The Blitz myth?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[QB]The light machine gun as the nucleus of infantry fire and maneuver? WW I.

An example please?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[QB]The light machine gun as the nucleus of infantry fire and maneuver? WW I.

An example please? </font>

[Abbott]

Hello Mike . I (and a few others) often refer to the operational aspect of military planning as Grand Tactics. Fitting between the tactical and the strategic.

[JonS]

Athlete The Brain, on Friday:

'Uh, they [the Germans] didn't start it [WWII, by invading Poland]' would be my only point. Let's remember who declared war on who, and why.

So, the peace loving Germans were forced into an unwanted war, because someone got ticked off when the Germans invaded Poland with no reason. No reason, that is, apart from imagined and manufactured slights.

Athlete The Brain, on Tuesday:

Actually, they [the Germans] didn't start WWI, they came to the aid of an ally

So, the peace loving Germans were forced into an earlier unwanted war, because they felt compelled to go to the aid of an ally (an overly beligerent ally who was, it might be noted, relying on the Kaiser to be their pet bully). And that whole thing about invading neutral countries in order to get at France? Simple mistake. Shouldn't let officers loose with maps and compasses, doncha know. Invading Belgium wasn't part of the plan, it was just a navigational error.

Anyway. I thought it interesting that in the space of 5 days Athlete managed to tie himself up in such knots that he forgives the Germans yet condemns the British, for doing exactly the same thing.

Dolt.

BTW, the ToV was onerous, but not that onerous. Germany could have paid if she'd so chosen. The Allies earliest mistake was letting the Germans default on repayments almost from the beginning, and thereby allowing the myths to start.

[athlete]

So, the peace loving Germans were forced into an unwanted war, because someone got ticked off when the Germans invaded Poland with no reason. No reason, that is, apart from imagined and manufactured slights.

Imagined and manufactured slights?

Man, where to begin.

First, the greivances with Poland were:

1. Danzig had formerly been part of Germany, was occupied primarily by former German citizens and the German people wanted it back. The only reason it wasn't under German contol was because it had been taken by force...(live by the sword, die by it; i.e. is it surprising to anyone that when Germany had the means that they'd use the same method to claim it back?)

2. Poland refused to provide any land access to E.Prussia from Germany...originally Germany was asking only for a 1 mile corridor through Danzig. The Poles responded literally by threatening to invade Germany if they pressed the issue. "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." Rydz Smigly

3. There were widespread reports of atrocities being committed against former German nationals in Danzig. The records show several greivances filed with the LoN as early as April 1939.

Okay, so now that we've established that there was basis for a conflict with Poland...

As for WWI, well there is no doubt that the Germans took some tactical liberties with the sovereignty of neutral countries, it was after all a war. That doesn't make it right, but what about war is right? The beauty of the arguement of course is that the ToV points out to all those would-be combatants that you MUST do whatever it takes to win, lest you be victimized by the victors. So if it takes passage through a neutral country to win, well, do it man, cuz if you lose...

Once again... I'm just suggesting that the international community a. Ought not to have concocted such brutal terms in the ToV, and b. Ought to have been pro-active in reversing the damage done when they recognized the impact it was having...not just on the standard of living of the average German, but of the political rammifications.

The West KNEW that Hitler and the Nazis were radicals, that they were hell bent to 'right the wrongs... bla bla bla'. Churchill knew that Germany was fast re-arming...again, it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict what was going to happen if those 'wrongs' weren't addressed, and quickly; but instead of supporting diplomacy Churchill went on a sabre-rattling campaign, and actively undermined the diplomatic efforts of his government.

Now, for those of us that at this stage are saying, "Athlete thinks that we shoulda just given Hitler whatever he wanted to avoid a war..", NO that is not what I'm saying; but if they had redrawn the maps to pre-ToV standards, and been reasonable about the reparations that needed to be repaid history might look a little different.

Again, context is key...who is Hitler talking to? Well, the typical 20 year old draftee in the German military wasn't alive when WWI ended, but got to live in the aftermath of the ToV. I don't live in a dictatorship, but if I were in that circumstance, I'd go to war for my country to fix it.

[ June 08, 2005, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by athlete:

First, the greivances with Poland were:

1. Danzig had formerly been part of Germany, was occupied primarily by former German citizens and the German people wanted it back. The only reason it wasn't under German contol was because it had been taken by force...(live by the sword, die by it; i.e. is it surprising to anyone that when Germany had the means that they'd use the same method to claim it back?)

2. Poland refused to provide any land access to E.Prussia from Germany...originally Germany was asking only for a 1 mile corridor through Danzig. The Poles responded literally by threatening to invade Germany if they pressed the issue. "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." Rydz Smigly

3. There were widespread reports of atrocities being committed against former German nationals in Danzig. The records show several greivances filed with the LoN as early as April 1939.

More neo-nazi propaganda.

1. Well yes, so was southern Denmark, Silesia, and any number of other areas. It's tough if you lose a war, but Danzig was still under more control than any of these, e.g. it introduced the racial laws in 1938.

2. A 25km corridor which would have cut Poland off from the coast. Hardly acceptable especially after the Poles had witnessed what happened to Czechoslovakia.

3. Any proof other than the Goebbels propaganda machine or regurgitations of it from Naziwebsites/books for that?

I really do not expect an intelligent response from someone like you, but you can not expect to pollute this forum with your neo-nazi tripe without it being challenged.

[Bigduke6]

Hey Athlete, I got a question for ya.

Do you think the Soviet Union had every right to invade eastern Poland like they did? Because, you know, the Soviets at the time argued it wasn't stabbing Poland in the back at all, no, it was liberation of ethnic Ukrainians and Belarussians unfortunately trapped in Polish territory, and terribly victimized by the Polish government.

Heck, come to think of it, ToV was a darn friendly document compared to the terms Brest-Litovsk handed out to Lenin and Trotsky. Now that was a really harsh peace: forget indemnities; the Soviet Union lost something like ten times the territory and population the Germans lost to the Poles. And you're whining about a land corridor to Danzig.

(Strangely enough, that is an issue between the Lithuanian and Russian governments today. Modern Kaliningrad - old Danzig - is a Russian city fully enclosed by Lithuania. Are you saying modern Russia would be justified in invading Lithuania, which BTW would trigger a full-scale European war because Lithuania is a NATO member?)

Your arguement starts from a chauvenistic, groundless precept: Poland had less rights than Germany, and so needed to do what Germany wanted, because Germany wanted it.

The Germans were diddled pretty badly by the ToV, but that didn't give them the right to redraw the map of Europe. The Ukrainians and the Kurds, for example, were screwed even worse: the ToV didn't even acknowledge their existence.

But at least the Ukrainians and the Kurds did not in 1939 cause the most destructive war and worst genocide in human history. If I read you right you believe they had more rights to start World War Two, than even the Germans.

Andreas is right. I doubt you can manage a coherent answer, and possibly you are a troll. But this forum is not the kind of place where you can spout of historical stupidities and get away with it.

[athlete]

No, this forum is where guys, lacking an intelligent argument tend to resort to name calling (ala "neo-nazi") and irrelevant points that are clear examples of straw-grasping.

1. Well yes, so was southern Denmark, Silesia, and any number of other areas. It's tough if you lose a war, but Danzig was still under more control than any of these, e.g. it introduced the racial laws in 1938.

2. A 25km corridor which would have cut Poland off from the coast. Hardly acceptable especially after the Poles had witnessed what happened to Czechoslovakia.

3. Any proof other than the Goebbels propaganda machine or regurgitations of it from Naziwebsites/books for that?

1. ...and yes, IMO Germany had claims against these pieces of real-estate too. Hey, just because France wins WWI...unless they are prepared to back up the b.s. terms of the ToV indefinately, then eventually Germany is going to take them back. Why wouldn't they? Germany is supposed to just accept, forever, that they are under the rule of law as it is dictated by France? Bull****.

2. Well, they said "no, you can't have a corridor through the Danzig", and promptly got their asses kicked. Unacceptable? More unacceptable then getting erased as a country? From Germany's standpoint, the Danzig was an annexed German province. Asking for only a corridor was frickin peanuts.

3. This bit isn't even worth a response, but you wanna talk about a propoganda machine? What a laugh. WChurchill was the mother of all propogandists, and I am no Nazi...more like a pragmatist.

As for the Soviet Union, no, I don't think they had any right to invade Poland. I think they were opportunistic. Strangely, England and France didn't declare war on Russia, and when all was said and done, they essentially gave Russia Poland as the spoils of war. Nice eh? These are the 'good guys' that you speak of.

The Kurds and Ukranians? Well, lets face it, they simply lacked the means to do anything about it. It is unfortuneate. You think they might have done something about it if they had? Germany lacked the means for 20 years too. The danger of imposing reparations on a country is that if they ever get the means to put it right...from THEIR perspective (because it doesn't much matter what we think...it's what THEY think that matters), they might exercise those means. (ala North Korea waving a nuke around now...how long will it be before they start flexing?)

I'll say it again. Hitler and the Nazis did attrocious things. I denounce genocide, I denounce persecution of minorities...but in 1939, I don't think the west was either justified or prudent in there decision to go to war over the Polish issue; and like it or not, there is no guarantee that there would ever have been a conflict in Europe on the scale that it saw had France and England not declared war on Germany. You can't say for certain that it would have happened.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by athlete:

No, this forum is where guys, lacking an intelligent argument tend to resort to name calling (ala "neo-nazi") and irrelevant points that are clear examples of straw-grasping.

Where have I called you a neo-nazi? For the record, I have not made my mind up about that, but your point about the corridor is making me lean into that direction, since it can not be explained by simple stupidity on your part. Regardless, it is however blindingly obvious that your arguments are regurgitated rubbish out of the same neo-nazi drawer that contains gems such as "Barbarossa was a preventive war", "Dresden was as bad as the holocaust", and "Hitler was not all bad, it was Himmler who was the evil guy".

We are still waiting for any proof on those Danzig atrocities. In your own time. Claiming that Winston also did propaganda is not it.

[athlete]

More neo-nazi propaganda

???

[Andreas]

Confused? Let me help you out - post some proof for those alleged pre-war atrocities against Germans in Danzig, a city under the government of Germans at the time, with a majority German population.

It would be nice if, unlike all your other arguments about what Poland should or should not have done, and how evil everybody was with Germany, this proof did not come from neo-nazi or revisionist websites or books.

Clearer now?

[flamingknives]

One can post neo-nazi propaganda without being a neo-nazi.

Provided one is unaware of the provenance or accounts for it in some way

[ June 08, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by athlete:

there is no guarantee that there would ever have been a conflict in Europe on the scale that it saw had France and England not declared war on Germany. You can't say for certain that it would have happened.

True. All we need for peace to break out is for countries not to go to war. Thank you for that staggering insight into global disarmament

BTW - does that apply to Germany too? You know; if they hadn't gone to war with Poland there is no guarantee that there would ever have been a conflict in Europe on the scale that it saw.

[athlete]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Confused? Let me help you out - post some proof for those alleged pre-war atrocities against Germans in Danzig, a city under the government of Germans at the time, with a majority German population.

It would be nice if, unlike all your other arguments about what Poland should or should not have done, and how evil everybody was with Germany, this proof did not come from neo-nazi or revisionist websites or books.

Clearer now?

It wasn't under German government, if so they would have just built the bloody road, they wouldn't be looking for permission.

Second, I'll have to wait til I get home to dig up a quote out of a book...as much as I'd love to bring my library to work...further, the justification wasn't solely based on atrocities, but as I mentioned earlier, the intransigence of the Polish government to give up a corridor to E Prussia and the subsequent Polish saber rattling.

Further, as much as you love throwing the neo-nazi words around, it isn't revisionism, it's historical facts that I'm referring to. Now, that said, as history is written by the victor, you do have to dig to find some of this information. For example, I COULD quote German sources that conducted investigations into the crimes committed against Germans after the takeover of Danzig, but of course that would be thrown out as Nazi propoganda. i.e. those who would best know are considered not credible. So now I have to find independant evidence of these events. Fortuneatly the Nazis didn't last long enough to hold congressional hearings into the effectiveness of thier intelligence services as it pertains to the information presented to the nation's leaders that caused them to invade a sovereign country...we have to wait another 60 years for that sort of thing. heheh)

I'll see what I've got.

[athlete]

True. All we need for peace to break out is for countries not to go to war. Thank you for that staggering insight into global disarmament.

Of course the point is ignored and we resort to sarcasm.

Point was (in small words) that Eng and France unnecessarily escalated the war, and were not IMO obligated to do so. I mean, yes, when the conflict looked likely to happen, a pact was signed but THAT was the mistake. They were bound by a treaty they should not have entered into. Instead, since (according to Andreas, and of course common sense), Germany already had enormous influence in Danzig, and most of it's citizens were Germans, it ought to have been simply given back. Oh sure, it hurts the Poles; but (and this is not a disputed fact...I can quote Encarta on this one), Hitler

admitted Poland's need for free access to the sea, but insisted that Danzig was a German city. Yet it had "contracts with Poland which were admittedly forced upon her by the dictators of the peace of Versailles." In his negotiations with Poland, he had proposed the return of Danzig as a Free State into the Reich. In return Germany had been prepared to recognize all Polish economic rights in Danzig, and to ensure a free harbor for Poland with unimpeded access to the sea.

So Poland says 'war is coming whether Germany likes it or not' (that's paraphrasing Smigly),and this is the principle that England is prepared to defend; and of course once again, after Germany invades, they are given an ultimatum. Russia invades and no such ultimatum comes, and at the end of it all, Poland is occupied by Russia. Shouldn't we then have gone to war with Russia?

[ June 08, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: athlete ]

[JonS]

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but going to war with Poland was an even BIGGER mistake for Hitler.

BTW, by that time Hitler's assurances and guarantees were seen to be worthless. Also, shaving bits off other countries had about run it's course as a method of foreign policy.

[athlete]

Well, Germany didn't lose 40 million people, the rest of the world did so who's mistake was it?

[Bigduke6]

Athlete,

Ok, maybe you're not a Neo-Nazi, and good for you! I like people who are not Neo-Nazis. Many of my friends are not Neo-Nazis. And thanks for answering my questions, that was right polite of you. I apologize for even insinuating about trollness.

But I fear I have some questions for you:

1. Why is it okay in your mind for Germany to get to invade the left side of Poland, but the Soviet Union can't invade the right side? Why do Germans get to recover ancient lands torn away by imposed treaty, but Russians doing the same thing to the same country are, in your words, "opportunists."

I know you're not a goose-stepper since you told me so, but that sure does seem like you have a double standard with the Germans allowed to grab a chunk of Poland, and untermensch Slavs not allowed. I remind you: the Russian empire owned most of Poland for far longer than Berlin owned most of Germany. Otto von sewed the country up only in the 1870s, after all.

2. Germany lost more of its population, percentage-wise, than any other country in the war with the exception of Poland, and you don't need me to tell you why the death rate in Poland was particularly high. Are you arguing this incredibly high German death rate, plus occupation, plus having the Red Army come through your Eastern provinces, is somehow evidence Germany was on the moral high ground during World War Two? That somehow the Germans were victims?

3. Do you think it was okay for Hitler to reannex the Rhineland, Sudetenland, and Austria? That should be an easy one.

4. Do you think it was ok for Germany to annex Polish Silesa?

5. Do you think it would have been ok for Germany to annex Alsace and Lorraine, and Saarland had France and Germany been in a state of peace?

6. You think France and Britain made an error by drawing a line for Germany on Poland. Fine. Where and when SHOULD they have drawn the line?

7. Clearly you think the Versailles terms given Germany were unfair. Why do you think the Germans signed, then? What was Berlin's alternative?

8. Why did Berlin have so few alternatives left in 1918? Is it possible the "blank check" issued Austria-Hungary, the violation of Belgian neutrality, the introduction of poison gas to warfare, and unrestricted submarine warfare against the strongest country in the world could have had anything to do with that terrible state of affairs?

9. You are arguing might makes right; Germany was strong and took what she wanted, and it was up to the rest of the world to deal with it. What I want to know is, why is it okay with you for Germany to do what the heck it pleases, and to use force to get its way, but not okay for others to the same thing to Germany?

Again, it sure does seem like that pesky old double standard.

It's one thing to appreciate a nice Pils or Reisling, but you are cutting the Germans a bit too much slack.

[Andreas]

It's Riesling, you Vodka slobbering caricature of reason.

[JonS]

Athlete,

Germany =/= Hitler. Read what I wrote, please.

See Bigdukes comments about how 'well' Germany did out of WWII. Further, see Encarta for entries on "Cold War", "Iron Curtain", and "East Germany" & "West Germany" for more on the same topic.

See "Berlin Bunker" for how well Hitler did out of WWII.

Regards

JonS

[ June 08, 2005, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[annihilate_this_week]

big ups bigduke

[Denwad]

The Rheinland is a huge part of German industry, it rightfully belongs to Germany, past present and future.

[Other Means]

One of the most ironic things about WWII, if irony can be found in ashes, is that the history of it was written in a large part by the losers. It wasn't until glasnost that the extent of their ignorance/duplicity/revisionism was exposed. So can we drop that old saw?

[athlete]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[QB] Athlete,

Ok, maybe you're not a Neo-Nazi, and good for you! I like people who are not Neo-Nazis. Many of my friends are not Neo-Nazis. And thanks for answering my questions, that was right polite of you. I apologize for even insinuating about trollness.

This is, in my estimation funny. Kudos.

But I fear I have some questions for you:

1. Why is it okay in your mind for Germany to get to invade the left side of Poland, but the Soviet Union can't invade the right side? Why do Germans get to recover ancient lands torn away by imposed treaty, but Russians doing the same thing to the same country are, in your words, "opportunists."

Well, in short because when the Germans agreed to an armistice, it wasn't because they were routed. It was because they were facing inevitable defeat. To chase them back to Germany and finish them would have been HUGELY costly in terms of human life. So in good faith, the Germans agreed to a ceasefire, then to disarm. That's when they got screwed. The terms of Versailles were ridiculous, and never accepted by the German people. Protest after protest came from Germany and the rest of the world said, "tough crap, loser". Very well then. Germany dealt with it, for about 20 years. Took them about that long to become strong enough to say, "Tough crap eh? Well now we're taking it back, try to stop us." It's all rather childish really. On both sides. First, France and England really put it to the Germs in 1919. When Germany started coming out of it, they MUST have known they weren't going to continue to accept those terms. They had NEVER accepted them. So the smart thing to do, in my estimation would be to really think through what was equitable...not wait for Hitler to take something back, bitch, then capitulate, wait for him to take something else, bitch, capitulate...etc...It's stupid. Just give Germany what's fair. This is different from Russia...first Russia had made no bones about Poland (to my knowledge) until after they had occupied it. Second, the USSR was supposed to be a Republic of Communists, Republics are made up of VOLUNTARY governments, not conquests. Third, and quite frankly, time. The time difference between 20years of continuous protests vs. 70ish years of relative silence and then suddenly (after the fact) an explanation of why we did it to me is intuitively different. Just my opinion really. Still have yet to hear a good arguement for why the Russians were British allies after doing to Poland the same thing Germany did, but without any real warning or justification, but I'm a patient guy.

2. Germany lost more of its population, percentage-wise, than any other country in the war with the exception of Poland, and you don't need me to tell you why the death rate in Poland was particularly high. Are you arguing this incredibly high German death rate, plus occupation, plus having the Red Army come through your Eastern provinces, is somehow evidence Germany was on the moral high ground during World War Two? That somehow the Germans were victims?

Uh, no, I don't think I am. I don't ever remember saying that Germany was on the morale high ground to be honest...though I'm open to opinions to the contrary. Really my point was, by my standards, I don't think Brit and France should have started a global war because of the conflict between Poland and Germany. They should have been peace-brokers; and probably long before we got to the Poland issue. As soon as they realized that Germany was still extremely dissatisfied with the redrawing of the map and the other terms of the ToV, AND that they were well on the way to being a major power in Europe again, I think they might have rethought their conditions of peace. The alternative, which they exercised, was to confront Germany militarily and try and enforce specific terms of the ToV. I don't get it. Like I said, as long as your willing to enforce the terms with your military forever, then that's fine, but if you want a lasting peace without having to constantly hold a gun to the heads of 50-odd million Germans, you should probably treat them with respect. It's just a choice. I don't like the choice we made.

3. Do you think it was okay for Hitler to reannex the Rhineland, Sudetenland, and Austria? That should be an easy one.

Insofar as I think that Germany could be expected to take back what had been theirs, I don't think it was unpredictable, and I think it might have made sense for the LoN to facilitate the transfer, so long as the populations of those areas were not vehemetly opposed to it.

4. Do you think it was ok for Germany to annex Polish Silesa?

Frankly, I don't know anything about this area. That said, if they had it prior to 1919, then they had an arguement...if the occupation of that region was as a result of the Polish conflict, well, for security reasons it might have been necessary to occupy it for a time, and had Eng and France been neutral in the conflict, they might have influenced a withdrawl from the region over time. Can't really be specific...I'll put it on my list of things to research.

5. Do you think it would have been ok for Germany to annex Alsace and Lorraine, and Saarland had France and Germany been in a state of peace?

Same as 4..don't really know.

6. You think France and Britain made an error by drawing a line for Germany on Poland. Fine. Where and when SHOULD they have drawn the line?

The line should have been drawn if and when Germany went on an expansionist campaign that included areas with populations that opposed German rule. (Note, the occupation of Polish territory east of Danzig/EPrussia and subsequently France etc... doesn't count to me, because that was simply in response to armed conflict with the respective countries. i.e. You can't 'half-invade' Poland or you risk counter-attack and that is just dumb. You can't wait for France and England to mass on the borders of Germany to start fighting as that would be dumb too.) Now, I don't know enough to say for sure, but the occupation of Czeck beyond the Sudentland MIGHT have been an example, though this too is on my list of things to really research...(i.e. were the Czecks resistant to German rule? Why did they occupy the rest of the country? etc...)

7. Clearly you think the Versailles terms given Germany were unfair. Why do you think the Germans signed, then? What was Berlin's alternative?

Well, they signed because they had disarmed. They disarmed as a condition of the armistice. They agreed to the armistice because they knew they must eventually be defeated. BUT, they had not surrendered. They weren't routed. The cost to the allies in terms of lives to actually invade Germany would have been HUGE. That's why it wasn't a surrender; but then the allies screwed them. Well, probably seemed clever at the time, but just 20 years later...

8. Why did Berlin have so few alternatives left in 1918? Is it possible the "blank check" issued Austria-Hungary, the violation of Belgian neutrality, the introduction of poison gas to warfare, and unrestricted submarine warfare against the strongest country in the world could have had anything to do with that terrible state of affairs?

Well, it's alternative would have been to defend Germany. Nobody wins...Germany would eventually lose, and the allies would have lost hundreds of thousands of troops in the effort. The armistice made sense for everyone, and especially Germany; and for the reasons you cite, the western powers felt justified in punishing Germany. Well, in my mind, if we learn anything, it's not to unjustly punish countries for losing wars unless like I said, we're satisfied we can enforce the terms through force forever or we're certain the population will eventually just accept it. In hindsight though, this is a BIG gamble. Losing the gamble costs about 40million people.

9. You are arguing might makes right; Germany was strong and took what she wanted, and it was up to the rest of the world to deal with it. What I want to know is, why is it okay with you for Germany to do what the heck it pleases, and to use force to get its way, but not okay for others to the same thing to Germany?

Quite the contrary. Wars are dumb and generally fought for dumb reasons. Let's face it, WWI was the most colossal clusterf$#@& the world has ever seen. Talk about a completely meaningless war! That's why it baffles me that we were so willing to fight for Poland's right to hold the title on the Danzig, but we won't go to Rwanda or Darfir. It's bizarre. I'm not arguing that it was okay for Germany to use it's military to take what it pleased...I'm suggesting that the LoN didn't do what needed to be done to avoid a war (i.e. give the frickin land back), and that it was probably pretty stupid for the Polish government to suddenly walk out of talks with Germany about Danzig, and for Smigly to start sabre-rattling. I'm also suggesting that had France and England thought it through, they must have realeased that they were defending a term of the Treaty that was not going to be accepted, and really ought to have pressured Poland back to the table, NOT simply guaranteeing them military aid.

Again, it sure does seem like that pesky old double standard.

Well, I don't mean it to be...once again I come back to: the world went to war in Europe over Poland's claim to Danzig. Six years and 40million people later, we gave it to the Russians who had NO claim to it, really. So the mission to secure Polish sovereignty was a complete failure wouldn't you say?

It's one thing to appreciate a nice Pils or Reisling, but you are cutting the Germans a bit too much slack.

I don't mean to cut them any slack...I mean to voice my opinion about how 1936-1939 Germany was handled...I think it was handled abysmally.

BTW, I have to say that I really appreciate your civility. I don't fancy myself pro-Nazi Germany, and frankly the opinions I have on this whole topic are subject to evolution. I'm actually fairly new to the subject having only really been interested for about 6 months, so I have some gaps to fill in my knowledge of the facts...I've pointed some of those gaps out in several posts across a couple of threads. These sort of questions you pose prompt me to take notes and get back to the books, and I enjoy the debate. I'm sure I'll get another salvo of 'you're a Nazi' or 'this guy is nuts' or whatever, but the beauty is that you are all faceless peons. (That's meant to be humorous). So I can debate the subject with relative impunity. Also, some of you faceless peons make good points. I like when that happens.

[ June 08, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: athlete ]

[annihilate_this_week]

I think you need to re-read BidDuke's point #1. Like 20 times until it sinks in, dude. Who cares if the Germans "didn't like it"? If we're all gonna be totally objective then -

In 1939 what was Poland, was Poland.

Doesn't matter whom which part belonged to when and under what degrees of satisfaction did the respective parties (germs and russ) signed these parts away prior to 39. (Tov and Brest-Litovsk)