ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 04:43 AM   #81
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,775
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Very much so but for every 'bad' thing that can be laid at the feet of the Allies (the USSR being a sad exception) far worse can be found in the camp of the Japanese, Italians and especially the Germans, and who drove this in Germany Hitler.

No Hitler* probably no WWII.

Probably a west vs Soviet war in the 50's though as communism spread throughout the world.

*a special award of shame to the French and British for NOT invading the Rhineland in 1936 - had they done so and shown strength against Germany early on - the war might have been avoided too.
While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:39 AM   #82
malbui
Beauf
 
malbui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,645
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
__________________
"But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?"
malbui is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:33 AM   #83
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Panama City Beach, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,087
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...

Hitler had given orders that if there were any opposition from the French, the troops occupying the Rhineland should withdraw immediately. It's also reasonably possible that he, and maybe even the entire Nazi party, could have been deposed had Britain and France stood up to him at this point. And even had the war started in 1936, the Allies would undoubtedly have won it far more easily and cheaply than they did historically.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:52 AM   #84
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,240
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So the Jews are Marxist, communist, capitalist, financiers.

And somehow you cannot spot a problem in that.

That's bizarre.
To be fair, neither could Adolf. There actually was some... bizarre CT logic behind it, to be fair. It wasn't just some contradictory statements being thrown around. There was some CT logic connecting them. It wasn't good logic, it wasn't even sane logic, but it was there.

The Jews were supposed to be all about controlling the banks and economy to make people finally be sick of the whole capitalism thing and want communism instead. Which would give the Jews even more control over everything, somehow.

Of course, like all CTs, it requires pretty much every member of an arbitrary category act like drones towards some goal, even when it's against their personal self interest. Kinda like in the medical CT, millions of doctors would rather they or their relatives die of cancer, than reveal that there's a cure for cancer. Or in this case that if some Jew actually is a banker and worth millions of dollars (which was a lot at the time), he'd gladly give that all up if it's to further some ill defined Jewish agenda.

And of course, it needs one to ignore the fact that most of the problems that NSDAP was blaming on the Jews in the 30's were actually self-inflicted.

E.g., while the propaganda machine churned nonsense pamphlets about how Jews are buying all the cattle, and that's why there's no meat, in reality it was Adolf's autarky policy which forbade meat imports in the first place. Traditionally a lot of that came from places like, say, Denmark. Well, Denmark still had a LOT of cattle to sell, and Germany still had the (now unused) abattoir capacity, but were forbidden from actually importing it.

So, yeah, the logic really got bizarre, to say the least. The Jews were supposedly causing some problems, which actually were due to NSDAP policy and no Jew had been consulted. And it was supposedly in the name of some Jewish beliefs and/or agenda, and totally not something like the actual belief in the imminent shrinking markets problem (which, BTW, 90 years later still hasn't happened) of the NSDAP leadership, and the actual NSDAP agenda of achieving autarchy. And supposedly the Jews had some goal of throwing us all into some backwards commie barbarism, unlike the actual NSDAP agenda of actually trying to de-industrialize and de-urbanize Germany to levels even worse than what the USSR had, if that complete autarchy of food and resource production were to ever be achieved. Etc.

Projection on a massive scale, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 08:54 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:00 AM   #85
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,357
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
While I agree with most of your post, I seriously doubt your claim that invading Nazi Germany in 1936 would have prevented a war. Surely this would have triggered one? Hitler wasn't one to let bygones be bygones...
Just the Rhineland that had been demilitarized

Quote:
The remilitarisation of the Rhineland (German: Rheinlandbesetzung) began on 7 March 1936, when German military forces entered the Rhineland, in direct contravention of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Locarno Treaties.

After the end of World War I, the Rhineland came under Allied occupation. Under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the German military was forbidden from all territory west of the Rhine and within 50 km east of it. The 1925 Locarno Treaties reaffirmed the permanent demilitarised status of the Rhineland. In 1929, German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann negotiated the withdrawal of Allied forces. The last soldiers left the Rhineland in June 1930.

Following the Nazis' taking power in 1933, Germany began working towards rearmament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. On 7 March 1936, using the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance as a pretext, Chancellor and Führer Adolf Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to march 3,000 German troops into the Rhineland, to joyous celebrations across Germany. The French and the British governments, unwilling to risk war, decided against enforcing the treaties.

The remilitarisation changed the balance of power in Europe from France and its allies towards Germany by allowing Germany to pursue a policy of aggression in Western Europe that had been blocked by the demilitarised status of the Rhineland.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:51 PM   #86
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,240
To be fair, it's often presented as if Britain and France were just a bunch of cowards.

The reality is somewhat more complex. Many Brits, most notably Chamberlain, seemed to actually be of the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles had gone a wee bit overboard -- not to mention that it was inconsistent AF in applying its supposed principles -- and weren't fundamentally opposed to amending it a bit.

(NB: Whether you or I actually agree that it was unfair or not, is beside the point. I'm just saying what the impression seemed to be at the time.)

Sure, maintaining the peace is one motivation, but the flip side of the coin is that they didn't seem to really think that every single point of the Treaty of Versailles HAD to be there in the first place. The corollary being that not everything in the Treaty of Versailles seemed worth going to war over.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's not like they were afraid to go to war over something vital. It's just that some stuff from the treaty seemed like stuff they can live without just as well, and thus wasn't worth going to war over.

And it's not just Chamberlain. In a democracy, which the UK was, if you want to have a war, you have to "sell" it to the public and the parliament. Germany or the USSR could just start a war just because the leaders wanted one. In the UK, you kinda had to convince the people that they need to. And unlike 1939, in 1935, see above: a big chunk of the public wasn't fanatical about enforcing Versailles.

In hindsight, sure, it may be obvious it was the wrong decision, but no politician got a ride in the TARDIS to see the effects in the future.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 08:54 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:06 AM   #87
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 354
Not to mention that in 1936 the UK economy was not up to fighting a war, as it still hadn't recovered from all that Depression stuff...That and some strong memories of pointless, nasty deaths in the mud baths of Flanders making another war something of a hard sell.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:46 AM   #88
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,775
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Hitler had given orders that if there were any opposition from the French, the troops occupying the Rhineland should withdraw immediately. It's also reasonably possible that he, and maybe even the entire Nazi party, could have been deposed had Britain and France stood up to him at this point. And even had the war started in 1936, the Allies would undoubtedly have won it far more easily and cheaply than they did historically.
I'd like to see the evidence for the claim that the position of the Nazi Party in 1936 was that precarious.
I also find it hard to believe that France, dedicated to an almost entirely defensive strategy, and Britain, woefully ill-equipped, would have won this war 'easily'.
If it took Britain, France, Russia, the US, plus the efforts of the resistance movements in the occupied countries and the free forces outside them, 6 years to defeat Germany, what makes you think that Britain and France alone could have done it easily and cheaply?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:00 AM   #89
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,131
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I'd like to see the evidence for the claim that the position of the Nazi Party in 1936 was that precarious.
I also find it hard to believe that France, dedicated to an almost entirely defensive strategy, and Britain, woefully ill-equipped, would have won this war 'easily'.
If it took Britain, France, Russia, the US, plus the efforts of the resistance movements in the occupied countries and the free forces outside them, 6 years to defeat Germany, what makes you think that Britain and France alone could have done it easily and cheaply?

Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:29 AM   #90
Carrot Flower King
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.
Maaaaan, that's, like, really deep...Have another hit on this...
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:46 AM   #91
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,775
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Because the German forces of 1936 were not the German forces of 1936.
Of course they weren't, and only a complete idiot would ever make such a ridiculous suggestion.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:57 AM   #92
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,131
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Of course they weren't, and only a complete idiot would ever make such a ridiculous suggestion.
You are the one that made the suggestion.
In what way was France 'woefully ill-equipped' in 1936 to take on the 'woefully ill-equipped' German forces of 1936?

You do know that a large part of the German tank force sent in to Poland and France were Mk1 training tanks, they only had a fraction of the transport and infantry formations of 39 and a similarly small air force?

If France had fully mobilised in 1936 they could have overwhelmed the german forces.
But, here's the thing, they would have been the aggressors in an unjustified war.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:59 PM   #93
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,240
Eh, sort of. France was also a democracy, you know? You can't just start a war whenever the guy at the top woke up in an angry mood.

And the French were seriously against that war. Even in '39, there were MASSIVE protests against the war and the mobilization, with "Why die for Danzig?" being pretty much the battle cry. (And again, I'm not saying that the French were cowards, but in France too pretty much nobody was willing to fight for the *********** that was half of Versailles.) And they had massive morale problems with that mobilization.

Try that in '36, and you'd pretty much get booted out of power over night.

Even more importantly, you seem to underestimate how big the problems of the FRENCH army were in '36.

The LEAST of problems being that they were right in the middle of those years without recruits. You start with people being in trenches instead of boning the missus in 1914, add 18 years to that, and yeah, that's about when you notice a dramatic dip in the number of recruitable people.

The bigger problem was that their doctrines were a (marginally) even bigger mess than in 1940. The effectiveness of an army isn't measured just in the number of people and guns, you know? Honestly, you'd have even more problems getting word up the ranks and back to get an artillery strike in time, the tanks were even less having any idea how to operate together with the infantry, etc.

The EVEN BIGGER problem was that France was having an even worst case of distrusting their own army in '36 than in '40. No, seriously. They probably would have trusted the Germans more than their own army. There was this... paranoia that the officer corps is a bunch of reactionaries and monarchists who are just itching to coup the republic. And as such, the number of officers had to be kept to a minimum, as was the duration of time that impressionable young men were exposed to those dangerous officers and their ideas.

Pretty much any request to professionalize the army a bit, or even have enough officers to actually train those recruits worth anything, or just have longer conscription so recruits had some time to be trained enough so they can train the next batch themselves, were causing whole $#!& storms in the parliament. Hell, even something like when later De Gaulle wrote a paper arguing for a more professional and well trained tank corps, an idiot politician waved it around in parliament as PROOF -- PROOF, I tell you! -- that the army officers want to have a sort of a praetorian guard to topple the government with.

So yeah, in the middle of THAT political climate, you want them to start a mobilization? And go to war with THAT army where most recruits hardly got enough training (among other reasons, again, for lack of enough officers and NCOs to train them) to even know which end to point at the enemy?

You're... seriously optimistic if you place much trust in that.

And for that matter, well, now you know why the British didn't put all that much trust in it either.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:15 PM   #94
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,735
The underlying philosophy behind France and the UK's reluctance for military action was WWI. WWI left deep scars in the men who fought, and then fifteen to twenty years later found themselves in positions of power in those countries. And believe even the older men in power in France and the UK lost friends and family in that war.

So nobody wanted another one.

Except Hitler.

The Germans were angry people after WWI. Most had no idea that they were losing the war until they surrendered due to censorship of the newspapers. Obviously this seeded a deep mistrust in the German government, and allowed all kinds of conspiracy theories to fester which the German National Socialist German Worker's Party capitalized upon. Throw in the fact that the various incarnations of Germany had been at war with somebody for 300 years and you find a population in 1936 that is fed up, and really ticked off. Ticked off enough to vote for Nazis.

The rest is history. Complex history that should be consistently reviewed to avoid repeating it.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.