data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ed6f1/ed6f1baf142e88186a0967167f3cb85a298e6020" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85d68/85d687dbc1dc6cec3496999895612d0401d122c1" alt=""
Well I’m not sure if that’s from the book you suggested, but if it is I must say the language is a tad bit romanticized lol. Might I suggest better sources
I don’t know if the other three chapters you suggested get any better but in your quote it only argues that collaborating with the nazis was “their only option” if you first agree to start from the premise that they *checks notes* “just had to claim those territories” to which they “had a far better right”
Imagine if the UK or the US had allied with the nazis and attacked Western Europe in the back, out of fear and begging them for spoils… (as some politicians argued, I might add)?
It most certainly includes direct casualty numbers as well, for Poland and many other conflicts.
Well, I think that’s the main issue here. Siding with the nazis, attacking Poland in the rear when they were fighting the nazis, committing horrible crimes against the Polish population and POWs … You really, really cannot imagine not having to do even one of those