|
|
Sowing the Seeds: Powder Keg on the Baltic
Almost 70 years ago, thick storm clouds were gathering over Europe. Clouds which were not only Wehrmacht grey, however. French negotiators were trying to convince Poland to allow the Soviet army to march through for an attack on Germany. ‘World War II was the inevitable result of Versailles’ is a fairly widespread meme that the tenders of the Multicult have allowed to survive. Another common meme is that Germany, without justification, invaded Poland in 1939, forcing the Good War upon the Western (and eventually, Bolshevik) powers. These memes would seem to contradict one another. How could it be without justification and yet have been inevitable? Is it because Germans are just that nasty and vengeful? Of course, there are all sorts of other memes to help reconcile the absurdity of such otherwise necessary assumptions. One of the few advantages of being demonized and marginalized is that it forces one to produce high quality work in order to gain whatever measure of respectability is still possible. This is particularly true in the highly charged anti-Nazi atmosphere poisoning the German biosphere, where every Gutmensch has his Mjöllnir ready to fire with righteous lightning on anyone who says the wrong thing about National Socialism and the events of World War II (details or otherwise). One such producer of high quality work is General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof. His book ‘Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte’ (The War With Many Father) has sold (as of 2007) over 30,000 copies and is in its 6th edition. Much of the information contained in his book is also available on his website (unfortunately, only in German). In the run-up to the 70th anniversary of the start of the war, he has been writing a series of essays in Junge Freiheit, a ‘New Right’ weekly paper in Germany. Although I suspect much of what he says is well known by many here, I thought it would be interesting and worthwhile to provide a translation of these articles for those who are not as familiar with the background to the war. It might be a better conversation starter at the family BBQ than other aspects of the war which are often discussed in these circles. There are also historical lessons on the dangers of forcing different peoples into shared living space. World War II is not conceivable without the Allies’ negotiations after 1919 The Treaty of Versailles produced, along with many other difficulties, three results that would strain the relationship between Germany and Poland. Firstly, Danzig was separated from Germany and declared a partly sovereign state (the Free City of Danzig), despite the fact that 97% of the population was German-speaking [Rhonhof does not always think in racial/ethnic terms, but I would imagine that these were also ethnically German]. The mortgage, written by the victors into the founding document of the city, was that Poland was to be given custom, postal, rail, and trade privileges in Danzig, as well as being the international representative for the city. Apart from that, the city was to be the protectorate of the League of Nations, i.e. the victors themselves. The construction of a small state with tripartite sovereignty in itself was creating a powder keg.
Piling up causes for conflict The second problem was that West Prussia, whose population was at least 70% German, the province of Posen with another 30%, and Upper Silesia were taken from Germany and given to Poland. Two million Germans were thus, against their will, made into Polish citizens. The majority of them did not willingly accept their ‘reallocation’. They did not feel loyalty to their new rulers, and the Polish government, for its part, discriminated against and bullied these Germans. This act of the victors, to place people under the control of a foreign power, contradicted the postulated right to self-determination. The third strain in the German-Polish relationship also came about from the forced transfer of West Prussia to Poland. This created a Polish land barrier between the main part of Germany and the province of East Prussia (the ‘Polish Corridor’). The economy, and especially the energy supply of East Prussia was thus dependent on transport through Polish territory. In 1920 it was established by treaty that there would be eight rail connections to East Prussia for goods, people, and above all, coal from Upper Silesia. Transit costs were to be paid in Zlotny. Until the worldwide depression, this arrangement did not cause serious problem. Afterwards, however, it caused an increasingly heavy strain on the relationship. With these three substantial problems, the victors had piled up enough causes for conflict between the two countries that, without some form of amendment, a successful coexistence was almost impossible. No hope for a durable peace The politicians for the victorious powers quickly realized this too. The English Primer Minister, Lloyd George, prophesied disaster already at the Versailles conference, saying that the suggestion of the Polish commission, that 2.1 million Germans should be placed under the authority of a people that has not in the course of history showed that it understands how to rule itself, will sooner or later lead to a new war in eastern Europe. The American delegate to Versailles, William Bullitt, wrote from Paris to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 that the unjust decisions from the Versailles conference about Shantung, Tyrol, East Prussia, Danzig and the Saarland made new international conflicts a certainty. Pierre Laval, the French Premier, in two visits to the US in 1931 repeatedly described the Polish Corridor as a monstrosity and a deformity. On November 24th, 1932, Churchill described it even more explicitly in a speech to the House of Parliament: “If the British government really wishes to promote peace, then it should take the initiative and re-open the issues of Danzig and the Corridor while the victorious powers are as yet superior. If these matters are not resolved, there can be no hope for a lasting peace!” As war came nearer, Lord Lothian (later to be British ambassador to the US) in 1937 said: “Now if the principle of self-determination were applied on behalf of Germany in the way in which it was applied against her, it would mean the re-entry of Austria into Germany, the union of the Sudeten-Deutsch, Danzig and possibly Memel with Germany, and certain adjustments with Poland in Silesia and the Corridor.” The causes for a new war were already created by the victors in Versailles and were not remedied, long after the time to do so had passed and while they still had the power to do so. From 1933, the National Socialists would represent a new force which felt compelled to get rid of what all parties in Germany agreed was the monstrosity of Versailles.
I will be adding the remaining essays from the series into the comments section of this post. Posted by Dasein on Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 04:18 PM in History Comments:2
Posted by Svigor on August 05, 2009, 01:34 PM | # Dasein, could you delve more into why these conditions were intolerable? Any other stuff along these lines you wish to post would be welcome. 3
Posted by Dasein on August 05, 2009, 02:30 PM | # Svigor, the subsequent essays will go into more detail. I’m going to hopefully translate one every few days, the next one will be likely up tomorrow. 4
Posted by Dan Dare on August 05, 2009, 06:30 PM | # Any discussion about Danzig has to confront the question: Why did Hitler invade Poland in September 1939 when Danzig (and the Corridor) were his for the asking? All that would have been necessary was a little quite diplomacy to persuade the British to officially put the Danzig question outside the Anglo-Polish Guarantees, which they were clearly prepared to do. As AJP Taylor put it:
So why did Hitler go to war for something that was going to drop into his lap anyway? 5
Posted by Dasein on August 06, 2009, 03:20 AM | # Dan, the British, by giving Poland a blank check for defense in the event of a German attack, were partly responsible for Polish intransigence. Hitler offered, in 1938, to recognize the post-1920 Polish border in exchange for Danzig. There was certainly German aggression (Czechoslovakia) and Polish intransigence (Danzig) in the lead-up to the war. The Polish-German relationship will be discussed more in the upcoming essays. 6
Posted by Al Ross on August 06, 2009, 05:04 AM | # The inane British rush to Poland’s aid has been portrayed to the point of extreme tedium as a ” defence of democracy” in order to gull the ignorant. In 1939 Poland was run by an army junta who stupidly attempted to retain the outrageously punitive territorial gains awarded by the Versailles Treaty, itself an abomination which constituted the diametrical opposite of a just peace. 7
Posted by Al Ross on August 06, 2009, 05:41 AM | # Had the USA avoided the self - immolating folly of World War One , the Versailles Treaty would be a figment of the counter factual historian’s imagination. Sadly, even as long ago as 1917, it was too late to claim that White American’s were in charge of the country they thought was theirs. http://organon1m.blogspot.com/2009/03/jewish-defector-warns-america.html 9
Posted by jamesUK on August 06, 2009, 05:45 AM | # How come Majority Rights near talks about or mentions the Balkans wars during the 90’s which created a Nexus of international terrorism and organised crime throughout Europe and creation of a Islamic terrorist state in the heart of Europe Bosnia and mafia/terrorist/organised crime state in Kosovo which were aided, financed, trained, PR propaganda by the West and western intelligence as well as Arab countries? Why is Majority Rights being a gate keeper? 10
Posted by Al Ross on August 06, 2009, 06:00 AM | # Balkans Wars, eh? Well, let’s see if the Jewish crypsis - inspired names of those powerful ‘Americans’ Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright give you a clue, jamesUK. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on August 06, 2009, 07:04 AM | # James, Islamicisation is really, really NOT “the big problem”. It is a weapon wielded by others. You are, however, right that we do not give much attention to the Balkans. The last posting on the subject was this:- http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/karadzhi/ 12
Posted by HelenChicago on August 06, 2009, 11:59 AM | # Dan Dare—- You ask why the to-do over Danzig, and Dasein gives the correct short answer: Polish intransigence + foolish British guarantees. Coincidentally, I’m just finishing Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. It gives a first-rate overview of the run-up to WWII (including, of course, WWI and Versailles) and its outcome. Some would call it “revisionist.” Whatever. It’s an excellent antidote to the usual “greatest generation” pap and propaganda about that era and its key figures. 13
Posted by jamesUK on August 06, 2009, 05:48 PM | # @Guessedworker Agreed I don’t think Islamisation is a threat to the West which is as much a phoney threat as Communism was both of which were created to overthrow the order of geo-political rivals overseas seeing how both there major financial backers, international fighting brigades/mercenaries and even political influence operated freely with the assistance of foreign and domestic intelligence and security services in Western capitals. Surprised you haven’t looked into and researched the Balkans Those who talk about race and ethnic conflict always use this as an example. And this was the beginning and Nexus point of the NWO and proves without a shadow of a doubt that there is a NWO of media, military, intelligence and political control. Best site for all the info is Andy Wilcox http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org which includes reports from Milosevics political kangaroo show trail court in the Hague which backfired and showed US and western governments involvement terrorism and organised crime. @HelenChicago I bet he doesn’t expose the massive Jewish involvement in pushing for in the US with there massive influence in US media and government at that time and there connections to the Soviet Union like sponsoring anti-fascist conferences through Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) and anti-German war propaganda and the 1933 boycott on Germany by international Jewry. The America first party spoke out about Jewish influence in going to war. Marx and Jewish revolutionaries referenced Spartacus and the revolute against Rome. Was Spartacus a Jewish revolutionary leading an uprising against Rome? Churchill makes mention to Spartacus in his Illustrated Sunday Herald February 8, 1920 article Zionism vs Bolshevism as an outline of a history of Jewish movements to overthrow the existing order. “From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” 14
Posted by Captainchaos on August 06, 2009, 07:00 PM | #
James, out with it. Do you think we ought to preserve our race genetically or not? 15
Posted by Dan Dare on August 06, 2009, 07:23 PM | # @Dasein: I’m looking forward to the rest of the series and especially any new revelations about German-Polish relations in the preamble to hostilities breaking out. Please don’t take my comments here as being in any way critical of your efforts.
Well, if duelling revisionists is where it’s at, I’ll see your Buchanan and raise you an Irving. From Hitler’s War, p. 201:
So we see that even Irving is confirms that the British were on-side regarding the return of Danzig, and that Hitler had already moved beyond a diplomatic solution to the Polish Question by this point. Not surprising really, since he had issued the order for Fall Weiß to commence that very morning at the Berghof. The inescapable conclusion is that Hitler wanted war, not peace, which is obvious really since there was no conceivable peaceful or diplomatic avenue that could lead to the real strategic goal: an empire based on Lebensraum in the East. Invading and occupying Poland was to be just the first initial in that process, for which Danzig merely provided a convenient pretext. If Danzig was the real objective, there was no need for war. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 06, 2009, 08:48 PM | # CC, I believe he’s already said fairly directly, in so many words, he does not care about race. I don’t have a citation at hand. James (who says he’s a full-blooded Scot posting from Scotland) is what GW calls a “culturalist.” For him race ranks way down there in importance, exactly as it does for The Monitor. If I’m wrong about him, let him deny it in no uncertain terms. I don’t think he will. 17
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 06, 2009, 09:11 PM | # Only inescapable if Polish recalcitrance is ignored. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/diversity_and_moral_transformation/#c70305 http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/diversity_and_moral_transformation/#c70306 http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/diversity_and_moral_transformation/#c70307 18
Posted by Dan Dare on August 06, 2009, 09:33 PM | # If the Germans got Danzig back (and unimpeded access through the corridor) why should they give a fig about Polish recalcitrance? 19
Posted by Frank on August 06, 2009, 10:10 PM | # Fred Scrooby, The Monitor is likely no more a culturalist than is John Marshall. Both put race below Christ, but that does not make them culturalists. No where will you find The Monitor pretending blacks can become whites if only culture is adopted, and even more so John Marshall and other kinists. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 06, 2009, 10:49 PM | # Frank, if Christ disregards race, Christ is wrong. If God does, so’s God. Two plus two doesn’t equal five and, clearly, any religion that says it does proves thereby its own falseness and worthlessness as a religion and from that point on, everyone can safely stop believing in it. If Christ disregards race he proves then and there he’s not the Son of God no matter whether literally, figuratively, or in any way you want to look at it. It’s that simple. Case closed. If God disregards race he proves he’s not God but an impostor. There’s truth and there’s lies. You can’t get around that; neither can God. I don’t know aught about John Marshall and, with your permission, haven’t the time right now to read up on him. I think you’re wrong about The Monitor (think? I’m sure of it: diametrically one-hundred-and-eighty degrees wrong) but I won’t argue the point. I’ll close by saying what scum The Monitor is. I’ll leave it at that — you get the last word. 21
Posted by Frank on August 06, 2009, 11:04 PM | # “I’ll leave it at that — you get the last word.” I’ll just say Christ didn’t preach Babel and didn’t go against the natural order of the world. “haven’t the time right now to read up on him” Probably a good choice - no sense learning where every blogger stands. 22
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 07, 2009, 01:21 AM | # They weren’t getting Danzig back and there is “the question of Polish aggression against Germans minorities.” http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/diversity_and_moral_transformation/#c70307 Of course the English can never accept their Polish paramours might have debased themselves or even explore why the violent reaction. It’s much easier to just blame the Germans. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jedwabne_and_the_race_hucksters/ 23
Posted by Dasein on August 07, 2009, 03:17 AM | # Dan, no worries, dissenting views are welcome 24
Posted by Dasein on August 07, 2009, 03:20 AM | # Rather than create new posts for each of these essays (and interrupt the conversation that is developing in the comments), I am going to put them into this thread as comments. At least until this post gets further down the main page. 25
Posted by Dasein on August 07, 2009, 04:05 AM | # Danzig, an unending point of contention (General Schultze-Rhonhof) Translated, with images and links added by Dasein The Treaty of Versailles was in effect for twenty years between the world wars, during which time the German-Polish relationship was not always unpleasant. The beginning was inauspicious and the end was tragic. The two governments were based on different concept of statehood as regarded their demands for sovereignty. Poland saw itself as the successor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
In 1921, Poland controlled an empire well beyond the boundaries of the Polish-speaking territories, in which eleven million Ukrainian, German, White Russian, Lithuanian and other minorities lived. People within the German Empire considered it to be a state organized for all members of the German ethnic community. These concepts of statehood had to collide where their claims overlapped: in the Free City of Danzig, in the northern half of the Polish Corridor and in parts of Upper Silesia. All the governments of the Weimar Republic, prior to Hitler’s taking power, maintained the German claim on the lost territories, even if they rejected violent means of reacquiring them. Hitler was the first, in 1938, to offer recognition of Polish land acquisitions since 1920 as a concession for the return of Danzig to Germany. Between the wars, there was constant conflict between the Polish republic and the government of the Free City of Danzig as well as the council and high commissioner of the League of Nations. Germany, for the most part, did not get involved in these conflicts. The constitution of the Free City of Danzig, signed on August 19, 1920, was hardly three months old when Poland began trying to change it with countless interventions, legal complaints, and demands. The issue was the sovereign power of the Free City, which Poland did not recognize and wanted transferred to it. Poland received a number of rights from the victors and began at once to put its own public authorities into place in the Free City. The mixture of Polish and Danziger officials in the postal, rail, customs, and waterway services in the Free City created endless squabbles over competencies. In the following years, as Poland tried through a variety of smaller steps to incorporate Danzig and bombarded the high commissioner of the League of Nations with new demands for annexing the city, as first raised during the Versailles Conference, it became clear that such an independent small state with limited sovereignty was not viable. Between 1921 and 1924, Poland had to be repeatedly instructed that it did not have dominion over Danzig. For example, in 1920 Poland applied to be protector of the city and be allowed to station Polish troops there. The League of Nations turned down this request. In 1921, Poland requested that its 24 public authorities in the city be granted extra-territorial status, as well as for Polish property, ships, and officials. The council of the League of Nations decided, however, that what was in Danzig should be under the judicial control of the Free City and should not be considered as extra-territorial. In addition, the League of Nations requested that the administration for the Polish rail system be moved out of Danzig, back to Poland. In 1921, the Polish government tried to impose its visa requirements on Danzig. Polish officials began to replace the Danzig passports of citizens with Polish ones. In both cases, the League of Nations quickly put an end to Polish pretensions. Poland expanded its own postal network across nearly the whole city, even though the Treaty of Versailles had limited this to the harbour area. Polish officials in Danzig refused to accept the Danzig guilder as payment, even though it was pegged to the British pound. Despite the emphatic protests of the Danzig senate, the Polish military created a munitions depot in the harbour. In 1923, following a decision from the League of Nations, Poland received a peninsula in the of the city (the Westerplatte [site of first battle in World War II]), for storing munitions and a contingent of 88 [!?] troops.
Poland tried next to increase the number of troops stationed on the Westerplatte. Here too, the League of Nations stepped in with a veto. In 1932, Poland used a visit from the British navy as an excuse to move its own warships into the Danzig harbour. When the Danzig senate protested, Poland told it that “Polish warships would shell the closest public building should the people of Danzig insult the Polish flag on those ships”. As of August 1932, it became standard practice for Poland to claim the right to station its navy in the Danzig harbour. In this manner, the Polish state slowly, yet unremittingly, expanded its access to Danzig. Poland would keep up the pressure on the Danzig until the outbreak of the world war. From 1933 on, as in Germany, the NSDAP would grow stronger and create a counter force.
Reich’s war flag rising above the Westerplatte on September 8, 1939 26
Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2009, 06:35 AM | # There were two nationalist principles in conflict here: Volk and territory. The Poles sought territorial coherency, added to which was the fact that Danzig was the only port in the Polish corridor, and Poland had a national interest in controlling it. In return for this, and consonant with the mutli-ethnic concept of Polish empire, they accepted the ethnic status quo. Germany was publicly committed to the unification of all the German peoples. Post-Versailles that meant the Germans of Brandenburg, Neumark, Posen, Silesia, Pomerania and Grenzmark as well as East Prussia. For racialists blood always trumps soil and, certainly, an idealist might be content with territorial compromise in order to achieve racial unity. But the complexity of the historical overhang of Ostsiedlung made that absolutely unthinkable. In fact, its continued pull on the German heart authenticated the “total Ostsiedlung” of National Socialist’s Lebensraum. The rest we know. War resolved history because politicians could or would not. 27
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 10:09 AM | #
A more mundane rationale for the expansion eastward was the lesson taught near the conclusion of WWI: the need for autarky in the face of the Anglo-American starvation-blockade from which hundreds of thousands of Germans succumbed, kept in place even after the cessation of formal combat. Hence the need to acquire the fertile lands Ukraine. But then there is this, a salvific vision of greatness articulated by Himmler, as recounted in the memoir of Latvian Waffen-SS man Artur Silgailis:
29
Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2009, 10:41 AM | # Unfortunately, CC, no one bothered to ask the other “Germans” if they wanted this ... if Irishmen and Norwegians, Bretons and Danes wanted to saved this way from “the Yellow Race”. The attempt to force Europe’s nations into the EU suffers from the same defect. Nobody wants it. 30
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 10:51 AM | # Frank,
Not according to Himmler, read again:
And, according to Himmler, this is who is Germanic, or Nordic:
The National Socialist mission was merely to make de jure what is de facto regardless, with obvious improvements - a Europe of morally equal nations, each committed to preserving its identity, with Germany the first among equals. If the National Socialists were not committed to preserving Nordics, then no one ever has been. 31
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 10:58 AM | # Oh, I thought he was saying to unite Germans and Romans and Slavs.
Regardless, I like how Europe is more particular… Such a decision would be up to them as GW says, but I like the idea of tiny, proud little nations. Plenty of Lebensraum is available for the taking in the New World still. Vast parts of Canada, America, and Australia - and probably Greenland and Russia too - are available for those who’ll but have the babies to fill them. 32
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 11:04 AM | # Ah, you mean political unity - not genetic unity. Yes, I could potentially like something like that. 33
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 11:12 AM | #
My attachment is to Nordics just the same - we Americans used to call them “whites”. You’ll find Nordicism in America outside NS. I continue to be annoyed that Celts are not specifically included as white though. Anglo-Saxons are not the entirety of the two islands. 34
Posted by Dan Dare on August 07, 2009, 11:26 AM | # Incidentally, Dasein’s graphic above of the outer harbour shows the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein in the position from which it shelled the Polish facilities on the Westerplatte in the early hours of September 1st. These are widely held to be the actual opening shots of WW II. There is an excellent account of the German takeover of Danzig, with many ‘then and now’ illiustrations in issue #65 of ‘After the Battle’ magazine. 35
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 11:50 AM | # GW,
Then why do most European’s vote for political forces that propagate the EU? The obvious answer, because they are lemmings, and don’t really know what they want, or, rather, what they should want. So then, unless one is to embrace racial nihilism, one must support the proper instruction of the people. Frank,
We need to reclaim these lands, primarily for Nordics. However, we must take into consideration quality of life, which strongly tracks with low population density, and strict environmental preservation.
Leave Russian Siberia to the Slavic branch of our race. As you point out above, we already have our Lebensraum, or rather we will again, once we reclaim it.
I am not committed to NS as the only way forward. I am not a dogmatist. I want to reclaim what really was of NS from the propagandists/court historians so it ceases to be a club to bludgeon us with.
I certainly conceive of Scots-Irish as Nordic. Dan Dare,
Pedantry aside, what do you think of the worthiness of a National Socialist German victory in WWII? All things considered, would it have been better or worse for our race than what we have now? 36
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 12:00 PM | # CC,
They risk having China take it. What is done there though is of course up to them.
It’s tough to get different nations to work together, unfortunately. Even English and Scots can’t get along. At the least none of us should war again, and should ally together when needed. Political details like that are for others though - I won’t pretend i have answers for that, especially since the ideal changes as the environment continually does. 37
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 12:13 PM | #
And I guess you know I chiefly have qualms with identifying with the perception of NS. I don’t mind learning from any source that offers wisdom. I’m interested in undermining the propagandists to be sure too. However while lying is evil, refraining from speaking parts of the truth might at times be wise. Much else of popular history is fiction too, and I don’t like such elitism in the ideal - that is to say I don’t accept it as an inevitable elitist truth that the masses cannot handle truth… Valuing truth is probably another part of the “faith gene” and even remnant Christianity, but it’s worthwhile regardless the origin. Not to imply I have any expertise of WWII - history is based on the word of experts, and so long as they aren’t debating it remains difficult for those outside the field to determine what’s reliable. I have some good material though to read. Also, many of the experts are Jewish and so even assuming they’re honest they have a different history. Nations commonly write different versions of history: honestly from their own perspectives and dishonestly via prop. In the ideal, we’d have our own historians to look to for truth, and these would ideally allow themselves to be questioned of course… 38
Posted by jamesUK on August 07, 2009, 12:32 PM | # @Dasein How were you able to post pictures in the comment section? I wanted to post pictures from scenes in Watchmen when I was deconstructing the film but don’t know how. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 12:52 PM | #
LOL! Yup, it don’t matter if our race is mongrelized out of existence, so long as we defeat the fucking Rothchilds. Check out the dollar bill for more important Masonic symbols which hold the key to succor all our ills. You navel-gazing shithead. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2009, 01:45 PM | # CC: unless one is to embrace racial nihilism, one must support the proper instruction of the people. I don’t follow that at all. National governments are elected on national issues. what do you think of the worthiness of a National Socialist German victory in WWII? All things considered, would it have been better or worse for our race than what we have now? We would be slaves. But we would exist as a people. Nationalists would be fighting to throw off the German yolk. 41
Posted by Dasein on August 07, 2009, 02:09 PM | #
GW, this sounds disgusting! I also don’t know of any plans the Germans had to enslave the British (or French, Dutch, Danish, ...). Maybe if you were in the wrong Slavic country. Being in the sphere of influence of a hegemonic power is not the same as enslavement, oder? But I think you’re right that patriots would still be fighting to gain control of their countries. Perhaps even sponsored by the US. 43
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 02:42 PM | # GW wrote:
That would have depended on the will of the Fuhrer, and hence the quality of the man. And what was that? From Irving’s Hitler’s War:
What can one say? It is almost Christ-like. The French knew his benevolence in victory. 44
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 03:10 PM | # More from Hitler’s War:
The British and Americans were not interested. They rather sold their race into slavery to the Jews - who consign us all to despair and death. 45
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 03:39 PM | # R. E. Lee stood up to end his war and save his people. However, he later said if he’d known it’d act as it did he wouldn’t have surrendered. He also fought the war honourably rather than merely to win. You’ll drive yourself mad longing for history to have been different. 46
Posted by Dan Dare on August 07, 2009, 04:13 PM | # Captain Chaos asked:
At the risk of being considered pedantic, I’d have to say that it depends. It depends mostly on how magnanimous Hitler would have been in victory and whether or not the regime would have mellowed over time. I certainly don’t believe that, at least from the outset, all members of our race would have received equal treatment under German occupation (see next) as evidenced by Hitler’s differentiated attitude towards Slavs and those considered tio be Nordic. Dasein wrote:
Then you won’t be aware of the ‘Orders Concerning the Organisation and Function of the Military Government in England” (the Directive) developed under the auspices of General-Oberst Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff (OKH) in the late summer of 1940. Halder’s directive to the Commander-in-Chief of the future occupation forces of course carried the imprimatur of his own superior Field Marshall Heinrich von Brauchitsch, and by extension, that of Adolf Hitler. As detailed in Norman Longmate’s If Britain Had Fallen, BBC/Arrow, 1975 (ISBN 0 09 909900 4), the ‘Orders’, together with scores of regulations and ‘Ordinances’, total altogether almost 90 pages. In addition, Longmate recounts the occupation plans prepared by the ‘Defence Economic Staff for England’ and, by Heydrich’s RSHA, which by then consolidated the activities of the Kripo, the SD, and not least, the Gestapo. It may be instructive to review just a few of the measures that were documented to be in store for the population of the subjugated British Isles. (op. cit. p.135 et al, detailing some aspects of the ’Plans for England’ prepared by Amt-III of the RHSA Sicherheitsdienst): … it would be an impressive way of underlining the German victory if the Nelson Column were to be transferred to Berlin…special teams to be assigned to the National Gallery, the British Museum, the V&A;, the Ashmolean etc etc to sequester works of art for removal to Germany for safekeeping… for reasons of ‘external policy’ special efforts should be made to locate and organise the return of stolen works of art and scientific artifacts to their original owners in Greece, Italy, and so forth… (p. 179-180) On the economic front, the Directive required that “...the welfare of the inhabitants of the country and the interests of the country’s national economy, the latter being the concern of the Defence Economic Staff and its headquarters, will be considered only in so far as they contribute directly or indirectly towards the maintenance of law and order and the securing of the country’s labour for the requirements of the troops and the German war economy.” And in case anyone should have any illusions about what that implied for the ‘welfare’ of the population, here is the Defence Economic Staff’s list of items that were to be requisitioned for immediate transportation to the Continent: “..Agricultural products, food and fodder of all kinds, ores, crude metals, semi-finished metals of all kinds, including precious metals, asbestos and mica, cut or uncut precious or semi-precious stones, mineral oils and fuels of all kinds, industrial oils and fats, waxes, resins, glues, rubber in any for, all raw materials for textiles, furs and hides, round timber, sawn timber, timber sleepers, and timber masts…. “ Stereotypically thorough. (p.185) And as a logical corollary of their plans to strip British industry of its plant, machinery and materiel, paragraph 5 of the Directive for the Military Government of England states that: “...the able-bodied male population between the ages of 17 and 45 will, unless the local situation calls for an exceptional ruling, be interned and dispatched to the Continent with minimum delay..” The available evidence certainly indicates that Britain’s eventual fate in a German-controlled Europe would have more closely resembled that of Poland than the relatively benign treatment given to France. 47
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 04:14 PM | # Frank, Last October that lisping punk Spencer, of Takimag, e-mailed me with his number, asking me to contact him. I declined. Thinking that anything I would say to him in private I could say to him in the comments section, for all to see - which he and Gottfried then discontinued. Once, in the comments section, Gottfried tried to dissuade me from having love for our people, don’t have pity for them, using some Nietzschean rap, he says. What a couple of greasy little bitches. Now you know why I don’t give up. Now you know what squalid, false-opposition filth the faileocon “leadership” is. 48
Posted by Dasein on August 07, 2009, 04:32 PM | # Dan, thanks for those quotes, and for jogging my memory. I do remember reading that now, in Ralph Giordano’s Wenn Hitler den Krieg gewonnen hätte (If Hitler had won the War). I didn’t make it through the whole book, though, as much of the case he built up, particularly as regards England, seemed to just be cherry-picked rantings of some administration nobody. Your quotes are different, though I would question how much support they would have received from Hitler, who was more often desperate to make peace with the British. But sure, the British behaved correctly in defending themselves against German invasion. Rumours from Washington (e.g. Morgenthau Plan) were also part of what motivated Germans to fight long after it seemed hopeless. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2009, 04:38 PM | # Dasein, Because the general view of National Socialist Germany is so heavily corrupted by wartime (and post-war) propaganda, and by Jewish victimology, and because we consider ourselves good men who trust and believe in our people as National Socialists trusted and believed in theirs, we sometimes wipe the NS slate too clean. In a strange parallel to liberal self-loathers, we are quick to attest to Allied crimes against German civilians. We should be in no hurry to excuse German crimes or to mistake the nature of German occupation. Look to the populations of Denmark, Holland and Belgium in the moment of their liberation if you want to know whether people desire to be free, to have rights as individuals and as sovereign nations, to live under their own governments and their own laws, and not to live as untermenschen in their own land. Further, ask yourself if, in their place, you would wish to have lived under German occupation, and subject to German whim. Ask yourself whether you would condone another Lidice or Oradour-sur-Glane in some troublesome corner of your own land. Ask yourself if you would have been happy to be strung up as a political dissident or, if you were German, a “defeatist”. Ask yourself if, given our liberation one day from the injustice and danger which confront us now, you would support a party that totalises and imposes a dictatorship, militarises society, evicts neighbouring populations or, if it doesn’t do that, installs puppet governments to rule them, and so on. I know you would not. Let us, then, cleave good from bad and put away the bad, and be in no uncertainty that there was both, much magnified, in National Socialist Germany. Let’s do the same with the Western democratic model, and separate out respect for liberty, human rights, equality before the law, the ballot box, etc from the maladies we blog about here every day. 50
Posted by Dan Dare on August 07, 2009, 05:12 PM | # I think an essential difference between the two systems, parliamentary democracy and totalitarian dictatorship, is highlighted by how each responds to military catastrophe. In May 1940, following the Norwegian debacle, Neville Chamberlain failed to obtain a decisive-enough vote of confidence following an open debate in Parliament and was thus obliged to resign in order that a more able successor might take over the reins. The only way that Hitler could have been deposed after the disasters in North Africa and Stalingrad was through a violent coup d’état and assassination. I know which system I would prefer to live under, warts and all. 51
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 05:45 PM | # Dan Dare:
That is very slippery, dare I tendentious of you, Dan. Apparently you have read Irving’s Hitler’s War, do you not recall having read this?
And:
And:
52
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 06:16 PM | #
And then:
So by implication, the English, a Nordic people whom Hitler admired, would have merely faced wartime deprivations whilst the Polish would have faced outright extermination? LOL! Where do you get this shit? Oh, wait, I know, as an Englishman you think it best those filthy Krauts carry the racial guilt, as you triangulate against their alleged sins.
It was none other than the First Lord of the Admiralty, that bought bitch of the Jews, Winston Churchill, who was responsible for said disaster. Not much more can be said for same’s military strategies as warlord upon becoming Prime Minister. 53
Posted by Frank on August 07, 2009, 07:29 PM | # “filthy Krauts” The origin of my calling you a damned Kraut a few weeks ago was your attachment to WWII Germany, not a deep seated racial hatred. I don’t know about Spencer and Gottfried and GW, but most people aren’t secretly wanting to harm Germany. In America we’re figuring how to save America, in England that state, etc. Who but Jews hate Germans? 54
Posted by Dan Dare on August 07, 2009, 07:30 PM | # Per David Irving:
The day being July 19th, the date of Hitler’s famous ‘peace offering’ speech to the members of the Reichstag. Curiously though, Hitler doesn’t seem to have shared his confidential assurances about the invasion non-event with von Brauchitsch, Keitel or Jodl and the rest of the lads. The occupation plans referred to above were prepared by OKH during August and early September. On August 13th Jodl as chief of OKW operations staff issued the Summary of the Situation referring to the Invasion of the United Kingdom which directed that:
I can just picture der Chef laughing up his sleeve at the thought of OKW/OKH tearing around like blue-arsed flies and all for nowt. In the meantime, Jodl’s own boss Keitel was fiddling around himself on the following busy-work which he issued on September 3rd:
55
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 08:24 PM | #
Good grief Dan. Could it have been anything similar to this?
And yet neither came to pass. What is a chap to think? 56
Posted by Lurker on August 07, 2009, 08:28 PM | # Those invasion plans - Keitel’s statement I presume then was written in August (very early September). He must have been aware how the Battle of Britain was going (even with the most optimistic Luftwaffe spin) and that those invasion dates were totally unrealistic. No sign of the RAF being defeated and the RN entirely intact - no invasion possible. 57
Posted by Dan Dare on August 07, 2009, 09:05 PM | # Of course reality did eventually begin to break through. On September 17th Hitler finally postponed the operation ‘until further notice’. But back to Danzig…
On the question of Danzig vs Lebensraum as the principal objective for the invasion of Poland, what is your take on the so-called Schmundt-Mitschrift, which provides a record of a gathering in the Reichs Chancellery on 23.5.39. Adolf Hitler is quoted as saying:
58
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 09:07 PM | # Self-evidently, if Hitler had wanted to crush Britain utterly at that time, he could have done so, if he were willing to bear any cost required. He did not, therefore he did not want to. The same cannot be said of the British vis-a-vis Germany, teaming with the Bolsheviks to do as such, for God’s sake. Just what moral depravity, or gullibility, would convince a free-thinking White man to lustily imbibe the lie of especial German guilt concerning WWII other than the cynical pursuit of his EGI? But it may be objected, “We cannot carry the cross of our true guilt, for it is too heavy, and we are already so weak.” To which I would reply, “Yes, I do understand, not all can be German.” 59
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 10:06 PM | #
What does any good barrister do? Ah yes. If he can’t argue the law, he argues the facts. That failing, I wonder when the table pounding will begin? Those filthy Krauts were willing to forgo naval parity so England’s national self-determination would not be jeopardized. But were Krauts justified in seeking same via the guarantor of foodstuffs? Never. And why is that? Well, I Dare say it is because of the “moral superiority” vested in the English by themselves. 60
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 07, 2009, 10:37 PM | #
Or the Austrians. Of the course the point is moot because this is not why England went to war.
Like Stalin’s Jews in Poland? It’s pap of little consequence because England condoned those very actions by their Soviet ally. Dictatorship, eviction, starvation, puppet governments and mass murder (Katyn Forest) all sanctified by English governments. One law for Fritz and another for Jacob and Ivan.
61
Posted by Captainchaos on August 07, 2009, 10:49 PM | # Even der Chef wondered at the moral confidence of the English as they wielded their White supremacy without batting an eyelid. It is not a deep mystery. If you act like you’re da shit, most will believe you are da shit. But somewhere along the line there was a crack in the cosmic egg. We are here given to believe that the race-replacement genocide of Europeans was not an inevitable outcome of the defeat of National Socialist Germany in the Second World War. And yet also given to believe that even sans Jews, the inevitable outcome of liberalism would have yielded same. But what was there in England, or the rest of the West for that matter, to check the march of liberalism’s inevitable outcome? If the answer is nothing but a few debased Krauts, hopped up on their “palingeneticism”, I can see how that might rankle. So, NS Germany was destroyed, the bell cannot be unrung, and there we have it, eh? English nationalism can succeed now, on its own terms for the most part - triangulating against those filthy Krauts, you know how it goes - a rising tide lifts all boats. If so, all well and good, I say. But, if indeed, as I suspect is the case, the Limey is pegged to the Kraut, on the Hollowhoax exchange, all bets just might be off. That is my point. 62
Posted by Lurker on August 07, 2009, 11:02 PM | #
Great line CC! 63
Posted by PAN-WHITE NATIONALISM on August 08, 2009, 03:20 AM | #
That is exactly the type of “pan-White nationalism” pushed for by Lowell and others. Good stuff. 64
Posted by PAN-WHITE NATIONALISM on August 08, 2009, 03:30 AM | #
Fine then - the White race will continue down the path of ignorant, suicidal individualism and they will eventually be overtaken by more collective and cooperative racial/ethnic groups, especially Asiatic “Yellows.” This is happening right now - can’t anyone see that? In only a few decades we here in the Americas could be living just as John Hersey predicted back in the 1965 novel he wrote about American Whites becoming persecuted slaves of their Asiatic masters. 65
Posted by Dasein on August 08, 2009, 03:38 PM | # Dan, my take is that, even if this document is authentic, it does not change the fact of Polish intransigence on the question of Danzig. I say ‘if it is authentic’ because it is my understanding that some have questioned its trustworthiness. Schlundt died in 1944 and could not attest to its authenticity, and others who were at the meeting have disputed the conclusions from the document, which made its appearance at the Nuremberg (show) trials. But even if we accept it as authentic, it does not provide a sensible rationale for the Polish and British actions as regard Danzig. 66
Posted by Dan Dare on August 08, 2009, 08:21 PM | # OK Dasein, I’m happy to let Schmundt lie in view of the controversy surrounding its authenticity (almost never a fruitful avenue of inquiry, in my experience), and would like to return to the challenge you set earlier concerning evidence for the British position on Danzig. Your own opening piece cites several prominent British politicians and diplomats who commented on the injustices of Versailles in general and on Danzig in particular. I later cited Taylor on Foreign Secretary Halifax and David Irving on Horace Wilson, Head of the Civil Service and Chamberlain’s éminence grise. Even though neither Taylor nor Irving have ever been accused of being court historians, it’s still not enough it seems. Must try harder! Before ditching Taylor as ‘unbalanced’, I’d like to give him another brief outing before turning to something completely different. On pp 234-5 of Origins we read (emphasis added):
Taylor indicates that the ‘cautious hint’ that Danzig might be placed outside of the terms of the guarantee was issued by Halifax on May 3rd, so clearly the British were ‘ready and eager’ to hand over Danzig quite early on. The next source I am going to cite will no doubt meet with general opprobrium in certain quarters since it comes from none other that Richard ’Skunky’ Evans, David Irving’s erstwhile courtroom adversary and bête noire. This from the second volume of Evans’ Third Reich Trilogy, The Third Reich in Power:
Evans cites Ian Kershaw and Peter Neville’s biography of Sir Nevile Henderson as his sources, and it is from the former that I tracked down a source for the message that Henderson delivered to Hitler on 28.8.39. It can be seen in facsimile form here. Although couched in diplomatic language, its message is clear: Don’t attack Poland and we can do business on Danzig and other territorial questions; attack Poland and all bets are off. I think that concerns about Polish truculence and intransigence are really beside the point. The two principal actors in this performance were Germany and Britain, everyone else including the Poles (and the French) were spear-carrying supernumeraries. The British clearly felt confident of reining in the Poles and Germany had no reason to feel threatened militarily and did not. They knew the Poles would be a push-over but gambled, recklessly, that the British would not honour their ‘blank cheque’. 67
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 08, 2009, 09:53 PM | #
Is that just Master Dare’s opinion or is there an evidential basis for the assertion. Hoggan clearly disagrees. 68
Posted by Dan Dare on August 08, 2009, 10:18 PM | # Without verifiable references to his sources, Hoggan is practically worthless. But even so, where exactly does he provide evidence contrary to my assertion, which is supported by the sources cited including the British government’s communication to Hitler which you don’t appear to have troubled yourself to read. Sorry to have to ask you to expend a little effort beyond your customary drive-by commentary. 69
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 08, 2009, 11:54 PM | # Little effort is needed to undermine your empty assertion that the Poles were not players in the Danzig game. Why don’t you answer the question? Where’s the evidence that the Poles were only “spear-carrying supernumeraries.” If the Poles were just spear chuckers, why wasn’t the Danzig issue settled much earlier? The answer is you don’t have any evidence. Put up or shut up. 70
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 12:34 AM | # One thing to consider: the yellow and white races are both civilised and relatively pure. Relative to the brown masses, they’ve got potentially common goals of keeping the tide back and preserving who they are. Resources will grow increasingly limited, and competition for them will grow fierce; but the white and yellow wouldn’t necessarily always be competitors. Presently, the Jews and nonJewish globalists are enemies of both. Those who wish to remain pure v. those who wish to mix and globalise. That’s a potential divide. The nobles v. the untouchables. 71
Posted by Dan Dare on August 09, 2009, 01:12 AM | # Desmond: International diplomacy is not, as you seem to believe, a matter of putting up or shutting up, but rather a matter of nuance and finesse. I can see immediately that you are an aficiando of the von Brickendrop school of diplomacy ...
72
Posted by Ganesh on August 09, 2009, 11:28 AM | # That is very true Frank. Yellow and Whites vs the darker rabble. 73
Posted by Dasein on August 10, 2009, 06:28 AM | #
I wouldn’t consider indicating via a cautious hint to be a clear indication of being ready and eager. And England’s wishes with regards to Danzig are a side issue. What’s important is the guarantee to Poland that contributed to its intransigence on Danzig. Taylor himself says it in your quote:
But let’s say that this is true about Britain being ready and eager to hand over Danzig quite early on. Doesn’t that contradict your claim that the Polish were “spear-carrying supernumeraries”? And if England had been eager to have its mercenary state turn over Danzig from an early date, why should Germany have taken the 28.8.39 communique seriously? 74
Posted by Dasein on August 10, 2009, 10:32 AM | # The ongoing threat to economic existence (Part III) (General Schultze-Rhonhof) Translated, with images and links added by Dasein The Free City of Danzig as well as East Prussia suffered between 1921 and 1939 due to the territorial isolation created by Versailles The disputes between the Free City of Danzig and the Polish republic continued until the outbreak of war in 1939. In 1933 alone, the council of the League of Nations in Geneva became involved in 106 incidents involving Danzig and Poland. It came to a head in the summer of 1939 during the custom inspectors dispute, which nearly led Poland to declare war in August. As justification for the separation of Danzig from Germany was the carrying out of US president Woodrow Wilson’s promise that after the war Poland should have unhampered access to the sea and thus should receive a port on the Baltic. Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the later Treaty of Paris of November 9, 1929, established Poland’s right of access to the Danzig harbour. The first high commissioner of the League of Nations, Sir Richard Haking, told Poland in 1921 when he was arranging the expansion of the city’s harbour, that along with the accorded rights came certain responsibilities. He wrote that Poland’s right at any time and under any conditions to ship and receive good in Danzig was the duty to make full use of the harbour, independent of whether Poland should, in the future, build other ports on the Baltic. Thereby the economic future of the Danzig harbour was to be secured.
In fact, Poland, in 1928, built a new, artificial port near the fishing village of Gdingen [NS Germany renamed it to Gotenhafen in 1939], 20 kilometres north of Danzig and used exceptional tax breaks, with a duration of up to 25 years, to lure public enterprises and trading companies away from the Danzig harbour. Danzig’s old harbour did experience a boom from 1926 to 1932. However, after 1932 import and export business fell by almost half of the previous year and up till the outbreak of war would not again reach full capacity. Poland clearly had no more need for a transit harbour in Danzig, removing the grounds for the separation of Danzig from Germany. Nevertheless, the victors did not of their own accord return Danzig to Germany. Poland too, despite not needing the harbour [by 1938 Gdingen was the largest and most modern port on the Baltic- ed] and not meeting its obligations to use it to full capacity, did not concede its right to the Free City. Rather, the Polish government said that the return Danzig to Germany would be grounds for war.
Finally, the Polish side threatened that continuing non-payment of Zloty would result in the closure of the last connection between East Prussia and central Germany. Thus would East Prussia be cut off from its energy supplies and economic ruin would be assured, as it was almost two decades later in Berlin during the Soviet blockade. Thus arose in the German economic ministry the idea to avoid paying Zloty by negotiating extra-territorial transport connections from Pomerania to East Prussia, which would be under German control. At the talks to solve the problem, opened by the Germans in October of 1938, initial willingness to negotiate on the part of Polish would soon give way to insuperable resistance.
75
Posted by Dan Dare on August 10, 2009, 09:56 PM | # Dasein said:
Cautious hints are part of the coded language that diplomats use to communicate with each other. Diplomatic dialogue is notoriously circumlocutory, even obscurantist, but those schooled in it can easily decode the underlying message that might elude a layman, or even your common-or-garden politician. To claim that England’s wishes with regard to Danzig were insignificant in the face of Polish intransigence is to ignore the political, military and geo-strategic realities of the period in question.
I don’t see why it should. I’m not aware of any constituency in Britain that would have supported a war with Germany over Danzig, there is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise.
That would hardly have been the first time that Hitler was made aware of the British attitude towards Danzig (and other festering post-Versailles territorial disputes). In his biography of Halifax, The Holy Fox, Andrew Roberts relates how the matter came up during the visit of Halifax and Chamberlain to Berchtesgaden in September 1938, quoting Halifax as saying to Hitler:
Roberts then comments:
Before leaving Roberts and Halifax I just can’t resist including an anecdote that appears on p.70:
So there we have it Dasein. I don’t wish to impede the progress of your narrative any further so this will be the last comment from me on the British attitude towards Danzig. I’ll leave the final word on the matter to you. 76
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 10, 2009, 11:32 PM | # Speech made by M. Beck, the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs in Parliament on May 5, 1939. [In the interest of brevity, only the Danzig references are quoted.]
Sure sounds like intransigence in that Colonel Blimp, circumlocutory, obfuscatory kind of way thatgarden variety bumpkins don’t grasp as well as their betters. *The British War Blue Book: Miscellaneous No. 9 (1939) Documents concerning German-polish Relations and the Outbreak of Hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3, 1939 Book by Great Britain. Foreign Office; Farrar & Rinehart, 1939 77
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 10, 2009, 11:40 PM | # No. 18. Anglo-Polish communiqué issued on April 6, 1939.
If any threat, then why was war not declared upon the Soviet invasion of Poland? Why only the Germans? *The British War Blue Book: Miscellaneous No. 9 (1939) Documents concerning German-polish Relations and the Outbreak of Hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3, 1939 Book by Great Britain. Foreign Office; Farrar & Rinehart, 1939 p.49 78
Posted by Dasein on August 11, 2009, 06:55 AM | # Dan, you’re welcome to continue commenting, I don’t feel that anything is being impeded. I do think though that we are talking past one another to some degree. I am not so interested in (or even disputing) whether England wanted , or was perhaps even eager, to have Danzig returned to Germany. That may very well have been the case. The point is that, for all the talk and promises, she could not persuade Poland to settle the issue, and by making promises for Poland’s defense she encouraged Polish obstinacy. It’s a pretty tame thesis, and some of what you have written actually supports it:
This was in 1938. So despite these assurances from Halifax and Chamberlain a year earlier, the Polish government in the summer of 1939 was still stubbornly maintaining its claim on Danzig. What should the Gemans have made of this? 79
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 11, 2009, 04:00 PM | # Simon Newman’s treatise, March 1939, actually advocates the opposite. It was England’s intent to disrupt the negotiations ongoing between Germany and Poland over Danzig. Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War Book by German Foreign Office; German Foreign Office, 1939
cont’d… 80
Posted by Desmond jones on August 11, 2009, 04:02 PM | # By the end of March, after conversations with the British, the Poles moved troops to Danzig.
81
Posted by Dan Dare on August 11, 2009, 08:12 PM | # I’m beginning to wonder whether Gen. Schultze-Rhonhof may have an axe to grind, since his remarks concerning rail traffic through the corridor don’t make a great deal of sense. It’s a little unclear why eight rail lines should have been thought necessary to connect East Prussia with the rest of the Reich when prior to 1919 there were only two such lines, as indicated on this map from the Eisenbahn-Übersichtskarte zum Reichs-Kursbuch vom Sommer 1907.
All in all I’m afraid that this all sounds like just another manufactured grievance, designed to create tension and provide a pretext for future military aggression. 82
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 12, 2009, 02:01 AM | # Except, there is no indication that Poland opposed additional traffic. In an addendum, attached to No. 208 Conversation of the German Foreign Minister With the Polish Ambassador, March 26, 1939 p.214, Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War, Book by German Foreign Office; German Foreign Office, 1939, from M. Lipski to von Ribbentrop;
83
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 12, 2009, 02:18 AM | # The British War Blue Book: Miscellaneous No. 9 (1939) Documents concerning German-polish Relations and the Outbreak of Hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3, 1939 Book by Great Britain. Foreign Office; Farrar & Rinehart, 1939 p.42,44 No. 16. Memorandum communicated to the German Government by the Polish Government on May 5, 1939, in reply to the German Government memorandum of April 28, 1939. *
84
Posted by Dasein on August 12, 2009, 06:17 AM | # Dan, it appears the confusion is due to my shoddy translation. In the opening post, I translated:
as
The general says nothing about the specific origins of the connections, that was my mistake. This was cleared up in my last post:
As for the specific number, Wikipedia says that in 1939 there were 3 pairs of transit trains travelling daily across the Corridor. Perhaps those are those 6 of the 8 mentioned lines. I find it unlikely that the General would exaggerate this number in order to create a pretext for future military aggression. If he wanted to exaggerate the dire straits of the isolated province, why would he claim there were more connections and not less? I have to wonder why you immediately impute such motives to the General. Maybe he’s tired of having his country saddled with the lion’s share of the blame for the start of the war and is trying to present a more balanced perspective on the causes of the war. It doesn’t mean he’s ‘manufacturing grievance’, trying to foment a new war. Is Pat Buchanan also trying foment war in central Europe? Really, this is the sort of Manichean thinking you’d expect from a neocon. 85
Posted by Dasein on August 12, 2009, 06:40 AM | # Dan, I’m also puzzled by your hostility to this very mild revisionism, given what you consider to be the underlying cause of race-replacement. 86
Posted by Dan Dare on August 12, 2009, 04:41 PM | # Dasein, It’s a little unclear why an insistence on historical rigour should be viewed as being hostile. I’m sure you’d agree that revisionists should be held to the same (or better) standards as normative historians, and that any obvious polemics deployed in argument should be deprecated. I actually like a bit of a dabble in revisionism myself from time to time, so would be the last to show hostility to a fellow practitioner. Berlin 1945: Who Ordered the Flooding of the Berlin Underground Railway, and Who Did It? 87
Posted by Dasein on August 12, 2009, 05:05 PM | # Dan, I share your concern with holding people to a high standard. This was a legitimate request for rigour:
This was hostile and slanderous:
88
Posted by Dasein on August 13, 2009, 03:06 PM | # War against the national minorities (Part IV) (General Schultze-Rhonhof) Translated, with images added by Dasein In 1919, the newly created Poland was an affiliation of former German, Ukrainian, White Russian, Lithuanian, and other territories, an ethnically diverse state with 19 million Poles and 11 million whose mother tongue was not Polish [again, Rhonhof is not always explicit on race or ethnicity], including 2 million Germans. According to the protection of minorities clause in the Treaty of Versailles, Poland from the start was supposed to guarantee the rights of its minorities. However, the Poles quickly cancelled this protection and began to take revenge for Russification and Germanification from the period when Poland was partitioned. However, in their forced Polonization they went far beyond that to which they themselves had been subjected, at least under German and Habsburg rule. By 1923, the German minority had shrunk to 1.2 million. To start, 16,000 Germans were interned as ‘enemies of the state’ in 2 concentration camps in the Posen area. After 1922, all Germans who’d arrived since 1908 were deported. The Germans were presented with the choice of either Poland or Germany. The ‘opters’, as they were known in Germany and Austria, had to leave after 1925. German speaking officials were also fired. About half of all German schools and universities had to close. Bilingual schooling, as far as it existed after war’s end, was made illegal. A large portion of Germans, as well as Ukrainians, White Russians, Jews, and Austrians lost their accreditation as doctors and pharmacists and business and publishing licenses were removed. The Polish administration also boycotted any businesses that were not Polish. [IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Bundesarchiv_Bild_137-001164_Bentsc.jpg[/IMG] German refugees from the Province of Posen cross the demarcation line at Bentschen, 1920 Only in November 1937 would Poland and Germany sign a bilateral treaty for the protection of minorities that was to lighten the burden of the discrimination against the German minority. In 1938, with the unification of Austria and the Sudetenland with Germany, fears began to grow in Poland that Germany would call for the return of land and peoples that had formerly been part of the Reich. The hostile climate for the German minority became more extreme. Terror acts against Gemans, the destruction of German businesses, and arson attacks on German farms increased continually in early 1939. After the return of the Memelland to Germany in Mach, the situation for Germans in Poland became altogether unbearable. In the summer of 1939, the number of Germans who wanted to escape and leave Poland ‘illegally’ began to swell. By the middle of August, over 76,000 had fled to Germany, with an additional 18,000 going to Danzig. The reports of the treatment of the German minority by the Poles and the portrayal of the refugees was oil on the fire for German-Polish relations in the last weeks and days before the war broke out. The former state secretary, Ernst von Weizsäcker, wrote in his memoirs: “Our diplomatic and consular reports showed how in 1939 the wave became continually higher and covered the original problem of Danzig and passage through the Corridor”. From the beginning, Poland had the chance to integrate its national minorities into a new nation but did not seek it and, where it was a given, had spoiled the opportunity [I think Rhonhof is a bit naive to believe such integration was possible or desired by any of the ethnies]. No effort was made to win over the large minorities of Germans, Jews, White Russians, and Ukrainians to the nation itself. Instead, the efforts to destroy the identity of the minorities resulted in an almost two decade long spiral of hate and terror. Thus in 1939 no one in Germany or Russia was any longer willing to consider Poland the victim of earlier partitions and being owed anything in virtue of its history. Now people saw them as wrongdoers against those Germans, Ukrainians, and White Russians who were burdened with the misfortune of being minorities in Poland. [IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Poles-expulsion-1939.jpg[/IMG] Expulsion of Polish from Posen [IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/GDR.png[/IMG] Greater Germany, showing Warthegau, most of which was formerly Posen [IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Bundesarchiv_R_49_Bild-0705_Polen_H.jpg[/IMG] ‘After the 18-day campaign began the most generous resettlement project in world history.’ Volksdeutsch being drawn to the newly-conquered territories.
New settlement being built over the remains of a burnt-down Polish village in Warthegau. 89
Posted by Dasein on August 13, 2009, 03:10 PM | # I’m going to put the last half of the series together as a new entry and post it just before the anniversary. 90
Posted by George on July 31, 2011, 12:38 PM | # Schultze-Rhonhof’s book 1939 – Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte (1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers) has been translated in its entirety. It is available at Lulu: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/1939—-the-war-that-had-many-fathers/13832091?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/1 91
Posted by Bill on November 15, 2011, 07:10 AM | # Peter Hitchens Blog - Mail on Sunday. 14.11.2011. Offers for discussion Max Hasting’s WWII’s All Hell Let Loose – Max Hastings on the ‘Good War’ Plenty to chew on here. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/11/all-hell-let-loose-max-hastings-on-the-good-war.html Next entry: The Cult of Multi-Culturalism Previous entry: Europe’s Future Challenges |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Trofigiogelry commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) DiefleleziG commented in entry 'Tiger Tiger' on 05/24/12, 12:18 PM. (go) (view) Martha Barreda commented in entry 'Sunic interviews Fraser' on 05/24/12, 12:12 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Adalberto Deavers commented in entry 'The compassion of the court' on 05/24/12, 12:00 PM. (go) (view) Optigmata commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/24/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
I think you’ll find the rest of the series interesting. Ribbentrop actually did have to call Hitler during that final negotiating session before signing the non-aggression pact, as the Soviets sprung a surprise demand for the Baltic states. So the quote is not quite accurate. The quote from Taylor does not sound balanced. The British elites were not a monolith. Remember, Bush provided a gem for court historians when he said ‘we are a peace-loving people’ in the lead-up to Iraq. If you’re claiming that Poland was about to concede on Danzig and the Polish corridor, I would like to see the evidence. Even if the British were softening their position, it does not follow that the Polish were as well. My intention with these essays is not to whitewash the NS regime, but to find some reconciliation between these 2 common, yet conflicting, memes: Versailles made World War II inevitable, and the unjustified attack on Poland forced the war upon the Western powers.
Posted by Dasein on August 05, 2009, 07:06 AM | #
I said that Rhonhof does not always think in racial/ethnic terms. In an interview, he said that he hoped that his work would make it easier to integrate Germany’s immigrants, that it would make them more willing to become ‘German’ (yeah, like this wished-for miscegenation would be a good deal for native Germans).
A quote from this interview:
Yes, this says it all about the state of Germany, that a man that speaks such anodyne nonsense can be labeled as a far-right extremist.