From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_an...y_after_the_war

Not very pleasant reading, Kurt.

Oh dear God.

I'm glad to know that you, at least, are able to dismiss allegations against Washington Democrats out of hand. As for myself, I haven't researched this topic enough to know what I should believe or disbelieve.

And now, we are the first country in history to have fat POWs as the detainees have each gained about 20 lbs at Gitmo.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/3/220704.shtml

Overall, that article sounded encouraging. However, I wish that human rights organizations were allowed greater access to Gitmo.

I'd encourage you to read more, if time allows. But read with an awareness that mainstream historians typically write from the Allied perspective. At times, this can create a very distorted or incomplete view of actual events.

Let me give you an example. The NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and other major organizations praised John Toland's book Adolf Hitler. We know that thing's mainstream. In the book, Toland mentioned that one of the reasons Hitler decided to attack Poland was because he felt the Polish were committing atrocities against ethnic Germans. But the only reason Toland brought this up at all was to show that Hitler had made a quick, emotional decision to go to war. He added that the subordinate had multiplied the numbers in the atrocity report by ten, so as to make a greater impression on Hitler. But was the original report (sans multiplication) an accurate one? Toland provides no help in answering this question. Nor have any other mainstream historians which I've encountered.

Germany, at least, alleged that the Polish government had embarked on a deliberate policy of atrocities against ethnic Germans, so as to provoke a German attack. Historians generally agree that Poland was eager for war, because they believed that together with the British and French, they could conquer Germany. This leads to a second distrubing question, which the mainstream historians I've seen have left unanswered--and indeed unasked.

Why was the Polish government so eager for war? Upon declaring war against Germany, neither Britain nor France initiated a major offensive against Germany. Germany was free to focus nearly its entire military effort on its eastern front. Clearly, the Polish government wouldn't have been eager for war unless it had been promised far more than England and France had delivered. I've read up on this issue, and the Polish were in fact promised a major French offensive according to a specific timetable. Once war came, this promise was ignored, and Poland was left in a hopeless position.

Britain and France sacrificed Poland to the Germans and the Soviets, the way a chess player might sacrifice a pawn. Poland remained under hostile foreign occupation until its liberation by Reagan, Thatcher, and Walesa. Britain and France didn't go to war to protect the Polish. On the contrary, a consequence of the British/French decision to go to war was that the Polish people had to endure half a century of brutality and hostile foreign occupation. Why, then, did Britain and France decide to go to war? Was the outcome of the war (a Europe mostly under Soviet control) worth the cost?

LOL! Tim McVeigh gain a lot of weight in prison. He was skinny when he went in and a fat ass when they killed him!

Oh, you make a great point. Ya, Poland was a joke and seemed ready for war. Chamberlain also believed that Poland was strong and that's why he made an alliance with them instead of the hated USSR, who would have been a great deterant., I don't remember the clowns name who was in charge of Poland, but he thought his country could be a factor in war. Why was Poland eager for war??? Hitler was pressuring the Poles in the Corridore. What was that city where there were riots? Not Danzig, the other one.

Not about to see your light
And if you wanna find hell with me
I can show you what it's like
Till you're bleeding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCNbSCynLds

It's funny you should mention the USSR; because that nation was so pivotal to the foreign policies of various nations between the wars. Between 1918 and 1921, a war took place between Poland and the Soviet Union. The British did nothing at all to help Poland due in part to pressure from the Trades Union Congress. The French sent a token force of a few hundred troops. In 1920 it appeared Poland would lose the war, as the Soviets had reached the Polish capital of Warsaw. Both Britain and France advised Poland to surrender.

Poland's experience clearly demonstrates that in the period between the wars, neither Britain nor France could be relied on to meaningfully resist Soviet expansionism. Fortunately for the nations of Eastern and Central Europe, Poland didn't need any real help from its supposed Western allies to successfully defend itself from Soviet invasion. It managed to win a decisive victory near its capital, and the next year the two nations signed a peace treaty. The Soviets postponed their expansion plans in order to consolidate their hold over Russia, and to build up their military and industrial might.

The Soviet delay created a breathing spell for the nations of Eastern and Central Europe. But while the shadow of Soviet expansionism had temporarily receded, it didn't go away. Lenin believed the Soviet Union couldn't survive unless Germany was communist. Stalin likewise envisioned a communist Germany, and toward the end of his life began planning to launch WWIII to achieve his objective. Nor is it clear that Soviet armies would have halted their march once they got to France.

In 1920, Poland was able to fight off the Soviets by itself because the Soviet military was weak, and the nation was still in a state of civil war. This situation wouldn't last forever. By about 1944, the Soviets would have the world's strongest military; a status they more or less would maintain at least until the 1980s.

A strong Germany was absolutely essential to counter Soviet expansionism. But under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was only allowed a token military. What would have happened had Germany not broken that treaty? It's quite possible the Soviets would have begun their expansion in the mid to late 1930s, conquering nations such as Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. It's doubtful either Britain or France would have responded more strongly to these invasions in the 1930s than they did to the invasion of Poland in 1920. Germany would have been the next nation invaded, and with only a token military its fate would have been certain.

Hitler hoped to conquer the Soviet Union before the Soviets had completed their militarization and industrialization. Such a victory would save Germany from Soviet invasion, it would allow Germany to farm enough to feed itself, it would destroy communism, and it would prevent Germany from ever again being subjected to the type of humiliating foreign occupation it had endured after WWI. The destruction of the Soviet Union was the central goal of Hitler's foreign policy.

However, France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. It's not clear to me why France would want to take the Soviet side in its cold war against Germany. Long-term Soviet foreign policy called for global conquest. Long-term German foreign policy merely called for the conquest of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the Soviet Union was a much larger nation than Germany, both geographically and by population size. For this reason, an expansionist Soviet Union was more fearsome than an expansionist Germany.

Three times during the 20th century, the U.S. rescued France from its own mistakes. The first time was WWI; which France should have handled differently. The second time was WWII, which France had a lot to do with. And the third time was the U.S. decision to protect France from the fact that it got what it wanted: utter Soviet domination over Germany. Had the U.S. not ended its isolationism, the Soviet victory against Germany in WWII would have resulted in the Soviet conquest of France as well.

Yeah, slaughtering millions upon millions of innocents can make a people pretty hungry. I guess we should have sent them some cheesecakes as a reward for their hard work.....


Yeah, I put a lot of credence in what the Germans have to say because they were always so honest in their dealings with the Polish. The Poles were obviously eager for war; I was in Gliewitz right before the war started and heard with my own ears a Polish radio broadcast urging everybody to take up arms against the poor innocent Germans.
Those damned war-mongering Poles started the whole thing!

Does this mean the Jews are off the hook?

You are correct in implying that we shouldn't place blind faith in the German government's words. Nor should we place blind faith in the words of FDR's administration, nor in the British government's statements. For example, FDR joined the British in claiming that Hitler had plans to take over the U.S. via Mexico. Those alleged plans were a complete fabrication and a deliberate lie. Hitler's plans involved the U.S. staying neutral and isolationist. Later, Allied governments would falsely claim that the Nazis had made lampshades out of human skin. Those allegations were passed along as fact by historians such as Shirer, but have been dismissed as propaganda by more recent mainstream historians.

When a given government makes atrocity allegations against an enemy, those allegations should neither be automatically accepted nor rejected. They should be carefully examined by impartial historians. For example, Germany accused the Soviet Union of murdering the Polish officer corps. After having removed eastern Poland from Soviet control, the German government allowed independent Western experts to examine the mass graves the Soviets had left behind. Based on the forensic evidence they examined, the Western experts concluded the German government's accusation was true: the Soviets had clearly engaged in mass murder against the Poles.

What makes the atrocity allegations against the Polish government interesting to me is that Hitler himself believed these allegations. Does that mean we should accept them at face value? No. But it's enough to make me want to know more.

That's not a bad video.