Ultimate reason why Hitler invaded Poland

[Lamprecht]

There is a lot of debate as to why Hitler chose to invade Poland in September 1939. Some claim it was the first step in achieving the Holocaust as Hitler intended to exterminate all of the non-Aryans (which supposedly includes Slavs) and Poland was, geographically speaking, the logical first step. Others claim that it was because of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans in territories given to Poland after WWI. And still others claim Hitler simply wanted to take over the entire earth and enslave the world under a despotic blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan dictatorship.

What do you guys think?

[Hohenems]

Living space. Plain and simple. That his living space had previously been German was an added plus. But Lebensraum was the big motivation, I think.

[Hannover]

And that living space was the land stolen from Germany after WWI. The urgency of Germany's action was due to the atrocities against Germans living on that stolen land which had been annexed by Poland.

see here:
'Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939'
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525

- H.

[Hohenems]

And that living space was the land stolen from Germany after WWI.

Yeah, I said that. Although it doesn't explain ongoing German occupation of areas east of the Vistula. That would be pure expansion for purposes of Lebensraum. Ditto on Ukraine, Belarus, and European Russia, although I can understand waiting on military withdrawal and civilan government until after the war with the Soviets was over. Not having done that in the General Government and Bialystok District, especially given that the Polish government was quite hostile to the USSR, fuels the suspicion that points east of the Vistula were part of Drang nach Osten.

[Haldan]

In short:

Because the Poles hogged large chunks of land which belonged (and still does to be fair) to the Germans, but would not cooperate with the Germans on something so banal as the corridor in Danzig and became increasingly hostile after they got their "guarantee" from Britain and France. The second most obvious reason was the untenable position of Germans living in land currently held by Poland - they were mistreated, discriminated and murdered on large scale.
Whatever Germany did in 1939 it certainly was justified and perfectly within their right. It was Britain and France who made it into a full-fledged world war by declaring war on Germany over a regional border dispute between Germany and Poland - interests which should have been of no concern to neither France or the warmongering British.

Read the German White and Blue Book (I have it in original):

http://wnlibrary.com/search:White%20Boo ... lue%20Book

Be patient when loading the book because it's a big file (sixteen megabytes). The White and Blue Book is really one of the best books on this issue, although many people simply discard it as propaganda because it was printed by the German Foreign Office.

Regards,
-haldan

[Kingfisher]

A good source on this is Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. The Danzig and corridor situation was untenable. Germany wanted Danzig, and on ethnic grounds had a clear case. Germany also found the exclaved position of East Prussia unacceptable, but Hitler, unlike the Weimar governments, offered to accept the existing borders on condition that Danzig be allowed to join Germany and an extraterritorial motorway built to connect East Prussia with the rest of Germany. The importance of Danzig to the Poles as an outlet to the sea was recognised and they would have free access to the port. Left to themselves, the Poles would probably have negotiated on this but the blank cheque given by the Anglo-French guarantee encouraged their intransigence. Some argue that the British wanted this as an excuse to fight Germany, and it is a view that gets some support from the widely-expressed view after the war and right up to today that "we should have stood up to Hitler sooner".

I would be interested in seeing some hard reliable evidence from Revisionist or non-Revisionist sources about the attacks on ethnic Germans. They are generally presented by mainstream media as a figment of Hitler's imagination to justify the invasion. I don't accept that, but hard evidence seems difficult to come by. Hoggan gives quite a lot of detail, but I don't know how valid his sources are. His position is strongly biased, too. It's an area that Buchanan avoids, if I remember correctly.

[Mkk]

and it is a view that gets some support from the widely-expressed view after the war and right up to today that "we should have stood up to Hitler sooner".

I'm always quite bemused by this view. Firstly, it assumes Britain has the right to tell other countries what to do with their democratically elected government.

Secondly, it implies that above all regimes in world history, Nazi Germany was the one that needed to be stopped most of all. Perhaps believers in the "holocaust" could justify this after the war - but certainly not before the war when there were no indications of such a policy if there ever was one. Imagine 1939. The National Socialist regime in Germany had brought about a economic miracle and other benefits with the deaths of at most a few hundred people. The Soviet regime, meanwhile, had wrecked their country and killed many millions. Who do you go to war with?

[Kingfisher]

and it is a view that gets some support from the widely-expressed view after the war and right up to today that "we should have stood up to Hitler sooner".

I'm always quite bemused by this view.

I may have confused the issue by using "view" twice. I am not defending the argument that "we should have stood up to Hitler sooner", but saying that the fact that it it is so widely held tends to support the idea that many people in Britain, including by this time Chamberlain, were looking for an excuse to fight Germany. The argument that we should have fought sooner seems somewhat at odds with the view frequently held by the same people that "Hitler started the war".

[Mkk]

Kingfisher, I wasn't suggesting it was a view you hold.

[goomohn]

I'd say the ultimate reason for invading Poland was clearly broadcasted from the reichstag on 01SEP39. The Polish refused Germany's claim to Danzig and the corridor. Germans were being liquidated within Poland. Finally, Polish soldiers had attacked across the border.

[Barrington James]

Hello fellow historians....How did the WW2 start? Who wanted it? Udo Walendy, “The Truth for Germany” writes that Hitler attacked Poland to stop the slaughter of German Nationals and the possible Polish attack on the German city of Danzig which the Treat y of Versailles had marooned in Poland in 1919. Walendy also claims that Hitler had made a number of very fair proposals to Poland such as giving them a passage to the Sea and their keeping of Danzig . However, for some reason, the Poles refused to talk to him. Worse , the Poles began murdering German Nationals by the thousands, 58, 000 in total. Walendy also claims that the Poles had great ideas of taking over large parts on Germany and beyond in some insane dream of a war against Germany and the creation of a Greater Poland. Who knows what the British had promised Poland to stop negotiations?

Eustace Mullins, who got most of his facts from the Library of Congress in Washington, writes in “ The World order” p.93, a great book for all those who wish to learn how this world really works, that “Hitler was duped in his desire for friendship with England, by an alliance originally proposed by Theodore Roosevelt and the Kaiser in 1898 between the three Nordic powers, England , Germany and the USA. The Schoders, ( formerly Schoeder when they were strictly German Bankers ) has assured Hitler that their Anglo-German Fellowship in England was a hundred times more influential than it actually was. With such figures as the Astors and the Chamberlains ( and may I add , The King) supporting rapport with Germany, Hitler was persuaded that war with England was impossible. ` Mullins also writes that although Marx , Lenin , and Stalin had all said that England and her Empire must be destroyed before international communism could triumph, Hitler said in 1936 that , ``I am willing to defend England by force if called upon.``

However England had other plans. All that was further needed for them to spring their trap for Germany was a guarantee to Hitler of supplies such as oil, ball bearings, the promise of Standard Oil to supply the Germans with fuel for their battle ships and submarines in South America and Spain, and some really good excuse to declare war Germany, and they would thus get their war and longed for opportunity to destroy Germany once and for all. My Note: The Britsh wished to destroy Germany , not Hitler so much.

But it didn’t work out as the British had planned. Oh the Brits got their war alright but it seems other people had other plans for the ordering of the world and this included reducing England to a second rate power. And you would never believe the plans the elite had for the USA.

[Hannover]

As I stated in another thread, I don't feel like Hitler was "duped".
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7556
No doubt he had a hard time understanding why Britain would sacrifice so many fine young men for Communism and Zionism, while losing Britain's Empire.
Nonetheless, Hitler had little choice. Regardless of his actions, the Germans knew that they were in the crosshairs of the true belligerents. Indications of that are:
- Britain's guarantee to Poland, which flew in the face of the prior, commonly accepted facts of the perverse nature of the Versailes Treaty. Germany's demands were actually quite modest.
- Britain's refusal to declare war on the USSR who invaded Poland. The USSR violated their non-aggression pact with Poland.
- The silence of the "Allies": when the USSR invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc., etc.
- The knowledge that the USSR was preparing a massive attack on Germany, which made Poland a temporary buffer while Germany prepared.

The 'Hitler was duped' canard, IMO, is just another way of falsely claiming that the Brits were oh so much more clever. Hitler knew the score and needed to take action before the onslaught against Germany actually began.

Thanks to Barrington James for this thread.

- Hannover

[Barrington James]

Did the British dupe Hitler? Hannover said “No”. But I think he was for the following reasons.

The British are masters at creating wars. They have been doing it for hundreds of years. They and their allies the Americas are still doing it. War is a game of thieves, backstabbers , murderers, double crossers and liars and no one plays the game better than we do. I will give you some examples that you might want to check into. While France, our glorious ally, was fighting the Vietnamese after WW2, the Americans were training and supplying Ho Chi Minh with the wherewithal to defeat the French. And when the French were defeated, the Americans then tried to drive their secret Ally, Ho Chi Minh, out of business in Vietnam…thus leading to the Vietnam war. How low can you get. Look it up. The Americans did the same thing to the French in Rwanda. Ever wonder why “no one” tried to stop the genocide in Rwanda? Because it was really a war between the French and the Americans for control of Rwanda and thus the Congo- that’s why. Or , for more proof, simply look at how the Americans have been able to create wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, The Sudan, Somalia- and, of course, all of Central America and most of the third world. Look at how they have been trying to get their war going against Iran.

Consequently I would think that the British and the American would have covered every possible situation with Russia, the USA, the World press, Churchill, Chamberlain, and their Commonwealth in their planning of WW2. I don’t think Hitler quite understood the game.

[Lamprecht]

Relevant article: http://inconvenienthistory.com/10/1/6391

Why Germany Invaded Poland
By: John Wear

Mirror: https://codoh.com/library/document/6391/?lang=en

[Moderator]

Lamprecht, please makes comments, gives views, etc, about a link when posted.
Thanks, M1