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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


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.
Tags World War II history

Reply
Old 15th May 2020, 05:08 PM   #1
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

Mod Info This thread began as a discussion on the attack on a maternity ward in Afghanistan, but has been comprehensively derailed into a discussion on WWII. Accordingly I have split the thread.
Posted By:Agatha


Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
So the takeaway lesson from this event, in which some people decided their best course of action was to murder babies (Afghan babies, not the babies of the people who bombed them) is that perhaps if we had just let the Nazis have Poland we wouldn't have annoyed them so much that they murdered all those millions of Jews.

Is that what you're arguing?
This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939 (illegally because not approved by parliament in France's case; Nazi Germany did not want a new war with France and the UK at that time, partly because of ideological and racial reasons, and partly because of some bad memories from the previous war).

The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.

Perhaps it would also have been a good thing that the Poles accept the construction of a highway between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (with appropriate bridges), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor.

Last edited by Agatha; 31st May 2020 at 09:38 AM.
Michel H 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 18th May 2020, 07:39 AM   #2
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,137
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939 (illegally because not approved by parliament in France's case; Nazi Germany did not want a new war with France and the UK at that time, partly because of ideological and racial reasons, and partly because of some bad memories from the previous war).

The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.

Perhaps it would also have been a good thing that the Poles accept the construction of a highway between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (with appropriate bridges), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor.
So basically you've never learnt any actual history of WWII, just perused whatever is on Stormfronts recommended reading list?
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 18th May 2020, 07:54 AM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,026
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939 (illegally because not approved by parliament in France's case; Nazi Germany did not want a new war with France and the UK at that time, partly because of ideological and racial reasons, and partly because of some bad memories from the previous war).

The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.

Perhaps it would also have been a good thing that the Poles accept the construction of a highway between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (with appropriate bridges), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor.
Why are you making excuses for Nazi aggression?
theprestige 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 18th May 2020, 08:37 AM   #4
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,192
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why are you making excuses for Nazi aggression?

Edgy uniforms?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 18th May 2020, 09:23 AM   #5
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,507
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why are you making excuses for Nazi aggression?
One could make an ugly utilitarian argument. If the Jews had just marched to the camps like good little volk, and the Poles had just said, sure, build a highway, what could possibly go wrong, the rest of the world would not have suffered so.

Forget the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the Nazis' characterization of the poles as expendable cattle to be enslaved and displaced, and the expressed and implemented desire to eradicate the Jews altogether. No doubt Hitler would have been quite reasonable if we'd just let him have his way on those minor details. Now Adolph, you've had enough streusel for tonight. You wouldn't want to get a tummyache would you?

No doubt Hitler would have stayed true to his word and never broken a promise. It's not his fault if he got all pissed off and stuff.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto 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 18th May 2020, 09:34 AM   #6
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,026
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
One could make an ugly utilitarian argument. If the Jews had just marched to the camps like good little volk, and the Poles had just said, sure, build a highway, what could possibly go wrong, the rest of the world would not have suffered so.

Forget the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the Nazis' characterization of the poles as expendable cattle to be enslaved and displaced, and the expressed and implemented desire to eradicate the Jews altogether. No doubt Hitler would have been quite reasonable if we'd just let him have his way on those minor details. Now Adolph, you've had enough streusel for tonight. You wouldn't want to get a tummyache would you?

No doubt Hitler would have stayed true to his word and never broken a promise. It's not his fault if he got all pissed off and stuff.
There's also the horrific double standard. Michel H says, "The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on."

Prior to Hitler, the Germans could easily have done the same, regarding the Polish Corridor. But Michel H doesn't condemn the Nazis for resorting to violence instead of peaceful protests. He just condemns the Poles for meeting violent aggression with violent defense.

Michel H, why do you keep making excuses for Nazi aggression? Why do you not hold Hitler to the same standard of peaceful dialogue that you impose on the Poles?
theprestige 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 18th May 2020, 09:47 AM   #7
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
Yes indeed.

And the Soviets would have been so moved by Hitler's good example that they would have apologised for the Katyn massacre and meekly withdrawn from the other half of Poland.

Further, without the dastardly provocation of the British and French, Hitler would never have got so annoyed that he accidentally invaded Russia, so all that unpleasantness would have been avoided, and thus inspired by the power of appeasement the US would have persuaded all nations to suspend their embargoes against Japan, and Japan in turn would suddenly have seen the foolishness of their rampant culture of militarism and imperial expansion, and swept it away.

Peace would reign for a thousand years.

All spoiled because the UK and France wouldn't just let Germany invade Poland, not even a little bit. Meanies.
Jack by the hedge 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 18th May 2020, 08:29 PM   #8
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There's also the ... double standard. Michel H says, "The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on."

Prior to Hitler, the Germans could easily have done the same, regarding the Polish Corridor. But Michel H doesn't condemn the Nazis for resorting to violence instead of peaceful protests. He just condemns the Poles for meeting violent aggression with violent defense.

Michel H, why do you keep making excuses for Nazi aggression? Why do you not hold Hitler to the same standard of peaceful dialogue that you impose on the Poles?
I agree that the rules, and the duty to always try to avoid war, should apply uniformly to all. This means: just as much to the Germans (assuming we are in 1939, rather than in 2020), than to the British, the French, the Soviets and so on.

After Britain and France declared war in 1939, they first badly lost, in the initial phase of the conflict, and this emboldened Hitler who felt invincible, and attacked the large Soviet Union. Similarly, Japan felt emboldened and encouraged by the initial military successes of its Axis ally, and dared to attack the U.S., another major power, a decision that it would dearly regret.

So I think that saying the decision by the UK and France to attack Germany was a bad move is really an understatement.

The Germans were understandably unhappy in 1939 because their country had been divided by the Treaty of Versailles (the so-called Polish Corridor separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany), but they had a great responsibility in WWI, and they had to accept (in my opinion) the consequences. If they wanted a large highway connecting Eastern Prussia with the Western part of Germany, something apparently refused by the Poles, they could have filed a complaint to the League of Nations, or try to provide financial or economic incentives to try to make the Poles change their mind.

The current view held by many on WWII can be summarized by the simplistic equation "Hitler = the Devil". And the Americans are also often portrayed as the "good guys" of WWII.

However, being able to manufacture more bombs (including atomic ones) and being ready to use them on civilian populations (including women and children), on a massive scale, while demanding unconditional surrender for personal confort and "enjoyment", should really not make any nation "the good guys". This means that the current interpretation and analysis of WWII is both wrong and dangerous, because it sets the stage for American "madness" and arrogance, which is, in my opinion, one of the great political diseases of our time.

Last edited by Michel H; 18th May 2020 at 08:32 PM.
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 02:03 AM   #9
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
After Britain and France declared war in 1939, they first badly lost, in the initial phase of the conflict, and this emboldened Hitler who felt invincible, and attacked the large Soviet Union.
So now you're saying the great sin of the UK and France was not declaring war on Germany, it was failing to win, thereby forcing Germany to attack more countries. Does your analysis also consider whether conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was eventually inevitable, even if France and the UK had done nothing?

Quote:
Similarly, Japan felt emboldened and encouraged by the initial military successes of its Axis ally …
Japan was not Germany's ally and there was no axis until both nations found themselves fighting the same enemies, and that was basically the moment Hitler chose to declare war on the USA after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact Japan was more closely allied to Britain until breaking that alliance became a condition of the disarmament talks that led to the Washington Naval treaty of the 1920s.

Quote:
The current view held by many on WWII can be summarized by the simplistic equation "Hitler = the Devil". And the Americans are also often portrayed as the "good guys" […] the current interpretation and analysis of WWII is both wrong and dangerous
Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? You describe a moronically simplistic two slogan view of WWII and then imply that represents "the current interpretation and analysis".

Have you considered that you might be massively wrong?
Jack by the hedge 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 19th May 2020, 03:36 AM   #10
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
So now you're saying the great sin of the UK and France was not declaring war on Germany, it was failing to win, thereby forcing Germany to attack more countries.
...
Have you considered that you might be massively wrong?
Quote:
So now you're saying the great sin of the UK and France was not declaring war on Germany, it was failing to win, thereby forcing Germany to attack more countries.
No, that's not at all what I am saying (or trying to say; I really would not like this kind of Trumpian mentality: "your great sin was that you failed to win"). What I am saying is that the (bad) decision to declare war to Germany triggered a kind of catastrophic chain reaction.
Quote:
Japan was not Germany's ally and there was no axis until both nations found themselves fighting the same enemies, and that was basically the moment Hitler chose to declare war on the USA after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact Japan was more closely allied to Britain until breaking that alliance became a condition of the disarmament talks that led to the Washington Naval treaty of the 1920s.
This is completely wrong, I am afraid. Wikipedia explains:
Quote:
The Axis grew out of the diplomatic efforts of Germany, Italy, and Japan to secure their own specific expansionist interests in the mid-1930s. The first step was the treaty signed by Germany and Italy in October 1936. Benito Mussolini declared on 1 November 1936 that all other European countries would from then on rotate on the Rome–Berlin axis, thus creating the term "Axis".[1][2] The almost simultaneous second step was the signing in November 1936 of the Anti-Comintern Pact, an anti-communist treaty between Germany and Japan. Italy and Spain joined the Pact in 1937. The "Rome–Berlin Axis" became a military alliance in 1939 under the so-called "Pact of Steel", with the Tripartite Pact of 1940 leading to the integration of the military aims of Germany, Italy and Japan.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers)
Quote:
Have you considered that you might be massively wrong?
Yes, sure. Like when we debate telepathy, I could be wrong, this is always a possibility. However, to convince me (or other people) that I am wrong, you have to present convincing arguments.
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 03:49 AM   #11
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Like when we debate telepathy, I could be wrong
Yes. Exactly like then.

I will though certainly concede I was wrong about Japan's move towards alliance with Germany and Italy. An anti-communist pact does rather indicate that Hitler's attack on Russia didn't come out of a clear blue sky, don't you think? (If only I could have heard what you were thinking, I might not have made that mistake.)
Jack by the hedge 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 19th May 2020, 04:08 AM   #12
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
An anti-communist pact does rather indicate that Hitler's attack on Russia didn't come out of a clear blue sky, don't you think?
Yes, you may be right on this, but you also have to take into account that Germany and the Soviet Union had signed a treaty of non-aggression in August 1939, which had led to the division of Poland, which was shared between the Nazis and the Soviets from 1939 to 1941, until the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. In 1941, Germany and the Soviet Union seemed to be allied, this is why many people were surprised at the time, I think (including Stalin), when Hitler decided to attack. I suppose overconfidence after his military successes on the Western front was probably a factor there.

Last edited by Michel H; 19th May 2020 at 04:25 AM.
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 06:11 AM   #13
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
He might have got confident after his success in France, and Stalin might have got cautious after his failure in Finland. It doesn't mean they were going to be pals and live in harmony if the battle of France hadn't happened. Britain and France had their hands forced by the invasion of Poland. Neither was ready to do anything about it. Hitler wasn't ready to fight on two fronts when he attacked Russia either but the Western front was static with neither side able to invade the other and if you wait until you're ready you'll find the other guy has decided not to wait.
Jack by the hedge 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 19th May 2020, 06:43 AM   #14
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,695
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.

Perhaps it would also have been a good thing that the Poles accept the construction of a highway between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (with appropriate bridges), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

Quote:
The White Rose (German: Weiße Rose) was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in the Third Reich led by a group of students including Hans and Sophie Scholl. They attended the University of Munich. The group conducted an anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign that called for active opposition to the Nazi regime. Their activities started in Munich on 27 June 1942, and ended with the arrest of the core group by the Gestapo on 18 February 1943.[1] They, as well as other members and supporters of the group who carried on distributing the pamphlets, faced show trials by the Nazi People's Court (Volksgerichtshof), and many of them were sentenced to death or imprisonment.

Hans, Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst were executed by guillotine four days after their arrest, on February 22nd, 1943. During the trial, Sophie interrupted the judge multiple times. No defendants were given any opportunity to speak.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 19th May 2020, 09:50 AM   #15
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,137
Obviously it was the British and the French who drove Hitler to war, its not like Hitler wrote down some manifesto in which revenge against France and the occupation of Eastern Europe and the USSR was explicitly spelled out along with his undying hatred of the Jews...
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison 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 19th May 2020, 12:18 PM   #16
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939 (illegally because not approved by parliament in France's case; Nazi Germany did not want a new war with France and the UK at that time, partly because of ideological and racial reasons, and partly because of some bad memories from the previous war).

New York Times, March 19, 1939 p.1:
Deputies Accord Decree Powers To Daladier to Defend France

PARIS, March 18.--Dictatorial powers for the remainder of this year were conferred on Premier Edouard Daladier today by the Chamber of Deputies by a vote of 321 to 264.

Tomorrow it will be the turn of the Senate, and, if it does as expected, parliamentary rule will be in effect suspended in France until M. Daladier sees fit to permit its resumption.
And the next day:

DALADIER IS UPHELD STRONGLY IN SENATE

Further, from 1939: Countdown to War, by Richard Overy:
The Chamber and Senate unanimously voted 90 billion francs [more than three times the entire defense budget for 1938] in war credits, the equivalent, in Daladier's view, to a declaration of war.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.

Yes, because the Nazis would never have ordered their troops to open fire on peaceful demonstrators.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Perhaps it would also have been a good thing that the Poles accept the construction of a highway between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (with appropriate bridges), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor.

First, Hitler didn't just demand a highway, he demanded the entire city of Danzig (Gdansk). But that was just a pretext for war. He wanted all of Poland for lebensraum. From Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947, by Tadeusz Piotrowski, p. 115:
On August 22, 1939, just before the German army crossed the Polish border, Hitler personally instructed the top Wehrmacht officers in what was to be done with the Poles:
Our strength lies in our speed and our ruthlessness. Genghis Khan caused the death of millions of women and children deliberately and without any qualms. But history sees him only as a great founder of a state. I do not care what the helpless civilisation of Western Europe thinks about me. I have issued orders to shoot anyone who dares utter even one word of criticism of the principle that the object of war is, not to reach some given line, but physically to destroy the enemy. That is why I have prepared, for the moment only in the East, my "Death's Head" formations with orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need." [italics original; note omitted]

__________________
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 19th May 2020, 02:25 PM   #17
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
The Chamber and Senate unanimously voted 90 billion francs [more than three times the entire defense budget for 1938] in war credits, the equivalent, in Daladier's view, to a declaration of war.
It is true that, on September 2 1939, France's parliament approved a bill for large military spending (without any debate, those who wanted to speak were not allowed to), after Hitler's (brutal) invasion of Poland, but this still is not a vote for an offensive war.

Article 9 of the French Constitution at the time said:
Quote:
Le président de la République ne peut déclarer la guerre sans l'assentiment préalable des deux chambres.
("The president of the Republic may not declare war without previous approval by both chambers of parliament")

But such an approval never happened! This is explained for example in this book (in French): https://books.google.be/books?id=nJ_...%201939&f=true

France's declaration of war of September 3, 1939 was therefore illegal.

By the way, historically, this article was introduced in 1875 in the French Constitution after emperor Napoleon III recklessly declared war to Germany in 1870, which led to a bad defeat (of France). This shows its meaning and great importance.

When a country is illegally invaded by another, I think it is generally better to resort to local resistance rather than war (which, with modern technological means, can lead to enormous number of deaths and casualies, and huge destruction). Of course, you have to be careful, to try to limit the risks for yourself and for others.

Last edited by Michel H; 19th May 2020 at 03:52 PM.
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 02:52 PM   #18
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Obviously it was the British and the French who drove Hitler to war, its not like Hitler wrote down some manifesto in which revenge against France and the occupation of Eastern Europe and the USSR was explicitly spelled out along with his undying hatred of the Jews...
I assume you are referring here to Hitler's book Mein Kampf. There is an interesting anecdote about this book, which actually shows how much Hitler wanted to avoid war with France.

Mein Kampf's original text (in German) contained anti-French statements like:
Quote:
The new development of the German nation must take place in particular to the detriment of the Russian territories, the countries of central and Danubian Europe, but also in the west, to the detriment of France which he considers as "inexorable and deadly enemy of German people ".
However, Hitler was very angry when he learned that this text was be published in French without his approval. He sued the publisher, won, and approved a different translation, which said:
Quote:
The border between Germany and France is definitively fixed. The French and German peoples who are equal before the law must no longer consider themselves as hereditary enemies but must respect each other.
(Reference: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf)
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 03:32 PM   #19
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
In no way does that suggest Hitler wanted to avoid war with France, rather it suggests that he preferred to offer reassuring lies to the French about his true feelings and intentions.
Jack by the hedge 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 19th May 2020, 03:54 PM   #20
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,453
Way to hijack a tragedy. ISIS are determined to be the worst of the worst. They exist partly as the result of the American invasion of Iraq, but also partly as the result of the rise of extreme, fundamentalist Islam that was created by Saudi Arabia. Whatever it was that created them, they are insane and determined to be so.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person 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 19th May 2020, 04:04 PM   #21
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
In no way does that suggest Hitler wanted to avoid war with France, rather it suggests that he preferred to offer reassuring lies to the French about his true feelings and intentions.
It seems to me Hitler ordered a modification of his book for the French because he wanted to have good relations with them, and did not want to unecessarily provoke them.
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 04:10 PM   #22
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Way to hijack a tragedy. ISIS are determined to be the worst of the worst. They exist partly as the result of the American invasion of Iraq, but also partly as the result of the rise of extreme, fundamentalist Islam that was created by Saudi Arabia. Whatever it was that created them, they are insane and determined to be so.
Quote:
Way to hijack a tragedy. ISIS are determined to be the worst of the worst.
This is what you say, but you are not really bothering to quote them. I hope that your beliefs do not stem from reading Donald Trump on Twitter.

A few years ago, after a terror attack in Europe, I watched a video by them (this doesn't mean approval, of course). It seems to me that, in it, they explained the attack was an act of retaliation, following Western bombings against them.
Michel H 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 19th May 2020, 04:42 PM   #23
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,695
So, no comment about how peaceful anti-Nazi protests went for the White Rose then? I'm shocked.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 19th May 2020, 05:08 PM   #24
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
So, no comment about how peaceful anti-Nazi protests went for the White Rose then? I'm shocked.
Trying to oppose Adolf Hitler in wartime, when Germany was under allied bombing, was certainly very dangerous. I am not surprised several members of the group you mention ended up executed.

Perhaps they could have criticized a little more the UK and US, who had demanded unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy and Japan in January 1943 (Casablanca conference).
Michel H 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 20th May 2020, 04:22 AM   #25
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It seems to me Hitler ordered a modification of his book for the French because he wanted to have good relations with them, and did not want to unecessarily provoke them.
Yes. He wanted to avoid hostility at that time. He didn't want to provoke them by revealing his true feelings about them. And it in no way suggests he wanted to avoid war with France, only that he preferred to do so on his own terms and at a time of his choosing. Very similar to his pact of friendship with the Soviet Union.
Jack by the hedge 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 20th May 2020, 04:28 AM   #26
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
A few years ago, after a terror attack in Europe, I watched a video by them (this doesn't mean approval, of course). It seems to me that, in it, they explained the attack was an act of retaliation, following Western bombings against them.
Were you surprised to find that an ISIS propaganda video sought to justify their actions? This is a rhetorical but nevertheless serious question.

Do you suppose Western governments began bombing ISIS because they decided they needed the target practice, or do you suppose there might have been previous significant events which that ISIS "retaliation" video didn't dwell on?
Jack by the hedge 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 20th May 2020, 04:46 AM   #27
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,498
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.
So the Polish horsemen could have defeated the German tanks if sufficiently motivated. Have you any clue how daft such an idea is?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 20th May 2020, 06:45 AM   #28
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is true that, on September 2 1939, France's parliament approved a bill for large military spending (without any debate, those who wanted to speak were not allowed to), after Hitler's (brutal) invasion of Poland, but this still is not a vote for an offensive war.

Article 9 of the French Constitution at the time said:

("The president of the Republic may not declare war without previous approval by both chambers of parliament")

But such an approval never happened! This is explained for example in this book (in French): https://books.google.be/books?id=nJ_...%201939&f=true

France's declaration of war of September 3, 1939 was therefore illegal.

No. The parliament voted to allow Daladier to rule by decree, so in effect they gave advance approval to all of the actions he took. The wisdom of granting the head of government of a democracy the power to rule by decree is questionable, but the practice had well established precedents in France in 1939. Can you point to any rulings by French courts, or any opinions of distinguished French legal scholars, that Daladier's declaration was illegal? If not, you are merely throwing this claim out in an attempt to delegitimize France's declaring war on Germany, merely because you wish France and Britain had simply given Germany free reign in Eastern and Central Europe.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
By the way, historically, this article was introduced in 1875 in the French Constitution after emperor Napoleon III recklessly declared war to Germany in 1870, which led to a bad defeat (of France). This shows its meaning and great importance.

And if the parliament had been concerned about Daladier's declaring war without good cause, they could have explicitly reserved that power to themselves when they voted to allow him to rule by decree. Undoubtedly most deputies and senators were aware that a war was likely to break out before the end of the year. But they did not make any such reservation in the decree law.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
When a country is illegally invaded by another, I think it is generally better to resort to local resistance rather than war (which, with modern technological means, can lead to enormous number of deaths and casualies, and huge destruction). Of course, you have to be careful, to try to limit the risks for yourself and for others.

Again, exactly how do you believe the Nazis would have dealt with such resistance?
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 07:04 AM   #29
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Trying to oppose Adolf Hitler in wartime, when Germany was under allied bombing, was certainly very dangerous. I am not surprised several members of the group you mention ended up executed.

Yes, because the Nazis never killed anyone for political "crimes" prior to 1939.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Perhaps they could have criticized a little more the UK and US, who had demanded unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy and Japan in January 1943 (Casablanca conference).

Exactly what conditions do you believe the Axis powers would have accepted? And what reason would the Allies have had to have believed that the Axis (especially Germany) wouldn't have attacked again after they'd licked their wounds for a few years?
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 10:56 AM   #30
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,695
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Trying to oppose Adolf Hitler in wartime, when Germany was under allied bombing, was certainly very dangerous. I am not surprised several members of the group you mention ended up executed.

Perhaps they could have criticized a little more the UK and US, who had demanded unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy and Japan in January 1943 (Casablanca conference).
But you suggested that the Poles should have peacefully protested against the Nazis when they (the Nazis) invaded. You made the rather obvious inferred claim that they would have been much more successful than in trying to resist them with force. That the deaths of a large number of Poles weren't due to the Nazi's being evil bastards but due to them fighting against a hostile resistance.

I showed you what happened to peaceful protest movements in Nazi Germany. They were executed. Brutally.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 20th May 2020, 11:57 AM   #31
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
But you suggested that the Poles should have peacefully protested against the Nazis when they (the Nazis) invaded. You made the rather obvious inferred claim that they would have been much more successful than in trying to resist them with force. That the deaths of a large number of Poles weren't due to the Nazi's being evil bastards but due to them fighting against a hostile resistance.

I showed you what happened to peaceful protest movements in Nazi Germany. They were executed. Brutally.
Well, assuming you live in an occupied country by Germany around 1940, your best course of action is probably to do nothing special, and to obey the orders of the occupying power (and, if you are a Jew, try to hide, or hide your identity, though I think the French Jews were actually generally not deported by the Germans during the German occupation of France), at least for some time.

My mother, born in 1933, and who unfortunately died a few days ago from COVID-19, lived the occupation period by Germany in Belgium, and, believe it or not, she once told me that, at some point, the Germans had oranges distributed in schools, and they said this was a present from the German military (!). The British and Americans were more distributing bombs from the sky, I believe (business as usual ).

Nevertheless, the Germans were not well liked by most Belgian people at the end of the war, and many felt happy to be "liberated".

Last edited by Michel H; 20th May 2020 at 01:17 PM.
Michel H 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 20th May 2020, 12:21 PM   #32
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Do you suppose Western governments began bombing ISIS because they decided they needed the target practice, or do you suppose there might have been previous significant events which that ISIS "retaliation" video didn't dwell on?
Claiming Western governments began bombing ISIS "because they decided they needed the target practice" would certainly be an exaggeration.

The reality is sinister enough, there is no need for exaggeration, and the reality, as I understand it (or I think I understand it) is that Western nations are bombing ISIS in order to provide military support to essentially the United States of America (their NATO ally) who illegally invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. I believe lawyers call this "aiding and abetting a crime".

And it seems to me the fundamental reason why the U.S. (with some allies) invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (after 9/11) was to help Israel "steal" more land every month to the Palestinians. This has been basic U.S. policy for about 50 years now, and is (and has been) probably the basic cause of much of Middle East terrorism (at least, before the war in Yemen, which is more related to opposition and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran).

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the ISIS people and the Taliban (and even the Iranians) should also make an effort to evolve and change: they should adopt democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, education for girls, right to divorce, right to dress as they like for women, without a dress code imposed by elderly male clerics, and so on. As long as the Taliban and ISIS do not adopt basic human rights, there may unfortunately be some legitimacy to Western occupation (or military assistance).

Last edited by Michel H; 20th May 2020 at 01:14 PM.
Michel H 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 20th May 2020, 12:55 PM   #33
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
No. The parliament voted to allow Daladier to rule by decree, so in effect they gave advance approval to all of the actions he took. The wisdom of granting the head of government of a democracy the power to rule by decree is questionable, but the practice had well established precedents in France in 1939. Can you point to any rulings by French courts, or any opinions of distinguished French legal scholars, that Daladier's declaration was illegal? If not, you are merely throwing this claim out in an attempt to delegitimize France's declaring war on Germany, merely because you wish France and Britain had simply given Germany free reign in Eastern and Central Europe.




And if the parliament had been concerned about Daladier's declaring war without good cause, they could have explicitly reserved that power to themselves when they voted to allow him to rule by decree. Undoubtedly most deputies and senators were aware that a war was likely to break out before the end of the year. But they did not make any such reservation in the decree law.
The New York Times link you gave yourself in post #21 explains:
Quote:
Putting his dictatorial powers for national defense into immediate operation, Premier Edouard Daladier has decreed absolute silence on himself and his Ministers with respect to all decisions taken.
Granting a government "special powers" (as was indeed done in France, on March 19, 1939, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_en_France#Mars ) for "national defense" is not the same thing as granting the power to launch a very grave offensive war with huge and tragic consequences because another country was attacked. This goes way beyond defense of the national territory.

This book: "La drôle de guerre. L'entrée en guerre des Français" ("The phony war. The entry into war for the French") by Fabrice Grenard: https://books.google.be/books?id=fJ4...201939&f=false
, and which seems rather neutral explains:
Quote:
Après la défaite de la France, ceux qui étaient partisans de la paix et rallièrent le régime de Vichy accuseront Daladier et son gouvernement d'avoir "fait entrer la France dans la guerre illégalement", sans demander l'avis de la représentation nationale.
(translation: After the defeat of France, those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime accused Daladier and his government of having "brought France into the war illegally", without asking for the opinion of the national representation.)
Michel H 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 20th May 2020, 01:00 PM   #34
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,498
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Claiming Western governments began bombing ISIS "because they decided they needed the target practice" would certainly be an exaggeration.

The reality is sinister enough, there is no need for exaggeration, and the reality, as I understand it (or I think I understand it) is that Western nations are bombing ISIS in order to provide military support to essentially the United States of America (their NATO ally) who illegally invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. I believe lawyers call this "aiding and abetting a crime".

And it seems to me the fundamental reason why the U.S. (with some allies) invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (after 9/11) was to help Israel "steal" more land every month to the Palestinians. This has been basic U.S. policy for about 50 years now, and is (and has been) probably the basic cause of much of Middle East terrorism (at least, before the year in Yemen, which is more related to opposition and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran).

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the ISIS people and the Taliban (and even the Iranians) should also make an effort to evolve and change: they should adopt democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, education for girls, right to divorce, right to dress as they like for women, without a dress code imposed by elderly male clerics, and so on. As long as the Taliban and ISIS do not adopt basic human rights, there may unfortunately be some legitimacy to Western occupation (or military assistance).
OK. At what point did the great nation state of palestine exist, ever?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 20th May 2020, 01:55 PM   #35
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The New York Times link you gave yourself in post #21 explains:

Granting a government "special powers" (as was indeed done in France, on March 19, 1939, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_en_France#Mars ) for "national defense" is not the same thing as granting the power to launch a very grave offensive war with huge and tragic consequences because another country was attacked. This goes way beyond defense of the national territory.

There were no such reservations in the law. Further, how is it that no one whose opinion mattered (that is, no one except Nazi and Soviet sympathizers and extreme pacifists) objected at the time? And declaring war in defense of an ally who has been (by your own admission) brutally attacked is not an "offensive war." Fail. Finally, if the French parliament didn't approve of declaring war, then why didn't the opposition call a vote of no confidence?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
This book: "La drôle de guerre. L'entrée en guerre des Français" ("The phony war. The entry into war for the French") by Fabrice Grenard: https://books.google.be/books?id=fJ4...201939&f=false
, and which seems rather neutral explains:

(translation: After the defeat of France, those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime accused Daladier and his government of having "brought France into the war illegally", without asking for the opinion of the national representation.)

I asked for court rulings and opinions of distinguished legal scholars, not the opinions of Vichy supporters. Fail.
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 02:35 PM   #36
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
My condolences on the loss of your mother to Covid-19, Michel.
Jack by the hedge 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 20th May 2020, 02:49 PM   #37
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
There were no such reservations in the law. Further, how is it that no one whose opinion mattered (that is, no one except Nazi and Soviet sympathizers and extreme pacifists) objected at the time? And declaring war in defense of an ally who has been (by your own admission) brutally attacked is not an "offensive war." Fail. Finally, if the French parliament didn't approve of declaring war, then why didn't the opposition call a vote of no confidence?




I asked for court rulings and opinions of distinguished legal scholars, not the opinions of Vichy supporters. Fail.
Quote:
There were no such reservations in the law.
I have not seen the exact text of the March 19, 1939 law granting special powers to the French government. I tried to read it, but the wikipedia link seems to be inactive. If you have seen it (either in French or in English), I invite you to post it here (or a good summary). However, from the various descriptions of it I have seen, it is rather clear to me that this was not a text transforming France into a dictatorship led by "Führer Daladier", I think its scope was more limited.
Quote:
Further, how is it that no one whose opinion mattered (that is, no one except Nazi and Soviet sympathizers and extreme pacifists) objected at the time?
There was a meeting of French parliament on September 2, 1939 in order to allocate money to the military (war declared the next day). Some members of parliament wanted to speak, but they were not allowed to, there was no debate at all (this is obviously not good in a democracy, before an important decision). This is explained in this book: https://books.google.be/books?id=fJ4...201939&f=false.
Quote:
And declaring war in defense of an ally who has been (by your own admission) brutally attacked is not an "offensive war."
I disagree. The invaded Poland had a right to defend itself (note though that Hitler's goal was to unify his country which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles), but, if the French decide to invade and bomb Germany, they are going on offense against Germany to ridiculously try to play the "heroes".
Quote:
I asked for court rulings and opinions of distinguished legal scholars, not the opinions of Vichy supporters.
I think that, when you read the sentence: "After the defeat of France, those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime accused Daladier and his government of having brought France into the war illegally, without asking for the opinion of the national representation.", it must presumably be understood that "those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime" were the finest and most distinguished politicians of the time (probably many of them were law and government experts), who were unanimous in saying the war was illegal. Supporting Maréchal Pétain seemed to be a very good option at the time to bring peace to the country (and it worked: France suffered probably much less in WWII than in WWI).

Last edited by Michel H; 20th May 2020 at 02:50 PM.
Michel H 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 20th May 2020, 02:59 PM   #38
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
My condolences on the loss of your mother to Covid-19, Michel.
Thank you, Jack by the hedge.
Michel H 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 20th May 2020, 03:11 PM   #39
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,026
I like how quickly this thread, ostensibly about a terrorist attack in Afghanistan, has turned into yet another apologia for Nazi atrocities.
theprestige 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 20th May 2020, 03:13 PM   #40
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,026
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The invaded Poland had a right to defend itself (note though that Hitler's goal was to unify his country which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles), but, if the French decide to invade and bomb Germany, they are going on offense against Germany to ridiculously try to play the "heroes".
A nation has the right to defend itself from invasion, but can't ask for help in defeating their aggressor?

That seems stupid and perverse.
theprestige 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 » History, Literature, and the Arts

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 02:51 AM.
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.