facts you wont find on the History Channel

[phylo_roadking]

completely irrelevent. How about wrongly expelled property owner wants his house back. current occupants refuse to give back what they wrongfully took peacefully, so property owner calls his blackbelt qualified big brother, who beats the living shite out of occupier/thieves. now thats a more fitting scenario.

How about expelled property owner wants his house back, taken off him by community restorative justice. And - right or wrong - confirmed by agreement with ALL parties (they didn't HAVE to sign Versailles....they DID walk out until forced back to the table - and in the end what they suffered for various reasons AFTER Versailles was FAR worse than the depredations of the Allied Blockade would have been in peacetime) Current occupants refuse to give back what they took and what was given to them, so property owner calls his blackbelt qualified big brother, who beats the living shite out of occupier/thieves...who have protection. Turf war ensues - but the party that started first with limited views of what a war would take to win...lost. Given that their clarity of vision was impaired by the red mist.

gee, think you'll get honest, informed, factual answers there?

Doesn't matter if Czech answers are right or wrong...as long as they're Czech answers. And correct to them in the context of THEIR national determination.

[Njorl]

well...if you cant stick to facts and want to argue only "what if" scenarios, then I suggest reading sci-fi type novels instead of studying history.

I have no problems with facts - I simply find Mr Buchanan's article weak.

As I see this, he takes simple approach, that had III Reich got Danzig and railway line through Corridor, they would have stopped at that point and push no further. What makes him think so? Especially knowing such cases as Saarland, Anshluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Memel. Something would have to happen after receivng Danzig and ex-territorial railway-line - that's why I'm interested in what-if sci-fi scenarios. IMO Mr Buchanan probably sees empty space here as he, IMO, did not care to think of what would have happened instead.

He also writes that Hitler was out on a limb with Danzig and could not crawl back. He does not explain grounds for this inability, but he writes that Hitler did not want war...

I'm more interested in objective truths, not the ethno-nationalist bullheaded pride so common to Poles and Russians who can never quite find anything at fault with their own countries.

Completely irrelevant, but good for you.

I'm not interested in your opinions on "Czech happiness" - I'd rather ask Czechs themselves.

gee, think you'll get honest, informed, factual answers there?

Aha, so you if you wanted to know what the Americans think of eg. war in Vietnam, then you would ask the Brazilians, right?

completely irrelevent. How about wrongly expelled property owner wants his house back. current occupants refuse to give back what they wrongfully took peacefully, so property owner calls his blackbelt qualified big brother, who beats the living shite out of occupier/thieves. now thats a more fitting scenario.

Wrongly expelled property owner, occupants wrongfully took... Adopting your way of thinking exactly the same thing as in Versailles happened during partitions of Poland, in late XVIII century.

Regards,
Michal Jungiewicz

[pzrmeyer2]

have no problems with facts - I simply find Mr Buchanan's article weak.

apparently, you do, as other than your finding his article "weak" through lack of crystal ball what-if scenarios, you wont acknowledge the sourced facts of the case he presents.

[that had III Reich got Danzig and railway line through Corridor, they would have stopped at that point and push no further. What makes him think so? Especially knowing such cases as Saarland, Anshluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Memel. Something would have to happen after receivng Danzig and ex-territorial railway-line - that's why I'm interested in what-if sci-fi scenarios. IMO Mr Buchanan probably sees empty space here as he, IMO, did not care to think of what would have happened instead.

how do you know he wouldnt have? how do you know that perhaps if he didnt stop, and focused his energies soley on the Soviet Union, that 50 million people may not have had to die? Or if some had to, it would be Germans and Russsians, not Poles, Danes, Brits, Americans, French, Belgians, Yugos, Dutch, etc etc?
All of the conquests, peaceful or otherwise, that you mentioned involved ethnic Germans, the majority of whom, if their feelings for self-determination were considered, were happy to be "conquered" by Hitler. The only area that didnt solely involve Germans were the Czech lands, and as I maintain, whatever their thoughts today after 60 years of propaganda, they didnt fare too poorly back under German rule.

pzrmeyer2 wrote:
I'm more interested in objective truths, not the ethno-nationalist bullheaded pride so common to Poles and Russians who can never quite find anything at fault with their own countries.
Completely irrelevant, but good for you.

actually quite relevent. It is typically a waste of time debating history with those folks becuase nearly all of you have ethnic blinders which fail to acknowlege any point of view which differs from their own pride- and emotion- filled ones.

Wrongly expelled property owner, occupants wrongfully took... Adopting your way of thinking exactly the same thing as in Versailles happened during partitions of Poland, in late XVIII century.

[/quote]

sorry, old boy.. Danzig has always had a German majority. Whether under Poish rule or not. Any claim that the modern city 0f 1919 or 1939 was Polish in any way or resembled the huts and shacks that might have been there in 1600 or 1700 is akin to a modern Mexican claiming San Diego as a Mexican city becasue a few Spaniards once operated a mission there. 5% at most were Polish. That and the Post office....

[phylo_roadking]

that had III Reich got Danzig and railway line through Corridor, they would have stopped at that point and push no further. What makes him think so? Especially knowing such cases as Saarland, Anshluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Memel. Something would have to happen after receivng Danzig and ex-territorial railway-line ....

how do you know he wouldnt have?

Hitler wouldn't have stopped; it would have had the same effect as Czechoslovakia - given him a precedent to follow the "return" of the Danzig Corridor with a demand from the "return" to Germany of all areas of Eastern Poland with a German majority in the population. Meanwhile Poland would have lost any authority to refuse him in the eyes of the International Community (of potential allies) by surrendering the Corridor. Poland would have been nibbled away in three or four subsequent demands/consessions/crises under one pretext or another...to the point it wasn't able to support its relatively-large army, had lost important conscription areas, and it's Eastern fixed defenses and defensible terrain features.

[pzrmeyer2]

Hitler wouldn't have stopped; it would have had the same effect as Czechoslovakia - given him a precedent to follow the "return" of the Danzig Corridor with a demand from the "return" to Germany of all areas of Eastern Poland with a German majority in the population. Meanwhile Poland would have lost any authority to refuse him in the eyes of the International Community (of potential allies) by surrendering the Corridor. Poland would have been nibbled away in three or four subsequent demands/consessions/crises under one pretext or another...to the point it wasn't able to support its relatively-large army, had lost important conscription areas, and it's Eastern fixed defenses and defensible terrain features.

perhaps, but Hitler never did make demands at that time for ethnic Germans who lived outside the old Reich borders. Lodz/Litzmannstadt for example. Those Volksdeutche never lived under the German or Austrian empires, were not razzed by the Poles and were content to live under Polish rule. If you beleive he would have continued, then perhaps he would have asked for Alsace or Eupen or North Schleswig or South Tyrol or the colonies ir more "legitmate" territorial claims, yet he didnt. Futhermore, Im not sure he would have wanted a buffer Poland that weak between himself and the USSR. As late as Spring/early summer 39 he was still courting Poland as an ally against the Bolsheviks.

[phylo_roadking]

but Hitler never did make demands at that time for ethnic Germans who lived outside the old Reich borders.

That's an anachronistic argument. The old Reich was no more, its borders had changed inperpetuity by the Versailles treaty - which the government of Germany signed. In international law it doesn't matter how bad grace it was signed with. The map of Europe as it stood in 1920 onwards was the context, not the map of Europe pre-ink on the paper in the Mirror Gallery at Versailles in 1919.

If you beleive he would have continued, then perhaps he would have asked for Alsace or Eupen or North Schleswig or South Tyrol or the colonies ir more "legitmate" territorial claims, yet he didnt.

And in three of those occasions would have ended up at war with either France or Denmark. "Legitimate" is correctly in parenthesis - for the said claims were not. Nor any claim that involved the forced transfer of national sovereignty over a portion of a nation's terriory or population, no matter their ethnic origin.

In the 1930's for example, would the U.S. have accepted a claim by Mussolini that the Lower East Side was Italian because of the ethnic origin of Little Italy???

If anything - world history had far more of a custom behind the PURCHASE of territory than imposing pressure for its transfer outside of transfer by conquering or ceding by warfare/invasion. Approximately a third of the United States is, by Buchanan's logic - the rightful territory if the French Fifth Republic

[panzermahn]

Actually, Stalin was courting GERMANY since Munich...

Because Uncle Iosif wanted to buy time for Soviet Union and was hoping Germany and Britain (as well as the French) bled themselves dry before the Bolsheviks unleashed their steamroller juggernaut across Europe. It is a common myth in WW2 that Soviets were outnumbered by those fascists beasts and their allies during Barbarossa

Buchanan's book argues that World War II was unneccessary and against the interests of the United States

WW2 might be morally necessary war, but politically it isn't. FDR wanted to join the war in Europe so much but knowing the American people wanted war last, he had to find some back door to enter the war. Also, FDR knew his "New Deal" failed while Uncle Adi's autarky for Germany succeeded. The only way America needs to get out of the economic slump was to get itself in a war in order to get its economy moving.

But if you could show me all those repeated examples of Hitler negotiating and the Poles rebuffing him, forcing poor Dolfie into negotiating with the Commies, then we might have room for discussion.

see Ribbentrop's offer to Lipski, 24 Oct 38. See Hitler's meeting with Jozef Beck, 5 Jan 39 for starters

Poland under Marshal Pilsudski was willing to negotiate with Germany and it is known that Hitler respected this Marshal who believed that Uncle Iosif and his Bolshevik gang were the greater threat to Poland rather than Germany. Unfortunately the early demise of Marshal Pilsudski and his replacement, Marshal Smigly-Rydz was arrogant enough to rebuff Germany and led Poland to defeat when the Germans attacked to regain their rights.

What makes you so sure they would not have been invaded by Italy and/or III Reich? After all III Reich did invade Yugoslavia.

Because of British agitpop as well as provokatsiya in forcing the Yugoslavia's Prince Paul to abdicate when Prince Paul signed an alliance with Germany. Hitler never had any intention to invade Yugoslavia until the British helped the pro-British Yugoslav generals to launch a coup against Prince Paul

If he really was only after Danzig and ex-territorial line across The Corridor why did he conquer all Poland and strike a deal with the Soviets?

Because Mr. Chamberlain so blatantly gave Poland a military guarantee where the majority Britons doesn't even know where Danzig is. The final result is 50 million dead and the British Empire crumbled to dusts. However Mr. Chamberlain doesn't seem fit to give the Finns any military guarantee to avoid the Bolsheviks invading Finland.

Hitler wouldn't have stopped; it would have had the same effect as Czechoslovakia - given him a precedent to follow the "return" of the Danzig Corridor with a demand from the "return" to Germany of all areas of Eastern Poland with a German majority in the population. Meanwhile Poland would have lost any authority to refuse him in the eyes of the International Community (of potential allies) by surrendering the Corridor. Poland would have been nibbled away in three or four subsequent demands/consessions/crises under one pretext or another...to the point it wasn't able to support its relatively-large army, had lost important conscription areas, and it's Eastern fixed defenses and defensible terrain features.

If I am not mistaken, Poland also annexed certain Czech lands at the south after the disintegration of Czechoslovakia. Mind you, Poland herself were involved in much agitprop and provokatsiya during the Silesian Uprisings against Weimar Germany in the 1920s

[Pirx]

Poland under Marshal Pilsudski was willing to negotiate with Germany and it is known that Hitler respected this Marshal who believed that Uncle Iosif and his Bolshevik gang were the greater threat to Poland rather than Germany. Unfortunately the early demise of Marshal Pilsudski and his replacement, Marshal Smigly-Rydz was arrogant enough to rebuff Germany and led Poland to defeat when the Germans attacked to regain their rights.

Well, unfortunatelly for Poland Rydz-Smigly didnt change forreign policy after Pilsudski death. In fact in 1939 was foreign affairs were still the same like in 1932, no matter that Europe was different. Both marshalls saw Germany and USSR as equal threat, but in 1932 German army wasn't dangerous.
In other hand German politics change much, but Polish dont so it may looks like Pilsudski was closer for Germans than Rydz-Smigly.

Because Mr. Chamberlain so blatantly gave Poland a military guarantee where the majority Britons doesn't even know where Danzig is. The final result is 50 million dead and the British Empire crumbled to dusts

WWII was not for Danzig, Poland, or Czechoslovakia, like assassination of duke Ferdinand wasnt reason of WWI. Nazis and communists tried built new empire, UK and France save their own. If only Danzig was reason Hitler could simply enter to the city where was no army and wait for Allies what they will do.

Poles wernt sure what Hitler really wants, and how France and UK will react. Polish HQ knew that they can resist invasion maximum 3 months. That was time for allies. But war and armed forces are only part of policy. So Polish units were deployed so close to borders, that only military aggresion gives Hitler chace to take control over upper Silesia, or Corridor. Generals and polititians agreed in 1939 that if they deploy armies in much better Vistula-San defensive line, Germans could simply enter to Katowice, Poznan and Bydgoszcz, and announce that noone defend those areas. It could ends with another conference. If Poles wouldnt fight for those lands why British of French should? They played vabanque.
In other hand Poles tried hold status quo with USSR, so they cleary refused to join to Nazi against USSR.