Who started both World Wars?

[MG1962]

For everybody who may find it useful, a little checklist I picked up at Purdue:

Souce-Nature-Intent

The source of the evidence must be considered. (Like it or not, von Daniken isn't a good source.)

Thats good advice regardless of the topic. Whenever I hear something, no matter the topic. My first question is, how does this person know this, how did this person figure this out, and if it goes against mainstream thinking of the time. What does this 'something' offer that mainstream thinking is not covering

 

[aggle-rithm]

He never said that. He only wanted a corridor, that is an Autobahn, that would connect The Reich to East-Prussia, not lands.

How convenient that the Autobahn would not only allow for the quick transport of goods and services, but also troops and weapons.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How convenient that the Autobahn would not only allow for the quick transport of goods and services, but also troops and weapons.

And the Egg-Chicken Question raises its ugly head.

 

[CptColumbo]

Danzig was not in Polish hands but under UN administration. The new insight is that he negotiated until a few days before the start of the war, via the British to get Danzig back. It was taken from the Germans by the guys that set up Germany for the rise of a Hitler because of this horrendous Versailles treaty. I mean the Allies.

I think if you are going to claim a new insight, you need to study history a little better.

Not Russia, but Britain ostensibly went to war with Germany because of poor Poland, boohoo. Poland, this rogue state created more or less out of thin air from German and Russian territory after WW1.

Again, if you studied the history of the region you would see that almost the complete opposite is actually true. In the late 18th century the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania faced a similar problem to the one experienced by the Weimar Republic nearly 150 years later. A parliament that was virtually powerless (unlike the Weimar Republic this was due to liberum veto) and corrupted through bribery from foreign powers.

Eventually it was partitioned into the territories of Prussia, Russia and Hapsburg Austria. The last occuring in 1795, effectively ending the existence of Poland as an independant state.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Not Russia, but Britain ostensibly went to war with Germany because of poor Poland, boohoo. Poland, this rogue state created more or less out of thin air from German and Russian territory after WW1.

"Ostensibly"?

The bottom line is this: Germany decided to respond to a diplomatic problem with military force. On April 3, 1939, Hitler told his military leaders to prepare to destroy Poland's military power by September 1 at the latest. The last-minute diplomatic negotiatons with Britain were clearly a stalling tactic.

Britian's Chamberlain warned Germany that an attack on Poland would result in military action by France and Britain. At this point, it was entirely up to the Third Reich whether or not there would be war.

Clearly, Hitler chose war.

 

[dtugg]

I haven't really been following this thread but has the nazi piece of crap really said that that it wasn't its Fuhrer's fault that they invaded Poland?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I haven't really been following this thread but has the nazi piece of crap really said that that it wasn't its Fuhrer's fault that they invaded Poland?

Basically, he's made all sorts of excuses like "Poland wasn't that nice either", and "Hitler tried to solve the problem through diplomatic channels", and "Germany's demands were quite reasonable", and "that part of Poland used to be part of Germany", and "Britain and France didn't really care about Poland and just used it as an excuse to declare war on Germany".

In the end, he can't dodge the inescapable fact that Germany INVADED Poland. Contrary to what our friend is suggesting, it's not difficult to fail to invade another country.

I mean, if you really put your mind to it.

 

[ddt]

Basically, he's made all sorts of excuses like "Poland wasn't that nice either", <snip>

And don't forget "Poland was a made-up state". Never mind that there had been a continuous Polish state from the mid-900s until 1795.

In the end, he can't dodge the inescapable fact that Germany INVADED Poland. Contrary to what our friend is suggesting, it's not difficult to fail to invade another country.

I mean, if you really put your mind to it.

But then, Hitler wanted war. Wasn't he basically mad at the western powers after Munich, because they had cheated him out of a war over Czechoslovakia?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Look, if you can't even get simple facts straight.... how am I trust your other sources?

Seriously... Danzig was under in UN administration in the 1930s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

The Free City of Danzig (German: Freie Stadt Danzig; Polish: Wolne Miasto Gdańsk) was a semi-autonomous city-state that existed between 1920 and 1939, consisting of the Baltic Sea port of Danzig (today Gdańsk) and surrounding areas.

The Free City was created on 10 January 1920, against the wishes of the local population [1], which preferred to remain with Germany, but in accordance with the terms of Part III, Section XI of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. The Free City included the city of Danzig and over two hundred nearby towns, villages, and settlements, all of which had been a part of the German Empire before then. As the League of Nations decreed, the region was to remain separated from the nation of Germany, as well as the newly-resurrected nation of Poland. The Free City was not autonomous; it was under League of Nations "protection" and put into a binding customs union with Poland. Poland also had other, special utilization rights towards the city.[2] The Free City was created in order to give Poland sufficient access to the sea and to weaken Germany, while at the same recognizing that its population was mainly German.

Any questions Amazer?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes and he woudl know - given he was 4 months old when the war broke out. But I guess why should we doubt a person who admits his opinion goes against all other historians

But please tell me why his opinion should carry so much more weight than any other

We are living in an age where you will get fired if you have the wrong opinions about history. Or even go to jail. 99% of the historians have a family and a mortgage and they want to keep it that way. Most of them know when to shut up. This Major-General, who comes across as a very decent fellow, decided to come 'out of the closet' at pension age. Figures.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Any questions Amazer?

I've got one. Do you ever read what you post, or is it simply regurgitation of random and unrelated bits of information that you churn out in hopes of confusing people to the point where they'll buy your revisionist babble? You make more mistakes than can be explained by shear chance so I have to believe you're doing it deliberately.

 

[ddt]

We are living in an age where you will get fired if you have the wrong opinions about history. Or even go to jail. 99% of the historians have a family and a mortgage and they want to keep it that way. Most of them know when to shut up. This Major-General, who comes across as a very decent fellow, decided to come 'out of the closet' at pension age. Figures.

That's an odd juxtaposition. If there were merit to Schultze-Rhonhof's thesis, wouldn't bonafide historians come "out of the closet" at pension age - their mortgages paid off, the kids out of the house? Schultze-Rhonhof, on the other hand, has no training as a historian and is no historian. His selection of sources betrays this. Should I repeat how he scorns at primary sources, and uses schoolbooks as source?

There is a far more reasonable explanation: frustration with the position of his employer in German society and its traditions inherited from its predecessors. The discussions in German media about barracks named after military heroes from Nazi times. The discussions about Nazi ditties found in Bundeswehr songbooks. The years and years of discussion about deploying the Bundeswehr outside of NATO territory. See what wiki writes about his retirement:

The year before, he gained prominence by publicly criticizing the verdict of the Bundesverfassungsgericht approval of the use of the so called Soldaten sind Mörder-quote ("soldiers are murderers", 1931 by Kurt Tucholsky), and his decision to retire due to this.

Methinks, he had an urge to whitewash German military history and hence, German history at large.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Methinks, he had an urge to whitewash German military history and hence, German history at large.

Well, it's a proven historical fact that the Germans are a peace-loving people who have been sadly, badly misunderstood. The Prussians, for example, are amongst the greatest flower-arranging peoples in the world, but they never get credit for that because people just want to talk about their supposed militarism. It's a shame we can't just ignore all that and embrace the wonder that is Germany without all the baggage.

Or something like that, anyway.

 

[9/11-investigator]

That source, Schultze, is too. He uses the "dtv Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" as source - a 2 tome pocket book covering world history.

He uses these standard books merely to quote the standard opinion about Hitler and Poland, not as a source.

What Schultze did was spending a very long time in the archives to find out what really happened. And from several independent sources (German, British, Swedish mediator) it became clear that Hitler wanted a way out of the crisis without war until one week before the actual start of the war. It was the unexpected opportunity of the non-agression pact with the USSR, signed one week before the war, that enabled him to take measures against the Poles. There was no way for Hitler to even think of this solution, had he not had the backing of the Soviets. And that he got at the last moment.

The demands of the Germans were reasonable: give us our city back, give us a road to our Eastern territories and please do not kill your German citizens.

Hitler had to do something.

It is the same message that Buchanan has: the Poles behaved like madmen. And they were encouraged in their behavior by the British with their war garantee, totally against the interests of the British and their empire. And then this remark of American ambassador Kennedy comes to mind, namely that Chamberlain had said that it were the American Jews who were pushing Britain into the war.

And then this other discovery of Schultze, namely that an employee of the German ambassy in Moscow had leaked the content of the secret annex to Roosevelt and that Roosevelt nevertheless did not inform the Poles that their country was about to be divided and that nobody could do anything about it, except the Poles themselves. What Roosevelt did instead, was encourage the Poles not to give in on the Danzig issue. Meaning, he was satanically leaning backwards and waiting for the accident to happen. He and his Jewish advisors knew all along that this was their chance to set the world on fire and to achieve world domination for America (and hence the Jews) as a result.

It all starts to make sense...

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It all starts to make sense...

How does that sentence relate to the rest of your post, please?

 

[ddt]

Well, it's a proven historical fact that the Germans are a peace-loving people who have been sadly, badly misunderstood. The Prussians, for example, are amongst the greatest flower-arranging peoples in the world, but they never get credit for that because people just want to talk about their supposed militarism. It's a shame we can't just ignore all that and embrace the wonder that is Germany without all the baggage.

Or something like that, anyway.

By Prussians, you mean the heathen Baltic tribes that lived south of Lithuania and were "christianized" by the Teutonic Knights?

 

[ddt]

What Schultze did was spending a very long time in the archives to find out what really happened.

Could you then just list the primary sources he used and mentioned in the bibliography of his book?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

By Prussians, you mean the heathen Baltic tribes that lived south of Lithuania and were "christianized" by the Teutonic Knights?

Slander! Slander and calumny, sir!

 

[Amazer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

The Free City of Danzig (German: Freie Stadt Danzig; Polish: Wolne Miasto Gdańsk) was a semi-autonomous city-state that existed between 1920 and 1939, consisting of the Baltic Sea port of Danzig (today Gdańsk) and surrounding areas.

The Free City was created on 10 January 1920, against the wishes of the local population [1], which preferred to remain with Germany, but in accordance with the terms of Part III, Section XI of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919. The Free City included the city of Danzig and over two hundred nearby towns, villages, and settlements, all of which had been a part of the German Empire before then. As the League of Nations decreed, the region was to remain separated from the nation of Germany, as well as the newly-resurrected nation of Poland. The Free City was not autonomous; it was under League of Nations "protection" and put into a binding customs union with Poland. Poland also had other, special utilization rights towards the city.[2] The Free City was created in order to give Poland sufficient access to the sea and to weaken Germany, while at the same recognizing that its population was mainly German.

Any questions Amazer?

No, and per your own link I'm sure you can spot the factual error that you made.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Again, if you studied the history of the region you would see that almost the complete opposite is actually true. In the late 18th century the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania faced a similar problem to the one experienced by the Weimar Republic nearly 150 years later. A parliament that was virtually powerless (unlike the Weimar Republic this was due to liberum veto) and corrupted through bribery from foreign powers.

Eventually it was partitioned into the territories of Prussia, Russia and Hapsburg Austria. The last occuring in 1795, effectively ending the existence of Poland as an independant state.

You are telling nothing new here. Fact also is that Poland did not exist during the entire 19th century. And I don't really care if Poland exists or not, it is up to them. Poland was recreated after WW1 at the expensive of the losers of WW1: Germany and Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1918–1939)

And they simply took it back 21 years later. I am aware that en entity called Poland existed for many centuries, which had hugely varying dimensions through the centuries. But then it never was a unified national state (this is a post-Napoleonic invention) but a kingdom, where many ethnicities were losely 'unified' under one banner.