Why did he go to war with every white dominated country?
France = white
Belgium = white
Russia = white
USA = white
Norway = white
Poland = white
Czechoslovakia = white
Hungary = white
UK = white
Ireland = white
on and on...
He was a German Nationalist not a White Nationalist, Germans were the Ubermensch, the the rest were below them. He didn't like Eastern Europeans Slavs or White Americans, in his mind were both slaves to Jews.
shareHitler had wanted an alliance with the UK, as early as 1938 Hitler tried to court Britain into an alliance, his propaganda praised the British as proficient Aryan imperialists.
A particular theme of praise was offered for British “ruthlessness” in building and defending their empire, which was held as a model for the Germans to follow. Above all, the British were admired as an “Aryan” people who had with typical “ruthlessness” subjected millions of brown- and black skinned people to their rule, and British rule in India was held up as a model for how the Germans would rule Russia.
Edward VIII and his wife even visited Hitler in 1937.
The second world war could have been a lot different if the British, Germans, Italians and Japaneses were allies.
The second world war could have been a lot different if the British, Germans, Italians and Japaneses were allies.
You can't take over the world unless you first conquer your neighbors. This was the downfall of all the european empires. They all fell, why? Because none of them could ever conquer europe. You can conquer 50 foreign countries overseas, but the second a neighbor occupies your homeland, a power vacuum occurs and you lose them all.
shareUhm regarding Hitlers beliefs he thought that FDR was the Jewish messiah... so he didn't like him because he thought that FDR was trying to kill him. France took German industrial territory after the Treaty of Versailles. UK declared war on Hitler after Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler thought that the Jews and Bolsheviks were working together and Hitler even talks about some book titled "Protocal Elders of Zion" by which he believes that the 1917 Bolshevik uprising was a part of some Jewish conspiracy to kill Germans,
"... To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. What many Jews may do unconsciously is here consciously exposed. And that is what matters. It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. The best criticism applied to them, however, is reality. Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken."
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Volume 1; Chapter XI: Nation and Race (pp. 307-308; Mannheim translation)
They were the only ones around. If he was to even reach the other races, he'd need to expand his power base at least. Germany had limited resources, after all.
And THAT is where babies come from.
I don't understand Hitler/Nazis at all. They claim Arians are superior; but praise Jesse Owens when he wins all those gold medals. Hitler even said blacks are superior when it comes to sports/athleticism.
THEN there are those nazis who were friends with Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, even shook hands with them in their mutual resentment against Jews.
Wouldn't Muslims/Brown people be inferior to Arians?
Your problem is not with the Nazi's, it's with how the western history books have portrayed them. They never claimed they were superior (though they hoped they one day would evolve to be). They never hated other races (except the Jews). They simply wanted a Germany for Germans.
shareThey simply wanted a Germany for Germans.
Yeah, keep repeating it and it becomes true right?
shareno, keep repeating it because it is true.
it's just that simple
Oh, you got evidence for this claim?
sharehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race as a starting point, and then you can read "the rise and fall of the third reich" which has plenty of other references for you to follow.
but you won't, will you? because they're all lies, lies, dirty lies!
of course, you have far less "evidence" for whatever bizarre claims you're making, but that's to be expected. should i start by reading "the protocols of the elders of zion" and working my way from there?
Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is based on known forgeries and sketchy biographies.
If you want a true picture of what Hitler and the Nazi's thought I'd suggest you go to the horses mouth, Mein Kampf. And if that's too "propaganda" for you, you can check out his speeches and Third Reich diplomatic correspondence. None of this in any way support the dubious theories that Nazi's wanted world domination or that they considered other races inferior worthy of killing. They believed in racialism, true, and they wanted to further the Germanic race, but they didn't believe themselves to be superior at the time. It was something they wanted to become, and they respected every race's goal to do the same.
Hitler's favorite sportsman was a black Egyptian. Jesse Owens got praise for his victories in Nazi newspapers and was even given a tour of the Chancellery. Personally Jesse said he had never been treated better than in Germany. Not only by the government, but by ordinary people in the streets. He could walk into any public restaurant and not receive any animosity. In America he faced prosecution for trespassing on white establishments. Hitler had a Jewish driver. 50.000 Jews lived and worked in Berlin througout the war. There was even a public synagogue where they could practice their beliefs.
Muslims and Slavs served in the German SS, willingly. They were given Quarans and were allowed their daily prayers. Hitler had much respect for the Islamic religion. He was allied to the Turks and the Japanese.
Hitler never wanted war with any of the western powers, nor with Poland. He was bending himself backwards to avoid war. All of the official correspondence and documents (intercepted by the Allies, now available for the public) attest to this. As early as 1935 he proposed mutual disarmament in Europe to prevent future conflict. He supported trade among the nations.
Rise and Fall of The Third Reich is based on known forgeries and sketchy biographies.
here's his proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfgoAPxSfFc
that's the best explanation i've seen so far!
shareprove this.
Mark Edward Weber (born October 9, 1951) is the director of the Institute for Historical Review, an American Holocaust denial organization based in southern California.
Yeah, shoot the messenger. The definition of intelligence there. Do you have any reason to refute his claims apart from "OMG he's a nazi, must be a liar!"?
I prefer the term National Socialist, but you can call me a Nazi. I don't mind.
well, it's important to know whether i'm listening to somebody rational or not. holocaust deniers tend to be right up there with the 9-11 truthers when it comes to selective fact use and mis-use.
for instance, i didn't reject his claim because he's a nazi, i rejected it because it's trivial. extremely trivial. only a true believer would take what he says as proof of anything.
certainly somebody who'd take such an insignificant item as proof that an entire work is false would have a field day with all the lies oozing from goebbels' propaganda machine. yet i assume you don't. why is that?
How is it trivial to be so careless that you base part of what is supposed to be a historical work on pulp forgery? Did you hear WHY the author was told to spice up his book? Because the truth wasn't damning enough.
That is very serious, and goes to show that WWII historians will only give lip service to facts and truth if it serves their interests.
First off, Goebbels was a propagandist, his job is not strictly to tell factual truths. Nor is his writings supposed to serve as any fact or truth about what happened in the Third Reich. That would be like using Comical Ali as a source for history on the Iraq War. Secondly, his propaganda isn't as bad as some make it out to be. No worse than western PR, that's for sure.
If you want a source for Hitler that doesn't set out to paint him as the devil from the start I suggest David Irving's book, "Hitler's War". Irving is sympathetic to Hitler, but he is not a nazi. And while I wouldn't call the book "objective" (what is?), it's a very valuable and factual insight into the other side of the war.
Irving is sympathetic to Hitler, but he is not a nazi
an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.
He's no more a holocaust denier than Auschwitz themselves, who downgraded the death toll at that camp from 4 million to 1 million. That's all Irving does, digging up evidence for what the Holocaust actually is. That doesn't make him a denier, it just makes him rational and fact based.
Are we taking history lessons from Judges now?
And again, this has got nothing to do with what he wrote in that book. If you want to claim that something in there is false, point out specifically what that is. Just because you don't agree with his political views doesn't automatically make his historical work a piece of trash. It's all sourced and footnoted. You can check up every piece of evidence in there.
He's no more a holocaust denier than Auschwitz themselves, who downgraded the death toll at that camp from 4 million to 1 million.
Are we taking history lessons from Judges now?
And again, this has got nothing to do with what he wrote in that book. If you want to claim that something in there is false, point out specifically what that is
The judge was taking history lessons from historians.
For example, in 'Hitler's war', Irving claims that there is incontrovertible evidence that Hitler ordered on November 30, 1941, that there was to be "no liquidation" of the Jews. Irving continues to refer throughout his book to the 'November 1941 order forbidding the liquidation of the Jews'.
Irving has made this up.
And I've just given an example of how much credibility some of those historians really carry when they base their works on known forgeries.
Irving assert that it is likely the order came from Hitler given that he was Himmler's only superior.
The example is what started this discussion. Shouldn't be too hard to find.
No, he says that it is incontrovertible evidence that Hitler ordered no liquidation of the Jews. That is what Irving asserts.
Example Rauschning's book? Described by the historians you try to discredit as having nothing genuine in it.
In no way does Irving assert that this order is incontrovertible evidence that Hitler ordered no liquidation of Jews.
This is the verbatim quote from that section of the book (p 454):
Himmler’s all-important telephone notes, recorded on a different sheet, show that at 1.30 p.m. he spoke by telephone from ‘the bunker’ – that is, Hitler’s bunker – to Heydrich and dictated the explicit order that the Berlin trainload of Jews was not to be liquidated.
That's all he says. What are you speaking of?
I am speaking of what Irving actually says (or rather claims)
Page XiV of the introduction to his book "Hitler's war".
In which he states - the incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered on November 30, 1941, that there was to be "no liquidation" of the Jews (without much difficulty I found in Himmler's private files his own handwritten note on this)..
(the same note referenced in your quoted section)
Not in the version I'm reading (the newest one). And if that comes from an earlier version, what is wrong with that statement?
shareObviously not in the version you are reading.
Irving is an accomplished liar. He makes this claim about the meaning of the note in his 1977 edition.
http://books.google.pl/books?id=u6wNAQAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AmG-96jS ZIsgC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=incontrovertible
When, after the research of historian Richard J Evans (for the trial), his absurd claim was found to be completely false, he changed his 'story' and edited his book.
Note also the differences between his 1977 version and the latest on page xviii
1977
In their printed text Hitler had not told Himmler (on November , ) that there was to be ‘no liquidation’; he had told him not to use the word ‘liquidate’ publicly in connection with their extermination programme. Thus history is falsified!
Latest - Irving added something.
In their printed text Hitler had not told Himmler (on November , ) that there was to be ‘no liquidation’ of a consignment of Jews from Berlin; he had told him not to use the word ‘liquidate’ publicly in connection with their extermination programme. Thus history is falsified!
In 1977, the November order (described in the note) incontrovertibly proved Hitler forbade all liquidations, according to Irving. Now, the November order only becomes about one consignment of Jews from Berlin.
To quote Irving himself - Thus history is falsified!.... by David Irving.
Obviously not in the version you are reading.
Irving is an accomplished liar. He makes this claim about the meaning of the note in his 1977 edition.
http://books.google.pl/books?id=u6wNAQAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AmG-96jS ZIsgC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=incontrovertible
When, after the research of historian Richard J Evans (for the trial), his absurd claim was found to be completely false, he changed his 'story' and edited his book.
Note also the differences between his 1977 version and the latest on page xviii
1977
In their printed text Hitler had not told Himmler (on November , ) that there was to be ‘no liquidation’; he had told him not to use the word ‘liquidate’ publicly in connection with their extermination programme. Thus history is falsified!
Latest - Irving added something.
In their printed text Hitler had not told Himmler (on November , ) that there was to be ‘no liquidation’ of a consignment of Jews from Berlin; he had told him not to use the word ‘liquidate’ publicly in connection with their extermination programme. Thus history is falsified!
In 1977, the November order (described in the note) incontrovertibly proved Hitler forbade all liquidations, according to Irving. Now, the November order only becomes about one consignment of Jews from Berlin.
To quote Irving himself - Thus history is falsified!.... by David Irving.
The publishing house' lie is a real one, and far more serious (claiming the order was "to not mention the word liquidate").
Seems more he jumped to a wrong conclusion,
so there were only a million executions perpetrated by the nazis at auschwitz? oh that's much better!
shareso there were only a million executions perpetrated by the nazis at auschwitz? oh that's much better!
you think they just picked this number at random? you believe that the germans left no records whatsoever? what do you believe the correct figure should be?
shareyou think they just picked this number at random? you believe that the germans left no records whatsoever? what do you believe the correct figure should be?
german records show approximately 1.1 million jews being shipped to the camp, and about 170k others. there were approximately 7000 live prisoners at the camp upon liberation. what do you suppose happened to the rest of the prisoners?
sharegerman records show approximately 1.1 million jews being shipped to the camp, and about 170k others. there were approximately 7000 live prisoners at the camp upon liberation. what do you suppose happened to the rest of the prisoners?
the commandant of the camp testified that three million people died at the camp while he was there. perhaps he knows what went on there? perhaps there were a lot of people who were only there long enough to gas them, in which case why even bother to register them? perhaps evidence was destroyed in the frantic effort to cover up what went on at the camp?
again, if they have records of shipping 1.1 million in, and only 200k are registered (assuming that number is true), where did the other 900k people vanish to?
Only 200.000 was registered, of which half survived
And for some reason his testimony is no longer considered credible by modern historians. It can not be documented, it is not used as basis for current numbers. Why is that? Absence of evidence, as you well know, is not an indicator for anything.
That's the thing, since only 200k were registered, we really don't know if there were more, how many or what happened to them. That is why the 1 million number is dubious.
Your very own Holocaust researchers is the source for the number of 200k. It shouldn't be hard to find.
so what you're saying is that if a death isn't documented then it didn't happen.
again, what happened to the missing 900k people? they vanished. where did they go?
the commandant probably gave a rough estimate knowing what the maximum throughput for the killing process was, which ended up being high. you, on the other hand are saying that he's lying completely and that nothing of the sort ever happened. why would he (and so many others with similar testimony) make up such a massive lie?
so what you're saying is that if a death isn't documented then it didn't happen.
again, what happened to the missing 900k people? they vanished. where did they go?
the commandant probably gave a rough estimate knowing what the maximum throughput for the killing process was, which ended up being high. you, on the other hand are saying that he's lying completely and that nothing of the sort ever happened. why would he (and so many others with similar testimony) make up such a massive lie?
No, but you can't say that it did either, cause you have no proof that it did.
How do we know they are missing? How do we know the number is 900k?
Israel have millions of Jews today, you think they sprung from the ground?
Except that the so called killing process they put forward are in no way capable of such numbers
and as commander he should know that
Because that's the story the Allies wanted them to tell, and those that refused were tortured and threatened until they agreed to do so.
And most witnesses do not claim this happened. Most simply say they were in a labor camp.
this is trivial because it's about a single paragraph of a thousand page book. do you not get that? 99.999% accuracy is generally considered pretty good, when it comes to history. ok fine, tear that page out - now discredit the rest of the book. are the diaries of ciano, goebbels, halder all pulp forgeries as well? the text of hitler's orders, meeting minutes of the nazi leadership, the nuremburg testimony...all made up? please prove that.
in nazi germany, goebbels' propaganda was the only news allowed. if his job isn't to tell factual truths, since there's no other legal news source, what is it? pure comedy for entertainment purposes only? yes, his propaganda is as bad as it's made out to be, and not at all like western news.
as lyndhen points out, your man irving just makes stuff up out of thin air. factual? i don't think so. yet somehow this doesn't discredit him at all. hmmm....
You sure that's the only one? You sure it's not the one you use to base your view of Hitler as a hating, murdering racist on? If that's the case it's pretty non trivial.
Why make up all this stuff about Hitler if he was in fact this devil everybody portrays him as? Shouldn't there be plenty of evidence for this claim? Yet we have seen hundreds of forgeries and scams when it comes to this man. What's the need for this?
If you want me to believe your claim, provide me with an actual quote or document, and we can go from there. I've read Mein Kampf and I don't recognize him as this devil you seem to think he is. Nor do I think he was particularly racist in the modern sense.
How is Goebbels a source for the Third Reich? He was not part of the government other than as a PR man, he had nothing to do with government policy. He reported what his superiors wanted him to report. Sure there is some value in studying him, but when it comes to actual Nazi policies he is close to irrelevant. Whatever he says needs to be backed up by actual proof. Or do you believe Saddams government actually believed and did the things Comical Ali claimed? You'd just take his reports at face value?
Lyndhen CLAIMED something, and I refuted it. You want to re refute that, go ahead, but until that happens his word is just a baseless claim.
yes, i'm sure that's the only time he's quoted. go ahead and read the rise and fall yourself, you might find it enlightening. there are plenty of other quotes from hitler that are quite unflattering and quite undisputed. the author's continually calling goering fat and rosenberg stupid (etc) gets tiresome, but otherwise it's as neutral as this sort of book can be.
if you think most of the things said about hitler are just "made up", i think you're kidding yourself. he was fairly careful about executing his opposition and destroying evidence, but there is plenty out there to go on.
if you've managed to make it through mein kampf, that's impressive. not even mussolini could do that. of course that was written very early on, and hitler himself considered it largely outdated by the time he'd seized full power.
ummm...goebbels was (briefly) hitler's successor. he may not have created policy himself, but he bought into it totally and implemented it unquestioningly. he was vital to squelching the july 20 coup. he was at the very top of the hierarchy and knew everything that was going on, you can't get a better source of info than his private diaries. who would you propose as an alternative? of course, if you're saying that you can't believe the nazis because they were prolific liars, then yes i'll agree with that.
i find lyndhen's interpretation of irving's remarks to be more comprehensive and persuasive than yours. it's well-known that hitler didn't issue any written orders regarding the final solution, but it's equally well-known and well-documented that the jewish population of europe was "resettled to the east" and vanished under nazi rule - and that nothing of that scale could have happened without hitler's approval. given the commando order, commissar order, and night & fog decrees it's obvious that hitler was quite capable of this sort of thing.
yes, i'm sure that's the only time he's quoted. go ahead and read the rise and fall yourself, you might find it enlightening. there are plenty of other quotes from hitler that are quite unflattering and quite undisputed. the author's continually calling goering fat and rosenberg stupid (etc) gets tiresome, but otherwise it's as neutral as this sort of book can be.
if you think most of the things said about hitler are just "made up", i think you're kidding yourself. he was fairly careful about executing his opposition and destroying evidence, but there is plenty out there to go on.
if you've managed to make it through mein kampf, that's impressive. not even mussolini could do that. of course that was written very early on, and hitler himself considered it largely outdated by the time he'd seized full power.
ummm...goebbels was (briefly) hitler's successor. he may not have created policy himself, but he bought into it totally and implemented it unquestioningly. he was vital to squelching the july 20 coup. he was at the very top of the hierarchy and knew everything that was going on, you can't get a better source of info than his private diaries. who would you propose as an alternative? of course, if you're saying that you can't believe the nazis because they were prolific liars, then yes i'll agree with that.
i find lyndhen's interpretation of irving's remarks to be more comprehensive and persuasive than yours. it's well-known that hitler didn't issue any written orders regarding the final solution, but it's equally well-known and well-documented that the jewish population of europe was "resettled to the east" and vanished under nazi rule - and that nothing of that scale could have happened without hitler's approval. given the commando order, commissar order, and night & fog decrees it's obvious that hitler was quite capable of this sort of thing.
Hitler had no problem ordering the deaths of thousands of German, Germanic citizens in his euthanasia program. He had no trouble ordering the liquidation of Russian commissars and British airmen. I struggle to see why he should have a problem giving a order to liquidate Jews if he so wished it.
While a lot of Jews were killed during the war, you can't just say all the resettled Jews were killed. Many did in fact repatriate to the Soviet Union, Israel and other places in Europe/America.
It's the amount and method of killing that's in dispute. I see no evidence of gas chambers or a state program to eradicate Jews.
I do however see a general antagonism against Jews which resulted in the deaths of many thousands of them, perhaps a million or more.
I have that book. It was actually the first one I read about the Third Reich many years ago. But I don't remember much specifics about it today
yes, actually he did - few copies of those orders were written and were supposed to be destroyed after being relayed verbally. why do you suppose that is?
no, not all of them. 99% killed isn't "all", after all.
because the nazis killed what witnesses and destroyed whatever evidence they could. but if you see no evidence, it's simply because you refuse to look.
do einsatzgruppen count as "general antagonism"? "perhaps a million or more"...so no big deal i guess!
I've never seen such an order.
I've seen no proof of this estimate.
I see evidence, but not of gassings, death camps or an attempt to kill every Jew in Europe.
If you examine those numbers you'll find it close to impossible for such a small band of soldiers to have killed over a million Jews
the reason they were killed was because they were suspected of partisan activities.
why would you, when you refuse to look?
so you believe it's impossible for 3000 heavily armed soldiers to kill 1000 unarmed civilians a day? why?
if by "partisan" you mean "they were jews", then that is correct. how can thousands of unarmed civilians be "suspected of partisan activities" within days of the nazis capturing a city?
In reality yes, because people usually don't congregate in such numbers when they know killing squads are out to get them.
Nor do we have the mass graves to prove it.
The answer to that lies with Stalin
And many of the commanders, for this reason, refused to carry out the order from Hitler since they knew what it lead to.
you really think russian peasants without vehicles or telephones or radios would be able to have advance warning that an einsatzgruppen was on the way and then be able to evade them? in a city of tens of thousands of people, it's even easier to rack up huge numbers - for example the extermination of the warsaw ghetto.
babi yar, among others. the germans did what they could to destroy evidence in other places. why would there be orders to destroy mass graves if there were no mass graves in the first place?
funny how all the nazi atrocities are the other guy's fault....
with very few exceptions, the vast majority followed hitler's orders
Word tends to get around in the world, especially when it comes to such things.
Warsaw was a controlled ghetto
Again we have the curious situation of "no evidence, because the evidence was destroyed".
In this case it surely played a significant part.
No they didn't, and that was a major reason they lost the war. The head of the Abwehr was a traitor
Many Generals and commanders refused to kill POWs since that was considered a crime to the civilized Germans.
[deleted]
that comment is not inappropriate.
shareCheck out "Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told (2013)" and maybe you'll change your mind, like I did.
sharei did, and it's aptly named as it doesn't tell most of the story. needless to say, my mind wasn't changed.
sharei stand corrected - he's not even quoted, merely mentioned. appropriately, i should add.
sharememo from hitler to hans frank, governor general of poland, via martin bormann (october 2, 1940):
the poles are especially born for low labor.... there can be no question of advancement for them. it is necessary to keep the standard of life low in poland and that it must not be permitted to rise... the poles are lazy and it is necessary to use compulsion to make them work... the government general [of poland] should be used by us merely as a source of unskilled labor... every year the laborers needed by the reich could be procured from there.
they will preach what we want them to preach. if any priest acts differently, we will make short work of him. the task of the priest is to keep the poles quiet, stupid, and dull-witted.
it is indispensable to bear in mind that the polish gentry must cease to exist; however cruel this may sound, they must be exterminated wherever they are...
there should be one master only for the poles, the german. two masters, side by side, cannot and must not exist. therefore, all representatives of the polish intelligentsia are to be exterminated. this sounds cruel, but such is the law of life.
I never said Hitler didn't believe in the master race, I said he didn't consider the Germans to be one at the time, but that he hoped for them to become so.
Nor do I refute those quotes. However, Hitler was reacting in those instances, not acting. It was not "a plan" to conquer lands and make the people slaves, but it was one of the strategies once lands had fallen in their hands. I know that might seem a slim difference, but the point is Hitler would have treated the Poles a lot better if he hadn't found himself forced into a war with them. The Poles had every opportunity to make a good deal with the Germans. Then the British "guarantee" came in and things changed dramatically. Hitler didn't intrinsically wish for war with Poland, only a piece of territory the Germans had lost in the previous war.
His only deliberate plan for conquest appears to be Russia, and that comes from Mein Kampf. Many things suggest that plan was no longer a priority in the 30s, not until Russia threatened/planned invasion themselves.
And that is what I mean when I say Hitler didn't have a plan for World Conquest, or even a lot of European Conquest. Nor did he really hate other races, possibly with the exception of Jews, but he did consider some of them inferior. His sole priority was really only the furtherance of Germany and Germanic race.
the point is Hitler would have treated the Poles a lot better if he hadn't found himself forced into a war with them
The Poles had every opportunity to make a good deal with the Germans
His only deliberate plan for conquest appears to be Russia
Nor did he really hate other races, possibly with the exception of Jews, but he did consider some of them inferior
hitler wasn't "forced" into launching a surprise attack against poland. that's just ridiculous.
no they did not. hitler was intent on making demands poland could not possibly meet, so he would have a justification for launching an invasion against them. anything poland agreed to would have been met with further, increasingly outrageous demands (see austria and czechoslovakia as examples).
"only" russia? oh, that's no big deal then.... of course since poland is between germany and russia i suppose the german army will just teleport over polish territory?
well, no, it's handy to keep some of the other races around as slaves. immediate extermination not required. and since the aryans were considered superior that would make everyone else inferior.
He pretty much was if you study the political and strategic situation at the time.
Hitler made very reasonable demands, and the Poles had agreed to meet them unofficially, until Britain gave them this guarantee.
Hitler wanted the Poles as a buffer and an ally.
Even if true, that wouldn't be a problem since Germany had no intention of invading those countries. Not France, Not Britain, Not the Benelux, Not Jugoslavia, Not Poland and probably not even Russia if they weren't run by expansionist communists.
i have, and this is patently false. poland was no threat to germany whatsoever.
this is also patently false. hitler's demands were unreasonable, unreasonably made, and the poles never agreed to them even unofficially.
as a source of slaves, you mean (see previous posts regarding how the poles were to be treated)
since germany actually did invade all of these countries (except britain, which was protected by the english channel), unprovoked, saying that their intentions were peaceful is ridiculous. was yugoslavia a threat to attack germany? was greece? was denmark? norway? countries don't just get invaded by accident, you know.
expansionist communists = bad, expansionist fascists = good?
Poland was putting Germans in labor camps. Killings were common. Germans in Poland were under attack.
Poland was seeking to align themselves against German interests
The Germans didn't demand much, mostly Danzig and some smaller territories
Not if they had agreed to the terms.
France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
You think Germany wanted to spend troops invading and guarding them?
They had a small army, of course they didn't.
Communism is expansionist as an ideology.
himmler did say that Islam was the perfect religion for a soldier
[deleted]
Americans didn't die in WWII for nothing. How about humanitarian reasons? How about saving the world from a psychopath? Sure Russia also won, but without the USAs help, it might have been a different story.
Hitler hated the USA because it was the "Melting Pot".
When I was a kid I wondered why the United States went to war with Germany. Many Americans favored isolationism after World War I. We couldn't isolate from Japan after they bombed Pearl harbor. Germany had nothing to do with that attack. Germany was allied with Japan so after the United States declared war on Japan Hitler felt compelled to declare war on the U.S. despite warnings from his advisers.