Audio Version
The Dissident Right is never going to go anywhere until it sorts itself out and does a lot of basic house cleaning.
Of course, some people in the Dissident Right (the Nazis, shills, and Feds at Counter-Currents, The Right Stuff, Scandza Forum, etc.) don't want this. For their various reasons they love wallowing in all the shit and junk that the Diss-Right has accumulated over the years. In fact they find it positively cosy. But any serious Dissident Righter has to take a different view and focus much more on basic house-cleaning and movement hygiene.
So, what exactly do I mean by "house cleaning"?
So, what exactly do I mean by "house cleaning"?
What I am referring to are the large number of toxic and false narratives and fake memes that have polluted the Dissident Right's world view, and which make it susceptible to being marginalised, deplatformed, and ignored by its enemies, while also separating it from its natural audience, normal people concerned about the toxic nature of the modern West.
In the context of the dominant modern religion of wokeness, the main problem the Dissident Right has is its witting and unwitting association with Hitler and Naziism, something I have been highlighting now for literally a whole decade. This link is enforced—often by bad actors—through an interlocking web of lies and false memes. This is what this series of articles—"Alt-Right Lies"—is designed to counter.
One of the most recurring false memes used to promote Hitler-association in the Dissident Right is the lie that Hitler's demands against Poland in 1939 were entirely fair, just, and reasonable, and that, by refusing to negotiate and accede to the Fuhrer's demands, Poland and its British backer were the true instigators of WWII. The corollary of this false view of history is that, because he was "innocent" of starting the war, Hitler can't be blamed for any of the consequences of it. Apparently, all the death, murder, starvation, and genocide that ensued can be blamed on Poland and the "war party" in the UK, starring Churchill and any of his donors who happened to be Jewish. This despite the fact that Churchill was merely a backbench MP in the run-up to war.
A typical example of this kind of "water carrying" for Hitler recently appeared at the Council of European Canadians website, a site I formerly had a generally favourable impression of. The article in question was titled "British Jews, Churchill, and the Second World War" by Frank Hilliard.
Regarding the central allegations made in the article, it is true that Churchill came to oppose Hitler and that he received donor money, some of it from prominent British Jews. Although nobody on the Dissident Right has actually done the hard work of providing a comprehensive account of Churchill's total political funding, instead preferring to 'cherry pick' this or that donor to suit whatever agenda they have.
In the context of the dominant modern religion of wokeness, the main problem the Dissident Right has is its witting and unwitting association with Hitler and Naziism, something I have been highlighting now for literally a whole decade. This link is enforced—often by bad actors—through an interlocking web of lies and false memes. This is what this series of articles—"Alt-Right Lies"—is designed to counter.
One of the most recurring false memes used to promote Hitler-association in the Dissident Right is the lie that Hitler's demands against Poland in 1939 were entirely fair, just, and reasonable, and that, by refusing to negotiate and accede to the Fuhrer's demands, Poland and its British backer were the true instigators of WWII. The corollary of this false view of history is that, because he was "innocent" of starting the war, Hitler can't be blamed for any of the consequences of it. Apparently, all the death, murder, starvation, and genocide that ensued can be blamed on Poland and the "war party" in the UK, starring Churchill and any of his donors who happened to be Jewish. This despite the fact that Churchill was merely a backbench MP in the run-up to war.
A typical example of this kind of "water carrying" for Hitler recently appeared at the Council of European Canadians website, a site I formerly had a generally favourable impression of. The article in question was titled "British Jews, Churchill, and the Second World War" by Frank Hilliard.
Yes, they literally think that they can help save Canada from mass immigration and racial replacement by associating their nationalist message with Hitlerist crap like this!
Regarding the central allegations made in the article, it is true that Churchill came to oppose Hitler and that he received donor money, some of it from prominent British Jews. Although nobody on the Dissident Right has actually done the hard work of providing a comprehensive account of Churchill's total political funding, instead preferring to 'cherry pick' this or that donor to suit whatever agenda they have.
As you can imagine, this is an essentially meaningless "revelation" because both Churchill and the Jews had entirely sufficient and independent motives for opposing what Hitler was doing. Hitler's career was a threat to Jews, but also to the British Empire, which had spent a fortune in blood and money to curtail German aggression and expansionism 20 years previously. Indeed, almost everybody, up to and including Hitler himself, had sufficient reason to oppose what Hitler was trying to do.
In short, there was no need for Jewish donations to create a legitimate anti-Hitler tendency in the UK.
Contrast Britain's very real interest in halting the aggression of a potentially dangerous near neighbour with America's own pointless over-activity in the Middle East in recent decades. No real US interest has been served by America's massive military involvement in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Compared to that, the UK had every interest in ensuring that Hitler's career of reckless expansion was brought to a halt. This was a vital interest of the entire British people. A Hitler-dominated continent was a major threat to Britain's independence, way of life, and very existence, as indeed it was to that of all Germany's neighbours, and to Germany itself.
Indeed, it wasn't just Churchill. Many other politicians had plenty of reasons to oppose Hitler, including Conservative Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the man who actually declared war on Germany. But I'm still waiting to hear about which Jewish tobacconist supplied his cigars for free, LOL!
Chamberlain declared war in response to Hitler's escalating recklessness and accumulating treaty betrayals (failure to pay Reparations, rearming, occupying the Rhineland, seizing Austria, swallowing Czechoslovakia, and brutally invading Poland). Also, it should be pointed out that several German generals and politicians, who had extremely limited access to Jewish tobacconists, were strongly opposed to Hitler's actions even to the point of plotting to kill him.
Chamberlain declared war in response to Hitler's escalating recklessness and accumulating treaty betrayals (failure to pay Reparations, rearming, occupying the Rhineland, seizing Austria, swallowing Czechoslovakia, and brutally invading Poland). Also, it should be pointed out that several German generals and politicians, who had extremely limited access to Jewish tobacconists, were strongly opposed to Hitler's actions even to the point of plotting to kill him.
Contrast Britain's very real interest in halting the aggression of a potentially dangerous near neighbour with America's own pointless over-activity in the Middle East in recent decades. No real US interest has been served by America's massive military involvement in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Compared to that, the UK had every interest in ensuring that Hitler's career of reckless expansion was brought to a halt. This was a vital interest of the entire British people. A Hitler-dominated continent was a major threat to Britain's independence, way of life, and very existence, as indeed it was to that of all Germany's neighbours, and to Germany itself.
The fact that Britain's post-war situation left a lot to be desired is in no way an argument against the rightness of opposing Hitler, as the correct reference point here was 1914-1918, when almost a million British and Commonwealth troops died stopping an earlier bout of German aggression, and 1945, when the full horrors of the Hitler regime were exposed.
But the main problem for those like Hilliard, who support the idea that Hitler's demands were somehow "fair and just," is that they place themselves in a weak and contradictory position.
Their whole case is not that Hitler wanted to conquer and dominate his neighbours, but merely to reunite the German people in one territory. When they do this, they are trying to make a disingenuous "moral case" for Hitler being a soft, cuddly teddy bear by pretending to be ignorant of the text of Mein Kampf, oblivious of Hitler's central concept of Lebensraum, and unaware of the Nazi "Hunger Plan" that involved starving tens of millions of Europeans to death. Instead, they focus on the Saar, Austria, and the Sudetenland, saying it was only "right and fair" that these German-majority territories should be included in the Reich.
When a conman wants to trick you, he will first find something that you can agree with him on, and start from there. Yes, you'll agree, Germany had a right to take back those territories as most of the people there were Germans.
It is on this basis that Hitler apologists, like Hilliard and Paul Craig Roberts of the Unz Review, whom Hilliard quotes in his article, proceed, making the false case that Hitler's demands against Poland were juster than just, whiter than white, and fairer than fair:
Their whole case is not that Hitler wanted to conquer and dominate his neighbours, but merely to reunite the German people in one territory. When they do this, they are trying to make a disingenuous "moral case" for Hitler being a soft, cuddly teddy bear by pretending to be ignorant of the text of Mein Kampf, oblivious of Hitler's central concept of Lebensraum, and unaware of the Nazi "Hunger Plan" that involved starving tens of millions of Europeans to death. Instead, they focus on the Saar, Austria, and the Sudetenland, saying it was only "right and fair" that these German-majority territories should be included in the Reich.
When a conman wants to trick you, he will first find something that you can agree with him on, and start from there. Yes, you'll agree, Germany had a right to take back those territories as most of the people there were Germans.
It is on this basis that Hitler apologists, like Hilliard and Paul Craig Roberts of the Unz Review, whom Hilliard quotes in his article, proceed, making the false case that Hitler's demands against Poland were juster than just, whiter than white, and fairer than fair:
"Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again. He succeeded without war until it came to Poland. Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations."
Wow, what a stand-up fellow this lowly Austrian corporal was!
Hilliard is then drawn out into the open in the article comments:
"Germany's decision to invade Poland followed a year of fruitless negotiations between Germany and Poland over transit rights between Prussia and East Prussia. The rights being requested were over the Danzig corridor which was created by the Treaty of Versailles out of almost all of Posen and West Prussia. Germany wasn't asking for all its territory and people back, it just wanted a road and rail corridor across the strip and the ethnically German city of Danzig. British involvement in these negotiations stiffened the back of the Polish regime which turned down all compromises. What did any of this have to do with Britain, or France? Nothing."
Yes, this is the "Muh Corridor" argument. Hilliard wants to minimize Hitler's demands at this point to exonerate him of his crimes later on and the insane ambitions detailed earlier in his own book Mein Kampf.
But he has also unwittingly involved himself in a logical trap: If Adolf's demands were so trivial and innocuous, surely it was totally disproportionate to (a) do a dirty deal with the genocidal Soviet Union and (b) then invade and crush an entire European country when they were turned down.
Yes, Hitler decided that millions must die merely over the status of a slightly more convenient delivery route to East Prussia. Declaring war over that is like murdering somebody for just looking at you the wrong way.
The "Muh Corridor" argument is thus nothing more than a confirmation of the widely held, mainstream view that, yes, Hitler was a psychopath and his regime was a totally unhinged and dangerous one. Hilliard's pathetic attempt to downplay Hitler's demands thus becomes its own justification for total war against such a dangerous monstrosity, someone who could so easily "fly off the handle" and start a war merely because of disagreements over a train timetable.
Indeed, if Hitler had in fact had really substantial grievances against Poland, that would have made his violent actions of September 1939 look all the better, as no one blames a deeply provoked man for resorting to violence.
Indeed, if Hitler had in fact had really substantial grievances against Poland, that would have made his violent actions of September 1939 look all the better, as no one blames a deeply provoked man for resorting to violence.
Hilliard is obviously too dim to realise what a hole he has dug himself into by pretending that his hero just wanted a nice little railway connection to East Prussia. Hardcore Hitler apologist Paul Craig Roberts is not quite as stupid as that. Instead, he pretends that Germany had much larger grievances against the "dastardly Poles," even talking about Poland "holding" German territory, by which he presumably means the territories transferred from the German Empire to Poland after WWI.
After the German army was crushed in 1918 and the hard-pressed German people rose in revolt, Germany surrendered and was at the mercy of the Western allies. The obvious solution to prevent a repetition of the horrors of WWI would have been to impose something like the unjustly infamous Morgenthau Plan, namely returning the German people to a multi-state condition, overseen by the Western allies. That would have had a much greater chance of ensuring a lasting peace.
Instead, the allies, rather too magnanimously in my view, decided to maintain the unitary German state, making only a few border adjustments. In accordance with President Wilson's principle of self-determination, these were largely based on who the dominant ethnicity was in a particular area. On the Eastern border, the region of West Prussia (Poznan and Pomorze provinces), long part of the Kingdom of Prussia, was given to the new Polish state.
Roberts, would have you believe that the two territories of Poznan and Pomorze were essentially German, and that the "massive injustice" of giving them to Poland thus justifies the horrors of the invasion of 1939. Logically this makes better sense than Hilliard's softcore "muh corridor" position. But while the logic is impeccable, the factual basis is deeply flawed. The fact is that Pomorze and Poznan were majority-Polish territories, even after decades of Germanization.
In Richard Blanke's "Orphans of Versailles: The Germans in Western Poland 1918-1939" (Lexington, KY.,1993, pp. 244-245) a table is given, showing the exact percentages of the German population in these two territories.
Poznan was only 34.4% German in 1910, while Pomorze was 42%. Additionally the German population in these two territories was town-based, meaning that the vast majority of the land was Polish-speaking, with urban islands of Germanness. By 1939 the German population in both areas had greatly declined.
Roberts' view that West Prussia was somehow "German territory" and its people "German" is therefore deeply inaccurate, even in 1910. In fact, the new borders drawn up between Germany and Poland actually included substantial Polish-majority areas on the German side of the border, namely in Silesia and Mazuria (Southern East Prussia).
The Polish-speaking population in these regions voted to remain in Germany for a mixture of reasons, including their partial Germanisation, the Soviet attack on Poland in 1920, and greater welfare and economic prospects in the new Wiemar state. However, as you can see on the map above, the town-by-town population tables, and the map below, not only was West Prussia majority Polish, but so too was the entire Polish Corridor territory.
But even if it hadn't been, this was such a vital piece of territory for the new independent Poland that it should have been given to Poland anyway, in order to ensure its access to the sea and thus its true independence. Without that link to the sea, it could have been bullied and blackmailed by Germany. Nevertheless, just by sticking to President Wilson's principle of self-determination, the Polish Corridor could be awarded to Poland. The German government didn't even ask for a plebiscite because it knew it could only lose and thus strengthen Poland's claim to the area, which was clearly strong enough already.
But why did Hitler need a corridor through the Polish Corridor to East Prussia anyway?
The simple fact is that he did not. East Prussia was perfectly accessible to the rest of Germany via the Baltic Sea. Now the remnants of East Prussia (the Kaliningrad Oblast), belong to Russia, but no one calls for a "Putin Corridor" through Belarus and Lithuania to link it to Mother Russia.
Hitler's whole position had no moral basis, and was simply an attempt to provoke a one-sided war with Poland that he hoped the Western allies would stay out of, so that he could push towards his ultimate plan of invading vast swathes of Eastern Europe, starving its people, and replacing them with Germans. If you are going to defend Hitler, that is the point you are going to have to start at, so, please, stop wasting time with "muh corridor" arguments or faulty West Prussian demographics.
Addendum:
Counter-Currents pushes exactly the same line as the Council of European Canadians, namely that, because Hitler had a "small request" denied by the Poles, he was entirely justified in launching a brutal war of extermination against them. Here is just one example (see highlighted section).
Connected Content:
Alt-Right Lies: The Dresden Myth
Alt-Right Lies: The Jews "Declared War" on Germany
Alt-Right Lies: The Russian Revolution Not Actually Dominated by Jews
Addendum:
Counter-Currents pushes exactly the same line as the Council of European Canadians, namely that, because Hitler had a "small request" denied by the Poles, he was entirely justified in launching a brutal war of extermination against them. Here is just one example (see highlighted section).
Connected Content:
Alt-Right Lies: The Dresden Myth
Alt-Right Lies: The Jews "Declared War" on Germany
Alt-Right Lies: The Russian Revolution Not Actually Dominated by Jews
___________________________________
Colin Liddell was the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here.
Those German castle-ports along the eastern Baltic always had an ambiguous identity, both "Hanseatic" in sense of being sea-oriented (so why not link Konigsberg to Lubeck by ship, sure) and also "Teutonic" in sense of being there as crusader frontier castles linked via land systems evocative of feudal tradition. The Polish corridor could easily coexist with former identity but not with the latter. The irony is the capital of the Prussian Enlightenment, the city of Kant and Frederick, was erased from history with a degree of thoroughness more total than befell any other city in WW2.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be said though, that since Versailles did not attempt to break up Germany (would that have been feasible? Wouldn't a heavily armed Germany have resisted), the spatial design of the Corridor seemed guaranteed to lead to trouble. Poland needed a seaport, yes, but why not a corridor on the eastern side of Konigsberg. The Polish seaport could have been Memel (Klaipeda), the corridor going from there to Gizycko. Why did it have to go along the Vistula river?
ReplyDeleteEverybody focuses on details, but one person was completely uninterested in such details,seeing them merely as a means to his much greater ends that involved eradicating Poland and several other European countries.
DeleteYes but why did the German population go along with it? The irredentist idea of regaining Germany's lost pre-WW1 borders obviously had mass-appeal and appeared totally rational and just to the large majority of Germans -- and the victors at Versailles should have anticipated that it was an idea that would have mass-appeal. Your points about Posen and Silesia being majority Polish are good, so it seems like Versailles removing these from Germany and making them part of the new Poland was reasonable and correct. But, like I said, putting Poland's sea corridor to the west of Konigsberg rather than to the east was guaranteed to stir up trouble, or at the very least provide of a pretext for trouble. This combined with economic and cultural problems in Weimar Germany, many of these problems being traceable to Versailles, swung the whole political dynamic towards promotion of someone insane like Hitler, who had Eurasianist goals which most of the German population in 1920s didnt actually have and needed to be aggressively propagandized into. When I think back through how it all could have gone differently, any such counterfactual scenario requires the Versailles treaty be entirely different, either much more anti-German (breaking it up) or much more pro-German.
DeleteI'm nothing close to a Nazi apologist here, but the fact is any form of government in Germany would have liked to "incorporate" Poland one way or another. The map lines had shifted back and forth over centuries and the demographics of any given area were meaningless either way.
DeleteMost of this land was vastly empty, and the much more advanced Germans had no reason to refrain from appropriating the territory on account of some "willagers" in Farm Land ("Poland", literally transcribed)
Why should "Poland" have the Corridor and not Germany? Independence is always relative, by Polish nationalist standards all of "Prussia" was Polish territory. I'm not sure conceding on Muh Corridor was such a wrong thing to do, although it was not in the cards. Far as anyone can tell, the ultimate aim of WW2 was accomplished: see to it that war breaks out first in the WEST, while bringing the USSR into common borders with Nazi Germany.
The rest as they say, is history. Locking Germany into a 2 front war with Russia on one side and America on the other leaves Britain victorious, and the whole postwar order emerged from 1945 onward. Just the right amount of "Russia" far enough west to keep Europe pacified and divided, but not too far so as to impinge on the Allied "NATO" area of Europe.
What's wrong with that?
Jacob Shell:
ReplyDelete"This combined with economic and cultural problems in Weimar Germany, many of these problems being traceable to Versailles."
The short-lived hyperinflation of 1922-23 was already resolved by 1924 when the reparations were revised into the Dawes Plan. It resulted in Germany being supported though investments largely from the United States in J.P. Morgan & Co. it produced what is referred to as "the Golden Age of 1924-28." The economy of the Weimar Republic that these neo-Nazi types complain about was more stable and produced better wages and living standards than the Third Reich which struggled to even reach its 1927 peak. All without rearmament, threats of sending layabouts to the labour camps while removing Women and the Jews from the employment figures or via pushing the population into the military by 1935.
The people that complained about the economy of the Weimar Republic was mainly the farmers who could not compete with imports. People often jump straight from 1923 into 1933.
Jacob Shell:
"swung the whole political dynamic towards promotion of someone insane like Hitler, who had Eurasianist goals which most of the German population in 1920s didnt actually have and needed to be aggressively propagandized into."
During 1924-28 the NSDAP had no political support. I recall they received about 2% of the vote at the time. Such increased following these same investments halting following the 1927-28 stock market crash. Before the crash some of this money for Germany had been directed back into the US stock market. Later revised into the 1929 Young Plan before the Great Depression and the Panic of 1931 halted them.
Reparations ended before Hitler was appointed into office, following the advice of Thomas W. Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Co, on Schacht of the Reichsbank and Norman of the Bank of England. Lamont had predicted in 1932 that Germany's obligations would have to end following France defaulting on their own war debts with the Panic of 1931 which almost caused Great Britain to default on their debts.
"American 'Reparations' to Germany, 1919-1933" by Stephen A. Schuker is the most through work on this period. The reparations' fable on Germany are overrated. Germany had imposed harsher conditions against France following the Franco-Prussian War and Russia in 1918 with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Of those 5 Paris peace treaties Versailles was mild. Britain did not want to impose such alleged "harsh conditions" against Germany as Germany was still its main exporter. "The Myth of Reparations" by Sally Marks is another that refutes these fables, since the 1970s when those archives were opened for the first time Germany had no problem paying their reparations, Marks argues they could have paid more.
As stated by German Professor Peter Fritzsche, the alleged "harshness" myth of the Treaty of Versailles is largely a "false memory" that the Germans only came to learn about after 1933. Its propaganda.
michael:
DeleteYour version of the economy of the Weimar Republic would be hard-pressed to explain why Germany was hit harder by the Great Depression than any other country.
As mentioned, their economy was dependant upon the United States in J.P. Morgan & Co. since reparations were revised into the Dawes-Young Plan of 1924-29. With the 1928 stock market crash funds being directed for Germany was reduced and held to save J.P. Morgan & Co. from their own failure, it's why the 1929 Young Plan was introduced and had revised the original 1924 Dawes Plan.
DeleteGermany was dependant upon other nations, remember that the Great Depression was started in Austria that led to Great Britain that caused bank runs in the United States over the Gold Standard.
You have heard that Hitler arrested Louis Rothschild right? Yet the reason is never produced by the neo-Nazi types, if you pull up in newspaper archives at the time you will learn that Louis was held because he was President of the Credit-Anstalt, one of the largest private houses in Austria. He was personally blamed by Hitler for causing the Panic of 1931.
Thank you so much for this, Mr. Liddell.
ReplyDeleteOne trick that the Hitler apologists try to employ is to say about Lebensraum, "Oh, but that was Hitler talking way back in the 1920's," as if the Nazis had given up on it by 1939. This ignores actions and comments by high-level Nazis in the 30's and during WWII which clearly show that they had not given up on a slave empire for Germany in the East. Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and many others experienced this first-hand.
Exactly. Anyone in the Dissident Right who is trying to make a case for Hitler should be considered a bad actor. It will save a lot of time and trouble later on.
DeleteA far more reasonable approach is criticizing the Allies, instead of trying to rehabilitate one of the worst governments in human history.
DeleteGoing to war over The Polish Corridor is why Britain now has capital city with a Pakistani mayor and where indigenous Britons are a minority. Was it worth it?
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be missing a whole lot of other causal factors. You also appear to be contradicting your other comment lower down.
DeleteLiddell, though an inveterate Germanophobe, makes some valid points. Germany could have accepted the Polish Corridor. Hitler was a disaster for the entire European World
ReplyDeleteWrong. I love the Germans, but they have obvious flaws that need addressing.
DeleteThis. Germanic people are very intelligent, hard working and tough people, but there is something psychologically messed up with them.
DeleteColin, great article but your argument fails:
ReplyDelete1) Hitler *did* propose a plebiscite for the corridor question, and would have accepted a Polish win, given that Germany got a "corridor through the corridor" (a customsfree rail line).
2) And the map you show doesn't show ethnic structure, but dialects. The corridor, where they spoke Kashubian dialect, belonged to Pomerania, which from 1772 to 1920 belonged to West Prussia, and its ethnic structure was very much mixed Polish/German (*). Of course, Polish nationalists in 1939 didn't accept the pre-1920 status, or even the pre-1772 status.
3) In conclusion, Hitler's demands really were, overall, "fair and just", and Poland knew it, and for this very reason, planned for war against Germany, together with the Brits and France.
*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubians#History
The post-WWI German government turned down the plebiscite in the Polish corridor just after the war, so why would Hitler want one almost 20 years later when the German population in Poland had shrunk even more? Doesn't make any kind of sense, now, does it? Check the ethnic breakdowns in the article.
DeleteThe Kashubians are Slavs, therefore more Polish than German, so just stop with the "Kashubians are Germans" bullshit.
You idiotically say "In conclusion, Hitler's demands really were, overall, 'fair and just'."
But, even if you actually believed that his demands were mild and sincere, you completely missed my main argument against this moronic Nazitard idea. Here, have another read:
"If Adolf's demands were so trivial and innocuous, surely it was totally disproportionate to (a) do a dirty deal with the genocidal Soviet Union and (b) then invade and crush an entire European country when they were turned down. Yes, Hitler decided that millions must die merely over the status of a slightly more convenient delivery route to East Prussia. Declaring war over that is like murdering somebody for just looking at you the wrong way. The "Muh Corridor" argument is thus nothing more than a confirmation of the widely held, mainstream view that, yes, Hitler was a psychopath and his regime was a totally unhinged and dangerous one."
It's pretty obvious that you are failing to engage with the points made in the article, and are arguing in bad faith and are little better than a troll, so watch it.
Poland to Germany was like Ireland to Britain: a large stretch of farmland and some working hands to cultivate it. Poland was not a European country, it was just "territory' that needed adjustment.
DeleteThe Poles attacked the Germans anyway, it is well documented the violence against ethnic Germans in Poland, and the sabre rattling at the frontiers, besides revanchist demands towards eastern Germany. Even democratic and rational government in D-land at the time would have been compelled to take action.
Making a "deal" with the USSR was logical and common sense. What made no sense was going to war with Britain!! Obviously the Germans are crazy and still nutty people.
Even Anglin has gotten off the Hitler train. He was making himself too obvious to the foolish that follow him.
ReplyDeleteI think Andrew Anglin is funny, anyone who goes there got serious political views, however, is a moron.
DeleteIf Hitler wasn't such a suicidal idiot he could have built ferries instead of battleships and submarines and saved a lot of lives by not having a war in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHitler believed in a bogus socialist theory called Shrinking Markets that led him to believe trade led to class war which means that the Jews will take over your country. He wasn't really stupid, he was profoundly ignorant.
DeleteYou write : " Instead, the allies, rather too magnanimously in my view, decided to maintain the unitary German state, making only a few border adjustments .." BULLSHIT ... and YOU ARE LYING ... I am a beneficiary of this redistributtion of Land controlled by Germany after WW 1.. and I as a DANE am partly satisfied with that specific outcome .. but I also have a sense of JUSTICE .. J..U..S..T..I..C..E ... something you in your CYNICAL RHETORIC .. do NOT know what is .... I would encourage You to study a GERMAN WEB SITE I personally find very humble as well as believable in many of its reports and articles.... YOUR ARROGANT BESSERWISSER ATTITUDE DOES NOT SPEAK WELL ABOUT YOU .. End of YOUR STORY ... for MY part.. YOU are NOT a " SOLUTION " to the WOES of ... The European People ... Sorry !
ReplyDeleteThere were no good guys in the Second World War, and arguably Mao was the least bad participant (not talking about his behavior after the war).
ReplyDeleteNazism was just ridiculous, Mussolini fucked up by allying with the Nazi freaks, Americans should mind their own business, Japan were brutal thugs, England were cynical cunts who don't like commercial competition, and the USSR were Commies so fuck them. Taking sides in the Second World War, aside from being stupid because those people are all dead now and it's over, shows a desire for tribal signaling more than judgment.
This is a very court historian take. Even in Britain some a thing the time perfectly understood Hitler's dealings with Poland and called the guarantee to protect Poland (which they didn't) hare brained. Hitler also wanted to team up with Poland against the communist thread from the East, alas In Poland there also were quite nasty politicians in charge who, possibly emboldened by the French/British guarantee, didn't even enter discussion with Germany. The Polish guy who had been in charge, sorry, forgot all the names, was far less hostile but he had died, I believe, and some more anti-German folks took over.
ReplyDeleteIt's not all about vindicating Hitler but about a more realistic view as to how yet another giant war happened for pretty ridiculous reasons. Many in Britain knew it at the time as well. Churchill also was a known war monger with a rather similar worldview to Hitler. Even as Hitler attacked Poland, it was stupid to get involved. Instead the war between Russia and Germany should have been watched from the outside and then Britain should have dealt with the new situation then. Hitler had no plans to invade Britain, he admired the Empire, it was his inspiration. That Hitler was an immediate thread is simply untrue. His dream of empire was in Russia.
I thought this was a good block but you've really shown your cards here with a very uninformed, emotional, ragey article. Even mainstream historians have a more balanced view than you.
Your attempt to defend Hitler is incoherent and a bit desperate. Also, you are commenting on the wrong article. I suggest you look at this one (VOX DAY, ANDREW ANGLIN, AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF NAZIISM) for the very obvious reasons why Hitler had to be stopped.
DeleteThe point under discussion here is not Britain's decision to finally go to war against Germany (after Hitler had repeatedly shat on his own reputation) but whether the Soviet decision to invade and occupy the BeloRussian-and-Ukrainian-inhabited Eastern part of Polish territory was equally as morally reprehensible as the German invasion of the core territories of Poland. In itself, it clearly was not.