You finally admit to it. Good, then you should stop using it. I don't care what you find more "plausible". I don't see any proof James Forrestal lied.Goody67 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:54 pmYes, but it is certainly more plausible than the hearsay quote you posted about Chamberlain alleged comment about America and world Jews.
I know you didn't, which is why I called you out on it. Am I not allowed to put your quote into context for the reader?? Again, the document is forged.
This is just you trying to cover your ass after I exposed the fact that the document your quote comes from is forged. And you're still beating the same dead horse about Czechoslovakia...
Nice, an article full of unsourced statements. You're such a hypocrite, this is exactly what you called out FPB for doing...
What's also funny is that the article that you posted also includes Hitler's 16 Points. Read them for yourself, they were reasonable.
On August 28 the British answer to Hitlers proposal arrived in Berlin, personally delivered by Henderson. The British stated that England would be pleased to enter into negotiations concerning the British/German interest, but that the Polish issue must be settled first. Hitler agreed and promised to negotiate with a Polish government willing to negotiate. He then asked Henderson if England would be willing to accept a coalition with German, Henderson replied in the affirmative (Ribbentrop, p.353, DBFP VII, No.455).
On the evening of August 29, Henderson phoned London and told them that the German government is willing to negotiate with the Poles, they are working on proposals for a acceptable solution, which will be submitted to the English government “before” the Polish emissary arrives (Ribbentrop, p.356, DBFP VII, No.490). In fact the Germans had stated that the British government will “also” (a word omitted by Henderson) be informed “if possible before” the emissary arrives. Halifax then send a telegram to Henderson telling him that the British government will consider the German proposal, but it would be unreasonable to expect that a Polish emissary can be brought to Berlin. Henderson was advised to use the appropriate channels to inform the “proper” authorities about this. A copy of the telegram was send to Warsaw, Rom and Paris (DBFP VII, No.504).
Thus, Warsaw knew that the British did not intend to have a Polish emissary go to Berlin. Also, by proper authorities Ribbentrop is convinced that the Beck/Goerdeler group had been referred to, for, if the German government was meant why not say so. Henderson, who had claimed not to know what the 16 points contained, nevertheless informed Lipski on the 31 about them. Lipski paled and told him that he was not interested in German notes. He was well informed, had connections to Göring and other important people and was certain that should war break out Germany would decent into turmoil, allowing Polish troops to march into Berlin (Dahlerus, Der letzte Versuch, S.110).
Historians claim that those 16 points were to serve as a fig leave for Hitler, not so, he would have been bound by them if a Polish emissary would have arrived. But, nobody showed up. Lady Diana, wife of Duff Cooper, former first Lord of the Admiralty, found the 16 points to be quite reasonable. Duff was shocked because the English public could agree with his wife (Barbarossa, p.128).
Still beating the same dead horse. I've already addressed this...
Czechoslovakia was not the reason the Poles didn't want to deal with Hitler because:
1. The Poles still refused Germany's offer before the Germans even marched into Prague.
2. The Poles themselves took part in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.
I'll just copy-paste my previous answer...
Hacha himself requests a meeting, because he probably wanted find a solution on how to deal with the aftermath of the Munich Agreement, his country was collapsing. The Germans accept, Hitler felt that the military marching in and establishing a protectorate with Hacha as president would be the best solution. Hacha first disagrees, most likely tries to propose an alternate solution. After negotiating with Hitler he finally accepts the proposal and signs the paper.
You already admitted to the Schmundt Protocol's origin being questionable and I already addressed the Berghof speech.
What's funny is that you're a complete hypocrite, here you are trying to justify hearsay.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3498&start=100#p136446Goody67 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:54 pmYou don't get to move the goalposts. Are you rollo the granger? His tactics are very similar to yours. I provide evidence and then you want more and more, nothing is ever good enough. I have provided both the English and German version of the Schmundt's recording of the speech. If you want to find anything else, find it yourself.
I don't even justify hearsay, can you actually read what I wrote?
Again, I don't see how you can come up with a scenario where Forrestal twists Chamberlain's words that badly.it's true those may not be 100% the words Chamberlain used
Can you prove Forrestal is lying?
I don't give a shit what mainstream biographies write about Chamberlain or WW2. The mainstream has it's bias, their input is irrelevant.
I used the article to state the basic fact that the Poles were denying German offers before Czechoslovakia was even occupied.
Now you're just moving the goalposts.Goody67 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:54 pmYou were the one that has changed the date from August 1939 to right after the Munich Agreement in October 1938.
By August 1939 the Poles had every right to refuse to negotiate with Hitler because of his track record. The gut instinct of the Poles was right, I'm sure you are aware of the secret protocol between the Nazis and the Soviets to divide Poland.
You stated on numerous occasions that the Poles declined Germany's reasonable offers was because of the fate of Czechoslovakia...
I called you out on your garbage. I stated that the Germans were negotiating with the Poles as early as October 1938, BEFORE the occupation of Czechoslovakia. You're just moving the goalposts now because I've proved you wrong.Goody67 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:54 pmThey had witnessed what had happened to the rest of Czechoslovakia and knew Hitler could not keep his word.
The Poles feared that allowing the Nazis to annex Danzig would eventually mean the loss of their sovereignty and independence because of the Nazis record with Czechoslovakia.
They had witnessed what had happened to the rest of Czechoslovakia and knew Hitler could not keep his word.
What? Just because the Germans had plans to march into Czechoslovakia doesn't mean they were going to do it without negotiating with Hacha. When Hacha requested to meet with the Germans, they accepted, and exchanged how they both felt on the situation, they could've easily just told Hacha to fuck off and invaded.
What's the primary source?
Oh boy, get a load of this double standard.
Did you not even read mine and rollo the gagner's post?
rollo the ganger wrote: After considerable difficulty telephonic communication with Prague was obtained and the Czech Government had agreed, while adding that they could not guarantee that one Czech battalion at least would not fire on the German troops. It was, he said, only at that stage that he had warned Dr. Hacha that, if German lives were lost, he would bombard Prague.
Again, no evidence indicates that was the reason. I repeat, if you have any proof or statements by Hacha's family that claim the Germans did something to harm him, show them. I know his daughter travelled with him.I wrote: So, Prague was never at the risk of being being bombed and Goring made the statement out of his own initiative to "accelerate the whole matter". Goring was talking out of his ass, isolated incident. Goring wasn't even in the room when Hacha and Hitler spoke.
No argument found here, just walls of text.