Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#736

Post by David Thompson » 14 Aug 2012, 17:23

The French view of the 4 Aug 1939 Polish "ultimatum" (part 2) from Diplomatic Documents ("the French Yellow Book"), available online at:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/fyb-preface.html
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ylbkmenu.asp
No. 181
M. LÉON NÖEL, French Ambassador in Warsaw,
to M. GEORGES BONNET, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Warsaw, August 6, 1939.

THE clash which occurred on August 4 between the authorities of the Free City and the Polish Customs inspectors has been reported by M. de Seguin. But I consider it essential that I should touch on these Occurrences again in order to make clear certain details which remained obscure, and to deduce from them certain indications in view of the coming difficulties.

On the afternoon of the 4th the Ministry of Foreign Affairs learnt

[245]

that at four of the Danzig Customs posts on the East Prussian frontier, the Polish Customs inspectors had been given notice by the heads of the Danzig posts that they could not continue to perform their duties after Sunday the 6th. The Polish Government took the step of addressing a note to the Senate, requesting it to give by the following evening a written assurance that the Customs officials would be allowed to continue to perform their duties, otherwise the Polish Government reserved to itself the right to take necessary steps to safeguard its rights. Toward 8 p.m. the French and British representatives were informed of the wish of M. Beck to communicate matters of importance to them in the evening. At about 10 p.m. the Private Secretary of the Minister for Foreign Affairs summoned a secretary of the British Embassy and M. de Seguin, and informed them of the events of the afternoon and of the Polish Government's intentions. Count Lubienski added that M. Beck expected to be in a position to inform the French and British Governments next morning of the steps the Polish Government might be led to take in the event of the Senate of the Free City not giving a favourable reply.

The Polish note was delivered during the night to the President of the Senate in person.

At 830 a.m. the Polish Commissioner informed the League High Commissioner of the Polish démarche. Shortly afterwards, M. Greiser telephoned to M. Chodacki that the Senate of the Free City would not put any difficulties in the way of the Polish officials performing the duties assumed by them, but that it would not "for technical reasons" reply in writing to the Polish note before Monday.

The Polish Government decided to be satisfied for the time being by this reply, and at the end of the morning informed the two Embassies of the relaxation in the crisis.

Such was the course of events. One point has not yet been cleared up: what exactly took place between German and Polish officials at the four frontier posts? In his conversation on Saturday morning with Sir Howard Kennard, M. Beck made it clear that the German notification was addressed only to Customs officials in the strict sense of the term (the Department is aware of the distinction which the Senate seeks to establish between Customs inspectors and the ordinary Customs officials whom it calls "Grenzer"). According to further information from official Polish circles, there had been no notification to the Polish officials, but a threat to remove them by force, if they did not give up their posts. Finally, according to the version reported by M. de la

[246]

Tournelle, M. Chodacki had taken his action because the President of the Diet had issued orders for the arrest of the "Grenzer" before 3 p.m. of that day.

In itself the episode of August 4 seems to have been closed by Herr Greiser's answer to the Polish note, always supposing that the Senate's promised note arrives to confirm its terms. But this answer does not end the controversy on the subject of the distinction the Senate claims to draw between Customs inspectors and Customs officials. It neither provides, nor does it point towards, a final solution of the problem of the working of the system of Customs supervision. However, a new factor has appeared. Although Poland has taken no action against the remilitarization of the Free City, she has taken a stand against the threat of an attack aimed openly and publicly against her rights in the sphere of the Customs. Before August 4 the Reich might speculate as to how far it could go with its policy of "nibbling." This is now determined, and henceforth the Reich, before it frames its future policy, will have to take into its calculations the Polish will to resist.

LÉON NÖEL.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#737

Post by David Thompson » 14 Aug 2012, 17:39

The readers may find it helpful to read the texts of M. Coulondre's reports of 15 Aug 1939 in full, so as to avoid any misunderstanding for lack of context. The texts are taken from Diplomatic Documents ("the French Yellow Book"), available online at:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/fyb/fyb-preface.html
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ylbkmenu.asp

This is part 1 of 2:
No. 194
M. COULONDRE, French Ambassador in Berlin,
to M. GEORGES BONNET, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Berlin, August 15, 1939.

I HAD this morning a conversation lasting one hour with the State Secretary with whom I thought it advisable to resume contact on my return to Berlin.

Herr von Weizsäcker asked me what impression I brought back from Paris regarding the international situation.

I gave him as exact a picture as possible of France at work, calm and peaceably inclined, but resolved to make all the sacrifices necessary for the defence of her honour and her position in the world. I made it clear that during my stay in Paris, I had been able to satisfy myself that the Government's foreign policy, which was supported almost unanimously by the country, had been and remained, exactly the same as the French Prime Minister and Your Excellency had clearly defined

[264]

it, particularly with reference to Poland and Danzig. It would be nothing short of dangerous to close our eyes to obvious facts. Our positions were taken up quite definitely. Between France, England, and Poland, undertakings for assistance had been entered into, which would operate automatically in case of aggression against any one of them. But the French Government was also still inspired by the most sincere wish to see an easing of the tension and an agreement reached between Germany and Poland, and I was able, in all sincerity and with a full knowledge of the facts, to state that my Government would always use its good offices to promote any settlement to which Poland, as a free and sovereign state, might think it possible to subscribe.

I added that, on the other hand, I thought I had found in Berlin an atmosphere slightly different from that prevailing when I had left it in July. The Gauleiter of Danzig between two visits to Berchtesgaden, had made two violent speeches, one in the Free City, and one at Fürth; in the Press, space devoted to Polish incidents was on some days assuming greater proportions, and the newspapers went so far as to speak of German honour in connection with these incidents. I was, therefore, very anxious to learn from the State Secretary exactly how matters stood.

Herr von Weizsäcker replied that in actual fact he regretted that he could not tell me that the situation was still the same as when he had described it to me before my departure. In May, and June, he had expressed the opinion that time would do a great deal to improve matters, that the Poles would gradually come round to wiser and more conciliatory views. But the Poles were a changeable and excitable people, and the English and French guarantee, that "automatic" guarantee about which I had spoken, an offspring of the policy of encirclement, had inclined them to follow a course contrary to that which had been anticipated in Berlin; time had therefore worked in an adverse direction and they had now reached the point where an ultimatum from Warsaw to the Danzig Senate had been followed by an exchange of notes in which Poland went so far as to say that she would consider any fresh German intervention that was harmful to Polish rights and interests in Danzig as an act of aggression.

The State Secretary then asked for these notes to be brought to him so that he could show them to me. I pointed out to him that I was not in a position to discuss the matter and would have to reserve my opinion.

He did not insist, only mentioning that he had wished to give me

[265]

a striking example in support of his allegations, and he afterwards showed me a file of typewritten sheets: "There," he said, "is this morning's list of acts of persecution suffered by the German minority in Poland. I have as many every morning.

"Fortunately it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. This Polish policy must have the advantage of ultimately loosening the bonds between you and Warsaw; I refuse to believe that France intends always to screen these Polish pranks."

In view of this direct hint and the insight which it afforded into what the Germans had at the back of their minds, it seemed to me necessary that I should be still more explicit in my reply than I had been at the beginning of the conversation.

I first of all reminded Herr von Weizsäcker that if we had strengthened our bonds with Poland and if England had similarly bound herself, he was well aware that it was because of the events of last March, for which Germany was alone responsible. Without renouncing either our role in Europe, or our alliances, or our friendships, we had been willing, after December 6, to consider Germany's special position in central Europe. But the absorption of Bohemia and Moravia had brought about a positive reversal of French opinion. All, from the man in the street upwards, had realized that a danger, the most formidable of dangers to them, the loss of their liberty and of their independence, threatened them; and they have been practically unanimous in considering the restoration of a balance of power in Europe as indispensable for the preservation of these blessings; hence our policy, that was wholly devoid of any idea of encirclement. I indicated that this detailed explanation would no doubt enable the State Secretary to understand why there could be no question of our loosening our ties with Poland, and why the automatic operation of our guarantees about which I had spoken was "real."

Herr von Weizsäcker then interrupted me in order to ask me whether this automatic action would come into play even if it were not a question of an "unprovoked" aggression. I advised him not to lose himself in subtleties; the fact was that if any of the three Allies, France, England, and Poland, were attacked, the other two would automatically be at her side.

After all, everything I had seen while in Paris had convinced me of the moderation and even of the caution of the Polish Central Government. I had been able to observe that it turned a blind eye to the

[266]

importation of arms into Danzig, although the re-militarization of the City is prohibited by its Statute.

"No doubt," retorted the State Secretary, "but the Statute could not foresee that the City would have to defend itself against its guardian! . . ."

I quote this phrase because it is very typical of the state of mind of the Wilhelmstrasse. I added that if minor incidents occurred in regions with German minorities, the same was the case in Germany in regions with Polish minorities.

Finally in order to leave no shadow of doubt in the mind of Herr von Weizsäcker, I added that even as he could rest assured that France was employing the language of wisdom in Warsaw (a language which was moreover perfectly well understood) and that she sincerely desired a German-Polish understanding, so the German Government must likewise take it as definite that France would not exert upon Poland, an integral part of our defensive front, a pressure capable of impairing the moral strength of that Power. In that respect we had had one experience which would not be repeated.

Returning then to the attitude of the Reich, I asked the State Secretary whether he could give me an explicit statement of official intentions. We had to consider the claims of the Reich, and the Polish attitude. If I had understood rightly what had been said to me in June and July, the claims of the Reich could wait if the Polish attitude permitted. Had the situation changed?

"It has changed," replied the State Secretary showing a certain embarrassment; "I can tell you no more for the moment; I only wish to add that I am pleased to see you back here at this time."

I assured the State Secretary that I should devote the whole of my strength to the service of peace, which was particularly precious to my country.

To those who know the covert way in which the State Secretary expresses himself, the language which he used to me is distinctly pessimistic. Ten days ago he still gave my English colleague a less gloomy view. There are, he told him, four possible risks of an armed conflict: (1) An English preventive war; (2) German refusal to believe that England would fight for Danzig; (3) Things might go so far that a retreat would no longer be possible; (4) A serious Polish incident.

He eliminated Nos. 1 and 2 automatically. As regards No. 3 Herr Hitler, he said, would know how to stop in time. He only retained No. 4, the serious Polish incident, and this was what he had told me.

[267]

Today, Herr von Weizsäcker is no longer willing even to limit the risk of war to No. 4, and two or three times, I had the feeling that he wanted to give me to understand that events might move rapidly.

Is his attitude a maneuver intended to impress the French Government? This is possible, and I hope in that case that my reactions showed him that it was labour lost. In any case, while I was making my statement he took numerous notes, which is contrary to his habit.

Does his attitude on the contrary mean that, without having detailed information of what is his master's secret, he knows that important decisions have been made or discussed? That is also possible.

Perhaps also he combined tactics and truthfulness. In life things are seldom entirely black or white. It is not unlikely that the same may also be true of Herr Hitler. The latter, in all probability, does not want a general war because he knows that he would have many chances of losing everything by it, and because he is convinced that he can hold out longer than the democracies in the present bloodless war. It may therefore be anticipated that he will strive to the last to achieve his plan without a general conflict. For none of my colleagues here doubts any more than I do, that he has a plan, and that as regards Poland, it comprises, in addition to Danzig, the reincorporation of the Corridor and Polish Silesia at the very least, that is to say the return to the old frontiers, and the German Press, moreover, does not hesitate to formulate such claims from time to time.

But it is equally likely that the Führer, while he is anxious to avoid a general war, may become irritated and his anger gradually increasing against this neighbour who dares to defy him, in his desire to bring matters to a conclusion with Poland, he may be led to wage war against the latter, minimizing, more or less consciously, the risk of an extension of the conflict.

To guard as far as possible against this danger which appears to me formidable and imminent I consider it essential:

(1) To maintain absolute firmness, an entire and unbroken unity of front, as any weakening, or even any semblance of yielding will open the way to war; and to insist every time the opportunity occurs on the automatic operation of military assistance.

(2) To maintain the military forces of the Allies, and in particular our own, on an equality with those of Germany, which are being continuously increased. It is essential that we should at the very least retain the previously existing ratio between our forces and those of the

[268]

Reich, that we should not give the erroneous impression that we are "giving ground."

(3) To expedite to the very utmost the conclusion of the agreement with the Soviets. I can never repeat too often how important a psychological factor this is for the Reich.

(4) To advise Warsaw to be more careful than ever and to intensify the measures taken to avoid local incidents, for example, by sending emissaries direct from the central authority to the danger zones.

COULONDRE.


David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#738

Post by David Thompson » 14 Aug 2012, 17:46

(Part 2) Here is the second of M. Coulondre's reports:
No. 195
M. COULONDRE, French Ambassador in Berlin,
to M. GEORGES BONNET, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Berlin, August 15, 1939.

ON the morrow of the discussions between Count Ciano, Herr von Ribbentrop, and the Führer (August 11, 12, and 13) the situation, as seen from Berlin, is far from clear. It is not possible to discern with any degree of certainty either the immediate intentions of the leaders of the Reich, nor the manner in which they intend, at a given moment, to escape from the present deadlock nor to what extent they are really prepared to run the risk of a general conflict.

There are, however, certain facts which control the situation:

(1) The military preparations of the Reich are being speeded up and intensified, and it may be accepted that Germany has today reached an advanced stage of mobilization. These factors have increased the war psychosis which is becoming more and more prevalent among the German population;

(2) In the Danzig problem, the Reich has become still more entangled, and over and above the question of the Free City, those of the German-Polish frontiers, and, in a more general way of the east of Europe, have been clearly put before German public opinion;

(3) In spite of the categorical statements of the Reich Press, it is still impossible to gauge the degree of understanding and effective solidarity already achieved between Rome and Berlin;

(4) In addition to symptoms which call for the utmost vigilance, others would seem to indicate that Berlin has not yet decided to precipitate matters, and that they have not given up all idea of temporizing.

[269]

(1) For several weeks past it has been evident that the Reich was taking all necessary measures to have considerable forces under arms from the middle of August (August 15 to 20), and by that date to have the country's military preparedness in all directions at an advanced stage. The measures observed at the present time can therefore hardly occasion surprise. On the other hand, they can no longer be explained only by the necessity-as officially pleaded-of training the troops (regulars or reserves). If compared with the military measures of last autumn, they are more and more clearly distinguished from the latter by the following features:

Extreme care is taken to maintain secrecy, and secrecy is effectively maintained to a large extent thanks to methods of concealment developed almost to a fine art;

Mobilization is effected on a much more extensive scale; the civilian population-in so far as it is not called up-is subject to requisitioning in much greater measure. This fact is particularly appreciable in the case of female labour; levies and requisitioning of all kinds (vehicles, petrol, livestock, sundry commodities) have attained a volume so great that the economic activity of the country is seriously disorganized, while stocks and their replenishment are hampered;

The anxiety to put Germany in the best possible condition to sustain a war is such that, however great the part played by bluff, it is impossible to avoid the impression that more serious contingencies are not set aside. Such, moreover, is the feeling of the German population, among whom the fear of a war is universal;

Up to the present, if we except the assembling of troops in many places in Upper Silesia and in East Prussia, no important concentrations constituting an immediate threat to Poland have yet been observed. Technical experts, however, are of opinion that in the present state of German mobilization such concentrations could be effected in a few days.

(2) If, at the time of the Polish ultimatum of August 5, some surprise and some wavering was noticeable in the attitude of the Nazis in Danzig and in the Reich, Germany was, nevertheless, not slow in regaining her self possession.

After the Senate climbed down in the matter of the Polish Customs officers, the leaders of the Reich, tried, as we had for several days been given to understand from the German side they would, to take over the diplomatic representation of the interests of Danzig. This was the meaning of the verbal note handed by the German Government

[270]

to Warsaw on August 9. The Polish reply of the 11th in which the Warsaw Government declared that it would consider any fresh German intervention in the differences between Danzig and Poland as an act of aggression, cut short this attempt. This reply appears to have profoundly irritated the Nazi leaders and the Führer himself.

Meanwhile, the campaign in favour of the return of Danzig to the Reich was becoming more violent. On the evening of August 10, Gauleiter Forster, back from Berchtesgaden, made a speech in Danzig at a demonstration organized in order to testify to the will of the Danzig population to be reincorporated in the Reich. In this speech, drafted in accordance with instructions received in Obersalzberg, he expressed the conviction that the Führer would know how to realise the unanimous will of the people of Danzig to return to their German Fatherland. Two days later, back in Germany once more, he delivered, in his native town of Fürth, a second speech in which some thought they recognized the Führer's style, and in the course of which he exclaimed: "Whatever happens, Danzig will certainly, in the long run, return one day to the Reich."

The speeches of Herr Forster, and likewise the articles published at the same time in the Reich Press marked moreover a new phase in the anti-Polish campaign. Herr Forster not only explicitly stated the German claims with regard to Danzig; he called the Polish State itself to account just as the Czechoslovak State was called to account last year. He denied Poland the right of existence as an independent state. This argument was abundantly developed in semi-official newspapers such as the National Zeitung of Essen, which, in its issue of August 13, proclaimed that the existence of Poland was not in the least necessary to the European balance of power. The period of German claims to Pomerelia, Poznan, and Upper Silesia, was thus at once outstripped.

The arguments now put forward are, moreover, strangely similar to those which were produced before against the Republic of M. Benes: total incapacity of the Government; heterogeneous character of a population of which one third is made up of minorities; and strategic weaknesses. Finally, accompanying the threats and ill-treatment alleged to be directed against the City of Danzig and the members of the German minority in Poland appeared the further argument, which had also been advanced at the time of the German-Czech crisis, namely that of German honour.

Certain newspapers even went so far as to declare openly that the

[271]

Polish problem was in itself only one particular case, and that it was now time to settle the "Eastern problems."

It must, nevertheless, be observed that, up to the present, no member of the Reich Government has taken up a position over the Danzig problem so definite as to make a final breach inevitable. The Führer has not referred to the subject since April 28. From what is known of his discussions with M. Burckhardt, at the time of the latter's visit to Berchtesgaden on August 12, it would seem that he has not altered his attitude since. Nor have any of his Lieutenants made any definite pronouncements. The newspapers themselves, while proclaiming their faith in the inevitable return of the Free City to the Reich, have not yet mentioned any date, nor declared that this return would have to be secured "in one way or another" (so oder so).

(3) The German Press has not given any precise information concerning the conversations at Salzburg and Berchtesgaden. In so far as any items of information have been given, these have sometimes proved contradictory. To give one instance, certain newspapers have maintained that Germany and Italy had, of course, examined the question of the revision of the order of things established in Central and South-Eastern Europe by the treaties of 1919. Others have declared that neither Germany nor Italy had ever contemplated giving the Western Powers the pleasure of such a digression.

From what it has been possible to observe in Berlin, the predominant impression left by the German-Italian conversations may be summed up as follows: Italy has endeavoured to exercise a moderating influence, to restrain the Reich. But the results of this attempt are still uncertain.

(4) The situation created by the Salzburg and Berchtesgaden conversations is therefore precarious. Certain indications, it is true, permit the hope that the danger of war is not immediate. The crops have not yet been entirely gathered in; the harvest was very late and was partly damaged by the very abundant rains of the last few weeks. Work on the fortifications is not completed either on the Western Front, or on the German-Polish frontier. The preparations for the demonstrations at Tannenberg (August 27) and Nuremberg (September 2-10) are apparently being continued. The members of the Diplomatic Corps have just been invited to the Congress, which, as nearly a million Germans are expected to attend, will disorganize the railway service for several weeks.

[272]

Nevertheless, these indications, cannot be considered entirely conclusive.

The principal dangers of war may, therefore, be reduced to these two:

(a) Illusion as to the attitude of France and Great Britain.

(b) The hope of being able to destroy the Polish Army before the Western Powers have been able to give effective assistance, and of having by this means created a "war map" which would set London and Paris thinking.

(a) There is no doubt that certain of the Nazi leaders and, in particular, Herr von Ribbentrop, still hope to give some sort of satisfaction to the Western Powers by restricting the German claims to Danzig, setting aside, provisionally, the question of the Corridor and other claims against Poland.

(b) The idea that the German Army could crush the Polish Army and take Warsaw in a few weeks, or even a few days, before France and England had time to intervene, or even to come to a decision, is fairly widespread among the public and in certain official circles. The Führer himself is said to consider the undertaking as not impossible. It is said that certain officers in his circle encourage him in that view.

What is most likely at the present time, is that Germany, while endeavouring to carry through the first solution (a) is continuing to push on her preparations with a view to being able if necessary to attempt the second solution (b).

The best means of counteracting this manoeuvre obviously aimed at gaining possession of Danzig in order to prepare the ruin of Poland, to demoralize the small States guaranteed by France and England, and to bring about the collapse of the entire system, built up to resist aggression is, it would seem, to invite the Germans, if they were to submit proposals to us to this effect, to address themselves to Warsaw.

At the same time it is, however, essential, in view of the extent of the military measures adopted by the Reich, that we should not allow ourselves to be forestalled by the German mobilization. Moreover, it is by maintaining our military forces on a level with theirs that we shall most effectively help to persuade the Reich that we are fully resolved to keep our engagements with our Polish allies, and, if need be to intervene immediately in their favour.

COULONDRE.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#739

Post by David Thompson » 14 Aug 2012, 18:02

Here is a third report from M. Coulondre, taken from the French Yellow Book, giving more detail on the German tactics used in pressuring Poland:
No. 197
M. COULONDRE, French Ambassador in Berlin,
to M. GEORGES BONNET, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Berlin, August 17, 1939.

FOR some days past, the German Press has entered upon a new chapter of its anti-Polish campaign. It claims that a sort of pogrom has been started by organized groups and certain local authorities against the Germans in Poland. This morning there were sensational headlines announcing that on the other side of the frontier a positive man-hunt was in progress against the "Volksdeutschen," that mass arrests were being made among them, that Polish officials were distributing arms to shady elements of the population and that an intoler-

[274]

able terror menaced the entire German minority. Lastly, refugees were said to be already flocking into German territory.

Thus we meet again the tactics and methods by which Nazi propaganda, nearly a year ago, was able to induce the German people and part of foreign opinion to believe that there was serious disorder in Sudetenland, that bloody conflicts were occurring there daily, and that the Germans there were treated as outlaws. Acting on orders from Berlin, agents of Herr Henlein were trying to create a panic in Northern Bohemia, and compelling members of the minority to cross the frontier and seek refuge, without any reason, in refugee camps, organized with great publicity in the neighbourhood of Dresden or in Silesia.

The object of this maneuver is clear; the intention is now, just as it was in September 1938, to inflame popular passions within the country and create externally, by artificial means, the impression, either that the opposing party was indulging in more and more intolerable provocations, or that its central authority, overwhelmed by irresponsible elements, is no longer in a position to maintain order. In both cases, the Reich can find a pretext for intervention, in the need either to avenge German honour, or to replace the irresolute authorities and themselves undertake the protection of their "brothers by race."

It should be noted that as a result of this campaign, the Danzig question tends to recede into the background. The problem assumes wider proportions and by implication includes the question of the Corridor and that of the Polish Provinces with a German minority.

In view of the results, direct and indirect, which National-Socialist policy proposes to secure by this propaganda, it is, in my view, important to counteract the latter as rapidly as possible, and demonstrate to the rulers of the Reich that foreign opinion, at least among the Western Powers is no longer taken in by maneuvers to which we now know what value to attach.

This counteracting process should be comparatively easy if, as M. Lipski asserts, 95 per cent of the facts brought forward by the German Press in support of its campaign are exaggerated, distorted, or even merely fabricated. Thus the Polish Ambassador gave me the following example: In its issue of August 15, the Angriff reported on its front page, in sensational manner, the murder of a German engineer in Eastern Galicia. "Horrible Polish murder," the heading read, "German engineer murdered."

This murder, had in actual fact, been committed as far back as

[275]

June 15. The murderer was arrested, and the case is at present before a Polish Court. It has been established that the crime in question, whose motive was passion, and devoid of any political bias, comes under common law. As a result of their consul's report on the murder of this Reich subject, the German authorities came to the same conclusion, and on July 3, the German Ambassador in Warsaw informed the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs that, in view of the character of the crime they would refrain from intervening.

Nevertheless National-Socialist propaganda seized the occasion of the victim's funeral which took place on June 23, to write up the affair as though it had been a political assassination, and the Angriff now returns to the charge.

This case is typical. It is not the only one; according to M. Lipski, many other examples might be quoted. In every case of this kind it would be desirable to set the facts in their true light as soon as possible, and, in this way, convict the German propaganda of mendacity and overstatement. These rectifications, would of course, be most valuable, in the first instance, to the competent Polish authorities. However, in so far as the Western Powers make common cause with the Poles the interests of their propaganda are obviously identical.

Perhaps, if Your Excellency thought it advisable, our Embassy in Warsaw might, if required, draw the attention of the Polish administration to this matter.

By setting the facts in a true light, in a dispassionate and objective manner, our Press and our broadcasting stations (particularly in their broadcasts in the German language) would very efficiently help in taking the edge off the German propaganda and enlighten readers and listeners, including those in the Reich, on the calculations and the ulterior motives of Nazi policy.

COULONDRE.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#740

Post by michael mills » 15 Aug 2012, 02:08

Both Germany and Poland were indulging in propaganda against each other.

Earlier on this thread I gave the example of an item of Polish propaganda, a claim that Germans had killed a Polish soldier, cut open his belly and placed the skull of a child inside.

I gave a link to FRUS, a report by the US Ambassador in Warsaw, Biddle, in which he transmitted that claim back to the State Department.

Both Biddle and Coulondre, as representatives of their respective governments, were naturally drafting their reports in order to be consistent with the political stance of those governments, which was pro-Polish and anti-German. Hence they reported Polish claims of German atrocities as it they were true, while conveying Polish Government denials of German claims of Polish atrocities.

It is to be expected that both German and Polish propaganda was greatly exaggerated and contained many examples of lurid embellishment, such as the example of the child's skull that I have referred to. Thus it is quite possible that a Polish soldier was killed in a border clash, but the claim that his belly was cut open and a child's skull placed inside is almost certainly an ecample of lurid embellishment.

As for the German claims of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans living in Poland, we have seen on this thread the admission by Forum member wm, who generally promoites a Polish nationalist point of view, that as early as April 1939 POlish civilians were taking the law into their own hands in actions against their ethnic German neighbours.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#741

Post by michael mills » 15 Aug 2012, 02:19

The French view of the 4 Aug 1939 Polish "ultimatum" (part 1) from Diplomatic Documents ("the French Yellow Book"), available online at:
Although the word "ultimatum" is placed in quotation marks in the above statement, implying that that term is an inaccurate description of the Polish note, it was in fact the word used by Coulondre in his report of 15 August:
2) If, at the time of the Polish ultimatum of August 5, some surprise and some wavering was noticeable in the attitude of the Nazis in Danzig and in the Reich, Germany was, nevertheless, not slow in regaining her self possession.
For a statement to be classed as an ultimatum, it has to contain a threat of reprisal in the case of the action demanded in the staement not being carried out, ie:

"Do X by a nominated point in time, otherwise I will shoot you".

The Polish note of 5 August to the Danzig Senate threatened reprisal if the addressee did not carry out the action demanded by the Polish Government ( which in real terms amounted to continuing to allow armed Polish border guards to block free movement between Danzig and East Prussia), ergo it was an ultimatum.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8267
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#742

Post by Michael Kenny » 15 Aug 2012, 02:56

The French and British learnt the hard way about German duplicity

M. Coulondre:
I first of all reminded Herr von Weizsäcker that if we had strengthened our bonds with Poland and if England had similarly bound herself, he was well aware that it was because of the events of last March, for which Germany was alone responsible. Without renouncing either our role in Europe, or our alliances, or our friendships, we had been willing, after December 6, to consider Germany's special position in central Europe. But the absorption of Bohemia and Moravia had brought about a positive reversal of French opinion.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#743

Post by David Thompson » 15 Aug 2012, 04:52

Here's an assessment of Hitler's 29 Aug 1939 note by William Christian Bullitt, Jr., US Ambassador to France, taken from Foreign Relations of the United States 1939, vol. 1, pp. 388-90:
760C.62/1201: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Bullitt) to the Secretary of State
PARIS, August 30, 1939-6 p. m. [Received August 30-2: 15 p. m.]

1669. I have just read the full written text of the German reply to the British proposals which was handed to Henderson by Hitler in Berlin last night.

This document repeats all the demands which Hitler blurted out (reported in my 1660 of August 30, 11 a. m.) except the demand with regard to Silesia but veils them in such extremely clever diplomatic language that the public or anyone ignorant of the duplicities of diplomacy might consider it a comparatively reasonable document.

Under the circumstances the French Foreign Office is extremely glad that Hitler threw a verbal limelight on the demands which his diplomats had carefully veiled in their note.

The note begins by stating that the German Government is glad that the British Government agrees on the desirability of good relations between Great Britain and Germany. It states that the present dispute with Poland could have been solved at a time when there were good relations between Poland and Germany if the Poles had been willing to accept the offer which Chancellor Hitler made to Poland last April.

EVENTS LEADING TO WAR IN EUROPE 389

It goes on to say that Poland replied to this entirely reasonable proposal by mobilization of military forces and a persecution of the German population in Poland and a political harassment and economic blockade of Danzig designed to drive Danzig to political despair and economic destruction. These activities of the Poles had become so terrible during the past weeks that the question of ending them was no Ionger one of months or weeks but of hours.

The revision of the Treaty of Versailles must be continued and Danzig and the Corridor must be returned to the Reich. The question of the protection of German minorities and economic interests in Poland must be solved.

The Reich had no intention of extinguishing the independence of Poland; but the question of guaranteeing those portions of the Polish state which should remain after Germany's claims had been satisfied could not be answered by the Reich before consultation with and the agreement of Germany's associate, the Soviet Union.

The German Government had no confidence that direct conversations between Germany and Poland would lead to any result; but to accomplish its acquired love of peace and in order to put an end to reports of the British Government that there should be direct conversations the German Government would be glad to receive a plenipotentiary negotiator in Berlin, if one should arrive from Warsaw today Wednesday the 30th.

I have really rarely read a clearer piece of casuistry than this note which in fact makes all the demands that Hitler made verbally; but produces a surface appearance of sweet reasonableness.

The French and British Governments are now in consultation as to the reply which should be made to this note. The French Government has received from a number of sources information that Germany may start war with Poland tonight.

The French Government has also received information from a number of sources that if war should begin in the immediate future Italy would not at first enter the war but would try to remain neutral until Poland had been crushed by Germany and until the German forces concentrated against Poland could be returned to the French frontier for an attack on France. At that moment Italy and Germany together would attack France.

The single astounding feature of the note is the phrase about the Soviet Union which seems to indicate that Germany has promised to give the Soviet Union eastern Poland and may mean that the Soviet Union will attack Poland.

BULLITT.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#744

Post by Sid Guttridge » 15 Aug 2012, 13:54

Hi Michael,

A threat doesn't have to be of the explicit "Give me what I want or I will shoot you" variety to represent a threat nonetheless.

You write: "Give me something I want and I will give you something you want":..... is a proposal, not a threat."

Sadly, in the matter of borders Germany wasn't offering something Poland wanted. It was offering post facto recognition of borders Poland already had.

In return for this non offer, Germany was proposing that Poland surrender sovereignty over an "extra-territorial highway" that cut across a vital strategic area - Poland's only access to the sea.

So what are we left with? Germany was offering Poland something it already, in practice, had, in return for a significant surrender of Polish sovereignty.

The big question to be asked of Germany in the event of Polish non-compliance is, ".....or what?"

In the cases of the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland and Bohemia-Moravia (and Danzig from June 1939) the ".....or what?" had proved to be military occupation. Germany's recent record left little reason to expect that it would act differently with Poland and it did not.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 15 Aug 2012, 20:17, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#745

Post by Terry Duncan » 15 Aug 2012, 17:06

For a statement to be classed as an ultimatum, it has to contain a threat of reprisal in the case of the action demanded in the staement not being carried out, ie:

"Do X by a nominated point in time, otherwise I will shoot you".
That is not correct. The Austrian Note to Serbia on 23rd July 1914 was clearly an ultimatum even if it failed to spell out consequences and was seen by all of Europe as such. The subsequent German ultimatums to Russia and France also included no threat of war even though this was the intent of the German government, and from memory the British ultimatum to Germany also said only an end to diplomatic relations would occur as the ambassador was to ask for his passports.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#746

Post by michael mills » 16 Aug 2012, 08:18

What needs to be borne in mind is that Coulondre and Bullitt are both interpreting events from the point of view of their respective governments, ie from an anti-German, pro-Polish perspective.

Hence their tendency is to interpret German actiuons in the worst possible light, while giving Poland the benefit of the doubt, eg dismissing German claims of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans, while giving credence to Polish claims, such as the claim that the Germans were engaging in voodoo-like practices.***

Thus, it is highly significant that Coulondre admits in his report of 15 August that the Polish note to Danzig of 5 August was an ultimatum, and that he used that precsie word to describe it.

Obviously, Coulondre had no political motive to exaggerate the aggressiveness of Poland toward Danzig. If anything, given the pro-Polish stance of the French Government, he had a motivation to minimise Polish aggressiveness. Therefore, if Coulondre admitted that Poland had presented an ultimatum to Danzig, it was because he could see no way of minimising that fact.

Thus, it is also significant that Coulondre concludes that war was not Hitler's preferred option, but one that he would resort to only if pushed into it by the hard line of the Anglo-Franco-Polish alliance.

***With regard to this Polish claim of voodoo-like practices by Germans, I note that it has been studiously ignored by posters in this thread who have been arguing in favour of the Polish version of events. Presumably that is because to recognise that the Polish Government had made such a claim would be to admit that Poland was not just an innocent victim of German incitement, but had done plenty of incitement of its own.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8759
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#747

Post by wm » 16 Aug 2012, 10:45

michael mills wrote:As for the German claims of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans living in Poland, we have seen on this thread the admission by Forum member wm, who generally promoites a Polish nationalist point of view, that as early as April 1939 POlish civilians were taking the law into their own hands in actions against their ethnic German neighbours.
Shouldn't these people be applauded not condemned?
Poland wasn't a poster-child of democracy but it is a great example of a grass root initiative that any democratic country should be proud of I suppose...

This reminds me of something.
If we assume that Germany was a mad dog of Europe, like Life Magazine did, the Free City of Dazing was certainly its mad puppy, and a mirror image of the Nazi Germany.

They had everything there: manipulation of elections, political murders (one example Danzig Socialist leader Hans Wichmann), banning of opposition parties, mass arrests, muzzling of the press, the totalitarian Enabling Act, Nuremberg laws (1938).
It was simply a group of thugs wanting to join the Outfit, nothing more.
It's a shame that the Polish goodwill towards Germany prevented Poland to fulfill more faithfully the role of the guardian of the Free City of Dazing. A few battalions of the Polish Army would greatly improve security and democratic standards there...
Last edited by wm on 16 Aug 2012, 11:11, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8759
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#748

Post by wm » 16 Aug 2012, 10:56

michael mills wrote:***With regard to this Polish claim of voodoo-like practices by Germans, I note that it has been studiously ignored by posters in this thread who have been arguing in favour of the Polish version of events. Presumably that is because to recognise that the Polish Government had made such a claim would be to admit that Poland was not just an innocent victim of German incitement, but had done plenty of incitement of its own.
Was it reported by the state-owned Polish Telegraphic Agency or it was an invention of one of a myriad of privately owned newspapers and magazines available in Poland?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15673
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#749

Post by ljadw » 16 Aug 2012, 12:00

wm wrote:
michael mills wrote:As for the German claims of Polish atrocities against ethnic Germans living in Poland, we have seen on this thread the admission by Forum member wm, who generally promoites a Polish nationalist point of view, that as early as April 1939 POlish civilians were taking the law into their own hands in actions against their ethnic German neighbours.
Shouldn't these people be applauded not condemned?
Poland wasn't a poster-child of democracy but it is a great example of a grass root initiative that any democratic country should be proud of I suppose...

This reminds me of something.
If we assume that Germany was a mad dog of Europe, like Life Magazine did, the Free City of Dazing was certainly its mad puppy, and a mirror image of the Nazi Germany.

They had everything there: manipulation of elections, political murders (one example Danzig Socialist leader Hans Wichmann), banning of opposition parties, mass arrests, muzzling of the press, the totalitarian Enabling Act, Nuremberg laws (1938).
It was simply a group of thugs wanting to join the Outfit, nothing more.
It's a shame that the Polish goodwill towards Germany prevented Poland to fulfill more faithfully the role of the guardian of the Free City of Dazing. A few battalions of the Polish Army would greatly improve security and democratic standards there...
And,what would be the Polish excuse to intervene ?
Restoring ruhe und ordnung ? Or better :reszta + porzadek publiczny ?
And,afterwards they always could publish the old Russian communique that order was reigning,not in Warsaw,but in Danzig .

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8759
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Historical Accuracy & the IMT Aggressive War Judgment

#750

Post by wm » 16 Aug 2012, 13:13

The numerous and gross violations of the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig, of which both Poland and the League of Nations were guardians according to the Article 103 of The Versailles Treaty, and the ultimately futile appeal for help made in 1936 by the Free City oppositional Social Democrat, German National and Catholic Centre parties.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”