Why Hitler invaded Poland

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
RizoliTV
BANNED
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:58 pm

Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby RizoliTV » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:46 pm

The allied victors want you to think Evil Hitler invaded Poland to start his take over of the world....
Good to see some people out there know the real reason why.
http://www.thefuhrerbunker.com/WWII.htm

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Pyrrho » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:50 pm

Topic moved.

This is the last time I will ask you to keep holocaust discussions in this subforum.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6412
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:51 pm

RizoliTV wrote:The allied victors want you to think Evil Hitler invaded Poland to start his take over of the world....
Good to see some people out there know the real reason why.
http://www.thefuhrerbunker.com/WWII.htm


Jim, first of all, no one denies that the Polish committed atrocities against ethnic Germans........AFTER the Germans invaded Poland. I checked that website, all of those testimonies cover the period after the invasion, the first testimony is from September the 3rd.
You do realize the Germans invaded on September 1st, don't you?

All told I think about 7,000 ethnic Germans died due to Polish actions.

Now, it is true that the Poles discriminated against ethnic Germans before the war but it hardly included massacring them. The Poles also discriminated against ethnic Ukrainians and Jews.

This didn't prevent the Germans and Poles from having a good relationship from 1933-1939, relations were worse during the Weimar Republic. Weimar made a bigger deal about Germans in Poland. Hitler did not. Hitler wanted the Poles as possible allies in his move against the Soviets and, as an Austrian, did not have the same prejudices against the Poles as the Prussians did (he had a bigger beef with the Czechs). Hitler wanted the Poles to give back former German territory in exchange for Soviet territory.

His feelings only changed after the Poles refused to budge over Danzig and giving him rights in the Corridor. There was nary a peep about Polish "atrocities" until the Spring and Summer of 1939.

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby NathanC » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:30 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:This didn't prevent the Germans and Poles from having a good relationship from 1933-1939, relations were worse during the Weimar Republic. Weimar made a bigger deal about Germans in Poland. Hitler did not. Hitler wanted the Poles as possible allies in his move against the Soviets and, as an Austrian, did not have the same prejudices against the Poles as the Prussians did (he had a bigger beef with the Czechs). Hitler wanted the Poles to give back former German territory in exchange for Soviet territory.

His feelings only changed after the Poles refused to budge over Danzig and giving him rights in the Corridor. There was nary a peep about Polish "atrocities" until the Spring and Summer of 1939.


Jeff,

You've made some interesting statements and I would like to know more. Rizoli is a liar and a sick freak, so I'm going to ignore him even if he responds to my questions.

About the whole Danzig thing, the evidence shows that German intentions had nothing to do with it at all. It doesn't get any clearer than the notes taken by Lt. Col Schmundt during a meeting of the General staff at May of 1939, just months before the invasion of Poland.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schm ... hmundt.php

The Pole is not an additional enemy. Poland will always be on the side of our enemies. Despite the friendship treaty there has always been the intention in Poland to use any chance against us.

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

In Europe there is no other possibility.


I honestly think even the Germans knew that "Danzig" and Rizoli's crap about "atrocities against ethnic Germans" were rubbish to begin with. They could've just used either of the two as their pretexts for invading Poland, instead of going through the trouble of staging a false flag attack.

The policies the Germans pursued with regards to Poland certainly don't indicate any "Good relations". If there were, they would've surely tempered the occupation Policies. Their treatment of the Poles was barely better than the way they treated the Jews. In fact, the former often felt that after the Nazis finished the Jews, they would be next.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:57 pm

Ah, back to business as normal. Thanks, guys.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6412
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:34 pm

NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:This didn't prevent the Germans and Poles from having a good relationship from 1933-1939, relations were worse during the Weimar Republic. Weimar made a bigger deal about Germans in Poland. Hitler did not. Hitler wanted the Poles as possible allies in his move against the Soviets and, as an Austrian, did not have the same prejudices against the Poles as the Prussians did (he had a bigger beef with the Czechs). Hitler wanted the Poles to give back former German territory in exchange for Soviet territory.

His feelings only changed after the Poles refused to budge over Danzig and giving him rights in the Corridor. There was nary a peep about Polish "atrocities" until the Spring and Summer of 1939.


Jeff,

You've made some interesting statements and I would like to know more. Rizoli is a liar and a sick freak, so I'm going to ignore him even if he responds to my questions.

About the whole Danzig thing, the evidence shows that German intentions had nothing to do with it at all. It doesn't get any clearer than the notes taken by Lt. Col Schmundt during a meeting of the General staff at May of 1939, just months before the invasion of Poland.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schm ... hmundt.php

The Pole is not an additional enemy. Poland will always be on the side of our enemies. Despite the friendship treaty there has always been the intention in Poland to use any chance against us.

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

In Europe there is no other possibility.


I honestly think even the Germans knew that "Danzig" and Rizoli's crap about "atrocities against ethnic Germans" were rubbish to begin with. They could've just used either of the two as their pretexts for invading Poland, instead of going through the trouble of staging a false flag attack.

The policies the Germans pursued with regards to Poland certainly don't indicate any "Good relations". If there were, they would've surely tempered the occupation Policies. Their treatment of the Poles was barely better than the way they treated the Jews. In fact, the former often felt that after the Nazis finished the Jews, they would be next.


There are some good books that deal with this but I'd recommend Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands," and Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, the second part that deals with events from 1936-1945. Another good book is Mark Mazowar's "Hitler's Empire," it also deals with Weimar's relationship with Poland.

Look at Hitler's foreign policy moves starting when he came to power. Traditionally the Weimar Republic had poor relations with Poland but very good relations with the USSR. Hitler flipped that on its head when he became Chancellor. Hitler cultivated a relationship with Poland and ended contact with the USSR. To Hitler, an Austrian, the Poles seemed like less of a threat than the USSR. He did not share the typical Prussian prejudice towards the Poles and the Polish government had many things in common with National Socialism. It was anti-Communist and anti-Semetic, two things that made a relationship possible.


One of the first treaties the Nazis signed was with the Poles, the Non-Aggression Pact in 1934. This signaled the thaw. The Germans and Poles drew closer economically and Goering continued to probe Polish feelings towards a joint German-Polish action against the Soviets during the mid1930's. This never went anywhere, the Poles continued to straddle the fence between the USSR and Germans, but from what I've read Hitler continued to hope for an accomodation in which the Poles would return former German lands in return for Soviet lands at the conclusion of a war with the Soviets.

The relationship only soured in the Spring of 1939 when the Poles refused to negotiate over the Corrider and Danzig. It also angered Hitler that the Poles turned to the British (and French) for protection.

As to why the Germans were so harsh, I think it has to do with Hitler's desire for revenge over the Polish "betrayal," the fact that the Poles actually fought back, causing German casualties, German desire to exploit Polish lands economically and the fact that the Germans considered the Poles to be completely backwards. You can compare what happened in Czechoslovakia to what happened in Poland. The Germans conquered the Czechs without firing a shot, consequently German policy was much more lenient (though still harsh). The Poles fought back and Hitler blamed them for dragging the British and French in.


Sorry if that was a bit long-winded but I wanted to give you a thorough answer.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6412
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:38 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Ah, back to business as normal. Thanks, guys.


It is tiring to keep up with the sock puppets. I came here to talk history, not indulge Holocaust deniers.

Any thoughts about Poland and Germany?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:42 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Ah, back to business as normal. Thanks, guys.


It is tiring to keep up with the sock puppets. I came here to talk history, not indulge Holocaust deniers.

Any thoughts about Poland and Germany?

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27083&p=527052#p527052 :blush:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6412
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:47 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Ah, back to business as normal. Thanks, guys.


It is tiring to keep up with the sock puppets. I came here to talk history, not indulge Holocaust deniers.

Any thoughts about Poland and Germany?

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27083&p=527052#p527052 :blush:


Ah, OK.

I do suggest the books I listed up top. They are very good.

I'll take a look at your comment on the previous post.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:10 pm

Thanks. Just like everyone, I, too, have various qualities. Pretending an all-round in-depth knowledge or having taken an intense interest in all parts of WWII isn't necessarily one of them... I just hope my participation is in some ways useful. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6412
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:15 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Thanks. Just like everyone, I, too, have various qualities. Pretending an all-round in-depth knowledge or having taken an intense interest in all parts of WWII isn't necessarily one of them... I just hope my participation is in some ways useful. :-P


I enjoy what you post. I'll take a look at what you said later but my children are telling me they are starving to death so I'm helping the wife with dinner.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:24 pm

Bon appétit.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:38 pm

Eggs: on another thread we sidetracked into Why Hitler invaded Poland in the Context of what is the proper scope of the Holocaust. You last provided this link in support of an unstated position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... 80.9345.29.

War is a complex thing. MANY motivations, many vectors, lots of inputs. some at cross purposes, some long planned out, some mere accidents that are taken advantage of.

Certainly Germany...and even much of Europe...was persecuting or discriminating against Jews and other minorities way before War was a probability. Hardly seems rational to call these early times "part of" the Holocaust. Instead....they were events and attitude that led up to the Holocaust. Very closely related notions on certain points of interest...not at all the same thing on other points. I like to be precise and relevant...even if my facts are wrong.

The more you generalize and expand the notion of the Holocaust, in my mind, tends to diminish its unique place in History.

but then.....I'm no WW2 expert either...and much of what I think I know could well be wrong. Thats what engaging the issue is all about: education.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Eggs: on another thread we sidetracked into Why Hitler invaded Poland in the Context of what is the proper scope of the Holocaust. You last provided this link in support of an unstated position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... 80.9345.29.

War is a complex thing. MANY motivations, many vectors, lots of inputs. some at cross purposes, some long planned out, some mere accidents that are taken advantage of.

Certainly Germany...and even much of Europe...was persecuting or discriminating against Jews and other minorities way before War was a probability. Hardly seems rational to call these early times "part of" the Holocaust. Instead....they were events and attitude that led up to the Holocaust. Very closely related notions on certain points of interest...not at all the same thing on other points. I like to be precise and relevant...even if my facts are wrong.

The more you generalize and expand the notion of the Holocaust, in my mind, tends to diminish its unique place in History.

but then.....I'm no WW2 expert either...and much of what I think I know could well be wrong. Thats what engaging the issue is all about: education.

I picked the link primarily for the numbers* but, imho, the influencing history cannot be ignored.


* Which I think fluctuated a bit in 1935 - the year of the Nuremberg Laws and the death of the Polish president Jozef Pilsudski?
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:25 am

Everything in its turn...and order of importance.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:31 am

Ha, I'm waiting for the ones in the know to speak up. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:33 am

Is the issue in your mind: Hitler invaded Poland in order to persecute and murder Jews...or for some other reasons? Or do you have a different issue in mind?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Denying-History » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:40 am

I have a Russian on my channel who speaks of the invasion of Poland.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U8aVMvw9k5g
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:57 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Is the issue in your mind: Hitler invaded Poland in order to persecute and murder Jews...or for some other reasons? Or do you have a different issue in mind?

I think he did for a multitude of reasons, including if - or not - he had a bowel movement that morning.

All kidding aside, not any single reason, no. (And an entirely tangent thought, those bastards seem to have had been bumbling and stumbling into a string of sheer dumb luck in many of their ventures. But luckily not all of them...)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:49 am

Taking the discussion from viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27083&p=527144#p527144 over here, last post:

... but, if I may: "...Lebensraum was the principal, foreign-policy goal of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich(1933–45); thus Hitler rejected the restoration of the pre-war borders of Germany as an inadequate half-measure towards reducing national overpopulation.[34]" and this from "Zweites Buch

In the unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, the Zweites Buch (1928, Second Book)
:

To further German population growth, Hitler rejected the ideas of birth control and emigration, arguing that such practices weakened the people and culture of Germany, and that military conquest was the only means for obtaining Lebensraum:

The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk.[37]

Therefore, the non-Germanic peoples of the annexed foreign territories would never be Germanised:

The Folkish State, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them some day. On the contrary, it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien racial elements, so that the blood of its own Folk will not be corrupted again, or it must, without further ado, remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own National Comrades.[38]



?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:56 am

Lets focus on what the issue was. Yes...any world event has many casual intents, we agree. How far up the list was the Holocaust in Hitlers thinking when he invaded Poland? I'm willing to say it was = zero. Not on the list at all. Lebensraum is not synonymous with Holocaust. Words have meaning. "Led to" is not synonymous with "caused by."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lets focus on what the issue was. Yes...any world event has many casual intents, we agree. How far up the list was the Holocaust in Hitlers thinking when he invaded Poland? I'm willing to say it was = zero. Not on the list at all. Lebensraum is not synonymous with Holocaust. Words have meaning. "Led to" is not synonymous with "caused by."

Again stepping outside of my comfort zone, but... I guess it depends on what one means when using the term Holocaust.

But you're referring to the Shoah which, AFAIK, cannot be placed as easily as that "on a list" of priorities or dates. (I hope I expressed that correctly.)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:59 am

bobbo, sorry, but I have more questions than answers (and not only in this regard) and normally sit back and let those who really studied that subject and have in-depth knowledge about it illuminate the likes of me.

I wish to return to that position.




(No Ding Dong, that's not an invitation for you to start spouting your nonsense. I can't prevent such attempts at the dumbing down of the already dense, but I sure can - and will - ignore or ridicule it.)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:07 am

Have to look up Shoah: The Holocaust - Yad Vashem
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaus ... ocaust.asp
Yad Vashem
The biblical word Shoah (which has been used to mean “destruction” since the Middle Ages) became the standard Hebrew term for the murder of European Jewry as early as the early 1940s.

See the date? 1940. You and Pyrrho push the date way too early and encumber the concept with close but different anti-Jewish activities.

Now....to your link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust : doesn't go into the direct application of the concept as far as timelines.

I agree that "exact" placement on a list of motives for many contenders is but an exercise...but its not what is called for. It is actually easy to say whether or not any actions towards Jews was the "main" motivation for invading Poland. It seems to me clearly that it was not even if "Lebensraum" was granted as the leading reason. This is not a detailed quibbling historical analysis, but rather the first broad brush.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:07 am

scrmbldggs wrote:bobbo, sorry, but I have more questions than answers (and not only in this regard) and normally sit back and let those who really studied that subject and have in-depth knowledge about it illuminate the likes of me.

I wish to return to that position.
Of course, I mean, afterall..... this isn't a knife fight.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Have to look up Shoah: The Holocaust - Yad Vashem
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaus ... ocaust.asp
Yad Vashem
The biblical word Shoah (which has been used to mean “destruction” since the Middle Ages) became the standard Hebrew term for the murder of European Jewry as early as the early 1940s.

See the date? 1940. You and Pyrrho push the date way too early and encumber the concept with close but different anti-Jewish activities...

See, that's what pretty much what I meant. You're referring to the Shoah. And you're correct if you say I hold to the definition(s) as posted by Pyrrho: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27083#p526989 and viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27083#p527017 . But, as I said, it's quite complex a subject.

Now....to your link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust : doesn't go into the direct application of the concept as far as timelines.

I agree that "exact" placement on a list of motives for many contenders is but an exercise...but its not what is called for. It is actually easy to say whether or not any actions towards Jews was the "main" motivation for invading Poland. It seems to me clearly that it was not even if "Lebensraum" was granted as the leading reason. This is not a detailed quibbling historical analysis, but rather the first broad brush.

I don't know where "main" came into play.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:57 am

scrmbldggs wrote:I don't know where "main" came into play.

It clarifies what the statement "Why Hitler Invaded Poland" is about. Not all the various and extended issues but in the context of the theory of causation the "but/for" analysis.

As to "the definition" of the Holocaust linked by Pyrrho, to me it just fails to set forth a definition. What it does is set forth a time period. Persecution is not the same thing as murder. I think that is a fatal ambiguity disqualifying it as helpful. Now....I'm flexible enough to use it if that is the desire.

In my view, the Holocaust is not unique because of persecution....not even murder...but rather the systematic "industrialized" murder of the Jews. And "by definition" that doesn't start until "industry" gets involved: ie ... camps. Extermination camps. And those weren't on the scene in the early 1930's. Again..."led to" is not the same thing as causation.

Pros and cons to all we do. Pros and Cons to any definition used. Thing I like to do: analyse a fact pattern using ALL the definitions and see what kind of recognitions/values are achieved. I like the ones that keep the Holocaust/Shoah/Final Solution as unique and stark in human history as I believe it was.

Hmmm...typing the above....I was reminded of Stalin starving to death the millions that he did. More than 6 Million I believe...but not the stark horror of the Holocaust because it was not industrialized and camp driven. Whats more important? Gross numbers killed, technique of killing, group affiliation of those killed....each definition will highlight its own given aspect.

Using all definitions...Pros and Cons. does take more time?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10318
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Pyrrho » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:18 pm

For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby NathanC » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:39 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:This didn't prevent the Germans and Poles from having a good relationship from 1933-1939, relations were worse during the Weimar Republic. Weimar made a bigger deal about Germans in Poland. Hitler did not. Hitler wanted the Poles as possible allies in his move against the Soviets and, as an Austrian, did not have the same prejudices against the Poles as the Prussians did (he had a bigger beef with the Czechs). Hitler wanted the Poles to give back former German territory in exchange for Soviet territory.

His feelings only changed after the Poles refused to budge over Danzig and giving him rights in the Corridor. There was nary a peep about Polish "atrocities" until the Spring and Summer of 1939.


Jeff,

You've made some interesting statements and I would like to know more. Rizoli is a liar and a sick freak, so I'm going to ignore him even if he responds to my questions.

About the whole Danzig thing, the evidence shows that German intentions had nothing to do with it at all. It doesn't get any clearer than the notes taken by Lt. Col Schmundt during a meeting of the General staff at May of 1939, just months before the invasion of Poland.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schm ... hmundt.php

The Pole is not an additional enemy. Poland will always be on the side of our enemies. Despite the friendship treaty there has always been the intention in Poland to use any chance against us.

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

In Europe there is no other possibility.


I honestly think even the Germans knew that "Danzig" and Rizoli's crap about "atrocities against ethnic Germans" were rubbish to begin with. They could've just used either of the two as their pretexts for invading Poland, instead of going through the trouble of staging a false flag attack.

The policies the Germans pursued with regards to Poland certainly don't indicate any "Good relations". If there were, they would've surely tempered the occupation Policies. Their treatment of the Poles was barely better than the way they treated the Jews. In fact, the former often felt that after the Nazis finished the Jews, they would be next.


There are some good books that deal with this but I'd recommend Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands," and Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, the second part that deals with events from 1936-1945. Another good book is Mark Mazowar's "Hitler's Empire," it also deals with Weimar's relationship with Poland.

Look at Hitler's foreign policy moves starting when he came to power. Traditionally the Weimar Republic had poor relations with Poland but very good relations with the USSR. Hitler flipped that on its head when he became Chancellor. Hitler cultivated a relationship with Poland and ended contact with the USSR. To Hitler, an Austrian, the Poles seemed like less of a threat than the USSR. He did not share the typical Prussian prejudice towards the Poles and the Polish government had many things in common with National Socialism. It was anti-Communist and anti-Semetic, two things that made a relationship possible.

One of the first treaties the Nazis signed was with the Poles, the Non-Aggression Pact in 1934. This signaled the thaw. The Germans and Poles drew closer economically and Goering continued to probe Polish feelings towards a joint German-Polish action against the Soviets during the mid1930's. This never went anywhere, the Poles continued to straddle the fence between the USSR and Germans, but from what I've read Hitler continued to hope for an accomodation in which the Poles would return former German lands in return for Soviet lands at the conclusion of a war with the Soviets.

The relationship only soured in the Spring of 1939 when the Poles refused to negotiate over the Corrider and Danzig. It also angered Hitler that the Poles turned to the British (and French) for protection.

As to why the Germans were so harsh, I think it has to do with Hitler's desire for revenge over the Polish "betrayal," the fact that the Poles actually fought back, causing German casualties, German desire to exploit Polish lands economically and the fact that the Germans considered the Poles to be completely backwards. You can compare what happened in Czechoslovakia to what happened in Poland. The Germans conquered the Czechs without firing a shot, consequently German policy was much more lenient (though still harsh). The Poles fought back and Hitler blamed them for dragging the British and French in.


Sorry if that was a bit long-winded but I wanted to give you a thorough answer.


Oh no, it's very much appreciated. A lot better than the crap we've been getting from Rizoli. :D

The way I see it, though, is that Nazi Racism against Poles totally rules out any sort of "good relations". The most you can say is that any such gestures like the Non-aggression pact you mentioned are just smokescreens to distract from much more sinister plans. Case in point: the Nazis also signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR and in fact cooperated with the latter in the Invasion of Poland. I've read "Hitler's empire", too, and it's suggested there that the SS and the NKVD cooperated in decapitating the Polish leadership class. I don't think anyone would use that to suggest that Hitler and Stalin were BFFs and that the sheer brutality of the German invasion of Russia was just something that came out spontaneously, instead of something that was pre-planned and based on Nazi Racial ideology.

I'd rather compare the occupation of Poland with the German occupation of France. As harsh as it was, Vichy France still maintained some measure of autonomy. Compare this to the constant massacres, systematic plunder and deportations that the Germans put the Poles through. I'd say that Hitler had more, much more beef with the French than he did with the Poles, and yet the Nazis treated the Poles far more harshly than they did the French.

One of the best things I love about Hitler's Empire is how the author compares Nazi Policy in Eastern Europe to the Japanese Policy in Asia. The Japanese had the sense to cast themselves as "Asians liberating other Asians from Western Colonialism" and formed strong alliances with Nationalist movements. In contrast, the Nazis failed to sufficiently exploit anti-communist feelings in Eastern Europe, which led to most of Eastern Europe turning against them eventually. It doesn't look like Hitler and co. really cared if Poland's government was "anti-communist"; at the end of the day, they were just Slavs to be enslaved and robbed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 1:41 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Invasion of Poland

Good background summary of the events but my quick read did not catch any reasons why.

My own simple minded residue from what I've read is simply: Hitler wanted to. He wanted to build a 1000 year Third Reich. Some kind of manifestation of being upset Germany lost the First War and he wanted to prove/establish its greatness. Everything else is a secondary justification.

Truly a case where One Man "makes" history.....kinda makes you yearn for the ineffectiveness of commitees?

The link says Hitler was confident the Allies would not react to the invasion and continue its reaction of appeasement and that this was a "gross miscalculation" (sic--whatever as I can't find the exact wording) but that he was "concerned" about Russia. Well...I think worrying about the Allies was a judgment call and that worry about Russia was the right balance..."IF" one is bent on world domination.

Smart: think more like the Chinese and allow World Conquest to develop over several generations. Hitler was too impatient. I still think "the biggest mystery" of the War, or the biggest miscalculation was Hitlers decision to invade Russia...even if he had won it would have been problematic. Another One Man decision that made History.

Its a good model for Trump. Ego driving initial success but ultimately driving failure.

Just Look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Denying-History » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:I don't know where "main" came into play.

It clarifies what the statement "Why Hitler Invaded Poland" is about. Not all the various and extended issues but in the context of the theory of causation the "but/for" analysis.

As to "the definition" of the Holocaust linked by Pyrrho, to me it just fails to set forth a definition. What it does is set forth a time period. Persecution is not the same thing as murder. I think that is a fatal ambiguity disqualifying it as helpful. Now....I'm flexible enough to use it if that is the desire.

In my view, the Holocaust is not unique because of persecution....not even murder...but rather the systematic "industrialized" murder of the Jews. And "by definition" that doesn't start until "industry" gets involved: ie ... camps. Extermination camps. And those weren't on the scene in the early 1930's. Again..."led to" is not the same thing as causation.

Pros and cons to all we do. Pros and Cons to any definition used. Thing I like to do: analyse a fact pattern using ALL the definitions and see what kind of recognitions/values are achieved. I like the ones that keep the Holocaust/Shoah/Final Solution as unique and stark in human history as I believe it was.

Hmmm...typing the above....I was reminded of Stalin starving to death the millions that he did. More than 6 Million I believe...but not the stark horror of the Holocaust because it was not industrialized and camp driven. Whats more important? Gross numbers killed, technique of killing, group affiliation of those killed....each definition will highlight its own given aspect.

Using all definitions...Pros and Cons. does take more time?


Bobbo.... You seem rather confused. Definitions of the holocaust vary. What exactly the invasion of Poland has to do with it, I'm not sure. Hitler started the Holocaust and the invasion of Poland. For some weird reason it seems both scrm and you have focused on it but scrm has explained the invasion of Poland is outside his expertise.

The definition of the holocaust is mostly the sole destruction of the European Jews. Some times it not. While the holocaust might be 'unique' it's quite far from the only industrialized Genocide. One could argue that other nations in the past were able to pull such a thing off.

Exactly what you mean by pro's and con's? A definition is a definition.... It's just who ever you accept as a victim.

Less people died in the holodomor then in the holocaust... The holodomor from the latest estimates that I have seen only killed 2.5 million. The Goloshchekin genocide only kill 1.3 million Kazakhs. That's a total of 3.8 million.... Though mind this is on the Lower end of things... Some people estimate he killed 7 million in Ukraine, but I am unsure of the accuracy of that estimate.

Might you explain your pro con system?
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:46 pm

Denying-History wrote:Bobbo.... You seem rather confused. Definitions of the holocaust vary. What exactly the invasion of Poland has to do with it, I'm not sure.
We agree. this thread was moved from some other sub forum to this one in the judgment that Hitlers Invasion of Poland is part of Holocaust Denial. As you note: its definitional. As I note: with all its attendant pros and cons.
xxxx

Denying-History wrote:For some weird reason it seems both scrm and you have focused on it but scrm has explained the invasion of Poland is outside his expertise.
Well....its certainly outside my own expertise as well...I just think the issue on point is so basic that not much expertise is needed. but people tend to dig into their positions rather than deal with the pros and the cons.

xxx
Denying-History wrote:The definition of the holocaust is mostly the sole destruction of the European Jews. Some times it not. While the holocaust might be 'unique' it's quite far from the only industrialized Genocide. One could argue that other nations in the past were able to pull such a thing off.
Well...educate me, as I don't think so. "The industrial extermination of an identified group." Where else/when has THAT happened?

xxx

Denying-History wrote:Might you explain your pro con system?
Its not a system as much as a simple recognition that when people make any choice they tend to thereafter ignore the negatives of their choice and the positives of other choices. Contemplate that for awhile and its more likely one will come to seek the blended solutions. Perhaps most stark and easy to demonstrate in debates about whether or not socialism is bad or good compared to capitalism as bad or good. Given there are pros and cons to all positions taken...the better position is the blend where ideological purity is given up in favor of........... wait for it.......... pragmatism. Not too subtle: the blended position has pros and cons as well in comparison to other blended positions. so..a non purist pragmatic person will: rinse and repeat.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby NathanC » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Denying-History wrote:The definition of the holocaust is mostly the sole destruction of the European Jews. Some times it not. While the holocaust might be 'unique' it's quite far from the only industrialized Genocide. One could argue that other nations in the past were able to pull such a thing off.
Well...educate me, as I don't think so. "The industrial extermination of an identified group." Where else/when has THAT happened?

blended positions. so..a non purist pragmatic person will: rinse and repeat.


Why do we call the Holocaust "Industrialized" again? By far, about only half or less of the Jewish victims died via Homicidal Gassings, whether at Auschwitz, the Reinhard Camps or by Gas vans. And even then, in the case of AR it can hardly be termed "industrial" since it was very inefficient. IIRC at Treblinka a sizable percentage of the victims died by suffocating in overcrowded train cars, because Treblinka's gas chambers couldn't process them fast enough. The other half of the victims died via the non "industrial" methods of shooting, overwork or starvation and disease in ghettoes.

The Nazis' other victims also died mostly by shooting or Starvation. The most infamous case being Leningrad. Nothing "industrial" about it; just the Germans laying siege to the city and starving its inhabitants to death.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:17 pm

NathanC wrote:Why do we call the Holocaust "Industrialized" again?

We don't. I did. Happy to use any other term. It does have descriptive power., don't ya think?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:33 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Bobbo.... You seem rather confused. Definitions of the holocaust vary. What exactly the invasion of Poland has to do with it, I'm not sure.
We agree. this thread was moved from some other sub forum to this one in the judgment that Hitlers Invasion of Poland is part of Holocaust Denial. As you note: its definitional. As I note: with all its attendant pros and cons...

I find what I bolded a bit misleading, bobbo. It seems you ignored the second sentence of the reason you were given for its move: "The Nazi invasion of Poland took place 6 years into the Holocaust era. Apologetics and revisionism on behalf of the Nazis is just holocaust denial wearing a different mask." viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27083#p526989


Ding Dong posting a topic like this one in the History subforum as he did (and especially after his earlier attempts to spill HD onto the main board) is utterly transparent and justifies its removal from there to here.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:47 pm

scrmbldggs wrote: It seems you ignored the second sentence of the reason for its move: "The Nazi invasion of Poland took place 6 years into the Holocaust era.
My memory is that I directly disagreed that "the Holocaust" could be taken back into the 30's which includes the 1939 Invasion of Poland. The Nazi's were repressing and persecuting "everyone." If you define the Holocaust as everything Germany did from 1933 to 1945 I think you are missing the benefit of fine surgical analysis by using a dump truck.

scrmbldggs wrote: Apologetics and revisionism on behalf of the Nazis is just holocaust denial wearing a different mask.
I agree with that statement as a generality....but was the Invasion of Poland "by definition" apologetics and revisionism and holocaust denial? I simply don't see how. It might "lead to" such activities...but thats not the same thing at all. I would say it was if Hitler had told the world he was invading Poland to save the Jews? Nothing like that was ever uttered....to my uninformed self. Hitler invaded Poland to .... I don't know....what was it? coal? oil? I've said to establish the Third Reich.

scrmbldggs wrote: Ding Ding posting a topic like this one in the History subforum as he did (and especially after his earlier attempts to spill HD onto the main board) is utterly transparent and justifies its removal from there to here.
Not in my mind. I think having a hitler avatar and posting baseless allegations with only a rare off point defense of same is grounds to be banned/frozen....so...if everything the Rizoli Cabal posts is moved to HD....thats ok with me. Why not move it to the nutter sub forum?

Why did Hitler Invade Poland?===>has nothing to do with the Holocaust or HD. It might rapidly devolve there....but that is a different issue. I mean.....we don't want to prejudge people like that do we? How they gonna improve if we keep them categorized according to past actions? Every new post is a chance to pull your head out of your ass. Messy, but still possible.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19757
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote: It seems you ignored the second sentence of the reason for its move: "The Nazi invasion of Poland took place 6 years into the Holocaust era.
My memory is that I directly disagreed that "the Holocaust" could be taken back into the 30's which includes the 1939 Invasion of Poland. The Nazi's were repressing and persecuting "everyone." If you define the Holocaust as everything Germany did from 1933 to 1945 I think you are missing the benefit of fine surgical analysis by using a dump truck.

scrmbldggs wrote: Apologetics and revisionism on behalf of the Nazis is just holocaust denial wearing a different mask.
I agree with that statement as a generality....but was the Invasion of Poland "by definition" apologetics and revisionism and holocaust denial? I simply don't see how. It might "lead to" such activities...but thats not the same thing at all. I would say it was if Hitler had told the world he was invading Poland to save the Jews? Nothing like that was ever uttered....to my uninformed self. Hitler invaded Poland to .... I don't know....what was it? coal? oil? I've said to establish the Third Reich.

scrmbldggs wrote: Ding Ding posting a topic like this one in the History subforum as he did (and especially after his earlier attempts to spill HD onto the main board) is utterly transparent and justifies its removal from there to here.
Not in my mind. I think having a hitler avatar and posting baseless allegations with only a rare off point defense of same is grounds to be banned/frozen....so...if everything the Rizoli Cabal posts is moved to HD....thats ok with me. Why not move it to the nutter sub forum?

Why did Hitler Invade Poland?===>has nothing to do with the Holocaust or HD. It might rapidly devolve there....but that is a different issue. I mean.....we don't want to prejudge people like that do we? How they gonna improve if we keep them categorized according to past actions? Every new post is a chance to pull your head out of your ass. Messy, but still possible.

You haven't followed the link he posted?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6412
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:15 pm

NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
NathanC wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:This didn't prevent the Germans and Poles from having a good relationship from 1933-1939, relations were worse during the Weimar Republic. Weimar made a bigger deal about Germans in Poland. Hitler did not. Hitler wanted the Poles as possible allies in his move against the Soviets and, as an Austrian, did not have the same prejudices against the Poles as the Prussians did (he had a bigger beef with the Czechs). Hitler wanted the Poles to give back former German territory in exchange for Soviet territory.

His feelings only changed after the Poles refused to budge over Danzig and giving him rights in the Corridor. There was nary a peep about Polish "atrocities" until the Spring and Summer of 1939.


Jeff,

You've made some interesting statements and I would like to know more. Rizoli is a liar and a sick freak, so I'm going to ignore him even if he responds to my questions.

About the whole Danzig thing, the evidence shows that German intentions had nothing to do with it at all. It doesn't get any clearer than the notes taken by Lt. Col Schmundt during a meeting of the General staff at May of 1939, just months before the invasion of Poland.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schm ... hmundt.php

The Pole is not an additional enemy. Poland will always be on the side of our enemies. Despite the friendship treaty there has always been the intention in Poland to use any chance against us.

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

In Europe there is no other possibility.


I honestly think even the Germans knew that "Danzig" and Rizoli's crap about "atrocities against ethnic Germans" were rubbish to begin with. They could've just used either of the two as their pretexts for invading Poland, instead of going through the trouble of staging a false flag attack.

The policies the Germans pursued with regards to Poland certainly don't indicate any "Good relations". If there were, they would've surely tempered the occupation Policies. Their treatment of the Poles was barely better than the way they treated the Jews. In fact, the former often felt that after the Nazis finished the Jews, they would be next.


There are some good books that deal with this but I'd recommend Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands," and Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, the second part that deals with events from 1936-1945. Another good book is Mark Mazowar's "Hitler's Empire," it also deals with Weimar's relationship with Poland.

Look at Hitler's foreign policy moves starting when he came to power. Traditionally the Weimar Republic had poor relations with Poland but very good relations with the USSR. Hitler flipped that on its head when he became Chancellor. Hitler cultivated a relationship with Poland and ended contact with the USSR. To Hitler, an Austrian, the Poles seemed like less of a threat than the USSR. He did not share the typical Prussian prejudice towards the Poles and the Polish government had many things in common with National Socialism. It was anti-Communist and anti-Semetic, two things that made a relationship possible.

One of the first treaties the Nazis signed was with the Poles, the Non-Aggression Pact in 1934. This signaled the thaw. The Germans and Poles drew closer economically and Goering continued to probe Polish feelings towards a joint German-Polish action against the Soviets during the mid1930's. This never went anywhere, the Poles continued to straddle the fence between the USSR and Germans, but from what I've read Hitler continued to hope for an accomodation in which the Poles would return former German lands in return for Soviet lands at the conclusion of a war with the Soviets.

The relationship only soured in the Spring of 1939 when the Poles refused to negotiate over the Corrider and Danzig. It also angered Hitler that the Poles turned to the British (and French) for protection.

As to why the Germans were so harsh, I think it has to do with Hitler's desire for revenge over the Polish "betrayal," the fact that the Poles actually fought back, causing German casualties, German desire to exploit Polish lands economically and the fact that the Germans considered the Poles to be completely backwards. You can compare what happened in Czechoslovakia to what happened in Poland. The Germans conquered the Czechs without firing a shot, consequently German policy was much more lenient (though still harsh). The Poles fought back and Hitler blamed them for dragging the British and French in.


Sorry if that was a bit long-winded but I wanted to give you a thorough answer.


Oh no, it's very much appreciated. A lot better than the crap we've been getting from Rizoli. :D

The way I see it, though, is that Nazi Racism against Poles totally rules out any sort of "good relations". The most you can say is that any such gestures like the Non-aggression pact you mentioned are just smokescreens to distract from much more sinister plans. Case in point: the Nazis also signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR and in fact cooperated with the latter in the Invasion of Poland. I've read "Hitler's empire", too, and it's suggested there that the SS and the NKVD cooperated in decapitating the Polish leadership class. I don't think anyone would use that to suggest that Hitler and Stalin were BFFs and that the sheer brutality of the German invasion of Russia was just something that came out spontaneously, instead of something that was pre-planned and based on Nazi Racial ideology.

I'd rather compare the occupation of Poland with the German occupation of France. As harsh as it was, Vichy France still maintained some measure of autonomy. Compare this to the constant massacres, systematic plunder and deportations that the Germans put the Poles through. I'd say that Hitler had more, much more beef with the French than he did with the Poles, and yet the Nazis treated the Poles far more harshly than they did the French.

One of the best things I love about Hitler's Empire is how the author compares Nazi Policy in Eastern Europe to the Japanese Policy in Asia. The Japanese had the sense to cast themselves as "Asians liberating other Asians from Western Colonialism" and formed strong alliances with Nationalist movements. In contrast, the Nazis failed to sufficiently exploit anti-communist feelings in Eastern Europe, which led to most of Eastern Europe turning against them eventually. It doesn't look like Hitler and co. really cared if Poland's government was "anti-communist"; at the end of the day, they were just Slavs to be enslaved and robbed.



Thanks for your input, Nathan.

Certainly this is open to interpretation. I do suggest the other books I mentioned, Snyder's book is very good and Kershaw's biography of Hitler is a classic (make sure you read the two part version, there is a re-edited one volume but I understand it is very watered down).

I enjoy the conversation, I'll see if there are any on-line materials as well.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11030
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:25 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:You haven't followed the link he posted?
You've lost me. I directly DISAGREED with it on several points. What makes you suggest otherwise? I'm curious. do you think no one can disagree if they read it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Why Hitler invaded Poland

Postby Denying-History » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:36 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Bobbo.... You seem rather confused. Definitions of the holocaust vary. What exactly the invasion of Poland has to do with it, I'm not sure.
We agree. this thread was moved from some other sub forum to this one in the judgment that Hitlers Invasion of Poland is part of Holocaust Denial. As you note: its definitional. As I note: with all its attendant pros and cons.
xxxx

Denying-History wrote:For some weird reason it seems both scrm and you have focused on it but scrm has explained the invasion of Poland is outside his expertise.
Well....its certainly outside my own expertise as well...I just think the issue on point is so basic that not much expertise is needed. but people tend to dig into their positions rather than deal with the pros and the cons.

xxx
Denying-History wrote:The definition of the holocaust is mostly the sole destruction of the European Jews. Some times it not. While the holocaust might be 'unique' it's quite far from the only industrialized Genocide. One could argue that other nations in the past were able to pull such a thing off.
Well...educate me, as I don't think so. "The industrial extermination of an identified group." Where else/when has THAT happened?

xxx

Denying-History wrote:Might you explain your pro con system?
Its not a system as much as a simple recognition that when people make any choice they tend to thereafter ignore the negatives of their choice and the positives of other choices. Contemplate that for awhile and its more likely one will come to seek the blended solutions. Perhaps most stark and easy to demonstrate in debates about whether or not socialism is bad or good compared to capitalism as bad or good. Given there are pros and cons to all positions taken...the better position is the blend where ideological purity is given up in favor of........... wait for it.......... pragmatism. Not too subtle: the blended position has pros and cons as well in comparison to other blended positions. so..a non purist pragmatic person will: rinse and repeat.


1) that is rather Dishonest... I never said that or even implied it. Again this Pro - Con thing.... It doesn't make sense...

2) then why post on it?

3) Read up on the Circassian genocide... It was back in the 1800's and the Russians were well industrialized. I never said that the event was 100% like the holocaust, but it's not like state funded murder close to the Holodcaust existed.

The Ottoman Empire killed Armenians. They used similar methods to the Germans, though the death camps they had didn't murder people in gas chamber. Industrial muder is fully capable by any nation.

4) that method doesn't appear to have much of a meaning. It might just be that I haved the time to really look into it at the moment...
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trendiction [Bot] and 1 guest