to help Germans. He destroyed Germany. He lost the war on purpose. What he did, the only thing he did, was to help to create Israel.

    • LOL: Wally
  296. Ron Unz says:

    On a somewhat related note, here’s a comment I just left on one of my WWII articles from a couple of months ago:

    In the body of this article and in the comments, I’d heavily discussed Operation Pike, the planned 1940 Allied attack against the USSR, which involved a massive strategic bombing offensive intended to destroy the Baku oilfields, and I emphasized that this remarkable historical fact has been totally excluded from virtually all World War II histories.

    The obvious reason is that such an attack would surely have been a disaster, costing the Allies the war, and Western historians were just too dishonest or timorous to cover it.

    I’ve just now finished reading David Irving’s 1987 volume Churchill’s War, and unsurprisingly he’s the exception that supports the rule, with his book containing numerous (though brief) mentions of the Allied discussions of an attack on Baku, and indeed a two-pronged assault on Russia.

    https://www.amazon.com/Churchills-War-Struggle-David-Irving/dp/0947117563/r

    I think this further confirms which historians provide an honest and reliable account of WWII events and which do not, with the former group being absolutely minuscule in number.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?display=showcomments#comment-3417970

  297. “World War II was decided prior to invasion of Poland”
    by Voltaire Network

    12 December 2013

    “In a few weeks, Sotheby’s will be auctioning the draft of a speech delivered by King George the VI, announcing England’s entry into the Second World War.

    The document is dated 25 August 1939, that is to say one week before the III Reich invaded Poland.

    It would thus appear that, contrary to the official version, the UK did not go to war because Germany invaded Poland, which only served as a pretext, but for other reasons.”

    Source:

    https://www.voltairenet.org/article181450.html

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  298. @Ron Unz

    “We are all liars”

    by Thierry Meyssan for Voltaire Network

    7 June 2019

    [MORE]

    Thierry Meyssan reacts to the commemoration of D-Day in Normandy, the commemoration of the massacre at Tiananmen, and to the campaign for the election of the European Parliament. He points out that we continue to lie deliberately and even to take pride in it. Yet only the Truth will set us free.

    The Normandy landings

    We are presently celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings. According to the almost unanimous Press, it was here that the Allies launched the liberation of Europe from the Nazi occupation.

    Yet we know this is untrue

    – The landings were not the work of the Allies, but almost exclusively that of the British Empire and the US Expeditionary Force.
    – It was not aimed at « liberating Europe », but at « marching on Berlin», in order to grab those shreds of the Third Reich which could still be poached from the victorious Soviet armies.
    – The invasion was not welcomed with joy by the French, but on the contrary, with horror. Robert Jospin (father of ex-Prime Minister Lionel Jospin) denounced, on the front page of his newspaper, the Anglo-Saxon importation of war into France. The French buried their 20,000 dead, killed by Anglo-Saxon bombings, which were only intended as a diversion. An immense demonstration gathered in Lyon around the « head of state », ex-Maréchal Philippe Petain, to refuse Anglo-Saxon domination. And never, absolutely never, did the head of La France Libre, General Charles De Gaulle, accept to participate in any commemoration of this sinister invasion.

    History is more complicated than a Western movie. There are no « good guys » or « bad guys », but men who attempt to save their own with as much humanity as possible. At best, we were able to dodge the drivel of Tony Blair who, during the commemorations of the 60th anniversary, provoked the anger of the British Press by pretending in his speech that the United Kingdom had entered the war to save Jews from the « Shoah » — but not to save the gypsies from the same massacre. The destruction of the European Jews did not begin until after the Wansee Conference in 1942.
    The Tienanmen massacre

    We celebrate the painful anniversary of the Tienanmen massacre. We read continually that the cruel Chinese Imperial régime massacred thousands of its own citizens who were peaceably gathered in Beijing’s main square, only because they were asking for a little freedom.

    Yet we know this is untrue

    – The sit-in on Tienanmen Square was not that of the Chinese among themselves, but an attempted coup d’état by partisans of ex-Premier Minister Zhao Ziyang.
    – Dozens of soldiers were lynched or burned alive on the Square by « peaceful demonstrators », and hundreds of military vehicles were destroyed, before any intervention by Den Xiaoping’s soldiers was implemented against them.
    – The US specialists of the « colour revolutions », including Gene Sharp, were present on the Square to organise Zhao Ziyang’s men.

    Continuation:

    https://www.voltairenet.org/article206695.html

    However, sincere congratulations for your great work!

    TheTruthSeeker, greetings from Italy.

  299. Talha says:
    @NobodyKnowsImADog

    I was talking about the medieval post-Crusades entity called the Teutonic Knights and the Kingdom of Poland.
    “In 1226 Conrad of Mazovia called in the German crusading order, generally known as the Teutonic Order, provided them with a territorial base, and assumed that after a joint conquest of the Prussian lands (later known as East Prussia) they would become his vassals. The Teutonic Knights, however, tacitly secured imperial and papal recognition and forged Conrad’s acquiescence to their independent status. After a series of ruthless campaigns, Prussia was conquered and resettled by Germans—the old Prussian population having been virtually wiped out. It became a powerful state of the Teutonic Knights. While German historians have traditionally stressed the civilizing and organizational achievements of the Knights, the Poles have emphasized their ruthlessness and aggressiveness. The arrival of the Teutonic Knights changed the balance of forces in that part of Europe and marked the beginning of the rise of Prussia as a great power.”
    https://www.britannica.com/place/Poland/The-arrival-of-the-Teutonic-Knights

    These battles went on well into the 16th century.

    Peace.

  300. @szopen

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

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

    I think there’s a relatively strong case, however, that lots of Germans were, indeed, murdered by the Polish forces. The likely thing is that they were members of some German insurgent/paramilitary organization, and they did it in retaliation after some of the Germans shot at them (maybe from a few houses, as you wrote), and this led to the likely mass murder.

    I base this on the following train of thought, please correct me if any of it is wrong:

    1) There were relatively few Germans living in Bromberg (Bydgoszcz, actually the latter is the more correct name, because even back then the majority of the population was Polish, and it was also the official name; so I’d go by the Polish name); you wrote in #252 that there were only 9500 Germans living there.

    2) This means that if 400 of them indeed died, it’d be a very high percentage (over 4%); much higher than the number of civilians killed in Warsaw. (Regarding Warsaw, according to Richard Overy, the numbers supposedly killed by the Luftwaffe are vastly exaggerated: they were mostly killed by the artillery rather than by the air force. Which is logical.)

    3) Therefore, I’d suspect that many of the 400 were executed. Or else how to explain their very high rate of losses?

    4) The Germans after the war could count 100, but I guess a lot of records were by then destroyed or unavailable (when was the investigation? did they have full access to all local archives?), in general having a later (like, a couple decades after the fact) investigation identifying victims by names in a city from which the ethnic group has already been cleansed is a very high bar of evidence. By that criterium the Jewish holocaust only had maybe 2-3 million victims. So being able to count 100 names means that probably many more had died. (Remember, that they had to find names who had died in 1939, which made the search way more difficult. The 100 names belong to those who were identified as having been killed in 1939.)

    5) Still, there’s the possibility of only 100 being killed. However, according to Wikipedia:

    A Polish investigation concluded in 2004 that Polish troops had been shot at by members of the German minority and German military intelligence (Abwehr) agents; around 40–50 Poles and between 100 and 300 Germans were killed.[13]

    So Poles also think that roughly 100-300 Germans were killed back then. The fact that they think only 40-50 Poles were killed points to there really being a fight (i.e. armed Germans shooting at Poles), but in all likelihood many of the Germans killed were not all killed in combat. That’s because it’s unlikely they would’ve fought to the last bullet (I mean, they were winning the war; so they must’ve expected that even if taken captive, they would be liberated by the victorious Wehrmacht troops soon anyway), and so probably they would’ve surrendered. In my opinion, such lopsided casualty numbers are only likely if the losing group (the Germans) fights to the last bullet; or else, if some or all of the prisoners are then executed. I’d wager it was the latter that happened.

    6) So the most likely thing is that the Poles killed lots of Germans, but those were combatants, with some (but probably not all) of them unlawful combatants. Anyway, after having surrendered themselves, summarily shooting all of them is not a very nice thing to do – after all, members of the AK taken after the surrender of Warsaw in 1944 were granted POW status. And especially killing all of them simply because some of them were unlawful is still probably a war crime.

    7) I’d think it’d have been out of character for Poles to have shot just random German civilians. But I wouldn’t completely dismiss the possibility – there was certainly ample motivation to feel anger at Germans in general and the ethnic German minority in particular, especially in Bydgoszcz.

    8) It’s obvious that this war crime is dwarfed by the crimes committed by Germans on a massive scale 1939-45.

    9) Poles didn’t commit such crimes (i.e. mass murder) before the war anyway.

    10) Therefore it’s also obvious that Germans (specifically Hitler) bore all or almost all responsibility for the war and thus the whole situation in Bromberg and elsewhere. (It still doesn’t mean the probable mass shooting was justified, but still.)

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Wally
    , @Fox
    , @Dube
  301. Theodore says:
    @j2

    Such a road would have made it impossible for Poland to defend its northern part.

    The same Poland which the USSR steamrolled through and turned into a puppet state
    The same Poland which denied Hitler’s freedom guarantee, to protect it from Bolshevism
    The same Poland which the Western “Allies” turned over to the communist butchers and refused to military support with “Operation Unthinkable” – see #279 – http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3417236

    When people have no idea of diplomatic matters, or are intentionally pretending to be ignorant, they forget about a concept called “Negotiation”

    Typically, one side gives a list of demands. Then, the next side says “I agree with half of these points, but counter with ____” And then it goes back and forth. Mature adults understand this and do it to some extent in their own lives. Petulant children just whine and complain when they disagree with someone and refuse to come to an understanding.

    What we have is one side trying to negotiate, and another side was not. That side which was not trying to negotiate was invaded on two sides by two larger powers, and those who claimed to have wanted to protect them allowed them to be occupied by a murderous regime (which exterminated the Polish elite at Katyn) and turned into a puppet state after being stuck in the crosshairs of the two most serious belligerents of the deadliest war in human history.

    You need to grow up

    • Replies: @j2
  302. Theodore says:
    @j2

    without any demands on joining the free city of Danzig (a city that was in Royal Prussia, part of Poland, for 326 years and at that time was again in Poland)

    Justify the denial of a plebiscite.

    Why do you hate the idea of self determination and self-governance for everyone that isn’t Polish? Except you’re actually not even supportive of self determination for Poles as they were turned into a Soviet puppet state due to their inability to properly negotiate with Germany (after the British “Guarantee” for Poland’s freedom / territorial integrity, which they failed to protect anyway).

    • Replies: @szopen
  303. Theodore says:
    @Parfois1

    You must be very thick to come up with that argument. Look at the date when the final “Unthinkable” was completed.

    The nice Western Allies who promised to protect Poland in 1939 had more than 6 years to fullfil their commitment but it was the nasty Soviets who liberated Poland.

    Not really sure what you’re saying here. Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945

    The date makes perfect sense. The Western “Allies” had no desire to protect Poland or to do anything to benefit the Poles. The Poles did not matter to them. They used the Poles to lure Germany into a war.

    Yes, the Soviets “Liberated” Poland in Sept 1939 when they violated their non-Aggression pact. They also “Liberated” Poland from their intellectual elite at Katyn.

    You confirm my very point with your 2nd line that I had quoted, thanks! It’s just amazing how many people who claim to be Polish today fall all over themselves to defend the actions of Britain and the other Western Allies, who clearly did not care about the Polish people!

  304. szopen says:
    @reiner Tor

    My opinion on Bromberg is that some number of innocent Germans were murdered by a mob and armed vigilantes; but the number was neither 2000, as de Zayas claimed, nor 5000, as was given by German propaganda. You have to remember that those were two days, and that on the second day there was a chaos in the city. Given that it was full of marauders, panicking milias etc, plus that IMO indeed there were some sabotageurs attacking Polish forces – that there were crimes is fully believeable. You are also right that the number, compared to the total Bydgoszcz/Bromberg German minority, is sizeable (3 to 4%! Though the percentage of civilian losses in Warsaw Uprising was higher).

    However, we don’t really know how many Germans died, how many of them were murdered. Hugo Rasmus compared pre-war address books and then counted people, who were missing from address books in either December 1939, or in the beginning of 1940, can’t remember (and I do no care that much to once again start digging through my library; I used to buy monographies on the subject, though they were prohibitively expansive compared to my university salary in 2004). He came with a list of names, can’t remember whether it was 300 or 400; there are also other number in circulation, and it seems that they oscillate around the “300” number. However…

    (1) The fact that someone is missing from 1940 address book does not mean he or she was murdered in September 1939. People die from natural causes; move out.

    (2) Those who died in September 1939 not necessarily were murdered; Bromberg was bombed; some of the killed could be saboteurs and if there were caught with weapons and shooting at Polish soldiers, their execution was lawful. Germans were also drafted into Polish army and they could died while in fight.

    (3) OTOH, were all Germans in Bromberg contained in address book? And what about possibility that some of the killed could arrive from outside of Bydgoszcz/Bromberg?

    All in all, to repeat, I believe SOME Germans were massacred, but the number was at least ten times lower than the number given by Wally (who seemingly believes that either victims were hiding for all 1939, were not in address book, or maybe suddenly thousands of Germans arrived in Bydgoszcz just in September only to be slaughtered; moreover, for all his demands about “show me the mass graves” here he ignores that there were about 300-400 Germans officially buried – 618 in the highest estimate, but which also includes 94 “unknowns”, ie people who were not identified, so could be Polish). I believe this was made by a mob which couldn’t be controlled by Polish authorities, after civil authorities were evacuated or escaped from the city.

    Mobs of any nationality are rather dangerous and can participate in massacres. The difference is that here crimes happened because Polish auhorities LOST control, while German response (random killing of PoWs etc) happened as effect of deliberate act of German authorities.

    I agree with most of your other points.

    In the past I was thinking that it was outrageous when I read about German soldiers shooting PoWs, or mob massacring someone; but now, after so many years of reading histories not just from WW2, but from numerous other conflicts, I must contend that it’s simply to be expected that soldiers of any armies will sometimes shoot prisoners, kill civilians, and that in every society there are people who in the right circumstances will behave like animals. The difference is of scale and of the role of authorities. Here, there is no proof that the killings was organized by state. And while I think that it could be that also before the war some Germans could be killed (pre-war Poland was full of people regularly fighting in the streets and interethnic conflicts were often deadly), I see no proof that it was on the scale claimed by Nazi propaganda, and no proof it was with the allowance of Polish government.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @reiner Tor
  305. szopen says:
    @Theodore

    Justify the conditions of plebiscite given by Hitler, which would allow Germans from other regions who stationed in military garrisons in Pomerania to vote, which would allow the vote to the German colonists settled there by German government before the war in order to change the ethnic composition, which would allow the vote to the administrators, while would deny the vote to any Pole who arrived in the province in the last 20 years; plus a plebiscite which would demand that Poles would evacuate the province and, given the experiences of previous plebiscites under “international auspices” would lead to violence and terror. Why German who settled in Pomerania ten years before 1918 would have right to vote, while Pole who settled in Pomerania ten years before 1939 would be denied the vote?

    Ah, damn. I really should go back to work instead of arguing with the people repeating the same arguments, over and over.

    • Replies: @Theodore2
    , @Dube
    , @reiner Tor
    , @Fox
  306. szopen says:

    BTW, I can’t find online the source for my claim of 9500 German in Bydgoszcz in 1939; it was taken from my book, which I have in my other flat and I am too lazy to drive there just to check one figure from one book. Nevertheless I want to justify the number, so here it is:

    However if you look at the online stats (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg), you can find two number: in 1921 and 1931 for Bydgoszcz county, where in 1921 you had 43 thousands Germans in the whole country, and in 1931 a bit above 18 thousands in the whole of country; and on Bydgoszcz wiki site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bydgoszcz#Population) you can find the number of German in 1921 in city, which was given as 24 thousands (roughly half of the German population for the whole county). I think it’s reasonable to assume that German population emigrated in the roughly same proportion from the countryside and the city, so the number 9500 (as half of the German minority in the county) I believe is reasonable.

  307. Theodore2 says:
    @szopen

    would lead to violence and terror

    Good thing that was totally avoided… oh wait!
    Please see my comments above on the concept of “negotiation”
    It’s time to grow up!

  308. @SolontoCroesus

    See: Suvorov, _The Chief Culprit_, for information that will utterly invalidate your assertions.

    There’s information you do not have. Note that Suvorov’s publisher is the Naval Institute Press, and he has presented this information at the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. He’s taken seriously by the military establishment.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Viktor Suvorov.
    _The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II_
    Naval Institute Press, 2008

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  309. j2 says:
    @Theodore

    “The same Poland which the USSR steamrolled through and turned into a puppet state
    The same Poland which denied Hitler’s freedom guarantee, to protect it from Bolshevism
    The same Poland which the Western “Allies” turned over to the communist butchers and refused to military support with “Operation Unthinkable””

    Hitler started a world war and he lost it because he made many very serious mistakes:
    – attacked Moscow too late so that roads turned to mud
    – divided forces before attack to Moscow
    – forbid Finns and Germans from attacking the second Murmansk railroad
    – did not allow Paulus to break through from Stalingrad
    – delayed the starting of the attack in Kursk until Soviet had built strong defences
    – stopped the battle of Kursk despite Germans being able to win it
    – did not stop a Soviet major attack (Finns did it twice, Germans should have been able to do the same, but no, Hitler ordered them to withdraw all the time)
    – did not believe in quite good information that Normandy was the landing place
    – ordered an insane counter attack to the West.
    – he did not want to step out and make peace. This caused Germany to be totally overrun. A grave mistake form a leader.
    Hitler was a so poor leader that even his own officers wanted him out and tried to assassinate him.

    Poland become overrun by Soviets exactly because Hitler attacked the Soviet Union and lost the war by his own decisions. Thus, Hitler is responsible for the Eastern European countries ending up as Soviet satellites. Hitler planned a war as he had built an army for a war, and he wrote everything already in Mein Kampf. Hitler’s offer to Poland was as dishonest as were his promises after Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s proposal for negotiations was only aggression and unreasonable demands, as his demands were not accepted, he attacked Poland. That is not the way negotiations are made.

    “You need to grow up”

    You are still living in Nazi fantasies. That is not grownup.

  310. Theodore2 says:
    @j2

    But it is quite obvious that Hitler did not start WWII in Europe; rather, it was the British & French who declared war over a local territorial dispute.

    As for “Hitler did not want peace” but he did, with Britain. He offered various peace proposals, some of which were posted here.

    And yes Hitler made mistakes in the war against the USSR. If he didn’t have to fight on two fronts, it would have been different.

    You really need to educate yourself and stop believing baseless nonsense which has been debunked in this thread and elsewhere. You also have a tendency to invent “facts” (lies) to attempt to prove your position, showing how weak it is.

    I reiterate: grow up

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  311. Ballshit and complete bollocks!
    John Wear is not a historian. “John graduated with a degree in accounting from Southern Methodist University in May 1974 and passed the CPA exam later that year. He graduated from the University of Texas Law School in December 1977 and passed the Texas bar in February 1978. John, who is currently retired, worked most of his career as a CPA. His most recent employment was from 1994 to 2008 with Lacerte Software, a tax division of Intuit Corporation.”
    Why has not the historian been so cheeky as to have written especially about Poland being invaded by Nazi Germany? In an abominable and lying text “Why Germany Invaded Poland” he has not even signaled that Poland had been really invaded and bombarded and that pagan Germans had killed thousands of Poles during September invasion: thousands of civilians in towns, in villages and on roads! Warsaw – a capital city – had been completely destroyed during German planes bombardments! Instead he has written nonsense about alleged Polish atrocities! “Polish atrocities” written and taken from not from carefully searching through archives but from Shadewalt, Hans, Polish Acts of Atrocity against the German Minority in Poland, Berlin and New York: German Library of Information, 2nd edition, 1940, p. 19.- Goebbelslike propaganda!!!
    It is abominable and awful that UNZ has allowed this bullshit to be showed on “UNZ”.

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @Alden
  312. Wally says: • Website
    @reiner Tor

    said:
    “It’s obvious that this war crime is dwarfed by the crimes committed by Germans on a massive scale 1939-45.
    Poles didn’t commit such crimes (i.e. mass murder) before the war anyway.
    Therefore it’s also obvious that Germans (specifically Hitler) bore all or almost all responsibility for the war and thus the whole situation in Bromberg and elsewhere. ”

    Yawn.
    – What alleged “crimes committed by Germans on a massive scale ” are you referring to?
    Name them, and please present proof, if you can. We await.

    – Ah yes, you dodge the article under discussion, the additional info. from myself (especially #7) & Theodore that’s been posted here. You merely wish those facts would go away. It will not.

    – Yet you ignore all the prove that Hitler didn’t start the war, such as:

    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
    The Soviet Union Conspired to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government
    By John Wear https://codoh.com/library/document/6807/?lang=en
    The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving: by Ron Unz:
    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

  313. astro3 says:

    Wonderful to have the full story told at last. There was just no way Germany could have avoided the UK’s war-precipitating strategy. I put as much as I could find into my little book ‘How Britain Initiated both World Wars. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britain-Initiated-both-World-Wars/dp/1530993180 (NB, 61 customer reviews!)

    • Replies: @A.R
  314. Wally says: • Website
    @j2

    – You continue to ignore the article under discussion.

    – You continue to ignore the overwhelming information presented in comment #7 and elsewhere in this thread.

    LOL
    – We’re discussing the issue with Poland, 1939, and you try to distract with amateurish arguments about WWII strategy post 1939.

    • Replies: @j2
  315. A.R says:
    @astro3

    If this is truly you, Prof. Kollerstrom, then let me express my deepest respect for your integrity and for your important work. I have read a couple of your books and I highly recommend them to everyone here.

  316. @Carlton Meyer

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

    Exactly. It was never about coming to Poland’s aid.

    • Replies: @163213
    , @utu
  317. j2 says:
    @Theodore2

    “But it is quite obvious that Hitler did not start WWII in Europe; rather, it was the British & French who declared war over a local territorial dispute.”

    Hitler knew that France and England had given guarantees to Poland when he ordered preparing plans to attack Poland. Thus, he intentionally started the world war. England and France did not first attack Germany with arms so that Hitler had to defend Germany. They did not force Germany to attack Poland. Thus, it is very clear: Hitler started the world war. The question is only why did Hitler attack Poland when he knew, or should have concluded, that it will start a world war. The answer I give to this is that Hitler’s mission was to 1) send some German Jews with money to Palestine to build infra for more emigrant Jews, 2) gather by brutal force Jews from Europe, especially Poland where the Jewish population was the largest (which explains why he attacked Poland), 3) put England into a so difficult military situation that it would agree to the demands of Zionists, and 4) lose the war so that Germany will be destroyed, as the persecutor of Jews must be destroyed. These all tasks agree fully with the Theosophist origins of the Nazi party.

    “As for “Hitler did not want peace” but he did, with Britain. He offered various peace proposals, some of which were posted here.”

    If Hitler wanted peace, all he had to do is not to attack. But he chose to attack Poland.

    “And yes Hitler made mistakes in the war against the USSR. If he didn’t have to fight on two fronts, it would have been different.”

    Hitler made too many mistakes. He made so many mistakes that they cannot be mistakes. He did them on purpose, as he had perfectly good plans made by German generals and he did not follow these plans but sabotaged them. For instance, the attack to Kursk would have easily worked and it would have been very useful for Germany if done when the generals wanted it to be made. But Hitler delayed it, while it was clear that Soviets are building defenses and the battle will be much harder. For this reason I find it very difficult to believe that Hitler was simply so incompetent. He wanted Germany to lose. Just simply face this fact.

    “You really need to educate yourself and stop believing baseless nonsense which has been debunked in this thread and elsewhere.”

    Your arguments, as well as the arguments of the author of the article, have been debunked in this thread. There were no wide scale Polish atrocities before the war started. The demands of Hitler in 1938 were unreasonable and without any justification, Poles decided to fight. They lost, but finally Germany lost the war. So, finally Hitler was the more stupid one. If you start a war and lose it, you were stupid to start it.

    ” You also have a tendency to invent “facts” (lies) to attempt to prove your position, showing how weak it is.”

    Facts that I mention are facts. The one who lies is you.

    “I reiterate: grow up”

    I reiterate, a person who admires Hitler and Nazis is not grownup and understands nothing of history. Those are things that school age boys do.

    • Replies: @Theodore2
  318. j2 says:
    @Wally

    Wally, we have had many discussions and you have lost every one of them. Also this one.

  319. @Counterinsurgency

    Which “assertions” of “mine?”

    Do you mean Victor Davis Hansen’s assertions; that is, the drivel he is teaching to young people at Hillsdale college?

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  320. @Theodore2

    Why do honest revisionist commenters here keep trying to engage j2 and tell him to “educate himself” when he’s made it clear he thinks he is the most educated person here. He specializes in taking a few “facts” and repeating them over and over to back up his phony argument. Like his saying that because England had already given Poland the “guarantee”, Hitler’s situation was hopeless and his only path forward was to continue to try to negotiate with lying Britain.

    It would be best to ignore j2.

    Hitler started a war with Poland that he could reasonably expect Britain to stay out of because of his pact with Soviet Russia. And Britain DID stay out of it! And France too. However, both countries were building up their armed forces AND accumulating allies in a war against Germany. A world war ! So Hitler could not wait but needed to pacify his very threatening western front, knowing that Stalin was planning to attack from the East.

    IOW, all these future allies were preparing for a world war against Germany and they are the ones responsible for bringing one about. Hitler made reasonable decisions all along the way.

    • Replies: @j2
  321. fcd says:

    Thank you for the splendid report throwing light into many ‘dark’ stories of the west. Look forward to more of the same …

  322. L.K says:

    Far from being satisfied with the wrongfully obtained German territories, the Polish leadership actually desired to grab even more German land in their quest for “Greater Poland”:

    The Polish politician, statesman & delegate at the Paris Peace Conference and a signatory of the Versailles Treaty, Roman Dmowski, stated in 1923:

    “I never fought for the return of Poland – since that was taken for granted– what I was fighting for was the creation of a Greater Poland. The present day Poland is not small, but we must all keep in mind that it is only the first instalment for a truly Greater Poland.”

    The French professor of Slavonic studies, René Martel, stated in 1929:

    “All Polish ideas end up, basically, as plans for expansion. Far from wishing to resolve the question of the Corridor in a manner acceptable to Germany, they are dreaming in Poland of extending that territory by annexing Danzig and East Prussia in one way or another.”

    And

    “Amongst the thorny questions that have troubled us since the war, none is as regrettable and terrible as that of the eastern borders of Germany. There is not one person nowadays that does not know this truth.”

    In a rare moment of honesty, Winston Churchill stated in the House of Commons on 24 November 1932:

    “If the British government is really interested in promoting peace, then the government should assume the lead and re-open the question of Danzig and the Corridor, while the victorious states are still superior. If these questions are not solved, then there is no hope of a lasting peace.”

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  323. Theodore2 says:
    @j2

    Using your same fallacious reasoning, WW2 was started by the Versailles treaty. see comment #178

    French General Ferdinand Foch: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Colin Wright
  324. L.K says:

    It must be noted that the German rejection of the theft of its Eastern territories and the desire to review those borders had nothing to do with the rise to power of Hitler and the National Socialists.

    For ex, the following are statements from German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann (Foreign Minister 1923–1929, during the Weimar Republic. Co-laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926):

    “One of my most important tasks is the rectification of the eastern borders: the recovery of Danzig, the Polish Corridor and the re-adjustment of the border in Upper Silesia.”

    “That we do not recognize the eastern borders is a fact I had once expressed in a public speech to the foreign affairs committee, much to the chagrin of the Polish government, when I stated that no German government, from the German Nationalists to the Communists, would ever accept these borders laid down by the Versailles Treaty.”

  325. j2 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Why do honest revisionist commenters here keep trying to engage j2 and tell him to “educate himself” when he’s made it clear he thinks he is the most educated person here.”

    Funny Caroline, but I will still not take you as my Ph.D. student. You just do not have the material for a researcher and I am retired now.

    No patriotic German would have tied Germany to a war against all major powers at the same time: France, England, the USA and the Soviet Union. Hitler knew when giving the order to attack Poland that attacking Poland would take Germany to war with France and England. Then Hitler declared a war to the USA when Japan started a war against the USA. He did not need to do so, Japan did not declare a war against the Soviet Union. Then Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. While Soviets apparently did plan an attack on Germany, the German attack to the Soviet Union was clearly expected. Had it not been expected, Stalin would not have attacked to Finland or taken the Baltic countries, as those were defensive actions for Stalin. Thus, we have Hitler intentionally getting Germany to a war with all major powers. The final outcome of such a war is obvious: Germany will lose it. To make sure that Germany would lose, Hitler made an impressive series of very bad mistakes in the Eastern front (and continued with similar mistakes in the Western front).

    The only question that remains is, was Hitler a German patriot? Well, he was not German. Was he really a supporter of Aryan people? He was not Aryan, his Y-DNA haplogroup E is Mediterranean. He joined a party that was established by a secret society, the Thule Society. Thule was split from a real Germanic secret society by a Freemason and Theosophist, Rudolf Sebottendorf. A Mizraim lodge Freemason, a cabal Freemason. Thule members dead the Secret Doctrine, which e.g. says of the Jewish race that it is an ancient degenerated race. Thus, it had to be cleansed by natural selection. Theosophy is Masonic. Just check and see, Blavatsky belonged to the Golden Dawn and was setting O.T.O. (Remember, Ian Fleming tried to arrange a meeting between Crowley, the head of O.T.O. and Rudolf Hess, it did not realize, but apparently Hess wanted to talk to high Masons about the world war.) Blavatsky was also involved in restructuring Memphis and Mizraim, and the Protocols come from Theosophic circles. Masonry had since 1820 tried to restore Jews to Palestine. By 1840 Rothschild and Cremieux supported this idea. But Jews did not want to leave, so they were given 100 years time to leave, then they would be pushed to Palestine, as Kalischer said, Rothschild and Cremieux will help this to happen. The time was up in 1939. After that they were to be pushed to Palestine. It happened, through Hitler. So, was he a German patriot, or did he have the goal of pushing Jews to Palestine?

    Hitler become the prime minister with the help of a group of German industrialists. They were German, but many had international business. It means they had close connections to international banks. Industrialists always say the same as international banks. Joint interests.

    • Troll: L.K
  326. Malla says:

    Brilliant piece Mr. Wear. Poland was the last place where the International Globalists could trap Hitler into a war and destroy his unique economic system. Once all the Germans were united in one Reich, which is what Adolf Hitler wanted anyways, Germany would have no issues with its neighbours and it would be hard to get it into a war. The Third Reich could then concentrate on developing Germany economically further without any international banker influence.

    • Replies: @Pater
  327. @Wally

    Wally
    you must be nuts and great admirer of Hitler and Nazis.
    Strangely I haven’t found in this article any statements from Polish side.
    Who attacked Belgium, Holland etc. – Indians !??
    Do you blame them too !!??
    and tell me what is the point of this article if you smart enough to tell me ?? , you can’t change anything!!
    Spend more time concentrating on present time and future because you can change it.
    I think you watched too many crap Hollywood movies and can’t think rationally anymore.

    • Replies: @L.K
  328. L.K says:
    @Theodore2

    Normally I just ignore j2’s trolling but I caught sight of the following in reply to ‘turtle’.

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

    j2’s “reply”:
    “I see. Russia should demand a 4-lane motor road to connect Kaliningrad (the same Eastern Prussia, but now populated by Russians) with the rest of Russia and England should connect Gibraltar with the Isles by a similar road.”(!!!!!)

    A real intellectual “giant”, eh?

  329. Ron Unz says:

    Since this article substantially drew on The Forced War, an analysis of the origins of World War II by Prof. David Hoggan, a Harvard Ph.D. in diplomatic history, here’s a link to a PDF copy of the 1989 edition of his book, originally published in 1961:

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/David%20Hoggan-The%20Forced%20War.pdf

    I’ve also now added an HTML version to this website, which may be more convenient to read in some ways:

    http://www.unz.com/book/david_l_hoggan__the-forced-war/

    I should warn you that the text runs well over 300,000 words, and although the work seems to be exceedingly thorough and detailed, it’s also *exceedingly* dull.

    I somehow managed to read a couple of chapters yesterday, learning more about the ideological complexities of the intra-war political factions of Poland that I’d ever wanted to know, but finally abandoned the effort after my eyes kept glazing over. I suggest that those of you who suffer from insomnia keep this book around as the perfect cure.

  330. Pater says:
    @Malla

    The German economy had always been export oriented from Bismarck’s time, as it was facing increased sanction & isolation without a war of conquest & expansion in Europe it would likely have faced crisis then collapse somewhere in the 1940’s.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Malla
  331. Ron Unz says:
    @Pater

    The German economy had always been export oriented from Bismarck’s time, as it was facing increased sanction & isolation without a war of conquest & expansion in Europe it would likely have faced crisis then collapse somewhere in the 1940’s.

    No, I don’t think that’s correct, and indeed it’s probably upside-down.

    From everything I’ve read, Hitler’s rather unorthodox domestic economic policies had proven extremely successful, and under him Nazi Germany had become one of the world’s most prosperous countries, without any unusual military build-up. Meanwhile, FDR’s New Deal had been a failure, leading Roosevelt to desperately seek to foment a large international military conflict to rescue him from his domestic problems. This was certainly the contemporary view of many of America’s leading journalists and academics at the time:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    As a consequence, Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war, while FDR did everything he could to foment one:

    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    The Hoggan book and the one by renowned Oxford historian AJP Taylor make the same case that Hitler had no desire for war. The books by John Beaty and Revilo Oliver, both high-ranking figures in American military intelligence, say much the same thing, as does the volume edited by Harry Elmer Barnes.

    Meanwhile, Churchill and numerous other elected British politicians were taking huge bribes from Jewish and Czech interests to start a war against Germany. I just finished David Irving’s Churchill book, and the evidence he provides seems absolutely irrefutable. I’m not exactly sure about Britain’s relevant laws, but given those facts maybe Churchill should have been executed for treason at the time, which would certainly have avoided an enormous amount of senseless bloodshed.

    To quote the concluding paragraph of one of my recent articles:

    It might not be entirely correct to claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image more commonly found in our textbooks.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

    • Agree: Malla
  332. Parfois1 says:
    @Anon

    I don’t think Germany used black soldiers from its African colonies. So you side with Germany because it was the only 100% White military involved?

    Not really. I have seen a picture of Hitler handshaking troops from Cameroun.

    • Replies: @A.R.
    , @Malla
    , @Alden
  333. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    “The Hoggan book and the one by renowned Oxford historian AJP Taylor make the same case that Hitler had no desire for war. The books by John Beaty and Revilo Oliver, both high-ranking figures in American military intelligence, say much the same thing, as does the volume edited by Harry Elmer Barnes.”

    Ron, here is the error of your research approach. The idea is not to take opinions of one side and the other side, pick up those that you like, and justify your claim with references to established researcher. In all controversial topics you find opinions from both sides and therefore to refer to these authors does not mean referring to an authority: it is referring to one side of the dispute.

    What you have to do is to think yourself, as a controversial question means that there is no agreed solution to it. You should take a few facts that can be shown correct without doubt. Then derive from these facts conclusions in a logical and sound way. Then the conclusions must be correct, or you made some mistake and can locate mistake by investigating the assumptions and logic. Use the same approach to research as in science. Historical research is no good model for studying history, as history has always been a playground of propaganda.

    You say: Hitler tried to avoid the war as he could. This contradicts with what his actions were:
    – he decided to attack Poland even though he knew that Germany will be in war with the UK and France. This was no avoidance of a war.
    – when the UK and France did not attack Germany after the invasion to Poland, Hitler attacked to the West. This did not show a great intent to avoid a war. Notice that the Western countries did not try to fight Germany with any such determination as you would expect if they were looking for a war with Germany. England gave up Norway, though it had a base in the North of Norway.
    – Hitler started the Battle of Britain, though (ask any military person) the chances of the invasion of England were never realistic. Indeed, the bombing of German cities shows just how much damage Luftwaffe had managed to do to the Allied air forces. And the British Navy was superior, so no chance for a Sea Lion. There was also no good reason why England should have made a peace with Germany at this point: it was not so seriously threatened, and Germany was going to lose since the UK could count on the USA joining the war and Germany ending up to a war with the Soviet Union.
    – Hitler declared a war against the USA. He did not need to do it, in the WWI Germany tried to avoid a war with the USA, but Hitler did not try to avoid it, he declared it.
    – Hitler finally attacked the Soviet Union. It was according to the policy outlines in Mein Kampf. He collected several countries to the attack and the plans of an attack take about 4 months, so it was not any last time response to the Soviet attack plan, though Stalin did have such a plan. Before the invasion of Poland Germany did not have a border with the Soviet Union and was not under an immediate threat: Poland was still at that time somewhat prepared to stop a Soviet invasion. Thus, Hitler’s invasion to Poland caused the threat of a Soviet attack.

    Hitler’s peace proposals are not showing any intention for a peace because the Allied side could expect that finally Germany must lose. All they needed to do was to wait for the tide of the war to change. To England this was clear already in 1939: it could count on the USA being on its side in the end game, it could count on Stalin’s pact with Hitler to break down. Thus, Germany would be in war with too many powers at the same time and would surely lose. The only peace proposal Hitler could have made after the attack to Poland and the West was to withdraw to the prewar borders, pay for all damage Germany had so far done, to replace Hitler as the head of the state, and to give some part of the prewar German area to the Allies. Because what the UK could expect is that Germany would have to do this in any case. The only way Hitler could have made a better peace agreement would have been to stop the attacks of Allied after the tide of the war changed. This Hitler did not do, and indeed he seems to have intended Germany to lose.

    • Agree: Durruti, Miro23
    • Replies: @Durruti
  334. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    I looked up this David L. Hoggan. Apparently he was Acting Associate Professor in Berkley for a short time, then Associate Professor in San Francisco State College, and then basically ignored. The following story is from a guy who had a room next to Hoggan.
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/17455.cfm
    “Hoggan in 1959 had resigned his position at San Francisco State College. He never got a decent job again. That was why he worked at the obscure Center for American Studies in 1962-1963. After the Center closed its doors in 1965, he taught at a local private junior college.”

    Hoggan does not seem especially reliable as a historian according to this guy, and from Wiki it seems that his Ph.D. thesis of German-Polish relations was much different from the book, which this article is based on.

    “Hoggan was not trustworthy. Nobody could safely trust anything he wrote that didn’t have a footnote, and which could be verified as valid. It took me a couple of decades to figure this out. He had a photographic memory, but he made up events. He would say that something happened, but he would never supply a footnote. Nobody else had ever heard that a particular event had happened. An example was this: “During the first world war, British submarines attacked both German and neutral commerce in the Baltic Sea.” This statement appears on page 148 of his book, The Myth of the ‘New History’ (Craig Press, 1965). A few years later, I asked him about this. What was his documentation for this? He answered blithely: “Everybody knows that.” In 1975, I spoke at a tiny seminar of students at the University of Southern California. It was on revisionist history. It had been organized by James J. Martin. He was an outstanding revisionist historian, one of the last. He died in comparative security. He could not secure a teaching position at any university. After my presentation, he asked if I ever knew what the source was for Hoggan’s statement about submarine warfare conducted by the British. I simply recited the statement that Hoggan had given to me. He had never heard of it, either. That cheered me up. ”

    So, this kind of a source was the main basis of the article. But Hoggan at least had learned Polish to say something of German-Polish relations. I wonder if in this discussion threat any other than Poles and me read the two essential languages (German, Polish) of this two country conflict in order to even theoretically check anything.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Bennet
  335. @szopen

    ‘…All in all, to repeat, I believe SOME Germans were massacred, but the number was at least ten times lower than the number given by Wally (who seemingly believes that either victims were hiding for all 1939, were not in address book, or maybe suddenly thousands of Germans arrived in Bydgoszcz just in September only to be slaughtered; moreover, for all his demands about “show me the mass graves” here he ignores that there were about 300-400 Germans officially buried – 618 in the highest estimate, but which also includes 94 “unknowns”, ie people who were not identified, so could be Polish). I believe this was made by a mob which couldn’t be controlled by Polish authorities, after civil authorities were evacuated or escaped from the city…’

    I’d put the picture you paint at one end of the range of reasonable possibilities.

    On the one hand, I cannot see why the Polish High Command would see it as in its interest to spend time massacring German civilians.

    On the other, I will point out that retreating troops frequently become convinced the civilian population is attacking them in some way; even when such suspicions turn out to be demonstrably groundless. For example, there were several cases of British troops ‘catching’ fifth columnists in Northern France in 1940 and summarily executing them.

    There were no fifth columnists. Moreover, these were the actions of a relatively well-trained and disciplined force, operating among an at least nominally friendly civilian population.

    One can imagine Polish troops, caught half mobilized by the German onslaught and retreating in confusion through an area populated by German civilians, behaving considerably worse, and indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were several instances of officers organizing reprisals for either real or imagined instances of sniping, etc.

    So things could well have been worse than the picture you paint. Obviously, German propaganda was a lurid exaggeration — but how lurid remains an open question.

  336. @L.K

    ‘Far from being satisfied with the wrongfully obtained German territories, the Polish leadership actually desired to grab even more German land in their quest for “Greater Poland”…’

    The quotations you provide are all interesting — but not one of them justifies Germany’s attack on Poland.

    You may well be interested in acquiring my house. That doesn’t confer on me the right to take yours. Had Poland actually attacked Germany, you would have a point.

    • Replies: @L.K
  337. @Theodore2

    ‘…French General Ferdinand Foch: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)’

    Foch’s words are usually misunderstood. His point was that he felt the Versailles treaty was insufficiently harsh and punitive; Germany should have been well and truly crippled for all time.

  338. Dube says:
    @szopen

    Just make sure that your horses are watered.

  339. Avrier says:

    @Durruti

    “In WW II, the Belgian flanks were exposed and they were forced to surrender – when the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) of 250,000 retreated without fighting. ”

    After that,one would have expected your dad to fight with the Langmarke or Wallonien division on the East Front but not with the Brits’ allies,

    • Replies: @Durruti
  340. Bennet says:
    @Ron Unz

    Churchill and numerous other elected British politicians were taking huge bribes from Jewish and Czech interests to start a war against Germany

    Ron, could you give us a rundown on the deep rationale that lay behind the Jewish push for a war against Germany? What were their hopes for the post-war scenario? “Their” meaning the top Jewish elites who had the resources to influence the course of events.

    I suppose we could ask a similar question today, but that’s another story …

    By the way, thank you for your exceedingly informative article on the plan to bomb Russian oilfields:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?display=showcomments#comment-3417970

  341. Malla says:
    @Pater

    https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=191649&sid=1ac9a4ed4ba3185c8e32dceae9a30aff

    A Comparison of American and German economies in WW2

    All the economic data to your heart’s content. Notice the massive rise in German GNP after Hitler came to power. In 1933, Germany was 31.95% of the US economy while in 1940 it was 52.30% of the US economy, all this time while the American economy nearly doubled.

    Also this video is worth a look. The Third Reich used a barter system independent of and thus by passing the International Finance system, for trade with other nations.

  342. A.R. says:
    @Parfois1

    Hitler’s Black Soldiers: Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Non-German Descent in Hitler’s Army & Reich by Weronika Kuzniar.

  343. @szopen

    I think it could have been an armed mob, or simply Polish soldiers – killing so many people is not very easy for a mob. If you have, say, 200 prisoners, and there’s a mob, unless they are put into a wooden building which is then burnt down, I don’t think mobs in general are capable of killing so many people in a day or two. It’s probably somewhat organized, was done with weapons by people who knew how to hold a rifle, etc. So I’d think soldiers.

    Yes, it’s possible that innocent Germans (i.e. non-combatants) were among them, or were the majority of those killed. As you say, such things happen.

    And yes, the big difference is that the Nazi regime wanted mass murder all the way from the top. Basically here we have Hitler’s and his henchmen’s personal responsibility. (It was a totalitarian dictatorship.)

    Wally, and the others similar to him, are, in my opinion, incapable of reasoned discussion. The number of victims in Bydgoszcz is in the hundreds, not thousands, that much seems reasonable from the available evidence.

    This one point, just a nitpick:

    the percentage of civilian losses in Warsaw Uprising was higher

    When I wrote about civilian casualties in Warsaw, I meant September, 1939, not the Warsaw Uprising, because that is more relevant as a comparison for the losses of the Bydgoszcz German population’s losses. According to Wikipedia, there were 18,000 civilian casualties in a city of 1,300,000 (due to refugees the population might’ve swollen or decreased, but probably the number is good enough for our purposes here), so less than 2% of the population, and I think Overy concluded that it was mostly artillery fire and not the air force which killed the majority of them. (He thinks the majority of destroyed and damaged buildings were also destroyed and damaged by artillery fire, though of course the air force was significant.) But even if all were killed by he air force, and it was 2% (because the population dropped to 900,000), it’d still mean that the 3-4% losses for the local Germans in Bydgoszcz were far too excessive to be caused by just one bombing, when Warsaw was bombed several times for a prolonged period. So probably the majority of those killed were either German militia members (i.e. insurgents), unlawful combatants, or innocent civilians. (And as discussed previously, even if militia members, they were probably shot after they surrendered.)

  344. Malla says:
    @Parfois1

    Actually there were Indian and Arab SS Waffen divisions in WW2 and there were even a few blacks too. There were even East Asians.
    Hell, there were even 150,000 soldiers fighting for the Third Reich who were of partial Jewish descent but they would be considered White.

    General Field Marshal Erwin Rommel inspecting a unit of the Indian Legion in France, February 1944

    Overall, there were about 15,000 Indian POWs in Europe, primarily held in Germany by 1943. While many (about 4,500) Indian POWs joined the German Army mostly in the SS Waffen, the Indische Freiwilligen Legion der Waffen-SS to be precise, most Indian POWs of the Royal Indian Army remained loyal to the Indian King-Emperor George VI and treated the Legion with contempt for being traitors.

    At the time of the surrender of Germany in 1945, the remaining men of the Indian Legion were captured by American and French troops, with cases of extreme brutality faced by German Indian soldiers at the hands of French Moroccan troops.
    Most were eventually shipped back to India to face charges of treason along with Indian soldiers who had switched to the Imperial Japanese side.
    But these trials caused a huge uproar among the masses of India and thus the Indian Government was forced to eventually suspend the trials of Indians who served with the Axis Armies.

    SS-Standartenführer Wilhelm Hintersatz (1886-1963) the commander of the Muslim Osttürkischer Waffen-Verband der SS performing Namaz (prayers towards Mecca) with his soldiers in Slovakia in 1944.

  345. Malla says:
    @Anon

    I don’t think Germany used black soldiers from its African colonies.

    Germany had no African colonies during WW2. The Germans lost their Empire during WW1.

  346. @szopen

    Hitler was not agreement capable. He made it clear on March 15, 1939. He clearly didn’t understand the Western Allies.

    There was an anecdote about Ribbentrop, that during the war, to celebrate some anniversary (maybe of him having worked in the Foreign Office or as a foreign minister for X years), his underlings compiled a list of all the major agreements he had signed or helped bring about. There were some fifty of those, and his underlings found that not one of them was still in force, because each had been broken by Germany by that time. When Ribbentrop told Hitler about this, Hitler laughed. He didn’t understand that that was what made it impossible for him to survive the war – no one wanted to make a negotiated peace with him, because no one wanted to negotiate with him at all.

  347. Durruti says:
    @j2

    blockquote>”Ron, here is the error of your research approach. The idea is not to take opinions of one side and the other side, pick up those that you like, and justify your claim with references to established researcher. In all controversial topics you find opinions from both sides and therefore to refer to these authors does not mean referring to an authority: it is referring to one side of the dispute.”

    “What you have to do is to think yourself, as a controversial question means that there is no agreed solution to it. You should take a few facts that can be shown correct without doubt. Then derive from these facts conclusions in a logical and sound way. Then the conclusions must be correct, or you made some mistake and can locate mistake by investigating the assumptions and logic. Use the same approach to research as in science. Historical research is no good model for studying history, as history has always been a playground of propaganda.”

    Thanks. You saved me from having to write in similar vein.

    Many at this website write opinions with little research to back them up. Hitler, and the Nazis were no simple group of political innocents. They were representatives of German imperialism.

    1. Reactionaries to the core, they slaughtered thousands of SA Brownshirts – during the Night of the Longknives in a successful elimination of anti-capitalist elements in their movement. Hitler & his Nazis worked for much the same Zionist Financial Oligarchs as did Churchill & Roosevelt.

    2. The dismemberment of Czechoslovakia followed.

    3. Later, Poland.

    4. Later, Norway-Denmark-Holland-Belgium-Yugoslavia-Greece

    5. The Nazis outlawed all opposition parties (alibi that one if you can). If you do not support Republican forms of government, SAY SO!

    6. They supported/allied with Mussolini – supported his invasion of Ethiopia.

    7. They helped England & Roosevelt destroy the Spanish Republic.

    I, 2019, would like to see the German people regain control of their country from the Zionist Oligarch New World Order, but that does not make an Hitler and his Nazis anything less than the murderous imperialist scum they were.

    • Replies: @j2
  348. Durruti says:
    @Avrier

    I understand your point. My dad fought in WW I (as a teenager). He joined the American Army (artillery) after exiting thru Holland-(which was not involved in WWI).

    During WW II, my dad was working in a Shipyard in Staten Island NYC that was building Destroyers.

    After his divorce, my father returned to Antwerp 1965. He once took me to an anti-NATO demonstration – in Brussels. He would never fight against America, Belgium, or Russia. My father’s 4 brothers all served in the Belgian Army. My cousins (much older than me) served in the Belgian Army in WW II. They hated fascists.

    In the late 1960s my cousins, me, & dad went to West Germany. We were at a restaurant, & my dad was the only one of us who could speak German. He refused to order food – refused to speak German. We finally prevailed on him to calm down & order.

    I know some Germans, like them, & wish they & we Americans could get our Countries back.

    God Bless!

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Seraphim
  349. @reiner Tor

    I think it could have been an armed mob

    According to the article by Markus Krzoska here
    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2012_2.pdf
    which summarizes the state of research as it was in 2012, it was most likely a local militia which had been formed at the start of war, consisting of members from paramilitary groups and also youths active in scouting.
    Number of ethnic German victims is estimated to be somewhere between 300 and 400, maybe a bit higher if surroundings of the town are included. There actually doesn’t seem to be that much controversy about this among serious researchers, even if many details are unknown.
    What happened exactly before the killings, will probably never be known with certainty; maybe there really were active fifth-columnists among the local ethnic Germans (and even if not, some at least seem to have acted provocatively and expressed joy over the German attack), maybe it was unfounded panic in the chaos of war. But the crucial issue is of course that in all probability there would have been no massacre without the German attack.

  350. @reiner Tor

    reiner Tor,

    German Nazis and these new neo-Nazis are always playing the victim card; oh Germany the eternal victim, oh the superior intelligent Germans being envied and hated by everybody, oh the Fatherland always wronged but deserving so much more of everything especially neigbours’ lands. What a mega huge persecution complex these Nazis have. Now who else does that remind you of? Is there a connection between these bitter enemies oh so wronged by the whole world? Is the animosity between them real or just paper thin? So 6 million of one and 9 million of the other, or more or less, dead. So?

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @j2
    , @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Greg S.
  351. @j2

    It is not a custom to any country to ask for another country to give its land to build a road.

    It doesn’t have to be “a custom“, just a reasonable proposal. What if you wanted to get from the border city of Basel to the closest airport, which is entirely located in France? France allows Switzerland to maintain its own sector at this airport, along with a connecting corridor road.

    Israeli politicians have occasionally proposed a corridor road to connect Gaza with the illegally occupied West Bank.

    The corridor road proposal through Poland made in 1939 was completely reasonable. Obviously it would have been a minor issue to also build a bridge over it or an underpass beneath it.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Anon
    , @turtle
  352. j2 says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “The corridor road proposal through Poland made in 1939 was completely reasonable. Obviously it would have been a minor issue to also build a bridge over it or an underpass beneath it.”

    No, it is not. In a military sense it means that the Polish area between the road and the sea is already lost to Germany, especially as Polish fortifications in Hel and Gdynia were to be removed, because the Polish army could not supply these areas, they would be in a siege and have to surrender. Additionally, this road and the area between the road and the sea would enable Germany to take a larger area from Poland quite easily: the road and the railroad provide a very good way to move troops, which gives a definite advantage. You can try to ask some of your neighbors to give you a piece of their land just because you would like to have it, see if they agree.

    This proposal of Hitler can be compared to a person coming to you and asking your wallet. If you do not want to give your wallet, he takes it by force. In the end of the day the police puts him to jail. Then the bandit cries, it is not me, this guy did not want to give me his wallet, I wanted it, so I had the right to take it. I had robbed him already once before, so he did not have any right to have a wallet, it belonged to me. Do you think this bandit would be sentenced to jail or maybe would qualify to a mental hospital?

    This is exactly what Germany did to Poland. Germany asked for a piece of land which belonged to Poland. Poland did not want to give it, so Germany attacked and took it. But at the end of the war Germany lost everything as the other countries acted as a kind of a police to stop Hitler. Then you cry that it was not Germany’s fault, it was the Poles, they refused to give their land, though in 1772 Germany already once had stolen this land, so Poland should not have had this land.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  353. L.K says:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    Why Hitler invested so much money and time to modernize Germany’s army , navy and air force – for Peace ???!! or for War ….
    Hitler plans were about power and expansion , so he was looking for excuse and pretext. He found in Poland.

    Evidently, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. In regards to German rearmament your view is totally at odds with the actual facts. Without even taking into account the fact that Germany had been nearly disarmed after the Great War, and that various hostile powers were themselves carrying out large armament programs, German rearmament proceed slowly and even by 1939 it was still quite insufficient.
    A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War:

    “The French had fired the starting-pistol for the arms race. …”
    “Germany, for instance, was little more prepared for a great war between 1933 and 1936 than she had been before Hitler came to power. The difference was that he had strong nerves and his predecessors had not.”
    In considering German armament we escape from the mystic regions of Hitler’s psychology and find an answer in the realm of fact. The answer is clear. The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all.”

    The Harvard economic researcher Burton H. Klein, in his book ‘Germany’s Economic Preparations for War’, provides ample evidence that German rearmament and mobilization were relatively modest:

    In 1939 the civilian economy still possessed large reserves of labour…
    There was no pronounced concentration of investment in those activities associated with economic preparations for war.
    In the pre-war period, the German economy produced both ‘butter’ and ‘guns’ – much more of the former and much less of the latter than has been commonly assumed. By 1937, civilian consumption, investment in consumer goods industries, and government non-war expenditures equalled or exceeded previous peak levels.

    As for Hitler desiring a war of conquest and using Poland as a pretext to begin one, you should think again, since even biased court historians such as Richard Overy are forced to make admissions such as:

    If Hitler was responsible for war in 1939, this still begs the larger question of what kind of war he wanted. Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest, in which Poland was a stepping stone to some distant German world empire. Indeed, recent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire in central and eastern Europe had to be improvised almost from scratch.
    Richard Overy, “1939: Countdown to War” – 2009

    • Replies: @Mark Kaczmarek
  354. j2 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “Is there a connection between these bitter enemies oh so wronged by the whole world?”

    I think there is, in both cases.

    Nazis came not from some normal rightist German movement to stop Communists and oppose Jews. They came from a party created by a secret society established by Masonic Theosophists who had the goal of moving Jews to Palestine in order to create Israel. Their plan meant that Germany would attack everywhere and be finally totally destroyed, but Jews would get Israel. So, they were Zionists.

    These neo-Nazis make claims that have so far outlawed questioning the holocaust. They refuse to accept any realistic death toll for Jews (like 1-2.5 million) but insist that it is under 200,000, which no real researcher will accept (as it is false). These ridiculous claims destroy credibility of honest revisionists (which these neo-Nazis are not) and keep the Holocaust denial laws in force. They make claims, like in this article, that Hitler only defended Germans against the bloodthirsty Poles, though those events have been studied and the history in that case is quite as in the official version. Also these claims are made in order to black-paint all real revisionist historians, and sometimes they make attacks against Jews keeping the myth of irrational gentile anti-Semitism alive. The only one who gains is Zionists, especially B’nai B’rith and ADL.

    • Disagree: Carolyn Yeager
  355. j2 says:
    @Durruti

    “I, 2019, would like to see the German people regain control of their country from the Zionist Oligarch New World Order, but that does not make an Hitler and his Nazis anything less than the murderous imperialist scum they were.”

    Exactly. Some of these people praise Hitler for improving the economy. Well, that is easy, remove unemployment by ordering a work duty and stop strikes by putting opponents to concentration camps, so economy goes better and you can build roads and arms for the military for a war. Nothing good here either.

    • Agree: Durruti
  356. “…can be compared to a person coming to you and asking your wallet”

    The analogy you concocted is ridiculous. Even though I explicitly mentioned bridges and tunnels, your response essentially ignores such basic measures to effectively implement the reasonable proposal. Instead, you inappropriately convey the sense that the proposal was to build a fortified wall instead of a basic road. You appear to be obsessed with maintaining a losing argument.

    • Replies: @j2
  357. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    Would the Germans have allowed a bridge or underpass to be built? Why just one bridge or underpass for such a long stretch of highway? Just reading the pro German comments on this thread I’ve gathered that Germany was more concerned with a strip of fortified territory than the free movement of freight and people.

    I’m more aware than most that Jews are responsible for the American government’s media and educational war. against Whites.

    But just because Germany was anti Jewish 80 years ago is no need to put all the blame for starting WW2 on Poland because it had not agreed to an German extra territorial long narrow fortified road and railway in Poland.

    The hagiography and elevation of Hitler and Germany to innocence. virtue and sainthood is getting as bad as those endless books and movies glorifying Churchill and brave, plucky little England’s role in starting WW2.

    Or all those Jews who write books about the evil Lindbergh, Kennedy and others who wanted us to stay out of WW2. Or the morons who believe the Spanish Republic hadn’t been taken over by the Soviets by 1935.

    There’s 3 sides to every story. His, hers and the truth. WW2 isn’t really an interest of mine. My reaction to this hate Poland adore Germany is about the same as my reaction to all those hate Germany adore Churchill and England hate Roosevelt because he didn’t declare wear in Germany in 1936 pro Jewish books written during the 1950s 60s

  358. @Commentator Mike

    oh the Fatherland always wronged but deserving so much more of everything especially neigbours’ lands.

    These so-called “neighbors’ lands” were in most cases 60 to 95% German populated, so who took who’s land?

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @szopen
  359. Alden says:
    @Leopoldaskari

    Ron likes to post interesting and controversial articles. That’s why he has this website.

  360. @Durruti

    As a racial/ethnic Belgian-American whose family “hated fascists” and fought on the Allied side in WW1 and 2, it’s no surprise you hold the views you do. We are all highly influenced by these things.

    You know “some Germans” and realize they are just like you. Maybe you should familiarize yourself more with the Germans who were loyal to their country and supported their leadership, and fought for it in both wars, seeing they were just like your father and uncles, as you are like today’s Germans. Were the Germans hypnotized by evil but your Belgian relatives were not? Who were the worst leaders — the Kaiser and the Fuehrer, or the German chancellor today, installed by the victors that your relatives fought for? What about the leadership of Belgium back then, that agreed to do whatever Britain asked of them, and suffered for it? What about the incredible lies/slander told about the German troops by the Belgians then, that your family served, which are proven beyond doubt to have been known lies at the time they were spoken? The Belgian media dealt in lies. What about what Belgium has become today under this global rulership?

    Why do you hang on to all this prejudice if you want things to improve? Who and what are you serving?

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Durruti
  361. Alden says:
    @Parfois1

    Cameroon was a French colony at the time. Maybe a POW who took up the offer to join the Germans.

  362. @j2

    these claims are made in order to black-paint all real revisionist historians

    False. No ‘real revisionist historians’ have said that. Does J2 consider himself a real revisionist historian? Real historians use their real names.

    The tail end of these threads always deteriorate into comments that merely repeat what has already been said, as readers drop away. Like this one. But this is when j2 really gets going, revealing that his arguments are in truth very spare and small, despite all the verbiage he includes to make them look more substantial.

  363. Ron Unz says:
    @j2

    I looked up this David L. Hoggan. Apparently he was Acting Associate Professor in Berkley for a short time, then Associate Professor in San Francisco State College, and then basically ignored…So, this kind of a source was the main basis of the article.

    Hmmm… Here’s what you said in one of your subsequent comments:

    Nazis came not from some normal rightist German movement to stop Communists and oppose Jews. They came from a party created by a secret society established by Masonic Theosophists who had the goal of moving Jews to Palestine in order to create Israel.

    As far as I can tell, you’re just some sort of random nut who hangs around my website for some reason. Meanwhile, the sources I’m citing are top journalists and academic scholars.

    Hoggan earned his Harvard Ph.D. in diplomatic history under one of the foremost professors in the field. It’s certainly true that his “discordant” views soon caused him to be purged and his career destroyed, but that’s exactly what you’d expect under the circumstances. I’ve actually now read a bit more of his 300,000 word book, and it seems exceptionally detailed and thorough and also much less dull than the earliest chapters. Here’s his Introduction for those so interested:

    http://www.unz.com/book/david_l_hoggan__the-forced-war/#preface

    Another good example is the 1961 text by Oxford’s AJP Taylor, widely regarded as one of the top British historians. His book became a huge bestseller and many years later was still assigned reading in my introductory history course at Harvard. Yet despite his enormous popularity as a teacher, he was soon purged from Oxford. Decades later, David Irving was purged, bankrupted, and even imprisoned for somewhat related reasons.

    Numerous other top mainstream figures have taken similar positions and have also been purged and blotted out from the record. As it happens, I tend find their analyses of the historical quite persuasive, certainly more so than those of a random Internet nut such as yourself.

    • Agree: L.K
  364. @German_reader

    Thanks, that sounds reasonable.

  365. @German_reader

    German reader? How about reading the first-hand experiences of these Germans: https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/deutsch/archiv/lowitsch/mnl00.html

    English only readers can find the excellent translation here:
    https://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/longnightsjourney/lnjid00.html

    The Death March of Lowicz by Erhard Wittek. A powerful true story revealing what the ethnic Germans of the Polish 2nd Republic were really like and what they went through in the early stages of the war. How could they help from wishing in their hearts for a German victory that would liberate them? A German cannot become a Pole anymore than a Pole can become a German.

  366. j2 says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “Even though I explicitly mentioned bridges and tunnels, your response essentially ignores such basic measures to effectively implement the reasonable proposal. Instead, you inappropriately convey the sense that the proposal was to build a fortified wall instead of a basic road. ”

    Looks like you lack the basic understanding of military matters. You should read books about operational art and tactics and discuss with military officers, then we can better talk about the military implications of Hitler’s proposal.

    [MORE]

    Naturally there was to be a bridge or a tunnel as Poles were “allowed” in this proposal to build a similar road to Gdynia. Naturally also Poland did not need a 4-lane road to Gdynia and a road from Poland to the sea does not have the military importance of a road separating the coast from the rest of Poland. Without accepting Hitler’s proposal Poles could build any road on their own area and they had a road to Gdynia.

    However, whether there is a tunnel or a bridge, or several of them, it does not matter: as the road, with some surrounding of it as it is a motor road, would belong to Germany, it would be in German control. In the case of war, it is a German area that separates a part of Poland from the rest. The use of a tunnel of a bridge can be denied. The used of the harbors of Gdynia and Gdansk can be denied to Poland. For Poland with smaller air forces bombing the road would not be so easy. Polish artillery could try to bomb, but a armored gun train on the railroad would be a difficult opponent, as it can move. The road would be a significant military asset to Germany and a serious problem for Poland. Bridges and tunnels do not matter. I understand very well that Poland did not like the road idea.

    However, large countries do what they do, unfair or not, and smaller countries have to cope with it. A smaller country may decide to fight, and then it may lose. This is the reality. What I find much more interesting than whether Germany had the moral right to demand a road and Danzig (it did not, but it was bigger), is why Hitler attacked to Poland when England and France had stated that they will declare a war to Germany if Hitler attacks Poland. This is the question.

    I reiterate: the question is not if Germany had any reasons to attack Poland, like to protect Germans in Poland, or whatever. The question is why Hitler attacked Poland when he knew that Germany will be in war with England and France. Did he assume that England and France would not interfere with the attack to Poland? Probably yes, they were not prepared for an immediate war.

    But Germany would still be in war with England and France. Did Hitler imagine that he could just not do anything, the phony war would continue, and he would make a peace? No. Hitler did not think so. He attacked Belgium and France. To Mannerheim Hitler explained that he wanted to attack to France earlier but it was all the time raining. So, Hitler made the war active.

    Did he think he could force England to a peace? With Churchill there? If he had any sense, he knew that England does not need to make a peace and will not make it. So, Hitler had no possible way to get away from the state of war with England. And he must have known that the USA comes to the side of England sooner or later. Hitler made it sooner, by declaring a war with the USA. Hitler also attacked the Soviet Union.

    At this point Germany was at war with the UK, the US, the USSR, France. There was no way Germany could win in the long run. There was no way to get these enemies to accept a peace offer from Hitler, as these enemies knew that Germany will lose in the long run. This meant that Germany would be completely ruined. Hitler should have known it in late 1941. Finnish officers understood it in summer 1942 after Hitler’s visit.

    So, again, why did Hitler attack Poland? My answer: he was planning on ruining Germany. His task was to collect the Jews so that they could create Israel. If so, Hitler made no mistakes and everything is logical in what he did.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  367. Greg S. says:
    @Commentator Mike

    While any thinking man will recognize that “history” is by no means a black and white objective science, there is a large amount of evidence that advocates of “German persecution” have some valid arguments.

    There is a lot of evidence to show that the Establishment powers (England and France), greatly resented and feared the growing German power in the 20th century and sought to curtail it. By any means necessary.

    Also some topics to explore:

    How did ethnic German populations outside of Germany fare post WW1 and post WW2? In particular places like the Volga Germans in the USSR? (hint: words like extermination come to mind).

    How did German POWs on the eastern front fare? (hint: almost none of them ever came home).

    How were German POWs on the western front treated (hint: quite badly).

    For all these things, nobody cares because they were just “evil Nazis,” but one must ask if all those humans were really evil or if you are in fact experiencing the effects of propaganda and brainwashing.

    This is not to say the Nazis were any good either, but always be suspicious when you are told with little evidence that any group of people is “evil” and that anything is justified against them.

    • Replies: @Bruno Chapski
  368. turtle says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    The corridor road proposal through Poland made in 1939 was completely reasonable.

    I agree.

    The issue, as I understand it, was right of free passage for German citizens between parts of their country which were separated by territory formerly part of their country but now ruled by another nation which denied Germans the right to travel through, or over, territory controlled by them.
    As I understand it, a German living in Berlin who wished to visit his cousin in East Prussia was forbidden by Poland to travel there via Poland, whether by rail, automobile, or air transport.
    His only option was to travel by sea. Similarly, ethnic Germans in Danzig (>90%) of population, were only allowed to travel via sea.
    Who built the infrastructure was of secondary importance, if this is correct. The important issue was freedom of movement for German citizens and ethnic Germans, which they were being denied.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Bruno Chapski
  369. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    You may well be interested in acquiring my house. That doesn’t confer on me the right to take yours. Had Poland actually attacked Germany blah, blah

    Unless “your” house is actually my house that you had previously unjustly taken, or do you fail to understand even that, you mental midget?

    British journalist Bertram de Colonna who traveled in Poland shortly before World War Two and wrote ‘Poland from the Inside’:

    ..There were originally altogether 3,200,000 Germans in the area now composing Poland, of whom 1,700,000 left after the plebiscite in Upper Silesia owing to the oppression under the Poles. …

    The 1,500,000 Germans do not, of course, include the 400,000 in Danzig. Danzig comes in a different category, being entirely German. In fact, it is as German as Liverpool is English, and has a somewhat lower percentage of non-Germans than some English cities have of non-English.

    It must not be forgotten that the German minority in Poland is only one of several. It would be a mistake to regard the German problem as the only one to be settled. Poland has never been a national State. Even in 1815, when she was divided with the express approval of France and Britain, there were non-Polish citizens within the country’s boundaries, and minority problems existed.

    It may safely be asserted that the repeated and long-drawn-out struggles between the minorities on the one hand, and the Poles on the other, led to the threefold partition of the country, robbing the State of its powers of resistance until the other countries had an easy task. In fact, dissolution seemed almost natural [26] in view of the internal dissension.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  370. eah says:

    Die Lüge vom „Überfall auf Polen“ 1939

    Der deutschen Militäroffensive gegen Polen 1939 aber gingen eine monatelange diplomatische Krise, Propagandakampagnen beider Seiten, Dutzende von Grenzzwischenfällen, Pogrome gegen die deutsche Minderheit in Polen mit mehreren tausend Opfern (zu denen es keine Entsprechungen in Deutschland gab) und nicht zuletzt der britisch-polnische Beistands- (und Blankoscheck-) Pakt und der deutsch-sowjetische Nichtangriffs- (und Teilungs-) Pakt voraus.

    Schreibt Manfred Kleine-Hartlage im aktuellen Compact und hat völlig recht.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  371. Durruti says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Why do you hang on to all this prejudice if you want things to improve? Who and what are you serving?

    Germany has a Prime Minister who hates Germany. America has a President who serves a Foreign Power. Belgium is a small country, pretty much like Tolkien’s Shire – populated with Hobbits. Whoever attacks Belgium – is my enemy.

    We do not agree on who has prejudices. Not as important as:

    The litmus test for all in 2019 is support for the Restoration of the Palestinians to All their Land, with due punishment for the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs.

    All other issues follow after this one.

    If you support the Palestinians, we shall march together.

    Durruti

    for the Anarchist Collective

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  372. @Carolyn Yeager

    OK, some of it is disputable, especially who should control mixed territories but they went a little further than that, and anyway AH wrote as much in Chapter 14. Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy of Vol. 2 his book, but then again you may say I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding what I read in it.

  373. @j2

    I agree with most of what you say but I’m not sure were Hitler and his closest associates offered a guarantee of a way out if they accomplished the destruction of Germany, like say an exit to Argentina? I can’t see him accepting at the start of the project that suicide would be the eventual reward for his efforts. Or perhaps Hitler just wasn’t smart enough to figure out what he was being used for. Although there is some wisdom in his works and deeds, I don’t get the impression that he was particularly intelligent, calm and controlled, and I know I will offend his ardent fans by saying this. Like I mentioned on some other thread, I don’t even think he wrote Mein Kampf himself and that it was probably ghostwritten by several authors. He seems to have been more of an actor and orator used by others pulling the strings from behind the scene than the originator of many of the ideas he propagated, although the book obviously builds the myth of some destitute war veteran homeless tramp rising from the streets and doss houses of Vienna to lead a popular movement striving for absolute power.

    Also, as I mentioned in older threads regarding the invasion of Poland, I am of the opinion that Hitler and Stalin had a secret agreement to invade Poland simultaneously. Stalin then played Hitler for a fool and waited to see the response of France and Britain before making his own move, while also secretly negotiation with Churchill behind Hitler’s back. That is probably another reason why Hitler was furious with Stalin and later broke their pact by invading the USSR.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Counterinsurgency
  374. @eah

    German right-wingers are retarded if they bring up stuff like that again. I thought they (or “we” as I had assumed) had moved beyond that, disappointing that something like this pops up again among AfD sympathizers (e.g. people like Stefan Scheil or Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof seem to get some attention in AfD circles), which is absolutely counter-productive.
    Granted, it’s difficult to have a positive view nowadays of Polish right-wingers at least who seem to be stuck in permanent grievance-mongering mode with their anti-German reparations campaign (850 billions, lol), but countering this with revisionist fairy tales about “pogroms” with thousands of German victims before September 1 1939 is idiotic.

    • Replies: @eah
  375. Looks like you lack the basic understanding of military matters. You should read books about operational art and tactics and discuss with military officers, then we can better talk about the military implications of Hitler’s proposal.

    Military matters“???

    …talk about…“???

    This kind of amateurish response reeks of what many would likely expect from new Unit 8200 trainees, after their military indoctrination and service.

    Have you ever heard of, or read about, the following basic terms?

    • Constructive Negotiations
    • Win-Win Situation

    Thank you for having exposed yourself so blatantly to all readers.

  376. eah says:
    @German_reader

    Hat gar nichts mit der AfD zu tun — sollte nicht (politisch) mit der AfD in Verbindung gebracht werden.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  377. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    There is no rational anti-National-Socialist position for any tribe. Every person with a respectable IQ and with any tribal affiliation whatsoever, and who wishes their extended tribe to survive, is a National Socialist at their core.

    Anyone else is a foreign subversive, is self-hating, is a hypnotized / under-educated robot, or doesn’t have enough information.

    The Jews, Africans, AmeriIndians and Asians are all National Socialists with a varying ability to implement it: Jews high, AmerIndians low, Africans lowest, and Asians varying.

    This is how they vote and behave in their own nations, with more functional-nationalist voting and behavior the smarter that they are.

    What doesn’t vary is that they vote and act against their nationalist opponents outside of their nations. What also doesn’t vary is that the miscagenated nature of all of these tribes allows them much more internationalist reach than for colonial Europeans who aren’t going to eradicate the tribes that existed prior.

    Jews, being the most functional National Socialists and therefore the most difficult opponents of people outside their tribe, give everyone outside of Israel the most political trouble to the point that they are always a mortal threat to their host nations.

    Which is why we are in the situation that we are in, and one reason why Germany found itself in theirs. Their innate danger is always why Jews find themselves hated by host populations. Of course, none of this would matter if Jews simply remained in their own territories. Their religious doctrine tells them that they must destroy all other nations and rule the world, and so they invariably migrate to other nations.

    Our National Socialism was never politically strong enough to counter the miscagenated internationalism of the Jewish tribe. It was likely never going to be.

    At its core, this was always a conflict between the political power inherent in a necessarily miscagenated internationalist yet highly insular tribe, and tribes who cannot engage in the same internationalism because they prioritize a level of racial purity. This is a political competition between the highly bred mutts and the purebreds. The highly bred mutts are winning and likely will win.

  378. Incitatus says:
    @Ron Unz

    “As a consequence, Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war, while FDR did everything he could to foment one”

    Really? That’s news! Please comment on the Hoßbach Memorandum [5 Nov 1937]:

    “The Fuhrer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space…The German racial community… constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples…Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space…The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space…Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk…there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how.”
    -Adolf Hitler, Remarks to Service Chiefs recorded by adjutant Oberst [later General der Infanterie] Friedrich Hoßbach 5 Nov 1937

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    A dictator with unrestricted power tells military chiefs “Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force…never without attendant risk”? Doesn’t sound like a Mahatma moment, but judge for yourself. Consider Hitler’s macabre romance with the primal struggle:

    “He who wants to live should fight, therefore, and he who does not want to battle in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to be alive.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Chapter 11 Volume 1, 1925

    “Truly, this earth is a trophy cup for the industrious man. And this rightly so, in the service of natural selection. He who does not possess the force to secure his Lebensraum in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by.”
    -Adolf Hitler Speech to officer cadets at the Berlin Sportpalast, 18 December 1940

    Pacifist Hitler? Don’t think so. Peacemaker Hitler peaked with his melodramatic promise:

    “This [Sudetenland] is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe, but it is a demand on which I will not yield.”
    – Adolf Hitler, Berlin 26 Sep 1938

    Four months prior Hitler instructed his foreign service and military:

    “Führer directive concerning Operation Green…It is my irrevocable intention to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future”
    -Adolf Hilter 30 May 1938 [Akten zur deutschen Außenpolitik 1938-45 DII, no.221; Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p.381]

    Linkage? A carefully orchestrated campaign of propaganda, insurgency, bullying, violence, intimidation, and blackmail. Same methods the NSDAP used against domestic rivals, Weimar legal agencies and the rule of law from 1925.

    Sudetenland? All Europe (including ordinary Germans) nervously contemplated ruinous WAR. All (including ordinary Germans) rejoiced when the Führer feasted on his “last territorial demand” and [30 Sep 1938] signed Chamberlain’s ‘collective agreement to guarantee borders of Czechoslovakia’, ‘a new Anglo-German relationship – “peace in our time”, a wish “never to go to war with one another again” and the promise to consult to “remove possible sources of difference”.

    What did Hitler say one day later?

    “[Doubtful signing Chamberlain’s compact to eschew war – ‘peace in our time’ – was] “meant seriously by the other side.”
    -Adolf Hitler 1 Oct 1938 (1 day after signing the Munich Agreement and promise to eschew war) [Göbbels Tagebücher Teil 1, Vol 6 entry for 2 Oct 1938 p.125; Ulrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.745]

    “[We failed to achieve the] big solution [(the total break-up of Czechoslovakia) but] we must first digest what we’ve won. When the time is right, we’ll soften up Poland using the tried and tested methods.”
    -Adolf Hitler 1 Oct 1938 (1 day after winning the Sudetenland in the Munich Agreement) [Gerhard Engle ‘Heeresadjutant bei Hitler’ p.40]

    Poland was on the menu even then. Hitler regretted his Sudetenland bloodless victory, since ordinary German pussies expressed relief at not going to war:

    “There is no way I can wage war with this [German] people.”
    -Adolf Hitler on popular delight at Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time’ and the bloodless Munich Agreement [Erich Kordt ‘Nicht aus dem Akten…Die Wilhelmstrasse in Frieden und Krieg, p.260; Volker Ullrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.745]

    Mahatma Hitler? Make no mistake, war, war, war – bloody war – was on the Führer’s agenda from 1925. Gott forbid ordinary Germans (cannon fodder) preferred peace!

    Six months after his “last territorial demand”, Hitler summons 67-year old Czech president Hácha to Berlin after midnight, informs him Czechoslovakia will be invaded at 6:00 am and threatens terror bombing if it resists:

    “Excellency, please sign…Prague, your capital – I should be terribly sorry if I were compelled to destroy this beautiful city. But I would have to do it, to make the English and French understand that my air force can do all it claims to do. Because they still don’t want to believe this is so, and I should like an opportunity of giving them proof.”
    -Hermann Göring 15 Mar 1939 to Czech President Emile Hàcha [Mosley ‘On Borrowed Time’ p.167]

    Hàcha, revived after suffering a heart attack, orders a stand-down. German troops invade the same day.

    Five days later [20 Mar 1939], Germany demands the Klaipèda Region (Memel Territory); Lituania cedes it 22 Mar 1939.

    Sudetenland was Hitler’s “last territorial demand”? Don’t think so.

    John Wear’s piece: ‘Polish scamps challenge pure, peaceful Aryans, force ‘defensive’ invasion and self-ruin?’ Cue Wagner please!

    No offense, Mr. Wear omits much more than he cites.

    “Hitler regarded a German-Polish agreement as a highly welcome alternative to a German-Polish war.”

    Hitler ordered preparation of Fall Weiß, the invasion of Poland, 3 April 1939 (launch target 1 September ‘39). Hitler unilaterally withdrew from the 1934 German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact 28 Apr 1939.

    Did the author forget?

    “Germany made a new offer to Poland on August 29, 1939, for a last diplomatic campaign to settle the German-Polish dispute…the so-called Marienwerder proposals…were formulated to offer a basis for unimpeded negotiations between equals rather than constituting a series of demands which Poland would be required to accept.”

    Yet eight days earlier the Führer ordered Fall Weiß military commanders:

    “Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally!…Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against all signs of compassion! …[I want] the physical annihilation of the enemy…I have put my Death’s Head formations at the lead with the command to send man, woman, and child of Polish descent and language to their deaths, pitilessly and remorselessly.”
    -Adolf Hitler to military commanders for Fall Weiß 21 Aug 1939 [Shirer: ‘Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ p.532; Evans: ‘The Third Reich at War’ p.11; Wittman & Kinney: ‘The Devil’s Diary’ p.246.]

    A day later:

    “I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn’t matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth.”
    -Adolf Hitler on Fall Weiß, the invasion of Poland 22 Aug 1939 [Wirtz, Godson ‘Twenty-First Century Challenge’ p.100; Lightbody ‘Second World War’ p.39]

    Marienwerder was “propagandistic” fluff. Did the author forget?

    “On August 29, 1939, the Polish government decided upon the general mobilization of its army.”

    Germany mobilized three days prior [26 Aug 1939]. Did the author forget?

    “Germans in Poland continued to experience an atmosphere of terror in the early part of September 1939.”

    Accounts of ethnic Germans killed post invasion vary widely (2,000-13,000; ±5,000 most common). Posters on this thread provide valuable downward estimates. Killed by mobs incensed by German invasion, killed for insurgency aiding German invasion, who knows? All tragic. Point? They were killed after 1 September, they were not justification for invasion.

    On the other hand, there was widespread Ethinic-German/Wehrmacht killing of prisoners and civilians. Honorable Wehrmacht officers (there were many) voiced concern over lawless discipline and illegal behavior.

    Snuffed by the Führer’s amnesty (encouragement) of lethal behavior 4 Oct 1939. Cynical, as he already licensed murder by seven Einsatzgruppen in Poland. The more murderers the merrier? “Partisan” operations went wholesale in ±16,000 killing operations.

    Did the author forget?

    65,000 Poles are estimated to have been murdered by 1940 (20,000-30,000 by helpful ethnic German volunteers). Catholic priests, POWs, aristocrats, intelligentsia, Jews, even boy scout couriers were executed. 30,000 Poles were imprisoned in KZs. Over 100,000 Polish civilians (±25,000 in Warsaw alone) were casualties of Luftwaffe bombing and strafing of 156+ towns and cities. At least four (Wielun, Dzialoszyn, Kamiensk and Frampol) – known to be un-militarized and undefended – were targeted apparently to test Ju-87 destructive effectiveness. Polish armed forces suffered 70,000 killed, 133,000 wounded, 700,000 captured.

    Did the author forget?

    The German Foreign Office published ‘Documents on Polish Cruelty’ to justify a “defensive” attack on Poland in Nov 1939. Testimony and photos augmented a claim 5,800 ethnic Germans were murdered by Poles. World reports critical of high Polish civilian casualties stimulated a second edition that inflated “Victims of Polish Terror” by a factor of ten to 58,000 in February 1940.

    Yet, all of this seems missing from Mr. Wear’s account and Mr. Unz’s website.

    No need to grow-up (like me) on a farm to recognize bull-shit.

    • Agree: Durruti, Miro23
    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @L.K
    , @j2
    , @Anonymous
    , @Miro23
  379. @eah

    Hat gar nichts mit der AfD zu tun

    Mag bzgl. des PI-Artikels formal korrekt sein, aber Stefan Scheil z.B. ist AfD-Politiker:
    http://stefan-scheil.de/
    und geht immer noch seinen Obsessionen nach:
    https://www.bdk-berlin.org/veranstaltungsberichte/stefan-scheil-sprach-zum-75-jahrestag-des-deutschen-angriffs-auf-polen/

    Ist m.E. einfach nur abwegig und schadet nur.

    (Sorry for using German here, won’t do it again)

  380. Anon[428] • Disclaimer says:

    On the topic of “Why Germany Invaded Poland” I am curious as to why Jews are determined to censor these two videos about the Second World War in spite of the fact that we supposedly have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech in America?

    http://www.renegadetribune.com/israeli-holocaust-museum-theres-no-physical-evidence-of-the-holocaust/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/esvOBu0sO73t/

  381. aandrews says:
    @Commentator Mike

    The intention of my post was to stress to Korenchkin that any historical anti-Polish malarkey certainly doesn’t obtain nowadays. Poland and Hungary are the few remaining stalwarts of the White West.

    • Replies: @aandrews
  382. Anon[256] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul Jolliffe

    Please try not to waste our time with questions as from a smart kid who hasn’t yet read anything much. Churchill wasn’t even in government until 3 September 1939 , the beginning of the war.

  383. @L.K

    ‘…you mental midget?’

    Isn’t the internet neat?

    You can talk all the shit you want, and you won’t get your nose broken.

    • Replies: @L.K
  384. Durruti says:

    Colin Wright

    Isn’t the internet neat?

    You can talk all the shit you want, and you won’t get your nose broken.

    Agree.

    There have been an increasing number of Personal Attacks on this forum-specially on this topic- against Commentators who have the temerity to disagree with the Guest Article.

    Attacks with personal insults, such as

    ‘…you mental midget?’

    are usually signs that the person delivering the insult/s cannot intelligently debate the Topic under discussion.

    A personal insult on a forum like this is, like a Wall, an admission of weakness.

    God Bless!

    Durruti

  385. Dayal says:

    And, how do we know that THIS “history” is true? For one thing, an SOB who was virulently anti-Semitic and had some 6 MILLION Jews gassed and shot, and homosexuals and others murdered was really a good guy who was protecting his people?

  386. @L.K

    Hi L.K

    I like your words -Evidently, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about.
    You trying blindly to convince me with your quotes and so called “experts” that Germany by miracle achieved military strength in last 3 months before attacking Poland.
    Hitler did start building up his military since 1933 secretly from Allies and if I remember in 1939 his army and air force was stronger than of Great Britain.
    My question is then , why Hitler invaded Soviet Union in 1941 ??! , because he planned that for many years before and to do it he needed corridor (Poland). Try to explain that. You don’t have to be genius to figure it out. I like looking what people do, not what they say and at the end you join all dots.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Parfois1
    , @Alden
  387. Parfois1 says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’ve actually now read a bit more of his [Hoggan’s] 300,000 word book, and it seems exceptionally detailed and thorough and also much less dull than the earliest chapters. Here’s his Introduction for those so interested:

    Thank you for your kindness to provide us access to another work on WWII. I have read the first three chapters and agree with you that “A Forced War” appears to be fairly detailed (so far anyway) but that might be the only positive thing one could say about it.

    But the man is a hypocrite through and through when he states his impartiality in the preface and very soon he shows his true colours as an apologist for Nazism and a strident anti-Soviet. No wonder he was sent to the corner – not for his anti-Sovietism, that was mainstream orthodoxy – but for his outright Nazism albeit hidden in insidious prose for the least aware. Of course he must have offended the Zionist gatekeepers of the US intelligentsia.

    Nevertheless, it might be useful for most of the commentariat here to splash more quotes for their grand project to beatify their idol Fuehrer. As for others, the critical mind variety, it provides a good timeline of events and actors leading the charge for the man-made greatest calamity in human history – the cruel effects of it still affecting our lives and future generations, if we and they are lucky enough to survive the current cabal of rulers. They are worse than the protagonists in “The Forced War”.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Durruti
  388. Parfois1 says:
    @j2

    I reiterate: the question is not if Germany had any reasons to attack Poland then , like to protect Germans in Poland, or whatever. The question is why Hitler attacked Poland when he knew that Germany will be in war with England and France.

    Indeed, you are right there to question why Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland then. But you assume that the “guaranties” to Poland meant an automatic declaration of war and it did not. Indeed, there was little military activity during the “phoney war”. France and England did declare war, but it was Germany who opened hostilities.

    Hitler had the option of freezing the conflict, instead of marching to France, and hope for an eventual accommodation with London and Paris with a promise to go East, his main trump card (Hesse’s mission?). But Churchill came into the act and the Rubicon was crossed.

    Hitler was misled obviously, by himself and others. But Churchill was the man with a mission: war at all costs.

    • Replies: @j2
  389. Malla says:
    @Anon

    There is no rational anti-National-Socialist position for any tribe. Every person with a respectable IQ and with any tribal affiliation whatsoever, and who wishes their extended tribe to survive, is a National Socialist at their core.

    Exactly. Your comment is one of the smartest of all among many Western blockheads on this page. Most of us Asians are naturally Nazi. Most societies are naturally Nazi if they have their own self interest in view. It were Europeans who became all universalists, dying fighting for some higher cause rather for own tribe (and ironically being hated for it by the brown black world). Hitler was just making the Germans more Asian (Here Asia includes from the Middle East to North East Asia).
    The truth is we Asians will always will be Nazis at heart and hence we will survive and the Western Whites will become extinct. And after they become extinct, dying fighting for their higher causes and universalist morality, we will still remain Nazi and fight each other.
    I think many Whites arrogantly look down upon concepts like blood and soil as below them. Lot of ego involved. For these snobs, something like Nazism is “ewww”. But Nature has a way to efficiently remove such tribes and species from the global gene pool fast. Mother Nature always have and always will.
    “We the Western man will fight for righteousness or some idea (Communism/ banning slavery/ Democracy/ multiculturalism). And we the western man will become extinct in the process.” LOL.
    But after the White man becomes extinct, the world will be full of Nazis, us brown Nazis and black Nazis. We will fight it out. And the White following Yellows, if they want to survive, they will be Nazis too. And the Yellows will win.
    The Jews are obviously naturally Nazis too. They are just using these rapidly dying idiotic dumb (but high IQ) White goyim to strengthen their position, absorbing their technology. These Jewish Nazis know once the White fools become extinct or insignificant, they will be facing Arab and other Nazis.

    I find it extremely funny how Britons or White Americans beat chest and howl like Gorillas about destroying the German Nazis but run away like pussyboys in front of much lower IQ blacks and Muslims. Englishmen fought their German brothers like lions only to give up their own capital to Muslim and black youths who look down on White natives as weaklings. White Americans bombed Germany and Japan to hell only to run away like pussyboys in their White flights from black mobs. This is comedy gold.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  390. Parfois1 says:
    @Durruti

    If you support the Palestinians, we shall march together.

    That’s a good start. I’ll join that and suggest to start a subscription/list of volunteers, etc. sponsored by our helpful host?

  391. Parfois1 says:
    @j2

    This is exactly what Germany did to Poland. Germany asked for a piece of land which belonged to Poland.

    As a legal principle, stolen goods/land do not confer a right to the new occupier. The Treat of Versailles stole German lands and gave them (a real treat!) to a new state called Poland. Poland had a defective title, and the true owner had the right of recovery, even by force. Of course, international politics works differently, but the moral ground was with Germany. It might flare up again.

    • Replies: @j2
  392. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    Mental Midget Colin Wright:

    Isn’t the internet neat?
    You can talk all the shit you want, and you won’t get your nose broken.

    Exactly… after all, that’s how you write things like the above without getting my knuckles on your face…
    You would never threaten me to my face asshole.
    So yeah, you should thank the bloody internet for that.

    P.S. it’s obvious you did this because you have nothing in terms of arguments. I accept your surrender.

  393. Parfois1 says:
    @Incitatus

    Well, what can one say but agree with a very convincing submission of facts and words from the horse’s mouth. But the indefatigable Wally’s platoon will march on regardless… and recklessly. True Aryans.

  394. L.K says:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    I ain’t trying to convince you of anything. It’s worthless & you are totally clueless.

    I just stated the facts re rearmament for the record.

    • Replies: @Mark Kaczmarek
  395. Parfois1 says:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    My question is then , why Hitler invaded Soviet Union in 1941 ??! , because he planned that for many years before and to do it he needed corridor (Poland).

    Exactly, by hook or by crook, he needed to occupy Poland because it was in the way to the invasion of the Soviet Union, his ultimate mission. Hitler was very consistent with that aim, just connect the dots. Poland was just a snag on the road to Moscow.

  396. L.K says:
    @Incitatus

    The Hossbach memorandum is a forgery as you already know – because I gave you the details – and yet you keep pushing this garbage every single time. You are a shameless propagandist as we both know.

    The alleged notes made by Colonel Hossbach, an anti-Hitler conspirator, do NOT exist. The copies from Kirchbach & Victor von Martin have also disappeared.

    Von Martin, who had turned his copy to the allies, stated in 1968:

    The protocol presented at the Nuremberg court was put together in such a way as to totally change the meaning [of the original] and can therefore be characterized only as a crude forgery.

    In in his memoirs, Hossbach admitted that Hitler did not outline any kind of war plan at the meeting.

    Renowned British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, who initially was fooled by this forgery, later revised his position and wrote:

    No evidence that Hitler planned aggressive war has ever been produced … [This] revision upsets the entire verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which is still solemnly quoted as justification of the Allied war against Germany.”

    and added that

    “those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum.” …
    They should also warn their readers[….] that the memorandum, far from being an ‘official record’, is a very hot potato.”[1]

    Taylor’s classic “The Origins of the Second World War”, edition containing the added ‘Second Thoughts’ chapter, which comes right after the preface. Pgs.XXIII, XXIV.
    A.J.P. Taylor, An Old Man’s Diary (London: 1984).

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  397. j2 says:
    @Incitatus

    Excellent comment. I fully agree. This nonsense of Hitler not wanting war. When did he not want war with the Soviet Union? Mein Kampf demands Lebensraum in the East. Before the Ribbebtrop-Molotov pact was signed everybody waited for a future war between these countries, with a good reason. I was told by a historian (though do not know the exact reference) that before Finland made a peace in the Winter War Hitler told that there will be a was against the Soviet Union, that is early 1940 Hitler wanted a war. The only time Hitler might not have wanted a war was from the Robbentrop-Molotov pact 23. Aug. 1939 to the attack to Poland 1. Sept. 1939, but as Hitler ordered making the attack plan in April 1939, there was exactly no time when Hitler did not want a war. Then there is a Harvard history professor who claims that Hitler did not want a war. What is the level of history in American universities?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  398. j2 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “I agree with most of what you say but I’m not sure were Hitler and his closest associates offered a guarantee of a way out if they accomplished the destruction of Germany, like say an exit to Argentina?”

    Nazis were helped out, and by such Mason connected organizations like the Malta Knights and such Masonic country like the USA. It is unclear if Hitler died in the bunker. The piece of skull that Soviets kept for a long time as a proof that Hitler died, was from a woman according to a DNA study.

  399. @Anon

    ‘There is no rational anti-National-Socialist position for any tribe. Every person with a respectable IQ and with any tribal affiliation whatsoever, and who wishes their extended tribe to survive, is a National Socialist at their core.

    Anyone else is a foreign subversive, is self-hating, is a hypnotized / under-educated robot, or doesn’t have enough information…’

    …or maybe he’s just not very fond of any form of collective power.

  400. @Ron Unz

    ‘…As it happens, I tend find their analyses of the historical quite persuasive, certainly more so than those of a random Internet nut such as yourself.’

    Well, yeah — but appointing j2 as the spokesman for one side of the debate kind of rigs the game, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @j2
  401. @Malla

    Malla,

    You’re just tribalists, that’s all. Don’t give yourself airs that you’re National Socialists of some exalted modern type, and even if, then of the lowest of the Nazi vermin, and a lot more nationalism than socialism in your Nazism. But yes if whites are a joke so is everyone else. The future world you depict without whites is also like a comedy skit. And the jury is still out on where all this is heading. Whites can be right two faced bastards and all that empathy and humanism could just be a cover for something quite opposite. Like Bill Gates prides himself on vaccinating all those Indian children and saving them from disease when he’s actually killing them in his eugenics experimental trials, and probably laughing himself silly in private at mass murdering Indians – now that’s a proper Nazi operating under the cover of some supposedly do good global foundation he presides over. Look I’m just commenting and Indians sure don’t annoy me as long as they stay put and stay there in their own subcontinent, and maybe a bit more socialism there would do them some good, and yes even nationalism, of the type I love my own kind and my own turf and don’t want to go and encroach on someone else’s patch and mingle with all those foreigners. As if?

    Cheers

    • Replies: @Malla
  402. j2 says:
    @Parfois1

    “Hitler was misled obviously, by himself and others. But Churchill was the man with a mission: war at all costs.”

    We agree with Churchill, and can add Roosevelt. But the theory that Hitler was misled has a problem. Hitler was misled in attacking Poland, Hitler was misled by Goring that he could invade England by destroying British air defense, he did not dismiss Goring, so again Hitler was misled by Goring that Paulus could be supported from air.

    [MORE]

    And Hitler made many mistakes.
    1) Hitler wanted to attack to the Soviet Union before the Winter War ended (as he told Finns), but he did not want to attack in the summer 1941 as the UK had not made the peace. He was forced to attack, and if so he should have made as Machiavelli advises: take Moscaw, set up a non-Communistic local government, help build a local non-Communistic army, and get the hell out of there as soon as it is possible. This is the correct and known way. Hitler did not do so.
    2) Hitler let British evacuate in Dunkirk
    3) Hitler forbid Finns and Germans attacking the second Murmansk railroad
    4) Hitler delayed attack to Moscow until roads got muddy in the end
    5) Hitler split forces before attacking Moscaw
    6) Did not let Paulus to break free
    7) Delayed the attack to Kursk
    8) Stopped the battle of Kursk
    9) Did not stop a major Soviet attack (it was possible, Finns did it)
    10) Did not believe that Normandy was the place
    11) Made the counterattack to the West

    So, Hitler was misled by himself and others and made mistakes. So, how did he in the beginning succeed so well? A person, who makes mistakes, tends to make them all the time. Answer: the opponent made mistakes. Again mistakes, this time the opponent makes more mistakes than Hitler. Did not presumably check that tanks can go through Ardonnes forest (militaries check such things all the time), Allied did not prepare defense in depth though they know the war in Poland, French did not stop tanks and planes without infantry advancing towards Paris (tanks without infantry stop to a mine field). This is already unbelievable, so let us assume Hitler got some help in the beginning of the war. Some powerful group allowed Hitler to win. And now we have the question: if there was such a powerful group, then why did Germany lose? Only because this powerful group wanted Germany to lose. Thus, Germany was let to conquer large areas and then Germany was to lose. What could possibly be the goal of such a plan, if not collecting Jews. It was not to destroy Communism, as Hitler’s mistakes (if they were mistakes) helped Stalin to win.

  403. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    “As it happens, I tend find their analyses of the historical quite persuasive, certainly more so than those of a random Internet nut such as yourself.”

    I say this again for your own benefit. You make the same error in most of your articles. You take two theories of what happened and compare them by which one you feel is the more believable.

    You do it here again comparing my explanation (as you kindly say, from an Internet nut, with another explanation, as you say from a famous professor and expert). It is simply an error to make such a comparison. You are not a judge in a court listening two attorneys. You should be a researcher and this is not the way to make research.

    This way your own feelings and preferences guide your choice. You cannot compare theories posed by other people. You should do like this:
    – select a few facts that you consider very strong
    – conclude from these facts what follows from them
    – then look for any facts or hypothesis that is in contradiction with what you concluded and find out what the reason is: are your facts wrong, did you interpret them incorrectly, did you reason incorrectly. There must not be a single fact that is in a real contradiction.
    – only after this you can look at the theories proposed by other people and see where they differ from the conclusions you made (yourself) from the facts that you selected (yourself). Notice, here you are not cherry picking anything as you check all possible facts that are in contradiction with your conclusions. You select facts that rule out some alternatives, this is the reason for selecting a small number of facts. Be careful in this step. There are good facts and facts that have many not so easily discovered interpretations.

    I hope you got it this time. You make the same error every time. I mentioned it already earlier. For your benefit.

  404. szopen says:
    @turtle

    a German living in Berlin who wished to visit his cousin in East Prussia was forbidden by Poland to travel there via Poland, whether by rail, automobile, or air transport

    Oh for Darwin’s sake, learn something about the subject before commenting.

    There was a direct train from Germany to East PRussia. You got into Berlin and the train went directly into KOnigsberg, without Visa or anything – the only problem was that the train was locked (i.e. once you got in, you were forbidden to go out anywhere in Poland until you crossed the German border again). If you thought this was too expansive (as hundreds of thousands of Germans thought) then you applied for the Visa, went through customs and traveled via local trains.

  405. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The source?

    Because the Prussian census of 1910 put most of those areas as majority Polish:

    In Pomerania/Corridor, there were only three kreises (Counties) with German majority population: THorn/Torun (55%), Grudziądz/Graudenz (70%) and Sępólno/Zempleburg (70%). In whole Pomerania/Corridor, Germans according to the Prussian census were 42% (a number which includes colonists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Settlement_Commission you have there also a list of anti-Polish legislation passed by Germany just before WW1).

    In GReater Poland/Posen Germans were more than 30%, while in Upper Silesia areas given to Poland, some 44%.

    But, of course, y’all will continue to speak about “90-95%” which only shows what your credibility is.

  406. Anonymous[278] • Disclaimer says:
    @Incitatus

    Good. Wear forgot a lot of things.
    Two Polish-Americans stranded in Poland by the outbreak of war were caught up in a German massacre of Poles in December 1939 (at Wawer). Naturally this did not do PR work for the Third Reich any favours in the USA. Few people at the time who were not Germans believed the Third Reich’s justifications, so in 1940 even more frantic claims about tens of thousands of Germans being murdered were made.

  407. Malla says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Look I’m just commenting and Indians sure don’t annoy me as long as they stay put and stay there in their own subcontinent, and maybe a bit more socialism there would do them some good, and yes even nationalism, of the type I love my own kind and my own turf and don’t want to go and encroach on someone else’s patch and mingle with all those foreigners.

    You do not have that option. Your leaders have different plans and they are hell bent in executing their plans. You are just helpless. You can still delude yourself that there is no conspiracy of this effect of race replacement, you can still delude yourself that democracy will somehow save you, that will not change facts on the ground. Listen I love democracy and freedom but the way democracy has been infiltrated and undermined especially after WW2 is truly spectacular.

  408. Bennet says:
    @j2

    I wonder if in this discussion threat any other than Poles and me read the two essential languages (German, Polish) of this two country conflict in order to even theoretically check anything.

    Quite. Without access to the vast number of Polish sources, this discussion is — to put it mildly — seriously crippled.

    But anyway, who’d want to hear what subhuman Polacks might have to say? Listening to the rants of their sworn enemies is so much easier!

  409. Parfois1 says:

    We agree with Churchill, and can add Roosevelt. But the theory that Hitler was misled has a problem. Hitler was misled in attacking Poland, Hitler was misled by Goring that he could invade England by destroying British air defense, he did not dismiss Goring, so again Hitler was misled by Goring that Paulus could be supported from air.

    Misleading has a wider meaning, as being tricked, say, by an opponent. Deception and diversion works well in the diplomatic and military fields. Hitler made mistakes, although some of those “mistakes” were errors of judgement because of false expectations and inflated ego.

    My Occam’s Razor theory is that Hitler was “groomed” (US patsy?) to cause havock in Europe and take on the USSR. If you ask “Cui bono?” after the slaughter, you come with two clear winners: US and Jewry. Hitler was ideologically committed to fight Bolshevism and get the extra bounty of Lebensraum, therefore his plan was to go East. As a preliminary step, take Poland. The Greater German Reich was both a smokescreen and objective. The only fly in the ointment was the Anglo-Franco alliance and that explains why he did not want to antagonise them – in fact he tried to lure them to his crusade as “protector” of their empires. Clearly, if Churchill were not such a snob sob what Hitler was proposing was very enticing and he was justified in believing that he would get a carte blanche to roam the stepps without hindrance on the Western side.

    The second fly in the ointment – and his bane – was the stoic Russian resistance. Had the Russians succumbed, England could not resist (even with the obdurate snob as PM) alone for long regardless of US help. Without a bridgehead in Europe, the US would be happy with the extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the western Pacific. As a bonus to the many readers here, the white race would resume ownership of the world and the Jews happily settled in Madagascar.

    With that rosy picture rising in the horizon, Hitler’s grand plan had geostrategic logic… except for Foucault’s rule: “we don’t know what we do does”. Had he kept his animosity towards the Slavs and Communists to himself, perhaps Stalin would not hasten to industrialise and prepare the USSR for the inevitable war… and win it.

  410. j2 says:
    @Parfois1

    And what about Prussia having stolen this piece of land form Poland in 1772? For countries there is no limit to 100 years or so.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  411. pappagone says:
    @FB

    before talk, please!! read the article and the evidences, that are clear and undisputed also by mainstream media and the official history, which is very partial. Malheuresement, we live in western fascist regime, worse than the nazi one, so if people open eyes (it’s sufficient in this times follow internet indipendent sources to discover the crimes acts of many western countries from end 800’s to now) and I repeat, evidences tell us another history which is impossible to deny.
    so FB, your ignorant intervent it is illuminating in clarifying who and why we live in a profoundly unjust world where malice and greed are the basis of the society in which we live, George Orwell could never have conceived how much our society is much more criminal than he could imagine in his writings

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  412. ivan says:

    The one obvious good about articles like this, is that it gives an opportunity to commentators like szopen to tear the Nazis a new one. Hitler the misunderstood nice guy simply wont fly in the face of overwhelming evidence. The Germans lacked even the basic gratitude they owed to the Poles for standing athwart the Bolshies in 1920, led by Pilsudski. When all is said and done the Germans brought all the punishment on themselves, much of it well deserved for their overwhelming racial arrogance. Being a slight racist like myself is I suppose okay, but the Nazis brought it up to a whole new level.

    • Replies: @163213
  413. @j2

    j2

    you’re just some sort of random nut who hangs around my website for some reason

    WOW, I wonder what rattled the good editor.

    Anyway if Hitler didn’t want war, as so many on this thread are telling us, why did he arm himself as fast as he could, both openly and covertly, including military industries set up beyond prying western eyes in the USSR to avoid Versailles Treaty limitations, if I am not wrong?

    In 1936, after years of limitations imposed by the Versailles Treaty, military spending in Germany rose to 10% of GNP, higher than any other European country at the time, and, from 1936 onwards, even higher than civilian investments

    as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

    So he needed to defend Germany from aggressive neighbours like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, even Norway across the sea, who all wanted to chip bits of German territory away and so he had to invade them all, since offence is the best defence. I’m just trying to think how one can justify his militarisation of Germany and war on his neighbours while somehow seeing it as “peaceful coexistence” while developing industry, which tended to be mostly military, and gainfully employing people, which was mostly in those military industries. I mean he wasn’t going to invade Poland with Volkswagen beetles and Germans armed with pitchforks was he?

    OK, so they all wanted a war, especially Churchill and Stalin, and Hitler obliged – I could go along with that explanation.

    What is the alternative reasoning? That Hitler created a National Socialist utopia free from the bankers that world Jewry and other powers wanted to destroy? Then WWII is not a continuation of WWI and has nothing to do with it except that the first war set up the conditions for Hitler to rise to power and construct his utopia. Hmm… I’m still open to persuasion along these lines, but …

    We did get Israel at the end of WWII and it was all set in motion with the Balfour declaration during WWI, and even earlier by the Zionist movement and its influence on world politics – that’s the bigger picture I guess. So is one a conspiracy nut to suggest this is what it was all about and that strings were pulled behind the scenes by those in secret societies? And so many had to die for this, and still do, to keep the Israel project going. I don’t know. I think Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion explains it more or less like this.

    Reed, who was a journalist in Germany and Austria during Hitler’s rise to power, mentions close links between Hitler, Jews and communists. Some quotes follow:

    [MORE]

    If ever a Messiah should be proclaimed, the choice may prove surprising; when I was in Prague in 1939 a rabbi there was preaching that Hitler was the Jewish Messiah, so that a worried Jewish acquaintance asked me what I thought of this.

    For the Zionists Hitler, had he not arisen, would have needed to be created

    From the start of Hitler’s regime (on that night) all professional observers in Berlin, diplomats and journalists, knew that it meant a new war unless this were prevented

    The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he would make war if allowed

    From there (Vienna), late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin “by the autumn of 1939; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor.

    In 1937, in Prague menaced by Hitler, a Jewish acquaintance told me his rabbi was preaching in the synagogue that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah” (a pious elder who sought to interpret events in terms of Levitical prophecy)

    it is of interest that the mass of literature about him ignores his early associations and the strong evidence of his Communist background. The Viennese police dossier of his early days has apparently disappeared. His later Brown Army commander, Captain Roehm, told a Storm Troop leader (who told me) that when the Bavarian troops drove the Bolshevist Government out of Munich in 1919 the unknown Adolf Hitler was taken prisoner with the bodyguard of the Moscow emissary Levine, and saved his skin by turning informer (this might explain why Roehm, the possessor of incriminating knowledge, was killed by Hitler after he came to power). Hitler’s own original proposal for the name of the National Socialist party was “the Social Revolutionary Party”; he described himself as “the executor of Marxism” (not its executioner); and he told Hermann Rauschning that he had built his organization on the model of Communism. I met Hitler once or twice and studied him at close quarters for many years, before and after his rise to power; I believe that no genuinely informative work
    about him and the part he played has yet appeared.

    the deep significance of his words to Hermann Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt’s words) “. . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism . . . The whole of National Socialism is based on it”.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  414. duath says:

    Interesting that the author started this piece writing about lies, so let’s talk about blatant lies.
    Well, I happen to be Polish.
    I also happen to speak my own native language and I happened to verify if such an article in “Ilustrowany Kuryer Codzienny” (216 issue) actually exists, to my lack of surprise IT DOES NOT exist.
    I checked multiple times and so can anyone since “Kuryer..” was digitilized and all of it’s issues are available online for free, but I found many interesting articles in just that one issue, so thank you.
    For example there is one (on page 16) about a great mobilization of german military IN THE EAST OF GERMANY and Opolian Silesia, so these polish “thieves” that were crossing the border were either extremely good “thieves” or Germans were so stupid that they allowed their military equipment to be stolen right from under their noses.. or the author was counting on that the readers would not verify this piece of information, since majority of readers do not speak Polish . 😉
    Another article (on page 16) states that on the 4th of august, 1939 some of the customs offices in Free City of Gdańsk informed polish customs officers that from 6th of august they would no longer be permitted to do their job and it triggered another “crisis”, which was even noticed by London and Paris, which took Poland’s side on this one.
    There is however a small piece in NYT about shooting some nazi plane by Poles, but it’s.. to be polite let’s call it.. vague and it’s NYT. 😉
    To understand more about US goverment and Nazis, just research Prescott Bush and Union Bank.
    I think that majority of Americans would be very interested in Walter Trohan’s article about Japan and the atomic bomb in Chicago Tribune, august of 1945.
    Another thing, Zygmunt Morawski (“Bem”), if it’s about him, but I cannot find any other so I assume it’s him, the first lie is that in 1939 he was a former soldier. He was a polish soldier until his death in 1943 and the circumstances of his death are unknown to this day. 😉

    I agree on one thing, well not exactly since Beck wasn’t stupid nor greedy, he was a foreign agent, London’s puppet actually, to put it simply a f****g traitor.
    Roosvelt was the same, just like Churchill, all f****g traitors not only to their respective nations, but IMO traitors of humanity.
    Both of the world wars were 100% artificial and the main culprits behind them were/are in London and Switzerland.
    They are doing the same thing right now, exactly the same bullshit is being done under different labels and you people eat it just like our grandfathers 70 years ago, and 100 years ago.
    How many of you know about NATO “Gladio”? Now that’s a subject which is beyond interesting, no matter which country you live in. 🙂

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  415. j2 says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Well, yeah — but appointing j2 as the spokesman for one side of the debate kind of rigs the game, doesn’t it?”

    Exactly so. If it would be a question where some internet nut, like me, proposed one theory and university professors have another theory, then one can safely select the one of professors.

    But in controversial issues it is never so. If it were so, it would not be controversial. It is always so that there are professors on both sides and they all have thick books with many footnotes and it you read one, it seems convincing, and when you read the other, it is also convincing. Then it is totally ridiculous to start evaluating footnotes and counting small errors, there are small errors in most works, but it is not a beauty contest if the goal is to find the truth.

    The you should do what the internet nut suggests: select a small number of sure facts, that discard some theories. In this simple case of the German attack to Poland, one fact is that Hitler gave the order to make the attack plan of of the invasion of Poland in early April 1939, just days after the UK gave Poland guarantees. Then put the claimed Polish atrocities against the German minority to a time frame and notice that most of them were after the order to make the plan. That shows that the reason for the attack were not the atrocities, if even there were such, but we do not need to know as they were later, if they were. Instead, one could speculate that what if the reason for the attack was that the UK have the guarantees. It could be so: Hitler had tried to get the UK to a war, but had not managed, the UK always yielded. But finally they did not yield, so Hitler attacked and got his war with the UK. This alternative theory has a better basis than that Poland forced Germany to attack.

    • Agree: Durruti
  416. Parfois1 says:
    @pappagone

    I think you misunderstood what FB meant – he was being sarcastic. Sometimes even the sharpest minds miss the double entendre. Salut!

  417. Durruti says:
    @Parfois1

    The insults roll on! They are compliments.

    Personal insults from someone who disagrees with you – means they cannot hold an intelligent discussion or debate with you.

    Nevertheless, it might be useful for most of the commentariat here to splash more quotes for their grand project to beatify their idol Fuehrer. As for others, the critical mind variety, it provides a good timeline of events and actors leading the charge for the man-made greatest calamity in human history

    the cruel effects of it still affecting our lives and future generations, if we and they are lucky enough to survive the current cabal of rulers. They are worse than the protagonists in “The Forced War”.

    nicely put – as we say in Brooklyn.

  418. Mulegino1 says:

    Better yet, buy his book: “The War That Had Many Fathers”, which forever puts to rest the silly and hackneyed narrative of sole German guilt for the Second World War.

    Never forget that the official narrative of the Second World War is the foundation of the so called “New World Order” which is in reality, the disorder of Antichrist and the death of all civilization and culture in favor of globo-homo and the Synagogue of Satan.

    It is quite ironic that Russia has become the chief target and the new “Nazi” Germany in the sights of the neocons and Zionist hegemonists. Russia in the Soviet period was “out of itself” as Edmund Burke would have put it, but it was the chief instrument employed for the destruction of Germany as a culturally authentic people and sovereign power.

    The name “Hitler” is simply an easy substitute for “Amalek.” It is easily transferable to any prominent figure the chosen deem to be a threat. And to a bunch of paranoiac rabid and ethnocentric psychopaths, external threats are constitutive of and necessary for their identity.

  419. I clicked on the link to Amazon on “Germany’s War.” It had 19 reviews, all 5 stars. Alas, either Amazon has run out of copies or they are no longer selling it. Either way it does sound quite suspicious, no?

  420. Parfois1 says:
    @j2

    It depends how the land was taken . Prussia might have had a prior claim of right, besides Poland ceased to exist as a state for about 100 years. In fact Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc. were recent fiat creations by the “Powers” at Versailles, the same way European nations carved up Africa.

    International law recognised the right of conquest until the modern supranational bodies set up last century. As a general rule, only countries with a strong national identity who could defend themselves were independent states; that’s how, e.g. the Iberian kingdoms of the Middle Ages (Aragon, Navarre, Leon, Galicia, Muslin Granada) were conquered by Castille over the centuries to make up modern Spain. Prussia did the same with the weaker Germanic states. Poland – as the Baltic states – is in the unfortunate position of lacking enduring natural boundaries and has been at the mercy of the vagaries of chance events outside their control, hence the many partitions in its history.

    A propos the Polish example, after the occupation by Germany in September 1939 and the government’s flight to Romania, Poland ceased to exist again as a state. So, when the Russians occupied the Eastern half (some of which had been allocated to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles), they were entitled to do so legally under international law. If a country does not have an effective government it has no legal personality under international law and can be “administered” by an external power.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Thirdeye
    , @szopen
  421. Parfois1 says:
    @duath

    How many of you know about NATO “Gladio”? Now that’s a subject which is beyond interesting, no matter which country you live in.

    Some here know a bit about Gladio, one at least at close range. But NATO (“to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in”) alone is enough to make you puke and curse the governments who make up that malignant body.

  422. Thirdeye says:
    @Durruti

    What would have prevented the victorious Germany from making New Demands – 5 minutes after the British agreed to accept their & France’s military humiliation?

    Mainly, that Hitler desperately needed to have things settled with Britain before embarking on his main agenda, which was against the Soviet Union. His calculation that a chastened France and Britain would align with Germany against the Soviet Union was almost correct, and might have been fully correct had the air war of 1940 not made a political settlement with Britain impossible. The bombs falling on cities (on both sides) pissed people off.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  423. j2 says:
    @Parfois1

    The international law understands only that in 1939 the area was Polish. It was given to Poland in the peace agreement. That is exactly as far as the law goes: it was Polish land in 1939.

    Then we can look at the history to see if there were any claims on the land. While these claims were not legal (it was Polish land after 1918), they still give some moral claim. In this evaluation the situation is unclear: both Germany and Poland had strong claims on the land based on history.

    But we can apply to your world view. As you are most probably anti-Masonic and anti-Semitic, or you should be as a neo-Nazi, please notice that Poland was divided in the end of the 18th century because of a Masonic and Frankist (Jewish converts) plot. You should be against that. Before the Jews were invited there, Poland was doing fine and it defeated the Teutonic Knights in the battle of Grunwald with its famous cavalry. This is how the Royal Prussia joined Poland, to be on the winning side. So, it was a fine country, before it invited Jews, and it was divided because of Frankist plot. What do you say to that? We are all Poles now?

    Maybe you will not admire Frederic the Great when you understand that he was the head of Prussian Freemasonry and he co-worked with Jacob Frank, a Cabbalistic Jew, who was a criminal, a Jewish Messiah and falsely converted to Christianity. The division of Poland was a dirty conspiracy. Normal Freemasons tried to keep Poland independent and democratic, but Jacob Frank, supported by Frederic the Great, wanted Poland to disappear. I am sure you oppose such Frankist plots.

  424. @j2

    ‘Exactly so. If it would be a question where some internet nut, like me, proposed one theory and university professors have another theory, then one can safely select the one of professors…’

    Yep. Unz’s M.O. in particular is to ‘be impressed’ by only those sources that support a revisionist point of view.

    I agree with your post — more or less. To be precise, I’d add that Ribbentrop appears to have confirmed Hitler’s belief that when it came to the point, France and Britain would back down and allow Germany to attack Poland without declaring war.

    Certainly that was the implication in the scene that came down to us when news arrived that Britain and France really had declared war. Hitler turned to Ribbentrop and said, ‘what now?’

    He clearly didn’t expect their declaration of war and had anticipated being able to destroy Poland without having to worry unduly about his rear. As it was, the German defenses in the West were breathtakingly inadequate: as I recall, some of the conscripts didn’t even have uniforms, and were outfitted with armbands. Germany was ready to destroy Poland; it wasn’t ready to destroy Poland whilst fending off Britain and France.

    But too late for worrying about that. Hitler wound up taking a bigger risk than he had perhaps intended to.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Ron Unz
  425. Parfois1 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Anyway if Hitler didn’t want war, as so many on this thread are telling us, why did he arm himself as fast as he could, both openly and covertly, including military industries set up beyond prying western eyes in the USSR to avoid Versailles Treaty limitations,

    In spite of the Brest Litovsk humiliation, the USSR got along fine with the Weimar government. In fact they made a “secret” agreement at Rapallo for co-operation in many areas, including military production. Even after 1933 the Soviets were hopeful that Hitler would, as a leader, change his discourse and keep the German-Soviet relations on an even keel. The last commercial agreement was signed just a few months before Barbarossa!

  426. Thirdeye says:
    @Parfois1

    Poland’s annexation of the western Ukraine and western Belarus was ratified by the Treaty of Riga in 1921, over the objections of Ukrainians who wanted their own independent state. The Game of Thrones didn’t go so well for Poland in 1939, but they played it enthusiastically with their expansionist wars of 1919-1921 against the Ukrainian Republic and the Soviet Union.

    All indications from September to December 1939 were that Stalin was treading very carefully concerning the Polish issue, judiciously delaying the occupation of eastern Poland until after the government went into exile and acting under the standards of neutrality between Poland and Germany, with highly restricted rules of engagement concerning Polish troops, no interference with the retreat of Polish troops to Romania, and internment status of captured Polish troops and officials. It seems Stalin was considering future relations with a hypothetical independent Polish state. But that approach was mooted when the Polish Government in Exile declared war on the Soviet Union in December 1939.

    • Replies: @szopen
  427. Durruti says:
    @Thirdeye

    Impressed that you opened the discussion on my Main Point.

    The air war of 1940 was Germany’s attempt to force Britain to surrender whole portions of their Empire. The Nazi leaders wished for return of their extensive former African colonies, and for Britain to recognize the status of France – as Germany’s puppet, and, in short, German hegemony over Europe (all of Europe – from Ireland to the Urals). England would have maintained Formal Independence-only, if it had succumbed to the air attacks, or agreed to the earlier Nazi ‘Peace’ Proposals. Churchill made this very point. Regardless of who he was, he was correct.

    It appears that the German Imperialists wished to become the World Power, greater, or at least as large and powerful as America & the Soviet Union. How could the Germans of Mein Kampf accept anything less? Mussolini’s Italy was less greedy. They only wished for a Rebirth of the Roman-Mediterranean Empire. How did that turn out?

    My Point Is: that the Actions/aims of the German State and their Armed Forces was to attempt a complete weakening/humbling of the British Empire, BEFORE attacking the Soviet Union. That is what happened. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. It is when Hitler’s Air Forces and Naval Forces failed to bring England to its knees, (which guaranteed eventual American entrance to the war to rescue Britain – just as they had done in WWI), that one might question – just what were the German leaders thinking, when they attacked the USSR?

    Hitler thought that if Germany could defeat the USSR, then Britain might give up. Once one begins a fight, or acquiesques in the beginning of one, all rational thinking, goes out the window. Once the soldiers are marching, it is near impossible to call them back. The Great Bombastic Leaders who rely on military equations, usually end by destroying millions of their own people, and badly weakening their own Nation.

    What do we not know – in 2019? What have we not seen?

    The clash of Empires is not new to History.

    As to Morality:

    Try mentioning the Palestinians to a Jew.

    In my State, a Principal lost his job – when he objected to the inclusion of Holocaust Propaganda as a special program for all his students.

    The answer to my question is: NOTHING!

    God Bless!

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  428. @sulu

    I have a problem with any suggestion that British leaders did anything because of a confident belief that America would give massive assistance let alone be sure to join in the war against Germany. It defies reality and would have been incredibly nauve of experienced politicians. That the Roosevelt administration might have put on critical pressure by insisting that Britain and France must threaten war in case Germany should invade Poland at least makes some sense if the British also hoped that Hitler might be deterred.

  429. @TheTruthSeeker

    Interesting detail but you draw the wrong conclusion. It was clear that war with Germany might break out soon – as you would know if you remembered the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. It was routine work for public servants who prepared the King for big occasions to draft speeches well before they might be delivered. A better account is
    George VI adviser said King’s Speech early draft was too long-winded http://dailym.ai/1i759BK via http://dailym.ai/android

  430. j2 says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Hitler turned to Ribbentrop and said, ‘what now?’”

    It may be so. But remember that the UK was preparing the White Paper of May 1939 (preparing it from Feb. 1939) restricting the immigration of Jews to Palestine. The UK was the holder of the Mandate, which it had got after giving Jews the Balfour declaration during the WWI. That was given because the UK was under a serious threat from Germany. Assuming that Zionists wanted the UK to agree on larger Jewish immigration and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, there was needed some threat against the UK. Only Germany could be such a threat. In order to be any threat to the UK, Hitler had to be in a war with the UK. It did not matter at all that the war was phony in the beginning. The Battle of Britain was hot enough. It never had any chance for leading into an invasion, but it made a psychological effect on British people and because of that reason British politicians were interested in stopping the attack, even if it required agreeing that there would be Israel.

    All of this about Hitler starts with the assumption that Hitler really wanted to win land to Germany, that Hitler felt German. That is not so clear. I would believe it, if it would not be so that the Nazi party was a new name for DAP and DAP was created by the Thule Society, which was Theosophic. Theosophy was Masonic. Now, I am not a member of any secret Masonic society, probably you are not either. Few people are. It is extremely odd that Nazis would arise from a Masonic background. That is why I think, as they came form a Masonic background, they had the Masonic goal: restoring Jews to Palestine. This goal never included Make Germany Strong Again, nor Make America Strong Again. Masonic goals were Masonic goals and they often meant total destruction of countries. They could have easily wanted destruction of Germany, not that they had any economic goal in it, it is just so that they were building the New World.

  431. @j2

    Quote with key words in bold font:

    …one fact is that Hitler gave the order to make the attack plan of of the invasion of Poland in early April 1939, just days after the UK gave Poland guarantees. Then put the claimed Polish atrocities against the German minority to a time frame and notice that most of them were after the order to make the plan. That shows that the reason for the attack were not the atrocities…

    Yesterday, while attempting to support a losing argument on the corridor issue, you pretended to be a military strategist; now, as an encore, you’ve come up with additional nonsense based on flawed reasoning.

    Top military commanders constantly have various attack and defense contingency plans; that’s what they do. It would have been stupid for Germany not to have formulated various response options after the guarantees by Britain to Poland became known.

    Obviously, the atrocities agains ethnic Germans in Poland would be more numerous after the German military moved into Poland than before. What is relevant is that there were numerous confirmed atrocities prior to September, and no indications by Poland, that they would cease.

    These two observations you cited do not warrant the conclusions you made; you are not analytical but a shoddy propagandist.

    There is hardly ever just a single reason for a country to launch a major attack or start a war, yet one paramount rationale may nonetheless suffice as a legitimate reason.

    In 2005 all member countries of the United Nations endorsed the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, including Poland. Basically, in light of the evidence presented by John Wear in this article, under this principle, known as R2P, Germany was apparently entitled to attack Poland to protect the German minority population as a last resort, given that prior attempts to de-escalate tensions through diplomatic channels had been rejected.

    The key difference between then and now is that the United Nations Security Council, which has the sole authority to allow the use of force under the R2P rationale, did not exist eighty years ago.

    • Replies: @j2
  432. @Ron Unz

    I scratch my head when I read such extravagant provocations as
    “As a consequence, Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war, ”
    Is it a jeu d’esprit calculated to soothe a brain fevered by cranky commenters who contradict and cavil?

    Howver that may be it cannot be intended as literal truth when one has read read Mein Kampf and noted that, after solemnly promising that the Sudetenland was his last invasion, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia 6 months later.

  433. Alden says:
    @Mark Kaczmarek

    About the German military. After WW1. Germany was forbidden to have an airforce and the navy and army was severely restricted. Lenin made an agreement with the German government in the early 1920s that the German Air Force aircraft factories and development and army training could be done in Russia.

    The Germans established big bases in Russia The Germans didn’t leave Russia till after Hitler was appointed chancellor.

    There’s been some books “proving” Martin Bohrman was a Russian agent all along.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  434. j2 says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “Yesterday, while attempting to support a losing argument on the corridor issue, you pretended to be a military strategist; now, as an encore, you’ve come up with additional nonsense based on flawed reasoning.
    Top military commanders constantly have various attack and defense contingency plans; that’s what they do. It would have been stupid for Germany not to have formulated various response options after the guarantees by Britain to Poland became known.”

    It just might be that I know a bit more of military issues than you do. Yes, there are plans, but this particular plan was to attack Poland in September 1, 1939. That is, it was an actual war plan, not one of the contingency plans that you mean. Notice that this detailed attack plan was completed before the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. The fact is that you have lost this discussion already, so just give it up.

  435. szopen says:
    @Parfois1

    were recent fiat creations by the “Powers” at Versailles

    Except, no. Polish state was re-established without Versailles because of collapseof Austrian and Russian state (and total collapse of German army morale, when soldiers could be approached by civilians and were willingly giving up their arms); in Prussian partition, the Greater Poland’s uprising won the Posen area on its own. Without Versailles help, Poland probably would be smaller, but it was not created by great powers. By saying taht, you show you ignorance of history and how Poland was re-established.

    A propos the Polish example, after the occupation by Germany in September 1939 and the government’s flight to Romania, Poland ceased to exist again as a state

    Again, no. Treaty was not signed, territorial changes was not recognised, Polish government-in-exile was legal continuation of previous government, it had international recognition, it had embassies and it had it’s own army.

  436. szopen says:
    @Thirdeye

    judiciously delaying the occupation of eastern Poland until after the government went into exile

    A lie. You are repeating Soviet propaganda. Polish government escaped only when it heard about Soviet invasion (the same day, late at the evening, but still AFTER ivnasion). Second, it was Polish government which ordered its troops not to engage Soviets, while Soviets had no such scruples. Third, Polish government had NOT declared war on USSR.

    Those are easily checked facts which you can find out within seconds just by using google.

    BTW, remember USSR declared partition of Poland null and void; and at the same time, sent its armies to the west, pushing Polish self-defense units which were formed from local Poles in areas in what is now Belarus.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    , @Anounder
    , @PatrickB
  437. Mostly bullcrap.

    The true part is that Hitler wanted Poland to be neutral when he would be invading France, and protect the eastern flank against the Soviets.

    Poles would have gained a lot and lost little.

    The world would have looked much much different now.

    Britain and France gained much needed time to prepare for the war by throwing their friends under the bus, first Czechoslovakia, then Poland and later Yugoslavia: a Pro’s move!

    It’s the epitome of hypocrisy: provoke war in the East and then complain about it.

    Hopefully it wont happen again.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  438. Thirdeye says:
    @Durruti

    Hitler had a very Europe-centric vision of Germany’s role in the world. Restoration of overseas colonies was not one of his priorities. He knew that Germany’s naval strength could not hope to compete with Britain’s, which led his war strategy into a muddle after the fall of France. He had good reason to believe, based on the rabidly anti-Soviet stance of the Tory-dominated British government, that their enthusiasm for continuing war with Germany would take a back seat to their hatred of the Soviet Union.

    IMO the air campaign against Britain was a strategic and political blunder. It wasn’t the whisker-margin defeat of the Luftwaffe that it is purported to be. Defeating the enemy from the air was a novel mission for air power, and it simply could not be accomplished with the means the Luftwaffe had against the means the means the RAF had. An effective air campaign was only waged much later in the war, with much greater resources than the Luftwaffe ever had. Britain’s war production increased and the planned growth of the RAF proceeded apace. The air offensive fed into Churchill’s narrative that Britain was imperiled by Germany while in fact doing very little to imperil Britain, and the nighttime bombing campaign hardened the air war into a blood feud. Without war being brought to the homeland, in whatever futile form, Churchill’s narrative would have been much harder to sell. What if “The Battle of Britain is about to begin” was followed by……no battle?

    On the other side, the nighttime nuisance raids that the RAF had been doing since the early months of the war had their own political consequences. The time when a peace settlement was possible rapidly slipped away on both sides as a result of the air war.

  439. Thirdeye says:
    @szopen

    Third, Polish government had NOT declared war on USSR.

    Not until December 1939. It was a pointless and foolish move.

    The Soviets could have cut off the retreat to Romania, but they did not.

    • Replies: @szopen
  440. I’m so glad the wannabe nazis posting here are incels- would hate to see them reproduce. Behold the master race. You are so sad that the only way you can feel better about yourself is to imagine someone with darker skin than you is beneath you. Bunch of pathetic cucks.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Wally
  441. Miro23 says:
    @Incitatus

    That’s an excellent commentary that entirely agrees with the transcriptions in Hitler’s Table Talk (evening conversations recorded at his Eastern headquarters Rastenburg and Winnitza while Operation Barbarossa was underway), Conversation Nº :

    “According to the laws of nature, the soil belongs to he who conquers it. The fact of having children who want to live, the fact that our people is bursting out of its cramped frontiers – these justify all of our claims to the Eastern spaces.” Nº 130

    “I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance.” – “The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.”Nº 25

    “We’ll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.” Nº 11

    “The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious farms. The German services will be lodged in marvelous buildings, the governors in palaces. Beneath the shelter of the administrative services, we shall gradually organize all that is indispensable to the maintenance of a certain standard of living. All around the city to a depth of thirty to forty kilometers we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely necessary that we should rule them.” Nº 24

    “I don’t see much future for the Americans. In my view it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. Those were what caused the downfall of Rome, and yet Rome was a solid edifice that stood for something. Moreover the Romans were inspired by great ideas. Nothing of the sort in England today. As for the Americans, that kind of thing is non-existent. That’s why, in spite of everything, I like an Englishman a thousand times better than an American.” Nº 99

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Incitatus
    , @Malla
    , @Wally
  442. @L.K

    Hi L.K

    Yes of course you not trying to convince of anything , because you have nothing to prove but only big bullshit.
    I asked you simple question to answer , nothing else.
    Why Hitler attacked Soviet Union in 1941 ?? if he was so friendly guy towards everybody.
    If you don’t response to it I will assume , that all accusation in this article are big Bullshit Propaganda.
    and what is the point of it !!?? dividing people instead unite them. You must be great believer.
    I only have one advice for you – follow and trust nobody and live longer !!! because otherwise you are only one stupid tool in their hands who blindly follow them.

  443. @G

    Enjoyed your commentary. I resided in E. Europe for several years. Nearly married an E. German gal. Her dad was a high ranking officer during WWII. Without AH there would have been no world war. No time to adequately comment on that. However, in brief, it should be known that Germany was an industrial power above all others in Mother Europe’s home. Moreover, there were more Germans reading newspapers than all those of GB, Fr. and Italy combined. had there been no Hitler and his Lebensraum dreams, in all probability, Germany would today be one of the World powers.

    Nearly everything in this article is dishonesty. There’s a sea of German documentation denoting Hitler’s plan for war in April 1939. Prior to that he indicated and advocated war in the east.

    Would like to add that in my travels between E.Germany, Byelorussia, Pskov, Leningrad, Moscow and a slew of other cities (Siberia, etc.)., I found that most -nearly all- Russians liked Poles. As for Poles, the vast majority born after 1939 could function in the Russian language and (2) they liked Russians; they (also) despised Communism. You hit the nail on the head.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  444. turtle says:
    @Miro23

    but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.”

    Adolf Hitler, meet Henry Morgenthau.

  445. Bernie says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    There’s lots of info about the German exacerbations pertaining to the affair in Bromberg. Generally it’s acknowledged that the killings were a reaction to neoNazi types who were a 5th column entity.

    Years ago, as a youngster, I consumed more than a few books on the topic. Scanning some of the comments it’s interesting to see the actual belief that it was Warsaw’s fault for WWII. With the overwhelming evidence denoting Hitler’s dreams of lebensraum and actual plans for attack (months before Sept. 1939), the mentality is fascinating. My take is that many thoughts are from GermanAms who have a defense mechanism. After all, the unrelenting propaganda about their camps could wear anyone down.

    Further, so far I have not seen any commentary about the murders of the Polish intellectual class and university professors. This seems to have been side stepped although it’s adequately documented. Reminds me of how the Eastern Front is down played in the West, despite the fact that about 80% of AH’s army was in that theater and over 90% of German soldiers were killed in the East.

    BTW, for something similar, read the evidence about the Russian POWS being exterminated. many studies put the number at around 2 mln. My dad use to call WWII Eurocide II.

    • Replies: @turtle
  446. @UncommonGround

    How true. I once labored in a think tank and it was easy to see how Soviets eradicated documentation.

  447. @Alden

    I’m disappointed in you, Alden. You previously seemed to be a friend to Germany and alternative history, not a wild conspiracy theorist. Has someone else taken over your account?

    “There’s been some books …” What books? “… ‘proving’ Martin Bohrman was a Russian agent all along.” What kind of proof, generally speaking? You spelled Bormann wrong. Misspelling names of those you claim to know about is a bad sign. Perhaps you’re thinking of a different Martin Bohrman?

    • Replies: @Alden
  448. WW1 was supposed to destroy Germany, and it almost did. When that failed with the rise of Hitler it was on to round 2. Now Germany is thoroughly subservient to Britain and the US, whose leaders are bought and paid for by the Jewish banksters, and now it’s 70 years on there’s no end in sight.

    • Replies: @Malla
  449. @j2

    I read a book a few years ago entitled Paris 1919. Your HWY point was brought up. Check it out, if you have time. It was an interesting read.

  450. turtle says:
    @Bernie

    Further, so far I have not seen any commentary about the murders of the Polish intellectual class and university professors.

    Oh, of course not.
    Because, y’know, if you ain’t Jewish, you ain’t shit, at least as far as WWII is concerned.
    I saw a video once which estimated that as many as 2,000,000 Polish Catholics might have been victims of the Nazis, murdered in cold blood. No doubt many of these would have been your intellectuals and uni professors, who might have caused trouble for the occupying forces, so they were simply eliminated.
    But, according to Orthodox Holocaustianity, their lives mean nothing, and if you dare to say otherwise, you are a Vicious Anti-Semite* who deserves to be put to death, because Jewish “souls” are infinitely more precious than non-Jewish “souls,” which are more like those of dogs.
    Q: Suppose I do not believe in the existence of “souls?” Which, in fact, I do not.
    What then?

    *IOW, “Bad Person,” assuming you buy into this narrative.
    But what about those of us who do not?
    No doubt we will burn in Hail for our sins.
    Praise Lowered Jaysus, and the Holy Ghost (Riders in the Sky).

  451. This is BS on stilts, cherrypicking to support a Nazi-whitewashing thesis.
    Here is what the premier French encyclopedia Larousse says about Gdansk (Dantzig) http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/ville/Gda%C5%84sk/121004 :

    L’ordre Teutonique s’empare de la ville le 14 novembre 1308, massacre la population polonaise et annexe le delta de la Vistule. Dantzig obtient une charte municipale en 1343 ; elle adhère à la Hanse en 1361 et se place, par son opulence, à la tête des villes prussiennes. Elle se dote d’un magnifique ensemble d’architecture gothique.
    Premier port de la Pologne
    En 1454, elle se révolte contre les chevaliers Teutoniques et prend pour protecteur Casimir IV de Pologne. Dans le cadre de l’État polonais, auquel elle sera toujours loyale, elle jouit d’une quasi-autonomie et s’assure le monopole du commerce maritime de la Pologne au moment de l’âge d’or de ce pays (1466-1648). La Réforme y pénètre dès 1523. Avec 70 000 habitants en 1650, c’est le premier port et la ville la plus peuplée de la Baltique. En 1656-1657, l’invasion suédoise se heurte à la résistance de Dantzig.
    En 1793, la ville est annexée par la Prusse lors du second partage de la Pologne, malgré l’opposition de la population.

    Here is a rough translation:

    The Teutonic Order captured the city November 14, 1308, killing the Polish population and annexes the delta of the Vistula. Danzig gets a municipal charter in 1343; it adheres to the Hanseatic League in 1361 and its place, by its opulence, as the head of Prussian cities. It develops a collection of magnificent Gothic architecture.

    First port of Poland

    In 1454, she rebels against the Teutonic Knights and takes for protector Casimir IV of Poland. As part of the Polish state, to which she will always be loyal, she enjoys a quasi-autonomy and ensures the monopoly of maritime trade of Poland during the golden age of that country (1466- 1648). Reform penetrates from 1523. With 70 000 inhabitants in 1650, is the first port and the largest city of the Baltic. In 1656-1657, the Swedish invasion collides with resistance of Danzig.
    In 1793, the city was annexed by Prussia in the second partition of Poland, despite the opposition of the population.

    Here’s yours truly, in an article published in 2011 (nom de plume): https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/100955/sec_id/100955)

    “In 1308, singing “Jesu Christo Salvator Mundi” the Teutonic Knights seized the Polish city of Gdańsk (Danzig) and slaughtered 10,000 of its inhabitants. In their 1327 plundering raids on the region then known as Polonia Maior, the Order terrorized the people by burning down their villages and murdering women and children. There was much more of this.”

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  452. Theodore says:

    Do the Poles regret snubbing Hitler and not signing the Comintern Pact?

    Post-war Communism (which was overwhelmingly Jewish) in Poland did not work out well for the Poles. Over a million sent to “Death Camps” in the GULAG system. After Communism was ended in Poland, they experienced the highest economic growth of any European country. The Poles were clearly held back from achieving prosperity & high living standards due to this Judeo-Bolshevik system of economic/social enslavement.

    Poland under Communism / Jewish domination of Polish Communism
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12693

    • Agree: Miro23
  453. Theodore says:
    @Bruno Chapski

    Without AH there would have been no world war.

    Are you psychic? Someone was:

    French General Ferdinand Foch: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”
    (ominously, 20 years and 65 days after that statement, the Second World War started)

    Nearly everything in this article is dishonesty. There’s a sea of German documentation denoting Hitler’s plan for war in April 1939. Prior to that he indicated and advocated war in the east.

    A sea of documentation? How about you post one document then?

    Read more comment #178 – http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/?display=showcomments#comment-3415414

  454. @Ron Unz

    ‘…I emphasized that this remarkable historical fact has been totally excluded from virtually all World War II histories.’

    …and it was pointed out at the time that this ‘remarkable fact’ never was excluded from history at all. Indeed, it was the subject of a published limerick at the time. You can still look up A.P. Herbert’s ‘Baku, or the Map Game’ if you want to. You can find it in several histories — in the part where they discuss the various proposals including Operation Pike that circulated at the time.

    None of this has ever been hidden. The operation always been known about and referred to in passing, but has received limited attention — for the excellent reason that it never took place, and the circumstances that gave rise to it were shortly obliterated by events. It would be something like Germany’s thoughts about making a descent on Iceland, or Russia’s late-1940 demand that Germany cede her a port in Denmark. It was a half-formulated proposal, that never happened, and that shortly ceased to be relevant.

    It’s of some interest to speculate just what the consequences of such an operation would have been, but first, as I pointed out at the time, one reason the operation never took place is that the practical difficulties were formidable, and second, even if it had happened, would the fall out have been all that great?

    Russia was already advising Communist loyalists to support Germany anyway, and Germany would still have overrun France. I suspect Hitler would still have decided to attack Russia in the Spring of 1941. At that point, I think both Russia and Britain would have found it expedient to let bygones be bygones.

    So the operation didn’t happen, it’s questionable if it could have happened, and had it happened, the ultimate consequences are obscure. Doesn’t this furnish sufficient grounds for it having received only modest attention? After all, historians generally focus on what did happen rather than what could have happened.

    • Troll: Ron Unz
  455. Incitatus says:
    @L.K

    “The Hossbach memorandum is a forgery as you already know – because I gave you the details – and yet you keep pushing this garbage every single time.”

    You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, L.K. Even if you lean a bit too heavily on the Institute for Historical Review. Not what most might call a disinterested source, but please yourself.

    Antony Beevor, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Volker Ullrich, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Telford Taylor, Robert Conot, Joseph Persico, Airey Neave, Ian Kershaw, Gustave Gilbert, Joachim Fest, Thomas Weber, Nicolas Stargardt, Christopher Browning, Peter Longerich, and many others seem much more compelling. None, to my knowledge, say the Hoßbach Memorandum was phony. Tell me if I’m wrong.

    Hoßbach aside, do you contest Hitler’s “Führer directive concerning Operation Green…It is my irrevocable intention to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future” 30 May 1938? That alone proves he was no pacifist. He wanted war.

    Why was Hitler disappointed with the peaceful settlement of Sudetenland 30 Sep 1938? According to Paul Otto Schmidt (Hitler’s translator in the negotiations) Hitler was “pale and ill-tempered”, distracted, hardly speaking when Chamberlain crowed ‘peace in our time’, produced a communiqué promissing “never to go to war with one another again”. Hitler silently signed it. Ordinary people in all nations – including Germany – rejoiced. No war!

    Hitler, god of diplomatic success, regretted it the following day. He especially resented ordinary Germans rejoicing over peaceful settlement. Why L.K? Hitler was a brilliant statesman. Why wasn’t he satisfied? Why did he say “There is no way I can wage war with this [German] people”? Why was it important he “wage war with this people”?

    “The alleged notes made by Colonel Hossbach, an anti-Hitler conspirator…”

    “Anti-Hitler conspirator”? Ala 20 Jul ’44? Sources please.

    Interesting figure, to be sure. Defied Hitler to make Fritsch aware of phony charges in 1938, reported the latter’s assertions of innocence to Hitler, risking his career. Same courage, after two years on the Eastern Front as (General der Infanterie) commanding the 4th Army. Refused to sacrifice his men to Hitler’s suicidal Wagnerian melodrama in a second Stalingrad-encirclement in Eastern Prussia 28 Jan 1945. Dismissed two days later. Survived the war, died 1980 (age 85).

    In the month of January 1945 the Wehrmacht lost 451,774 killed in action. From January to May Germany lost an average of 10,000 soldiers killed per day [Beevor ‘’The Second World War’ p.690].

    Was Hoßbach a traitor for saving his men from needless slaughter? For defying a suicidal megalomaniac? Would you feel better if thousands more ill-supplied landsers were encircled and killed prior to Mr. Big poisoning his new frau and pulling the plug with his Walther 0.765?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Ron Unz
  456. Incitatus says:
    @Miro23

    Thanks.

    Poles and Germans (there were many moral Germans) deserve better than this article.

    Original sources say it all.

    Austrian Hitler waxed homespun theories ad infinitum, be it ‘Mein Kampf’ vol.1-2 or hours and hours and hours of belabored Table Talk. A new Aryan Gautama Buddha with eager sycophants recording every word. Speer is candid on the boring evenings.

    To their credit, the inner circle sucked-up and tried to slit rival throats silently between gaseous epistles. Messiah Hitler, master of the ‘uncertainty principle’ and secure in inaction, cultivated subordinate ambition/greed/jealousy that afforded him to sort out conflict. Worked well enough. Seems to have crossed the line in assuming direct military command, nixing the experience/advice of very talented men. Nobody’s perfect.

    He directly orders most of the 150,000 artillery and transport horses in Sixth Army be sent several hundred kilometers to the rear 9 Nov 1942, ostensibly to save transporting fodder to the front at Stalingrad. It deprives all unmotorized divisions of mobility, removes any possibility of reaction or retreat. Paulus (unsupplied) is ordered to send his Panzer forces into the ‘final’ battle for Stalingrad.

    “Surrender out of the question. Troops fight on to the end. If possible, hold reduced Fortress [Stalingrad] with troops still battleworthy. Bravery and tenacity of Fortress have provided the opportunity to establish a new front and launch counter-attacks. Sixth Army has thus fulfilled its historical contribution in the greatest passage in German history.”
    – Adolf Hitler to General Paulus 22 Jan 1943 [Beevor ‘Stalingrad’ p. 372-373]

    Only problem? They’d long gone without ammunition, food, medical supplies, adequate clothing, etc. For months. 90,000 surrendered. Hitler’s reaction?

    “They [Sixth Army] have surrendered there formally and absolutely. Otherwise they would have closed ranks, formed a hedgehog, and shot themselves with their last bullet. When you consider that a women has the pride to leave, to lock herself in, and to shoot herself right away just because she has heard a few insulting remarks, then I can’t have any respect for a soldier who is afraid of that and prefers to go into captivity…This [Sixth Army surrender at Stalingrad] hurts me so much because of the heroism of so many soldiers is nullified by one single characterless weakling [Paulus]…What is Life? Life is the Nation. The individual must die anyway…What hurts me most, personally, is that I still promoted him to field marshal. I wanted to give him this final satisfaction. He could have freed himself from all sorrows and ascended into eternity and national immortality, but he prefers to go to Moscow.”
    – Adolf Hitler on Stalingrad 1 Feb 1943 (a day after hearing of Sixth Army surrender) [Beevor ‘Stalingrad’ p. 391-392]

    Hitler, untroubled about failing to supply, support, or rescue 6th Army whines about “What hurts me most…I still promoted him [Paulus] to field marshal.” Hitler expected (planned for) Paulus to commit suicide with the rest of his army. Why?

    Suicide isn’t a proven path to victory.

    Here’s what Hitler told Club-foot Joe a month later:

    “[The Führer said] if the German People turned out to be weak, they would deserve nothing else than to be extinguished by a stronger people; then one could have no sympathy for them.”
    – Adolf Hitler to Joseph Göbbels, Tagebücher 8 Feb 1943 [part II vol. 7 p.296; Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p.544]

    Comforting?

  457. Incitatus says:
    @j2

    Thanks j2.

    Enjoy reading your work, admire your persistence.

    “Then there is a Harvard history professor who claims that Hitler did not want a war.”

    A celebrity historian? Controversy sells books, garners speaking engagements, media appearances, fame, etc. Niall Ferguson, for example. Harvard (like most) has brilliant and not-so-brilliant pedagogues. Timothy Leary and Alan Dershowitz come to mind.

    “What is the level of history in American universities?”

    Huge question. Didn’t major in history, not an academic, so I’m the wrong person to ask.

    Enjoyed history courses in America and England earning degrees. Great professors in both, though England (I think) had the edge on history. That was 40+ years ago, don’t know what’s current.

    In any case, isn’t formal education a gateway, a beginning of a search? Hopefully built on strong foundations. Public libraries (and now the dangerous internet) are perfect resources. Don’t know how many pursue the journey after university.

    Some years ago a US poll reported the majority of American college graduates thought we fought France 1775-83. A golden moment delighting this (and all fellow) cynics!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  458. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    …Hitler did everything he could to avoid a war…

    Hitler could do much much more. At least resist the temptation to be the one who started the war.

  459. Wally says: • Website
    @Incitatus

    LOL

    – Incitatus laughably, yet routinely, refers to “documents” which he, nor anyone else cannot produce.

    Read the truth about his desperately refereced “Hossbach”:
    https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=hossbach

    See unhinged Zionist Incitatus taken apart here:
    http://www.unz.com/?s=Incitatus&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  460. @Max Denken

    “Historical rights” are valid according to how far back into history you want to go. Each party in a conflict can choose the most advantageous “historical depth” it wants. It’s the same with the conflict about Palestine.

    • Replies: @Max Denken
  461. aandrews says:
    @aandrews

    “Poland and Hungary are the few remaining stalwarts of the White West.”
    Let me retract that. That’s a little carried away. I simply meant, that was then, this is now.

    Cf. https://vdare.com/articles/the-lamps-are-going-out-all-over-europe-jared-taylor-martin-sellner-travel-bans-show-the-free-world-is-finished

    On trying to change planes in Switzerland, he was informed that he was banned from Europe’s Schengen Zone at the request of the supposedly conservative government of Poland.

  462. szopen says:
    @Thirdeye

    Could you please give me a source about POlish declaration war with soviets in December 1939?!

    Because I’ve read numerous articles and monographies by Polish historians blaming our government for NOT declaring war on Soviet Union.

    I’ve googled in Polish and find out we declared war on Japan (which was not accepted and was not followed by any action) which was annotated as “the only POlish declaration of war in XX century”. I’ve googled in English and also found no source which would support your assertion that our g-i-e decalred war on USSR. So, what’s your source of this information?!

  463. Bookish1 says:
    @turtle

    I think you underestimate the germans.

  464. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @Fritzl

    Lots of truth in your remarks. Just before the Zyds had robbed Poland blind with their kultura of bribing, they took literally a sea of wealth with them to Prussia. There have been several authors writing about that. I think Prof. Poganowski was one of them, but it’s been decades since consuming that info and I’ve forgotten most.

    Most people don’t know that for over a century Prussia was a vassal to Warsaw. Zyds changed all that by breaking the economic back of Warsaw.

    As for the open assault by AH on Zyds, you are correct. Initially several of the Zyd elite figured they’d have their own homeland within Poland. AH’s assault upon them, before and during Eurocide II, simply united the transnational world Zyd community. Thank you for your comments.

  465. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, consider reading the books by professors Glantz, Kotkin (Stalin series, both books contain about a thousand pp) and Richard Evans. Evans isn’t the best as he kisses Z arse. However, he has a ton of info. Glantz is the best source on Stalingrad, with Kotin being the best on Stalin. Oh, Glantz is a poor writer, very dry. However, his last book on Stalingrad is a classic.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  466. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @j2

    Besides being a history buff, having read thusand of books on both Eurocide I and II, In the 1960s -‘70s I spent a lot of time with E. German Vets (behind closed doors). You are correct about AH. He was an amateur in matters of conflict. Not only that, he often was rejecting the advise of those generals in actual battle.

    What is really sad is the fact of AH’s so called Fortified cities, like Berlin. The Berlin fighting, against 2 mln war hardened Red army soldiers, simply meant the needless deaths of tens of thousands within the city confines. Pristine insanity. After all, once Germany lost control of the sky the war was over.

  467. Bookish1 says:
    @turtle

    Dont forget that we have just entered the `age of hitler`. It has just begun and won’t finish until hitlers dreams come true. That is the way it works with great men and their movements. Most social movements are like weeds that grow fast and die fast. The great movements grow slow like an oak tree and last a long time. Hitlers movement is like an oak tree.

  468. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @Republic

    How true. In addition to that, on a smaller scale, there’s the ethno factor of Washington’s military installations. I can recall traveling through West Germany and seeing whores just about copulating with what resembled apes, as scores of what some called niglets were wilding and running around. German soldiers in RR stations -I think it was near Frankfort (but can’t recall)- had machine guns and always looked in the opposite direction when sexual-dry animal-like behavior commenced…

  469. Anonymous[220] • Disclaimer says:
    @j2

    I agree with you J2, that just like virtually all the major wars since the French Revolution have been Masonic in origin.

    Since secret societies like Freemasons, Jesuits, Skull and Bones, Knights of Malta, Moslem Brotherhood, and Illuminati all involve sacred oaths and rituals required for access to the higher levels, we can never be certain what is really going on behind the curtains. I believe this is why UR suppresses any discussion about secret societies, they just aren’t “scientific”.

    You and I disagree on the extent of von Mannerheim’s association with Freemasonry. The Finnish President during the war was an admitted Freemason, and it now appears that von Mannerheim was well aware of the grand plan and was in secret communication with Stalin throughout the war. Finland’s remarkable turnabout in 1944 testifies to this.

    Today I was examining two long twitter threads about the Knights of Malta. Both are filled with remarkable information. When I went to this web page I discovered that Richard Gehlen was a Knight of Columbus

    [MORE]

    In the fall of 1948, the “Knights of the Church” presented the highest award of the Maltese Order – the Great Cross – to General Reinhard Gehlen, the chief of West German intelligence, for his services.

    The article further claims that:

    Consequently, the leaderships of the Masonic lodges and NATO intelligence services were spliced together.

    A classic example of this is the founder of the CIA, Allen Dulles. Having become the director of the CIA, he would remain a Mason until the end of his life.

    Medals awarded to all prominent leading officers of the CIA, beginning with its founder William Donovan, who in 1945 received a Grand Maltese Cross of the Order of St. Sylvester from the hands of Pope Pius XII in 1945, bear witness to the successes in joint actions between the CIA and Freemasonry.

    CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton received the same award “for counterintelligence work.” He was active in the field working with Soviet defectors amongst officers of the KGB and GRU.

    I believe this to be true. Do you have any comments about the Knight’s of Malta?

    https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/churchills-special-relationship-with-malta.19354

    • Replies: @j2
  470. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @j2

    Your brief was excellent and true (below). I was going to mention these points, but figured it was not worth the effort of replying to those supporting Nazi ideology, their denying lebensrum, etc. WWII was completely unnecessary. Without AH, in all probability it woud not have happened. I believe that without Eurocide II Germany would have remained a world power.

    I see no mention of the murdering of Polish professors from two universities and/or the eradication of about 2 mln Russian POWS. There is also no mention, that I can see, of the first ethnic cleansing of Poles and the bringing in of Germanic Balts.

    If AH had been killed in April of 1944 his generals would have begged for peace. The Reason: Once Germany lost control of the sky they could not have had any sane hope of winning Eurocide II. Most important would have been the fact that hundreds of thousands of Germans and others would not have been killed. It’s true what you have noted, that AH’s “officers wanted him out!”

    Hitler started a world war and he lost it because he made many very serious mistakes:
    – attacked Moscow too late so that roads turned to mud
    – divided forces before attack to Moscow
    – forbid Finns and Germans from attacking the second Murmansk railroad
    – did not allow Paulus to break through from Stalingrad
    – delayed the starting of the attack in Kursk until Soviet had built strong defenses
    – stopped the battle of Kursk despite Germans being able to win it
    – did not stop a Soviet major attack (Finns did it twice, Germans should have been able to do the same, but no, Hitler ordered them to withdraw all the time)
    – did not believe in quite good information that Normandy was the landing place
    – ordered an insane counter attack to the West.
    – he did not want to step out and make peace. This caused Germany to be totally overrun. A grave mistake form a leader.
    Hitler was a so poor leader that even his own officers wanted him out and tried to assassinate him.

    • Replies: @j2
  471. @Alden

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

    IHR is composed of one man since around 2000 — Mark Weber. Since he managed to steal it away from the revisionist community that had written all the EXCELLENT articles now found in its archives, he turned it into a purely online operation featuring himself giving a speech once in a blue moon. If you don’t know anything about the IHR, don’t pretend that you’re “noticing” things. If you have a problem with it, talk to Mark Weber–he’s the only one there but has plenty of time on his hands.

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

    Again, you’re showing complete ignorance of the IHR. What else are you completely ignorant about?

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

    Do they really? If so, I wonder why the “Council of German Jews” stays so busy making sure a procession of Germans are continually prosecuted in Germany for “Holocaust denial” and variations of “Anti-Semitism,” while we see nothing of the sort in Poland. The Israelis and the Poles jointly benefit, financially and politically, from Auschwitz in Poland. The Polish government loves it!! The people too. There are more Polish visitors than of any other nationality.

    The Israelis have taught 2 generations of school kids that it was the Poles, not the Germans who ran the camps.

    Where is your proof of this? And where is this “Israeli teaching machine” that is doing this? The Jewish-led holocaust industry lobbies to force all schoolchildren to visit Auschwitz where they are given the official tour by POLISH guides. If these schoolkid tours didn’t continually take place, Auschwitz as a money-making tourism project for Poland would dry up, and the Auschwitz theme park might even return to its earlier neglect.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  472. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @Greg S.

    You have an interesting point. War is hell and often the innocent are harmed by authorities. It is true that German POWS in the West and USSR didn’t live in heaven. In fact, about 5,000, from th Stalingad battle(s) sent to the Soviet Workers’ Paradise were returned to E. Germany. Although many others married Russian women and others settled down that was not the case for countless thousands. There’s also another side of this POW story. As with the Germans in the West, being in open fields, the same applied to Russians under German control. The difference: Russians were starved.

    Going further in touching the horror, I spent time between Grodno and Minsk (Byelorussia). Speaking with families who had members taken to Germany, for slave labour, enlighten one’s sentiments. Many never returned due to fear. However, most of those could see the difference between capitalism and communism. POWs/ Soldiers are often nothing but pawns.

  473. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @turtle

    They traveled to Prussia in a sealed train.

  474. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Absolutely. What Americans don’t understand is that in the eastern 1/3 of Europe the battles of Grunwald or Kosovo or Mohács or Poltava or Vienna happened yesterday–hence our total incomprehension when stepping into such ancient conflicts as in Bosnia and Kosovo. BTW, victory over the Teutonic Order (see “Danzig”) in the Battle of Grunwald was so pivotal in the history of that part of the world and crucial to the survival of its peoples that its 600th anniversary in 2010 was celebrated by the heads of state of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, Czechia, Slovakia, and Moldova.

  475. @Carroll Price

    No hope of that. Merkel did more damage to Germany than one could imagine. What’s more, Germans can’t blame anyone for this: those cucks keep voting for her traitorous party. Germany, RIP.

  476. @Alden

    Continuing from above:

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

    You repeat your previous unproven claim. Where are Jews claiming Germany was innocent of their fake holohoax?

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

    You believe based on what? This doesn’t sound like the sane Alden I’ve read in comment threads previously. Plus, this article isn’t even about the Holocaust.

    Israel and American Jews have been paid more than a hundred billion reparations so far. They won’t stop their demands.

    No, and now Poland has joined them and is demanding even more in reparations from Germany for themselves. They also have no intention of letting up.

    When the Russian occupied nations became independent the American Jewish press started caterwauling about reparations from Poland, Hungary etc.

    That must be it — simple anti-Americanism, along with pro-Slavism. But that is not good enough reason to distort history. I object to your blatantly false statements.

  477. Bruno Chapski [AKA "bruno"] says:
    @Durruti

    Yes, the amount of hostility is amazing. Where is the culture, respect and decency?

    • Agree: Durruti
  478. @Carolyn Yeager

    If so, I wonder why the “Council of German Jews” stays so busy making sure a procession of Germans are continually prosecuted in Germany for “Holocaust denial” and variations of “Anti-Semitism,” while we see nothing of the sort in Poland.

    My mistake; I should have written “Holocaust crimes” rather than “Holocaust denial” and “Anti-Semitism.” I lost my focus.
    No Pole or non-German European has ever been prosecuted for Holocaust crimes, that I can name offhand.

    • Replies: @szopen
  479. @Durruti

    In order to know where the majority of insults are coming from, you would have to do a thorough, technical analysis of the many thousands of comments at this site, not use your personal prejudice.

    I once received a rather nasty, insulting reply from the article author Philip Giraldi himself, simply because I sincerely questioned his sincerity. So you never know.

  480. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    Yep. Unz’s M.O. in particular is to ‘be impressed’ by only those sources that support a revisionist point of view.

    Well, this discussion caused me to dig out my old copy of AJP Taylor’s book, and since it was fairly short, perhaps 1/3 the length of the Hoggan book, I decided to fully reread it for the first time since college. Just as I remembered, it was quite good and rather persuasive. But other details caught my eye.

    It was a huge international bestsller and is generally considered Taylor’s most important work, still so highly regarded that it was assigned reading in my Harvard intro history course a couple of decades later, and the cover-blurbs provided additional contemporaneous information. The Washington Post lauded Taylor as “Britain’s most prominent living historian,” The New Statesman called it “a masterpiece,” and World Politics described it as “powerfully argued, brilliantly written, and always persuasive.”

    At the time, Taylor had been a professor at Oxford for nearly 25 years, one of the most popular history lecturers, yet because of his “controversial” book, he was quickly purged and fired. In his Introduction, he had noted the strange fact that no previous historian had tried to carefully investigate why World War II broke out, and perhaps his fate provides something of an explanation.

    Given what happened to Britain’s “most prominent living historian,” it’s hardly surprising that a young academic like David Hoggan was totally destroyed for writing a very detailed book along similar lines, or that many years later world-renowned David Irving was also totally destroyed for roughly similar reasons.

    When evaluating the works of historians, I think it’s important to take into account those sorts of “practical” considerations. At the very least, they may explain why the weight of scholarly opinion takes one side rather than another, not to mention that even those going against orthodoxy might probably be pulling their punches. How many Soviet economists in the 1930s publicly declared that they’d concluded that Communist just didn’t work in agriculture?

    Since you’re a ferocious “anti-revisionist” who is also (purportedly!) a zealous anti-Zionist, perhaps the analogy with the mainstream media and academic discussion of Israel might be relevant to you. Probably 95-99% of the information people get about Israeli activities is positive and those who dissent are frequently purged, so I think one must give a little extra weight to the credibility of the latter.

    Based on our MSM, the Iranians has been doing its best to provoke a war with the US and Israel for many years now, but if a war finally broke out, I’m not sure I would agree with this mainstream verdict. So perhaps the same sort of caution should be applied to events around the time of WWII.

    On the other hand, I don’t necessarily believe all “unorthdox” discussions of Nazi Germany. For example, your new-found friend “j2” apparently claims that the Nazis were only pretending to be right-wing, anti-Communist, and anti-Jewish, but were actually “Masonic Theosophists” under Zionist control. Perhaps you agree with him, but I’m actually pretty skeptical.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @j2
    , @Colin Wright
  481. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    First of all, I found this whole obsession about Jews both unhealthy and disgusting, but that’s jut a digression.

    As for Poles prosecuted for Holocaust revisionism…

    dariusz ratajczak.

    But, you see, while in theory we have very repressive law, in theory much more restricting freedom of speech than in America, in practice most people says and writes everything they damn pleases. In case of Ratajczak, he was found guilty of breaching the law by denying the holocaust, but the court have decided to not to punish him because of the “low social danger” of his crime. OTOH, his story is far from being optimistic. He lost his job at the uni, was forbidden to teach and had to work as a night watchman, and within ten years died as a poor man.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dariusz_Ratajczak

  482. j2 says:
    @Bruno Chapski

    “The Reason: Once Germany lost control of the sky they could not have had any sane hope of winning Eurocide II.”

    This is very true, and the Battle of Britain weakened Luftwaffe considerably. I seriously wonder if these misjudgements or errors of Hitler were errors or intentional sabotage of the German war effort. This would not be the case if Hitler’s goal was that Germany wins and gains Lebensraum, but if his actual goal was collecting Jews to East to be later moved to Palestine, then this goal may have included that Germany must lose in the end. I noticed that Leonard Sax has shown false the claim that there were no Jewish in Graz in 1836 when Alois Hitler was started. If so, Hans Frank’s memoirs may well be correct and Hitler was 1/4 Jewish. By his friend in Vienna time, Hitler’s friends and clients were mainly Jewish. Hitler did say that if Germany is weak, it deserves to be extinguised, so not very much of a German patriot. Maybe Hitler went to fight the WWI in the German army as Germany was not anti-Semitic at that time, while Austria was. Then there was the stab-in-the-back, which turned out to be the Balfour declaration. Hitler may have concluded that Jews do not want to assimilate or intermarry with Germans, they want to go to Palestine, and they let Germany lose the war (WWI) just to get their homeland. Then Hitler joined a Theosophy-related anti-Semitic party and pushed Jews to the East to be transported later to Palestine.

  483. Anounder says:
    @szopen

    You’re just talking to an apologist. Next you’ll hear him say that Stalin shouldn’t have been nice to the Russian Orthodox and mean to the gays since Lefties like him say such.

  484. Ron Unz says:
    @Incitatus

    Antony Beevor, Thomas Childers, Michael Burleigh, Volker Ullrich, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Telford Taylor, Robert Conot, Joseph Persico, Airey Neave, Ian Kershaw, Gustave Gilbert, Joachim Fest, Thomas Weber, Nicolas Stargardt, Christopher Browning, Peter Longerich, and many others seem much more compelling. None, to my knowledge, say the Hoßbach Memorandum was phony. Tell me if I’m wrong.

    Well, as I mentioned in my other comment, I just finished rereading AJP Taylor’s classic book, and I think he makes a pretty strong case that at the very least the Memorandum in question has been so severely misinterpreted as to be virtually fraudulent. And his persuasive overall analysis is that the circumstances behind the outbreak of WWII were roughly similar to those behind WWI, namely a mixture of brinksmanship, misunderstandings, and bad luck.

    Neither the British nor the French nor the Germans wanted a war. The Polish were being pushed into provoking the war by FDR while (as Irving demonstrates) Churchill and his associates were being bribed by Jewish interests into producing a similar line:

    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    As to why more subsequent historians haven’t taken a similar position, well, maybe they took note of the fate of Taylor and Hoggan and decided that discretion was the better part of valor.

    I’d also note that Taylor was extremely careful to almost totally avoid any “touchy” discussion of Jewish influence behind the outbreak of the war. Surely, he must have been aware that according to US Amb. Kennedy, Chamberlain explicitly said that America and the world Jews had forced Britain into the war. Offhand, I’d tend to think that the British PM at the time probably had a better idea of what was really going on behind the scenes than you do, I guess that’s just my personal opinion.

    My impression is that you’re some sort of fanatic Jewish-activist type, who normally just rants and raves about Israel. So perhaps you should confine your attentions to take subject rather than get into other areas that make you look ridiculous.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  485. szopen says:
    @Ron Unz

    For all your interest in history, Mr Unz, have you ever read a book from a Polish point of view? I do not even know if any such book exists in English (except for popular general-history books like by Davies ), but if you will know the affair only from the point of views of German and English sources, I believe you are missing important parts of the puzzle.

    BTW, re Hoggan: John Wear quotes Hoggan as the source of Henderson reports about Polish atrocities. But I’ve read “Failure of a mission” by Henderson, where he wrotes about claims of abuse of both German and Polish minorities rights (in Poland and Germany, respectively) and only that he thinks German claims are a bit more substantiated. I already quoted it above, but let me repeat two quotes from his book:

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

    When representations were made to the one party on the subject, the invariable retort was to refer to the faults on the other side. To a great extent such unfortunate situa- tions are always a pot and kettle affair. The Germans laid claim to a German minority of over a million in Poland, and the Poles to a somewhat similar number of Poles in Germany. Both were probably exaggerated, but the point was of little importance, since the minorities were undoubtedly there. In some districts, such as the Silesian mining areas, where those with Polish names were mostly Germans and vice versa, they were in inextricable confusion. On balance, however, I have no doubt in my own mind that the complaints of the Ger- mans in Poland probably had the greater foundation in fact. The Poles in Germany were nearly all of the laboring class, and as such less liable to ill treatment by the German Govern- ment, which required all the labor which it could muster. The Germans in Poland were largely either landowners or belonged to the middle class of liberal professions. They were objects of envy rather than of service to the Polish state. Above all, they were being used by the German Government, not as forerunners of German culture but as advance guards for German interference and dominion.

    In other words, it seems that Henderson (who is used by John Wear, taken from Hogan, to justrify claims about POlish widespread atrocities) thinks that there were few incidents, but at least in his book he does not think to believe German minority situation in Poland was tragic or demanded immediate intervention from Germany. Of course, the book was written AFTER the war started, but still, if Henderson would report about atrocities and cruel fates of Germans, I doubt he would forget about that so quickly and he would so quickly changed his mind unless he was a complete scoundrel, and if he was a complete scoundrel, he wouldn’t be a reliable source for information about atrocities in the first place.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Greg S.
  486. @szopen

    You replied to my correction to “Holocaust crimes” so you can’t say you didn’t see it. You have trouble, as I said to you previously, in following logic, facts or the English language, which is a problem with Poles in general. Ratajczak was persecuted in Poland for not going along with the state-approved Polish version of events, not for participating in ‘Holocaust crimes.’

    • Replies: @szopen
  487. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    “For example, your new-found friend “j2” apparently claims that the Nazis were only pretending to be right-wing, anti-Communist, and anti-Jewish, but were actually “Masonic Theosophists” under Zionist control. Perhaps you agree with him, but I’m actually pretty skeptical.”

    Let me correct this statement. If you mention me, then try to express correctly what I have said. In case you have problems in understanding correctly what I have written, as many of my students have had, please read it several times: the ideas are not at all difficult.

    I do not claim that Nazis were not right-wing and that they were not anti-Communist. I also do not claim that they did not hate Communist Jews and the Jewish elite funding Communism, and I do not claim that most Nazis did not hate all Jews. All this is your own false imagination, caused by not reading the comments but thinking that you already know the content by just by briefly glancing.

    What I claim is the following:
    1) The Nazi party developed from DAP, which was created by Thule, and Thule was created by Sebottendorf, who was Mizraim Freemason and Theosophist. Dietrich Eckart said that he introduced Hitler to Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine. While this says nothing of Hitler, it implies that Thule was quite Theosophic, and it also wanted power. Theosophy has a racial teaching where Jews are an ancient degenerate race, so it should be cleansed. Freemasonry had since 1820 tried to restore Jews to Palestine. Theosophy and Freemasonry were closely connected: in early 20th century Theosophy was the politically active part of Masonry. Freemasons were watched too carefully by the police of every country.

    2) Mizraim and Memphis become inactive 1871, but Communists continued the same leftist revolutionary activity. Many Communists were Jews and Jewish bankers funded it. When Mizraim and Memphis lodges were reunited in 1890s, their documents were found by Freemasons of other rites. The documents showed the same plan as in Maurice Joly’s book. It looked like Communists follow the same plan, thus Theosophists wrote Protocols based on Mizraim documents and Joly’s book. Blavatsky and Papus warned of a Jewish plan, that means Communism. It become believed that Jews are a problem: either one has to support Zionism and take Jews to Palestine, or they will make Communistic revolutions. Thus, Theosophists started an anti-Semitic campaign in order to push Jews to Palestine. Thule was one of these Theosophic-related societies to get the Jews out.

    So, were do you conclude that Nazis were not anti-Communistic? They exactly wanted to move Jews to Palestine so that Communist Jews do not turn the world Communistic. Where do you see that they were not right-wing? Communism is left-wing, Nazis (and Theosophists) were against the revolutionary Masonic left wing (formerly Mizraim and Memphis, later Communism). So, they were right-wing. Where do you conclude that Nazis were not anti-Semitic? Most of the Nazis certainly believed the program of the Nazi party. If you want to find people, who actually were not anti-Semitic, you have to go to the top of Theosophists and Freemasons, who started the anti-Semitic campaign. They were not anti-Semitic.

    I will stop following your blog in very few days after having answered comments addressed to me, so if you need me to correct other wrong opinions you may have of what I claim, ask me in a very short time. I may answer if the comment confirms to the customary scientific discussion style.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @A.R.
    , @Anonymous
  488. Ron Unz says:
    @szopen

    For all your interest in history, Mr Unz, have you ever read a book from a Polish point of view? I do not even know if any such book exists in English (except for popular general-history books like by Davies )

    I’ll freely admit I haven’t, though just as you say, no such book might exist. I certainly don’t regard myself as any great expert on WWII, and indeed I’d paid very little attention to it during most of my life.

    However, I’d be very cautious about taking at face value the claims of Henderson’s book, written (just as you say) *after* war had broken out. By contrast, Taylor’s book heavily quotes Henderson’s contemporary dispatches as mostly blaming the Poles for their intransigence and brinksmanship. Keep in mind that Taylor was widely regarded as strongly anti-German in his previous writings.

    Moreover, there was all those secret Polish internal documents blaming FDR and the Jews for heavily pressuring Poland (and Britain) into provoking the war:

    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    Here’s another example. Arthur Bryant was one of the leading British historians of the 20th century and the top favorite of Churchill and two other British PMs. Yet in early 1940, he published an extremely interesting book rather favorable towards Hitler and Nazi Germany, then desperately tried to buy up and destroy all copies after Churchill became PM and began imprisoning all “pro-Nazi” individuals. Therefore, to my mind the book has reasonably good credibility:

    http://www.unz.com/book/arthur_bryant__unfinished-victory/

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @L.K
  489. Ron Unz says:
    @j2

    Let me correct this statement. If you mention me, then try to express correctly what I have said….I do not claim that Nazis were not right-wing and that they were not anti-Communist. I also do not claim that they did not hate Communist Jews and the Jewish elite funding Communism, and I do not claim that most Nazis did not hate all Jews. All this is your own false imagination,

    Well, here’s the exact quote of what you said upthread. People can judge for themselves how severely I misunderstood or mischaracterized your words:

    Nazis came not from some normal rightist German movement to stop Communists and oppose Jews. They came from a party created by a secret society established by Masonic Theosophists who had the goal of moving Jews to Palestine in order to create Israel. Their plan meant that Germany would attack everywhere and be finally totally destroyed, but Jews would get Israel. So, they were Zionists.

    • Replies: @j2
  490. @Bruno Chapski

    Bruno Chapski – Did you drop your last name to become the Bruno that is commenting in the latter part of this thread? I knew you way back when at ‘The Occidental Observer’, in your motorcycling days, where you liked regaling readers in the “Comments” with your experience and exploits behind the Iron Curtain before it came down, and after. I’m sure you remember me too. So it’s not surprising you would hit it off with “j2” who also pretends not to be Polish, and to be a fount of knowledge.

    It’s a small world, as they say. I just want readers to remember that you, even without the Chapski, reflexively represent the Polish, anti-Nazi point of view in all matters.

    • Replies: @j2
  491. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Ah, pardon, I also “lost my focus” for a moment. Poles after 1945 were not generally persecuted for Holocaust crimes; they were persecuted for collaboration or specific crimes (e.g. for participation in Jedwabne pogrom).

    • Replies: @Wally
  492. j2 says:
    @Anonymous

    “Do you have any comments about the Knight’s of Malta?”

    I do not know much of them. These real medieval knight orders, like the Knights of Malta and the Knights of Lazarus, are Catholic, but in practice they have strong Masonic connections. It seems to me (based on some own observations) that high degree (like 32.) Freemasons often are accepted to these knight orders, as a kind of a still higher degree of Masonry. So, expect to have many high Masons there. The Knights of Malta were directly involved in running the rat lines, where Nazis were smuggled to the USA after the WWII. I have no doubt that the CIA is involved in these circles. It may be a part of the anti-Communistic forces, but probably it implies pro-Zionistic.

    About Mannerheim, Sibelius etc. having been Freemasons. Let’s say that Finnish Freemasonry was never revolutionary. I do not think Finnish Masons did anything special, too far from where things happen, but frankly, I do not know for sure.

  493. j2 says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “So it’s not surprising you would hit it off with “j2” who also pretends not to be Polish, and to be a fount of knowledge. ”

    Carolyn, you are always so entertaining with your British-type crazy humor. I am Finnish and as for being a fount of knowledge, it is rather that certain (kindly unnamed) commenters here seem to lack even the basics of any arbitrary field of knowledge. As you have your name in the comment, so in the following link you have my photo and cv, it is not secret and I have used j2 as a short of my full name since the school days:
    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/about/

  494. szopen says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, for a very short introduction you may read this article from 1955, by St. Żerko. I’ve read this and despite the date it seems reliable in presenting simple facts. While this is not the same as good book on the subject, it at least gives one the basics, which are often missed from articles written from the German or Western point of view. You may omit first five pages, because it’s the standard presentation of the Hitler’s plans for Lebensraum etc.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwikj_C77a3kAhXHlosKHRiYA3oQFjAGegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fiz.poznan.pl%2Fplik%2Cpobierz%2C800%2C9a4188f905d79a67821a9f17a3847948%2F9-02.%2520Zerko.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3U1RjI1i3Mk2DedDyDFCAJ

    For the Beck speech, you can read here:

    http://polishfreedom.pl/en/document/przemowienie-ministra-spraw-zagranicznych-rp-jozefa-becka-w-sejmie

    You may now decide whether the Beck’s words wre justifiably summarized as “we do not need peace”:

    Peace is certainly the object of the difficult and intensive work of Polish diplomacy. Two conditions are necessary for this word to be of real value: (1) peaceful intentions, (2) peaceful methods of procedure. If the Government of the Reich is really guided by those two pre-conditions in relation to this country, then all conversations, provided, of course, that they respect the principles I have already enumerated, are possible.
    If such conversations took place, the Polish Government will, according to their custom, approach the problem objectively, having regard to the experience of recent times, but without withholding their utmost goodwill.

    Peace is a valuable and desirable thing. Our generation, which has shed its blood in several wars, surely deserves a period of peace. But peace, like almost everything in this world, has its price, high but definable. We in Poland do not recognize the conception of “peace at any price”. There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and States which is without price, and that is honour

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  495. Ron Unz says:
    @Bruno Chapski

    Ron, consider reading the books by professors Glantz, Kotkin (Stalin series, both books contain about a thousand pp) and Richard Evans.

    Actually, I did read Glantz’s Stumbling Colossus and was rather unimpressed. It was recommended to me as the main refutation in English of the Suvorov Hypothesis, but here’s how I described it:

    Several years ago, I came across a website debate on the topic, and one strong critic claimed that Suvorov’s theories had been totally debunked by American military historian David M. Glantz in Stumbling Colossus, published in 1998. But when I ordered and read the book I was sorely disappointed. Although purporting to refute Suvorov, the author seemed to ignore almost all of his central arguments, and merely provided a rather dull and pedantic recapitulation of the standard narrative I had previously seen hundreds of times, laced with a few rhetorical excesses denouncing the unique vileness of the Nazi regime. Most ironically, Glantz emphasizes that although Suvorov’s analysis of the titanic Russo-German military struggle had gained great attention and considerable support among both Russian and German scholars, it had been generally ignored in the Anglo-American world, and he almost seems to imply that it can probably be disregarded for that reason. Perhaps this attitude reflected the cultural arrogance of many American intellectual elites during Russia’s disastrous Yeltsin Era of the late 1990s.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

  496. Groan says:

    Why Germany invaded Poland?

    Surely the real question should be: “Why didn’t France and Britain invade Germany after Germany invaded Poland?”

    As the Polish Prime Minister Mr. Morawiecki said quite recently: had Britain and France attacked Germany in September 1939, the war would have been over by Christmas.

  497. j2 says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Well, here’s the exact quote of what you said upthread. People can judge for themselves how severely I misunderstood or mischaracterized your words:”

    Yes, you do misunderstand the words.
    “Nazis came not from some normal rightist German movement to stop Communists and oppose Jews.”
    What this means is that normal rightist parties do not have Masonic origins. What is does not say or mean is that Nazis were not rightist and anti-Communistic. You have to read what is written.

    “They came from a party created by a secret society established by Masonic Theosophists who had the goal of moving Jews to Palestine in order to create Israel.”
    What this means is that Freemasonry had the goal of restoring Jews to Palestine already since 1820. Theosophy was Masonic (close personal connections in the leadership), it had the goal of restoring Jews to Palestine by force and anti-Semitism.

    “Their plan meant that Germany would attack everywhere and be finally totally destroyed, but Jews would get Israel.”
    What this means is that Nazis in my opinion did not try to get Lebensraum for Germans, nor did they try to build Germany into a third superpower. Hitler made very many military errors and caused the German defeat. I think these errors were intentional. The persecutor of Jews was to be destroyed in the end, if Theosophists followed biblical end-of-the-times prophesies. There is a good reason that they did, as the messianic movement among Freemasons did realize end-of-the-time prophesies. In the the of Napoleon III saint-simonists (behind them was Mizraim) tried to find a female Messiah, who would give birth to the Messiah. It is fully Jewish end-of-the-times stuff. You simply do not know enough of these things.

    “So, they were Zionists.”
    What this means is that Nazis wanted to restore Jews to Palestine. Anybody, who wants to restore Jews to Palestine is a Zionist, or pre-Zionist, if we want to limit a Zionist to mean Herzl’s organization.

    Thus, your comment was again totally incorrect.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright