 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
It purports to be a factual summary of events. What in particular do you find wrong with this summary? |
Your source. He is a neonazist that tries to whitewash and deny any atrocities that was done during the german nazi regimes lifetime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
Your source. He is a neonazist that tries to whitewash and deny any atrocities that was done during the german nazi regimes lifetime. |
Thanks. Yes I checked him out and he does seem to have a record off denying that Hitler was responsible for the Holocost. But that is not the topic here. The question is whether the facts, as reported by Irving, regarding the peace overtures by Hitler are accurate.
Here is a link to Hitler's Oct. 6 speech in its entirety. http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/speeches/text/391006.html The speech does call for European peace conference.
"....I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.
To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept, and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm - in short, of peace.
Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; this is, without exact elucidation of every point at issue.
It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it.
If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed.
Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices.
Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruccken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg.
Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air.
And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms, and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims.
And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea.
Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigor of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields.
One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards.
Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering.
If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last.
Then we shall fight. Neither force of arms nor lapse of time will conquer Germany. There never will be another November 1918 in German history. It is infantile to hope for the disintegration of our people.
Mr. Churchill may be convinced that Great Britain will win. I do not doubt for a single moment that Germany will be victorious.
Destiny will decide who is right.
One thing only is certain. In the course of world history, there have never been two victors, but very often only losers. This seems to me to have been the case in the last war.
May those peoples and their leaders who are of the same mind now make their reply. And let those who consider war to be the better solution reject my outstretched hand."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Ned, that very year Hitler had promised to support the integrity of Czechoslovakia and had promised that the Sudetenland was his last territorial demand. Why should Chamberlain have beleived his promise of restoring an independent Poland? Chamberlain's response demanded "acts - not words alone". If Germany only wanted Posnan and West Prussia (which includes the Danzig corridor) why could not Germany have stopped the advance of its army upon occupying the desired territory? Failing to do that why didn't they simply evacuate their forces from the areas not claimed and let the Polish government return? Please notice that while the German offer mentions restoring Poland it does not mention whether the former government was to be returned to power or if a German puppet state was to be formed. Remember that technically Slovakia and the Czech state were still "independent" even though occupied by German troops and the government rendered totally subservient to Germany.
It's like as if you took over Ted Striker's farm because you had a dispute over the bottom forty, then when folks across the road protested you offered to keep the bottom forty, but re-establish the Striker farm without mentioning whether you were going to let Ted have it back free and clear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Note also that after the war started, the Germans wanted a negotiated settlement; but the Brits refused to negotiate. |
Yeah- give us the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Yugoslavia, France, the Baltic States, European Russia, the Balkans, the Greek Islands and then we'll quit.
Oh, and those bits of Africa and Asia we're not letting Mussolini play with too.
I love the bit where you say 'after the war started' as if it just blossomed into existence like a little Alpine flower, without any help from broken treaties and German armed forces crossing into a sovereign state and bombing its capital.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Yeah- give us the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Yugoslavia, France, the Baltic States, European Russia, the Balkans, the Greek Islands and then we'll quit.
Oh, and those bits of Africa and Asia we're not letting Mussolini play with too.
I love the bit where you say 'after the war started' as if it just blossomed into existence like a little Alpine flower, without any help from broken treaties and German armed forces crossing into a sovereign state and bombing its capital. |
Molly, well I have no idea where you came up with this. The events we are talking about occurred in September and October of 1939. This was at a time that the German armed forces were telling Hitler that they could not mount an offensive West until 1942.
Now, clearly Hitler invaded Poland. But he did not think, due to prior appeasements by Chamberlain, that Chamberlain would do anything about it. He was wrong, of course. And that is why I say underestimating Britain was his biggest mistake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hitler took the decision to attack Poland regardless of the negotiation that were going on
German special forces, from the Brandenburg regiment, seized a bridge in the Carpathian mountains at least 24 hours before the attack because of a communications glitch |
AH, the Poles had not been negotiating all summer. At the behest of England, all they did at the last moment was send their Ambassador to see Hitler. But he had no power to negotiate. The Germans were intercepting communications between Britain and Poland where the Poles made it clear that they had no intention to negotiate anything, but would go through the motions for Britain's sake.
As was mentioned earlier, Hitler set the plan to invade Poland into effect after the Brits gave Poland their blank check and Poland stopped negotiating. The date set for the invasion was August 26. But on that same date, or was it August 25, the formal Brit alliance with Poland was announced and Mussolini said to Hitler that he would not join the war if Britain and France did declare it. Hitler then tried to resume diplomacy and sent the formal offer to Poland that I quoted above. In effect, the Poles blew him off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
Finally AH has come to his mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
so what should be done about South Korea?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Not making sure that Hitler, Georing, Goebbels, and Heydrich had a sufficient daily consumption of ketchup is what did in the Nazis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Think about it - if the Poles side with Hitler - no war in the West - Hitler launches his "crusade against bolshevism" - wins support from France and Britain - winds up great European heroe for "saving" Europe from communism. |
The downside of that deal would have been that the Poles would have had to give up west Prussia and Posnan, two areas which were populated by Poles. Sure they had once been part of Germany, but only because Austria, Russia and Prussia ruthlessly carved Poland up in the 1790s.
Given the sort of world view outlined in "Mein Kampf" I doubt that France and Britain would have been very eager to hand over the vast population and resources of the Soviet Union to Hitler. They had some scruples you know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I think that Hitler was a man who had been physically and emotionally abused by his tyrannical father as a child. It's doubtful that the scion of the Hitler clan imparted even the slightest ability to empathise with other human beings to his young son. As an adolescent he barely survived under the most desperate of circumstances, circumstances in which he learned that ethics and morality were mere conveniences affected as a means to an end. Thus Hitler found it very easy to pretend to be Stalin's friend even as he plotted his demise.
Stalin wasn't much different.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The downside of that deal would have been that the Poles would have had to give up west Prussia and Posnan, two areas which were populated by Poles. Sure they had once been part of Germany, but only because Austria, Russia and Prussia ruthlessly carved Poland up in the 1790s.
|
Yes they would have - although if Poland was a German ally some sort of deal could have been struck, as was done with other German allies like Hungary, Rumania and Italy, which had substantial German minorities and against whom Hitler made no territorial claims.
Its important also to remember that Poland took ruthless advantage of the weakness of Germany and Russia to seize a lot of territory by force at the end of WWI, not all Polish - they weren't exactly blameless victims of German and Soviet aggression - there was payback involved. The Poles like to think of themselves as sainted victims. Fortunate for them history has rather whitewashed their own territorial ambitions and mistakes.
quote:
Given the sort of world view outlined in "Mein Kampf" I doubt that France and Britain would have been very eager to hand over the vast population and resources of the Soviet Union to Hitler. They had some scruples you know. |
You think not? One can argue that Britain and France would have been quite happy to see Hitler turn Eastward and would not have a shed a tear at the fall of the Soviet Union. Remember that ultimately all 3 ended up on the same side in the Spanish civil war, with the Soviet Union supporting the republic. Churchill flirted with declaring war on the Soviet Union over their invasion of Finland, which would have made a very peculiar 3 sided war. Britain and France had colonial empires at the time so the ideas of Mein Kampf were hardly foreign to them, in fact Mein Kampf was partly inspired by European imperialism and Hitler's beef was that Germany didn't have a colonial empire. Britain and France definitely didn't take a stand over Mein Kampf, or the Jews for that matter. Scruples didn't come into it.
The ultimate irony would have been if Germany started to lose the war against Russia because, as they had done after WWI, Britain and France would have been hard pressed not to provide support to Germany against Russia, in order to prevent the Red Army getting into Central Europe.
Interesting scenario I think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Now, clearly Hitler invaded Poland. |
What grasp of history you have- and understatement too!
Hitler in Munich, 8th November, 1938:
"National Socialist Germany will never go to Canossa! If the rest of the world obstinately bars the way to recognition of our rights by the way of negotiation, then there should be no surprise that we secure for ourselves our rights by another way."
This is after he had sent, the October just passed, four questions to General Keitel to which he expected an immediate reply, the questions being:
1. What reinforcements are necessary in the present situation to break all Czech resistance in Bohemia and Moravia?
2. How much time is required for the regrouping or moving up of new forces?
3. How much time will be required for the same purpose if it is executed after the intended demobilization measures?
4. How much time would be required to achieve the state of readiness of October 1st ?
A new directive was then issued for the Armed Forces to liquidate the remainder of Czechoslovakia, dated 21st October.
Hitler's 'trustworthiness' can also be judged by his comments to his C. -in- C.s dated 23rd November, 1939:
"It was clear to me from the first moment that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten territory. That was only a partial solution."
Clearly, because it had left Germans still living in what remained of Czechoslovakia, and also entailed Germany acquiring a Czech population.
I could go on at length about Hitler's funding of the Sudeten German Party, about the propaganda campaign against the Czech government, about the pressuring of the Slovak Tiso to accept a Reich protectorate over what was left of Slovakia after Hungary and Poland had had their share, but you'd just carrying on ignoring that too, in favour of speculating on what MIGHT have happened had Great Britain not stood by its agreement with Poland, and what MIGHT have happened if Hitler hadn't actually had long term territorial ambitions in Central and Eastern Europe.
But I prefer to focus on what he ACTUALLY said, and did, and thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Also, Molly, don't paint Britian as so noble as if it were only fulfilling its obligations under a treaty signed in innocent times. It entered into that treaty on August 26, the very day Germany had scheduled its attack. Britain knew the German military fully mobilized and on the very brink of war. The timing of the treaty was a virtual declaration of war itself.
|
You really posess a strange kind of logic. Germany fully mobilized, have an attack plan that is going to be executed in a day or two, and then you blame Britain for starting the war because they tell Poland and Germany that if Poland is attacked, they will aid Poland. How should that could be a provocation when it is merely hours before German troops enter Poland according to a plan it has taken months to make ? An attack that would have happend even if Britain hadn't joined Polands side.
Detail, it was august 25 that Britain expanded the old guarantee to promise of military aid.
quote:
Now, I have asked you before but you seem not to have answered. What business did Britain have in plunging itself into the midst of German-Polish negotiations, this in March of '39? |
Can you give one reason why they should not ? For thousands of years states have entered into treaties for both agressive and protective reasons. One reason could be that they wanted to prevent war by telling Germany that if they attack Poland, then they would also be in war with Britain and France; another reason could be that they knew that it would be unacceptable to the european powerbalance to have a germany including wast parts of Poland. Maybe they just were fond of the Polish nation and didn't want it to become german.
Nothing of this changes the fact that it was germany that was the agressor who started the war by invading another country.
I guess that you also agrees with hijackers that claims that it is the authorites that is responsible if they shoot a hostage because their demands aren't met.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
You really posess a strange kind of logic. Germany fully mobilized, have an attack plan that is going to be executed in a day or two, and then you blame Britain for starting the war because they tell Poland and Germany that if Poland is attacked, they will aid Poland. How should that could be a provocation when it is merely hours before German troops enter Poland according to a plan it has taken months to make ? An attack that would have happend even if Britain hadn't joined Polands side.
Detail, it was august 25 that Britain expanded the old guarantee to promise of military aid.
|
I agree with this point, that Germany fully intended to start a war with Poland. They, however, had no intention of starting a war with Britain. So, when you say that Germany started THE war, we have to define which war it started.
What I have tried to demonstrate by facts is that Britain intended to start a war with Germany, but that Germany did not intend to start a war with Britain.
I think you must agree with this as the facts are on this issue are almost beyond dispute.
Now, if the war between Germany and Britain was the World War, who started it?
It was Britain that declared war on Germany, not the other way around. The question of whether Britain was justified or not is a separate question. Britain had justification, in my view, when Germany took over Czechoslovakia to the extent that Britain was guaranteeing the Versailles and related treaties.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2005 01:14
The acts not words quotes might give you a clue
|