Before Poland the international community repeatedly did everything they could to avoid the war by just giving Hitler whatever he wanted. Including letting him occupy 2 entire countries.
As for "international finance", Poland that Hitler decided to destroy at all cost was discriminating against Jews even on the small business scale, and had outlandish ideas like sending the Jews away as colonists to Madagascar after aquiring it as an overseas colony (much more realistically, Poland was covertly helping the right-wing Zionists to achieve independence for Palestine from Britain so the Jews would go there - which was also the original Nazi plan before "the resettlement to the east").
Jews themselves as Zionists were seeking emigration from Germany and the NatSocs were pleased to help them go. See book link below.
Not that the willingness of jews to be emigrated should be considered a factor in assessing the operation anyway, since surely Germany had as much right to carry out enforced ethnic cleansing as any other country.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
But then, perhaps ethnic cleansing was really okay. History does give us mixed signals on that topic.
For a good example of how the morally impeccable League of Nations viewed ethnic cleansing, see its support for the Greece-Turkey "populaton exchange" of 1923. The League of Nations High Commissioner who oversaw that sword-and-fire-enforced mass population movement had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just the year before.
This major compulsory population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion, was based not on language or ethnicity, but upon religious identity,
So we have to ask, is ethnic cleansing acceptable or not? Or is it just not aceptable when it is done to jews or by Germans? Or is it okay when it is done by jews to Palestinians? Or by the international jew to Germans?
Please clear this up for me. I really do feel that I am caught in a terrible moral dilemma.
For your reading pleasure and, I am sure, also your edification:
Current historical writings dealing with matters related to the Third Reich paint a bleak picture. This applies especially to writings that deal with the Jewish ethnic group.
To this day there are still accounts of the Jewish emigration that depict it as some kind of clandestine operation ?- as if the Jews who wished to leave Germany had to sneak over the borders in defiance of the German authorities, leaving all their possessions and wealth behind.
The truth is that the emigration was welcomed by the German authorities, and frequently occurred under a constantly increasing pressure. Emigration was not some kind of wild flight, but rather a lawfully determined and regulated matter. Weckert's booklet elucidates the emigration process in law and policy, thereby augmenting the traditionally received picture of Jewish emigration from Germany.
German and Jewish authorities worked closely together on this emigration. Jews interested in emigrating received detailed advice and offers of help from both sides. The accounts of Jews fleeing Germany in secret by night across some border are untenable. On the contrary, the German government was interested in getting rid of its Jews. It would have been senseless to prevent such an emigration.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
Source: German descent in Poland, the fuck you even talk about lmao
(Nothing even remotely like "95%" too, unless you mean some odd small village or whatever)
Before Poland the international community repeatedly did everything they could to avoid the war by just giving Hitler whatever he wanted. Including letting him occupy 2 entire countries.
As for "international finance", Poland that Hitler decided to destroy at all cost was discriminating against Jews even on the small business scale, and had outlandish ideas like sending the Jews away as colonists to Madagascar after aquiring it as an overseas colony (much more realistically, Poland was covertly helping the right-wing Zionists to achieve independence for Palestine from Britain so the Jews would go there - which was also the original Nazi plan before "the resettlement to the east").
Yet for some reason they decvalred wa on Germany but not on the Soviet Unnion which invaded Poland two weeks later.
"Some reason" was the allied pressure.
Jews themselves as Zionists were seeking emigration from Germany and the NatSocs were pleased to help them go. See book link below.
Not that the willingness of jews to be emigrated should be considered a factor in assessing the operation anyway, since surely Germany had as much right to carry out enforced ethnic cleansing as any other country.
After all, wasn't enforced ethnic cleansing the official policy and approach of the countries that imposed the Treaty of Versailles? That is - everywhere except where German national self-determination was concerned. Otherwise, why was Germany butchered by having vast portions of her land, with 95% ethnic Geman populations, cut off and handed over to ethnically hostile peoples as hostages to what turned out to be a very cruel fortune? And of course, they were ethnically cleansed from those areas in the most brutal and genocidal ways.
But then, perhaps ethnic cleansing was really okay. History does give us mixed signals on that topic.
For a good example of how the morally impeccable League of Nations viewed ethnic cleansing, see its support for the Greece-Turkey "populaton exchange" of 1923. The League of Nations High Commissioner who oversaw that sword-and-fire-enforced mass population movement had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just the year before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
So we have to ask, is ethnic cleansing acceptable or not? Or is it just not aceptable when it is done to jews or by Germans? Or is it okay when it is done by jews to Palestinians? Or by the international jew to Germans?
Please clear this up for me. I really do feel that I am caught in a terrible moral dilemma.
For your reading pleasure and, I am sure, also your edification:
"Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich"
Ingrid Weckert
https://en.book4you.org/book/1093787/f574a4
Source: German descent in Poland, the fuck you even talk about lmao
(Nothing even remotely like "95%" too, unless you mean some odd small village or whatever)