I am afraid I dont see your point at all Kraxis.
Hm, that was not the intention and after rereading my post I dont see how you come to this conclusion. I am just showing the absurdity of critizising Englands and Polands firmer stand and blaming them as if they provoced the war after HITLER broke the Munichpact because critizising Poland and England for making a firmer stand against a warmongerer is what the article does.Well, you first post indicated that you had thought the article meant Britain broke the Munich treaty.
Yes indeed. I must repeat though that I didnt see any Polish demands for German territory and so on. It was Germany pointing its guns on Poland - thankfully other European countries finally realised it was time to say stop.The opinion of the article aside it isn't that susprising that Poland would pursue a more firm policy when Britain gave her support. That is only logical.
The points present in that article do not hold water at all. Perhaps if you ask David Irving they do but no serious historian will support those statements. Not important to lay blame you say... Well it is equally important not to make any dubious arguments as this article does trying to put blame where it definitly do not belong.That point alone doesn't lay blame, it merely gives a reason for it. When we work with it alone I can't see why it is so important to lay a blame... And we ARE working with the points on a one to one basis. Do they hold water at all, or are they faulty?
Can I ask you to be frank. Do you support the statements made in that article or not?
Again I am sorry to say I fail to see your point.
Kalle
Bookmarks