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 3rd June 2020, 08:55 AM   #121
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, this is not true. I think it is very unfortunate that the Jews, who were already suffering so much (and very unfairly) under Hitler in Nazi Germany, suffered even more after the declaration of war by UK and France, in September 1939, apparently brought the Holocaust, as Hitler had warned in January 1939:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud
(and, by the way, thank you to Saggy for his post).

I do think, however (we should always think a little about our current time, about 2020), that there is an analogy between U.S. and Israeli policies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan (and towards Iran) and other countries on the one hand, and Nazi expansionist policies in Eastern Europe on the other hand.
Ah poor Hitler!! (Snark) The horrible allies forced him to persecute the Jews and mass murder them!! (Snark) No doubt they held a gun to his head and forced him to do it!!! (Snark)

What absolute rot. Hitler wasn't forced etc., to do it. He did of his own free will. What sort of ideological fanatic mass murders millions of men, women and children, by means of starvation, bullets and gas because he has a delusional belief that some how they are guilty of causing a war? Well Hitler was that sort of fanatic and just how safe were other Europeans and the Germans themselves with that sort of ideological fanatic prey to delusionary notions running around wielding power?

Already in January 1939 Hitler was planning for war with Poland and was concerned that like with Munich someone might deprive him of the war he wanted. So Hitler decided, well ahead of time, to blame others for causing the war he was planning to start. It is called projection. (I will here put in here that Hitler had started his preparations for war right from early 1933 on.)

Hitler hated Jews with an intensity that was truly remarkable and in my opinion psychotic. All you have to do is read Mein Kampf were you can find purple prose passages about Jews being Vampires, Jewish youths waiting to rape Aryan women, Jews being parasites etc. And of course you will find passages in which Hitler hallucinates that the Jews will destroy humanity etc. And a couple of passages where Hitler hallucinates with satisfaction mass murdering Jews via gassing! That such a man ruled a powerful nation is astounding. To me it is obvious that at least as early has the writing of Mein Kampf Hitler had decided that if he could he would commit genocide against the Jews.

To repeat All Hitler had to do to avoid war was not invade Poland. He did anyway knowing full well the risk he was running and then proceeded to institute policies that made peace, except at the price of destroying the Nazi regime impossible. (His liquidation of the Polish state etc.)

Before Hitler committed suicide he dictated a last will, where once again he whined about how "International Jewry" etc., forced him into war and that the real enemy paid for it with their lives, although Hitler then whined about it being by more "humane methods", and Hitler then proceeded to call upon the Germans to continue the fight Against "Jewry" to the end. UGH!! If there is a hell Hitler belongs in it.

Hitler viewed Jews has basically not just "sub-humans" but has anti-humans, whose existence was a threat to the survival of the human race. That along with Jews being compared to germs, parasites, disease in general was obviously genocidal in implication. Hitler's attempts to offload his responsibility onto his victims is mere projection. Just like his attempt to blame the war he wanted on his victims also.

That this murderous loon attained high office and wielded great power is one of the greatest, if not greatest, tragedy in human history.
Pacal 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 3rd June 2020, 09:05 AM   #122
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,033
It seems to me that there is no such thing as "the declaration of World War II".

A lot of related things happened over the period 1938-1939. Together, they mark the overall onset of the conflict later known as "the second World War."

Was the anschluss legal?

Was the annexation of Sudetenland legal?

Was the further annexation of Czechoslovakia legal?

Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact legal?

Was the military alliance between Great Britain and Poland legal?

Was the invasion of Poland legal?

Was the allied response to the invasion legal?

Legal in what sense?
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 3rd June 2020, 10:44 AM   #123
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Actually, I think we can put a pretty exact date on when it became World War 2. And that is early December 1941. Until that point there were a lot of conflicts around the world, but they were separate conflicts. E.g., the Japanese fighting in China were not obviously the same war as what happened between Germany and Poland. When both Japan and Germany ended up all in the same war against the same powers, that's basically when you can start properly calling it a world war. IMHO.
__________________
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 3rd June 2020, 12:02 PM   #124
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 45,772
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, I think we can put a pretty exact date on when it became World War 2. And that is early December 1941. Until that point there were a lot of conflicts around the world, but they were separate conflicts. E.g., the Japanese fighting in China were not obviously the same war as what happened between Germany and Poland. When both Japan and Germany ended up all in the same war against the same powers, that's basically when you can start properly calling it a world war. IMHO.
Ah, that's one way to claim the USA weren't late to enter a World War for the second time.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 3rd June 2020, 12:32 PM   #125
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,033
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, I think we can put a pretty exact date on when it became World War 2. And that is early December 1941. Until that point there were a lot of conflicts around the world, but they were separate conflicts. E.g., the Japanese fighting in China were not obviously the same war as what happened between Germany and Poland. When both Japan and Germany ended up all in the same war against the same powers, that's basically when you can start properly calling it a world war. IMHO.
The US was actively if unofficially involved in the European conflict, on the side of the UK and France, before any formal declaration of war.

Was that legal?
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 3rd June 2020, 04:45 PM   #126
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,550
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Sadly enough, history proved soon enough that there could be more. As soon as the invasion of Poland started, einsatzgruppen were sent along to start rounding up and shooting Jews in the occupied territories. And in July 1941 Heydrich was tasked with finding a "final solution to the Jewish problem", which was finalized at the Wannsee Conference in January 1942. When basically it was turned from ad hoc pogroms into an industrial-like operation.

So, yeah, if you thought it couldn't get any worse at at the time of the Kristallnacht, hoo boy, it was about to get a whole lot worse.

Yes, I get your point. I would argue that the seeds of the Holocaust had been so thoroughly sown by 1939 that England's declaration of war did little to nothing to speed it up. Frankly, since Hitler had to expend so much manpower on his western front, it may have slowed it down.

And for those fond of quoting Mein Kampf, they might take notice of the virulent anti-semitism on full display in that thing. Hitler was not in the mood to not murder Jews.


Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
The one time that there were widespread peacefull protestations against the nazi treatment of the jews (the February strike in 1941), it was beaten down by the nazis.
And the jews were killed anyway!

So much for peacefull protests in the nazi world.

There was the Rosenstrasse protest in 1943, where the gentile wives of Jewish men protested their deportation. The men were eventually returned to them and not harmed again during the war. This was a small group of a few hundred women but it was peaceful and, in order to head off a public relations nightmare, it did work.

I believe Hitler ordered that the men be ultimately deported (murdered) after the end of the protests, but Goebbels disregarded the order.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 3rd June 2020 at 04:52 PM.
Loss Leader 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 3rd June 2020, 05:09 PM   #127
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
let's face it, peaceful protest against fascist in power seldom if ever works.
Once they are in power you genrally have to shoot them to get them out of power...
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 3rd June 2020, 05:10 PM   #128
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
The only support Micahel H is getting in this thead is from an open Neo Nazi. He should really think hard about that.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 3rd June 2020, 05:43 PM   #129
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
And for those fond of quoting Mein Kampf, they might take notice of the virulent anti-semitism on full display in that thing. Hitler was not in the mood to not murder Jews.
TBH, as someone who's actually read Mein Kampf, I'd say a lot of the *ahem* Adolf fans seem to either not know what's in it, or basically ignore it. Kinda like with Jesus fans and the Bible.

E.g., Adolf spends whole pages in Mein Kampf going on about how Germany must secure and control resources and vital space in the east. And then there's all the foaming at the mouth about Judeo-Bolshevism (somehow for him the Jews controlled the money in order to... then lose it all to communism.) And so on. And then the *ahem* fans come with stuff like that oh noes, he (probably) wouldn't have attacked the USSR if England and France hadn't declared war. Err... hello? Never mind that the logic is rather shoddy anyway, that somehow already having a front makes one want to go for two. But apparently, nah, he may have spent almost two DECADES arguing the need to invade the east, but apparently he totes wouldn't have done it unless he also had a front with the west too

Or he may have gone on about how France is Germany's arch-enemy and must be dealt with, but if it was removed from the French version, I'm supposed to believe that he totally didn't actually MEAN it

So, yeah, I never thought I'd feel an urge to ENCOURAGE neo-nazis to read Mein Kampf, but sometimes... you know...
__________________
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 3rd June 2020, 06:13 PM   #130
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,159
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Thank you for continuing to avoid answering direct questions. The lack of a direct response speaks volumes.
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Which direct question do you have in mind?
Really? You quote direct questions and you don't answer them. Did you forget them?

Questions to you:
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
[edited post showing selected questions that were avoided ]
First, what sort of peace terms do you believe Germany and Japan would have accepted?
And why would the Allies have believed that those countries wouldn't have attacked again in a few years?

Second, if the French Parliament didn't approve of Daladier's guaranteeing Poland, his giving Germany an ultimatum, or of his declaring war on Germany, then why didn't the opposition call for a vote of no confidence on any of those occasions? And why was it only after France had surrendered that some Vichy supporters started claiming that the declaration of war was illegal?


First, are you seriously suggesting that the Western Allies' occupations of Italy, Germany, and Japan bore any resemblance to Italy's occupation of Ethiopia, Germany's occupation of Poland and Ukraine (or even of France), or Japan's occupation of the Philippines, Malaya, and other countries and colonies in Asia?

Second, are you aware of ISIS's stated goals? What possible compromise could be achieved by negotiation?

Finally, can you give us some evidence of any significant anger or desire for revenge against the Western Allies in any of those countries today, or at any time after the occupations ended?
And your reply?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Perhaps the U.S. and its allies (governments of Iraq and Afghanistan) could offer to free some ISIS prisoners. As you probably know, this has been decided and done for Taliban prisoners (I suspect, though I shall not claim to be an expert, that the difference between the Taliban and the Islamic State is less big than what the U.S. is saying - but it seems, unfortunately, to be part of U.S. ideology to try to demonize some people). Another possible idea (?): the Taliban could try to bring an ISIS representative next time they meet the Americans.
Nothing to do with anything.
Little 10 Toes 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 4th June 2020, 05:54 PM   #131
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Just repeating that it's illegal, doesn't make it so. I realize that for neo-nazi apologists it's the best they can do, but it still doesn't become a valid argument just because someone is unable to make a better one.
The reason why France's declaration of war to Germany, on September 3, 1939, was (in my opinion) illegal is explained in detail (in French) by revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard on his blog:
3 septembre 1939 : une guerre antidémocratique et illégale
(3 September 1939: an anti-democratic and illegal war)
Link: https://blogue-sc.com/2019/09/3-sept...ue-et-illegale
, using two videos:
https://vk.com/video463816896_456239294
https://vk.com/video463816896_456239295.
I find his arguments rather convincing (although I somewhat disagree on some details).

According to article 9 of the French Constitution at the time, the President of the Republic could not declare war without a previous agreement given by both chambers of parliament, an agreement which was never given and never sought.

France had in 1939 agreements of mutual assistance with Poland (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco...lliance_(1921)), but these agreements required mutual "aid and assistance" (which could take the form of sending arms to an invaded Poland, or accepting Polish refugees [Jewish or non-Jewish] for example) in case of aggression, they did not require to invade Germany and kill German soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive), or to start an economic war by imposing a naval blockade to Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocka...ny_(1939-1945) ). France did these two (war-like) things, and got an invasion.
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 4th June 2020, 06:31 PM   #132
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Really? You quote direct questions and you don't answer them. Did you forget them?

Questions to you:


And your reply?
SpitfireIX asked:
Quote:
First, what sort of peace terms do you believe Germany and Japan would have accepted?
And why would the Allies have believed that those countries wouldn't have attacked again in a few years?
Quote:
what sort of peace terms do you believe Germany and Japan would have accepted?
If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries), and therefore no peace terms would have been necessary. In the case of Japan, Roosevelt launched a very serious and devastating economic war by imposing an oil embargo, the war could have been avoided by using a more prudent and moderate approach (for example, a reasonable export quota, as SpitfireIX suggested himself).
Quote:
why would the Allies have believed that those countries wouldn't have attacked again in a few years?
In the case of Germany, knowing the kind of person Adolf was, there was, in 1939, a serious possibility he would have eventually attacked the Soviet Union, but I don't think a declaration of war by the UK and France was the best response to this threat. Generally (and the same is true for China, which was partly occupied by Japan in 1939), when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people. I believe that war should be made mostly obsolete.
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 4th June 2020, 07:04 PM   #133
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries), and therefore no peace terms would have been necessary.
Yes if they had just let Nazi-Germany establish a warmongering genocidal empire throughout Central and Eastern Europe, whose war machine is fueled by captured slaves being worked to death, everything would have worked itself out in the end and the world would be at peace.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 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 4th June 2020, 07:31 PM   #134
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Yes if they had just let Nazi-Germany establish a warmongering genocidal empire throughout Central and Eastern Europe, whose war machine is fueled by captured slaves being worked to death, everything would have worked itself out in the end and the world would be at peace.
There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.
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 4th June 2020, 09:04 PM   #135
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Yes, the US clearly left the Iranian government no choice but to open fire on unarmed demonstrators.
Congratulations, you join the small list of members whose dishonest posts I skip over without reading.

Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007
Quote:
The United States, which was leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear plans, has said Iran's gasoline imports are a point of "leverage."
2007 Gasoline Rationing Plan in Iran
Quote:
In an interview Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "They [Americans] had a plan and idea that is neutralized. They don't know our nation. They think if they refuse to provide us with gasoline, our nation would say we don't want nuclear energy.
Actions, Consequences. Intended or not, once again the US was responsible for triggering violence in a foreign country. And once again an apologist tries to deflect. If that is the standard of your debate...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 4th June 2020, 09:34 PM   #136
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,724
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.
Or, alternatively, Hitler was a genocidal maniac with a loyal following of genocidal maniacs that *needed* to loot other countries to pay for the crippling debts their economic mismanagement was causing and if they'd been allowed a free hand it's possible there would also be virtually no more Poles by the time he would have attacked France anyway.

You seriously need to read up what happened in the so-called General government and the annexed parts of Poland the minute the Nazi's were in charge. That was not a panic action caused by a war, that was the execution of a pre-planned policy that was disrupted by the war so it could not be carried out to the fullest.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 4th June 2020, 10:58 PM   #137
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,550
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In the case of Japan, Roosevelt launched a very serious and devastating economic war by imposing an oil embargo, the war could have been avoided by using a more prudent and moderate approach.

What the what? Japan had designs on the entire ring of fire. It had invaded Korea and coastal China. It had designs on Australia. Japan was never going to stop. Economic sanctions would hardly have worked given the resources Japan would have been fully in control of except for American intervention.


Quote:
when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people.

That's bananas. The Rosenstrasse protests were not by an invaded country and they did not convince the leader that he did something wrong. They were a tiny (couple hundred) group of German women protesting inside Germany regarding their German husbands. And even as the husbands were returned, they were told not to get comfortable because they would be deported again. The leader, Hitler, was never convinced he did anything wrong or against the people. Goebbels disregarded Hitler's order for public relations purposes. By that point, it was already 1945 and Hitler had far bigger problems than finding out whatever happened to the Rosenstrasse husbands.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
France had in 1939 agreements of mutual assistance with Poland (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco...lliance_(1921)), but these agreements required mutual "aid and assistance" (which could take the form of sending arms to an invaded Poland, or accepting Polish refugees [Jewish or non-Jewish] for example) in case of aggression,

By what route?

Seriously, by what route would Hitler had allowed France to send military equipment to Poland? France-England-Norway-Sweden-Latvia-Poland? Or France-Algeria-Libya-Egypt-Turkey-Ukraine-Poland?

The Germans under Hitler had completely walled off all of Eastern Europe and Russia from Allied help. Which was their plan. Because they were genocidal lunatics hell-bent on blaming the whole rest of the world for their problems.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 4th June 2020 at 11:09 PM.
Loss Leader 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 5th June 2020, 01:42 AM   #138
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In the case of Germany, knowing the kind of person Adolf was, there was, in 1939, a serious possibility he would have eventually attacked the Soviet Union, but I don't think a declaration of war by the UK and France was the best response to this threat. Generally (and the same is true for China, which was partly occupied by Japan in 1939), when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people. I believe that war should be made mostly obsolete.
Jesus F Christ, this has to be the most retarded thing I've read all year. You want to abolish DEFENSIVE war (as in, when attacked, just do some peaceful protests and otherwise let them have what they want), but try to defend the aggressors in a war of AGGRESSION.

And even then apparently only as long as it's Adolf...
__________________
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 5th June 2020, 03:04 AM   #139
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
If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries)
until the expanded Greater Germany had built itself up to the point where they couldn't hope to resist its attack. Dumb plan. They went to war when they weren't ready because the alternatives were worse.

Maintaining the balance of power had been a British obsession for a century at least.

Consider the Crimean war. Another Anglo-French declaration of war, that time against Russia, in support of Ottoman Turkey. They didn't go through all that dismal butchery over the original point of conflict, which was protection of the rights of Christians in the Holy Land, they did it to prevent the Tsar rolling over the Turks and absorbing their empire, giving him more lands, free access to control the Eastern Mediterranean and threatening Britain's routes to and from India. History would have been very different if they had not intervened.
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 5th June 2020, 03:27 AM   #140
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.
No it was a inevitable consequence of the glorification of violence, brutality and extreme racist supremacism that the Nazis had believed in since before they came to power. The war against Poland was genocidal from the very beginning.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 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 5th June 2020, 04:28 AM   #141
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,034
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.
You do not know what you are talking about.

There most definitely was a genocide that was done by the Germans. The record of the German genocide is abundantly clear and unambiguous.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 5th June 2020, 06:15 AM   #142
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The reason why France's declaration of war to Germany, on September 3, 1939, was (in my opinion) illegal is explained in detail (in French) by revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard on his blog:
3 septembre 1939 : une guerre antidémocratique et illégale
(3 September 1939: an anti-democratic and illegal war)
Link: https://blogue-sc.com/2019/09/3-sept...ue-et-illegale
, using two videos:
https://vk.com/video463816896_456239294
https://vk.com/video463816896_456239295.
I find his arguments rather convincing (although I somewhat disagree on some details).

According to article 9 of the French Constitution at the time, the President of the Republic could not declare war without a previous agreement given by both chambers of parliament, an agreement which was never given and never sought.

France had in 1939 agreements of mutual assistance with Poland (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco...lliance_(1921)), but these agreements required mutual "aid and assistance" (which could take the form of sending arms to an invaded Poland, or accepting Polish refugees [Jewish or non-Jewish] for example) in case of aggression, they did not require to invade Germany and kill German soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive), or to start an economic war by imposing a naval blockade to Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocka...ny_(1939-1945) ). France did these two (war-like) things, and got an invasion.
Give it a rest. Referring to the work of a Holocaust denying loon doesn't help your case. The bottom line is that the declaration of war was accepted has legal. (Probably because it was legal). The concern about it's alleged lack of legality emerged only with the Vichy regime, that was largely a puppet of the German Nazi regime.

Oh and are you concerned with the legality of the Nazi regime? A very good argument can be made that the Nazi regime was established largely through illegal means. (The rule of law in Germany had been breaking down since 1930.)
Pacal 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 5th June 2020, 07:09 AM   #143
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries), and therefore no peace terms would have been necessary. In the case of Japan, Roosevelt launched a very serious and devastating economic war by imposing an oil embargo, the war could have been avoided by using a more prudent and moderate approach (for example, a reasonable export quota, as SpitfireIX suggested himself).
Oh good God!! You do realize that Roosevelt's oil embargo was a peaceful way of responding to Japanese aggressive stupidity. After all it didn't involve going to war. The Japanese Military caste that ran Japan was by early 1941 planning vast eastern conquests of the European Colonial Empires. Hitler himself had been encouraging Japan to attack Britain and the USA since April 1941 and even told them that he would declare war on the USA if they did so, even if Japan didn't attack Russia! Oh and what is your position on Germany declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour?

Quote:
In the case of Germany, knowing the kind of person Adolf was, there was, in 1939, a serious possibility he would have eventually attacked the Soviet Union, but I don't think a declaration of war by the UK and France was the best response to this threat. Generally (and the same is true for China, which was partly occupied by Japan in 1939), when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people. I believe that war should be made mostly obsolete.
Do we have to list in nauseating detail the abundant atrocities committed by both the Germans and Japanese against the populations of the countries they conquered and tried to conquer. For example Japan's "Four Alls" campaigns. ( Which included among the alls - Kill All!)

Even Gandhi recognized that against certain extraordinarily brutal regime's non violent resistance was pointless.

Nazi Germany was a brutal authoritarian dictatorship which very effectively and ruthlessly crushed dissent. And in occupied Europe non-violent resistance was crushed by terror. (You know bullets and mass murder.). In Germany itself organizations that could have resisted the Nazis were crushed by terror after the taking of power. The Nazis refused to allow the existence of organized opposition. All opposition had to be underground and guess what such opposition was meet by terror and violence. Let me but it another way. If an underground organization committed to non-violent resistance had emerged occupied Europe and China the response of the Germans and Japanese to that, especially if it had looked like it might cause problems would have been mass repression, terror and murder. How do we know this? Well because that is how both did in fact respond to such resistance.

As for convincing the leader of an aggressive country that he was wrong? Are you serious. Hitler was a vicious fanatic he would never have been convinced that his stunningly brutal acts were wrong. He was convinced he was right. And knowing Hitler lack of physical, armed, resistance would only have convinced him that his victims were indeed sub-humans worthy of exploitation and death.

Once again we see the logic of the lion who while devouring the goat whines about it's attempts to resist.

As for the protest referred to, (The Rosenstrasse incident of late February early March 1943), Richard J. Evans in his The Third Reich at War, pp. 271-272, says concerning the incident:

Quote:
Subsequent legend elevated this incident into a rare public protest that secured the internees' release; but there had never been any intention of sending these particular Jews east for extermination and the crowd had not engaged in any kind of explicit protest.
Your delusions about the nature of those two regimes is amusing.
Pacal 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 5th June 2020, 07:31 AM   #144
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The leader, Hitler, was never convinced he did anything wrong or against the people. Goebbels disregarded Hitler's order for public relations purposes. By that point, it was already 1945 and Hitler had far bigger problems than finding out whatever happened to the Rosenstrasse husbands.
No, I don't think this is true, the Rosenstrasse events took place in 1943:
Quote:
On 6 March 1943, Goebbels in his capacity as the Gauleiter of Berlin ordered all of the people imprisoned at Rosenstrasse 2-4 released
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosens...est#Chronology )
Quote:
By what route?

Seriously, by what route would Hitler had allowed France to send military equipment to Poland? France-England-Norway-Sweden-Latvia-Poland? Or France-Algeria-Libya-Egypt-Turkey-Ukraine-Poland?
It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling. This probably would not have changed the outcome of the war (particularly after the Soviet invasion), but it would have been a show a support and solidarity, and shown that the UK and France keep their promises. This would also have been far less provocative to the Germans than a naval economic blockade (which was very painful for them during WWI), combined with an invasion of Saarland.

UK and France could also have sent some money to the Polish government, though the smartest thing to do (and which was really done) was probably to accept (military or civilian) Polish refugees on French and British soils.
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 5th June 2020, 07:40 AM   #145
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling.
They might just as well have tried to send them on railways from France if they were so ******* stupid. LOL!
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

Last edited by Arcade22; 5th June 2020 at 07:41 AM.
Arcade22 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 5th June 2020, 07:46 AM   #146
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, I don't think this is true, the Rosenstrasse events took place in 1943:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosens...est#Chronology )

It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling. This probably would not have changed the outcome of the war (particularly after the Soviet invasion), but it would have been a show a support and solidarity, and shown that the UK and France keep their promises. This would also have been far less provocative to the Germans than a naval economic blockade (which was very painful for them during WWI), combined with an invasion of Saarland.

UK and France could also have sent some money to the Polish government, though the smartest thing to do (and which was really done) was probably to accept (military or civilian) Polish refugees on French and British soils.
"Far less provocative" Are you for real!? Germany had just invaded Poland!! How is that for "provocative"!! As for sending supplies to Poland through Baltic ports controlled by Poland. Oh get real. That would at best have been possible for only a few days, if that. And given Hitler's disposition he would have undoubtedly seen that has "provocative".

And may I point out that the British viewed by this time sending naval forces into the Baltic has militarily suicidal. Which it was.
Pacal 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 5th June 2020, 07:55 AM   #147
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Oh and what is your position on Germany declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour?
I don't think it was a smart move, for Hitler, to declare war on a powerful nation like the U.S., in 1941.

When you study the psychology of violent people, you often find that they have previously themselves have been victims of violence, it's a kind of vicious circle.

When I read your post, I don't find a great deal of concern or compassion for cities and civilian populations massively bombed by the British and American regimes (heard of Hiroshima?), in order to achieve their goals of unconditional surrender, invasions, occupation and humiliation of their opponents. I wonder why. Has it ever occurred to you that many Jewish lives could have been saved by trying to bring this war to an end much earlier, for example at the end of 1943?

Last edited by Michel H; 5th June 2020 at 08:24 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 5th June 2020, 08:20 AM   #148
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,724
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't think it was a smart move, for Hitler, to declare war on a powerful nation like the U.S., in 1941.

When you study the psychology of violent people, you often find that they have previously themselves have been victims of violence, it's a kind of vicious circle.

When I read your post, I don't find a great deal of concern or compassion for cities and civilian populations massively bombed by the British and American regimes (heard of Hiroshima?), in order to achieve their goals of unconditional surrender, invasions, occupation and humiliation of their opponents. I wonder why. Has it ever occurred to you that many Jewish lives could have been saved by trying to bring this war to an end much earlier, for example at the end of 1943?.
Yes, had nazi Germany been utterly destroyed in 1943 there would have been many Jewish lives saved, but since that was military impossible it did not happen/
At least Hitler's incompetence shortened the war a bit, that may have saved a few lives.

And had Hitler just capitulated in 1943 Germany would never have been harmed all that much, but the regime intended to take Germany with it, one more crime to be laid at the Nazi door.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 5th June 2020, 10:01 AM   #149
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 the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling.
That's fantasy.

As tensions rose in the far East, Britain sent the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse to defend Singapore. Less than a week after Pearl Harbor they were both sunk. Putting capital ships within range of the enemy's land-based bombers and torpedo planes is game over, because no matter how tough you are or how skillfully you fight (and Repulse dodged attack after attack) they just come back and back until you're dead.

So now, how about tell us how the British navy were going to send a ship laden with tanks and planes into the Baltic and along the German coast to deliver these gifts to the Poles?
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 5th June 2020, 10:05 AM   #150
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't think it was a smart move, for Hitler, to declare war on a powerful nation like the U.S., in 1941.

When you study the psychology of violent people, you often find that they have previously themselves have been victims of violence, it's a kind of vicious circle.

When I read your post, I don't find a great deal of concern or compassion for cities and civilian populations massively bombed by the British and American regimes (heard of Hiroshima?), in order to achieve their goals of unconditional surrender, invasions, occupation and humiliation of their opponents. I wonder why. Has it ever occurred to you that many Jewish lives could have been saved by trying to bring this war to an end much earlier, for example at the end of 1943?
Has Charlie Brown says: "Good grief!". So Britain and France are morally coupable and at least partially responsible for Hitler's atrocities by declaring war on him. In fact according to you the Poles should not have resisted Hitler by arms and ditto for the Chinese resisting the Japanese. Which is a nice way of offloading responsibility for atrocities from the guilty to the innocent.

You also are saying it appears that Hitler merely made a mistake in declaring war on the USA. (I note that Hitler had been pushing Japan to attack the USA and Britain before.) But accepting your logic then Hitler is at least partially responsible for the destruction etc., caused by USA participation in the War.

Then you mouth some explaining about violent people. Mere excuse mongering. So what Hitler was and is fully responsible for his acts of mass murder etc. He didn't have to it just like he was not in anyway coerced into invading Poland in 1939.

Has for the last bit. Thanks for reading my mind wrongly. You should know I think that area bombing of civilian areas in World War II was both a mistake and a crime. But has for compassion, concern? While yours does indeed seem to be very selective. Both the Nazi and Japanese regimes were very interested in occupying, enslaving and grinding down resistance to their invasions via terror etc. They engaged in bombing, slaughter etc., to crush such resistance and both really loved humiliating their enemies. Yet you seem to condemn armed resistance to such acts. And rather interestingly you seem to think that Japanese and German armed resistance to unconditional surrender, occupation, humiliation etc., was at least understandable. Why? The Japanese and German's could have resisted by peaceful means and just let themselves be conquered. (Snark)

As for saving Jewish lives. Well aside from the fact that well over 1 / 2 of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were dead by then. There is the question of who would have ended the war. Hitler would never have given up his conquests. He had burned his bridges long ago. Peace would only have come only with the overthrow of the Nazi regime. Otherwise no peace. As for Japan, right almost to the end Japan wanted to retain at least some of it's conquests. Hitler would of course have fought to the end to stay in power. His overthrow was never a likely possibility. (Which is why assassinating him was an absolute prerequisite to overthrowing the regime.)

Oh and I seriously doubt that ending the war in 1943, if it left Hitler in power, would have ended the Holocaust.

You are of course accepting the excuse mongering put out by German and Japanese diplomats and Generals that "Unconditional Surrender" forced them to fight to the last. This trope was very popular in the 1950's and into the sixties. However it is very seriously overdrawn. A great deal of it is post hoc excuse mongering by people trying to explain away why they went along with a tyrannical regime(s).

In fact far more responsible for continued resistance was the delusions of the leadership about retaining their gains, a very effective repressive apparatus keeping the population in line and obeying to the end. And of course in Germany much of the civilian and military leadership had been Nazified. Something similar had happened in Japan. And what has until recently been ignored almost entirely by historians - large scale bribes paid by Hitler to Military and Civilians. (Tax free of course and secret!)

After the war many German Generals concocted stories to explain away their loyalty to the end to the regime. Unconditional Surrender was one of those. Another was their oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, (!934), ignoring that they frequently violated their oaths of loyalty to the Weimer Republic, and, also, frequently the oaths to tell the truth in post war trials.

Your compassion, like your indignation, has per usual is selective.
Pacal 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 5th June 2020, 10:33 AM   #151
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
That's fantasy.

As tensions rose in the far East, Britain sent the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse to defend Singapore. Less than a week after Pearl Harbor they were both sunk. Putting capital ships within range of the enemy's land-based bombers and torpedo planes is game over, because no matter how tough you are or how skillfully you fight (and Repulse dodged attack after attack) they just come back and back until you're dead.
That and others are very good reasons why the British Navy wasn't singing Rule Britannia throughout the Baltic Sea.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 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 5th June 2020, 11:02 AM   #152
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
That's fantasy.

As tensions rose in the far East, Britain sent the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse to defend Singapore. Less than a week after Pearl Harbor they were both sunk. Putting capital ships within range of the enemy's land-based bombers and torpedo planes is game over, because no matter how tough you are or how skillfully you fight (and Repulse dodged attack after attack) they just come back and back until you're dead.

So now, how about tell us how the British navy were going to send a ship laden with tanks and planes into the Baltic and along the German coast to deliver these gifts to the Poles?
The British (with the French) could perhaps have sent secretly a cargo ship laden with tanks and (perhaps not yet assembled) planes (rather than battleships or battlecruisers), and perhaps the Polish air force could have provided some air cover. They could have sent light weapons too (in order to "help"). In December 1939, the Royal Air Force tried to sink German ships in the Heligoland Bight, but they failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...d_Bight_(1939)).

The tanks and planes could also have been sent before the German attack, on September 1, 1939.

Last edited by Michel H; 5th June 2020 at 11:28 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 5th June 2020, 11:07 AM   #153
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,724
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
That and others are very good reasons why the British Navy wasn't singing Rule Britannia throughout the Baltic Sea.
But but... I'm sure it was possible in {insert random strategy game here}, so we can ignore things like that. And fuel. And the fact that tanks need specialized ammo. And spare parts. Or the fact that transporting enough tanks be sea to make a strategic difference takes a LOT of preparation. Or anything else connected to the real world.

So it's quite in line with Micheal H's other posts really.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 5th June 2020, 11:21 AM   #154
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Has Charlie Brown says: "Good grief!". ...Has for the last bit. Thanks for reading my mind wrongly. You should know I think that area bombing of civilian areas in World War II was both a mistake and a crime. But has for compassion, concern? While yours does indeed seem to be very selective. Both the Nazi and Japanese regimes were very interested in occupying, enslaving and grinding down resistance to their invasions via terror etc. They engaged in bombing, slaughter etc., to crush such resistance and both really loved humiliating their enemies. Yet you seem to condemn armed resistance to such acts. And rather interestingly you seem to think that Japanese and German armed resistance to unconditional surrender, occupation, humiliation etc., was at least understandable. Why? The Japanese and German's could have resisted by peaceful means and just let themselves be conquered. (Snark)
Pacal, you seem to have a tendency to write "has" instead of "as" (see three examples above), please check your spelling.
Quote:
You should know I think that area bombing of civilian areas in World War II was both a mistake and a crime.
I am glad to read this.
Quote:
Both the Nazi and Japanese regimes were very interested in occupying, enslaving and grinding down resistance to their invasions via terror etc. They engaged in bombing, slaughter etc., to crush such resistance and both really loved humiliating their enemies. Yet you seem to condemn armed resistance to such acts.
I actually believe that, when some people are invaded by a cruel and expansionist foreign power, they are entitled to armed resistance, I think such resistance is understandable, I wouldn't blame such people. However, I also think it is not always in the best interest of victims of an invasion to choose armed resistance. Often, a little patience, and possibly non-violent protests (when it is safe to do so) produce much better results for your personal safety.
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 5th June 2020, 11:37 AM   #155
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Pacal, you seem to have a tendency to write "has" instead of "as" (see three examples above), please check your spelling.

I am glad to read this.

I actually believe that, when some people are invaded by a cruel and expansionist foreign power, they are entitled to armed resistance, I think such resistance is understandable, I wouldn't blame such people. However, I also think it is not always in the best interest of victims of an invasion to choose armed resistance. Often, a little patience, and possibly non-violent protests (when it is safe to do so) produce much better results for your personal safety.
I've had enough of this rot.

Bye.
Pacal 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 5th June 2020, 01:01 PM   #156
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 26,241
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The British (with the French) could perhaps have sent secretly a cargo ship laden with tanks and (perhaps not yet assembled) planes (rather than battleships or battlecruisers), and perhaps the Polish air force could have provided some air cover. They could have sent light weapons too (in order to "help"). In December 1939, the Royal Air Force tried to sink German ships in the Heligoland Bight, but they failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...d_Bight_(1939)).

The tanks and planes could also have been sent before the German attack, on September 1, 1939.
You haven't a clue.
Captain_Swoop 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 5th June 2020, 01:39 PM   #157
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,870
In these dark days of pandemic and widespread civil unrest it's good to know that someone, somewhere, is working to clear the good name of Adolph Hitler and set the historical record straight.

Actually, I'm reminded of a Belgian friend who'd told me that I should move to Belgium and "together we will drive out the undesirables!" Knowing him, I now know exactly who he was referring to. The premise of this thread is a logic and factual ***********.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 5th June 2020, 02:05 PM   #158
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The British (with the French) could perhaps have sent secretly a cargo ship laden with tanks and (perhaps not yet assembled) planes (rather than battleships or battlecruisers), and perhaps the Polish air force could have provided some air cover. They could have sent light weapons too (in order to "help"). In December 1939, the Royal Air Force tried to sink German ships in the Heligoland Bight, but they failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...d_Bight_(1939)).

The tanks and planes could also have been sent before the German attack, on September 1, 1939.
Note here that 90% of the luftwaffe combat aircraft were massing around the German-Polish border in preparation for the war. It would have been trivial for them to sink any British ships together with the German surface fleet, submarines, naval mines and coastal artillery.

You just demonstrate that you have no clue.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

Last edited by Arcade22; 5th June 2020 at 02:10 PM.
Arcade22 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 5th June 2020, 02:16 PM   #159
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
In these dark days of pandemic and widespread civil unrest it's good to know that someone, somewhere, is working to clear the good name of Adolph Hitler and set the historical record straight.

Actually, I'm reminded of a Belgian friend who'd told me that I should move to Belgium and "together we will drive out the undesirables!" Knowing him, I now know exactly who he was referring to. The premise of this thread is a logic and factual ***********.
As you probably know, the original thread was split by the mod team. The message that I tried to deliver in the opening post was very simple, it was:"In human relations, very often, violence generates violence".

In this sense, it might be argued that ISIS is actually a creation of the U.S. (because of U.S. invasions and bombings), and that, similarly, the "Hitler monster" was a creation of the British government (and parliament), the most intent on going to war against Germany in 1939, because of something that had happened in a Central European country. This made the German chancellor angry, because he felt he had a right to restore the unity of his country divided by the Polish corridor, and we know what happened next. The practical lesson (in my opinion) is that it is better to try to understand the other people's point of view, to react with restraint, and to avoid resorting to military violence too quickly.

In this 1938 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WL5vFRBS9M , at about 40 seconds into the video, you can see Adolf Hitler apparently signing an autograph on a boy's shoulder, he speaks a little later. He was a racist man, and made a big mistake when he invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

Last edited by Michel H; 5th June 2020 at 02:54 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 5th June 2020, 02:31 PM   #160
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Note here that 90% of the luftwaffe combat aircraft were massing around the German-Polish border in preparation for the war. It would have been trivial for them to sink any British ships together with the German surface fleet, submarines, naval mines and coastal artillery.
On September 1, 1938, the UK was not in a state of war with Germany, and it would have been perfectly legal to provide some weapons to an invaded country. The Germans had perhaps other things to do than verifying each cargo ship (not necessarily British) in each Polish port.

Last edited by Michel H; 5th June 2020 at 02:41 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
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 09:23 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.