Der Bromberger Blutsonntag

[schroedinger]

But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face.

What war is the Reverend talking about? Hitler's attack on Poland, or the Sitzkrieg in the West that followed the timid declaration of war by Britain and France?

The Polish border dispute that led to world war, of course.

It was no "border dispute". One week before the assault on Poland Ribbentrop and Molotov signed a pact with its secret addition dividing Poland between them. See:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

Of course, Mr. Physicist. The border dispute goes back to 1919 and became acute once the Allies, rather reactively, guaranteed Polish borders in March, 1939--thus forcing the Danzig problem to be settled by military force.

This logic basically means: When a woman is raped and gets injured it is her own fault - why would she try to defend herself? Thus the rapist had been forced to use violence.

The question was how to do it without involving the Russians in the Allied counterpoise. That solution was solved with Ribbentrop-Molotov by demarcating Soviet/German spheres of interest in Eastern Europe. Stalin got most of the old Russian empire back. Thus, Germany would be allowed to use military force against Poland and the Soviets would be allowed to claim half the territory.

With the Soviet Union out of the picture the Poles should have started backpedalling furiously because only supplication to the Führer on those border issues could save them now. Hitler's demands were still reasonable. Instead, they were puffed by their English friends. Albion was still a world-power but less and less so on the continent.

There were no "reasonable" demands of Hitler. All these Danzig and Corridor talks were just smokescreening; Hitler's real aims went further:

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be fighting. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics."
(Hitler, May 23, 1939)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm

It isn't all that hard to understand.

No, it isn't. Hitler wanted Poland and he got it.

[Scott Smith]

This logic basically means: When a woman is raped and gets injured it is her own fault - why would she try to defend herself? Thus the rapist had been forced to use violence.

Not quite because the coercion was not limited to Germany and Hitler's demands.

There were no "reasonable" demands of Hitler. All these Danzig and Corridor talks were just smokescreening; Hitler's real aims went further

The self-determination of Germans, denied at Versailles, was a reasonable demand. And so was the recognition that Poland was an Allied catspaw.

It isn't all that hard to understand.

No, it isn't. Hitler wanted Poland and he got it.

No, the Soviet Union did.

[schroedinger]

There were no "reasonable" demands of Hitler. All these Danzig and Corridor talks were just smokescreening; Hitler's real aims went further

The self-determination of Germans, denied at Versailles, was a reasonable demand. And so was the recognition that Poland was an Allied catspaw.

Funny how you left away the quote that exposed Hitler's ambitions:

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be fighting. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics."
(Hitler, May 23, 1939)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm

Funny how "self-determination of Germans" suddenly translates to "living space in the East".

[Scott Smith]

Funny how you left away the quote that exposed Hitler's ambitions:

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be fighting. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics."
(Hitler, May 23, 1939)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm

Your point is moot. War with Poland was virtually inevitable after the Guarantee in March, 1939. The only way to avoid it was to give in to Hitler's reasonable demands and keep dialog open. It takes a long time for enemies to build a trusting diplomatic relationship. Of course, if reasonable demands are "appeasement" then what is left but blood and thunder?

Funny how "self-determination of Germans" suddenly translates to "living space in the East".

Funny how it also translates into a declaration-of-war to save Poland from herself that becomes the liberation of half of Europe by the Red Army for almost half a century.

Russian imperialism never aroused a hysterical reaction from the West because it had always been successfully contained to Europe's nether reaches prior to the explosion of the Soviet atomic bomb in 1949. Russia was not a competitor with Albion. Germany was. One has to put one's priorities where one's cash lies.

[Roberto]

Funny how you left away the quote that exposed Hitler's ambitions:

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be fighting. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics."
(Hitler, May 23, 1939)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm

Your point is moot. War with Poland was virtually inevitable after the Guarantee in March, 1939. The only way to avoid it was to give in to Hitler's reasonable demands and keep dialog open.

What "reasonable demands", Reverend? Was "expanding our living space in the East" a reasonable demand? And what room was there for dialog when Hitler had decided to that there was "no question of sparing Poland" and that he was to "attack Poland at the earliest opportunity"?

It takes a long time for enemies to build a trusting diplomatic relationship.

When one thinks that the other occupies "living space in the East" he badly wants, all diplomacy is a waste of time.

Of course, if reasonable demands are "appeasement" then what is left but blood and thunder?

I suppose the "reasonable" solution, in Smith's perspective, would have been to hand over Poland to Hitler as had been done with Czechoslovakia - first the part he was making a fuss about, then all the rest of it.

Funny how "self-determination of Germans" suddenly translates to "living space in the East".

Funny how it also translates into a declaration-of-war to save Poland from herself that becomes the liberation of half of Europe by the Red Army for almost half a century.

~

If I well remember, there was a most brutal invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany in between the half-hearted declaration of war by France and Britain and "the liberation of half of Europe by the Red Army for almost half a century".

Russian imperialism never aroused a hysterical reaction from the West because it had always been successfully contained to Europe's nether reaches prior to the explosion of the Soviet atomic bomb in 1949. Russia was not a competitor with Albion. Germany was. One has to put one's priorities where one's cash lies.

The motivations of the Western Allies may not have been the most noble, but what does that have to do with the question why Hitler attacked Poland? Is the Reverend again trying to change the subject to get his neck out of the noose?

[schroedinger]

Funny how you left away the quote that exposed Hitler's ambitions:

"Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is, therefore, no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be fighting. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics."
(Hitler, May 23, 1939)

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-04-45.htm

Your point is moot. War with Poland was virtually inevitable after the Guarantee in March, 1939.

If it was, then because Hitler was determined for war anyway.

The only way to avoid it was to give in to Hitler's reasonable demands and keep dialog open.

That was what Hitler was trying to tell the world. Actually he was determined for war either way, if the Poles would have give in to his demands or not. As a matter of fact he was ready to orchestrate a farce if the Poles would have come to Berlin for so-called negotiations like the unfortunate Czech president Hacha; according to Franz Halder:

Was Hitler nach der Erinnerung Halders diesem als tatsächliche Zeitplanung vorstellte, zeigte die Entschlossenheit Hitlers, den Angriff auf jeden Fall zu führen: „30.8. – Polen in Berlin. 31. 8. – Zerplatzen. 1. 9. – Gewaltanwendungen.“ [...] Doch die Polen hatten gute Gründe, nicht zu kommen. Wie Hitler sein Angebot selbst bewertete, gab er später zu: „Ich brauchte ein Alibi, vor allem dem deutschen Volk gegenüber.“

(my translation)
What Hitler according to the recollection of Halder presented to him as the actual time schedule showed the determination of Hitler to lead the attack anyway: "August 30 - Poles in Berlin. August 31 - bursting. September 1 - application of violence." [...] The Poles had good reasons not to come [to Berlin]. Hitler later admitted how he assessed his offer himself: " I needed an alibi first of all for the German people."

(Hans-Ulrich Thamer: Nationalsozialistische Außenpolitik: der Weg in den Krieg. In: IzpB Nr.266)
http://www.bpb.de/info-franzis/info_266 ... 266_4.html

That's it, he needed an alibi. Some people still are selling this alibi today as if it were of real substance.

[alex228]

Sure all this could have happened. We Poles are not all angels, why should we? the cultures and civilizations do clash with such sad results as shown. In fact - almost all Polish history is dominated by the pressure from the stronger western neighbour.
take two dates form history books taught to children in PL;
966 - Poland baptised by czech missionaries. Written history begins.
why Czech? because Polish ruler (not a king yet) did not want accept Christianity from Germans, as this would make him look inferior to German emperor
972 - first recorded battle against Germans at Cedynia. Thanks to superior tactics Poles win this time
then comes the pagan rebellion but aferwards there is a succession of German incursions into Polish territory, again Germans are repelled thanks to highly defensive terrain, despite taking a few towns and outposts.
as one of the greates mistakes is considered duke's Konrad of Mazowsze introduction of Teutonic order knights into Poland, initially to fight pagan Baltic Prussians but soon the Knights became even greater threat, founded their own aggressive state in Prussia thereby giving foundations to Friedrich's prussia with its militarism. i could go on forever on this subject but will leave it to scholars
anyhow the conclusion is - for almost 1000 years Poles had nothing but trouble with Germans!What is word "slaves, Sklaven" derived from? from the fact that Germans conquered subjugated and turned into slaves the Slavic people of Polabia and Lusatia -now East Germany. And so proper name of Slavs became the term for a slave.

and remember that Poles were the first Slavic nation strong enough to try to counter German pressure. of course it required some hard strategy! and people are just people they do hate and kill each other sometimes
fortunately we can be friends now, this is an advantage of EU. we 've had enough of this crap. in fact I work in UK in a German car company, who relies mostly on Polish workforce
the factory joke is that since BMW bought off the Mini brand (one of the cars we produce parts for) the alternator belt WILL LAST FOR ONE THOUSAND YEARS!!!!
ah, I will just add that when I was young then my grandmother who was through the war tried to convnce me and my sister to learn German language. the reason was "If Germans ever come back this may save your lives" She did mean it!
greetings and regards to you all
Alex

[michael mills]

In fact - almost all Polish history is dominated by the pressure from the stronger western neighbour.

anyhow the conclusion is - for almost 1000 years Poles had nothing but trouble with Germans!

The above are examples of the Polish chauvinist version of history.

The fact is that Poland was itself an aggressive, expansionist power for much of its history. As late as 1920 it was trying to conquer huge amounts of territory to the east.

For example, under King Boleslaw I ( reg. 1034-55), Poland conquered Lusatia, Moravia, Slovakia, northern Hungary, and part of the western Russian lands.

It was only in the 18th century that Poland decayed and became an object of aggression by its neighbours (not only to the west).

And the fact is that many Polish kings invited Germans to come and settle on their territories, for the purpose of developing their lands using the superior economic and technical skills of the German settlers. So much for nothing but trouble.

It is true that the English word "slave" and the corresponding German word "Sklave" are derived from the ethnic denominator "Slav".

But the reason for the etymological development has nothing to do with the Germans.

Before the Slavic tribes became christianised, Jewish merchants from Spain travelled to Slavic territories in Eastern Europe to buy slaves there for export to Spain and other Muslim lands. The reason why they bought slaves from the Slavs was that Church Law prohibited Jews from owning Christian slaves, but did not prohibit their owning slaves who were pagan, as the Slavs then were.

As a result, slaves of Slavic origin became very numerous in Muslim Spain, and eventually the Arabic word for "Slav", "Saqlabah", cameto be used to denote slaves in general, even those not of Slavic origin. That usage was then borrowed by the European peoples, beginning with the Spanish Christians, then by the French and Italians, finally spreading to the Germans and English, displacing the original Latin term "servus".

Medieval Germans did not use a derivative of "Slav" to describe the peoples to their east, but only the term "Wenden".

[David Thompson]

alex228 and Michael Mills -- The topic is "Der Bromberger Blutsonntag". Please stay on it.

[David Thompson]

Two posts from alex228, which didn't contribute to the topic under discussion, were deleted by this moderator pursuant to the warning posted at viewtopic.php?p=834059#834059

[Peter K]

During the "Bromberger Blutsonntag" and during the following day - so Monday 4th of September - around 240 Poles were killed, including many soldiers.

Only on 3rd of September 30 Polish soldiers from 22. Infantry Regiment of 9. Infantry Division, 62. Infantry Regiment, reserves of 82. Guarding Battalion and other units were killed in action in Bydgoszcz.

Were they attacked and killed by unarmed civilians? - I don't think so.

Armed German saboteurs attacked the Polish forces in at least 46 different places all around the city.

Untill 16:00 the situation was got under control.

Apart from 30 KIA Polish soldiers, 110 armed German saboteurs were killed in action on 3rd of September in Bydgoszcz.

After the situation was got under control, on 3rd of September, 600 suspicious Germans were arrested - some of them had documents which said that they are not from Bromberg, some of them had no documents at all, and some more had got Polish military uniforms.

Total casualties of the German people on 3rd and 4th of September - armed and unarmed - were up to 300 dead (according to other sources - exactly 358 dead), including those 110 armed saboteurs KIA on 3rd of September. Total casualties of the Polish people on 3rd and 4th of September - armed and unarmed - were 240 dead, including those 30 soldiers KIA on 3rd of September.

But still among the biggest and most resistant for facts followers of the Nazi propaganda myth of "Der Bromberger Blutsonntag”, which was "invented" for the first time by Goebbels, are:

- Defender of the Nazi crimes - David Irving (whose friend and supporter is michael mills, as far as I know - someone told me that)
- Polish historian – Wladislav Jastrzebski

[Peter K]

By the way – in December 1939, German „Mordkomission” established, that there were 103 German victims of events which took place on 3rd of September 1939 in Bydgoszcz.

Goebbels however, in official report, gave a number of 5,000 victims.

In February 1940 – number grew to 50,000, later – to 58,000.

At the end, Hitler said, that 62,000 German civilians lost their lives there.

[David Thompson]

Domen121 -- sources, please, for our readers.

[Peter K]

Series of articles and interviews with specialists and historians, about these events – which were published in “Ekspres Bydgoski” ("Express of Bydgoszcz") newspaper – among them interview with German historian, Gunther Schubert, author of the book "Das Unternehmen Bromberger Blutsonntag. Tod einer Legende", and also Polish IPN Institute's bulletin, number 12-1 (35-36) 2003-2004, pages 24 - 27.

[David Thompson]

Thanks, Domen121.