Danzig was a Nazi-run city pretty much since 1933. It was a "free city" supervised by the League of Nations. The Poles were not running it.

This debunks the "genocide" meme.

@redideologies

The local Danzig police was NSDAP-aligned and they collaborated during the 1939 invasion. They were a fifth column acting on behalf of Hitler in Poland. This is precisely why countries aim to assimilate ethnic minorities so that they don't act in this way.

@redideologies

Hitlertard logic:

"Stalin was bad for invading Poland and the Baltics and attacking Finland... but Hitler was good for attacking Poland, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Russia, etc."

"Stalin was bad for having Gulags... Hitler was good for having slave labor camps"

"Stalin was bad for being a communist (aka a socialist)... Hitler was good for being a socialist (aka a communist)"

"Stalin was bad for being a brutal dictator who took away people's rights, jailed/killed opponents, critics and anti-communists.... Hitler was good for being a dictator who took away people's rights, killing opponents, silencing criticism, etc... rights are fake and gay anyway"

"Stalin was bad for being an imperialist trying to spread his system and ideology... Hitler was good for being an imperialist trying to spread his system and ideology"

Are these people on crack or meth?

@redideologies

Stalin banned homosexuality. So are people going to tell me he wasn't a communist simply for being anti-gay?

Communism is the process of communalization of land and property. That can come with any manner of views on social topics.

The Imperial Japanese proposed adding a "racial equality" statute in the Treaty of Versailles.

@redideologies

https://t.me/redideologies/798

HITLER ORDERED THE ANTI-POLISH CAMPAIGN TO BE RATCHETED UP TO ‘80 PER CENT VOLUME:
"On 11 August, Hitler had one of his private aeroplanes fly the high commissioner of the League of Nations in Danzig, Carl Jacob Burckhardt, to Salzburg. He received the Swiss diplomat and historian in the Adlershorst, a large teahouse above the Berghof, and with no further ado revealed that at ‘the slightest incident’ he would ‘destroy Poland without warning’. When Burckhardt objected that this would bring a ‘general war’, Hitler exclaimed: ‘Then so be it!’ If he had to wage war, the Führer added, then ‘better today than tomorrow’. At the end of the conversation, as the high commissioner recalled in his memoirs twenty years later, Hitler reiterated: ‘I am not bluffing. If anything at all happens in Danzig or happens to our minorities, I will strike a hard blow.’ [1] Again Hitler showed how good he was at fooling his conversation partners, since no matter how things developed in Danzig, he was determined to go to war against Poland in any case. The same day he received Burckhardt, he ordered the anti-Polish campaign to be ratcheted up to ‘80 per cent volume’, causing Goebbels to note, correctly: ‘It is coming down to the final sprint.’ [2] "
~ Volker Ullrich, Hitler: Volume II: Downfall 1939-45
[1] Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission, pp. 341, 345. On the authenticity of Burckhardt’s account, see Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936–1945: Nemesis, London, 2001, pp. 898-9n118.
[2] Goebbels, Tagebücher, part I, vol. 7, p. 64 (entry for 12 Aug. 1939)."

Mussolini supported Italy's entry to World War I to speed up the overthrow of the monarchies and implement socialism quicker.

@redideologies

Here's some very interesting polling data from England before and during World War II demonstrating that the British public by and large supported the war and Churchill.

March 1939
- 78% of Brits against giving Germany former colonies back
- 70% would rather fight than give them back
- 86% of public in favour of friendlier ties with USSR

April 1939
- 73% in favour of Britain giving security guarantees to smaller European nations
- 87% in favour of a military alliance between Great Britain, France and Russia

May 1939
- 56% in favour of Mr. Churchill joining the cabinet

August 1939
- 76% in favour of going to war with Germany over Polish-German dispute on Danzig

September 1939 (war begins)
- 88% in favour of fighting Hitlerism until it is gone
- 77% disapprove of peace proposals with Germany at this time

November 1939
- 62% satisfied with government's conduct during war
- 54% in favour of bombing German military targets even if it meant reprisals

December 1939
- 56% believe Nazi Germany is a greater threat than USSR

February 1940
- 60% against discussion of peace proposals with Germany

March 1940
- 69% against peace talks with the Germans

May 1940
- 60% disapprove of Chamberlain
- 65% believe treatment of Germans in Britain has been "too lenient"
- 66% in favour of bombing German military targets even if it meant reprisals

July 1940
- 87% approve of Mr. Churchill as Prime Minister

October 1940
- 89% approve of Churchill
- 46% approve of bombing German civilians in response to Germany bombing of British civilians

November 1940
- 88% approve of Churchill
- 68% in favour of imposing harsher terms than Versailles if they win the war
- 60% say they would "contradict" someone suggesting a negotiated peace with Germany at this stage

Source

@redideologies

Map of Germanic settlements throughout history. Some regions are missing but it's pretty accurate.

Preeminent colonists WITHIN Europe. Attacking mostly other White countries.

World War II had nothing to do with the "Treaty of Versailles" which Hitler promptly tore up in 1933, refused to pay the reparations, immediately commenced rearmament, reoccupied and militarized the Rhineland, annexed the Sudetenland in the Munich Agreement (British appeasement), annexed the rest of Czechia five months later, annexed Austria, and controlled Danzig via proxy forces by mid-1930s. Despite adhering to NONE of Versailles' dictates the big powers appeased Hitler all the way until 1939. Not being held to a single line written in the Versailles Treaty, Hitler still invades Poland, then sneak attacks the USSR, declares war on the USA after Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, etc. WWII truly was "Hitler's war" for the purposes of Germanic ethnic expansion and domination of Europe.

Notice that the natsocs have essentially the same narrative as the Marxists but just attach a more specific cultural or ethnic identity to the oppressed vs oppressor groups.

Traditional Marxists say the "workers" (of any race, creed, etc.) are the oppressed and the "capitalists" (business owners) are the oppressors.

NS/fascists simply add more detail to this concept: "white workers" are the oppressed and "Jewish capitalists" are the oppressors... although you will find that they also oppose non-Jewish capitalists and view them the same way, so this conforms pretty closely to the Marxist line, but the "workers" they defend have to be White.

So really, it's the same narrative that comes from Marx with more specific groups emphasized as the oppressor vs oppressed.

My view is not that "Jews are bad because they're capitalists" (not all of them are capitalists and that's the peasant envy critique you get from natsocs).... but that there is an issue with them being by and large hyper-leftists politically due to their paranoid reading of history. There can also be an issue of disloyalty to the nation if they're hyper-Zionists as well.

"They're rich so they're bad" is not an argument that holds much weight with anyone but peasants.