Don’t be silly – Kaszubi are Poles. The linguistic and cultural differences that exist today were “promoted” by your favourite Germans, as a mean of their divide and conquer strategy.

Still they had nothing to do with Serbs of any kind.

Of course if you had anything serious to say you’d have already listed a whole bunch of cities in the Balkans with a similar sounding name. But you can’t this time, can you? 🙂

PS. BTW, Prussia was conquered mostly by a Czech king. Curious you don’t claim him as a Serb 🙂

A small recap, because for the lack of any arguments, or straw men to fight with, you are obviously trying to flood this discussion with nonsense:

hitler: “sind es heute nacht 14 gewesen, darunter drei ganz schwere.”

wojtek: The 3 serious ones are Gliwice, Stodoły and Byczyna

nazi revisionist: By what criterion should this be classified as particularly serious?”

wojtek: these are the 3 ones that were mentioned by name in german media and which we learned something about.

nazi revisionist: These were of course not the only incidents mentioned in German media

wojtek: Can you provide names and sources for other false flag incidents that were mentioned in german media for that particular night?

nazi revisionist: But why are you fixated on August 31.?

And now my response:

wojtek: Because this is what I referred to in the first place.

I must say I really enjoy making fun of neonazis.
You guys prove me right every single time. In fact, no matter how dumb the claims you make are, you outdo yourselves. Like here:

“There were of course zero ‘false flag’ incidents in that night.”

So desperate it’s almost funny.

“In the official propaganda narrative there are only claims about three ‘false flag’ incidents, so even if one were to believe it, it would be impossible for there to be reports about any more of them.”

and your hitler again: “sind es heute nacht 14 gewesen”

QED

PS. You must try harder.

On August 31st? Really? Can you provide names and sources for other false flag incidents that were mentioned in german media for that particular night?

There were of course zero ‘false flag’ incidents in that night. In the official propaganda narrative there are only claims about three ‘false flag’ incidents, so even if one were to believe it, it would be impossible for there to be reports about any more of them. If you simply mean reports about violent border incidents, there is, for instance, in the “Oberschlesischer Wanderer”, a report about a Polish attack on a railway station in Alt -Hicha, district Rosenberg. I am sure more can be found by rummaging through other German papers of the day

But why are you fixated on August 31.? Naujocks and Grzimek as the respective originators of the Gleiwitz and Hochlinden (Grzimek got the name wrong as “Hohenlinden”) ‘false flag’ stories certainly did not think so – Naujocks put the Gleiwitz incident initially more than two weeks before 31. August, Grzimek the Hochlinden/Hohenlinden incident on 30. August. There is no lack of reports about incidents on the previous days.

In any case, I am mystified why you think that pointing out that the alleged ‘false flag’ incidents were mentioned in the media somehow helps the official propaganda narrative. Actually it would have made Naujocks and Grzimek’s stories (marginally) less unbelievable if the incidents had NOT been mentioned in the media, since at least that would have indicated some special knowledge by them about these incidents.

Katyn forest massacre — which was carried out by Soviet NKVD, but blamed Nazi Germany — was acknowledged by Russian Parliament and Pres. Putin as having been ordered by Stalin (as shown by their archives).

This was only after the end of the cold war, For many decades the “fact” that it was the evil Germans that did it, was part of official history.

Stalin ordered the murder of Polish military men: ~20,000.
Hitler ordered the murder of Polish civilian intelligentsia: ~100,000.

The difference is of course that there is detailed forensic evidence for the first one, but none for the latter.

“These were of course not the only incidents mentioned in German media”

On August 31st? Really? Can you provide names and sources for other false flag incidents that were mentioned in german media for that particular night?

“The city of Danzig (Gdańsk) was captured by the State of the Teutonic Order on 13 November 1308, resulting in a massacre of its inhabitants and marking the beginning of tensions between Poland and the Teutonic Order. “

What happened before that?

During the Middle Ages, Polish and German forces, particularly the Teutonic Knights, engaged in campaigns against the Baltic pagans. These campaigns, known as the Northern Crusades, aimed to convert the local Serbian tribes to Christianity, but also served the rulers’ interests in expanding their territories and wealth.

In 1226, Konrad of Mazovia, a Polish duke, enlisted the Teutonic Knights to combat the pagan Prussians in the Baltic region. The emperor and the pope sanctioned the Teutonic Knights to govern any Serbian lands they conquered.

Throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, the Teutonic Knights conquered Prussia and the northern Baltic region. The original Serbian Prussian population was virtually wiped out and the territory resettled by Germans.

1147–1185: The Wendish Crusades, involving German, Danish, and Polish armies, aimed to subdue Serbian tribes.

1230–1283: The Prussian Crusades marked a successful campaign by the Teutonic Knights to subdue and convert the Serbian Prussian tribes.

From the above, it is obvious that it was not Poles who lived in Danzig (because the proto-panzers would not do that to their Catholic allies), but rather Baltic pagan Serbs (Kashubians) who founded the city.

#257 Gerhard Grasruck

So, your most reliable, primary sources are old Polish newspapers… No comments.

People said, that one picture is worth 1000 words. Let’s check it if it is true.

Here you have map of Polish minorities in Germany in 1937:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_Poland

Please note two things:

1. Polish minority in Germany lived mainly in East Prussia and Silesia.
2. German minority in Poland lived in narrow strip in western Poland.

Conclusion:
If Germans had good will they should have offered Poland exchange of land- lands of Germany with Poles in exchange of Gdańsk.
But Germans wanted war – not resolve tensions.

Btw, Germans slaughtered Slavic population of Gdańsk in 1308*, that’s how Gdańsk became German-speaking city.

“So you admit that Poland wanted to start a war of aggression against Germany in 1933 under the the rabidly imperialistic, but smart Pilsudski, but for some reason not in 1939, when he had been replaced by people no less rabidly imperialistic, but a lot less smart? How absurd can it get?”

In 1933 Germany had 100,000 regular army without tanks and airplanes (+500,000 paramilitary formations like police etc.).
It was no match for combined Polish- French armies.

In 1939 Germany army had staggering prevalence over Poland and France.

—

* “Gdańsk massacre or Gdańsk slaughter (rzeź Gdańska)”
“The city of Danzig (Gdańsk) was captured by the State of the Teutonic Order on 13 November 1308, resulting in a massacre of its inhabitants and marking the beginning of tensions between Poland and the Teutonic Order. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_takeover_of_Danzig_(Gda%C5%84sk)

> The British did nothing to hold the Poles back, quite on the contrary they did everything to egg the Poles on.

That’s an outright lie. For example, take Kennard’s note to Halifax on August 31, 1939:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk93.asp

—–
I took the opportunity of impressing upon him again the necessity of avoiding any incidents in the meantime and asked him whether any had recently occurred. He said he had just heard that there had been a clash between German and Polish military forces but as at present informed he did not think it had amounted to more than an exchange of shots without serious casualties.
—–

The British government was acutely aware of all the disillusionment which had followed the First World War. They had no desire to be dragged into a war by an aggressive Poland. All of their communications to Poland reflect this.

The lower limit in my opinion is 12 dead and 70 injured like in the Aurora movie theater shooting. It was totally real, right? Nobody ever could fake that many dead and injured in a violent incident.

This can’t even be described as a “violent incident”. It was more like a stupid prank.

So one dead is not enough to make it a “real” incident? What is the the lower limit in your opinion?

1966. The film was made in 1966.

‘Hitler formed an impression at Munich in 1938 that the leaders of Britain and France were weaklings. Actually declaring war on him certainly came as a surprise. I think he expected them to huff and puff about Poland and then let it go, like Czechoslovakia.’

I suspect that had it been up to them, it would have come to that. After all, as of May 10th, 1940, they had spent eight months girding up their loins without doing much.

The situation was inherently unstable. But I’m skeptical Britain and France would have ever actually been the ones to cut the Gordian Knot. It seems as likely they would have wound up accepting an increasingly fictitious Cold War.

If we imagine a genuinely pacific Hitler and a passive Stalin, would it ever have come to more than jousting on the periphery? Hitler was right about one thing: both the French and the British were terrified of repeating the First World War. The Germans weren’t too crazy about it either — but Hitler was up for it. After all, for him it had been his validating experience.

This can’t even be described as a “violent incident”. It was more like a stupid prank. Capture a radio transmitter, broadcast that you’ve captured a radio transmitter, then run away. Who does that? What is the point of doing something like that? It reads like something that German propaganda would make up to frame the Poles as being the aggressors, not like a real event.

Well, Poland wasn’t exactly a totalitarian state — and there were various groups of nationalist fanatics. Compare it to the relationship of al Qaeda to the Saudi state. There would be nutters who enjoy a good deal of tacit sympathy in some parts of the establishment.

Some Poles could have pulled a Gleiwitz. I wouldn’t put my money on that explanation, but it’s not right out. That Naujocks subsequently found it useful to allege it was a German false flag doesn’t prove that it was. It merely indicates that something indeed happened. Like the story of Christ, factual events lay at the root of it all somehow.

…but in precisely what way is debatable.

Hitler formed an impression at Munich in 1938 that the leaders of Britain and France were weaklings. Actually declaring war on him certainly came as a surprise. I think he expected them to huff and puff about Poland and then let it go, like Czechoslovakia.

‘…Of course, after the end of the war all those German territories were grabbed in fact, so any denials are obviously absurd…’

Yes, but that was Stalin playing God. The Poles had no say in it; ‘no, we’d rather keep living in Galicia et al than move to Silesia, thank you.’ They didn’t get that choice.

It wasn’t their idea — even if now their partisans will try to justify it. I think that in the interwar period, while talking the talk might have got you applause, you can’t show that Poland had any serious intention of walking the walk.

Nations often engage in fantastically belligerent rhetoric. At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Mexican generals used to ominously talk about ‘the enemy to the North.’ We barely had an army at the time, but we didn’t worry about it. They weren’t going to actually do anything, they knew it, and we knew it.

Poland was a bit more serious than that; but I don’t think she was exactly on the verge of invading Germany.

At least he was consistently saying that. If that was really his belief – some suspect that he was lying, to keep the military on board – he was not very perceptive, it was very clear that the British government was only looking for a pretext for war. Well, Hitler also said something like “No one can look inside Roosevelt”, years after others had already very clearly seen, that Roosevelt was steering a course for war.

The striking bit is that Ribbentrop had been assuring Hitler that Britain wouldn’t actually declare war.

When the news came that she had, Hitler was in the room with Ribbentrop. He looked at him and said something like, ‘well, what do you say now?’ Something like that.

It’s true that Hitler could think two entirely contradictory things at the same time, but I think he really was betting France and Britain would stay out. And at least partially, he was right. In the upshot, they never really could work themselves up to seriously waging war until Hitler did it for them the next Spring.

At the same time, it wasn’t like Germany was just able to grab Poland and resume business as usual. That had ended.

There’s a big difference. Britain did not enslave the Icelanders. The nazis enslaved the Czechs. The Czechs got their revenge after the war when they expelled 2 million + sudeten Germans murdering upwards of 30,000 in the process. Good for the Czechs!

I don’t think being enslaved describes what the average Czech experienced. It’s just a film, and it has other concerns, but I see Closely Watched Trains (1968) as giving a good picture of life in wartime Czechoslovakia.

As to the post-war atrocities, I can see Polish behavior as being more or less tit for tat. When I read about it, it’s ‘well, that’s what the Germans did to them.’ The behavior of the Czechs was less defensible, and I have met people who lived there at the time, and said so.

Ask Hitler. He called it “schwere”, which I translated roughly as serious.
But these are the 3 ones that were mentioned by name in german media and which we learned something about.

These were of course not the only incidents mentioned in German media, but it is a given that they had to be mentioned, otherwise Alfred Naujocks and Josef Grzimek would not have known about them to make up their stories.

Hitler seems to have genuinely believed the British and French would not go to war.

At least he was consistently saying that. If that was really his belief – some suspect that he was lying, to keep the military on board – he was not very perceptive, it was very clear that the British government was only looking for a pretext for war. Well, Hitler also said something like “No one can look inside Roosevelt”, years after others had already very clearly seen, that Roosevelt was steering a course for war.

Britain did not enslave the Icelanders. The nazis enslaved the Czechs. The Czechs got their revenge after the war when they expelled 2 million + sudeten Germans murdering upwards of 30,000 in the process. Good for the Czechs!

So, did the Germans have a right to ethnically cleanse and mass murder the Czechs for enslaving the Sudeten Germans? It seems that whether it is “enslavement” or “legitimate rule, questioned only by criminals that may be justly vanquished” is solely decided by nationalistic/ideological preferences (Nitpick: It was the US that occupied Iceland).

Poland had no territorial demands regarding Germany.

Yeah, sure. Even after the vast amounts of non-Polish territory they had received after WW1, the Polish greed for even more territory was unabated.

This can’t even be described as a “violent incident”. It was more like a stupid prank. Capture a radio transmitter, broadcast that you’ve captured a radio transmitter, then run away. Who does that? What is the point of doing something like that? It reads like something that German propaganda would make up to frame the Poles as being the aggressors, not like a real event.

‘…Hitler hurried up before Poland, England and France became better prepared for war.
Therefore Germans prepared provocations on Polish-German border in 1939 in order to start war…’

Hitler seems to have genuinely believed the British and French would not go to war.

I think his timing was actually correct — but I’d put it down to good luck as much as calculation. Note also that at the time assuming Germany could overrun France in six weeks the next Spring would have seemed fantastically optimistic.

‘…While likely most did not believe the “marching on Berlin” stuff, they were very much confiden about the Polish Army being able to hold its own against the Wehrmacht. And seen from a surface level, this was not even that unreasonable: Polish disadvantage in manpower was not very great and of course Germany could not use all its forces against Poland, but had to leave something on the Western border against France and Britain. The effectiveness of German ‘Blitzkrieg’ tactics had not yet been demonstrated.

According to one account the Polish general staff was confident to prevail for at least six months; the Western Allies were not as optimistic, but still gave it three to four months…’

That makes some sense. The Poles hoped to hold out long enough for France and Britain to throw their weight into the scales. As you say, absent hindsight, that wasn’t unreasonable.

Really? What is the pet theory – that the Kashubians founded Gdansk (Danzig) or that the Kashubians are of Serbian origin? You obviously have no idea about these things, but maybe you can deduce something from the two next-door short comments:

https://www.unz.com/article/world-war-vii/#comment-7264586
https://www.unz.com/article/world-war-vii/#comment-7264592

Who were the Wends and Baltic pagans that the Proto-Panzers, Poles and Danes joined forces to attack? It is obviously completely unknown (hidden) that the Panzers live on the captured land and it is a taboo topic even here. Every time it is mentioned, there is a threat of a ban.

It is more likely that the pet theory is a naively staged provocation in the Little Mushroom village. Such a mindless thing could only be organized by dumbass panzers, compared to which the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin was much more convincing, not to mention Soviet Formula 1 tanks, ready to rampage on German autobahns.

Of all the pro-Nazi revisionists so far, you are the most unconvincing. Even HdC, the official dumbass panzer doyen, is a thinker for you. Of course, it was illusory to expect you to say something about Lebensraum or Directive 21 , which we have been waiting for months for some revisionist to comment on. However, one day someone will have to come forward (we are looking at you).

At least I have partially managed to bring the positions of the panzers and the people from the field closer together. That is my modest contribution to world peace, although I am less good at reconciling the people from the field and the baćuški.

As a sign of my goodwill, you can write the name of your (or your fiancée’s) birthplace and I will write you the original place names in the entire region, before Himmler’s 600 glorious years of panzers history.

In the meantime, find the Panzers on the map near Danzig and notice how many Serbian toponyms there are in the region where the Polish nation was born.

Where’s Wally Panzer on the map?

View post on imgur.com

‘Germans stopped fighting in 1944 after the fall of Paris. Then only focused on the east. Western fighting resumed just after the Morgenthau plan had been leaked.’

I would think the hiccup would have owed more to the massive rout at Falaise than to any particular phase of the propaganda war. Basically, German troops were streaming eastward in disarray, sans heavy equipment. Then they got themselves arrayed, and they were reequipped — and so they could fight on.

It’s unprovable, but I’m suspicious of a theory that news of the Morgenthau Plan radically altered German morale. Obviously, it must have had an effect, but I imagine the Germans would have rallied more or less as they did regardless — and I imagine Goebbels would have offered up blood-curdling vistas of what defeat would mean regardless of the reality.

Bullshit!

I emphasize that your whole argument is bullshit.

#236 Gerhard Grasruck

“Polish politicians and military were gung ho for a war against Germany. ”

No, they weren’t in 1939.
Poland had no territorial demands regarding Germany.
Germany had territorial demands regarding Poland.

As far as I remember ( I’m sorry, I don’t remember exact dates).

Poland unofficially proposed France preemptive attack on Germany in 1933.
France rejected this project. Sad.
50 milions Europeans died later and Europe was ruined and subdued to USA banksterity.

Anyway.

Poland, France, England were aware that war was inevitable but they were expecting war in 1941-42.

My point is that:

1. Polish provocations in 1933 or in 1941-42 could be real.

2. Polish provocations in 1939? It has no sense. It is German propaganda.
Hitler hurried up before Poland, England and France became better prepared for war.
Therefore Germans prepared provocations on Polish-German border in 1939 in order to start war.

“According to one account the Polish general staff was confident to prevail for at least six months; the Western Allies were not as optimistic, but still gave it three to four months.”

Then you know that Poles had no offensive plans against Germany in 1939, just defence for 4-6 months against German aggression.

Bullshit!

appears to be something that a rational group of Polish insurgents wouldn’t have done

Again, what evidence have you to back up that claim? All evidence shows that this claim is totally wrong. And how do you explain the dozens of other violent border incidents before the war, for which there are not only no evidence for a ‘false flag’, but not even any specific claims?

Really? At the start of the war the British Secretary of State for Air, Kingsley Wood, was reluctant to bomb certain areas in Germany on the grounds that they were “private property”. The “phony war” period hardly suggests salivating eagerness to get stuck into Germany and destroy it. Some sea warfare and aerial combat and bombing (a Scottish relative, now long dead, recalled watching German bombers flying up the Firth of Forth late in 1939), practically no ground fighting, except Poland and then Finland, until April 1940.

This article could have been summed up in a few sentences followed with details if one should want them. Maybe the author has suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, now part of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is characterized by difficulties in social interaction, communication challenges, and restricted, repetitive behaviors or interests.

I have explained it here: https://www.unz.com/article/gleiwitz-the-false-flag-that-never-was/#comment-7260291

The title itself was confusing.

I don’t see that the title would not be understandable to any normal person. My first thought was to name it something like “Gleiwitz – the false false flag”, but of course someone had thought of that already.

Next we’ll hear that Hitler really loved White people but was falsely blamed for the killings of 50 million Europeans.

To repeat an answer I gave to someone else: “As I have already pointed out to you, the Allies had a policy of total destruction of Germany, with no negotiated peace possible, unconditional surrender the only option. This was made public in January 1943, but was policy right from the Allied declaration of war on Germany on 3. September 1939.”

I have seen a photo of male citizens of Warsaw peering at an advertising column, August 1939. The column has mobilisation notices and propaganda posters pasted on it. The propaganda posters show (obsolete) Polish fighters in flight as well as the barrel of a heavy cannon and state Poland’s armed forces are strong in defence. The photo is taken from behind so the expressions of those reading what is on the column are not visible. The men seem to be middle class – no obvious industrial workers and no particularly Orthodox Jews, because they are not dressed like them. No obvious signs of jubilation about the possibility of war. I would link to it but have not found it on the Internet.

“So you admit that this “investigation” that supposedly showed the authenticity of the photograph was only another hallucination”

Again – stop being dense and inventing my claims for me. What I said is clearly cited above. Your interpretations are incorrect, just like everything else you write about. Maybe it’s a force of habit or something. But whatever it is it’s becoming boring. So grow up.

Don’t be dense. I just clearly said that nothing like the moronic claim described exists.
But I am not here to help you in any way.
My job was to destroy another tiny piece of revisionist propaganda. That’s done.

I was comparing two cases of atrocity propaganda. “Our enemy is committing terrible atrocities because they are barbaric/crazy/etc”. We know that most of the time (not always of course) atrocity propaganda is made up stuff. The massacres of Poles by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army weren’t made up and I find it hand to find any explanation for them other than that the Ukrainians were in fact barbaric and crazy, but in general the “they were barbaric and crazy” explanation for events that have high probability of being made up to me is suspicious. The amount of evidence for a questionable event where the only motive is “they went crazy” should be significantly higher to prove that it was not made up than for an event that can be explained as rational behavior.

That is to say, in the case of the Gleiwitz incident it appears to be something that a rational group of Polish insurgents wouldn’t have done, so the amount of evidence to prove that it was not a false flag German operation blamed on the Poles by the Germans but a genuine irrational action by the Poles who “went crazy because of megalomaniac jingoistic propaganda” should be significantly higher than to prove some other event that has rational explanations.

My goal is not to educate or convince or explain

So you admit that this “investigation” that supposedly showed the authenticity of the photograph was only another hallucination by you and you have no argument at all against its thorough debunking . OK, glad we have settled this.

He argues that as a result of jingoistic propaganda the Poles went crazy and did provocations which didn’t make any sense, coincidentally benefiting the Germans in the information/propaganda war.

Stop making things up. I do, of course, not at all claim that “Poles went crazy” See for instance: https://www.unz.com/article/gleiwitz-the-false-flag-that-never-was/#comment-7265658
Your problem is, that you only have a “vibe” based on mainstream propaganda slop about the situation in prewar Poland; inform yourself (A good start would be, for instance, David L. Hoggan, The forced war). Until then you should better not make any judgements.

u know, just like when Hamas raped 40 beheaded babies and then cooked them in ovens. Why would Hamas do that?

To compare that kind of stuff to prewar border incidents is of course absurd.

#219 Anonymous534

“You know, just like when Hamas raped 40 beheaded babies and then cooked them in ovens. Why would Hamas do that? Well, because the Palestinians are crazy subhuman beasts (just the the Poles in the 1930s) who are raised on Mein Kampf, and they just do crazy shit because they are evil. “

Ha ha ha!

You must be Jew if you believe this propaganda.
Mighty Mo$$ad overlooked concentration of thousands rockets by Hamas… yeah, sure… tell me more fairytales.

Israielis learnt from Germans how to make their own “Gleiwitz provocation” ( it should be rather named “Gaza provocation”) .
Israielis used it on 7th October 2023 against Palestinians to kill them and desplace them from Gaza in long term… and blame them.
The same modus operandi.
Germans are like Jews… but less smart.
Btw, did you know that Jews don’t have rights to Palestine? They fought for Palestine in 135 AD (Bar-Kohba uprising) and then for 1700 years Jews did nothing to return there.

Ad rem.

So, you claim that Poles attacked on 31st August and Hitler said: “That’s enough” and mobilized whole Wehrmacht in one day.
Then he ran his time machine and moved to 24th August 1939 to sign Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
Because noble painter Hitler never-ever planned to invade Poland.

Whatever their rhetoric, the Poles hardly seem to have been eager for war or particularly optimistic about the probable outcome.

On what do you base this “seem”? It seems to me that you are only “vibing” with the mainstream narrative, not basing this on any evidence. Everything I have seen, indicates the exact opposite. See also this comment:
https://www.unz.com/article/gleiwitz-the-false-flag-that-never-was/#comment-7265658

So all I will say is that the claim is obviously false. And the basis for it was a satirical essay, not a piece of news

Ah, so you admit that it exists, but it was “satirical”. Well, in that case you should have no problems to give us poor non-Polish speakers the page and title of this “satirical essay”.

Maybe spend more time to verify sources before you make yourself fool.

?

Newspapers are reliable sources for you?

Do I really have to explain this to you? Obviously the article was exaggerating, it is the fact that such stuff was published in the Polish press that is the relevant issue here,

I repeat.

It does not become more convincing by repetition. Polish politicians and military were gung ho for a war against Germany. While likely most did not believe the “marching on Berlin” stuff, they were very much confiden about the Polish Army being able to hold its own against the Wehrmacht. And seen from a surface level, this was not even that unreasonable: Polish disadvantage in manpower was not very great and of course Germany could not use all its forces against Poland, but had to leave something on the Western border against France and Britain. The effectiveness of German ‘Blitzkrieg’ tactics had not yet been demonstrated.

According to one account the Polish general staff was confident to prevail for at least six months; the Western Allies were not as optimistic, but still gave it three to four months. This would have been more than enough time for the Western Allies to prepare and start a major offensive. Some Poles even conceded the possibility of a Polish defeat and occupation by Germany but still supported war, since they figured that Germany would be deafeated by the Allies in the end – which, of course, was how it actually turned out.

Germans stopped fighting in 1944 after the fall of Paris. Then only focused on the east. Western fighting resumed just after the Morgenthau plan had been leaked.

I’m sorry – did you want to say something? What stopped you? LOL

You’re confusing me for someone who cares what you think or, better, believe in.

I guess you got the last word…oh wait.

No, you didn’t.

You’re confusing me for someone who cares what you think or, better, believe in.

Nope, your conviction that your lack of knowledge is not an impediment in a discussion, really is not my problem.

‘We have historical examples of this “our enemy just went crazy for no reason” explanations used in false flag operations.’

Indeed — but of late, the false flags have been becoming increasingly implausible: the claim that the Russians bombed their own pipeline, for example. It never was convincingly explained why they would want to do that. By comparison, ‘the Germans carried out the Katyn Massacre’ is perfectly plausible. After all, they could have.

Primarily from looking at Israel’s lies over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that false flags and lies in general fall into two categories. There are those that everyone is seriously expected to believe: rape on October 7th was widespread. Why not? It would have been perfectly plausible if it had been. Then there are those lies that are only intended to be believed by those who need to believe: that a Hamas rocket killed over three hundred people in a hospital parking lot, for example.

Or the Russians bombed the Nordstream Pipeline. Of course no detached observer could swallow that — and in the end, it indeed was admitted that the truth was otherwise. But detached observers weren’t the intended audience; the lie was aimed at those who needed to believe we were the good guys and the Russians were evil incarnate.

People get all worked up when Israel et al lie. They don’t get it; it’s not they who are expected to buy it. It’s all meant for the little old ladies in the Evangelical Churches and the Jewish lawyers in the Seattle suburbs. They’re the ones who need the lies, and they get ones they can swallow.

‘…So yes, in view of everything the Poles were especially good.’

…or so you will insist on believing.

‘In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and are just repeating some neonazi propaganda…’

Actually, your problem is that I do know what I am talking about.

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and are just repeating some neonazi propaganda.

Nope there was no village burning, there were no executions, there was none of that.

But there were problems for sure. In 1918 Ukrainians in Ukraine, still controlled by german army, started a huge pogrom of Polish minority (with many indications that they were encouraged to do so by the germans). The killings with different intensity lasted for a couple of years and the scope – and primitive bestiality – was comparable to what happened there again in WW2.

So since Poland retook a part of those territories, it was doing everything it could to find and punish the culprits of this genocide. And at the same time to prevent it from happening again. This is what I call convincing. There was no genocide on Ukrainians, there was no mass expulsion, nothing. They even commuted Bandera’s death sentence – a huge mistake. Convincing does not mean you need to bend over backwards. It means using a carrot or a stick as appropriate.

As for expropriations, again not sure what you are talking about and not sure if you know what you are talking about. But to me the use of eminent domain with compensation is not expropriation. And these things were handled by courts.

So yes, in view of everything the Poles were especially good.

I have seen little sign that the Poles were in fact hopped up on jingoist over-confidence in the last days of August 1939…

Whatever their rhetoric, the Poles hardly seem to have been eager for war or particularly optimistic about the probable outcome.

‘…On 29 August, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck ordered military mobilization, but under pressure from Great Britain and France, the mobilization was cancelled. When the final mobilization started, it added to the confusion in the country.[45]

On 30 August, the Polish Navy sent its destroyer flotilla to Britain, executing the Peking Plan. On the same day, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-Śmigły announced the mobilization of Polish troops. However, he was pressured into revoking the order by the French, who apparently still hoped for a diplomatic settlement, failing to realize that the Germans were fully mobilized and concentrated at the Polish border…’

It sounds to me like they were damned if they were going to go the way of Czechoslovakia, but if war could be avoided, they were all for it.

I’m not sure I understand: are you saying you have evidence of some behavior that was not aimed at convincing minorities to be loyal to the Polish state? Can you elaborate?

Ho hum. Burning Ukrainian villages, expropriating German-owned estates, vilifying Jews…

Kind of a target-rich environment, really. If you’re determined to pretend otherwise, the Holocaust Deniers and Israel defenders show you can stick to any position indefinitely, but…

Look. The Germans were wrong to conquer Poland, and they behaved bestially once there. However, it does not follow from that that the Poles were especially good. That would be my position.

‘How many suicides were there due to Anglo-American (including niggers) rape (or starvation in Western camps?)? Maybe they are not counted? Something like friendly raping? Or maybe there weren’t any? Why weren’t there any?’

Well, revisionism aside, it really was like night and day. In the East, the Germans fought like mad cats up until the end; they knew what awaited them.

In the West, as the war moved into its final weeks, the consensus seems to have become ‘surrender and hope for the best.’ Not that many in the Western armies didn’t misbehave — but there wasn’t the kind of state-incited bestiality there was in the East. Nobody was raping sixteen year old girls sixty times and then tying the victims to four tanks and pulling them apart limb from limb, etc.

Nobody’s perfect — but some were less perfect than others.

As I already told you: do your own research. The necessary starting point is hidden in the other photo I posted earlier, so if you were truly curious about understanding those events, you have the breadcrumbs trail to get you there.

My goal is not to educate or convince or explain. I’m only interested in branding outrageous lies.

“but was policy right from the Allied declaration of war ”

That is your claim that is not supported by anything in this reality in which we live.

In the reality in which we live, germany started the war and committed unspeakable atrocities, bent on total destruction of countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

I’m not sure I understand: are you saying you have evidence of some behavior that was not aimed at convincing minorities to be loyal to the Polish state? Can you elaborate?

It’s not in the Ilustrowany Kuryer Polski neither. Among the main reasons, because the story never happened, but also because there was no IKP before the war 🙂

And the relevant quote was this idiotic claim: “On August 7, 1939, the Polish censors permitted the newspaper Illustrowany Kuryer Codzienny in Kraków to feature an article of unprecedented recklessness. The article stated that Polish units were constantly crossing the German frontier to destroy German military installations, and to carry confiscated German military equipment into Poland.”

Fufu and I have already debunked this moronic nazi propaganda piece here on unz.com. So all I will say is that the claim is obviously false. And the basis for it was a satirical essay, not a piece of news. Fufu gave you the correct link, search away.

Therefore, Polish provocations in 1939 had no sense.

He isn’t arguing that these provocations made sense. He argues that as a result of jingoistic propaganda the Poles went crazy and did provocations which didn’t make any sense, coincidentally benefiting the Germans in the information/propaganda war. You know, just like when Hamas raped 40 beheaded babies and then cooked them in ovens. Why would Hamas do that? Well, because the Palestinians are crazy subhuman beasts (just the the Poles in the 1930s) who are raised on Mein Kampf, and they just do crazy shit because they are evil.

#213 Gerhard Grasruck

” While I currently don’t have the time and autistic inclination (…) “

Maybe spend more time to verify sources before you make yourself fool.

“(…) the original source (David L. Hoggan, The forced war)(…) “

Hoggan is not “original source “ – original sources are Polish newspapers which you cannot cite.
You simply spread gossips and German propaganda.

“Given the level of jingoistic propaganda of Polish superiority, this is doubtful. “

Newspapers are reliable sources for you?
How many boosters did you take during covid-19?
‘Cause in newspapers covid was the most lethal virus in human history.
Newspapers cannot tell lies, right?

You ignore context.

I repeat.

In 1939 Hitler had offensive plans against Poland.
Hitler made a deal with Stalin to divide Poland.
Only Hitler was keen on war in 1939.

Poland has no business in starting war in 1939.
Poland had defensive plan in 1939.
Polish High Command was very well aware of German military supremacy.
Germans had 4 times more tanks, 5 times more airplanes, 2 times more artillery, not to mention quality.*

Therefore, Polish provocations in 1939 had no sense.

David Irving, in Hitler’s War, seems to hint to the fact that the Gleiwitz disorder was indeed a German false flag operation.
From https://www.unz.com/book/david_irving__hitlers-war/ , Part II, last paragraph of Chapter “Pact with the Devil”:

Irving primarily uses some manuscript by Otto Hellwig that he says is in his private possession. Even though we don’t have the original text available for examination, it is obviously derivative of Naujocks, so we can dismiss it. He also relies on historian Jürgen Runzheimer, I have dealt with that one in my article.

Danzig is an old Serbian city founded by the Serbs-Kashubs

Sorry, but I really have no time to discuss, ahem, eccentric personal pet theories. There is too much to do to refute mainstream crackpot theories.

The photos have been thoroughly investigated in Poland and they are real.

OK, so point us to the investigation report

those who had to defend themselves from german aggression during WW2,

As I have already pointed out to you, the Allies had a policy of total destruction of Germany, with no negotiated peace possible, unconditional surrender the only option. This was made public in January 1943, but was policy right from the Allied declaration of war on Germany on 3. September 1939.

Here are issues of Ilustrowany Kuryer Codzienny from August 1939 (including nr 216 (7 VIII) ).
http://old.mbc.malopolska.pl/dlibra/publication?id=83385&tab=3

Show us, where are such articles or stop lying Mr. dishonest John… ohm…I meant…Leif.

While I currently don’t have the time and autistic inclination to check with some translation toool on that, I want to note that the original source (David L. Hoggan, The forced war) only says Ilustrowany Kuryer. and there existed besides the Ilustrowany Kuryer Codzienny also a Ilustrowany Kuryer Polski, so it could be that the second one is meant. Unfortunately, it seems that the interesting issue is not available online.

Then why on 1 September 1939 Polish Army wasn’t fully mobilized?
Answer: Poles didn’t mobilize whole army in August 1939 because British and French insisted to revoke it in order to do not tease Germans.

Partial mobilization of the Polish Army happened in March 1939, actually triggering the crisis that led to war, full mobilization was ordered on 30. August 1939. The British did nothing to hold the Poles back, quite on the contrary they did everything to egg the Poles on.

Polish High Command was very well aware of German military supremacy.

Given the level of jingoistic propaganda of Polish superiority, this is doubtful. See for instance Josef Lipski, Polish ambassador in Berlin on August 31 1939 to British diplomat Ogilvie-Forbes:
“I have no reason whatsoever to be interested in notes or offers from the German side. I am well acquainted with the situation in Germany after five and a half years as ambassador and have close ties to Göring and others in influential circles. I am convinced that in the event of war, unrest will break out in this country and Polish troops will march successfully against Berlin.”

‘…Many Soviet POWs in 1941 died of malnutrition, but that was of course not deliberate, but because in a short time unexpected vast masses of POWs had been taken, local commanders generally tried their best to deal with the situation…’

I’d say this is a half-truth. If the sheer number of POW’s posed formidable logistical problems, the Germans don’t seem to have been especially distressed by the consequences of their inability to address them.

First off, few cared if the camps descended into scenes of chaos and mass starvation. It was actually partially avoidable, as at least one camp commandant demonstrated. With a minimum of effort and initiative, the problems could be ameliorated, if not actually solved. Second, as it dawned on the Germans that they might actually have a use for all that captive labor, the death rate in general abruptly fell.

Had there been fewer POW’s, the Germans probably would have let them live. As it was, if they died, was that seen as a bad thing? The general approach seems to have been to pen them up and let nature take its course.

How many suicides were there due to Anglo-American (including niggers) rape (or starvation in Western camps?)? Maybe they are not counted? Something like friendly raping? Or maybe there weren’t any? Why weren’t there any?

Maybe we can find the answer among the most ardent advocates of a panzer pre-emptive attack on the Soviet Union? The matter is incredibly simple and comes down to a piece of chocolate or a bar of soap that the Soviets didn’t use in their rape campaigns:

https://www.unz.com/article/are-we-denazified-now/?showcomments#comment-7179715

Furthermore, the film was made in late 1947. Obviously, this wasn’t just a hiccup. See also Gollancz’s In Darkest Germany, based on the author’s visit at the end of 1946.

The reality itself often drove people to suicide. The town of Demmin would be an extreme case:

‘…The Soviet units looted and burned down the town, and committed rapes and executions.

Numerous inhabitants and refugees then killed themselves, with many families doing so together. Methods of suicides included drowning in the rivers, hanging, wrist-cutting, and shooting. Most bodies were buried in mass graves, and after the war, discussion of the mass suicide was taboo under the East German Communist government…’

Wikipedia cites estimates from 700 to 1200 for the total number of suicides.

‘Some late-war Nazi propaganda seemed designed to encourage mass suicides if Germany lost, notably the poster Victory Or Bolshevism in which the latter is represented by a stereotypical Jew glowering over starving Germans clearly in an extremity of suffering…’

In the East — particularly in Prussia and Silesia — the stereotype was close enough to reality, for all practical purposes.

And general, life in post-war Germany was very grim. To cite one striking example, the Italian who made Germany in the Year Zero had a problem. He’d shot all the exteriors in Germany, then took the cast back to Italy to do the interiors.

The actors promptly and visibly put on weight. Food!

If at all, German reporting was understating the atrocities, as this report by the General Command of the III Army Corps, which was responsible for the capture of Bromberg, shows:

Anyone this side of wojtek will agree that atrocities occurred.

The critical point is that they did not occur on any scale until after Germany actually attacked.

You say ‘August/September.’ For September, you can find examples aplenty — but you’ll find the pickings pretty slim if you go back to August. The Poles engaged in harassment, discrimination, expropriation aplenty — but actual killing? At most, one or two isolated incidents.

Not saying that was all mighty fine. But it wasn’t as you would paint it either.

‘…As such it was an idealistic state, one that was hoping to convince these minorities to simply become loyal and then become Polish over time…’

I don’t think that statement is supported by the actual record of the Polish state’s behavior.

My reply is in the post 199 – by mistake clicked a wrong response window.

“By what criterion should this be classified as particularly serious? ”

Ask Hitler. He called it “schwere”, which I translated roughly as serious.
But these are the 3 ones that were mentioned by name in german media and which we learned something about.

“The only one that makes sense, would be that Germans were killed”

Bias is showing. But nonetheless the “Konserven” were german. And Heniok legally was a German citizen too. But as I said – racist bias is showing.

“If at all, German reporting was understating the atrocities”

Oh yeah, we’re so concerned with nazi reports – they are pure truth. And Goebbels never lied.

“But if you say that German resistance against Polish rule was illegal in principle”

I told you to stop creating these straw men – where did I say that resistance was illegal in principle?
Put up or shut up.
I did write however that the 5th column was shooting at the Polish infantry moving through the city. Does that sound to you like something that is legal? Are you really that dense?

“OK, so you hallucinated it, LLM-style.”

Up to my knowledge AI models so far have not been able to reproduce the bestiality of your forefathers. So don’t you worry about that. Instead do a real research – don’t ask chatgpt.

“It’s quite a number of sentences”

No – one sentence was incorrect, Everything else is your supposition.
Interestingly expecting from Naujocks a perfect memory after all the crimes he committed coming from you, who made so many blunders already, having access to the internet and books? Priceless 🙂

Tell us better something about that war that Allies allegedly declared to crush germany. That’s a nice dream you had 🙂 When allegedly was it? Before or after germany started a war?

Your comment is empty and has no content. I have already mentioned in other cases the main reason for such meaningless conclusions. The Germans are the usurpers of the land they live on, they have already committed genocide against the natives and they tell funny stories about Danzig.

Danzig is an old Serbian city founded by the Serbs-Kashubs. Germany existed for less than 70 years at that time (even the Prussian Serbs founded it, despite the resistance of real panzer-Germans) and the stories about the centuries-old attachment to that city where Germanized Serbs lived are funny. The crocodile tears for the bombed Dresden where assimilated Serbs also lived, are also hypocritical.

The parallel, Germany-Poland and Russia-Ukraine is meaningless. Ukrainians are a group of Russians that the Bolsheviks relatively recently declared a nation, although it has neither a separate language, nor history, nor territory, nor culture, nor church. Any insistence on legality, aggression against an independent state, etc., by the unz Russophobes is grotesque.

You may have missed it, but to the group of so-called Nazi revisionists (aka independent researchers) on this site, who, on the basis of only one book by a Ukrainian defector, are trying to convince us all that Germany in just two weeks pre-emptied the Soviets (with all their F1 tanks for German autobahns and amphibious vehicles for sailing across the Channel to England) in their aggression, has been ticking the clock for months to explain Lebensraum and Directive 21.

Perhaps you can try to do so, given that you have received the trust from the Editor (who himself supports the Rezun’s construction).

Directive Nr. 21

Case Barbarossa

The German Wehrmacht must be prepared to crush Soviet Russia in a quick campaign (Operation Barbarossa) even before the conclusion of the war against England.

For this purpose the Army will have to employ all available units, with the reservation that the occupied territories must be secured against surprises.

For the Air Force it will be a matter of releasing such strong forces for the eastern campaign in support of the Army that a quick completion of the ground operations can be counted on and that damage to eastern German territory by enemy air attacks will be as slight as possible. This concentration of the main effort in the East is limited by the requirement that the entire combat and armament area dominated by us must remain adequately protected against enemy air attacks and that the offensive operations against England, particularly against her supply lines, must not be allowed to break down.

The best one can hope for is that the interlocutors come to modify their respective positions in light of the opposition’s arguments.

Well…you’ve been in this online pub for a while. What’s the percentage of such cases you’ve seen here?

So, when one takes effort-time/result into account, well….isn’t there any better use of those two?
Especially when one takes into the account the age of most people here.

And even if you do manage to modify that position; that’s just some avatar online.

Nothing better to do, maybe?

The only thing that is dubious are the revisionists’ efforts trying to cover up the deeds of these sick bastards, which these beasts documented themselves and sent home to their parents/wives/children to brag about.

Have you EVER been able to convince a person into “alternative history” re WW2 German effort into Poland that he/she was wrong and you were right ?
Like, after a brief/prolonged……debate….that person said: “You know, actually, you are correct”.

In my experience, this applies to most arguments — regardless of the subject.

The best one can hope for is that the interlocutors come to modify their respective positions in light of the opposition’s arguments.

“Will you now do so or agree that the photograph is fake?”

I will do something entirely different – I already told you that your straw men arguments (do this or else it means something that is easy for me to defend) don’t work on me.

So I will tell you to do your own research. The necessary starting point is hidden in the other photo I posted earlier, so if you were truly curious about understanding those events, you have the breadcrumbs trail to get you there.
(The photos have been thoroughly investigated in Poland and they are real.)

“I know from my own experience that WWII defenders love and frequently cite Gleiwitz as proof for their narrative of Nazi aggression.”

I am looking at this term “WWII defenders” and I cannot imagine that it means anything other than “those who defend the idea of WWII”, namely nazis.

If somehow to you this term “WWII defenders” describes those who had to defend themselves from german aggression during WW2, then you have a long long way to go working on your understanding of those events.

Get back to me when you’re done. But study it thoroughly, don’t rush.