 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Not at all. You are indeed unable to differantiate between Nazi Germany and Europe. As proven amptly in this thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
quote:
It's so true especially for Germany. |
Not true, americans can always tell germans apart from the rest of the europeans. They are the ones with the mismatched socks...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Silly one Paiktis. 
Vichy even had a nice little force called the Milice, to help round up those damn jews.
All the countries Hitler allied with helped, and most of the occupied nations as well (Denmark is a notable exception, the Danes managed to save Jews with Sweden's help).
You can yell from the rooftops that it was only the Nazis, but they had LOTS of help. |
From what I know, Denmark saved their Jews - which wasn't too hard as there were a little of them - but was completely unwilling to do anything for Jews from other countries.
Boris, We discussed Jedwabne case before. There is a difference between a situation in which a state is involved into murdering some people, and a situation in which some band kills someone - notabene
under German orders. In first situation, the country and the nation it represents has something to do with it, and in the second situation the state haven't got anything to do with it., though of course that some Poles were willing to fulfill German orders is a sad thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
The revelations contained in Prof. Jan Gross' new book Sasiedzi [Neighbors] have forced Polish society to reassess the way in which Poles confronted the Shoah. According to Prof. Gross' research, it was local Poles that were responsible for a horrific slaughter in the town of Jedwabne, not German occupation forces.[quote]
That's not true according to researches; about 30 Poles (some of Jedwabne, some of other places)
were brought by Germans, and Germans were the initiators of this event which is sure; not quite sure is,
however, if they accompanied the event to the end.
A German order let out by local German occupation authorities was to get rid of Jews by local hands. I don't
think its hard to find several robbers that wouldn't have anything against killing people for money.
[quote]
In July 1941, in an orgy of bloodletting and looting, some 1,600 Jews lost their lives
|
1600 is a number that used to live in Jedwabne and nearby before the war; most of them have escaped
or were brought out by Germans earlier; the number according to exhumation is 330-440.
Again I emphasise; I consider it a tragedy. But as the state or any organisation wasn't involved,
and the thing wouldn't be possible without German occupation and German organisation, I don't think of
it as a Polish fault. Blaming Poland for this situation is like blaming America for Talibs because of mr Walker
or generally blaming f.e. France for some robbery made by a guy of French descent in some other country;
Poland opposed against what Germans were doing with Jews; the region where it happened was not only occupied,
but also anected by Germany. The ones that did that proved that they were citizens of the German Reich, not
Poland.
quote:
Poles have constantly perpetuated the notion that theirs was a country without quislings. In other words, unlike the rest of German occupied or dominated Europe, the Germans were unable to find local fascists or traitors to do their bidding. Certainly when compared to the record of other countries such as France, Norway, or the Netherlands, to say nothing of Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary or Romania, this perception of Poland's experience was not entirely without foundation.
|
Again I emphasise that leader of Polish fascist, jan Mosdorf, was killed in concentration camp for helping
the Jews.
quote:
Polish society and the Jews: A mixed record
The fact is that Poland's war-time record was a mixed one. On the one hand, it is now widely acknowledged that the dangers in Poland in rescuing Jews were far greater than in most other places in Europe (there was a death penalty that even extended to the rescuers' immediate family and sometimes their neighbors as well) and that the number of rescuers there was far greater than had been estimated originally - the rescue of even one person often required a whole chain of conspirators. It is also recognized by all serious historians that there is no basis whatsoever for the oft-heard charge that the Germans elected to establish death camps in Poland because they believed that Poles would acquiesce to them or even aid in the destruction.
|
I doubt that people know about that.
quote:
Gazeta Wyborcza that revealed that in the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 [not to be confused with the Ghetto Uprising of 1943] certain elements of the Armja Krajowa [AK - Home Army] murdered Jews. Those revelations produced a storm of controversy and accusations against the reporter, Michal Cichy, who was subjected to a torrent of abuse and even accused of being a closet Jew. |
AK was killing Poles recognised as German or Soviet collaborants - some of them were Jews
amongst whom communist views were widely spreaded.
quote:
ardinal Glemp, the country's Roman Catholic primate, who has a long record of vitriolic antipathy toward Jews,
|
If that means what I think it means it's not true... I have never heard a single word of his against the Jews.
I read the most anti-catholic papers here and I assure You that if He said something they would report it.
quote:
Others claim that while Poles may have been responsible for some of the deaths, the incident must be looked at in light of the Jews' behavior during the Soviet occupation from September 1939 until June 1941 and ascribe a '*** for tat' quality to the killings. In this spirit Father Orlowski called for Jews to apologize to Poles for the wrong- doings the priest alleges were committed by the Jewish citizens of Jedwabne during the period of Soviet occupation.
|
Even the Jews in the case admit that some of local Jewish population upported Soviets and
caused death of Polish activities there; that's no excuse though.
quote:
The coincidence of the Jedwabne revelations and that of the fierce debate on the question of re-privitization is an ironic coincidence
|
No-one gets anything back, undependantly from his nationality. The case of reprivatisation was not settled
and probably never will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
France against Germany?
You do know that in many ways France's tanks were the best on the field (and were considered the best on the field) plus they had a huge defence
of course they were not up on the new way to engage in warfare, but you could not have seen that then
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Col Bigspear
|
 |
Manchester, England. Im 1/2 Polish and proud of it!
Jul 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Col Bigspear, then why did England declare war at all? |
Enough was enough.
The earlier annexations could be justified. (to a certain extent, not enough to start a costly war over).
The Rhur (cant remember the name of the exact area, vast coal mines occupied by the french) WAS Germany and had mostly German citizens.
Austria, as near to being German without being German.
The Studaten land (SP?) the vast majority were German.
The rest of Czechoslavakia (SP?) Most of europe frowned upon this, Hitler claimed it would be his last "annexation" and if that meant avoiding a war so be it.
Poland. Hitler claimed Czechoslavakia would be his last "annexation". He broke his promise, he wanted the German speaking area of Danzig (now Gdnsk (SP?) ) and the area around it. When the Poles refused Hitler invaded. Appeasing Hitler again would only lead to him breaking his promise again, this is when war was unavoidable. What to do ?. Allow Hitler to invade Poland and let him push the rest of europe around or face the facts, enough was enough, this stops here and now, we mean business.
Fortunately the politicians chose the latter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Col Bigspear
The rest of Czechoslavakia (SP?) Most of europe frowned upon this, Hitler claimed it would be his last "annexation" and if that meant avoiding a war so be it.
Poland. Hitler claimed Czechoslavakia would be his last "annexation". He broke his promise, he wanted the German speaking area of Danzig (now Gdnsk (SP?) ) and the area around it. When the Poles refused Hitler invaded.
Appeasing Hitler again would only lead to him breaking his promise again, this is when war was unavoidable. What to do ?. Allow Hitler to invade Poland and let him push the rest of europe around or face the facts, enough was enough, this stops here and now, we mean business.
Fortunately the politicians chose the latter |
Twice in the above paragraph you mentioned pushing "Europe" around. But this is not quite true, is it? A major portion of Europe was allied with Hitler, including the USSR which took its own chunk of Poland.
Who were they pushing around? It certainly was not "Europe." And it was not England or France - or was it? If so, how were England's and France's interests involved with Poland?
I note further that ONLY France and England declared war - this time without the Russians or the Italians. How in the world could this make any strategic sense whatsoever. England and France could not beat Germany in WWI with the Russians and Italians and even the Americans as Allies. It took a revolution in Germany to end the war. Remembering the gigantic losses England suffered in the first war, I simply don't understand its thinking in starting WWII.
Sure Hitler was as unpleasant a person as Saddam. But at least with Saddam we have the prospect of a quick and easy victory. Starting WWII over Danzig made no sense at all unless the there were vital English interests at stake and there was a prospective victory. But what England's interests were is not clear. Certainly England had no hope of winning when it declared war in 1939. It took both the USSR and the US to help England win WWII.
If England had Roosevelt's assurances of support, then England's declaration of war makes more sense. But did they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
It was a matter of prestige Ned, and credibility.
Britain and France had treaties and had made Garuntees
to Poland, if they failed to uphold these, as they failed to uphold those made to the Czechs, no nation would EVER listen to Britain or France again (chillingly familar to the current postion of the UN and it's resolutions).
This could mean Germany might have a free hand in Russia, or two more years to prepare for all out war, even equiping it's sattelites properly, no drain helping Italy, ECT.
All of it would be far worse then declairing war, and there is another factor.
Chamberlin is famous as an appeasor, but he was really a practical man, he felt humiliated when Germany rolled into Czechoslovakia, breaking Hitler's personal word to him, and he swore that he would see Hitler brought to justice for his actions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
It was a matter of prestige Ned, and credibility.
Britain and France had treaties and had made Garuntees
to Poland, if they failed to uphold these, as they failed to uphold those made to the Czechs, no nation would EVER listen to Britain or France again (chillingly familar to the current postion of the UN and it's resolutions).
This could mean Germany might have a free hand in Russia, or two more years to prepare for all out war, even equiping it's sattelites properly, no drain helping Italy, ECT.
All of it would be far worse then declairing war, and there is another factor.
Chamberlin is famous as an appeasor, but he was really a practical man, he felt humiliated when Germany rolled into Czechoslovakia, breaking Hitler's personal word to him, and he swore that he would see Hitler brought to justice for his actions. |
Yes, Chris, I know about the treaties and the credibility issue. But this made WWII eactly like WWI. It too was set off by treaties - a powderkeg that exploded into the worst war in history.
But still, regardless of the treaties and "face," one does not start an offensive war, as did England and France, unless one has a realistic chance of winning it. Based only on the Axis vs. England and France (and Poland for however many days she could hold out) the balance of forces seem to weigh heavily in Germany's favor. You have England and France against Germany (Austria and Czechoslovakia), Japan, Italy, Finnland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia and perhaps Spain and the USSR. England and France could not possibly hope to prevail. That they did is only because Hitler declared war on both the USSR and the US. But how did England and France know that Hitler would do that in 1939?
Even after Poland fell, England and France refused to negotiate peace even though Hitler went out of his way trying to end the war. Why? The issue of Danzig was now settled. I believe Hitler was willing to set the rest of Poland "free" so long as they remained German allies. But no, England and France did not settle, nor did they invade Germany. They simply waited for the German assault.
This seems insane on its face.
But it is less insane if, as I said, they had Roosevelt's guarantee of support.
I have read a lot of the diplomatic traffic (available from the Roosevelt Library) between the US, Britain and France in that timeframe. There was no doubt in my mind that they were all cooridinating messages and policy - with Roosevelt calling the shots. I think England and France had Roosevelt's commitment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MacTBone
Another reason why Jews are concentrated on as opposed to other oppressed people from the time (other than just sheer numbers) was the education and literacy of those people. Many Jews wrote about their experiences which has allowed us to study them and as far as I know, all the truly famous books described from a victim's viewpoint were written by Jews. |
Good point. Elie Wiesel springs to mind.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-09-2002 00:07
) -- 
|