"Where did Adolf Hitler sign a legally binding treaty saying that Germany will not defend herself and her citizens when attacked, i. e. that Germany renounces her right to self-defense?"
Hitler had promised the British and French at Munich in 1938 that the Sudetenland is "the last territorial claim I have to make in Europe."
You didn’t answer my question at all.
He also signed a ten year non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934. Obviously he was lying, as he soon conquered Poland…
Germany revoked the treaty in 1939, as a response to the Polish behavior.
In September 1939, Germany defended herself against the Polish aggression.
Your attitude is apparently the same as Hitler's.
I’m by far not of his intelligence and character.
You can even commit acts of aggesssion and have the gall to accuse your victim of aggression. (This kind of behavior is typical of schoolyard bullies, as anyone familiar with schoolchildren can tell you. They also know that the only way to stop a bully is through force or punishment.)
Here you’re talking about the Allies, arent’ t you?
"It was Poland that declared partial mobilization first, that terrorized the German ethinic minority, that refused to negotiate and that got a "carte blanche" from Britain and France - not vice versa."
Mobilization does not mean going to war.
Full mobilization, in the case of Poland, according to international law back then, still equated a declaration of war.
My remark on the Polish partial mobilization was just to elucidate that Poland started the aggressions.
"It was Poland that declared partial mobilization first, that terrorized the German ethinic minority, that refused to negotiate and that got a "carte blanche" from Britain and France - not vice versa."
Mobilization does not mean going to war.
Full mobilization, in the case of Poland, according to international law back then, equated a declaration of war.
My remark on the Polish partial mobilization was just to elucidate that Poland started the aggressions.
The purpose was simply to warn Germany to behave itself.
???
Unfortunately, Germany was too powerful and too hungry for territory to be deterred.
???
“Deterred” – from what? From defending herself?
I don't recall Poland's German ethnic minority experiencing
Since 1919, more than 1 million Germans had to flee Polish suppression.
Mass murder and border violations were rampant and increasing. Therefore, according to international law back then, Germany had the right to act against Poland. Not to speak of the Polish declaration of full mobilization, which equated a declaration of war in this case.
And not only the German minority was suppressed by Poland, but all minorities, e.g. the Ukrainian and the Jewish. Even British newspapers covered the plight of the Ukrainians, because many of them emigrated to the then British crown colony Canada. And more than half a million Jews fled Poland to or via Germany (!) between 1933 and 1938.
There was no REASON for Poland to "negotiate" with Germany.
You are absolutely unfamiliar with international diplomatic issues, it seems.
"Just like the Poles, the Czechs suppressed their ethnic minorities"
I would rather have been a Slovak or ethnic German in Czechoslovakia than a Jew in Nazi Germany.
Your personal preferences are completely irrelevant.
Czechoslovakia was a free society, , and was tough. If it had been backed up by the major powers, World War II might very well have been avoided.
The artificial Allied-created multi-ethnic state Czechslovakia fell apart according to ethnic lines, as all multi-ethnic states eventually do. After 1989, it fell apart again.
"Austria was a German state."
True, in the sense that Austrians speak German.
No, in the sense that Austrians are ethnically and culturally Germans – like Bavarians or Saxons.
For longest time of their history, the Austrian Germans lived together in a state with the other Germans.
"What 'aggression' against Poland?"
Germany, along with its ally the Soviet Union, agreed in August 1939 to destroy the Polish state and divide it between the two totalitarian powers.
Germany signed the Treaty to secure itself if the negotiations should eventually fail, to act militarily as an ultima ratio. That this fear was all too correct can be seen in the Polish declration of full mobilization of August 30th, 1939.
In September they attacked Poland to accomplish this.
No, Germany eventually defended herself and her people from Polish aggression.
You accuse the United States of being in secret agreement with the Soviets during the Cold War.
The “Cold war” was a propaganda show.
"Again you lie here. It was Poland who attacked Germany, not vice versa."
See my comment above about schoolyard bullies.
You mean Poland, Britain and France?
"idly stood by while Poland was mass murdering German civilians?"
First of all, do you have any LEGITIMATE evidence of such mass murder?
With the term “legitimate” evidence you mean Allied propaganda, do you?
Second, people like you often excuse Nazi actions against Jews by saying that world Jewry had "declared war" against Germany.
People like me???
Well, if Germany had a right to go to war against Poland because of alleged mass murder of German civilians, would you then agree that world Jewry had a right to go to war against Germany because of the mass murder of Jewish civilians during Kristallnacht and after?
???
The most famous of the declarations was published in the “Daily Express” from March 24, 1933, (headlined: “Judea Declares War on Germany”) calling for a world wide boycott of German goods.
No laws or anything else against the Jews had been passed at this time!
"Don't worry, I'm sure he would have created another pretext to attack Germany!"
Wrong. Chamberlain was devoted to appeasement, but Hitler's actions convinced even him that the policy was a complete failure.
???
What “actions”?
The British knew about the real reasons of the Polish-German conflict, since the negotiations were lead via them (see above)!
"This conflict wasn't Britain's business at all."
That is what Chamberlain argued at first. When Germany was threatening Czechoslovakia
???
It fell into pieces.
he said, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing...However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted."
Grotesque nonsense!
Britain planned to put bombers in the Czech remaineder of Czechoslovakia, to use it as an aircraft-carrier in Gemrany’s back!
Chamberlain fed Czechoslovakia to the crocodile
Germany is no crocodile!
but that only made it hungrier.
Nonsense.
Germany tried to solve the conflict with Poland peacefully. Adolf Hitler postponed military response against the Polish 3 times, reason: “I need time for negotiations.”
To Chamberlain, Germany conquering ONE country is not Britain's business at all
Conquering what country, please?
Germany had far more right to erect a protectorate in Böhmen and Mähren than Britain in India or France in Morocco, for instance. For most of its history, that certain region had been a part of the Holy Empire, and they only were separated from Germany after WWI.
Chamberlain was just angry that Germany prevented him from erecting a protectorate there
himself.
Please don’t forget: HAcha flew to Berlin and and even literally said that he wants to lay his people’s fate into the Führer’s hands.
, but Germany trying to conquer most of Europe IS Britain's business.
What are you talking about?
Germany responded to the Polish aggression and factual declaration of war – that is by no means “conquering Europe”.
Moreover, Britain refused all German peace offers (including retreats).
"In the end, Britain was broke, the Empire history - and soon you'll be a minority in your own country, courtesy of mass immigration and race-mixing."
I am American, not British.
O.k. Nevertheless, the British destroyed their Empire themselves.
And if you are opposed to race-mixing, you should blame Hitler and Germany. It was the revelations of what Germany did acting under a racial ideology that led to a universal condemnation of racism in the Western world.
1. The Allied countries, particularly the USA, had laws prohibiting race-mixing as well. As far as I know, the “Civil rights movement” took place later, in the 1950s and 1960s.
2. Race mixing and “racism” is not (!) universally condemned in the “Western world”. For instance, the USA’s closest ally, Israel, has very strict laws as for race mixing without being condemned for that. Race-mixing only gets promoted referring to Aryans or Whites in general.
3. Britain has the highest rate of race-mixing in the world – ten times higher than the European continent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2moSvsIAbC0Yours,
Thusnelda
Coming Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0QBh0naPA
reply
share
Mars_atax
13 years ago
"Where did Adolf Hitler sign a legally binding treaty saying that Germany will not defend herself and her citizens when attacked, i. e. that Germany renounces her right to self-defense?"
Germany attacked Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Greece, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. You are going to tell me that each of those countries attacked Germany, and so Germany was just defending herself? I don't think so.
"In September 1939, Germany defended herself against the Polish aggression."
Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.
"I’m by far not of his (Hitler's) intelligence and character."
I certainly hope not. Back in 1980, here in the U.S., there was an election between President Jimmy Carter and his challenger, Ronald Reagan. One of Reagan's slogans was "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Apparently not, as Carter lost the election.
Imagine Hitler walking through the rubble of Berlin in 1945 and asking the German people, "Are you better off now than you were twelve years ago?" I have a feeling that a lot of Germans would say "no": Germans who lost family members in the war, Germans who lost their homes or businesses in Allied bombing, German women who were raped by Russian soldiers, Germans unfortunate enough to be stuck in the Soviet occupation zone, and last, but certainly not least, German concentration camp inmates.
Now, of course you are going to blame most of these things on the Allies. But another U.S. president, Harry Truman, had a saying: "The buck stops here," which means, "I do not point the finger at other people if there is a problem. I will take responsibility myself." You want to talk about character? THAT is character.
In comparison, Hitler took a war in which he was fighting one great power (Britain), and expanded it so that he was fighting THREE great powers (Britain, the Soviet Union, and the U.S.). Taking on any two of them would be dangerous enough. Taking on all three was fatal. But did Hitler blame himself when it was clear the war was lost? NO. He blamed the German people:
"If the war is lost, the people will be lost also. It is not necessary to worry about what the German people will need for elemental survival. On the contrary, it is best for us to destroy even these things. FOR THE NATION HAS PROVEN TO BE THE WEAKER, and the future belongs solely to the stronger eastern nation." (My emphasis added.)
To me, that is a distinct LACK of character.
"The 'Cold war' was a propaganda show."
You once called ME delusional. Look who's talking.
"With the term 'legitimate' evidence you mean Allied propaganda, do you?"
No, I mean primary and secondary sources, not things posted on Neo-Nazi websites.
"People like me???"
Nazi apologists, neo-Nazis, bigots, racists, and crazies.
"No laws or anything else against the Jews had been passed at this time!"
Hitler made no secret of his attitude toward the Jews. However, he apparently still wanted Germany to look civilized to the rest of the world, especially during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. But after the 1938 Munich agreement, he saw the West as made up of "little worms" and felt free to do what he liked to the Jews. Kristallnacht soon followed.
"What 'actions'?"
Eating up Czechoslovakia, and then making demands on Danzig and the Polish corridor.
"Britain planned to put bombers in the Czech remaineder of Czechoslovakia, to use it as an aircraft-carrier in Gemrany’s back!"
What a shame they didn't. It might have prevented WWII.
"Germany is no crocodile!"
The BRD is not, but ask the people of the following countries what they think of your beloved Deutsche Reich: Czech Republic, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Britain, Greece, and Russia.
"Germany had far more right to erect a protectorate in Böhmen and Mähren than Britain in India or France in Morocco, for instance"
And Chamberlain and Daladier agreed to let Germany have the Sudetenland PROVIDED that peace would follow and Hitler would make no more demands. In hindsight, they were wrong. If they had read Mein Kampf, they would have known that Hitler wanted to conquer Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.
"Britain refused all German peace offers (including retreats)."
On the contrary, Hitler refused to withdraw, as Chamberlain had to tell the British people:
This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that, unless we hear from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.
Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it. He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland, whatever happened, and although he now says he put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.
The proposals were never shown to the Poles, nor to us, and though they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to hear comments on them but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier the next morning.
His action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.
"As far as I know, the 'Civil rights movement' took place later, in the 1950s and 1960s."
You are correct. And part of the ideological ammunition the civil rights workers had was the ability to point to the blatant hypocrisy of the U.S. fighting against a barbaric racist regime like Nazi Germany, while at the same time practicing racial segregation at home. It could be that were it not for the revelation of Nazi atrocities, legal racism would have lasted longer in the West.
"For instance, the USA’s closest ally, Israel, has very strict laws as for race mixing without being condemned for that."
Israel's laws are not based on race or blood, but on religion. Any Arab can convert to Judaism and marry a Jew. Any Jew can convert to Christianity or Islam and marry an Arab.
reply
share