Origins of World War II

[Torquez]

Nowhere does he spout the Neo-Nazi rubbish about it being Poland's fault.

Really ?
Kitsune :

They had every chance to solve the not so-important matter of the Danzig question on the negotiation table, but deliberately refused to do so. Poland openly showed complete intransigence

Because they all, Poland, Britain, France and Roosevelt, wanted or at least readily accepted a war, either as a chance to win territory and power or as achance to cut down Germany again, that they felt was becoming too powerful.

By late Summer 1939, Hitler had tried to solve the Danzig question (which actually was more a petitesse, which is qite ironic) with negotiations. He had patiently done that for months, he had offered very generous and reasonable proposals without any pressure. The Poles evaded, then started to say no, no, no, no and no.

Pure Neo-Nazi rubbish in its finest form.

I see how a single quote from a German in 1922 implies Germany without any internal opposition wanted to start another world war after having suffered through one only 4 years earlier.

Who says about World War.Seeckt/responsible for foreign policy/ wanted to destroy Poland.And that is what i claimed.

And I expect another quote from you exposing how corrupt and Nazi-like the Weimar Republic was.

Sure thing.Right away :
http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/artic ... semann.htm

In 1925 he suggested that if Germany first established good relations with Britain and France one day peaceful revision might be possible, perhaps as a result of Polish economic collapse or of Soviet pressure for revision of Poland's eastern frontier. But by the end of his life he seems to have accepted the ideas of his envoy in Warsaw, Rauscher, who recommended a policy of detente and trade in the hope that eventually Poland's economic dependence on Germany might make frontier revision possible. In effect this meant putting the issue on ice.

Wow, they're really warlike b@stards then, aren't they? The Weimar Republic had to deal with internal economic problems and a post-war depression. Yet apparently, they were planning the destruction of Poland at the same time.

Look at both quotes above.But I will gladly provide more proof of Weimar's republic attempt to regain power statust thru military :

http://www.feldgrau.com/articles.php?ID=23

For 11 years (1922 to 1933), the whole world was almost entirely shielded from Germany's clandestine military build-up and military development efforts in the Soviet Union. A political flap did occur in 1926 when the Social-Democrats of Germany publicly announced some aspects of the German-Soviet military co-operation efforts (the Manchester Guardian in England also helped by publishing a number of articles on the subject), but it went on largely undetected. After the victory of the Nationalist Socialists in 1933, one-by-one, the veils or remilitarization were lifted until 1935 when the formation of the Wehrmacht was offically announced and the various measures designed to cover up their reformation were dropped.

Given the above, both nations quickly realized that their best chances for growth and success in military matters was to rely on each other. The start, in fact, occurred quite early. In August of 1920, Enver Pasha worked as an intermediary between von Seeckt and Moscow. He proposed that Germany provide the Soviet Union with information regarding the Polish military as a gesture of good faith. On their side, the RSFSR selected Viktor Kopp (a very capable diplomat and of Estonian heritage), to work with the Germans. He established a cover office in Berlin, Unter den Linden Nr. 11 (a second RSFSR cover office was located in Tallinn, Estonia; a third in Riga, Latvia and a fourth in Kaunas, Lithuania). Kopp's official task was to work on repatriation issues of Russian POW's and interned Russian civilians in German custody (one of his proposals was to convert Soviet POW commissions into de facto consular missions). His more covert assignment was to work on improving German and Soviet relations. Kopp was successful in getting the Deruluft and Deru-metall companies established, as well as a number of other Soviet-German joint ventures.

Soviet supporters for a secret (or at least not a publicized) partnership included Lenin (only after he became ill), Trotsky, Dzerzhinski, Stalin, Frunze and a host of others.

German supporters for working with the Soviet Union included von Seeckt, von Blomberg, Rathenau and many other civilian and military leaders. Von Seeckt was in fact one of the most vociferous proponents of the program. He did not so much wish to see the Soviet military increasing drastically in strength, but he did see the benefits of working closely with Soviet industry. Von Seeckt believed that the Soviet Union was an excellent source of many hard to obtain metals and minerals necessary for the creation of a modern military force.

The German Reichswehr's counterpart at that time was the Soviet Workers and Peasant's Red Army (RKKA) and the ties that bind moved very quickly in the early days. Both agreed that they had a good co-operation future together. In early 1921, Major Fischer of the Reichswehr was selected to head a special working group within the Reichswehr Ministry. Their task was to work out a basic foundation for future German-Soviet co-operation efforts with their Soviet counterparts.

It all culminated with the Rapollo Treaty of April, 1922. Kopp's behind the scenes efforts in working with von Seeckt, von Hasse and other leading German officials had paid dividends. While the world was quite surprised at this event, the Germans and Soviets were not. It merely legitimized the many plans the Germans and Soviets had regarding their future economies. The most important result of the Rapollo accords was the German-Soviet military co-operation effort. On 11 August 1922, the German Reichswehr and the Soviet Red Army signed a document which allowed the Germans to establish military bases on Soviet soil.

The covert aspects of the German-Soviet military co-operation agreement all included provisions for joint work on armor matters, aviation matters and chemical warfare issues.

The following guiding principles were key German goals:

# Development of advanced military technologies, theoretical study efforts and training programs free from third-party interference.
# Development of tactical applications for weapons systems prohibited by the Versailles treaty.
# Development and education of an experienced cadre of specialists in all military fields. This cadre group can then be used to establish more formal military capabilities in Germany at a later time.
# Development of weapons systems prohibited by Versailles; development of weapons systems available in Germany.
# Development of new strategies and tactics based on the lessons learned in the above categories.
# Each training class should not last more than one year.

To accomplish these goals; the Germans presented the Soviets with the following requirements:

# The use of military facilities suitable for work on armor, aviation and chemical warfare issues.
# Freedom of action to pursue military development issues.
# Free exchange of ideas and developed technologies as learned from these sites.

In short, German bases operating in the Soviet Union were to be primarily used for R&D efforts, tactical training, personnel evaluation, etc, in those disciplines which were expressly prohibited for Germany by the Versailles treaty. In return for these privileges, Germany would allow the Red Army to conduct military exercises alongside the Reichswehr and it would also agree to share industrial and military technology advances as applicable. The Soviet Union agreed to the above cited stipulations.

By 1924, a Moscow Center office had been opened by the Reichswehr in Moscow. In March of 1924, the Russians approached the Germans to see which types of industrial capabilities could be quietly transferred to the Soviet Union. Could the Albatros Werke build airplanes in the Soviet Union; could Blohm and Voss build submarines, could Krupp build ammunition production plants, etc.

Co-operation was supposed to be a two-way street. As German military units were gaining experiences in the Soviet Union, a number of Soviet military technology experts and military officers were being secretly trained in Germany. However, in reality, the Germans took far more from the Soviets than they were willing to give in return.

And so on...

Well, obviously you respect deserters and spies, but no one else.[/qupte]
I don't honor those fighting for German Reich.Obviously Nazis do.

Every topic you post on becomes something about how Germans wanted to destroy Poland and how Germany was imperialistic and expansionist as long as anyone can remember.

That's history.

I specifically remember you brining up something from the 18th Century about Germany oppressing Poland when neither Poland or Germany existed at the time

You sure are ignorant.Kingdom of Poland/in the Commonwealth of Kingdoms of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania/ existed till 1795.
During the first partitions that happened.During the first partition in 1772 parts of Poland went to Prussia/the forefather of Germany/ where Poles were oppresed by laws against their language, confiscation of polish priests property, and higher taxes, as well as settlement of non-polish population.

Need I say more?

You just need to read Seeckt's quotes or Bismarcks towards Poles.
In fact the policy of Prussian state was aimed at destroying polish nationality, and Poles were treated like second class citizens often without the right to property, building homes, speaking their language etc.

[Achilles]

You'll be claiming the Germans were stabbed in the back by the Jews and Bolsheviks next.

With this sentence you have disqualified yourself from engaging in a factual discussion. It is the meanest and most degenerated thing to allege that someone is Nazi just to insult someone (the essence of that sentence). I am hurt by it and disappointed about you. I have never been told that in my life. I won't post on this forum again.

Oh, grow up.

[Rosselsprung]

Pure Neo-Nazi rubbish in its finest form.

Kitsune's post was about Danzig, not WWII. Danzig had been German for centuries.

http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/artic ... semann.htm
In 1925 he suggested that if Germany first established good relations with Britain and France one day peaceful revision might be possible,perhaps as a result of Polish economic collapse or of Soviet pressure for revision of Poland's eastern frontier. But by the end of his life he seems to have accepted the ideas of his envoy in Warsaw, Rauscher, who recommended a policy of detente and trade in the hope that eventually Poland's economic dependence on Germany might make frontier revision possible. In effect this meant putting the issue on ice.

That says nothing about corruption or Nazi tendencies in the Weimar Republic.

Every topic you post on becomes something about how Germans wanted to destroy Poland and how Germany was imperialistic and expansionist as long as anyone can remember.

That's history.

That's thinly glossed bigotry.

You sure are ignorant.Kingdom of Poland/in the Commonwealth of Kingdoms of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania/ existed till 1795.
During the first partitions that happened.During the first partition in 1772 parts of Poland went to Prussia/the forefather of Germany/ where Poles were oppresed by laws against their language, confiscation of polish priests property, and higher taxes, as well as settlement of non-polish population.

You just need to read Seeckt's quotes or Bismarcks towards Poles.
In fact the policy of Prussian state was aimed at destroying polish nationality, and Poles were treated like second class citizens often without the right to property, building homes, speaking their language etc.

So you're willing to present "evidence" without any burden of proof that Prussia oppresed Poles, and that because of this, Germany has always been imperialistic and expansionist. Also, it is a large leap in logic to believe that Prussia is the forefather of Germany when the other German states(Bavaria, Westphalia) had far more power and influence.

[Achilles]

Achilles,
1) What are you saying anyway? That the British, French and other economics experts were incompetent fools, because they demanded less reparations than were possible?

What?! They demanded sums theat were perfectly payable. It was the Germans who chose to squirm out of them. The Allied nations had to tighten their budgets and contend with unemployment. And they paid their debts. The Germans never did.

The Versailles treaty is completely harsh and cruel in all respects, it aimed at turning Germany from a Great Power to a barely half souvereign nation that was unable to defend any of its interests, like it was normal for any other nation, in fact, it left Germany in a position were it could not even defend its own territory.

More reason why it should have been occupied as a defeated nation for a a couple of decades.

2) As I have said before, it isn't only the reparations. France in 1870 had only fought against Prussia and some small German states, Germany in 1919 had gone through the largest military confrontation of all times, to that date, fighting against 3 and finally 4 Great Powers. Its degree of exhaustion was much more dire. Also, as said, the victorious powers confiscated countless economic activa with which Germany could have recovered economically. France in 1870 had to pay reparations (that was not only lucrative but even necessary, lest the French would have shown up with an army at the German border again one year later). But afaik, Prussia did not confiscate the French gold reserves. Or took away the whole French trading fleet. Or confiscated most French foreign investments, industrial plants and facilities. Or took countless patents or scientific/industrial secrets.
Imagine that: Before WWI a German company made money by producing a certain chemical product in an industrial facility in, let's say, France. A product it had invented itself and for which it held the worldwide patent for the time being, meaning that only this German compnay was allowed to produce and sell this product. After WWI, the French confiscated the industrial facility and the patent. And so not only the plant would was gone...but even more the German company could not even simply replace it, beacuse it was not allowed anymore to produce its own product. Only the French had that right now. And all the money this company does NOT earn over the next 10 years (and that is now earned by some French company instead) is as gone and lost as any reparations.
So we are not only talking about reparations here.

Unfortunately I am. If I could be inclined I could possibly argue with your German propaganda but maybe another time.

3) That the inflation was deliberately created by the German government is true. That does not, however, imply that the German government wanted to "win the war on the cheap". Or that they "never thought they could loose". Nonsense.

Rubbish. It financed it's war effort through loans. Loans which it never expected to have to pay back. It had plans for reparations which make the Versailles Treay look mild by comparison.

Since America did not grant generous loans to Germany as it did to France or Britain, the war was paid for by the German people, many lost their savings over it. And the German government had no real other choice. With the war debts, many economic activa gone and the reparations, there would have been no room to move financially anymore...for years or even decades. Inflation was induced to restart the economy, so that one could get rid of the war debts, to be able to concentrate on the raparations and have capital to regain economic activa by investment. That wasn't so incompetent thinking.
In any case the immense confiscations and the reparations changed the German situation from bad to worse...and quite deliberately so. But I have never said that Germany was never able to pay or something.

As has been proved with the economic figures Germany effectively had no debt to repay. The German economic situation was brought on becuase of a flawed economic policy. Not because of reparations.

4)
You got to be kidding.

"The impression that the peace treaty creates is disappointment. The conditions of peace seem to be unspeakably hard and humiliating, many seem to me downright unrealizable. It may take years until the subjugated peoples will shake off their yoke, but they surely will try. We have a peace treaty, but we will have no lasting peace, because it is build upon the quicksand of self-interest." (US State Secretary Lansing on May 8th 1919.)

"The injust decisions of the Versaille conference about Shantung, Tyrol, Thrazia, Hungary, East Prussia, Danzig, the Saar region and the abandonment of the principle of the freedom of the seas ensure new conflicts. Because of this, it is my duty to advice my own government and my own people neither to sign nor to ratify this injust treaty." (William Bullit, US diplomat and member of the US delegation at Versailles in his letter to Presdent Wilson, written on May 17th 1919, in which he requests to be recalled from the conference of Versailles.)

"Injustice and arrogance, played out in the hour of triumph, will never be forgiven or forgotten. For this reason, I am completely against depriving more Germans than necessary from German authority and to place them under the rule of other nations. I can hardly see a stronger reason for a future war [...]" (Lloyd George, British PM, in a memorandum from March the 26th 1919.)

I ommit a quote of Keynes here, since he obviously guilty of pro-german thinking.

But what about this: "The economic regulations of the treaty were so malicious, that they obviously lost all effect. Germany was condemned to pay nonsensically high reparations. [...] This had an immense influence on Germany and the world." (Winston Churchill in his memoirs).

"Under no circumstances will this treaty get the consent of the Socialist Party. It originated from the most scandalous abuse of secret diplomacy. It openly violates the right of self determination of peoples, enslaves whole nations and creates new dangers of war." (Jean Longuet, Member of the French parliament, during the French parliament's debate of the Versailles treaty on September 18th 1919).

And so forth.

There are countless comments of people back then thinking like this. Made by British, French, Italians...A significant number of American diplomants retired from buisness to protest against the Versailles treaty.

As I said hindsight. I could find you negative quotes about every decision made in history. If Germany had become a democratic country in the 1920s and Hitler had never happened these quotes would have forgotten.

5)

Do you think if they had been lenient with Germany the Germans wouldn't have planned another war? They should have done what they did after the Second World War...occupied the country, dismantled the military and imposed martial law until democratic principles became an accepted part of German society.

Again this nonsense. I completely disagree, and my education was at least good enough not to voice the full extent of my diagreement with that arrogant and stupid opinion that is nonetheless so typical for many British. (If you arent' British, its still typical for them).
First, the alleged nicety of the French, British et al: there was nearly none. And in the British "Goodwill" towards Germany was not there as well, they only intended to prevent the creation of a Europe that was structured as if Napoleon had never lost. So the French, left to their own designs may have just done what you surmised.
Secondly, your offensive remark about Germanies population. I tell you some things about France and Germany:
-Wars bewteen these two were more often French aggressions against Germany than the other way round.
- Germany did not fight a single war or armed confrontation with any European nation between 1870 and 1914. France did. In the time between 1750 and 1871 France fought far more wars than Prussia. German colonies were all aquired peacefully, bought or with treaties...compare that to the colonial Empires of France or Britain. there are resons to believe that Germany may have in fact been the most peaceful and least expansive of the Great Powers. That its society was a bit more militaristic is only seemingly a contradiction to that statement. (Take classical Greece as an example. Sparta may have been more militaristic and less democratic than Athen...but Athen was far more expansive and aggressive than Sparta.)
- France, with British and Russian help, deliberately created the strategic situation that left Germany cornered before WWI. The war was mainly caused by Russia (Russia partial mobilisation of July 1914 may have been still accepable, but the total mobilisation one day later, with which it started to bring its giant 4.5 million strong army to battle readiness, was a colossal threat and therefore provocation against Germany. France oredered its mobilisation before Germany did, on July 31th 5:15 PM. Germany was confronted with armed forces nearly three times als large as its own at two fronts if both, Russia and France had completely mobilized). Since Russian units traversed the border to East Prussia before it was declared war by Germany, it was Russia that started the war not Germany. And France had done everything to back Russias until that point: promised to stand in a war against Germany and encouraged the mobilisation. I fail to see Germanies sole guilt.
- While France's democracy did not make it more peaceful than the less democratic Germany, the Reich was on its way to democratization. and the difference to Britain wasn't very great anymore. In fact there were some rights, which are seen as a hallmark of democratisation today, in which Germany was quite advanced. The right of free, equal and secret elections for example. Practiced in Germany since 1871. Introduced in Britain only half a century later, in the USA in 1965. When did France start to practise it?
- Also it is quite probable that a German democratic government had revisoned the Versailles treaty as well. Again I say: look at France and Alsace Lorraine...the French were democrats since 1870. Would they have meekly accepted the burtal rulings of Versailles and St Germaine? Would Britain have? Or the USA? Not any of these would have done that. And as far as the German people are concerned, they were in no belligerent mood during the thirties, before WWII. Did you know what topic Hitler talked more about than any other? Anti-Semitism? Nope, only rarely after he became Chancellor. Lebensraum? No, not often and only in vague terms. It was peace! "I want only peace!" "Peace is the most precious thing!" "I will never endanger peace!" and so forth. And why did he do that? Because it was that what the "belligerent" German people wanted to hear. they wanted peace. Fancy that.
Had there been another war if Germany had been treated leniently? No, most probably not...unless the French or British or Russians had started one, of course.

As far as missed opportunites are concerned, we all have our regrets. I for example regret the generous treatment of France in 1870. That war, unlike WWI, had been a simple, clear-cut aggression by France, aimed at preventing a German nation and annexing further territories along the way. The last Franco-German war before that, had been a completely one sided aggression from their side, too, one that had resulted in the conquest of all of Germany, no less. Considering that Prussia should have crushed France utterly, to get rid of this menace to civilisation once and for all (from the 1870 viewpoint the French inability to be democrats was obvious, democracy had never found a hold there). That would have saved us a lot of trouble. But, no, they treated France with consideration. Again. If they only had thought like a Churchill. A Roosevelt. Or a Stalin...
But as you see, that we all have made our share of mistakes in the past.

Had it worked? Probably not. And the same goes for your idea if an even more merciless treatment of Germany after WWI. Lasting peace is not won by brutal humiliation but by reconciliation and fairness. (I still find it surprising how many British and French still do not get this to this very day. Is that really that difficult?)

Germany became peaceful and democratic after WWII because:
- Germanies population was never very belligerent in the first place. Neither were they espeically undemocratic. A peaceful democratic revolution had nearly suceeded in 1848. (Actually for some weeks it seemed that it had suceeded. Then someone refused a signature and things started to unravel again). Had that worked, Germany would be one of the oldest democracies in Europe (Nice basis for an alternative history book. Something else than the usual "the Nazis won"-stuff. But the last is surely more exciting. And its always self gratifying to have the chance to win WWII one more time.)
- One was ashamed of the astocities and the Holocaust.
- There was a constant threat of war from the Soviets. And a new war could have meant the destruction of the world from the mid fifties onwards.

And these conditions were not there after WWI. (And they aren't there in Iraq, for that matter. So democratising that country through occupation and martial law might be problematic). Besides, it worked not only on the Germans. Look, how meek and peaceful the expansive French and British became. And that despite "winning".

Well I'm afraid there is far too much incoherent rambling and blatant mistruths in this section to even begin to pick it's faults apart. Sparta? Athens? What are you talking about?

But the crowning turd in the u-bend was that of Hitler being a great peace maker?!!! Only wanting peace? I did think Torquez was going over the top accusing you of being a neo-Nazi apologist. Maybe he's onto something.

[Rosselsprung]

Achilles, I believe your argument to be more valid than the one Torquez presents. I'm far more willing to believe that the war was started as a result of economic and political conflict between Germany and France and Great Britain rather than some bizarre pathological hatred of Poland that Torquez claims Germans have.

Though I'm slightly leaning towards Kitsune, his claims about Hitler being a peacemaker are pretty fantastic, I'm more willing to believe that the economic problems in Germany were a result of a combination of the reparations and the economic mismanagement. Whether or not it was one or the other, Hitler was able to exploit these economic problems and help him become Chancellor. However, I do believe that Germany wasn't particularly militaristic and that if the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were not as harsh, there would not have been a WW2.

I do think that if Germany was occupied after WW1 there would have been no WW2. But an occupation lasting decades would have been costly and it would have been much easier to prevent WW2 if the idea that WW1 was entirely Germany's fault was not shoved down their throats. Everyone knows Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia for killing an Archduke, and how Germany is responsible for that happening is beyond me. It would have been far easier if the government in Germany was replaced with a democratic one that actually worked rather than a military occupation lasting a few decades. For example, France after the Napoleonic Wars was not given reparations or told that they were solely responsible for the wars that occured during that period. Because the French people were not punished severely, they were not itching to have another go at Great Britain and Prussia. If it was occupied by British troops for decades, there would have been no war but a much higher cost to Great Britain.

[Torquez]

Kitsune's post was about Danzig, not WWII. Danzig had been German for centuries.

Not really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdansk#Historical_summary

According to archeologists, the Gdańsk stronghold was constructed in the 980s by Mieszko I of Poland; however, the year 997 has in recent years been considered to be the date of the foundation of the city itself, as the year in which Saint Adalbert of Prague (sent by the Polish king Boleslaus the Brave) baptized the inhabitants of Gdańsk (urbs Gyddanyzc). In the following years Gdańsk was the main centre of a Polish splinter duchy ruled by the dynasty of Dukes of Pomerania. The most famous of them, Swantipolk II, granted a local autonomy charter in ca. 1235 to the city, which had some 2,000 inhabitants. Gdańsk became a flourishing trading city with some 10,000 inhabitants by the year 1308. In this year it was occupied and demolished by the Teutonic Knights (the Gdańsk massacre of November 13, 1308). This led to the city's decline and to a series of wars between the rebellious Knights and the Polish kings, ending with the Peace of Kalisz in 1343 when the Knights acknowledged that they would keep Pomerania as "an alm" from the Polish king. This left the legal basis of their possession of the province in some doubt. The agreement permitted the foundation of the municipality in 1343 and the development of increased trade in export of grain from Poland via the Vistula river trading routes. Gdańsk became a full member of the Hanseatic League by 1361. When a new war broke out in 1409 and ended with the Battle of Grunwald (1410) the city accepted the direct overlordship of the Polish kings, but with the Peace of Torun (1411) it returned to the Teutonic Knights' administration. In 1440 Gdańsk participated in the foundation of the Prussian Union which led to the Thirteen Years War (1454-1466) and the incorporation of Royal Prussia to the direct rule of the Polish Crown.

Thanks to the Royal charters granted by the king Casimir IV the Jagiellonian and the free access to all Polish markets, Gdańsk became a large and rich seaport and city. The 16th and 17th centuries were a Golden Age for trade and culture in Gdańsk. Inhabitants from various ethnic groups (Germans, Poles, Jews, and the Dutch being the largest) contributed to Gdańsk's identity and rich culture of the period. The city suffered a slow economic decline due to the wars in the 18th century, which ended with the Partitions of Poland from 1772–1795. Gdańsk was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793 and, again in 1815, after a short period as the Free City of Danzig (1807–1815) under Napoleon. In contrast to the independent period, under the Prussian administration Gdańsk became a relatively unimportant city dominated by the military garrison and the administration officials. As part of Prussia, it became part of the German Empire in 1871.

That says nothing about corruption or Nazi tendencies in the Weimar Republic.

Oh but I was talking about the aggresive nature of Weimar Republic and its desire to destroy Poland.

That's thinly glossed bigotry.

Just facts-Teutonic invasions, massacre of Gdansk in 1308, Partitions by Prussia, kulturampf and persecutions of Poles and so on...

So you're willing to present "evidence" without any burden of proof that Prussia oppresed Poles,

Oh please...There a tons of evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drzyma%C5%82a_car

rzymala car (Wóz Drzymały) refers to the symbol of Polish resistance to Germanisation as official policy of Imperial Germany.

This symbol is Michał Drzymała (1857-1937), one of the folk heroes of Prussian Poland from the time of the Partitions. In 1886, Bismarck created the Prussian Colonization Commission to encourage German settlers. In government eyes, this was a defensive measure designed to counteract the drastic ‘Flight from the East’ Ostflucht. In Polish eyes, it was an aggressive measure designed to drive the Poles from their land. The Commission was empowered to purchase vacant estates and then to sell them to approved candidates. The campaign against Polish landownership produced a strong opposition with a hero, Drzymala. In 1904, he had succeeded in obtaining a plot of land in the district of Wollstein (Wolsztyn), but found that the rules of the colonization commission forbade him as a Pole to build a permanent dwelling-house on his land. In order to beat the rule, therefore, he set himself up in a gypsy caravan and for more than a decade tenaciously defied all attempts in the courts to remove him. The case attracted publicity all over Germany. It was highly typical of the national conflict in Prussia, where the Polish movement was dominated by peasants and where the state authorities confined themselves to legal methods of harassment. Kulturkampf and the colonization commission succeeded in stimulating the very feelings which they were designed to suppress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_C ... Commission

The Settlement Commission (German: Ansiedlungskommission) was a department that operated between 1886 and 1918, set up by Bismarck to increase land ownership of Germans at the expense of Poles in the eastern provinces of the German Empire, through the use of economic and political methods, as part of the country's policy of Germanisation. The original goal of the Commission was to remove Polish owners from the land completely. The first budget of the Commission was 100,000,000 marks.

At later times, bigger sums of funds were made available to purchase lands from Poles. At the same time, laws were enacted that discriminated against Poles, making it more difficult for them to continue profitable operations and to rehabilitate failed operations.

The creation of the Commission made Poles defend their ownership of the land, that gradually turned into Polish-German economic competition. It was to a great extent won by Poles, in that the measures failed to make much difference in the percentages of land ownership. Organized Polish countermeasures and the population decline of the Germans vs the increase of the Poles figured greatly in the lack of success.

However, the Commission created numerous modern settlements, especially around city of Bromberg (Polish: Bydgoszcz).

Due to overall failure of the policy, Prussian diet passed a law that enabled forcible expropriation of Polish landowners by the Settlement Commission 1908. In 1912 the first four Polish large estates were expropriated. In 1918, after the German Empire's defeat in WWI, the Commission ceased to function.

. Also, it is a large leap in logic to believe that Prussia is the forefather of Germany when the other German states(Bavaria, Westphalia) had far more power and influence.

But it was Prussia which united German states, which shaped its culture and which led them.

rather than some bizarre pathological hatred of Poland that Torquez claims Germans have.

Then you are not reading my posts, the hate wasn't bizarre-it was result of Lebensraum theories developed in pre-war Germany and historical conflict between expansionsistic German states and Polish population which was occupied.

[Kitsune]

@Achilles:

I am sorry that I wasted my time in an attempt to discuss this with you. I may have misjudged you.

Nonetheless I will adress some of your points and make some clarifications:

If I could be inclined I could possibly argue with your German propaganda but maybe another time.

The confiscations I mentioned were a reality and no "German propaganda. You seem to be misinformed here.

Rubbish. It financed it's war effort through loans. Loans which it never expected to have to pay back. It had plans for reparations which make the Versailles Treay look mild by comparison.

No, you are telling rubbish. It was originally planned to pay the loans back, until the overall financial situtation of 1919 made this hopeless. Germany would have to pay back war loans, pay reparations and finance the recovery of the ravished German economy. And that was more than just difficult. The situation is much better of course, if one GETS reparations as a victor. In that case France, would have had to pay and might have considered inflation itself.
About German demands in case of victory:
The developement of German "war objectives" is a story in itself. When Germany had entered the war it had been the only nation which had only the interest to defend itself, believe it or not. (France and Britain for example had far more specific things in mind, what to do to Germany, when WWI started). So a heated discussion began what this war should more specifically be about and what one should demand in case of a victory. Admittedly some ideas were developed that were completely beyond the pale. However, they were never the official, fixed view-point. As early as 1915, the German Chancellore Bethmann-Hollweg stopped the discussion about war aims and victory demands as counterproductive. And in the peace talks around 1916, Germany was not given to harsh demands. They failed because of France.

The German economic situation was brought on becuase of a flawed economic policy. Not because of reparations.

No it wasn't. It was brought about through 1) the war, 2) massive confiscations of economic activa by the victors, 3) reparations. I would be interested to hear of a "competent" policy that France or Britain would have made to get out of a similiar situation.

As I said hindsight. I could find you negative quotes about every decision made in history. If Germany had become a democratic country in the 1920s and Hitler had never happened these quotes would have forgotten.

And if you had common sense, you would have never written that. Hitler would almost certainly not have come to power without the Versailles treaty.
And while it is true that one can find negative quotes about every decision made in history, one can find exceptionally many about the Versailles treaty. So don' talk about hindsight.
But let's play a game here, shall we? Bring on as many and as negative quotes about the peace granted to France in 1815 as I did about the Versailles treaty. Good Luck.



Some clarifications concerning my last post.


I was trying to adress your comments that France and other victorious powers should have treated Germany even more brutal after WWI than they did. You seemed to suggest that a certain special un-democratic and belligerent nature of the German people was the cause of two world wars.


About the German degree of democratisation:

- In 1848 there was a peaceful revolution that nearly succeeded in turning Germany into a democratic state

- Germans enjoyed certain democratic rights that are seen as hallmarks of democracy today, long before British or Americans did. An example is the right of free, equal and secret elections. This was practised in Germany from 1871 on, in Britain only half a century later. In the USA it was introduced from 1965 on.

- By and large, the rights of the German parliament were not much smaller than the ones of British parliament. The difference in degree of democratisation is not that large.

- In the time form 1871 to 1814 German democracy was evolving.

Conclusion: The difference in democratisation between Britain/France on one and Germany on the other side are overstated. Nor is the enmity between these states caused by those differences. France/German enmity existed long before the French revolution. British/German enmity developed quite suddenly around the year 1900 and was primarily felt from the British side. English relations to Germany in 1875 were better than 1910, with Germany being less democratic at the former date than at the latter. Besides, both France and Britain allied readily with Russia, a country that was far less democratic than Germany.


About German belligerence, aggressivity and expansionism:

- Between 1750 and 1870 Prussia was involved in significantly less wars than Britain, France or Russia.
- After its founding in 1871 the German nation was not involved in one single war with any European state until 1914. Britain, France and Russia were, however.
- Germanies colonial empire was far smaller than that of Britain or France. All of them were peacefully aquired, through buying or treaties. British and French colonies are mostly conquered. Especially Britain intentionally hounded smaller colonial powers in the 19th century to aquire their colonies. It started to act peacefully, only after WWI, when the extent of its Empire was so large that is became difficult to keep it.
- Germany was not the sole aggressor of WWI. Especially Russia and France did much to bring this war about. Britain contributed, too.
- Germanies population did not display any overly belligerent attitude during the twenties or thirties, nor just before WWII.

Conclusion: there was no special German or Prussian predisposition towards belligerence, aggression or expansionism that superseeded the respective ones of France, Britain or Russia. This is a myth. It is actually easier to prove that Germans were less likely to resort to warfare and aggression and less expansive than their French, British or Russian neighbours.


My mentioning of Sparta and Athen

Imperial Germany is often accused to having been a more conformist or militarist society than Britain or France. Although the differences were not as great as some people seem to believe, this was true to some extent. This is then taken as a proof for greater German aggresivity and expansionism. My point was, that this reasoning is wrong. It is possible that a state is more conformist and militarist than some other, but LESS aggressive and expansionist at the same time. An historic example for this are Athen and Sparta. Think about it. (If you can).


About Hitler "the Peacemaker"

You are either not very knowledgable as far as this matter is concerned, or you deliberately misunderstood me. In the first case, let me explain this:
What I said is true. In his speeches, “Peace” was indeed Hitler’s favorite topic. Actually, he talked about it more often than about any other thing, sentences like “Peace is the most presious thing for me”, “I will never endanger peace”, “I am a peace-loving man”, “Peace is the thing I want more than any other” were indeed typical. He mentioned his love for peace much more often than his hate for the Jews or his interest in “Lebensraum”. If you do not believe this, Achilles, ask your local historian. It’s true.
Did he mean it? Well, not to the extent that his speeches suggest, that’s for sure. While I do not share the opinion that Hitler planned a World War from 1933 or even 1923 on, or even that he intended to attack Poland in any case and all his attempts to negotiate were only a trick, I do believe that he thought of war as possible, and risked it to a certain extent.
But why did Hitler talk about peace so much in that case? Well, his speeches were not about what he was thinking, but about what his audience wanted to hear. And it seems that he, too, shared the opinion that the German people were interested in peace and not war. And that’s why he emphasized his own “love of peace” so much.
I hope that you understood me now.


I wanted to set these things straight. Your last post consisted of some arrogant and offensive remarks, but was otherwise devoid of any content. If that should be the level of discussion you have in mind, there is no use in continuing this debate.
So either address my points with real arguments or just let it be.

[Torquez]

Germanies colonial empire was far smaller than that of Britain or France. All of them were peacefully aquired, through buying or treaties

In the meantime they were busy colonising territories taken from Poland through Hakata, Prussian Commission, stripping Poles the right to build homes etc.

As to "peaceful":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_massacre

The Herero massacre occurred in German South-West Africa (modern day Namibia) in 1904-1907 and is considered one of the worst atrocities in German colonial history.

In 1904 the Hereros revolted and killed about 120 Germans, destroying their farms.

In the same year General Lothar von Trotha was dispatched with a force of 10,000 volunteers to resolve the crisis. He issued an appeal to the Hereros:

I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Herero nation. The Hereros are no longer German subjects. They have murdered and robbed, they have cut off the ears and noses and privy parts of wounded soldiers, and they are now too cowardly to fight. I say to the nation: Any person who delivers one of the Herero captains as a captive to a military post will receive 1,000 Marks. The one who hands over Samuel will receive 5,000 Marks. All Herero must leave the country. If they do not, I will force them with cannons to do so. Within the German frontier every Herero, with or without a rifle, with or without cattle, will be shot. I will not take over any more women and children, but I will either drive them back to your people or have them fired on. These are my words to the nation of the Hereros. The great General of the Mighty Emperor, von Trotha.

German forces met the 3000-5000 Herero combatants at the Waterberg and shot them indiscriminately. The survivors retreated with their families towards Bechuanaland, after the British offered the Hereros asylum under the condition not to continue the revolt on British soil.

The German troops, however, were badly infected with Typhus and Cholera and were unable to pursue them.

Some 24,000 Hereros managed to flee through a gap in the netting into the Kalahari Desert in the hope of crossing into Botswana. German patrols later found skeletons around holes (25-50 feet deep) dug up in a vain attempt to find water. Survivors, mostly women and children, were coralled in to concentration camps - many of them died from lack of food, shelter or care. The conflict continued until 1907, by which time some 40,000 Hereros had perished. Chief Samuel Maherero and 1000 men crossed the Kalahari into Bechuanaland.

It should be noted however, that there are no absolutely reliable casualty figures for the Hereros, largely because the German administration never conducted a census before 1904. Only in 1905 did a counting take place which revealed that 25,000 Herero remained in German South-West Africa. It is therefore out of question that the Herero suffered a great deal through the conduct of the German forces and their general.

In 1998, German President Roman Herzog visited Namibia and met Herero leaders. Chief Munjuku Ngunvanva demanded a public apology and compensation. Herzog expressed regret but stopped short of an apology. He also pointed out that reparations were out of the question.

On the 100th anniversary in 2004, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany's development aid minister officially apologized for the first time and expressed grief about the genocide committed by Germans.

I hope that you understood me now.

Here is what Kitsune wrote:

Poland openly showed complete intransigence

And that, although Britain as much as France knew about the super totalitarian nature of the Bolshevik state, to which Nazi Germany, until 1942, was completely incomparable.

This statement is interesting since Kitsune ignores mass murder and genocide in occupied Poland.

Poland had a say in that matter and it said only one thing: "No".

Germany was not hell, and while it was a dictatorship that mistreatet some of its majorities, it was actually similiar to many other states of Europe back then even in this regard. (Only a bit more prosperous than most, perhaps).

This in regard to Germany with concentration camps, Krystalnacht, Racial laws of Nuremburg etc.

Hitler said to the British that he would make another, extremely genrous proposal that should be acceptable. But since it was late in August, and there were only a few days left until the window of an military solution closed, he insited that the Poles would send an emissary within 29 hours to START negotiations. Britain complained this would be difficult, this would be an ultimatum. Then, after taking their due time they send this onwards to the Poles (who had been so un-receptive during the last weeks that negotiations had gone on basically only on the British-German line). No Polish emissary showed up. (Would have Hitler send Ribbentrop to Poland? My answer: yes, if their would have been any chance that Ribbentrop is not just humiliated by making him wait and sending him home with a few warm words and a wet handshake by the Poles. But this was what had to expected).
The thing with the Poles was: they were already banging the war drums. "Bring them on, those German pussies, they will get their hides nailed!",

And so on.Really disgusting Nazi propaganda filled of course with lies.

[Kitsune]

@Torquez: For the n-th time. I am ignoring the Holocaust and astrocities in Poland during the Warsaw uprising because these were committed from 1942 onwards and can therefore not be seen as a cause for WWII since the war started in early September 1939.

As far as discriminating laws, progroms and concentration camps are concerned, they existed in many nations of Europe. And the extent of oppression and cruelty of the Nazi state in the thirties was also not more severe than that of many other states (Italy, Austria, Spain, all did similiar things as Germany in the thirties). In Poland, the extent to which minorties were mistreated was actually worse, in the Soviet Union mistreatment of anybody was FAR worse. To repeat this again: from 1933 to 1938 around 170,000 German Jews fled from Germany. During the same time around 560,000 Jews fled TO Nazi Germany from Poland! (Despite the circumstance that the antisemitic attitude of the Nazi government wasn't exactly a secret).
It's surprising that this doesn't make people of your kind start to think. But perhaps that is too much to ask.

And so on.Really disgusting Nazi propaganda filled of course with lies.

I find your distortionist anti-german posts easily as offensive and disgusting as you find mine. That should be a consolation for you.

[Torquez]

Torquez: For the n-th time. I am ignoring the Holocaust and astrocities in Poland during the Warsaw uprising because these were committed from 1942 onwards and can therefore not be seen as a cause for WWII since the war started in early September 1939.

How ignorant you are :
http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/survivors.html

The cooperation between the SS and the Wehrmacht in killing Polish civilians continued not only during the September Campaign but also in the months that followed. Wehrmacht firing squads shot no less than 16,000 Poles by the time the war ended early in October 1939. By December 1939, the Germans had killed approximately 50,000 Polish citizens, of whom 7,000 were Jewish.

The first large-scale atrocity on Polish soil, which set a precedent for innumerable slaughters that followed, took place in a forest near Piasnica Wielka in Pomerania in the period October-December 1939. The Gestapo and German field gendarmerie shot 12,000-14,000 people, including Poles, Jews, psychiatric patients, and Germans un-sympathetic with the Nazis. Many of the Piasnica victims were part of' the Nazi euthanasia program, even before Hitler gave his official mercy-killing order. Approximately 12,000 Poles were victims of this program, which included the elderly, invalids, those with incurable diseases, and hundreds of children, who were given lethal injections because they were invalids or suffered from terminal disease."

In Poland, the extent to which minorties were mistreated was actually worse, in the Soviet Union mistreatment of anybody was FAR worse. To repeat this again: from 1933 to 1938 around 170,000 German Jews fled from Germany. During the same time around 560,000 Jews fled TO Nazi Germany from Poland!

Yawn...because economic situation in Germany was much better.Even Poles moved there.

find your distortionist anti-german posts easily as offensive and disgusting as you find mine.

I guess any Neonazi would do that.As well as excluding any German who didn't fight for Reich from German nation.As I repeated time and time that I honor those Germans who spied for Allies, deserted wehrmacht or conspired against German aggresion.

[Rosselsprung]

Torquez, you can't possibly cite atrocities in Poland commited by the Wehrmacht and SS as the cause of WW2 because by that time, WW2 had already started! Whether Germany oppresed Poland in the past millenia is not the issue at hand here, it is what reason WW2 started. Your continual posts about a violent and militaristic German culture and Germans raised to hate Poland are so bigoted I'm astonished that most of the German members haven't started flaming you.

Your generalizations about the whole of Germany(wanting war, enthusiastic about commiting war crimes) are just as bad as well. You say you honor the heroes of the Germany, and in your own words those are the spies and deserters. Well, how about some German heroes who were in the Wehrmacht and did not desert or spy-

http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/pr ... hetto.html

During the first day of the Aktion an extraordinary rescue took place: Lt. Dr Albert Battel, adjutant to the local military commander Major Max Liedtke, (responsible for the Jewish workforce) requested of the Gestapo that Jews who worked for the German Wehrmacht should be excluded from the deportations, whether they had work permits or not. When his request was not granted, Wehrmacht forces took control of the bridges that connected the two parts of the city and blocked all transports. After calling the SS- und Polizeiführer Julian Scherner in Krakow, the Gestapo accepted the request (Scherner's presence on the third day of the Aktion was obviously connected with this conflict). For this, Battel and Liedtke were later named a "Righteous Among the Nations", by Yad Vashem.

Your consistent argument that the war was started by Germany because of its hatred of Poland is ridiculous. Hitler needed a convienient target and Poland was that target. Poland had nothing to do with the cause of WW2, it was a victim of WW2. WW2 was the cause of Nazi extremists taking control of Germany by exploiting the bad economic conditions that were created by flawed economic policy and reparations from the Western Powers. Germany had nothing to fear from Poland militarily and Poland could not compete with Germany economically. Hitler needed a target to begin his war, it's that simple. And even if Germany or German states oppresed Poland in the past, it is not proof that Germany and its people are obsessed with destroying Poland. The incidents you brought up were isolated, and by your logic, America is obsessed with oppresing the Native Americans, Britain wants to oppress the Indians, and the French want to oppress the Algerians. WW2 was not caused by German hatred of Poland. Get that through your head!

[Torquez]

You dodge the subject.I repeated time and time again that cultural hate and contempt for Poland was result of long held policy of German state to expand and conquer in East.

WW2 was the cause of Nazi extremists taking control of Germany

This is disaproved by Weimar's Republic plan of rearming and desire to destroy Poland.

[M.H.]

>> ...cultural hate and contempt for Poland

Get off that dead horse already. You are not THAT important!!!

[Torquez]

You are not THAT important!!! icon_evil.gif

“Poland’s existence is intolerable and incompatible with the essential conditions of Germany’s life. Poland must go and will go - as a result of her own internal weaknesses and of action by Russia - with our aid. . . . . The obliteration of Poland must be one of the fundamental drives of German policy . . . . . (and) is attainable by means of, and with the help of, Russia.”

- General von Seeckt, responsible for foreign policy in the Weimar Republic of Germany, writing in 1922.

[M.H.]

You are not THAT important!!! icon_evil.gif

“Poland’s existence is intolerable and incompatible with the essential conditions of Germany’s life. Poland must go and will go - as a result of her own internal weaknesses and of action by Russia - with our aid. . . . . The obliteration of Poland must be one of the fundamental drives of German policy . . . . . (and) is attainable by means of, and with the help of, Russia.”

- General von Seeckt, responsible for foreign policy in the Weimar Republic of Germany, writing in 1922.

Yes, ONE quote! Repeated and repeated ad nauseam! Maybe you will find one or two others if you look...AND???
If I search this forum alone I could find easily dozens of anti-german posts from you and your friends...AND??? Would I think that all Poles are obsessed with Germany???