Hitler's "Prophecy" - January 1939

[ConfusedJew]

In Poland by 1939, Germans (Polish citizens of German descent) were literally persecuted, and Rydz Smigly called for war with Germany. On August 30, the Poles even declared a general mobilization. Legally, declaring a mobilization, especially during such a period of aggravation of interstate relations, is war. Nevertheless, Adolf still continued to make peace offers to the Poles almost 48 hours after that. So, although ANY war is bad, the invasion of Poland was not "based on lies".

There wasn't systematic persecution of Germans on a state level by Poland. Nazi Germany amplified minor incidents through propaganda to portray Poles as barbaric aggressors. A German Foreign Office internal report from early 1939 actually noted that many claims of mistreatment were exaggerated or unfounded. Poland was holding together a fragile state and made policy mistakes but it was not engaging in organized ethnic cleansing or murder of Germans.

The alleged quote from Marshal Rydz-Śmigły in the Daily Mail — “Poland wants war with Germany...” — is almost certainly fabricated or misrepresented. It does not appear in official archives of the paper or verified Polish communications. Poland refused several of Hitler’s demands (like annexation of Danzig and an extraterritorial corridor), which would have violated its sovereignty. Rydz-Śmigły did authorize general mobilization on August 30, in response to growing threats — which is not a declaration of war, either legally or diplomatically.

The Allies gave Poland so-called guarantees that only applied to the invasion of Germany. When, for example, the USSR sent troops into Poland, Messrs. Chamberlain and Daladier "did not notice" such a violation of Polish sovereignty. Why? The answer is obvious. They wanted a war with Germany. Not with the USSR, not the defense of Poland.

Between March and August 1939, Hitler made various “offers” to Poland that promised non-aggression in return but this was fake. Hitler had already signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 23), which included a secret protocol to divide Poland. The “offers” were intended to provide diplomatic cover. Germany was already preparing to invade.

According to some sources, on August 6, 1939, Polish Marshal Edward Rydz-Smigly told the British newspaper "Daily Mail": "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if it wants to".

The incident in Gleiwitz has little to do with the events that were already happening.

Nazi Germany gave reasons for invading Poland before the Gleiwitz incident, but they were not legitimate causes for war under international law or neutral historical analysis.

That quote is also a fabrication and not actual evidence that Poland wanted war. Feel free to prove me wrong but you should admit that you were using fabricated evidence to advance your argument. Not a huge deal because we all make mistakes but its important.

So the Germans were gradually left with no choice. Of course, Hitler is responsible for the invasion. But the question is: what would have happened if he had stayed away?

If Hitler had not invaded Poland in September 1939, there is still no credible evidence that Poland had any intention or military capacity to invade Germany. Poland was rearming, yes — but defensively. Its entire military doctrine was built around protecting its sovereignty from both Germany and the USSR, not expansionism.

By 1939, Poland had security guarantees from Britain and France. These were diplomatic deterrents, not tools for aggression. Poland would likely have continued trying to balance between Germany and the USSR — an increasingly impossible task.
Poland may have tried to build better ties with Romania, Hungary, and the Baltics — all in similar positions of vulnerability.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear his goal of Lebensraum (living space) in the East. In the Hossbach Memorandum (1937), he said Germany must go to war by the early 1940s to secure land and resources. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) was a clear sign that Hitler planned to divide Eastern Europe — starting with Poland.

A lot of your claims are taken out of context and in some cases fabrications.

[ConfusedJew]

Hitler's 1939 prophecy never showed "the intention to annihilate the Jews". This was not a threat to the Jews. In fact, it was a warning.

It should be understood that it was given in January 1939, on the 6th anniversary of the bloodless revolution that brought Hitler to power. By that time, it was already obvious that Germany was being pushed into the abyss of war. Hitler believed that world Jewry was trying to ignite a major conflict in the world. He tried to prevent it, and he warned (((them))) in no uncertain terms: do not do this, otherwise your plans will be turned against you.

There was no evidence that "Jews" didn't anything to start a war between January and September when he invaded Poland. A lot of these things were demonstrably false things that he didn't believe because he contradicted himself.

You can't pretend to warn somebody about something, falsely blame them, and harm them for something that they didn't do. That is the real hoax.

[HansHill]

Hitler's 1939 prophecy never showed "the intention to annihilate the Jews". This was not a threat to the Jews. In fact, it was a warning.

It should be understood that it was given in January 1939, on the 6th anniversary of the bloodless revolution that brought Hitler to power. By that time, it was already obvious that Germany was being pushed into the abyss of war. Hitler believed that world Jewry was trying to ignite a major conflict in the world. He tried to prevent it, and he warned (((them))) in no uncertain terms: do not do this, otherwise your plans will be turned against you.

There was no evidence that "Jews" didn't anything to start a war between January and September when he invaded Poland. A lot of these things were demonstrably false things that he didn't believe because he contradicted himself.

You can't pretend to warn somebody about something, falsely blame them, and harm them for something that they didn't do. That is the real hoax.

Here is the text of the 1939 Reichstag speech following the invasion of Poland, delivered on Sept 1st 1939

https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource ... ITLER1.htm

You are strawmanning InuYashu if you are expecting him to argue that Adolf Hitler blamed Jews for the invasion of Poland. Use this document to ctrl&f for any combination of "jew" "judaism" "jewish" etc and you will not find it mentioned. The invasion of Poland was about border, territorial, and ethnic disputes.

[TlsMS93]

To paraphrase Hitler: “When I see the propaganda of the enemy side, my confidence in victory grows infinitely.”

Where did Germany use this incident as justification? Does the testimony of a turncoat with no chance of interrogation now establish a fact? In fact, they brought this incident up in Nuremberg to establish the jurisprudence for their “crime against peace” that until then there was nothing that made starting wars illegal.

Churchill led the pro-war barons in the late 1930s against Germany. Until then, Churchill’s interests were India, the colonies, and trade. After he hit rock bottom, he was saved by these figures to position himself for chaos in Europe, where the best Jewish minds lived, in order to force them to go to Palestine. Without state anti-Semitism, there would never have been an Israeli state, because German Jews were the ones most capable of making that country viable.

Churchill warned of the Jewish influence behind the Russian revolution. You also pretend not to know that, don’t you?

Poland defeated the USSR, annexed regions of Ukraine and Belarus, annexed the Lithuanian capital, annexed industrial regions of Czechoslovakia and refused to accept plebiscites in the region of the corridor where it was losing, using paramilitary units as pressure until the Entente ceded to them the most strategic regions of Silesia, something they had sworn never to claim for all eternity. So it was not an innocent or defenseless state, its generals mocked the German military capacity by calling their tanks tractors camouflaged as tanks.

Where did I mention Bloody Sunday as the reason for the attack?

You are too laughable.

[ConfusedJew]

Here is the text of the 1939 Reichstag speech following the invasion of Poland, delivered on Sept 1st 1939

https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource ... ITLER1.htm

You are strawmanning InuYashu if you are expecting him to argue that Adolf Hitler blamed Jews for the invasion of Poland. Use this document to ctrl&f for any combination of "jew" "judaism" "jewish" etc and you will not find it mentioned. The invasion of Poland was about border, territorial, and ethnic disputes.

On Sept 1, 1939, Hitler invades Poland. Sept 3–10: Einsatzgruppen begin operating behind the front lines, carrying out mass shootings of Jews, Polish elites, and intelligentsia.

In mid-September, the first anti-Jewish regulations enacted in occupied areas. Jews are ordered to wear identifying marks (e.g., armbands), businesses marked or seized.

In October 1939, Jews begin to be forced into ghettos, especially in large cities. On October 12, 1939, Hitler formally creates the Generalgouvernement in central Poland (administered by Hans Frank), which becomes the main zone for Jewish persecution and later extermination.

What was the justification for these mass shootings and why would he force Polish Jews into ghettoes?

Are you saying that Hitler actually believed the things that he said, was he lying, or was it something in between?

[TlsMS93]

The Germans punished those responsible for repressing the Germans and those Polish civilians who practiced war as snipers.

As for the reason for placing them in ghettos and later in concentration camps, it was due to their high incidence in guerrilla groups and the black market. It was a security measure and, as they were a group of differentiated prisoners, they received the nickname “special treatment” in German documents, which had nothing to do with extermination.

[Stubble]

Einsatzgruppen operations?

The justification for their operations was antipartisan operations, antiterrorism operations and anticommunist operations.

The intelligentsia taken out by the einsatzgruppen were engaged in the same type of operation, evidenced by operations like the Katyn Massacre and other similar acts.

The jews were ghettoized because they were a threat. Partisan activity in Warsaw by this cohort is celebrated in literature and in film.

Supply lines were being bombed by partisans, police stations were being attacked, German soldiers were being murdered in gruesome ways.

Believe it or not, there was a war going on.

[ConfusedJew]

To paraphrase Hitler: “When I see the propaganda of the enemy side, my confidence in victory grows infinitely.”

This is a paraphrase, possibly derived from Joseph Goebbels or from Hitler’s Table Talk entries, but it’s not a verified quote with primary documentation from Hitler himself.

Where did Germany use this incident as justification? Does the testimony of a turncoat with no chance of interrogation now establish a fact? In fact, they brought this incident up in Nuremberg to establish the jurisprudence for their “crime against peace” that until then there was nothing that made starting wars illegal.

The Nuremberg Trials indeed developed "crimes against peace" as a new category in international law, defined as the planning, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression in violation of international treaties. This was based largely on the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy — a pact Germany signed.
But the trials did not retroactively criminalize war out of nowhere. Rather, they formalized evolving norms already codified or attempted after WWI.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here though.

Germany publicly justified its invasion of Poland by claiming it was responding to aggressive Polish acts, particularly alleged border incursions and violence against ethnic Germans in Polish territory. The centerpiece of this justification was the Gleiwitz incident, a fabricated Polish "attack" on a German radio station staged by the SS on August 31, 1939, just hours before the invasion. This was part of a broader Nazi operation (Operation Himmler) involving multiple staged provocations.

In his declaration of hostilities on September 1 at the Reichstag , Hitler did not mention Gleiwitz by name, but he broadly referred to alleged Polish attacks. “This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we are shooting back.” This reference to a border attack aligns with the timing and narrative of the Gleiwitz Incident, which was staged the night before. It shows that the Nazi regime was already invoking a supposed Polish military provocation as a casus belli.

Churchill led the pro-war barons in the late 1930s against Germany. Until then, Churchill’s interests were India, the colonies, and trade. After he hit rock bottom, he was saved by these figures to position himself for chaos in Europe, where the best Jewish minds lived, in order to force them to go to Palestine. Without state anti-Semitism, there would never have been an Israeli state, because German Jews were the ones most capable of making that country viable.

Churchill supported Zionism as early as the Balfour Declaration period in 1917), not as a fallback due to his political failures. Many Jewish intellectuals in Germany, like Einstein or Freud, fled to the US, UK, or elsewhere — not Palestine. The claim that state antisemitism was orchestrated or encouraged to build Israel is baseless.

Churchill warned of the Jewish influence behind the Russian revolution. You also pretend not to know that, don’t you?

Churchill wrote an article in 1920 titled "Zionism versus Bolshevism," where he distinguished between Jews involved in Bolshevik revolutions and what he called "national" or "Zionist" Jews. The article mixes admiration for Zionism with antisemitic tropes about Jews in communism. It is cited by historians not to affirm its claims but to show early 20th-century elite British attitudes.

No, I know what he said, but I'm not sure what your point is because Churchill is not really relevant to whether or not the Holocaust existed.

Poland defeated the USSR, annexed regions of Ukraine and Belarus, annexed the Lithuanian capital, annexed industrial regions of Czechoslovakia and refused to accept plebiscites in the region of the corridor where it was losing, using paramilitary units as pressure until the Entente ceded to them the most strategic regions of Silesia, something they had sworn never to claim for all eternity. So it was not an innocent or defenseless state, its generals mocked the German military capacity by calling their tanks tractors camouflaged as tanks.

Poland did fight the Soviet Union in 1919–1921 and took territory afterward and indeed was assertive in border disputes. But Poland’s aggression does not retroactively justify the Nazi invasion in 1939. Nazi Germany's demands went far beyond border revisions — they included military subordination and annexation. The Polish military mocking German armor before the war is often cited, but Poland’s intelligence services were deeply worried about German rearmament in 1939 — the “joke” about cardboard tanks doesn’t reflect actual doctrine.

I'm not sure what Poland's behavior has to do with any of this. There are no states on this planet that are completely innocent or defenseless. That doesn't mean that Hitler's invasion of Poland was remotely justifiable.

Where did I mention Bloody Sunday as the reason for the attack?

You are too laughable.

Maybe you don't think that Bloody Sunday was Germany's reason to attack but Germany did use multiple fabricated or exaggerated provocations (Gleiwitz, Bloody Sunday in Bromberg, and other incidents), as pretexts for invasion.

If you continue trying to mock me, I'll stop engaging with you. Mockery is used to dismiss the other’s argument without engaging seriously. It just suggests to me that you are unable to engage seriously. HansHill is the only one on here who has been serious with me. What are you trying to accomplish by trying (and failing) to mock me?

[ConfusedJew]

The Germans punished those responsible for repressing the Germans and those Polish civilians who practiced war as snipers.

While Germany did face some legitimate partisan activity in occupied territories (especially in the East), the response was disproportionate, indiscriminate, and often pre-emptive. Collective punishment, mass executions, and reprisal killings were not targeted justice—they were tools of racial terror.

In Poland, tens of thousands of Polish elites (teachers, clergy, civil servants) were executed in Operation Tannenberg before any significant resistance had even formed. Civilian executions were often justified under the Nazi doctrine of "collective responsibility", which had no legal basis and was explicitly designed to intimidate and terrorize local populations. The “sniper war” stories wer fabricated or exaggerated by Nazi propaganda to justify massacres like those in Bromberg, Palmiry, and Wawer.

As for the reason for placing them in ghettos and later in concentration camps, it was due to their high incidence in guerrilla groups and the black market. It was a security measure and, as they were a group of differentiated prisoners, they received the nickname “special treatment” in German documents, which had nothing to do with extermination.

The ghettoization of Jews began before any widespread guerrilla activity had emerged and was part of a pre-planned racial segregation policy, not a response to Jewish resistance or criminality. Jews were forcibly concentrated, starved, and isolated in deliberately inhumane conditions with no due process, not based on individual behavior. Nazi documents (including Heydrich’s instructions and Goebbels’ diaries) make no mention of “security threats” as the motive for ghettoization. Instead, they reference racial ideology, “cleansing,” and eventual deportation.

The term “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment) was a Nazi euphemism that explicitly meant execution, especially in the context of Jews and other targeted groups. SS officer Pery Broad, among others, testified that “special treatment” referred to gassing and mass shootings. In numerous Himmler and Eichmann documents, "Sonderbehandlung" is used to describe mass murder operations, including those at Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka. The Höfle Telegram and Korherr Report, both internal Nazi communications, use coded terms like “special treatment” to report on the number of Jews murdered.

Reframing ghettoization as “security policy” is neither historically accurate nor morally defensible.

The Nazis believed that concentrating Jews into confined urban zones would make it easier to manage, monitor, and eventually deport them. The ghettos served as temporary holding zones as the regime decided on a “final solution”— initially considering forced emigration and resettlement to Madagascar or the Soviet East.

Nazi propaganda portrayed Jews as carriers of typhus and lice, using this as a pseudo-medical justification for quarantine-style containment. Ghettos were described in internal documents as necessary to prevent the spread of disease to the “Aryan population.” Jews were scapegoated for economic breakdowns and black-market trade, especially during shortages. Ghettos centralized Jewish labor, making it easier for the regime to extract slave labor from the population before the "Final Solution".

The ghettos were deliberately designed to be lethal environments: overcrowding, starvation, and denial of medical care were systematic, not incidental. When the opportunity came, Jews were not released or resettled—they were deported to concentration camps. The Nazi regime never applied this “security” or “disease” logic to other populations under similar conditions (e.g., ethnic Germans or non-Jewish civilians).

[TlsMS93]

Hitler in 1940, in preparation for the invasion of France, made this statement indicating that the quality of Allied propaganda gave him infinite faith in victory. It has nothing to do with Goebbels. If he had read more of Hitler's speeches, he would have known this. That alone shows his inability to assess history.

If you don't know what the intention was in bringing up this border incident, it is yet another weakness in your ability to assess historical events. Putting the blame on me won't work. There are people who, even if you draw it, still won't understand.

Neither Hitler nor Goebbels used this supposed false flag, unlike Roosevelt, who knew about the Japanese attack but was counting on it to enter the war, so much so that he left the most obsolete ships at Pearl Harbor. This is using the false flag with quality.

There were skirmishes on the border, but not in Gleiwitz, where there is no primary source for this, only testimony from a turncoat without interrogation.

Churchill was financially bankrupt in the 1930s. If you don't know, go study, man. The people behind The Focus saved him. Churchill himself, in 1932, in the House of Lords, before Hitler came to power, said that either they resolved the issue of the corridor and Danzig or there would be no lasting peace. It wasn't Hitler who said that.

Churchill really supported this absurdity of differentiating Jews from Zionists, as if the latter weren't fueled by the former. That's how Jews get away with it today. There's that guy who committed a crime who wasn't really Jewish, but they love to cite Nobel Prize winners regardless of whether they practice Judaism or not. I recognize this double moral standard among you.

At first, Germany only intended to occupy the disputed regions, but in view of the escalation of the war, they decided to establish the General Government. Why didn't they annex everything right away? Because the General Government would be the embryo of a future Polish state to be determined by Germany and the USSR, as Hitler made clear on October 6 of that year.

[ConfusedJew]

You’re combining partial truths about Churchill’s finances and Polish territorial disputes with misrepresented Nazi motivations, false equivalencies (e.g., Pearl Harbor vs. Gleiwitz), and debunked historical distortions.

If your goal is to challenge mainstream history, you must do so with evidence, not innuendo. There is a difference between analyzing power, questioning narratives, and seeking to rehabilitate the reputation of the Nazis.

[TlsMS93]

There is nothing Nazi here, no. If it were any other regime, there would be valid precedents to demand and resolve that problem, even if it were by force. As the saying goes: “First the countries send the diplomats, if that doesn’t work, they send the generals.” Countries go to war today for much less.

[InuYasha]

There wasn't systematic persecution of Germans on a state level by Poland. Nazi Germany amplified minor incidents through propaganda to portray Poles as barbaric aggressors. A German Foreign Office internal report from early 1939 actually noted that many claims of mistreatment were exaggerated or unfounded. Poland was holding together a fragile state and made policy mistakes but it was not engaging in organized ethnic cleansing or murder of Germans.

In Poland, there was persecution of Germans at the state level throughout the interwar period.

According to the Land Act of 28 December 1925, the Polish government was given the right to acquire large estates and farms by forced expropriation, and this right was implemented on a very large scale in the former Prussian provinces, where small farms were established for Poles. According to the Polish Constitution and the Minorities Treaty of 1919, there was to be no discrimination between Poles and Germans, but equal treatment in all respects. In fact, Polish estates were systematically exempted from taxes, while German estates were massively expropriated under all sorts of far-fetched pretexts, with the aim of resettling Poles on these lands and thus more quickly suppressing and displacing German minorities in rural areas.

Germans were gradually deprived of their civil rights in the territories of the republic. By 1939, the violence had reached an incredibly high level, which also coincided with the peak of anti-German war hysteria in Poland. The German Foreign Ministry compiled a list of the persecution of Germans by Poles in interwar Poland:

https://archive.org/details/auswaertige ... 9/mode/2up

Another document dedicated to the persecution of Poles, already in English:

https://archive.org/details/polish-atro ... 5/mode/2up

The alleged quote from Marshal Rydz-Śmigły in the Daily Mail — “Poland wants war with Germany...” — is almost certainly fabricated or misrepresented. It does not appear in official archives of the paper or verified Polish communications. Poland refused several of Hitler’s demands (like annexation of Danzig and an extraterritorial corridor), which would have violated its sovereignty. Rydz-Śmigły did authorize general mobilization on August 30, in response to growing threats — which is not a declaration of war, either legally or diplomatically.

You are right that the Daily Mail did not publish these words of Rydz Smigly on August 6, 1939. I was not entirely sure what it was, but I had seen the quote before, so I wrote "according to some sources". However, the Poles were indeed completely anti-German.

Herr Foerster cited the opinions of Britons and Frenchmen including Mr Lloyd George and Mr Churchill to the effect that 'the Polish corridor was a mistake', hissed when he read out inflammatory statements by Polish newspapers, including the statement in 'Czas' that Poland would blow Danzig to bits if it united with Germany and the recent threat by Marshal Smigly-Rydz that Danzig would be the first stage in a cruisade against Germany - The Advertiser, 12 August 1939.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article ... 2%3By-Rydz

It is worth noting that the threat is referred to as 'recent', and also the phrase 'crusade against Germany'. If this were German propaganda, the threat would be referred to as 'alleged'. But on August 6 he did indeed make an anti-German speech.

A notable opinion was shared by The Evening News on August 7. Apparently, this is a German comment on yesterday's speech by Rydz Smigly (which actually took place on August 6).

"Determined on war"

Where he is also, not without reason, referred to as the Polish dictator.

"When leading newspapers demand East Prussia and all Germany east of the Oder, it is time for Britain to consider carefully what she had left herself in for with her guarantees".

The German comment was quite fair. Poland in 1939 was not an "innocent victim", it was not even a free state - it was a quasi-militaristic dictatorship with chauvinistic aspirations.

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co. ... 7/155/0007

Mobilization in such an acute crisis is an act of war. Even the communists did not begin mobilization until 12 hours after the Wehrmacht attacked on June 22, 1941.

I mean, why do they still do it? When one side (the Germans) still offers a peace settlement, and the other (the Poles) refuses and declares mobilization, what does that mean? It seems obvious to me: a complete rejection of any peace.

And even after that, it took 48 hours for the AH to abandon all attempts at diplomacy and order the troops to cross the border.

Between March and August 1939, Hitler made various “offers” to Poland that promised non-aggression in return but this was fake. Hitler had already signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 23), which included a secret protocol to divide Poland. The “offers” were intended to provide diplomatic cover. Germany was already preparing to invade.

The German peace proposals were not "fake". That's what the victors want us to think. In fact, Adolf's demands were moderate, especially considering that these German territories had been occupied by Poland in 1919-20. He saw Poland as a potential ally.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was not about dividing Poland. This was a common diplomatic practice, for example, on May 31, 1939, the Reich and Denmark signed a similar non-aggression pact.

The notorious secret protocol is a hoax aimed at creating the image of Germany (and by the time the myth was finally formed, Russia too) as the "absolute warmonger".

Russian publicist Alexei Kungurov described this deception with secret protocols in more detail:
https://archive.org/details/20230605_20 ... 4/mode/2up

By sending in troops, Hitler had two goals:

1. To stop the persecution, murder and attacks on Germans in the territories that were part of the Reich before 1920.
2. To secure the German-Polish border, which by mid-1939 had become an uncontrollable source of instability.

Depriving the Poles of their state in ethnically Polish territories was not the goal, at least not until about September 8. The partition of Poland was made possible by, firstly, the fanatical obstinacy of the Polish government in refusing any settlement before and after September 1, secondly, the collapse of the Polish army and the flight of the government, and thirdly, the declaration of war on Germany by France and Great Britain.

Nazi Germany gave reasons for invading Poland before the Gleiwitz incident, but they were not legitimate causes for war under international law or neutral historical analysis.

That quote is also a fabrication and not actual evidence that Poland wanted war. Feel free to prove me wrong but you should admit that you were using fabricated evidence to advance your argument. Not a huge deal because we all make mistakes but its important.

I try to provide a neutral and unbiased historical analysis.

The Gleiwitz incident was only one of many cases of the German-Polish crisis of 1939, and not the cause, or even the reason for the outbreak of war. Moreover, there are no objective grounds to believe that it was Germany that staged it, as some kind of "false flag operation", and not Poland.

The real reason for the war was the Treaty of Versailles, which handed over the occupied territory to Poland, effectively turning East Prussia into an enclave threatened with economic isolation. Remember that Germany didn't even have an army until 1935. The Reichswehr was a police force. Poland was quite militarized compared to Weimar and early National Socialist Germany.

If Hitler had not invaded Poland in September 1939, there is still no credible evidence that Poland had any intention or military capacity to invade Germany. Poland was rearming, yes — but defensively. Its entire military doctrine was built around protecting its sovereignty from both Germany and the USSR, not expansionism.

By 1939, Poland had security guarantees from Britain and France. These were diplomatic deterrents, not tools for aggression. Poland would likely have continued trying to balance between Germany and the USSR — an increasingly impossible task.
Poland may have tried to build better ties with Romania, Hungary, and the Baltics — all in similar positions of vulnerability.

Nevertheless, the Poles were rearming, and in the last two days of peace, they were openly mobilizing on the border with Germany. The Polish leadership and government made ardent anti-German statements. There was anti-German hysteria in Polish society, and the Germans were attacked and persecuted.

Of course, the Polish Army was a morally and technically obsolete army that could not cope with the Wehrmacht. But it could create problems even by attacking the Germans across the border. Propaganda actively called for "Poland to the Oder" long before 1939.

Again, what could Hitler do: sit and watch as Poland, France and England actively rearmed, and wait for... What?

Note that Western guarantees to Poland, by "strange coincidence", were intended only for the event of a conflict with Germany. Not with the USSR, not with Lithuania (assuming that the Lithuanians wanted to seize Kaunas).

Of course, strengthening ties with other neutral powers could have helped Poland balance between its two neighbors, but given the deep-rooted chauvinism in the Polish environment, it would hardly have prevented the war.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear his goal of Lebensraum (living space) in the East. In the Hossbach Memorandum (1937), he said Germany must go to war by the early 1940s to secure land and resources. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) was a clear sign that Hitler planned to divide Eastern Europe — starting with Poland.

A lot of your claims are taken out of context and in some cases fabrications.

The claims about the so-called "Lebensraum" were greatly exaggerated and distorted. At the time when "Mein Kampf" was written, Russia had just passed the final stage of the civil war and was in ruins. Between this period and the end of the 1930s, the situation changed dramatically.

Germany sought, first of all, to unite all Germans under one state/empire (the Reich). The claims about Hitler's anti-Slavic plans, for example, are refuted by the foreign policy of the NS itself, whose allies were such Slavic countries as: the Slovak Republic, the Bulgarian Kingdom, the Independent Croatian State, the Government of National Salvation in Serbia and the Lokot Republic in Russia. All of these were recognized allies of the Reich, who had their own troops and governments.

Hitler actually wanted Poland as an ally and a kind of guarantee in the east against the communists, which he made efforts to do from January 26, 1934 (Pilsudski-Hitler Pact) to August 30, 1939 (Last Peace Offer).

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a common diplomatic move of those years, and the efforts to conclude it largely came from Moscow, after Stalin's attempts at an alliance with the West failed. Hitler also continued to make peace offers after the defeat of Poland, but he was rejected.

These are not fabricated claims. These are historical facts.

[InuYasha]

There was no evidence that "Jews" didn't anything to start a war between January and September when he invaded Poland. A lot of these things were demonstrably false things that he didn't believe because he contradicted himself.

You can't pretend to warn somebody about something, falsely blame them, and harm them for something that they didn't do. That is the real hoax.

The Jews are not involved in the German-Polish conflict, since it is a fairly ordinary territorial conflict caused by the mistreatment of an ethnic minority.

Hitler's warning on January 30, 1939 was directed at international Zionism, and most likely at influence groups in countries such as England and America. I do not even think that it was about ordinary people of Jewish origin, who at that time were still being encouraged to emigrate from the Reich.

It was about a world war for domination, which would end for them in their own eradication. At that time, the conflict with Poland was not obvious to the Germans themselves, but the efforts of these people overseas to provoke war were obvious.

For example, as early as 1933, American Zionist leaders declared war on Germany.



As for how exactly the war was incited by the Zionists, it is worth noting that behind Churchill and Roosevelt stood financial groups of Jewish origin, anti-German. The so-called Focus group.

Back in April 1939, a conscription began in Britain, similar to a hidden form of mobilization.

Heinz Splittgerber quotes Dirk Bavendamm's work - Roosevelts Weg zum Krieg (Ullstein-Verlag, Berlin 1989, p. 593): "Since England had never yet declared universal military service in peacetime, this was practically tantamount to declaring war on Germany. From 1935 to 1939 (before the war) England's annual military expenditure increased more than fivefold."

Roosevelt also attempted to interfere in German politics, which was criticized by the isolationist establishment in America. In April 1939, he made a demand to Germany, demanding that it "not attack" a number of countries in Europe, Africa and Asia. This was criticized by Adolf, since he had been trying to achieve the same thing for 6 years, but without reciprocity. The Americans remained silent in response to Hitler's speech.

This was also the first moment when it became obvious that part of the American political elite was seeking to interfere in European and German affairs. Although this is only an assumption, it seems that it was at this point that it became clear that they needed a pretext for this.

Between 1939 and 1941, America was not "neutral", and helped Great Britain on an increasingly large scale, and during this same period, clashes occurred between the Kriegsmarine and the US Navy in the Atlantic. Among the American leadership was the infamous Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who was an apologist for the extremely harsh treatment of the German people, which was called the Morgenthau Plan. He played a role in shaping American foreign policy, and yes, he was Jewish.

The pretext for intervention was found in economic sanctions against Japan and the breakdown of negotiations with them, which forced the Japanese leadership to attack the United States, and since Japan and the Reich were bound by allied obligations, this meant war with Germany too. After the war, the victors distorted the information, trying to present these sanctions as a noble attempt to force the Japanese to "abandon China" and withdraw their troops. In fact, Roosevelt and his administration traded quietly with Japan after 1937, and they cared little about what was happening in East Asia. Only when the Axis became influential enough, this provocative policy was initiated.

Although this is somewhat broader than the period from January to September 1939 (which mainly reflected the dynamics of the German-Polish confrontation), it took the Americans longer to draw them into the conflict than it did the British.

[HansHill]

Here is the text of the 1939 Reichstag speech following the invasion of Poland, delivered on Sept 1st 1939

https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource ... ITLER1.htm

You are strawmanning InuYashu if you are expecting him to argue that Adolf Hitler blamed Jews for the invasion of Poland. Use this document to ctrl&f for any combination of "jew" "judaism" "jewish" etc and you will not find it mentioned. The invasion of Poland was about border, territorial, and ethnic disputes.

On Sept 1, 1939, Hitler invades Poland. Sept 3–10: Einsatzgruppen begin operating behind the front lines, carrying out mass shootings of Jews, Polish elites, and intelligentsia.

In mid-September, the first anti-Jewish regulations enacted in occupied areas. Jews are ordered to wear identifying marks (e.g., armbands), businesses marked or seized.

In October 1939, Jews begin to be forced into ghettos, especially in large cities. On October 12, 1939, Hitler formally creates the Generalgouvernement in central Poland (administered by Hans Frank), which becomes the main zone for Jewish persecution and later extermination.

What was the justification for these mass shootings and why would he force Polish Jews into ghettoes?

Are you saying that Hitler actually believed the things that he said, was he lying, or was it something in between?

Anti-Jewish regulations had nothing to do with the invasion of Poland, or indeed this January 1939 speech. The Third Reich had anti-Jewish regulations since 1935.

The Einsatzgruppen shootings have had a lot of coverage here and I suggest visiting a thread specifically on those shootings so we can discuss. Regarding this speech specifically, you would have to be threading the eye of a needle that the January 1939 speech was a prediction/warning of genocide-by-decentralised-military-action rather than genocide-by-centralised-extermination-centres which would begin 2-3 years later (??) I've never heard anybody in your position making this claim and it strikes me as novel and "god of the gaps" thinking.

InuYasha has given you excellent material on Polish aggression and the outbreak of the war. I've given you material on the Gleiwitz incident. I'll put another few arguments here re Polish aggression

Poland made a military threat to von Ribbentrop “Any further pursuit of these plans, especially as far as the return of Danzig to the Reich is concerned, will mean war." This threat, together with Rydz-Smigly’s partial mobilization against Germany, violated the 1934 treaty. Off the back of this threat, England allied Poland, with Beck visiting London. One month later, Poland mobilised a further 334,000 military reserves, again in the absence of any German cause.

Source - Ruhnau, Rudiger, Die freie Stadt Danzig

The Polish Ministry of Transportation threatened to block German rail traffic completely during trade negotiations, crippling the supply of East Prussia’s energy needs. Source - Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd, Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte

In March, Beck informed France that Poland was ready to attack Germany. Rydz-Smigly visited Paris in Sept. France loaned Poland $500m and war materiel to upgrade the Polish army. Rydz-Smigly ordered General Kutrzeba to draft a war plan against Germany to begin in 1939

Sources: Klüver, Max, Die Kriegstreiber, and Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd, Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte

Polish military:
- Shut traffic & food entering into Danzig
- Opened fire on civilian planes over the Baltic Sea. Source - Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd, Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte
- Fired on Germans attempting to flee
- 26 Aug invaded Neidenburg in East Prussia and were repelled on sovereign German territory leaving 47 dead. Source - Sturm, Gero, Mit Goldener Nahkampfspange Werner Kindler

Germany demanded Polish diplomats to begin negotiating peace talks. In Poland Beck, Rydz-Smigly and the defense minister, Tadeusz Kasprzycki instead decided to declare general mobilization of their full army.
August 30 Germany drafted the 16-point Marienwerder proposal to resolve the issue. Poland refused, with England commenting “Here was proof to the German Government of Poland’s delaying tactics and refusal to negotiate seriously” Source - PRO FO 371/22979 C 12480

https://web.archive.org/web/20230511204 ... 64128.html

was he lying

No