Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
rollo the ganger
Posts: 6210
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by rollo the ganger » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:10 am

Goody67 wrote:Yes, Keitel wrote what I quoted, it's in his memoir.
I don't get it. Why would Keitel write that "Keitel would confirm that our troops..."
The gentlemen were standing round the table and Hitler was telling Hacha that it was up to him what he intended to do; Keitel would confirm that our troops were already on the march and would be crossing the frontier at six o'clock, and he-Hacha-alone had it in his power to decided whether blood would be shed or his country be peacefully occupied.
Why don't you provide a link to the source so we can see for ourselves where your so called "quote" of Keitel comes from?
Goody67 wrote:What evidence do you have that Göring was not in the room when Hitler and Hacha were talking?
I never said that. Maybe Huntiger did or Z-O but not me.
Goody67 wrote:You have created a straw man.

You're putting words into my mouth. When have I ever posted that Hitler wanted to conquer the world? :? You're the one being disingenuous.
Why don't you READ what I said? Did I say YOU said that? NOOOOO!!! I said:
RtG wrote:For someone to say...
But rather than address the substance of the quote you, Goody, find some irrelevant point to argue about in order to avoid it. It's becoming a very noticeable pattern with your posts Goody.

User avatar
Goody67
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by Goody67 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:25 am

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:10 am
Goody67 wrote:Yes, Keitel wrote what I quoted, it's in his memoir.
I don't get it. Why would Keitel write that "Keitel would confirm that our troops..."
The gentlemen were standing round the table and Hitler was telling Hacha that it was up to him what he intended to do; Keitel would confirm that our troops were already on the march and would be crossing the frontier at six o'clock, and he-Hacha-alone had it in his power to decided whether blood would be shed or his country be peacefully occupied.
Why don't you provide a link to the source so we can see for ourselves where your so called "quote" of Keitel comes from?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CKT ... 27&f=false

page 80.
I never said that. Maybe Huntiger did or Z-O but not me.
I strongly suspect that you are zionist-occupation.
Why don't you READ what I said? Did I say YOU said that? NOOOOO!!! I said:
RtG wrote:For someone to say...
But rather than address the substance of the quote you, Goody, find some irrelevant point to argue about in order to avoid it. It's becoming a very noticeable pattern with your posts Goody.
It's quite obvious that you were indirectly addressing me.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the Joachim Fest's books are not objective. Have you even read his books?
Deniers are a few bricks short of a load.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6210
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by rollo the ganger » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:18 pm

I question whether that is a "quote" of Keitel's. It may be a quote from the book but not directly from Keitel himself except maybe in incomplete excerpts. I note that the book was translated by none other than... "David Irving".

But to the point, what is YOUR issue with Keitel here anyways? Here's what Keitel said in the IMT trial (my emphasis):

DR. NELTE: The Prosecution has pointed out that you, were present at the visit of Minister President Tiso in March 1939, as well as at the visit of President Hacha, and from this it was deduced that you participated in the political discussions which then took place. What role did you play on these occasions?

KEITEL: It is true, I believe in every case, that on the occasion of such state visits and visits of foreign statesmen I was present in the Reich Chancellery or at the reception. I never took part in the actual discussions of political questions. I was present at the reception and felt that I should be present to be introduced as a high-ranking representative of the Wehrmacht. But in each individual case that I can recall I was dismissed with thanks or waited in the antechamber in case I should be needed. I can positively say that I did not say one single word either to Tiso or to President Hacha on that night, nor did I take part in Hitler's direct discussions with these men. May I add that just on the night of President Hacha's visit I had to be present in the Reich Chancellery, because during that night the High Command of the Army had to be instructed as to how the entry which had been prepared was to take place.

DR. NELTE: In this connection I wish to establish only this since I assume that this question has been clarified by Reich Marshal Goering's testimony. You never spoke to President Hacha of a possible bombing of Prague in the event that he should not be willing to sign?

KEITEL: No.
Goody67 wrote:I strongly suspect that you are zionist-occupation.
Since nothing I can say would convince you otherwise then maybe Scott Smith and/or Depth Check can verify to you that I am NOT zionist-occupation. I ONLY post at Rodoh and ONLY with the user name "Rollo the Ganger". I'm not here to proselytize the so called "denier" cause nor do I believe it proper to discuss anti-semitism except in it's historical context of the time. If you don't believe me then "tough shit". It just shows me how stupid you are.
Goody wrote:It's quite obvious that you were indirectly addressing me.
Very telling on how you think... knee jerk.
Goody wrote:I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the Joachim Fest's books are not objective. Have you even read his books?
I read his biography on HItler forty some years ago back in the 70's. I also used his books, along with others of course, as references to a paper I wrote in college on WW2 in a history class. With his father being an ardent anti-Nazi one can tell it influenced his perspective on matters. The subject can be a topic in itself. If you want to discuss it you can start a separate thread. However, I don't claim to be an expert on Joachim Fest. I read his book LONG, LONG ago along with Toland's book, Albert Speer's book, Shirer's book, etc., etc., etc.

zionist-occupation
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by zionist-occupation » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:39 pm

Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
You simply tried to twist my words to state that I was referring to October 1938, I was not. I have always said that after Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia it was obvious why the Poles did not trust Hitler.
You don't get it, Poland declining Germany's offer in 1938 means that Czechoslovakia was never the reason but rather other internal reasons. You yourself outlined Poland's reasoning in 1938 and still continue to dodge my question.
zionist-occupation wrote:
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
In October 1938 Ribbentrop demanded the return of Danzig. The reason it was declined was because Jozef Lipski stated that Polish public opinion would not tolerate the Free City joining Germany and predicated that if Warsaw allowed that to happen, then the Sanation military dictatorship that had ruled Poland since 1926 would be overthrown.
So they declined because they didn't want their government to be overthrown? How does this not also play a factor in Poland denying Germany's offers in 1939??
I also gave you a second reason and that was the dissolution Czechoslovakia was not a valid reason because the Poles themselves also took part in that dissolution.
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
With regards to negotiating with the Poles, it was a farce.

Ernst von Weizsäcker on 29 March 1939 told the Danzig government the Reich would carry out a policy to the Zermürbungspolitik (point of destruction) towards Poland, saying a compromise solution was not wanted, and on 5 April 1939 told Hans-Adolf von Moltke under no conditions was he to negotiate with the Poles. Ribbentrop ordered Count Hans-Adolf von Moltke, the German ambassador to Poland, not to negotiate with the Poles over Danzig as it was always Ribbentrop's great fear that the Poles might actually agree to the Free City returning to Germany, thereby depriving the Reich out of its pretext for attacking Poland.
You're just copy-pasting Wikipedia again, I guess you maybe tried to hide it this time by not putting it in quotes but it didn't work.

Britain's guarantee (which was pushed by Roosevelt to take a more anti-German stance after Czechoslovakia) is what caused no mutual agreement. The Poles were delusional and underestimated Germany's military power and with their guarantee in their back-pockets thought they can low-ball/deny the Germans or outright beat them in a military conflict.

I don't get why you keep dodging the points that Hitler tried to avoid war by requesting a Polish emissary on August 29, 1939 way after March 1939 in Berlin to which one never showed up. You also dodge the fact that Lipski was never interested in German notes and that he was on orders by Beck not to engage in meaningful conversations with Ribbentrop.

Should also note that on March 26 1939 Lipski had said something along the lines of this to Ribbentrop claiming there will be war if Danzig is returned to Germany:
IMT wrote:"Mr. Lipsky replied that it was his unpleasant duty to point out that further pursuance of these German plans, particularly regarding a return of Danzig to the Reich, would mean a war with Poland."
Exhibit Ribbentrop 162, IMT 4th April to 15th April, 1946 pg 226

And also this:
IMT wrote:So as to prove that the Anglo-Polish pact for Mutual Assistance was clearly aimed against Germany, I submit to the Tribunal as evidence Ribbentrop Exhibit 164, which is on Page 338 of the document book. I quote the last two lines, where it says:
"... that the pact applied only in the case of an attack by Germany. The Polish Government affirms that this is so."
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
I can't prove Forrestal was lying
This discussion is over then.
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
has not been quoted in any of the biographies of Chamberlain. Apart from Forrestal's anecdote, what evidence is there that Chamberlain ever said such a thing? As far as I know, there is no evidence.
Just because it doesn't appear in the mainstream doesn't make the statement untrue, that's some shit-tier logic right there. You already said you can't prove that Forrestal, a primary source is lying. End of discussion.
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
There is no evidence that Göring was not in the same room as Hitler and Hácha.
Hacha and Hitler discussed privately, then after they were done the others came back and Hacha signed the agreement.
Goring wrote: First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in.
Keitel wrote: Hitler interruped him to say that in view of the lateness of the hour he was obliged to come round to the political questions which were the reasons for Hacha's presence. We were asked to withdraw.
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
At least quote Keitel in the full context:
I did and nowhere did it say that Hitler kept Hacha waiting on purpose, it says he sent him off to rest. I already addressed the other details and Keitel covers them as well although in less detail.

User avatar
Goody67
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by Goody67 » Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm

zionist-occupation wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:39 pm
You don't get it, Poland declining Germany's offer in 1938 means that Czechoslovakia was never the reason but rather other internal reasons. You yourself outlined Poland's reasoning in 1938 and still continue to dodge my question.
For the last time, I have already told you a billion times that this was the main reason why in August 1939 the Poles were reluctant to negotiate with Hitler.
I also gave you a second reason and that was the dissolution Czechoslovakia was not a valid reason because the Poles themselves also took part in that dissolution.
In 1938, not 1939.
You're just copy-pasting Wikipedia again, I guess you maybe tried to hide it this time by not putting it in quotes but it didn't work.

Britain's guarantee (which was pushed by Roosevelt to take a more anti-German stance after Czechoslovakia) is what caused no mutual agreement. The Poles were delusional and underestimated Germany's military power and with their guarantee in their back-pockets thought they can low-ball/deny the Germans or outright beat them in a military conflict.

I don't get why you keep dodging the points that Hitler tried to avoid war by requesting a Polish emissary on August 29, 1939 way after March 1939 in Berlin to which one never showed up. You also dodge the fact that Lipski was never interested in German notes and that he was on orders by Beck not to engage in meaningful conversations with Ribbentrop.

Should also note that on March 26 1939 Lipski had said something along the lines of this to Ribbentrop claiming there will be war if Danzig is returned to Germany:
IMT wrote:"Mr. Lipsky replied that it was his unpleasant duty to point out that further pursuance of these German plans, particularly regarding a return of Danzig to the Reich, would mean a war with Poland."
Exhibit Ribbentrop 162, IMT 4th April to 15th April, 1946 pg 226
You keep ignoring the text though. The Germans were not really interested in negotiating with the Poles.

What is the full context of the Mr. Lipsky quote?
And also this:
IMT wrote:So as to prove that the Anglo-Polish pact for Mutual Assistance was clearly aimed against Germany, I submit to the Tribunal as evidence Ribbentrop Exhibit 164, which is on Page 338 of the document book. I quote the last two lines, where it says:
"... that the pact applied only in the case of an attack by Germany. The Polish Government affirms that this is so."
The Anglo-Polish military alliance was formed because of Hitler's violation of the Munich Agreement by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.

The secret protocol stated that Britain (and France) would come to Poland's aid if invaded by Germany.
This discussion is over then.
No. Apart from the anecdote in Forrestal's diary, what other evidence is there that Chamberlain said anything like Forrestal claimed?
Just because it doesn't appear in the mainstream doesn't make the statement untrue, that's some shit-tier logic right there. You already said you can't prove that Forrestal, a primary source is lying. End of discussion.
It's questionable why in all of the biographies of Chamberlain the quote is not mentioned. Why is the only book that has quoted the alleged quote the The Journal of Historical Review, Volume 1, Issue 1 by the Institute for Historical Review?

Not everything written in a primary source is truthful, just because a source is a primary source does not mean it is always credible.

Can you prove that Forrestal was telling the truth? Remember, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
Hacha and Hitler discussed privately, then after they were done the others came back and Hacha signed the agreement.
Goring wrote: First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in.
Keitel wrote: Hitler interruped him to say that in view of the lateness of the hour he was obliged to come round to the political questions which were the reasons for Hacha's presence. We were asked to withdraw.
Yes, and?

Göring lied on several occasions during the Nuremberg Trials. Apart from Göring's own testimony, is there any evidence that he did not threaten to bomb Prague?
I did and nowhere did it say that Hitler kept Hacha waiting on purpose, it says he sent him off to rest. I already addressed the other details and Keitel covers them as well although in less detail.
Do most people make a person "rest and recover for two hours" before an interview?
Deniers are a few bricks short of a load.

User avatar
Goody67
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by Goody67 » Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:33 pm

rollo the granger,

Göring threatened to bomb Prague, not Keitel.

Göring even admitted it during his testimony:
President Hacha arrived and talked first with the Reich Foreign Minister. At night he came to see the Fuehrer; we greeted him coldly. First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in. Then I talked to him in the presence of his ambassador and urged him to meet as quickly as possible the Fuehrer's demand that troops be kept back when the Germans marched in, in order that there might be no bloodshed. I told him that nothing could be done about it; the Fuehrer had made his decision and considered it necessary, and there would be only unnecessary bloodshed as resistance for any length of time was quite impossible. And in that connection I made the statement that I should be sorry if I had to bomb beautiful Prague. The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect, for even in the case of resistance that would not have been necessary -- resistance could always be broken more easily without such bombing. But a point like that might, I thought, serve as an argument and accelerate the whole matter. I succeeded then in getting a telephone connection between him and his Government in Prague, he gave the order, and the occupation and the march into Prague took place the next day.
https://archive.org/stream/trialofmajor ... i_djvu.txt

Hacha was bullied and intimidated, especially by Göring when he used the threat of bombing Prague,
Last edited by Goody67 on Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deniers are a few bricks short of a load.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6210
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by rollo the ganger » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:51 pm

Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:33 pm
rollo the granger,

Göring threatened to bomb Prague, not Keitel.

Göring even admitted it during his testimony:
First, the issue was whether this was a quote of Keitel's. The question being if it was then why is Keitel talking in the third person in an illeism? You didn't answer that question.

The issue of what Goering said about bombing Prague has already been settled.

User avatar
Goody67
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by Goody67 » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:13 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:51 pm
First, the issue was whether this was a quote of Keitel's. The question being if it was then why is Keitel talking in the third person in an illeism? You didn't answer that question.

The issue of what Goering said about bombing Prague has already been settled.
Walter Gorlitz edited the book. And? Memoirs with an editor often use the third person at times.

Huh? Keitel wrote, "Before I could open my mouth, Göring intervened to announce that his Air Force would be appearing over Prague at dawn, and he could not change that now; it was up to Hacha whether there would be any bombing or not."

Kershaw wrote, "Göring intervened to add that his Luftwaffe would be over Prague by dawn, and it was in Hácha's hands whether bombs fell on the beautiful city."

You earlier posted that Göring's testimony needs to be taken into consideration, well he actually admitted that he made the threat during the Nuremberg trials.

Are you disputing that Göring threatened to bomb Prague?
Deniers are a few bricks short of a load.

User avatar
Goody67
Posts: 1189
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by Goody67 » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:27 pm

Throughout the winter the Czechs had been subjected to merciless bullying by Hitler and Ribbentrop which reduced their government to a state of vassalage, and the promised guarantee to their frontiers was not ratified by either France or Britain. Only once did the Czech government rebel against their endless provocation. This was early in March, when Hácha dissolved the troublesome autonomous governments of Slovaka and Ruthenia, arrested their leaders and, on March 10, proclaimed martial law. It was a fatal decision; it gave Hitler the excuse he wanted to use force and at the same time Chamberlain and Daladier an opportunity to turn their faces away from the dismembered country whose frontiers they were supposed to protect. On March 13 he forced the Slovak leaders to declare their independence, and on the same night the pathetic scene took place in Berlin when Hácha, old and abject, his face flushed with agitation, pleaded for what was left of his country before the contemptuous eyes of Hitler and Ribbentrop.

Hitler realized instinctively the values of melodrama and the effectiveness of conducting one-sided negotiations in the small hours of the night, when the world outside is dark and empty and both courage and the capability to resist are at their lowest. The lights were shaded in Hitler's study. Hácha was alone at the Chancellery except for his Foreign Minister, Chvalkovsky, and they had been kept waiting in an anteroom until after rone o'clock. Hitler listened to the President's broken voice and then coldly informed him invasion would begin at six o'clock. It rested with him, said Hitler, whether the German entry would be accepted peaceably by the Czechs or made the occasion for armed resistance and immediate bloody defeat.

Hácha had sad motionless while Hitler talked; only his eyes, said Schmidt afterward, showed he was alive. He suffered from a weakened heart. Helplessly he asked Hitler what he could possibly do in the time left to him. Hitler told him to telephone Prague at once and make the best arrangements he could; then he was dismissed and conducted from Hitler's presence by Goering and Ribbentrop, who began at once to urge him to make an immediate decision. Schmidt, meanwhile, was attempting to reach Prague by telephone, only to find that the line was out of order. While Ribbentrop raged at the telephone exchange, Goering bullied Hácha. At Nuremberg he admitted threatened to bomb Prague in order, as he put it, "to accelerate the whole matter." The line to Prague was cleared, but when Hácha began to speak it failed once more. Ribbentrop was beside himself with anger, but all he could do was threaten the dismissal of the telephone supervisor and the operating staff. Suddenly Goering's voice could be heard shouting for Dr. Morell, Hitler's physician, who was in attendance, it seemed by some thoughtful prearrangement. "Hácha has fainted!" cried Goering, in great agitation. "I hope nothing happens to him. It has been a very strenuous day for such an old man." The one thing no one wanted was for Hácha to die in Hitler's Chancellery. Using a hypodermic needle provided by Goering, Morell revived the President by adminstering injections, and he recovered sufficiently to speak to Prague when a line was hastily improvised. By four o'clock in the morning of March 15 Czechoslovakia's independence was signed away, and by evening Hitler stood triumphant in Prague. He had at last overcome the frustrations of Munich, but in doing so he had finally destroyed the mood of appeasement in both Britain and France.
Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Goering: The Rise and Fall of the Notorious Nazi Leader.
Deniers are a few bricks short of a load.

zionist-occupation
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Rydz-Smigly: the Man who started WW2

Post by zionist-occupation » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:31 pm

Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
For the last time, I have already told you a billion times that this was the main reason why in August 1939 the Poles were reluctant to negotiate with Hitler.
For the last time, I already told you on why that claim is wrong. Not my fault you're in denial.

You also dodged my question again.
zionist-occupation wrote:
Goody67 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:34 am
In October 1938 Ribbentrop demanded the return of Danzig. The reason it was declined was because Jozef Lipski stated that Polish public opinion would not tolerate the Free City joining Germany and predicated that if Warsaw allowed that to happen, then the Sanation military dictatorship that had ruled Poland since 1926 would be overthrown.
So they declined because they didn't want their government to be overthrown? How does this not also play a factor in Poland denying Germany's offers in 1939??
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
In 1938, not 1939.
The year is irrelevant, Poland took part in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Period.
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
You keep ignoring the text though.
Except I don't, in fact I've addressed all your main points. I ignore walls of text you post on topics I already addressed.

You're the one that keeps bringing up the same topic points even after I explained/refuted them. You're the one that disregards the primary sources and the points I've raised.
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
The Germans were not really interested in negotiating with the Poles.
Funny how you say I ignore text, when the next fucking sentence is you ignoring the text I posted.
zionist-occupation wrote: 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).
zionist-occupation wrote: 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).
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
What is the full context of the Mr. Lipsky quote?
IMT wrote: The result of the guarantee given by England to Poland was that Ambassador Lipsky, on 26th March, 1939, on the occasion of a conference with the Reich Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop, declared - and I am here referring to Exhibit Ribbentrop 162 and quoting from the third paragraph:
"Mr. Lipsky replied that it was his unpleasant duty to point out that further pursuance of these German plans, particularly regarding a return of Danzig to the Reich, would mean a war with Poland."
The British guarantee on Poland blocked an understanding between Poland and Germany and Lipsky stated that the return of Danzig to Germany would mean war.
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
The Anglo-Polish military alliance was formed because of Hitler's violation of the Munich Agreement by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.
The British only started to take a anti-German stance after Roosevelt had to get involved, something I already talked about.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3498&hilit=rooseve ... 00#p136418
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
No. Apart from the anecdote in Forrestal's diary, what other evidence is there that Chamberlain said anything like Forrestal claimed?

It's questionable why in all of the biographies of Chamberlain the quote is not mentioned. Why is the only book that has quoted the alleged quote the The Journal of Historical Review, Volume 1, Issue 1 by the Institute for Historical Review?
I'm pretty sure I showed you two instances where this quote appears. It doesn't only appear in the IHR.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3498&p=136554&hili ... al#p136554

Just because the quote doesn't appear in any mainstream biography doesn't make the claim invalid.
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
Can you prove that Forrestal was telling the truth? Remember, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
I already showed you the proof and you already admitted that you don't have evidence that contradicts the original claim. You also dodged some of my other questions as well.
The idea of Chamberlain having atleast SOME anti-semitic sentiments wasn't extreme at all.
Chamberlain wrote: No doubt the Jews aren't a lovable people; I don't care about them myself; but that is not sufficient to explain the Pogrom.
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
Yes, and?
The and is that Hitler and Hacha discussed privately, Hacha then came back out and signed the agreement
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
Göring lied on several occasions during the Nuremberg Trials. Apart from Göring's own testimony, is there any evidence that he did not threaten to bomb Prague?
Another example you of you denying evidence. And when did I say he never made the comment about bombing Prague?? We've already been over this a million times, I can't make you change your opinion.
Goody67 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:21 pm
Do most people make a person "rest and recover for two hours" before an interview?
This is just you trying to cover your ass that Keitel never mentions Hitler purposely keeping Hacha waiting. I don't see the issue for sending a man to recover and rest a little bit, especially an old fragile man dealing with an intense situation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], TheGodfather and 10 guests