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 Yesterday, 08:59 AM   #2041
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,315
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What evidence do you have for their being 'quislings'?

What evidence do you have for his being a 'Nazi'?
I am just repeating what has been said on a TV documentary. There are strong suspicions that Edward VIII was a Nazi. From a Daily Mail article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...VIII-Nazi.html

Quote:
But thanks to much excellent digging by distinguished historians such as Jonathan Petropoulos and Karina Urbach — and indeed these new images of him giving a Nazi salute — it is now becoming clear that the man who would be King was far more sympathetic to Hitler’s twisted and evil creed than we had previously supposed.

Like many aristocrats of his generation, Edward loathed Communism. Despite his famous displays of solidarity with the poor when he was King, Edward saw what was happening in Russia as representing a very real threat not only to his country, but also his family.

According to one British diplomat who had served in Russia, Edward’s thinking ‘was dominated by sharp fear of the Communist threat from Russia’. It was this fear that made Edward look to Germany as a bulwark against the spread of the Reds.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, Edward was delighted. As he revealed to a senior Austrian diplomat, he saw Nazism as necessary for Germany. ‘Of course, it is the only thing to do,’ he said. ‘We will have to come to it, as we are in great danger from the Communists, too.’

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Yesterday at 09:01 AM.
Henri McPhee 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 Yesterday, 10:28 AM   #2042
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,589
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I am just repeating what has been said on a TV documentary.
Which is the heart of the problem, you refuse to do any proper research, you just post whatever you heard in some TV program or read in some blog or editorial.

As to Edward VIII his attitude in 1933 was hardly unusual, assuming the claims of the Austrian diplomat can be taken as fact. Hitler was seen as a figurehead for conservative elements in Germany and the Communists were what the British establishment were worried about. The fatal assumption was that Hitler would be nothing but a puppet and Edward was hardly the only one to make it.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:08 PM   #2043
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,768
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I am just repeating what has been said on a TV documentary. There are strong suspicions that Edward VIII was a Nazi. From a Daily Mail article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...VIII-Nazi.html
Henri, seriously consider this suggestion: Stop using the TV to tell you what you believe.
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 Today, 01:25 AM   #2044
Mondial
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 351
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
You really need to read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction. Germany in 1939 did not have a "peace time economy". It was an economy gearing up for war and by 1939 a little over 1/2 of massively increased government spending was being spent on defence spending! To quote another source:



The myth that Germany started the Second World War with a economy that was "peace time" largely was a myth that emerged in the aftermath due to a misreading of the production figures of German armaments production and what they meant. Further it was powerfully aided by the myth Speer created and many accepted of the "miracle" in production Speer achieved after he took over. Thus we heard for decades after the war about how the German economy was not preparing for a prolonged war, that civilian production continued on a massive scale etc. It is all largely crock has shown in detail by Tooze's book.
The Germans were rearming because they had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler himself stated that if the French had challenged his reoccupation of the Rhineland the German forces would have had to retreat. You also completely ignore the fact that Britain and France as signatories to the treaty had agreed to general disarmament but did not keep their word. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937
Mondial 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 Today, 03:46 AM   #2045
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,589
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
The Germans were rearming because they had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler himself stated that if the French had challenged his reoccupation of the Rhineland the German forces would have had to retreat. You also completely ignore the fact that Britain and France as signatories to the treaty had agreed to general disarmament but did not keep their word. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937
Disarmament by the French and British had nothing to do with the Versailles Treaty, that was the product of post WWI pacifism that reached its climax in the early 30's. The Germans were required to disarm by Versailles because they lost WWI. And before our resident Hitler apologist/Holocaust denier brings it up there was no 'stab in the back'. The German army rolled the dice on the Kaiserschlact and failed, the British, French and Americans then struck back during the '100 Days' throwing the Germans out of the Hindenburg Line at the end of September. It was the German army that called for an armistice because they were on the brink of collapse.


The remilitarization of the Rhineland was the first of the series of gambles Hitler indulged in and like a degenerate gambler every win just encouraged him to raise the stakes until the inevitable happened and he lost everything.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:23 AM   #2046
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,315
Originally Posted by Mondial View Post
The Germans were rearming because they had been disarmed by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler himself stated that if the French had challenged his reoccupation of the Rhineland the German forces would have had to retreat. You also completely ignore the fact that Britain and France as signatories to the treaty had agreed to general disarmament but did not keep their word. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937
I still don't think that Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland could have been used as a pretext for world war and that it was somehow appeasement. There is some background information to the diplomacy of the matter at this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupa..._the_Rhineland

Quote:
The Treaty of Versailles repeated these provisions, but limited the presence of the foreign troops to fifteen years until 1934. The purpose of the occupation was on the one hand to give France security against a renewed German attack, and on the other to serve as a guarantee for reparations obligations. After this was apparently achieved with the Young Plan, the occupation of the Rhineland was prematurely ended on 30 June 1930.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; Today at 04:25 AM.
Henri McPhee 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 Today, 10:22 AM   #2047
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,999
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
I still don't think that Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland could have been used as a pretext for world war and that it was somehow appeasement. There is some background information to the diplomacy of the matter at this website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupa..._the_Rhineland
Henri - you've made a mistake.

The occupation of the Rhineland was by the allied forces after the end of the First World War.

You seem to be confusing this with Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland that was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno treaty, so had the potential for restarting hostilities.

The fact that France and Britain allowed him to get away with it was appeasement.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...

Last edited by Rincewind; Today at 10:24 AM.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.