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 11th June 2020, 07:18 PM   #241
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,475
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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"),
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg, were manufacturing centres for war materials or rail hubs for troops and war materials.

The fastest method to save innocent Germans and Europeans from being murdered by the NSDAP dictatorship was to end the war quickly.

Your crap fascist view ignores that Hitler ended elections in 1933 and they didn't care what the actual civilians thought.........but you're OK with dictatorships, 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 11th June 2020, 07:26 PM   #242
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,475
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations..
Now you are just making up crap. Himmler attempted peace talks in Sweden, so Hitler, the dictator sacked him.

....but you're OK with that, right? (You think only Hitler, the dictator should have made decisions)
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 11th June 2020, 10:26 PM   #243
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,475
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
So you, like Saggy, are a fan of the German author, Friedrich Stieve?

Did you also enjoy his 1939 book, issued on order of the National Socialist government’s Ministry for Propaganda, "New Germany: A Picture Book for Foreign German Youth"?

Do you get a lot of your understanding of history from Nazis working for the wartime Nazi propaganda ministry?


https://www.amazon.com/New-Germany-P.../dp/1684549752
Attached Images
File Type: jpg New Germany A Picture Book for Foreign German Youth.jpg (39.5 KB, 2 views)
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 11th June 2020, 11:59 PM   #244
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,526
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
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.
Sorry, missed this answer.

You're right. If you look at it rationally.
Which is not what our Belgian is doing.

I think that deep inside he, and others like him, know, just know who was the instigator of all the brouhaha that was WWII. So he has to rationalise it away by saying that the defenders are to blame, even while lambasting the UK and France for declaring war on nazi Germany.
The alternative would be admitting that indeed the Nazis were the cause of all the misery that followed.
__________________
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 12th June 2020, 03:33 AM   #245
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
<drivel snip>
Your unwillingness to accept the reality of the measures needed to eradicate Nazism are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.
Wow, you really have no connection to reality do you?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
(much like the Islamic State nowadays),
A group that wishes to impose it's will on others and has no other aim?


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
<drivel snip>
Fascinating. You may be eager to lap up Nazi apologist propaganda but others aren't.


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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)
No, he just had millions enslaved, mutilated, and murdered to satisfy his greed.
Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
However, it is widely agreed that some serious human rights violations occurred in the Congo Free State.

"Some serious human rights violations", what a pathetic whitewash attempt.
__________________
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 12th June 2020, 06:12 AM   #246
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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).
Right. So now please explain how do any of those apply to Hitler, since you've been trying so hard to excuse him for several pages now. Or do those criteria only apply to everyone else but him?
__________________
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 12th June 2020, 07:25 AM   #247
Marras
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
I hope that you are aware that if you keep on relying on neo-nazi holocaust deniers for your sources (or, as in this case original nazi sources edited by neo-nazis) people will soon conclude that you are a neo-nazi?

Especially when you keep whitewashing Hitler. The way that neo-nazis do.

If it looks like a neo-nazi, it swims like a neo-nazi, and it quacks like a neo-nazi, it's either a neo-nazi or so close to a neo-nazi that no one will care about the difference.
Marras 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 12th June 2020, 08:10 AM   #248
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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:
.
Fun fact: Hitler and many other Nazi leaders were actually quite poorly informed on how the British political establishment and people viewed them and their war.

Britain and France had gone to extreme lengths to appease Nazi Germany in a attempt to stop another World War from breaking out, only to find out that Hitler and Nazi Germany was intent on going to war no matter what. Unless Hitler was to suddenly had a change of heart, it became clear that peace was not an option.

But much of the Nazi leaders had convinced themselves that the British really would give in. That was basis of Rudolf Hess's delusional flight to Britain to broker peace.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2020, 08:14 AM   #249
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Right. So now please explain how do any of those apply to Hitler, since you've been trying so hard to excuse him for several pages now. Or do those criteria only apply to everyone else but him?
I am not trying to excuse Hitler for all the wrong things that he did, since I said:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
He was a racist man, and made a big mistake when he invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.
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.
But I added:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
However, the Allies commited many violent and cruel crimes too, which seem to be ignored.
I don't think it was a good idea for the UK and France to declare war on Germany in 1939 (in France's case, illegally, because without the mandatory vote by its parliament), and to follow this by an naval blockade, and an offensive into German-speaking Germany. I also believe that it was a bad idea to massively and inhumanely bomb German and Japanese cities using incendiary and atomic bombs, in order to achieve unconditional surrender of these countries. It is also my opinion that it was an error by the Roosevelt administration to launch a very brutal economic war against Japan in 1941, by cutting off all oil exports (and other exports), and closing the Panama canal.

But this does not mean the Axis countries were innocent at all, major and well documented crimes were committed by Germany and Japan. One problem regarding Nazi crimes though is that, if you deny them, you might be sent to jail in many countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_a...locaust_denial). In my opinion, this is a problem, because historians can no longer work freely (and working freely means making sometimes mistakes too). When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.
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 12th June 2020, 09:06 AM   #250
Marras
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.
And there you get it, holocaust denialism.

You should stay away from neo-nazi lies, if you genuinely are not yet one yourself.
Marras 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 12th June 2020, 10:00 AM   #251
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,724
Poor Nazi's, after breaking treaty after treaty, terrorbombing cities of all their neighbors with the express target of civilians, occupying many countries without any actual reason apart from greed (Poland, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece) and then both plundering those and committing massive atrocities the Allies did not give them whatever they wanted when they started losing and used their tactics against them.

On a different note, what IS the deal with denying the holocaust by neo-nazis? After all, given their utter hatred of jews, why not admit that Hitler did what they only dream of?
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 12th June 2020, 10:32 AM   #252
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,138
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Fun fact: Hitler and many other Nazi leaders were actually quite poorly informed on how the British political establishment and people viewed them and their war.

Britain and France had gone to extreme lengths to appease Nazi Germany in a attempt to stop another World War from breaking out, only to find out that Hitler and Nazi Germany was intent on going to war no matter what. Unless Hitler was to suddenly had a change of heart, it became clear that peace was not an option.

But much of the Nazi leaders had convinced themselves that the British really would give in. That was basis of Rudolf Hess's delusional flight to Britain to broker peace.
The British and French engaged in appeasement because they wanted to avoid another catastrophic European war, not because the expected to lose but because they believed that it would be utterly draining and the only really winners would be the 'peripheral' powers, the USA and USSR. they were right about that but as you point their fundamental mistake was to believe that Hitler talk of war was just rhetoric and that he understood the inevitable effect as well they did.

By the time the summer of 1939 rolled round Hitler was determined to have his war because Germany had reached the peak of its military advantage relative to the British and French, that is German rearmament had maxed out while the British and French were rapidly closing the gap with their rearmament. Germany was under no strategic threat in 1939, only Hitler's belief in war as a means of racial struggle and a closing of Germany's 'window of opportunity' led to war.

It should also be borne in mind that attacking France was every bit as much a part of Nazi ideology as destroying communism or seizing Lebensraum in the east. Revenge for 1918, reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine and removing the threat from the French army all dictated striking against France before turning east.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is 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 12th June 2020, 10:48 AM   #253
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,383
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is also my opinion that it was an error by the Roosevelt administration to launch a very brutal economic war against Japan in 1941, by cutting off all oil exports (and other exports), and closing the Panama canal.
How brutal do you consider it to have been, relatively? Do you think that America, by brutally not selling oil to Japan, was more brutal or less brutal than, say, the rape of Nanjing?

Quote:
When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.
Nobody except fantasist holocaust deniers wonder even for a moment whether authors really believe the truth when they report the truth.

When astronauts write about orbiting the earth, what sort of person wonders if they are perhaps just too scared to deviate from the "official" view that the earth is not flat?
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 12th June 2020, 01:25 PM   #254
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Poor Nazi's, after breaking treaty after treaty, terrorbombing cities of all their neighbors with the express target of civilians, occupying many countries without any actual reason apart from greed (Poland, <snip>
And let's not forget the (primarily) German bombing of Guernica and their meddling the Spanish Civil War.
__________________
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 12th June 2020, 01:29 PM   #255
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,526
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
The British and French engaged in appeasement because they wanted to avoid another catastrophic European war, not because the expected to lose but because they believed that it would be utterly draining and the only really winners would be the 'peripheral' powers, the USA and USSR. they were right about that but as you point their fundamental mistake was to believe that Hitler talk of war was just rhetoric and that he understood the inevitable effect as well they did.

By the time the summer of 1939 rolled round Hitler was determined to have his war because Germany had reached the peak of its military advantage relative to the British and French, that is German rearmament had maxed out while the British and French were rapidly closing the gap with their rearmament. Germany was under no strategic threat in 1939, only Hitler's belief in war as a means of racial struggle and a closing of Germany's 'window of opportunity' led to war.

It should also be borne in mind that attacking France was every bit as much a part of Nazi ideology as destroying communism or seizing Lebensraum in the east. Revenge for 1918, reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine and removing the threat from the French army all dictated striking against France before turning east.
Well they were under threat.

Pity that the threat that was looming over them, was all of their own doing.With them having an army that was too large and contained too many men, that they simply didn't have enough fuel to last for too long. Also an economy that would collapse in a very short time, unless the nazi's conquered other countries, so that they could plunder those in order to fuel their economy for just that little bit longer.

The nazis had turned Germany and its economy into the industrial equivalent of a locust swarm. They had to expand and plunder, or else collapse into chaos and nothingness. And nobody forced them to do that. That was all of their own doing (although I'm sure Michel H will think of something, anything, that would make it anybodies but the nazi's fault).
__________________
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 12th June 2020, 02:36 PM   #256
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
SORT OF. They could get all the oil they needed, actually, even with that overblown army, because the USSR was more than happy to sell it to them, along with food and other materials Germany needed. Most of the rest of the world hated the USSR enough to not do much trading with them, but Germany had all sorts of trade and research and industrial agreements with the USSR. And was willing to pay with what Stalin needed the most: industrial equipment.

As I've said before, the NSDAP could have learned a thing or two from the Ferengi. Starting with Rule Of Acquisition Number 3: Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to. They chose to get into a very expensive war, both in material means and in human lives, when they could have gotten everything MUCH cheaper.

I mean, hell, even that Generalplan Ost where they planned to starve a few million Ukrainians to death to get their grain? Stalin was already doing it for them. Pay for enough grain imports from the USSR, and Stalin would happily starve a few million Ukrainians for you. So, like, WTH, even the genocidal goals could have been achieved cheaper

But anyway, genocide jokes aside, they actually managed to stock up oil before Barbarossa, so obviously they were getting enough.

The ONLY reason to want to invade for resources was Hitler's belief that he needs to prepare an autarchy. Which may or may not have been based on his seeing how vulnerable Germany had been to a blockade in WW1, or may or may not have been based on a belief in an imminent shrinking markets problem, depending on who you ask. (It's basically the belief that those countries selling you grain and minerals will eventually use the money to achieve industrial parity with you, at which point they stop selling you stuff.) The former however ONLY applied if he wanted to start a war, and the latter still shows no signs of happening some 100 years later than when Hitler got his ideas, yeah, it seems like an unsound motivation. You can see how he reached that conclusion, but it's still unsound.

And in any case, when the "solution" involves basically trying to DEindustrialize and DEurbanize the country in the 20'th century, yeah, it's safe to say he wasn't exactly an economic genius.
__________________
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 12th June 2020, 04:16 PM   #257
Matthew Ellard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,475
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.
You were already made aware, that in 2014 there was a formal university forensic excavation of Treblinka II extermination camp (Poland) which identified the mass graves. This is why most holocaust deniers stopped posting back then, and moved on to other conspiracies, such as JFK, ESP, and so on.

You seem to be returning to holocaust denial, against the evidence, using your earlier "ESP test" BS "I can pick and choose evidence" claim.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Treblinka mass graves.jpg (75.0 KB, 6 views)
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 12th June 2020, 09:07 PM   #258
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In my opinion, this is a problem, because historians can no longer work freely (and working freely means making sometimes mistakes too). When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.
No it's about preventing neo-nazis, nazi sympathizers and other antisemites from inciting hatred against Jews indirectly.

Holocaust deniers and trivializers are invariably antisemitic and the point of denying the holocaust, or minimizing the scale of it, is to attack Jews because if there was any truth to it then clearly the Jews together with the rest of the world has been guilty of prepetuating a gigantic lie. A huge conspiracy against the innocent Nazis.

Of course this just a continuation of the same false victim playing narrative that the Nazis themselves engaged in to justify their own crimes.
__________________
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 13th June 2020, 03:44 AM   #259
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
TBH, I don't even understand why these guys have such a fixation with Jews in this day and age. And I don't even mean as in whether it's an acceptable position. But from a pragmatic point of view, for example Belgium has about 29,000 Jews total, or literally 0.25% of the population. No, literally: a quarter of a percent. Even if you include the largest possible connection, as in up to and including people who live in a household that also has a Jew, you still end up at about a third of a percent.

Dunbar's number for humans being 150, the average Belgian doesn't actually know anyone who's Jewish. In fact a lot probably don't even know someone who personally knows some Jew.

And it's not like most even look any different from your average garden-variety white citizen.

I mean, the US rednecks being triggered by blacks... well, I don't understand them, but at least I understand what the trigger IS. Like, Billy Joe Bob saw a black and had to lock his car doors today, because he's that stupid. But, you know, at least he SAW one. I can see the trigger.

Belgians having a raging boner about Hitler and his anti-semitism... why? Exactly what would even be the trigger there, other than idiots reaffirming to each other that they too hate Jews.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th June 2020 at 03:47 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 13th June 2020, 06:19 AM   #260
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,138
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But anyway, genocide jokes aside, they actually managed to stock up oil before Barbarossa, so obviously they were getting enough.
Only by slashing the consumption of the civilian sector across the whole of Europe and the stockpile was extremely thin, there were serious proposals to partially 'demotorize' the Wehrmacht in 1941 and Stalin kept applying pressure when it came to payment for grain oil and other raw materials. On one occasion Stalin demanded the construction of a Buna plant and Coal Hydrogenation plant on Soviet soil with full blueprints provided to the Soviets. The Germans fought that demand off, but it was a clear example that Stalin would exploit any moment of weakness or setback for Germany to ratchet up his demands. There was also the problem that among the things the German were forced to agree to trade were machine tools, meaning that Germany was actually upgrading the Soviet military-industrial complex and strengthening Stalin's hand. The long term choice was become essentially the junior partner in an alliance with the Soviets or take control of the resouces for themselves.

Note that the above doesn't even allow for the impact of ideology on the decisions making process.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is 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 13th June 2020, 07:02 AM   #261
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,374
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
And let's not forget the (primarily) German bombing of Guernica and their meddling the Spanish Civil War.
And I wonder who it was that 'blitzed' Britain in 1940-41 for eight months before they moved off to do the same to Russia?

Can you really think that the British people would have been happy to talk peace with Adolf after that?
__________________
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 13th June 2020, 12:08 PM   #262
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
And I wonder who it was that 'blitzed' Britain in 1940-41 for eight months before they moved off to do the same to Russia?

Can you really think that the British people would have been happy to talk peace with Adolf after that?
Indeed not, the practices developed in Spain were used extensively in France and Britain.
__________________
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 13th June 2020, 07:08 PM   #263
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.
Poor, poor, Hitler! Treated like "trash" by the allies!! (Snark)

I mean really? This is a man who deliberately originated and ordered policies to be carried out that resulted in millions upon millions of deaths.

Lets see this man, so unfairly treated like "trash", (Snark), had well over a million men, women and children murdered in camps, by gas, specially set up to kill them for no even remotely sensible reason. This man set up housing and deliberately had it organized so that people, men, women and children would painfully starve, in his eyes, hopefully to death!! This man set up squads of killers who would go to towns, villages and cities to round up men, women and children and shot them en mass in trenches. And these people would frequently would be the victims of hideous sadism before their deaths.

Frequently the killers would proudly take pictures of their "heroic" deeds and often celebrate their heroism with parties etc.

And Hitler arranged it so that Military and Police units would comb cities and country for people trying to hide from the slaughter and when the hiders were found they would be shot to death. Every man woman and child. And there is of course those worked to death under incredibly brutal conditions.

The number of people worked to death, slaughtered one way or the other by the Nazis was in the millions. All to satisfy Hitler's pathological fantasies.

And of course Hitler had hundreds of thousands of Germans murdered by his security forces.

And just before he died Hitler celebrated his most terrible atrocity and called his slaughter "humane".

To call this person "trash" is merely accurate.

And where was Hitler's "dialogue" with for example the Jews of Europe? Nope he decided that they had to all be murdered. Has if he had the right to decide whether they should live or die.

As for negotiations. No such luck. Hitler had burned his boats. In order to preserve himself and his regime he had to win. It is such a pity he wasn't murdered before the end. In all likely hood the Nazi regime would have collapsed with far less loss of life.

Someone like Hitler had shown by his deeds that he desecrated Humanity and the Earth. He should have been removed from existence earlier.

Last edited by Pacal; 13th June 2020 at 07:11 PM.
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 14th June 2020, 06:40 AM   #264
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,374
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.

Michel - no dialogue or negotiations?

Whatever do you think happened at Munich?

Like I mentioned before - even Neville Chamberlain, who did negotiate with Hitler - came to realize that there was no point.
__________________
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 14th June 2020, 09:56 AM   #265
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.

Michel - no dialogue or negotiations?

Whatever do you think happened at Munich?

Like I mentioned before - even Neville Chamberlain, who did negotiate with Hitler - came to realize that there was no point.
What I said in my post was:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.
There was dialogue with Hitler in Munich, in 1938, but no longer in 1943, when Hamburg was firebombed, for example.
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 14th June 2020, 01:52 PM   #266
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,526
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
What I said in my post was:

There was dialogue with Hitler in Munich, in 1938, but no longer in 1943, when Hamburg was firebombed, for example.
All the reasonable efforts towards dialogue were exhausted in 1938 and 1939.
That takes care of point 2. Point 1 is also taken care of in that there was a very clear political goal. It being removing the nazis from the occupied countries, freeing the people they had in their hands and making certain they would not be able to do these things again.
__________________
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 14th June 2020, 02:34 PM   #267
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
How brutal do you consider it to have been, relatively? Do you think that America, by brutally not selling oil to Japan, was more brutal or less brutal than, say, the rape of Nanjing?
It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead. Wikipedia writes:
Quote:
This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports, leading the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to estimate it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining and to support the existing plans to seize oil resources in the Dutch East Indies. Planning had been underway for some time on an attack on the "Southern Resource Area" to add it to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Japan envisioned in the Pacific.
... Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina (July 24) following an agreement between Japan and Vichy France, the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.[12][13][14] The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States.[15]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events...n_Pearl_Harbor).

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable. More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).
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 14th June 2020, 02:58 PM   #268
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,507
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead. Wikipedia writes:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events...n_Pearl_Harbor).

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable. More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).
Sure. A sternly worded letter would have changed it all, right? Those always work.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2020, 03:01 PM   #269
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,525
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
What I said in my post was:

There was dialogue with Hitler in Munich, in 1938, but no longer in 1943, when Hamburg was firebombed, for example.
Hitler had only himself to blame for burning his bridges, and the German people could only blame themselves for tolerating his leadership when they now were to experience the same treatment as their military had subjected others to.

The only way there was going to be negotiations was if the war dragged on into a stalemate, but that was never going to happen after Hitler declared war on the rest of the world.
__________________
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 14th June 2020, 06:24 PM   #270
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. A sternly worded letter would have changed it all, right? Those always work.
Perhaps this would not have been quite enough. Roosevelt (with possibly U.S. Congress) had certainly a range of possible options in 1941, including raising the price of oil (and of other raw materials) for Japan, imposing export quotas (limits) and so on. More extreme is not necessarily better.
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 14th June 2020, 08:33 PM   #271
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,550
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?

Well, let's get one thing completely straight: Neither the US nor any other country in the world had any capacity for precision bombing during WWII. It just didn't exist and only came to exist in any form at the very end of the war. That meant that any attempt to drastically alter the course of the war meant carpet bombing of militarily important cities. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Berlin, munich and Hamburg were all important centers making Japanese/German military equipment. There was no other way to end Japan/Germany's ability to produce war supplies without bombing those cities.

As for Dresden, I would admit that the US was wrong in considering it an important military target. However, a mistake during the fog of war is not a crime. Besides, if we hadn't bombed Dresden, then Kurt Vonnegut may never have written Slaughterhouse Five.


Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
[color="Navy"]Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg, were manufacturing centres for war materials or rail hubs for troops and war materials.

The fastest method to save innocent Germans and Europeans from being murdered by the NSDAP dictatorship was to end the war quickly.

Yep. This.
__________________
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 14th June 2020, 10:09 PM   #272
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
Actually, if we're talking Japan, then the worst thing that happened to Japan wasn't the USA embargo, but... Hitler.

See, a HUGE chunk of the imports before WW2 were from the Netherlands. Including, yes, the oil from the Dutch Indies, but also minerals and other materials. When Hitler blitzed through the Netherlands, it joined the Allies and started giving the oil to the UK, who was fighting their common enemy. Leaving Japan with a huge oil deficit and entirely dependent on the USA.

Which made the embargo even do anything, really. If Hitler had stayed put, then Japan could get enough oil from the Netherlands to not be in a desperate situation. I mean, it may have been less than ideal, but far from desperate.

Along with such effects as that Germany's unrelenting aggression and the war of the Atlantic prompting the USA to start rearming fast, including start building the two ocean fleet fast. The airplane production was also gearing up fast and getting better at it. (Well, so was the tank production and design, but that played a more minor role in the Pacific.) So when Japan did decide to attack, the USA was ALREADY out-producing it where it mattered. Which really made Pearl Harbour less than the devastating sucker-punch that Yamamoto had hoped.

And all that ticking clock to defeat had started with their nutcase friend in Europe.

(Though I don't doubt that when one is determined to find excuses for the Nazis, we'll just get to see some kind of mental gymnastics as to how when it's Hitler, attacking Japan's main supplier is somehow ok, and it's still all USA's fault )
__________________
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 15th June 2020, 11:21 AM   #273
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead. Wikipedia writes:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events...n_Pearl_Harbor).

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable. More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).
I guess Michel H doesn't realize that the oil embargo, along with scrap metal limitations, was in fact a "limited action to rein in Japan". I should also point out that Japanese had already decided to go after the European Colonial Empires in South East Asia. The USA rightly feared this. But the Japanese insisted upon acting provocatively. (Occupying all of French Indo-China for example.) The oil embargo etc., was an attempt to rein in Japan without going to war. The Japanese government went to war anyway in order to create it's East Asian Empire and 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 15th June 2020, 01:02 PM   #274
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
Perhaps this would not have been quite enough. Roosevelt (with possibly U.S. Congress) had certainly a range of possible options in 1941, including raising the price of oil (and of other raw materials) for Japan, imposing export quotas (limits) and so on. More extreme is not necessarily better.
A much better approach would have been for the Germans and the Japanese to stop being a bunch of stupid, greedy, idiotic, brutal liars who were trying to steal as much as they could in the time available.
__________________
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 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 15th June 2020, 03:44 PM   #275
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
I promised myself that I wasn't going to waste any more time on this thread, but oh, well . . .

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't think it was a good idea for the UK and France to declare war on Germany in 1939 (in France's case, illegally, because without the mandatory vote by its parliament), and to follow this by an naval blockade, and an offensive into German-speaking Germany.

Your opinion on this matter is of no value for a variety of reasons, the most prominent of which is again your outrageous and ridiculous views on collective security. And as for the hilited, to steal a line that Garrison used in another thread, you keep repeating this; it keeps not being true. You have failed to explain why the Vichy supporters who claimed the declaration of war had been illegal waited until after France had fallen to do so, and why none of them spoke out about the highly irregular and clearly illegal appointment of Pétain as dictator in perpetuity. You have also failed to explain why the opposition never called for a no-confidence vote against Daladier if Parliament did not approve of the guarantee, the ultimatum, and the declaration of war.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I also believe that it was a bad idea to massively and inhumanely bomb German and Japanese cities using incendiary and atomic bombs, in order to achieve unconditional surrender of these countries.

There were reasons for the bombing other than achieving unconditional surrender; all German and Japanese cities were major manufacturing and transportation centers, and damaging them damaged the Axis's ability to wage war. Additionally, bombing did not result in the unconditional surrender of Germany (the Allies still had to physically conquer most of the country), and whether it led to the unconditional surrender of Japan is debatable (though it probably contributed).

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is also my opinion that it was an error by the Roosevelt administration to launch a very brutal economic war against Japan in 1941, by cutting off all oil exports (and other exports), and closing the Panama canal.

As I have explained, and you have ignored, as usual, the "economic war" was not "brutal." Japan could have continued to run its economy for years based on their domestic production and their reserves, provided they'd slashed their military consumption. What was "brutal" was Japan's war against China. Further, as I and others have also explained, and you have also ignored, the Japanese Army was not going to abandon the war in China, whether the US imposed a full oil embargo, or just a partial one. So your proposal would also have led to war, except the Japanese would have had even more oil stockpiled when they attacked.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
But this does not mean the Axis countries were innocent at all, major and well documented crimes were committed by Germany and Japan. One problem regarding Nazi crimes though is that, if you deny them, you might be sent to jail in many countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_a...locaust_denial). In my opinion, this is a problem, because historians can no longer work freely (and working freely means making sometimes mistakes too). When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.

Erm, pardon me, but your swastika is showing. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that the Holocaust occurred substantially as is generally accepted, and anyone claiming otherwise is either incredibly ignorant, or a Nazi sympathizer and an anti-Semite.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2020, 03:57 PM   #276
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Perhaps this would not have been quite enough. Roosevelt (with possibly U.S. Congress) had certainly a range of possible options in 1941, including raising the price of oil (and of other raw materials) for Japan, imposing export quotas (limits) and so on. More extreme is not necessarily better.

As I explained to you, export duties are expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. That aside, as has also been explained to you, Japan was going to attack American, British, and Dutch possessions in the Far East with or without an embargo (limited or otherwise). The embargo simply accelerated the process.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2020, 04:29 PM   #277
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

There was no indirect loss of life due to the US oil embargo. You keep implying that the embargo was somehow bound to wreck Japan's economy; the fact is, all Japan had to do was make peace in China and the embargo would have been lifted.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

No. It was an invitation for them to end their brutal war in China. As for your Wikipedia quote, it makes clear, as I've mentioned, that the militarists were already making plans to seize the Dutch East Indies, and the embargo simply moved those along. Again, though, even a limited embargo would have had the same effect, because it would have meant either abandoning the war in China, or attacking the Allies.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable.

The US had already passed the Tydings–McDuffie ActWP, which granted the Philippines independence after a ten-year transition period, and Britain had passed the Government of India Act 1935WP, which granted India a significant amount of autonomy. So the claim that the Japanese were only emulating the other colonial powers is dubious at best.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).

Again, you're simply wrong; it would be nice if you could admit it.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2020, 05:08 PM   #278
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
The US had already passed the Tydings–McDuffie ActWP, which granted the Philippines independence after a ten-year transition period
One can perhaps compare the Commonwealth of the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...he_Philippines) with Manchukuo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo).
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 15th June 2020, 06:05 PM   #279
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Again, you're simply wrong; it would be nice if you could admit it.
I remain unconvinced by your arguments about Japan. It seems to me that, in July of 1941, Roosevelt could have invited ambassador Nomura to have a discussion in the Oval Office, with Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and explained to him that the American people were gravely concerned about reports (from multiple reliable sources) of Japanese atrocities in China. If these didn't stop, and if Japan didn't stop its invasion of China, he could have said, then, to their great regrets, the United States would have to sanction Japan by restricting oil exports, in order to apply serious pressure on Japan, without, however, going so far as trying to crush its economy and its military (there was no need to humiliate Japan by withdrawing all the oil used by its military). I see no reason why ambassador Nomura, and Japanese leaders, would not have understood such a pedagogic (and gradual) approach.

Last edited by Michel H; 15th June 2020 at 07:02 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 15th June 2020, 06:26 PM   #280
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
One can perhaps compare the Commonwealth of the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...he_Philippines) with Manchukuo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo).

No. First, according to the article, which you seem not to have bothered to read, the League of Nations, your favored arbiter of international disputes of the period, took the official position that Manchukuo was still a part of China. Second, with a few minor exceptions, international recognition of Manchukuo was limited to other Axis and Axis-friendly nations (including the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed). Third, and most important, Japan had no plans to grant Manchukuo independence, and maintained a puppet government with a rubber-stamp parliament.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 05:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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