The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 223

remember, forget, forgive, blame ... Holocaust Memorial Day in Poland


Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #151
Nothing would change,

Unlikely....

Well one thing that would change would be a much higher casuality rate among non-Jewish populations since refusing to carry orders or giving a Jew a slice of bread typically earned a bullet for you and your family,

There were much more volunteers than the Germans needed, no need to force someone.

And countries where there was real unwill to deport their Jews were left alone mostly too...
The Germans knew very well that they had no means to force it if there was a wide spread "no"....they only had that many men available.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #152
Unlikely....

Because of what? The whole infrastructure to locate, imprison and murder was in German hands effiency of extremination would not suffer people still needed to hide in settlements or their general vicinity to survive.

And countries where there was real unwill to deport their Jews were left alone mostly too...

Rubbish, if you werent a major ally like Italy and refused to deport Jews you'd get a bullet everywhere, you're making it sound as if Germans gave people a choice.

The Germans knew very well that they had no means to force it if there was a wide spread "no"....they only had that many men available.

The Germans had means to murder 80% of all Slavic people and more then 90% of Poles if Russia failed, German nazism was poised to extreminate any number of people who defied it and had the means to do it everywhere it did not have to oppose an equal enemy (ie Russian/Western militaries).

If shall we say all people in Prague said "no" then Germans would just exterminate all people in Prague, as evident in Warsaw, Stalingrad and a number of other cities Germans had no qualms against emulating Chyngis Khan with the sole difference that Mongols let children that could fit beyond the axle of a carriage live, Germans had their way even with newborns.
Bzibzioh
29 Jan 2010 #153
There were much more volunteers than the Germans needed, no need to force someone.

Tell me you are joking.

And countries where there was real unwill to deport their Jews were left alone mostly too...

Yes, those Danish heroes who saved all their Jews. All 15 of them ...
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #154
The Germans had means to murder 80% of all Slavic people and more then 90% of Poles if Russia failed, German nazism was poised to extreminate any number of people who defied it and had the means to do it everywhere it did not have to oppose an equal enemy (ie Russian/Western militaries).

I didn't knew they had nukes???

And no, they didn't had the means....look at a map of Europe and then look a the numbers of Germans available!
There was a bloody war still going on, remember?

Tell me you are joking.

No, I'm not....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_collaborators

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust#Other_states

Although the Holocaust was planned and directed by Germans, the Nazi regime found willing collaborators in other countries, both those allied to Germany and those under German occupation.

The civil service and police of the Vichy regime in occupied France actively collaborated in persecuting French Jews. Germany's allies, Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, were pressured to introduce anti-Jewish measures; with the exception of Romania, they did not comply until compelled to do so.
Bulgaria and Finland refused to co-operate, and all 50,000 Bulgarian Jews survived (though most lost their possessions and many were imprisoned), but thousands of Greek and Yugoslavian Jews were deported from the Bulgarian-occupied territories.

Yes, those Danish heroes who saved all their Jews. All 15 of them ...

Well, it had been some more and no Dane got killed because of it!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #155
I didn't knew they had nukes???

No nukes, take a look at Warsaw, it had thousands of brave fighters who unlike say Czechs were ready to lay down their lives and how did it end?

Civilians dont have the means or the training to take on a military, you can wreck a milion something large city with an understrength infantry division and a couple of weeks of hard work.

And no, they didn't had the means....look at a map of Europe and then look a the numbers of Germans available!

Again you fail to grasp the military vs civilians question, a single infantry batalion of 800 men is enough to pacify a city quarter of 40 thousand by sheer superiority of training and arms.

Germans did not extreminate Slavs wholly because A. Slavic people provided manpower for needed facilities. B. Germans wanted servants.

But if it would be required the regular army could easily wipe out all major population centers in all of occupied Europe within months.

Take a 155mm howitzer with 40 RPH, thats 40 shots per hour, thats 40 buildings per hour, 10 howitzers can potentially collapse 400 buildings within an hour, give them a couple of weeks, attach an engineer regiment with satchel charges and a couple of infantry battalions to protect them, you have a force of 10 cannons and maybe 3000 men poised to obliterate a 50.000 city in less then a week.

So yeah Germans had both the means and will to do it if pushed to it.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #156
Again you fail to grasp the military vs civilians question, a single infantry batalion of 800 men is enough to pacify a city quarter of 40 thousand by sheer superiority of training and arms.

That is only possible if the 40.000 are already pacified....if they would fight those 800 men have no chance!

But if it would be required the regular army could easily wipe out all major population centers in all of occupied Europe within months.

Well....it's hard to discuss lofty assumptions....why not stay with the reality!

Countries who didn't "deliver" their Jews were left alone.
Most helpers of the Germans were volunteers.
No, the Germans had never the men available in the occupied countries to shoot everybody.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #157
That is only possible if the 40.000 are already pacified....if they would fight those 800 men have no chance!

Lets imagine you live in such a city, have you ever shot a weapon? Do you know how to use it? Do you have any training whatsoever? Logistics support? Can you gather several thousand people who have military grade training?

Because if not then attacking people with automatic weapons, artillery support and armored cars using hammers and knives is a bad idea and if they have even one tank you're sh*t out of luck because its indestructible.

Thats not a computer game, a military thats acting indiscriminately against civilian population can wipe out countries with its thumbs in its arse and sipping coffee.

For the same reason the Polish minority was holding Ukraine by the balls in interwar Poland, you can have a bazilion civilians and it means sh*t if the other side has an army and is willing to use it.

Countries who didn't "deliver" their Jews were left alone.

Like which countries?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #158
Like which countries?

You never read my links, don't you!;)

Denmark being the most glaring example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

...
As a result of the rescue and Danish intercession on behalf of the 5% of Danish Jews who were deported to Theresienstadt transit camp in Bohemia, over 99% of Denmark's Jewish population survived the Holocaust.

Bzibzioh
29 Jan 2010 #159
No, I'm not....

I was thinking about Poland. I know that the rest of Europe is another story.

Denmark being the most glaring example:

"It has been popularly reported that the Nazis ordered Danish Jews to wear an identifying yellow star, as elsewhere in Nazi controlled territories. In some versions of the myth, King Christian X opted to wear such a star himself and the Danish people followed his example, thus making the order unenforceable.

The order was, in fact, never issued (although the yellow star was imposed on Dutch Jews).

The myth may have originated in a contemporary cartoon, published in a Swedish daily paper, depicting the King asserting to a former prime minister that, if the order to wear the star was imposed on Denmark's Jews, "We'll all have to wear yellow stars." "

I especially love this "Danish King refused to wear yellow star" nonsense.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #160
I was thinking about Poland. I know that the rest of Europe is another story.

Well, for Germans it's the whole "wild East"....how can we make differences! ;)

But I know Poland was always a special case, one of the few pinned for annihilation, never given even a choice.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #161
You never read my links, don't you!;) Denmark being the most glaring example:

I'm sorry you're right i missed it so lets have a look at it:

In late 1941, upon the visit of Danish Foreign Minister Erik Scavenius to Berlin, German authorities there (including Hermann Göring) insisted that Denmark choose not to avoid its "Jewish problem".

You do realise that an insistance by a country that just overrun central and Western Europe amounts to an irrefusable demand?

Bulgaria and Finland refused to co-operate, and all 50,000 Bulgarian Jews survived

Independent Finland and its small but capable army was crucial to the war effort, it was not about Jews but Finland being strategic for German interests (among others at Leningrad) and Bulgaria was geographically on such a complete sidetrack and with a relatively small Jewish population that it could be left for later.

However its important to mention that WW2 was not fought to kill Jews but to conquer Europe, Jews were killed as a side effect of conquest and were not its purpose so if a country was not important strategically it could indeed be left alone but countries like Denmark did not have such luxury.

But I know Poland was always a special case, one of the few pinned for annihilation, never given even a choice.

Incidentally Hitler was an avid reader into theosophy and Steiner, his aim was by destroying Poland to decapitate the "mind of the Slavs" and by obliterating Russia to "rip out their heart" gotta find that interview.

Poland was always an obstacle in German drang nacht osten and the most culturally and civilisationally developed Slavic State, by killing Poland Hitler was hoping to kill what he viewed was a transitway from "Slavic folk ways" to a more organised and powerfull ethnic structure.
Bzibzioh
29 Jan 2010 #162
Well, for Germans it's the whole "wild East"....how can we make differences! ;)

Do you want me to show you the business end of my shot gun? :)

You'd be surprised how many times I read in Jewish newspaper "Why Poles didn't help Jews like Danish did" It pisses me off to no end.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #163
Do you want me to show you the business end of my shot gun? :)

Peace! ;)
Harry
29 Jan 2010 #164
Because if not then attacking people with automatic weapons, artillery support and armored cars using hammers and knives is a bad idea and if they have even one tank you're sh*t out of luck because its indestructible.

Perhaps you could explain how Poles managed to destroy tanks in the 1943 Warsaw uprising using nothing more than bottles and cooking fuel?
TheOther 5 | 3,886
29 Jan 2010 #165
Poland was always an obstacle in German drang nacht osten

his aim was by destroying Poland to decapitate the "mind of the Slavs"

The main reason for the Nazi's hatred of Poland was not race, but the outcome of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler wanted to reverse Versailles - nothing more, nothing less.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #166
The main reason for the Nazi's hatred of Poland was not race, but the outcome of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles.

If that was the case then Hitler would never even consider an alliance with Poland, given Ribbentrops discussions with Beck such a possibility was strongly considered if Poland would yield to the demands.

The main reason why Germans hated Poland was because it was the symbol of their defeat, double that in that Poland heaved itself and won its own freedom which meant that the Empire was defeated not only by the mighty Western armies but also by the very people they looked down upon.

itler wanted to reverse Versailles - nothing more, nothing less.

Are you a Nazi? Of course not then why parrot what was Nazi propaganda? Hitlers aims were pretty well pronounced in Mein Kampf, eradication of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, submission of Western, Central and Eastern Europe, thats a bit more then simple reversing of Versailles.

Interestingly enough even today Germans including BB seem to forget that lands that Poland won back and Versailles ratified were the lands Germans never had any title to and took by an illegal act of forcefull annexation a century earlier.
TheOther 5 | 3,886
29 Jan 2010 #167
The main reason why Germans hated Poland was because it was the symbol of their defeat,

Well, Poland was the result of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. As such, Poland was a symbol of the German Empire's defeat, you are correct.

thats a bit more then simple reversing of Versailles

I believe that the "Dolchstosslegende" is the key to understand what later happened. Hitler, the Nazis and many other Germans at that time believed that the Empire hadn't lost the war, but were betrayed by forces from the inside. It all goes back to this, and Hitler picked up on it when he later wrote 'Mein Kampf'.

Are you a Nazi?

Please don't say that, Sokrates. I can take quite a bit, but being called a Nazi is something I do not tolerate.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #168
Please don't say that, Sokrates. I can take quite a bit, but being called a Nazi is something I do not tolerate.

I said i know you are not but you're unconsciously repeating the apologetic tactic of people with a pro-German outlook, that WW2 was about Versaiiles, WW2 was about the defeat of WW1 and Versailles was just a symbol of this defeat, if there was no Versailles treaty another excuse would be found.

I believe that the "Dolchstosslegende" is the key to understand what later happened. Hitler, the Nazis and many other Germans at that time believed that the Empire hadn't lost the war, but were betrayed by forces from the inside. It all goes back to this, and Hitler picked up on it when he later wrote 'Mein Kampf'.

Whether Hitler or Germans actually believed it is arguable, that they chose to believe it is true.

There's a difference between actuall mass perception and a construct entering mass perception as justification or self-delusion.

Hitler and his thugs simply constructed an ideology that Germans would have preferred to the truth, the price for accepting that ideology was physical extermination of other peoples, given that it didnt alter an average Germans life he simply didnt give a sh*t whether a milion kids get gassed somewhere in the East.

This is exactly why i think an average German citizen of WW2 deserved bombings, rape and murder that happened to him, Germans as a nation were guilty of complacency and a choice of their own pride over humanity, everything that happened to them was the consequence of their own collective choice.

Well, Poland was the result of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles. As such, Poland was a symbol of the German Empire's defeat, you are correct.

We can agree that the ressurection of Poland was the result of WW1 (Poland itself is the result of Poles creating it 1000+ years ago) but not of Versaiiles.

Polish armed forces led a campaign thats goal was to evict German and Russian occupying forces from Polands native lands, Versailles simply acknowledged and ratified the situation Poles themselves have created as a result of WW1.

This is important because there's a big difference between Poland being given its independence and taking it, Poles took their independence back by themselves with very limited foreign aid, otherwise no one would give it to them, Versailles only acknowledged the end result.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #169
This is important because there's a big difference between Poland being given its independence and taking it, Poles took their independence back by themselves with very limited foreign aid, otherwise no one would give it to them, Versailles only acknowledged the end result.

It wasn't through a war with Germany that Poland got their independence...quite to the contrary many Poles fighted WWI on the sides of the partitioners.

On the outbreak of war the Poles found themselves conscripted into the armies of Germany, Austria and Russia, and forced to fight each other in a war that was not theirs. Although many Poles sympathized with France and Britain, they found it hard to fight for their ally, Russia. They also had little sympathy for the Germans. Total deaths from 1914-18, military and civilian, within the 1919-1939 borders, were estimated at 1,128,000.[147]

Well, the new borders where drawn in Versailles, not in Warsaw.
The french send troops to support them...the german side was forced to subscribe to the treaty (or else the blockade would not had ended, killing even more than the already starved to death 600.000 people).

I think we can say that in the mainstream history it's this treaty which destroyed the german and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and carved out of them new countries....

Ask the Hungarians, they feel the same!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon

....
The territory of Hungary was reduced from 325,111 km2 to 93,073 km2 and its population from 20.9 million to 7.6 million.[9]
Hungary lost five of its ten most populous cities as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland#Formation_of_modern_Polish_society_under_foreign_rule

...
Polish independence was eventually proclaimed on November 3, 1918 and later confirmed by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
The same treaty also gave Poland some territories annexed by the Germans and Austrians during the partitions (see Polish Corridor). The post-war eastern borders of Poland were determined by Polish victory in the Polish-Soviet War.

And it wasn't only about purely polish territory, it was also about territory purely german in history and population.
After the fall of the empires it was a free for all and every nationality which could tried to grab as much land for itself as possible...

/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Territorial_changes

Wilson's friend Edward Mandell House, present at the negotiations, wrote in his diary on 29 June 1919:

"I am leaving Paris, after eight fateful months, with conflicting emotions. Looking at the conference in retrospect, there is much to approve and yet much to regret.
It is easy to say what should have been done, but more difficult to have found a way of doing it. To those who are saying that the treaty is bad and should never have been made and that it will involve Europe in infinite difficulties in its enforcement, I feel like admitting it.

Bzibzioh
29 Jan 2010 #170
And it wasn't only about purely polish territory, it was also about territory purely german in history and population.

If you are talking about Silesia you are wrong.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #171
Of course...Germans are always wrong...as Poles are always right...how could I forget!

Inform yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Silesia
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Jan 2010 #172
And it wasn't only about purely polish territory, it was also about territory purely german in history and population.
After the fall of the empires it was a free for all and every nationality which could tried to grab as much land for itself as possible...

Which territory in regards to Poland would that be?

Well, the new borders where drawn in Versailles, not in Warsaw.

What does it matter? If the Western politicians gave Poland to Germany it would mean war, as far as Poland is concerned its the Poles who created the situation fully knowing nothing will be given.

Versailles granted Poland something that the Poles have already taken.

I think we can say that in the mainstream history it's this treaty which destroyed the german and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and carved out of them new countries....

To carve a new country out of Germany there would have to be no country there at all, there was one it was called Poland, carving out a new country is not the correct term, legally reinstating a formerly occupied country is what fits the picture.

Austro-Hungary is wholly different and more complex.

It wasn't through a war with Germany that Poland got their independence...quite to the contrary many Poles fighted WWI on the sides of the partitioners.

War is a big word here, an armed and/or social conflict, apart from the Greater Poland uprisings most of the takeover was done relatively peacefully by sheer weight of numbers but there was always a sharp stick behind if the German soldiers refused to give up arms.

As for Poles fighting for partitioners it was either due to forced conscription or because they were promised a country or because they got a chance to fight against one of the enemies of the state, either way it led to the creation of a formidable and well trained force in 1918-20.

As for Mandel i can understand his point of view thought it would have been different if he was Polish, Poland was there, with its civilisation, culture nation and an army and it would not go away even if there was no Versailles.

Incidentally as always Poland did prove critical to saving Western civilisation, if Mandels vision would come true 2 years later he would be forced into the horror of Soviet communism, Polands existence and its strength so quickly after it Poles resurrected it prevented that.
Bzibzioh
29 Jan 2010 #173
Of course...Germans are always wrong...as Poles are always right...how could I forget!

And you have cheap-tasting white wine too!!!
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #174
As for Mandel i can understand his point of view thought it would have been different if he was Polish,

Well...that is a universal statement, isn't it!
It's hard to exchange your own viewpoint stemming from your own heritage and past with another one...

Austro-Hungary is wholly different and more complex.

Why? Because Hungarians and Poles never shared disputed borders? Could hence uphold their "friendship"?

Real interest here...

And you have cheap-tasting white wine too!!!

Oh, now you are getting mean!
TheOther 5 | 3,886
29 Jan 2010 #175
Versailles granted Poland something that the Poles have already taken.

Versailles made sure that it wasn't taken away from the Poles again, IMHO.

carving out a new country is not the correct term, legally reinstating a formerly occupied country is what fits the picture.

Legally, your country wasn't occupied. It simply didn't exist, and this was an accepted fact before 1918 (except amongst most ethnic Poles, of course).
Torq 26 | 2,371
29 Jan 2010 #176
"friendship"

No quotation mark needed here. The friendship was, is and will always be very
much real. Confirmed on countless occasions in over 1000 years of history.
How glorious, eternal and pure the Polish-Hungarian friendship is!
Unmatched, unparalleled and uncomparable to any other relations of any other
two nations in the world. If I was a poet, I'd write an epic poem about it!

and this was an accepted fact at that time (except amongst
most ethnic Poles, of course).

Turkey never acknowledged the partitions of Poland. Archenemy from the past
had more decency than our dear, Christian neighbours.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #177
The friendship was, is and will always be very
much real.

I tell you what Torqi....if Germans and Poles were not such close neighbours we would probably too be best friends - on the other hand if Hungary had lost huge towns and big stripes of land to Poland after the war they would barely regard you as friends nor wouldn't you any hungarian group remembering their lost lands watch and observe with hate and suspicion.

That is a given!

It was the same grudge as the Germans felt what made the Hungarians natural german allies...I find it always curious that your "understanding" of Hungarians is sooo great....just exchange the names, Hungarians and Germans have much more in common than Poles and Hungarians! ;)

Turkey never acknowledged the partitions of Poland. Archenemy from the past
had more decency than our dear, Christian neighbours.

Another far away country...isn't it interesting that your bestest friends where always from "far away"????
TheOther 5 | 3,886
29 Jan 2010 #178
Turkey never acknowledged the partitions of Poland

Yes, that's true. Do you know of any other countries in the world that didn't acknowledge the partitions?
Torq 26 | 2,371
29 Jan 2010 #179
If Germans and Poles were not such close neighbours we would
probably too best friends

That is quite possible (but you would still be stealing our football players ;)).

if Hungary had lost huge towns and big stripes of land
to Poland

Well, if Martians invaded Ethiopia and great snow avalanche fell on Hollywood while
the Chinese emperor was having his lunch... ;)

Do you know of any other countries in the world that didn't acknowledge
the partitions?

Denmark and Spain as far as I know.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,877
29 Jan 2010 #180
That is quite possible (but you would still be stealing our football players ;)).

Probably...:)

Well, if Martians invaded Ethiopia and great snow avalanche fell on Hollywood while
the Chinese emperor was having his lunch... ;)

What lunch!

*get's hungry*


Home / History / remember, forget, forgive, blame ... Holocaust Memorial Day in Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.