(The current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks engineered by Secretary of State John Kerry reminded me of similar negotiations that took place some seventy years ago.)
In a deal brokered by the American Secretary of State the German Chancellor today announced that Minister for Foreign Affairs Joachim von Ribbentrop would be traveling to Warsaw in an attempt to revive the peace process with Poland, which has been occupied by German troops since the 1939 war. Chancellor Hitler repeated his commitment to the “two state solution” but cautioned that “minor adjustments” would have to be made to the pre-1939 frontiers.
The Chancellor insisted that there be no preconditions for the talks, a clear attempt to circumvent the question of the Polish Right of Return. “Everything is on the table,” said Ribbentrop, noted for his earlier arrangement of a peace agreement with the Soviet Union. “We are willing to discuss every issue, even the difficult ones, in order to secure a just and lasting peace that will provide for the security of both the German Reich and the Polish people. We will settle for nothing less.”
Ribbentrop’s enthusiasm and optimism is, however, not shared by some observers. “There are simply too many serious problems that the Poles have shown no inclination to address,” explained Governor-General Hans Frank, who is opposed to the “two state solution” because it would eliminate the Reich-supported Governorate General, which he administers. “Our construction projects in the Governorate General have produced jobs for Poles and raised their standard of living in areas such as Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek and Belżec.”
A particularly thorny issue is the German settlement program. It is estimated that there are some two million Germans living in the occupied territories, two thirds of them brought in as new settlers. The remaining third are pre-war inhabitants rescued from Polish terrorism. The settlements are widely considered a violation of international law, particularly the fourth Hague Convention, but the Reich contends that Poland has never really been a defined national state and consequently international conventions are not applicable.
The creation of a Polish state would pose a serious problem for these Volksgenossen. Remaining in their homes would result in their being an oppressed minority, especially considering the primitive nature of Polish society and culture, which naturally views Germans with envy and hatred. But most would resist leaving their homes and land, which could only lead to violence, especially since the Poles have less regard for life than the Germans and other civilized peoples.
The case is also made that most of the territory claimed by the Poles is in fact German. The issue of West Prussia and Posen is of course clear to everyone: this obviously German territory was stolen from the Reich by the Versailles Treaty and must be returned. More controversial is the land that comprises central Poland. While this area has not been part of the modern German state, it was once German territory, as evidence by the large number of Germans living their prior to the 1939 war. It was inhabited by Germans as long ago as the third century, when the area was controlled by Vandals, Goths, Burgundians and other groups that made up “Germania,” which stretched from the Rhine to beyond the Vistula.
This is, however, an extreme view, and the Chancellor has indicated a willingness to make concessions to the Poles, such as granting them Warsaw and Lodz. In return the Poles must publically recognize the existence of the Reich as a “German” state. Any new Polish state would of course be demilitarized, and the Reich would maintain control of key strategic areas, such as the Vistula River. Such measures would be necessary to protect the Reich from any attacks emanating from Polish territory.
The Chancellor meanwhile commented on the current situation, denying emphatically that the condition in the Governorate General could be characterized as “apartheid.” He pointed out that the areas and roads restricted to Germans are solely for the purpose of protecting the population from Polish terrorism, and he explained how these measures also helped protect the Poles, who could be hurt by the high speed roads and unfamiliar machinery.
Finally, Chancellor Hitler addressed the recent bombing of Cracow. “Terrorists throwing rocks at German citizens cannot be allowed to go unpunished or the violence will only spread. If the casualties in Cracow seem disproportionately large, it is of course because the terrorist criminals were using innocent civilians as human shields.” He also noted that indefinite detention is in complete accordance with the laws of the Reich, as is the use of moderate physical pressure in obtaining information that could well save lives, both Polish and German. “We are not barbarians!”
Very interesting, and your point is ?
Lets agree on the historical facts.
-Judea (name changed) did not exist prior to the 1948 up rising.
-Judea was created to solve a very deep dilemma. The preservation of the Jewish people/faith.
-It was a bad solution to an even more wicket problem, the persecution and attempted whitewash of the Jewish people/faith. It was not the first pogrom against those people, just the biggest one.
-In military strategy you should never seek to whitewash your enemies army, as it will just make them more determined to fight to the death.
-Now that Judea (in all but name) exist we have to deal with it.
-A 2 state solution is the only way forward.
-We came close under a former Government, why we couldn’t go that extra 5%.
Please inform the political opponents, and the Settlers, that the Greater Judea vision is redundant.
-The West Bank buffer zone strategy is out of vogue, with the proliferation of long range m’s.
-The Water Supply issue is passe with water purification technology.
-So what exactly is the merits of occupying Tran-Jordan.
I can see none.
I look forward to the day
When tourist of “The 3 peoples of the Book” can visit The International City of Jerusalem, Tel, and Heb.
Or we to follow the parable of the 2 women arguing over a baby, because one of the women had lost it’s baby soon after birth. Are we to divide the child or give it up (out of a mothers love) ?
I am sure the populace of Judea and Trans-Jordan will accept a just and lasting peace, if you preach that parable.
I long for a day when that little track of land has embassies in all it’s neighours
The point is that ironically Israel frequently does things associated with the Third Reich. Has Israel painted itself into a corner? Two state solution means moving a half million Israelis out of west Bank, which seems tantamount to an Israeli civil war when one considers the trouble just getting a handful of settlers out of Gaza. They stay as a minority in the Palestinian State? Israel annexes the territory and either Jews become a minority in their country or Palestinians are kept in an apartheid state, the infrastructure of which is already in place. I see no solution. Meanwhile, Israel has a growing problem with their own Taliban – the Haredi
It makes you wonder if that Wall was put there to keep the Palestinians out of Israel proper. Or to help defend the settlers against an incursion by the Israeli Police and/or Army, stifling their expulsion from the West Bank. I say leave the settlers there, once their subsidized living goes, no schools, no police, they will return to Israel. There will be no need for a Berlin airlift.
In answer to the second issue, everyone else has to serve in the army. Let there be a referendum on exemption from service.