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 5th June 2020, 03:39 PM   #161
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,565
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.

Ah yes, the moral relativism of adding up bodies. The bombing of Dresden was a war crime, therefore we need to excuse Germany's war crimes? Hiroshima had massive civilian casualties and therefore we need to excuse Pearl Harbor or some other set of deaths, slavery, and rapes caused by the Japanese?

It is possible to be less than proud of one's own history and still find plenty of blame for the far more recalcitrant and belligerant enemies.

The US committed some acts that were unwarranted in hindsight. That doesn't excuse the German and Japanese obsession with the control of large areas of the world along with the death and/or enslavement of everybody there.


Quote:
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?

I'm told that many people were trying to end the war by 1943. German machine guns, tanks, planes, U-boats, and rockets slowed them down.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
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, 03:46 PM   #162
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,388
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.
OK - let's have some examples of non-violent protests that worked, after a brutal invasion.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind 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, 04:14 PM   #163
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
OK - let's have some examples of non-violent protests that worked, after a brutal invasion.
One may perhaps cite Hong Kong. They were not invaded, but there was an extradition bill the people didn't like in 2019. They protested in the streets, and the bill was withdrawn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_H...tradition_bill). The Chief Executive of Hong Kong (currently Carrie Lam) is appointed by mainland China, which has a somewhat authoritarian regime.
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, 04:35 PM   #164
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I'm told that many people were trying to end the war by 1943. German machine guns, tanks, planes, U-boats, and rockets slowed them down.
There were certainly many military people who were trying to end the war in 1943, using their violent methods. However, the Allied leaders, particularly the U.S. president, could also have tried to end the war in a negotiated way to save many lives, for example by having Germany go back to their 1939 borders, and stop their mad persecutions of the Jews. But no effort was made along these lines, Allied leaders became obsessed with unconditional surrender from the Casablanca conference (note btw that "casa blanca" means "white house" in Spanish) in January 1943, in order to be able to invade and humiliate enemy countries, much like Hitler did. This demand lead probably to the death of millions. I find this morally reprehensible and shocking.
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, 06:52 PM   #165
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,564
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
Except the British didn't want to give Hitler any excuse to declare war. The amount of arms that they would have to send to make any difference would have been enormous. Nazi-Germany would field thousands of armored fighting vehicles, Tanks and aircraft when they invaded Poland.

If the British were sending that much Hitler could reasonably argue that he had no choice but to preemptively attack Poland.

Not that the British ever would consider sending that amount of arms even if they could as that would compromise their own rearmament. The British were not in a very good position in that regard either.
__________________
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 06:57 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, 09:52 PM   #166
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,734
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
One may perhaps cite Hong Kong. They were not invaded, but there was an extradition bill the people didn't like in 2019. They protested in the streets, and the bill was withdrawn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_H...tradition_bill). The Chief Executive of Hong Kong (currently Carrie Lam) is appointed by mainland China, which has a somewhat authoritarian regime.
You conveniently forget that a harsher law has been instituted now, police are once again cracking down on the protesters, that China at least pays lip service to caring what the rest of the world thinks and the fact that the Chinese government at least does not have the policy of execute everyone protesting and ten random other persons per protester, like the nazis did.
Lukraak_Sisser 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, 10:24 PM   #167
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,565
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Allied leaders became obsessed with unconditional surrender from the Casablanca conference (note btw that "casa blanca" means "white house" in Spanish)

One must only wonder at what thoughts go through your head while watching the movie Casablanca. "That poor, misunderstood Major Strasser," you must sob. "All he wanted to do was bring a peaceful, enlightened, new regime to those ungrateful French and Moroccans."
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
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 6th June 2020, 12:03 AM   #168
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
OK - let's have some examples of non-violent protests that worked, after a brutal invasion.
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
One may perhaps cite Hong Kong. They were not invaded, [snip]
Since Hong Kong was not brutally invaded, let alone invaded, your example is worthless. Once again, you have not responded to the request.

Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 6th June 2020 at 12:10 AM. Reason: Corrections
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 6th June 2020, 07:40 AM   #169
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,388
I realize that this will be pointless but was curious to see what response I might get.

At the end of WWI, the German Army was still occupying foreign territory, so it was straightforward for those like Hitler to invent the ‘stab in the back’ theory.

Why would you think that the Allied leaders would want to risk the same thing happening again, so that every few decades the world has to fight yet another huge war, with way more casualties?

If Churchill and Roosevelt had wanted to negotiate in 1943, Stalin would have opposed them anyway. Hitler would have thought it was a show of weakness, so would have fought even harder. If the impossible had happened and the West and the Nazis had come to an agreement, they’d all have ended up fighting the Russians. Just imagine the death toll of that!

And – please read about Japan in 1945, when pretty much all of them knew they were defeated, but still refused to surrender, even after the bombs. And they came so close to stopping the effort to surrender.

By the way, in case you didn’t know, around three million Polish Jews and between 1.8 and 2.8 million ethnic Poles were murdered by the Nazis. About 90% were civilians. And you think they should have complained peacefully with the perpetrators? Unbelievable! And how on Earth could they have done that?

You can pick up similar statistics from the Sino-Japanese war.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind 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 6th June 2020, 10:02 AM   #170
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
I realize that this will be pointless but was curious to see what response I might get.

At the end of WWI, the German Army was still occupying foreign territory, so it was straightforward for those like Hitler to invent the ‘stab in the back’ theory.

Why would you think that the Allied leaders would want to risk the same thing happening again, so that every few decades the world has to fight yet another huge war, with way more casualties?
Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations). And here you see part of the problem: because of an incorrect analysis of WWII by historians, too favorable to the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., these two countries became too confident and made mistakes, and this situation is continuing to this day.
Quote:
If Churchill and Roosevelt had wanted to negotiate in 1943, Stalin would have opposed them anyway.
Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Quote:
If the impossible had happened and the West and the Nazis had come to an agreement, they’d all have ended up fighting the Russians. Just imagine the death toll of that!
I don't see why. If everybody goes back to the September 1, 1939 borders, there is no reason why anyone should fight anyone else.
Quote:
And – please read about Japan in 1945, when pretty much all of them knew they were defeated, but still refused to surrender, even after the bombs. And they came so close to stopping the effort to surrender.
For Japan, there was no need to surrender. They could have just withdrawn from the territories they were occupying (with a possible exception for their "puppet state" of Manchukuo, which they perhaps needed for their economy).
Quote:
By the way, in case you didn’t know, around three million Polish Jews and between 1.8 and 2.8 million ethnic Poles were murdered by the Nazis. About 90% were civilians. And you think they should have complained peacefully with the perpetrators? Unbelievable! And how on Earth could they have done that?
Perhaps you should read this:
Quote:
When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they caused so much death and disease that it changed the global climate, a new study finds.

European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years in South, Central and North America, causing large swaths of farmland to be abandoned and reforested, researchers at University College London, or UCL, estimate.
(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/w...rnd/index.html)
Quote:
Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and uneven combat – of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

— P. 202, “Adolph Hitler” by John Toland
(https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/commun...ry-of-mankind/)

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.
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 6th June 2020, 10:50 AM   #171
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,388
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations). And here you see part of the problem: because of an incorrect analysis of WWII by historians, too favorable to the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., these two countries became too confident and made mistakes, and this situation is continuing to this day.

Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.

I don't see why. If everybody goes back to the September 1, 1939 borders, there is no reason why anyone should fight anyone else.

For Japan, there was no need to surrender. They could have just withdrawn from the territories they were occupying (with a possible exception for their "puppet state" of Manchukuo, which they perhaps needed for their economy).

Perhaps you should read this:

(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/w...rnd/index.html)

(https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/commun...ry-of-mankind/)

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.
Please check the title of the OP. Your constant dodging is noted.

I mentioned two world wars, both started by Germany. You may have read about WWI - started for the UK and France when Germany invaded Belgium? Following the end of WWI, when you actually read about what happened, you note that the Germans lied to themselves, so Hitler was able to easily get his war going. HE WANTED A WAR!!!! And then guess what? After being comprehensively defeated they've been good neighbors since 1945. So what I said was correct. Iraq? Not relevant to this thread.

If you had read books about Hitler, you'd have read that there was no way he'd have stopped. He believed that he was going to win, so why would he stop?

After Stalingrad, Stalin wanted revenge. Pure and Simple. He realized that it was possible to beat the Germans, and was prepared to do that whatever the cost.

In 1945 the Japanese were starving and had virtually no manufacturing. the waters around Japan was filled with US submarines, so nothing could get in or out. It was only Army lunatics who wanted to keep fighting. If they'd had their way there would likely be no Japan or Japanese people today.

European colonization and the Native Americans - not relevant to this thread.

So - please remove your rose-colored glasses and checkout what the world was really like in the middle of last century.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...

Last edited by Rincewind; 6th June 2020 at 10:54 AM.
Rincewind 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 6th June 2020, 10:52 AM   #172
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,511
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Ah, that's one way to claim the USA weren't late to enter a World War for the second time.
I would agree that we entered WWII later than would have been ideal. OTOH, IMO, we shouldn't have entered WWI at all; therefore we entered it too early. The Germans did to their damnedest to make it difficult for us not to enter, though.
CORed 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 6th June 2020, 11:24 AM   #173
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Following the end of WWI, when you actually read about what happened, you note that the Germans lied to themselves, so Hitler was able to easily get his war going. HE WANTED A WAR!!!!
How do you know that? Did you ask him?

History teaches us that the UK and France declared war to Germany (even though Germany didn't want war with either of these countries) in September 1939, after Hitler had invaded Poland, probably mostly to restore the unity of his country which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles ("Polish corridor").
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 6th June 2020, 12:05 PM   #174
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,065
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations). And here you see part of the problem: because of an incorrect analysis of WWII by historians, too favorable to the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., these two countries became too confident and made mistakes, and this situation is continuing to this day.

Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.

I don't see why. If everybody goes back to the September 1, 1939 borders, there is no reason why anyone should fight anyone else.

For Japan, there was no need to surrender. They could have just withdrawn from the territories they were occupying (with a possible exception for their "puppet state" of Manchukuo, which they perhaps needed for their economy).

Perhaps you should read this:

(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/w...rnd/index.html)

(https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/commun...ry-of-mankind/)

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.
Please check the title of the OP. Your constant dodging is noted.

I mentioned two world wars, both started by Germany. You may have read about WWI - started for the UK and France when Germany invaded Belgium? Following the end of WWI, when you actually read about what happened, you note that the Germans lied to themselves, so Hitler was able to easily get his war going. HE WANTED A WAR!!!! And then guess what? After being comprehensively defeated they've been good neighbors since 1945. So what I said was correct. Iraq? Not relevant to this thread.

If you had read books about Hitler, you'd have read that there was no way he'd have stopped. He believed that he was going to win, so why would he stop?

After Stalingrad, Stalin wanted revenge. Pure and Simple. He realized that it was possible to beat the Germans, and was prepared to do that whatever the cost.

In 1945 the Japanese were starving and had virtually no manufacturing. the waters around Japan was filled with US submarines, so nothing could get in or out. It was only Army lunatics who wanted to keep fighting. If they'd had their way there would likely be no Japan or Japanese people today.

European colonization and the Native Americans - not relevant to this thread.

So - please remove your rose-colored glasses and checkout what the world was really like in the middle of last century.
You might has well give up M H will continue to ignore most of what other people are posting.

The above quote of his is a perfect example first he creates a straw man:

Quote:
you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany.
No one ever said anything like that.

Then he says the following:

Quote:
Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.
This is pure crap. M H has ignored all we have posted about Hitler's irrationality and brutality, his desire for "living space" and European and eventually world hegemony. The idea that Hitler would have been willing after Stalingrad to accept Germany reducing it boundaries to Sept 1, 1939 is so silly that it is laughable. AS for a referendum, really? I mean really! Done under Hitler's auspices it would have been fraudulent at best. And Hitler's response to the defeat at Stalingrad was to redouble efforts to win not negotiations. And by then Stalin had decided he could not live with Hitler. AS for peace with Britain and France. Well Hitler had indicated that he could not be trusted and fro the terms Hitler imposed on France and the terms proposed with Britain basically it would mean submission to German hegemony and aside from that Hitler could not be trusted to abide by the terms. Hitler had every intention of fighting to the last and dragging Germany down with him. (Along with murdering vast numbers of people.) In the end he decided that the German people had proven undeserving and so should perish. M H's basic ignorance of Hitler and Nazism is stunning.

As for Japan. Well once again idiot extremists helped drag her down to disastrous defeat. Oh and the post war period indicated quite strongly that Japan did not "need" either Manchuria or Korea. And in fact those imperial conquests, (Accompanied by mass repression of the populations involved.), were in the end drains on Japan's economy but of much benefit to the higher ups in the Japanese army.

Quote:
For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.
M H has totally ignored everything posted about just how brutal, indeed genocidal was German occupation of Poland from 1939 on. The Germans in engaged in massive brutal repression, including mass murder, right from the beginning. Resistance, including non violent, was crushed by arrests, terror and murder. Strikes were broken up by the same methods. The Polish intellectual class was scheduled for liquidation, Polish Priests were murdered in the thousands. The aim was to destroy the Poles has a distinct ethnic group and reduce the remnants to serf status. But the Poles in M H eyes committed the terrible crime, it seems, of resisting the Germans with arms.

A peace deal with Hitler in 1943 would almost certainly have left most of the Poles under brutal German rule. And I doubt Hitler would have changed his attitude.

And of course M H ignores that any chance of peace in 1943 would have required Hitler being killed. And of course we see once again that resisting armed attacks, occupation and humiliation by force are unacceptable but Germany and Japan are entirely exempt from this requirement. (Or should I say the Nazis of Germany and the Military Fascists of Japan are exempt.)

So I think M H is just never going to get it, because he doesn't want to get it. Some victims are simply more worthy than others to him.
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 6th June 2020, 12:13 PM   #175
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
It occurred to me to check and see whether Reynouard is actually a historian. It turns out that he's a Holocaust denier, and has no formal training in history (or law, for that matter). He has a degree in chemical engineering.
The Salem Effect strikes again.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 6th June 2020, 12:33 PM   #176
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,163
It's funny to see Michel H struggle so hard to justify his interpretation of history.

Quote:
Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations)

Looks like he forgot that Iraq started the Gulf War.

The CNN article is about climate change.

I find it sad that Michel T does not understand that the Geman and Japanese invasions are, for me, the reasons for WWII. I also notice that he never addresses that what Japan and Germany did was wrong. A lot of Europe still remembered The Great War and the results and loss. That's one of the reasons, if I recall correctly, why everyone didn't jump right in.

Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 6th June 2020 at 12:34 PM. Reason: Tablet posting sucks.
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 6th June 2020, 12:44 PM   #177
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I found this (and other things) in the wikipedia article: Timeline of World War II (1939) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli..._War_II_(1939)):
No citation and better sources including a detailed examination of Munich in the 1939-48 period and detailed studies of Allies aerial bombardment don't mention this. Munich was on the edge of RAF capability at the time. Even Wikipedia doesn't mention the incident elsewhere, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1939.

Furthermore I have studied the Elser attack and these are no mentions of any RAF raid. Given Hitler's rapid departure from the city I rather expect it would have been mentioned.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
However, I found the historical and legal analysis he presented in his now deleted video rather good
Given how will his claims mesh with your demonstrated prejudices this is unsurprising and also irrelevant.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
A comparison between the Nazis and the U.S. is made in this recent book:
I take it you accept Dr. Kakels's proposal that Hitler'r war "provided both the cover and the pretext for genocidal assaults against allegedly inferior and unwanted out groups"
Though he has failed to overcome the numerous problems with his analogy, such as the sheer scale of the Nazi mass murder programme (>11 million) and its intensity. Even he acknowledges the unique project of terror and industrial murder that Hitler and his acolytes implemented.

But then that'd mean actually reading the book rather than lackadaisical Googling and quote mining.



Wow I see our resident Nazi is inviting visits to Stormfront....
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 6th June 2020, 12:51 PM   #178
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
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:
You mean: anti-semitic, Holocaust denying, neo-Nazi engineer and failed maths teacher.
Hopefully he'll be back in jail soon.

__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 6th June 2020, 01:18 PM   #179
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
I also notice that he never addresses that what Japan and Germany did was wrong.
No, that's not true, see for example:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
Germany and Japan did many wrong things during the 1930s and 1940s. Their racism, and brutal racist expansionism was unacceptable. However, the Allies commited many violent and cruel crimes too, which seem to be ignored.

My country, Belgium, was for example repeatedly bombed by the British and Americans during the war. For example, on April 5, 1943, the American Air Force bombed the city of Mortsel, near Antwerp, 936 people died, see https://pieterserrien.be/english/bombing-of-mortsel/ or (in French) https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/de...rts?id=9884896 (you can imagine the number of injured and the destruction).

But, of course, the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender of Germany, so you got to understand ...
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 6th June 2020, 02:20 PM   #180
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,163
Again, you are focusing only on the Allies. Pray tell, who was occupying the city? How did they get there? What was the target in the bombing? Why do you forget to mention the V2 rocket attack on the city?

Why aren't you mentioning the occupation of your country?
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 6th June 2020, 03:32 PM   #181
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,388
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Again, you are focusing only on the Allies. Pray tell, who was occupying the city? How did they get there? What was the target in the bombing? Why do you forget to mention the V2 rocket attack on the city?

Why aren't you mentioning the occupation of your country?
And the around 375,000 forced-labor workers deported from Belgium to Germany?

And the fact that of 25,000 Belgian-Jews deported 24,000 were killed, mostly at Auschwitz?
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind 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 6th June 2020, 03:35 PM   #182
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,388
Say, Michel! How about the fact that Hitler broke virtually every agreement that he made?

And this is the guy that you think other heads of state should have negotiated with in good faith?

Man - even Neville Chamberlain saw through the lies eventually!
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind 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 6th June 2020, 04:39 PM   #183
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
Again, you are focusing only on the Allies. Pray tell, who was occupying the city? How did they get there? What was the target in the bombing? Why do you forget to mention the V2 rocket attack on the city?

Why aren't you mentioning the occupation of your country?
I am not focusing only on the Allies, since I just said:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Germany and Japan did many wrong things during the 1930s and 1940s. Their racism, and brutal racist expansionism was unacceptable.
I just think a more balanced view of the crimes committed by both the Axis powers and the Allies is needed, this is not the same thing as being a supporter of Hitler. You mention real things, like the occupation of Belgium and the V2 rocket attacks on Antwerp, and you ask "How did they (the Germans) get there?". Well, they got in Belgium because, after France had declared war on them, launched an offensive in German territory, and imposed a naval blockade with the British, they counter-attacked through Belgium to bypass the Maginot line. Then there were also probably some strategic reasons why they wanted to remain in Belgium, they could control Belgian agricultural products, forced labor and so on (note that I am not trying to excuse). Germany was of course massively bombed by the Allies too.

The bombing of Mortsel by the U.S. military was part of a plan for regime change, invasion and unconditional surrender of Germany. All considerations of respect for human life (including for the lives of unfortunate Jews in concentration camps) or human property were secondary, only total victory mattered. It would have been easy to invite Germany to go back to its normal borders, but the Allied leaders didn't care about that. They bombed massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.

Last edited by Michel H; 6th June 2020 at 05:37 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 6th June 2020, 04:50 PM   #184
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 26,386
This has to be a joke?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2020, 04:52 PM   #185
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Say, Michel! How about the fact that Hitler broke virtually every agreement that he made?

And this is the guy that you think other heads of state should have negotiated with in good faith?

Man - even Neville Chamberlain saw through the lies eventually!
The German occupation of Czechoslovakia was formally accepted by their president Emil Hácha. Hitler did probably lie, but a lie is not an act of war, like what the UK and France did when they attacked Germany. And I have heard of a certain president who is rumored to have said quite a few lies or misleading statements.
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 6th June 2020, 05:23 PM   #186
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,564
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It would have been easy to invite Germany to go back to its normal borders, but the Allied leaders didn't care about that. They bombed massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.
Oh please Hitler didn't give a **** how many Germans were killed or what borders Germany would have (if it existed at all) once the German people failed him. Spare your crocodile tears for Stormfront.
__________________
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 6th June 2020, 09:40 PM   #187
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,226
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
You mean: anti-semitic, Holocaust denying, neo-Nazi engineer and failed maths teacher.
Hopefully he'll be back in jail soon.

So he's a David Irving wannabe?
__________________
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 6th June 2020, 09:46 PM   #188
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,226
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The German occupation of Czechoslovakia was formally accepted by their president Emil Hácha. Hitler did probably lie, but a lie is not an act of war, like what the UK and France did when they attacked Germany. And I have heard of a certain president who is rumored to have said quite a few lies or misleading statements.


This snetence is so full of nonsense no other response fits.
__________________
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 6th June 2020, 09:49 PM   #189
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,226
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Oh please Hitler didn't give a **** how many Germans were killed or what borders Germany would have (if it existed at all) once the German people failed him. Spare your crocodile tears for Stormfront.
That's the ulitmate irony, Hitler was pretty much tried to commit genocide on his own people in the last few weeks of the war with his orders to destroy all infrastructure rather then let it fall into Allied hands.
__________________
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 6th June 2020, 10:35 PM   #190
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I am not focusing only on the Allies, since I just said:

I just think a more balanced view of the crimes committed by both the Axis powers and the Allies is needed, this is not the same thing as being a supporter of Hitler.
But you have not brought up the crimes the Axis has done.

Quote:
You mention real things, like the occupation of Belgium and the V2 rocket attacks on Antwerp, and you ask "How did they (the Germans) get there?". Well, they got in Belgium because, after France had declared war on them, launched an offensive in German territory, and imposed a naval blockade with the British, they counter-attacked through Belgium to bypass the Maginot line.
Belgium was neutral. Why were they invaded?

Quote:
Then there were also probably some strategic reasons why they wanted to remain in Belgium, they could control Belgian agricultural products, forced labor and so on (note that I am not trying to excuse). Germany was of course massively bombed by the Allies too.
Think about what you just said.

Quote:
The bombing of Mortsel by the U.S. military was part of a plan for regime change, invasion and unconditional surrender of Germany. All considerations of respect for human life (including for the lives of unfortunate Jews in concentration camps) or human property were secondary, only total victory mattered. It would have been easy to invite Germany to go back to its normal borders, but the Allied leaders didn't care about that. They bombed massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.
Once again you avoid the question. Mortsel was bombed, but the target was as factory used to repair German airplanes. The bombs unfortunately missed the target.

What about the V2 attacks to Belgium and the UK?

And yes, since the Germans were the ones that started the whole thing, it is not unreasonable to have the leaders punished for starting the war. They attacked and murdered massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.
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 6th June 2020, 10:46 PM   #191
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,565
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
OTOH, IMO, we shouldn't have entered WWI at all; therefore we entered it too early. The Germans did to their damnedest to make it difficult for us not to enter, though.

The Germans had been fighting a guerilla war inside America long before we knew of it, let alone appreciated its significance. Through the German Embassy, agents bombed ships in New York harbors, disguising it to look like worker dissatisfaction.

Wilson was a strong anti-interventionist. However, there came a point where even he realized the US was already under attack. Our first goals were to secure our shipping lanes to sell our goods to our trade partners. That failed. Strong militarization of the Atlantic fleet also failed. Attempts to lend money to our allies failed to make a difference. Entry into France was all we had left.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
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 7th June 2020, 12:31 AM   #192
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,683
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Wilson was a strong anti-interventionist.
That wasn't the half of it.

More Americans Supported Hitler Than You May Think.
Quote:
American exchange students went to Germany and returned with glowing reviews, while none other than Charles Lindbergh denounced Jewish people for pushing the U.S. toward unnecessary war. In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe....

“It’s always been uncomfortable in this country to talk about isolationism, though the ideas are still out there,” he says, “It’s part of the American mythology. We want to remember ourselves as always having been on the right side in this war.”

It was also possible for those who had participated in Nazi-sympathetic groups to later cloak their beliefs in the Cold War’s anti-communist push — a dynamic that had in fact driven some of them to fascism in the first place, as it seemed “tougher on communism than democracy is,” as Hart puts it. (One survey he cites found that in 1938, more Americans thought that communism was worse than fascism than vice versa.)
We had our reasons - and they weren't good ones.
__________________
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 7th June 2020, 01:06 AM   #193
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men.
No, Stalin was not that stupid.

He wasn't interested in 1939 borders, or having a major military power on his western border, or having limited influence in the Balkans.

I find it fascinating that when Michel H criticises the "Allies" he never seems to mention the Soviet Union.

Last edited by Aber; 7th June 2020 at 01:09 AM.
Aber 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 7th June 2020, 05:35 AM   #194
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, that's not true, see for example:
<drivel snip>
By your previous "logic" shouldn't the Germans have left and eliminated the necessity of bombing occupied Belgium?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 7th June 2020, 05:37 AM   #195
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, that's not true, see for example:

Germany and Japan did many wrong things during the 1930s and 1940s. Their racism, and brutal racist expansionism was unacceptable. However, the Allies commited many violent and cruel crimes too, which seem to be ignored.
Perhaps we should start examining the atrocities and mass murder of the Belgian regimes in the Congo? Or do those 3-8 million bead not matter?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 7th June 2020, 05:40 AM   #196
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
This has to be a joke?
No, some people really are that dumb.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 7th June 2020, 05:42 AM   #197
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,319
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
So he's a David Irving wannabe?
Without the academic rigour or patina of respectability.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 7th June 2020, 05:54 AM   #198
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,538
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
"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.
I would add: WHAT Baltic ports? The only contact at all with the Baltic at the time was around Danzig, which was under attack from day one. As in, heavy bombing and heavy artillery shelling of the Westerplatte pretty much STARTED the hostilities, right from the first hour. So exactly WHICH Polish port was a safe place there for the Brits to send convoys to?

All our friend Michel is proving is that, as they say, those who don't learn history, are doomed to make idiotic excuses for Hitler
__________________
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 7th June 2020, 07:14 AM   #199
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
By your previous "logic" shouldn't the Germans have left and eliminated the necessity of bombing occupied Belgium?
Yes, I think you can defend that point of view too. Particularly when their military situation got bad, the Germans could have made the wise decision to leave all occupied territories and stop persecuting innocent Jews. This would probably have saved many lives.

My general point of view in this thread (and possibly in some other threads too) is not to try to praise Hitler, Nazism, or fascists regimes, but instead to try to point out major crimes and errors committed (in my opinion) by Allied powers which are either ignored or minimized. Ignorance of these facts leads straight to American (and Israeli) arrogance and an individual like Donald Trump. So, you will understand that this problem is still very current.
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 7th June 2020, 07:35 AM   #200
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,564
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
My general point of view in this thread (and possibly in some other threads too) is not to try to praise Hitler, Nazism, or fascists regimes, but instead to try to point out major crimes and errors committed (in my opinion) by Allied powers which are either ignored or minimized.
No serious impartial historian ignores the missteps, questionable ethics, opportunism and war crimes that the Allies were guilty of.

The simple fact is that, with the exception of the Soviet Union, the Allies come out looking like heroes compared to Nazi-Germany, Japan and (to a notably lesser degree) Fascist-Italy is not because uncritical propaganda being taken as fair historical account. It's because their crimes, misdeeds and questionable actions were far less sever than those of the Axis.

The only black sheep that even comes close was The Soviet Union, which had actually sought to join the Axis in sharing the spoils of war. You can easily blame The Allies for opportunisticly becoming allies with the Soviet Union, even-though many continued to view them as a threat. Notably FDR treated the Soviets, and Stalin specifically, very naively.
__________________
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
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 04:20 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.