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 7th June 2020, 07:47 AM   #201
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,550
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
That wasn't the half of it.

Indeed, as WWI drew nearer, Americans were truly divided over whether to support Germany or France. We had enough wealthy Americans of German descent to sway policy-makers and more than enough regular citizens of German descent to support them. It was only German aggression against American shipping that tipped the scales - Mess with our allies all you want, but absolutely do not mess with our ability to sell our stuff for money.

It was similar in WWII, and many Americans supported both fascism and eugenics. However, we were pretty used to fighting Germany by that point and it came much easier.


Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
By your previous "logic" shouldn't the Germans have left and eliminated the necessity of bombing occupied Belgium?

I think the real kernel of this thread is some fantasy in which Belgium escapes the war unscathed. I think Michel hopes that if England and France had just given Hitler eastern Europe, then he wouldn't have needed Belgium to skirt the Maginot line or as a base to attack the UK. But this is a pure Rule 34 dream.

He would have needed to stop shipping in the North Sea. Belgium is perfect for that. Moreover, control of Belgium and The Netherlands creates a nice, straight border by which to threaten France, should it get out of line. It also opens up short-range air opportunities to bomb ships in the area.

For the same reasons, the allies needed Belgium themselves. It protected France and aided in shipping and air escorts.

There was no way Belgium was going to get out of the 1940s unscathed.
__________________
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, 09:00 AM   #202
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,159
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
You know what definitely would have saved lives? Germany not invading anyone/anywhere and if they never persecuted (aka practice genocide) Jews.

Quote:
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.
No, that is not the purpose of this thread. Before the split, you tried to compare the bombing of a maternity ward with Jewish persecution. You do realize that Israel was not created until after WW2? Why don't you bring up Soviet atrocities?
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 7th June 2020, 08:14 PM   #203
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
THink about this:The only people who benefit from this "Moral Equivilency" Crap are the neo Nazis and other Hitler fanboys.
I think that Michael H has been reading too much "Human Smoke" .Thst is one of the worst books on World War 2 I have read. It was written by a anarchist who thinks that the Allies were just as bad aa the Axis. It's on a par with David Irving in the bad history department.
__________________
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 7th June 2020, 08:18 PM   #204
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Indeed, as WWI drew nearer, Americans were truly divided over whether to support Germany or France. We had enough wealthy Americans of German descent to sway policy-makers and more than enough regular citizens of German descent to support them. It was only German aggression against American shipping that tipped the scales - Mess with our allies all you want, but absolutely do not mess with our ability to sell our stuff for money.

It was similar in WWII, and many Americans supported both fascism and eugenics. However, we were pretty used to fighting Germany by that point and it came much easier.





I think the real kernel of this thread is some fantasy in which Belgium escapes the war unscathed. I think Michel hopes that if England and France had just given Hitler eastern Europe, then he wouldn't have needed Belgium to skirt the Maginot line or as a base to attack the UK. But this is a pure Rule 34 dream.

He would have needed to stop shipping in the North Sea. Belgium is perfect for that. Moreover, control of Belgium and The Netherlands creates a nice, straight border by which to threaten France, should it get out of line. It also opens up short-range air opportunities to bomb ships in the area.

For the same reasons, the allies needed Belgium themselves. It protected France and aided in shipping and air escorts.

There was no way Belgium was going to get out of the 1940s unscathed.
As someone said, Belgium's problem was that Germany considered Belgium to be the back door to France , and France considered Belgium to be the backdoor to Germany.
And that, except for the Ardennes region in the south,Belgium does not have much in the way of defensable terrain did not help matters. Belgium never had a chance of pulling of Swiss style neutrality.
__________________
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 7th June 2020, 08:20 PM   #205
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
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.
I keep hearing this idea that the USA and UK are somehow to blame for allying with the USSR, but... seriously... Was there even a choice, though, once Germany declared war on the USSR _AND_ USA in relatively short succession, while being at war with the UK? At that point they were DE FACTO all at war with the same country. Exactly what did a formal alliance bring to the table that wasn't already the case?

The general idea of an alliance is that you agree to all participate in the same wars. If it's a defensive alliance, like that between Germany and Japan, it's limited to defensive wars. (Which is why Japan had no obligation to join in the attack on the USSR, and Germany had no actual obligation to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. But Adolf fancied yet another enemy anyway.) It may or may not be further limited to being against one or more countries. (As was for example the case with the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was a defence pact against specifically the USSR.)

But at the end of the day, if one of your members is at war with country X, and all other conditions apply, all the alliance says is that you'll join their war against country X.

But in the case of the Allies, they were ALREADY de facto all at war against Germany. Whether or not they liked each other, or fancied warring against each other's enemies, that was already the case. An alliance didn't bring any obligation for the USA or UK to do anything that wasn't already the case.

In fact, the only country that accepted any extra obligations was the USSR, which agreed to join the war in the Pacific after it's done with the fighting in Europe. (And later accepted requests like stopping at an arbitrary latitude, which is why Korea is divided into two.) That's it.

You may or may not send military and economic aid to an ally, but that's a completely different decision than having an alliance.

And even that, honestly, seems to me like not the worst idea, once you are fighting the same enemy anyway. If nothing else, from a pragmatic point of view, better a million of their men die in the war than a million of yours. So giving them the weapons to do so isn't the worst idea.

TL/DR version: so what would have been the alternative, anyway? That the USA just capitulates when Germany declared war? Because that would have been the only way to avoid being de facto allies with the UK and USSR.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th June 2020 at 08:22 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2020, 01:24 AM   #206
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I keep hearing this idea that the USA and UK are somehow to blame for allying with the USSR, but... seriously... Was there even a choice,
Of course there was a choice. We chose 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' because it seemed to be the better choice.

Quote:
TL/DR version: so what would have been the alternative, anyway? That the USA just capitulates when Germany declared war? Because that would have been the only way to avoid being de facto allies with the UK and USSR.
There were many options. We could have responded by simply defending ourselves - or sue for peace with Japan, declare war on the USSR (but not attack immediately) and hope Germany backed off (which they probably would). Japan would take over the whole of Asia, Germany would soften up Russia for us, and many American lives would be saved (to bad about everyone else).

Imagine how different it would be with no communist Russia, China, Korea or Vietnam to contend with. By staying out of the war we could build up our military strength and hopefully still develop the bomb. Then we take out a much weakened Germany and/or Russia with a few nukes.
__________________
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 8th June 2020, 02:26 AM   #207
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
As someone said, Belgium's problem was that Germany considered Belgium to be the back door to France , and France considered Belgium to be the backdoor to Germany.
Frankly, Belgium is an unnatural, artificial country; chunks of France and teh Netherlands squished together. Time to abolish it.
__________________
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 8th June 2020, 05:47 AM   #208
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
TL/DR version: so what would have been the alternative, anyway? That the USA just capitulates when Germany declared war? Because that would have been the only way to avoid being de facto allies with the UK and USSR.
I don't think you can seriously criticize the Allies for allying with and supporting the Soviet Union. I do believe that they went far beyond what was required in terms of necessity, especially in terms of how naively the US treated the Soviets.

The sudden u-turn in relations with the Soviet Union was not as great as compared with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but it's often forgotten that the Allies (meaning Britain and France at this point) had actually effectively treated the Soviet Union as hostile and a enemy after they signed said pact.

Notably in France the French Communist Party was banned and members risked being arrested as agents of a foreign power as their party was in practice controlled by Moscow. All Comintern parties, which in practice meant nearly all significant Communist parties around the world, were ordered to advocate publicly against any and all hostile acts against Nazi-Germany.

Notably in the US the CPUSA maintained a daily public protest outside the White House demanding that the US stay outside of the war and not help the "imperialist warmongers" in Britain. This immediately ceased after the Soviet Union was unexpectedly attacked and suddenly peace became the last thing on these peoples mind, and getting the US into the war was imperative. After the war these communists suddenly rediscovered pacifism when armed conflict with the Soviet Union became a real possibility.
__________________
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 8th June 2020, 07:53 AM   #209
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Well, yes, they treated them as an enemy before, but again: now all 3 countries were de facto at war with the same Axis powers. I mean, not just Germany was now at war with all 3, but even the other Axis-aligned minor countries had gone and declared war on the USA too. The same day Germany declared war on the USA, 11 December 1941, its ambassadors also instructed Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia to declare war on the USA too. Italy declared war on the USA on the same day.

So formalizing the alliance made what difference? Exactly which powers would the USA be dragged into war into, as a result of the alliance, that they weren't already at war with? What other powers were they promising to wage war on, in defense of the USSR?

Meanwhile in the Pacific, the USA had been attacked at Pearl Harbor, and just a couple of days later, Britain was attacked too (see, Force Z). So they weren't exactly going to be dragged into extra wars on account of Britain either. They were already fighting the same guys.

Yes, communists bad, CPUSA boo, appeasement boo, etc, but what exactly would be the difference if the USA didn't join the alliance?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th June 2020 at 08:01 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2020, 11:35 PM   #210
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
Meanwhile in the Pacific, the USA had been attacked at Pearl Harbor, and just a couple of days later, Britain was attacked too (see, Force Z). So they weren't exactly going to be dragged into extra wars on account of Britain either. They were already fighting the same guys.

The US had been at various low and higher levels of war with Japan since at least the 1920s. Pearl Harbor was a daring attack on an unprepared target, but Japanese hostilities did not suddenly begin on that date.

As far as suing for peace with Japan and ceding most of Asia to them (with the hope of softening up the USSR), that's full-on bonkers. Japanese racism did not extend to other asian nationalities, they hated white people at least as much. Moreover, the sheer, uncountable tonnage of resources available to Japan on the Asian continent would have made them a crushingly oppressive trade partner. And all of this, we might add, would have been borne on the backs of literal Chinese, Korean, and Indonesian slaves.

I'm not saying WWII was the absolute best way history could have played out, but I don't see an obviously better one.
__________________
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 9th June 2020, 12:27 AM   #211
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The US had been at various low and higher levels of war with Japan since at least the 1920s. Pearl Harbor was a daring attack on an unprepared target, but Japanese hostilities did not suddenly begin on that date.
I would disagree. The US had gradually turned unfriendly and then hostile towards Japan, but it hadn't been actually at war.

It may seem like semantics, but it's important because it affects what obligations an alliance with the UK and USSR might force upon you. Because it's this alliance that some people feel a need to criticize. IF the US had been just at the level of embargoing Japan, then joining an alliance with the UK could have forced it into straight-up declaring war on Japan after 10 December. But since the USA was already at war with Japan, that's a non-factor.

Basically that's all I'm trying to say: once you're ALREADY de facto at war with the same people, you're already de facto helping each other win the war against the same people. Formalizing an alliance against the common enemies doesn't really change all that much.

As you say, rolling over and capitulating just in some hope to soften the USSR (and presumably the UK, if we're talking capitulating to Japan) would have been nuts. I mean, it's straight up going against one's own national self-interest to spite some other power.

And really that's the only alternative to ending up fighting the enemies of the USSR (and/or UK) once you're de facto already fighting them.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th June 2020 at 12:30 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2020, 05:24 AM   #212
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
I don't think you can seriously criticize the Allies for allying with and supporting the Soviet Union. I do believe that they went far beyond what was required in terms of necessity, especially in terms of how naively the US treated the Soviets.

The sudden u-turn in relations with the Soviet Union was not as great as compared with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but it's often forgotten that the Allies (meaning Britain and France at this point) had actually effectively treated the Soviet Union as hostile and a enemy after they signed said pact.

Notably in France the French Communist Party was banned and members risked being arrested as agents of a foreign power as their party was in practice controlled by Moscow. All Comintern parties, which in practice meant nearly all significant Communist parties around the world, were ordered to advocate publicly against any and all hostile acts against Nazi-Germany.

Notably in the US the CPUSA maintained a daily public protest outside the White House demanding that the US stay outside of the war and not help the "imperialist warmongers" in Britain. This immediately ceased after the Soviet Union was unexpectedly attacked and suddenly peace became the last thing on these peoples mind, and getting the US into the war was imperative. After the war these communists suddenly rediscovered pacifism when armed conflict with the Soviet Union became a real possibility.
After World War II it became a standard trope that the USA and Britain had been naive in their dealings with the Soviet Union. This later morphed into the notion that somehow Britain and USA had "lost" in some fashion and the cunning Stalin had deceived them. Also born was the notion that Roosevelt had "given" Stalin Eastern Europe at Yalta.

This narrative served a important purpose in partisan politics after the war but it is rather simplistic. It is rather interesting to note that Stalin was absolutely convinced that Britain and the USA were out to trick and deceive him and he did not perceive the Western allies has naive at all. In fact quite the opposite.

As for being naive both the USA and Britain decided to keep the entire atomic bomb project a secret from Stalin until shortly before the bomb was dropped and even so communicated it in a very vague way. Of course Stalin did know via his spy network but the attempt to keep it secret helped convince him that the West had plans. In fact so paranoid were Stalin and Beria that they often thought that the secrets they were getting from the West was planted false information.

Further there is the percentages of influence deal that Churchill and Stalin worked out for the Balkans, which doesn't indicate naivity but cold-blooded realpolitik. And has for Roosevelt his plan for the post war world was for more or less US domination; the dismantling of the British Empire and Russia being a junior partner to the USA. Stalin saw this and wasn't playing. Both the USA and Russia were engaged in cold-blooded power politics. And of course Roosevelt did not 'give" Eastern Europe to Stalin; the Red army did that. It is of interest that Stalin actually did break much of the Yalta agreement and in fact had he fulfilled it Eastern Europe would have much better off. But by then Stalin was absolutely paranoid about USA and British plans and was convinced he had been naive.

None of this even remotely justifies Stalin's brutal behavior in Eastern Europe in the slightest. But the idea the Western allies were naive and deceived by the Soviets is more than a bit much. Roosevelt thought he could make the Soviet Union a junior partner in planetary management. Stalin wasn't playing and thought it was a cunning scheme to trick him. Of course during the war all sorts of pro-Soviet nonsense was published in Britain and the USA to serve the war effort. Rather typical to snuff out criticism of an ally in war time.

As for supporting the Soviets more than necessary. Well since more than 80% of German troops who died during the war were killed fighting the Soviets, (Along with over 500,000 men of Germany's allies.) I rather doubt at the time anyone thought to much assistance was given to the Soviet Union. After all if the Soviet had collapsed I don't think the USA and Britain would have liked fighting Germany alone. It certainly would have made fighting Germany vastly more difficult. Further both Britain and the US were concerned about the Soviets making a separate peace with Germany.

The feel I get from reading both American and British internal documents is a lot of cynicism and realpolitik in terms of dealing with the Soviets. And from the Soviets paranoia and fear. As the war was grinding to an end both sides distrust of each other was mounting, even before Roosevelt's death. One can easily see that any sort of working post war arrangement with a leader like Stalin was extremely unlikely. However it wasn't due to naivety but due to a misreading of Stalin. (I.e., not seeing that Stalin would be paranoid about the West and further that he not want to be a junior partner.)

Concerning the behavior of Communist parties in the West. Their brazen subservience to the most holy and divine Stalin would be funny if the consequences hadn't been so appalling. Some people just want to submit and turn their brains off.
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 9th June 2020, 06:44 PM   #213
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,472
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
Complete nonsense. The Germans were already digging up Jewish bodies from mass graves in Treblinka II in 1942 (approx 800,000) and burning them in a failed attempt to hide the evidence of genocide in Poland. Hitler simply had no intention of handing back Poland and face conviction for genocide.
Matthew Ellard 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 9th June 2020, 07:13 PM   #214
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So formalizing the alliance made what difference? Exactly which powers would the USA be dragged into war into, as a result of the alliance, that they weren't already at war with? What other powers were they promising to wage war on, in defense of the USSR?
We didn't have to be at war with any of them. Hitler admired the US. If we had just kept out of his way there would have been no problem (for us. Too bad about Great Britain etc.). The same could have applied to Britain too (except they thought war was inevitable).

Quote:
Meanwhile in the Pacific, the USA had been attacked at Pearl Harbor,
Another huge mistake on both sides, but mostly the US for not taking Japan seriously. And what were we doing in Asia anyway?

Japan knew they had lost the war as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor. They had a tiger by the tail. If we had come to an agreement afterwards there is a chance they could have gotten away with it. But of course there was no way we would let them. When someone punches you in the nose you don't shake hands and say let's be friends (even if that is the best response).

Quote:
Yes, communists bad, CPUSA boo, appeasement boo, etc, but what exactly would be the difference if the USA didn't join the alliance?
As you say we were in two de facto wars anyway, and after Pearl Harbor there was no way we could avoid making it official - because we wanted it. We could deal with Russia later. Communism boo hiss yes, but not Russia as such. It was the political ideology we were afraid of, which we didn't have to worry about in wartime.

Quote:
rolling over and capitulating just in some hope to soften the USSR (and presumably the UK, if we're talking capitulating to Japan) would have been nuts. I mean, it's straight up going against one's own national self-interest to spite some other power.
A peace settlement is not necessarily capitulation. In this case it would be giving them a chance to get out alive, since there was no way we could lose in an all-out war - and they knew it.

Still nuts of course, but if the only metric is numbers (deaths, territory, surviving enemies etc.) you could argue the US might have been better off staying out of WWII. That's why I say it was a choice. But like all choices, in the end there isn't one. We make the 'choices' that we must according to our nature. On 7th December 1941 our choices suddenly focused on what was almost certain to happen anyway eventually, even though at any time we could have chosen differently.
__________________
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 9th June 2020, 07:35 PM   #215
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Complete nonsense. The Germans were already digging up Jewish bodies from mass graves in Treblinka II in 1942 (approx 800,000) and burning them in a failed attempt to hide the evidence of genocide in Poland. Hitler simply had no intention of handing back Poland and face conviction for genocide.
Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?
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 9th June 2020, 08:35 PM   #216
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,472
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?
The bombing campaigns were overt and no one denied they happened. In contrast the Nazis covertly mass murdered Jews in Treblinka II and tried to hide the evidence........but you're OK with that sort of deception, right?
Matthew Ellard 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 9th June 2020, 09:22 PM   #217
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Complete nonsense. The Germans were already digging up Jewish bodies from mass graves in Treblinka II in 1942 (approx 800,000) and burning them in a failed attempt to hide the evidence of genocide in Poland. Hitler simply had no intention of handing back Poland and face conviction for genocide.
Michael H shows that he knowes bupkis about what Germany End Aims in WW2 were.
See "General Plan East" for what exactly Hitler and Himmler had in mind for Poland......
__________________
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 9th June 2020, 09:23 PM   #218
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
Stop the Moral Equvilency crap already, Michale. Nobody here is buying it..except for our resident Hitler Huggers.
It is sort of amuisng to see Michael keep digging himself in deeper and deeper with each post, though.
__________________
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 9th June 2020, 09:25 PM   #219
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Frankly, Belgium is an unnatural, artificial country; chunks of France and teh Netherlands squished together. Time to abolish it.
That is pretty extreme.
__________________
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 10th June 2020, 02:08 AM   #220
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
… Another huge mistake on both sides, but mostly the US for not taking Japan seriously. And what were we doing in Asia anyway?
Spanish-American war had left the US in control of the Philippines.

An interesting alt-hist idea I heard recently asked what might have happened if Spain had not divided their forces to try to defend both Cuba and the Philippines from the US. The suggestion was that if they had recognised they couldn't hold Cuba and had moved their navy to defend the Philippines, they could have held it. (Looking back from our perspective one tends to think of the US navy as a giant industrial machine stamping out Iowa battleships and Essex carriers, but at the start of the 20th century it just didn't have that long-range reach.)

Imagine the difference that would have made a few decades later in US attitudes to Japanese expansion in Asia. Japan might very well have been able to invade the Spanish colony of the Philippines without feeling any need to strike at the US Pacific fleet first.
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 10th June 2020, 03:36 AM   #221
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
We didn't have to be at war with any of them. Hitler admired the US. If we had just kept out of his way there would have been no problem (for us. Too bad about Great Britain etc.). The same could have applied to Britain too (except they thought war was inevitable).

Another huge mistake on both sides, but mostly the US for not taking Japan seriously. And what were we doing in Asia anyway?

Japan knew they had lost the war as soon as they attacked Pearl Harbor. They had a tiger by the tail. If we had come to an agreement afterwards there is a chance they could have gotten away with it. But of course there was no way we would let them. When someone punches you in the nose you don't shake hands and say let's be friends (even if that is the best response).

As you say we were in two de facto wars anyway, and after Pearl Harbor there was no way we could avoid making it official - because we wanted it. We could deal with Russia later. Communism boo hiss yes, but not Russia as such. It was the political ideology we were afraid of, which we didn't have to worry about in wartime.

A peace settlement is not necessarily capitulation. In this case it would be giving them a chance to get out alive, since there was no way we could lose in an all-out war - and they knew it.

Still nuts of course, but if the only metric is numbers (deaths, territory, surviving enemies etc.) you could argue the US might have been better off staying out of WWII. That's why I say it was a choice. But like all choices, in the end there isn't one. We make the 'choices' that we must according to our nature. On 7th December 1941 our choices suddenly focused on what was almost certain to happen anyway eventually, even though at any time we could have chosen differently.
A few modifications of your post. First. It is true that many in the Japanese government and military thought war with the US was really, really stupid and in fact suicidal. However many in the Japanese government and military thought the war was winnable, because they thought the US was a "soft" country that would not be willing to make the effort to crush Japan. (Lacking Japan's martial spirit.) So they thought the war could be won because Us would not face up to a costly expensive war. And thus Japan could acquire its Empire in Asia.

America did have interests in Asia by this time like the Philippines which much of the military in Japan wanted. Japan was also considered an ally of Nazi Germany and Hitler had since April 1941 encouraging Japan to attack the USA. (Promising to declare war on the USA, if they did, even if they did not attack Russia.) Any strengthening of Japan was perceived has strengthening Nazi Germany. Many in the Japanese government and military had long conceived of plans to take over much of the colonial European Empires in the far east. Hence Japanese moves in French Indo-China which were a prelude to that.

The Japanese military which by this time controlled Japan was divided into many factions some of which had a truly delusionary view of war with America, (Mainly the Army.) Many, (Mainly the Navy.), thought war with the USA was stupid. In the faction fighting they lost.
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 10th June 2020, 04:04 AM   #222
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,628
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).
Are you seriously suggesting that the Nazis would not implement their stated plans to eliminate the Jews from Europe had the allies not resisted their wars of aggression?

If you think this is what the speech meant, you aren't paying attention.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 10th June 2020, 04:11 AM   #223
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,628
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).
Why are you so determined to blame the war on the democratic, civilised countries and ignore the wrongdoings of the brutal, genocidal dictatorships?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 10th June 2020, 04:15 AM   #224
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Just for historical records sake, the einsatzgruppen (SS teams tasked with killing jews, intellectuals, etc) followed the army into Poland since day 1. They did not wait to see first if the UK declares war or not, which was a couple of days later.

Similarly, when going into Russia, Himmler's orders from day 1 were to execute any Jews in captured territory. He didn't wait for the USA to enter the war. The "need" to execute communist officials (commissars), which then resulted in the Commissar Order was argued by Hitler on 30 March, long before even attacking Russia, much less seeing if the USA enters the war or not.

In fact, the only thing that actually prompted the Wannsee Conference and the "final solution" had nothing to do with who entered the war, but just the realization that shooting the Jews by Heydrich's Sonderkommando units was too slow. By 1942, they had "only" managed to execute some 15% of the Soviet jews in the occupied territories. THAT was what prompted the NSDAP leadership to start thinking about how they can do it in a more streamlined, industrial way.

But anyway, can we drop the flimsy pretense that oh noes, Michel isn't REALLY against the Jews, when he's quoting Hitler speeches in which he blames the Jews on the war?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 10th June 2020 at 04:26 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 04:23 AM   #225
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,628
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.
Why are you advocating for useless policies?

When facing an aggressive war, war is the only solution.

Quote:
However, I also think it is not always in the best interest of victims of an invasion to choose armed resistance.
When faced with an enemy hell-bent on exterminating part of your population, no other option exists.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 10th June 2020, 04:27 AM   #226
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 89,628
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.
What a fantastically dishonest response.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 10th June 2020, 04:33 AM   #227
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
Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?
If the Germans and/or Japanese did not want to get bombed during World War II, then the Germans and/or Japanese should have not started World War II.
__________________
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 10th June 2020, 04:42 AM   #228
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,526
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Why are you so determined to blame the war on the democratic, civilised countries and ignore the wrongdoings of the brutal, genocidal dictatorships?
I've heard of this argument before, that it is the responsibility of the defender if an attack ends up in a fight and that all the resulting destruction is thus on the defenders head.

But, I've never seen this ******** reason this much in action as portrayed by the OP.

By the way. If we follow this 'logic', then Belgium should still be a part of the Netherlands. :-)
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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 10th June 2020, 08:19 AM   #229
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
I'm not convinced it's even that. IF aggression is excused, defense is not, then just characterize the UK and France as being aggressive -- which in fact pretty much is Michel's argument about them -- and they're excused too. Then Germany should have just folded and peacefully demonstrated.

But that's not the argument made, is it? It's only when it's Adolf that apparently everyone ELSE is to blame for pretty much anything he's ever done.
__________________
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 10th June 2020, 08:46 AM   #230
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,034
Another important point that 'Michel H' fails to notice is that if the Germans and/or the Japanese had the ability to bomb England, Russia and the USA in the same way that they were bombed by the British and the Americans, then the Germans and/ or Japanese would have gladly done so.
__________________
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 10th June 2020, 09:26 AM   #231
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yes, communists bad, CPUSA boo, appeasement boo, etc, but what exactly would be the difference if the USA didn't join the alliance?
Sorry, I haven't argued about that.
__________________
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 10th June 2020, 01:03 PM   #232
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,485
No all wars are not caused by Germany. It's only all world wars. They're two for two so far.
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 10th June 2020, 08:47 PM   #233
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
No all wars are not caused by Germany. It's only all world wars. They're two for two so far.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Causes of World War I
Quote:
The immediate causes lay in decisions made by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914. This crisis was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by the Bosnian Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip who had been supported by a nationalist organization in Serbia.[4] The crisis escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was joined by their allies Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and Great Britain. Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis leading up to the war included misperceptions of intent (e.g., the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), fatalism that war was inevitable, and the speed of the crisis
If we are going to attribute the immediate cause of WWI to any one group it would have to be Bosnian Serb nationalists. Given the circumstances, what happened after that was virtually inevitable - including WWII.

Of course if any of the countries involved had decided differently then the course of history might have changed dramatically. But they didn't. However much you might want to pin the blame on your favorite bogeyman, the fact is they all contributed. It was a powder keg, and just needed someone to light the fuse.

Go forward a few years to the end of WWI and the Depression, and once again many people (correctly) concluded that the next war was also inevitable.

Had it not been for WWI and the way Germany was treated afterwards, a little-known artist by the name of Adolf Hitler would not have made it his life's ambition to make those responsible pay for it.
Quote:
Hitler described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery. His wartime experience reinforced his German patriotism and he was shocked by Germany's capitulation in November 1918. His bitterness over the collapse of the war effort began to shape his ideology. Like other German nationalists, he believed the Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back myth), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders, Jews, Marxists, and those who signed the armistice that ended the fighting—later dubbed the "November criminals"

Without WWI there would be no Hitler in power and no WWII. Without the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand there would be no WWI. So who really started WWI and WWII? The Serbs! (if that is who you want to blame). We can talk about 'the cause', but in reality it was a myriad of interconnected causes and effects, stretching back through history and prehistory to the first humans and even before. To single out one country at a particular time and say 'they caused it!' is to fall into the same trap as Hitler.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 10th June 2020 at 08:49 PM.
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 11th June 2020, 01:11 AM   #234
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Another important point that 'Michel H' fails to notice is that if the Germans and/or the Japanese had the ability to bomb England, Russia and the USA in the same way that they were bombed by the British and the Americans, then the Germans and/ or Japanese would have gladly done so.
Indeed, as evidence by their actually having plans to do so, and in Japan's case the actual attack with balloon bombs. Now it didn't actually DO anything noteworthy, or indeed even get noticed by most people, but the intent to bomb the USA was clearly there.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 11th June 2020 at 01:13 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 08:23 AM   #235
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Another important point that 'Michel H' fails to notice is that if the Germans and/or the Japanese had the ability to bomb England, Russia and the USA in the same way that they were bombed by the British and the Americans, then the Germans and/ or Japanese would have gladly done so.
The Japanese DID bomb Chinese cities. It was those attacks that caused the creation of the AVG (well one of the reasons).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Chongqing
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 08:27 AM   #236
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

Causes of World War I

If we are going to attribute the immediate cause of WWI to any one group it would have to be Bosnian Serb nationalists. Given the circumstances, what happened after that was virtually inevitable - including WWII.

Of course if any of the countries involved had decided differently then the course of history might have changed dramatically. But they didn't. However much you might want to pin the blame on your favorite bogeyman, the fact is they all contributed. It was a powder keg, and just needed someone to light the fuse.

Go forward a few years to the end of WWI and the Depression, and once again many people (correctly) concluded that the next war was also inevitable.

Had it not been for WWI and the way Germany was treated afterwards, a little-known artist by the name of Adolf Hitler would not have made it his life's ambition to make those responsible pay for it.


Without WWI there would be no Hitler in power and no WWII. Without the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand there would be no WWI. So who really started WWI and WWII? The Serbs! (if that is who you want to blame). We can talk about 'the cause', but in reality it was a myriad of interconnected causes and effects, stretching back through history and prehistory to the first humans and even before. To single out one country at a particular time and say 'they caused it!' is to fall into the same trap as Hitler.
The German's also had an offensively trained first class army based on the Prussian system which they had used to defeat France in 1871, the Austrians in 1866 and the Danes too.

Having read this thread I never cease to be amazed that Hitler apologists are so insistence, insincere and historically ignorant

Last edited by Hans; 11th June 2020 at 09:00 AM.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2020, 09:10 AM   #237
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,525
The reason Germany got blamed for starting WW1 had nothing to do with who shot the Archduke, so I'm not sure WTH detour that is. It had to do with the fact that it was the one who declared the war in the west.

Germany's whole war plan had to do with how to defeat France. Russia was a kind of a "we'll deal with it after we defeat France" plan. But it's generous to call it even that, because it really didn't actually HAVE a plan for dealing with Russia. It was more of a "we'll improvise something when we get to that stage" kind of "plan."

So what happened was that Germany got called in by Austria to deal with Russia, started mobilizing against France, and then when France seemed in no hurry to declare war in support of Russia, Germany waited for a whole two days and then went and declared war on France itself anyway. And for that matter on Belgium, which brought the UK into the war.

THAT is why Germany got blamed for WW1.

Now one could argue that it was just a matter of time until France got into the act. Maybe it's even true. But nevertheless Germany WAS the one who declared the war there.

And honestly, while the notion that OMG Germany was unjustly given the blame just because the Entente powers wanted to humiliate it, instead of laying the blame on the Serbs... I can see how Nazi propaganda would love it, back in the 20's and 30's. But it's getting kinda tiresome to hear it repeated by uninformed people 100 years later.
__________________
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 11th June 2020, 12:44 PM   #238
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The reason Germany got blamed for starting WW1 had nothing to do with who shot the Archduke, so I'm not sure WTH detour that is. It had to do with the fact that it was the one who declared the war in the west.

Germany's whole war plan had to do with how to defeat France. Russia was a kind of a "we'll deal with it after we defeat France" plan. But it's generous to call it even that, because it really didn't actually HAVE a plan for dealing with Russia. It was more of a "we'll improvise something when we get to that stage" kind of "plan."

So what happened was that Germany got called in by Austria to deal with Russia, started mobilizing against France, and then when France seemed in no hurry to declare war in support of Russia, Germany waited for a whole two days and then went and declared war on France itself anyway. And for that matter on Belgium, which brought the UK into the war.

THAT is why Germany got blamed for WW1.

Now one could argue that it was just a matter of time until France got into the act. Maybe it's even true. But nevertheless Germany WAS the one who declared the war there.

And honestly, while the notion that OMG Germany was unjustly given the blame just because the Entente powers wanted to humiliate it, instead of laying the blame on the Serbs... I can see how Nazi propaganda would love it, back in the 20's and 30's. But it's getting kinda tiresome to hear it repeated by uninformed people 100 years later.
Yes, it's getting kinda tiresome that people who think of themselves as historians always need some group (or even a whole country) to blame. I can think of a few things to blame the French for too, and the English etc. But I won't. It's been a long hard road to World peace and we still aren't quite there yet. I would rather try to understand the reasons for what people did back then than blame them for it.
__________________
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 11th June 2020, 01:43 PM   #239
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?
No. Why should they? Now Leopold, there was someone who should have been executed for slavery and mass murder.
__________________
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 11th June 2020, 02:40 PM   #240
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?
No. Why should they?
I don't think these mass murders perpetrated by the U.K. and U.S. had any real justification, neither from the point of view of their dubious war aim ("total victory" or "unconditional surrender"), nor from the point of view of the rather horrible method used (mass murder of innocent civilians living under the rule of authoritarian regimes).

A legitimate political goal in a war would for example to expel an invader/occupier and to restore local democracy, but this is different from demanding unconditional surrender. It seems to me that, in order that violent military action be warranted, two conditions must be met: (1) having a reasonable political goal (e.g. restoring local democracy) and (2) having exhausted all peaceful means to reach a peaceful settlement (after having worked very hard on this).

But neither of these conditions were met when the Allies bombed Germany (and even France and Belgium). They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed (much like the Islamic State nowadays), that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.

An interesting book on Hitler's peace offers has been posted by Saggy in post #119: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Re.../dp/B00M5K8OEM.

An excerpt from this book:
Quote:
This edition benefits from four new sections which did not appear in the original publication. These are:

- The full text of Hitler’s “Appeal for Peace and Sanity” speech, made before the Reichstag on July 19, 1940, following the fall of France. In that speech, Hitler once again offered unconditional peace to Britain. This speech was printed in English and dropped by the tens of thousands from German aircraft over Britain. Although nearly half the British cabinet wanted to take up his offer, Churchill’s warmongering put an end to this final offer of peace
.

Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Now Leopold, there was someone who should have been executed for slavery and mass murder.
The second king of Belgium Leopold II (who, by the way, never bombed entire cities using incendiary or atomic bombs to achieve some crazy world domination aim) is no longer among us to try to defend his point of view. However, it is widely agreed that some serious human rights violations occurred in the Congo Free State.

Last edited by Michel H; 11th June 2020 at 02:42 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 10:59 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.