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 26th October 2017, 03:12 AM   #321
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,986
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Chamberlain was terminally ill at Munich. That does affect one's ability to negotiate effectively.
I don't know much about Chamberlain's medical condition in 1938. I have always been under the impression that he died fairly suddenly, or a few weeks and months, of stomach cancer, which is not the same as something like senile dementia, and it does not affect judgement. He did make the remark when he was alive that it would have been far worse if Britain had gone to war in 1938, which was right judgement.

I still think these wars and battles and complete victories are not an easy task, as Churchill seemed to think. Even Wellington made similar remarks about his battles with Napoleon as being a damned close run thing. The Americans found out that landings were not easy.

There is a fair and just account about Chamberlain at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peop...a6655197.shtml
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 26th October 2017, 07:12 AM   #322
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Chamberlain was terminally ill at Munich. That does affect one's ability to negotiate effectively.
Maybe, but the situation was already decided with Runciman's report. There was not a lot more to do in Munich than actually sign the paper. I mean, sure, there'd be talks, and posturing, and the usual diplomacy thing, but the matter was already decided before Chamberlain even set foot in Munich.

And even the decision before, as I was saying, it's not like any politician could do anything else there.

Germany was hammering on the right to self determination issue, which the Allies (well, back then the Entente) had themselves used to dismember their enemies after WW1. They had managed to avoid the "for all races" clause that Japan wanted (it hadn't gone fascist yet), but they held fast to the idea that in the west if an ethnic group wants to be independent, it can hold a referendum and do so.

So now the Sudeten German majority wanted to exercise that right, and Hitler was hammering on that issue alone. In fact, he was making it very explicitly about that.

So NOW WHAT?

Even without the Runciman report that said that, yeah, they kinda have a good reason to be pissed off at their Czech overlords, the fact remained that someone wanted to exercise their right to self-determination. Even if it had been entirely without reason, they wanted to do the same thing that the UK had been hammering on for literally 20 years straight as being some fundamental right.

How would YOU sell the idea at home -- including to the parliament, which otherwise would overrule you -- that Britain must go to war to... prevent the Sudeten from exercising that right?

Even if you were from the future and knew how Hitler will use that to take Czechoslovakia and then use their tanks agains Poland, what evidence would you have to sell it to the press and the parliament? But Chamberlain wasn't from the future, nor clairvoyant, so he himself didn't know that.

Sure, in retrospect we know now that it led to a pretty catastrophic outcome. But the British population didn't know that at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is much less.

What I'm saying is that no politician could touch any other choice with a 10 ft pollaxe than allowing the Sudeten to have their damn referendum. The other choice was political suicide, and ultimately would have been overrulled by the parliament anyway.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 26th October 2017 at 07:17 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 26th October 2017, 12:19 PM   #323
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Maybe, but the situation was already decided with Runciman's report. There was not a lot more to do in Munich than actually sign the paper. I mean, sure, there'd be talks, and posturing, and the usual diplomacy thing, but the matter was already decided before Chamberlain even set foot in Munich.

And even the decision before, as I was saying, it's not like any politician could do anything else there.

Germany was hammering on the right to self determination issue, which the Allies (well, back then the Entente) had themselves used to dismember their enemies after WW1. They had managed to avoid the "for all races" clause that Japan wanted (it hadn't gone fascist yet), but they held fast to the idea that in the west if an ethnic group wants to be independent, it can hold a referendum and do so.

So now the Sudeten German majority wanted to exercise that right, and Hitler was hammering on that issue alone. In fact, he was making it very explicitly about that.

So NOW WHAT?

Even without the Runciman report that said that, yeah, they kinda have a good reason to be pissed off at their Czech overlords, the fact remained that someone wanted to exercise their right to self-determination. Even if it had been entirely without reason, they wanted to do the same thing that the UK had been hammering on for literally 20 years straight as being some fundamental right.

How would YOU sell the idea at home -- including to the parliament, which otherwise would overrule you -- that Britain must go to war to... prevent the Sudeten from exercising that right?

Even if you were from the future and knew how Hitler will use that to take Czechoslovakia and then use their tanks agains Poland, what evidence would you have to sell it to the press and the parliament? But Chamberlain wasn't from the future, nor clairvoyant, so he himself didn't know that.

Sure, in retrospect we know now that it led to a pretty catastrophic outcome. But the British population didn't know that at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight is much less.

What I'm saying is that no politician could touch any other choice with a 10 ft pollaxe than allowing the Sudeten to have their damn referendum. The other choice was political suicide, and ultimately would have been overrulled by the parliament anyway.
First, Sudet Germans had zero reason to be "pissed off" at anything. (Thanks to their idiocy, their "problems" got in the end final solution fixing it al...) Second, just looking at our industrial base and production should have been more then enough to understand situation. And not to speak of various R&Ds here. (At least MI6(?) was ready to help)

There is no need for time travel.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 26th October 2017, 01:20 PM   #324
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Well, maybe, but what matters is that the Runciman report seems to have thought they had a point. Whether it was wrong or not, well, that's kinda beside the point when you have to sell a world war to the parliament, innit?

Second, the whole brouhaha about the right to self-determination didn't include an "unless they're idiots" clause. I mean, sure, they may or may not have been idiots, and they were influenced by NSDAP agitators, but in the here and now they wanted to exercise that right.

How would you sell to the parliament and to the British people the idea that you have to go to war to... keep the Sudeten under Czech rule against their will?

And I'm afraid that 'we need to send a couple million people to die to keep some people and their industry from joining Germany' wouldn't have cut it either. Remember Germany had't attacked anyone yet or anything. And while Hitler did do some sabre rattling in his speeches, it was directed strictly at the USSR, and frankly a LOT of people didn't mind that.

Again, I'm not saying it was the RIGHT solution in the long run or anything. Just that you couldn't sell any other solution to the people and the parliament at home.

Some people seem to completely forget that Great Britain wasn't some dictatorship, where the glorious leader can do whatever he damn wants and declare war on whoever. Sure, if it had been the USSR, then Chamberlain could do whatever he damn pleases. But this was the UK we're talking about. He had to work within the constraints of a democratic system. And then the more important issue isn't whether he himself wanted to appease Hitler or not, but whether the rest of the UK was ready to go to war over that issue.
__________________
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 26th October 2017, 01:22 PM   #325
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Also, btw, just for the sake of setting the record straight, no, the Sudeten issue was NOT "solved" by the final solution. It was Stalin that deported the whole German population there forcibly after the war. I'm not sure if you can blame Stalin's deportations on the idiocy of the victims, or not with any degree of fairness.
__________________
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 27th October 2017, 11:58 PM   #326
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
... right to self-determination didn't include an "unless they're idiots" clause.
Neither it did. Interesting point is this, however. Is the transfer of a territory from one polity to another a case of self determination, in particular if the receiving state is vastly more tyrannical and imperialistic than the relinquishing one? Did the Sudeteners, idiots that they were, seek self determination, or a change of suzerain? And if it was the second, is that a recognised right possessed by peoples?
Craig B 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 28th October 2017, 02:36 AM   #327
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
It was included in the version that England and France had preached since 1918, and which they used to dismember their enemies. Transylvania had been transferred from Hungary to Romania. The southern half of Tyrol and Trieste were moved from Austria to Italy. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were taken from Austria-Hungary and joined with Serbia, and the Serbs really proceeded to treat them as some kind of imperial subjects, like they wanted to have all along. We only saw the end of that in the 90's. Etc.

Hell, even if you're looking for a transfer to a less democratic suzerain, the Austro-Hungarian concession in Tianjin was ceded back to China. Which was a lot less quick to discover democracy, much less get to where Austria-Hungary was.

And really that was all that mattered: that it was very much included in the version that England and France had been preaching and applying for the last 20 years straight.

Maybe it was the right version, or maybe not. I'll grant that. But deciding to suddenly revise it when it's no longer convenient would have been just as much of an "I'm a hypocrite" move as denying it outright. It was still an option no politician could really take without committing political suicide.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th October 2017 at 02:39 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 28th October 2017, 02:48 AM   #328
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It was included in the version that England and France had preached since 1918
[citation required]
Quote:
and which they used to dismember their enemies. Transylvania had been transferred from Hungary to Romania. The southern half of Tyrol and Trieste were moved from Austria to Italy. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were taken from Austria-Hungary and joined with Serbia, and the Serbs really proceeded to treat them as some kind of imperial subjects, like they wanted to have all along. We only saw the end of that in the 90's. Etc.
This was done under provisions that were founded on the right of peoples to self determination?
Quote:
Hell, even if you're looking for a transfer to a less democratic suzerain, the Austro-Hungarian concession in Tianjin was ceded back to China. Which was a lot less quick to discover democracy, much less get to where Austria-Hungary was.
This is an example of the people of Tianjin exercising a right to self determination, in the view of the Entente?

Ah, finally you come out with it
Quote:
And really that was all that mattered: that it was very much included in the version that England and France had been preaching and applying for the last 20 years straight.
[Citation required]

ETA Does your consistent reference to the UK as "England" imply any view on your part as to the question of self determination for the smaller countries of the political Union in these islands?

Last edited by Craig B; 28th October 2017 at 02:58 AM. Reason: ETA
Craig B 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 28th October 2017, 05:01 AM   #329
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Also, btw, just for the sake of setting the record straight, no, the Sudeten issue was NOT "solved" by the final solution. It was Stalin that deported the whole German population there forcibly after the war. I'm not sure if you can blame Stalin's deportations on the idiocy of the victims, or not with any degree of fairness.
First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 28th October 2017, 05:33 AM   #330
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
@Craig B
Uh, you do know that the English still referred to the UK as England extensively, right?

E.g., just from Churchill, since we're talking about him in the thread:

"To England all eyes were turned." ('The Locust Years', House of Commons, 12 November 1936)

"To English ears, the name of Czechoslovakia sounds outlandish." (House of Commons, March 14, 1938)

"We may remember the words of old John Bright, after the American Civil War was over, when he said to an audience of English working folk: "At last after the smoke of the battlefield had cleared away, the horrid shape which had cast its shadow over the whole continent had vanished and was gone forever"." (The Russian Enigma, Broadcast, 1st October 1939)

So... WTH? Even as dictionary splitting hair goes, just... WTH?

THAT said, if you just want to say that the British government were hypocrites, wth, I just told you that a couple of messages ago. Again. They rejected the "for all races" clause proposed by Japan in the Versailles treaty, because they weren't going to grant all those bits of their empire the same rights.

Which incidentally was one major step in convincing Japan that, yeah, well, the western boys' club isn't really seeing Asians anywhere near as equals. And that in turn was a major factor in eventually turning Japan fascists. The Japanese pretty much went, 'Screw you! I'm making my own sphere of influence! With blackjack! And hookers!' (Not an exact quote.)

So, yeah, they WERE hypocrites. And, no, they weren't going to grant THEIR subjects the same rights.

But it wasn't a political minefield to keep a tight grip on the Empire. Quite the contrary. Whereas proposing to go to war to keep the Sudeten from having a referendum to split was.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th October 2017 at 05:39 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 28th October 2017, 05:38 AM   #331
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...
Yeah, well, everyone getting expropriated for... being fed up with the forced expropriations imposed by the Czechs in the interwar period, is at best poetic injustice. It's kinda like beating up your wife for wanting to leave you because she got beaten before.

And it was hardly the rest of the Allies that came up with that idea.

But ultimately, you know, if you're going to play the card that you don't give a flip about deporting some millions of your own citizens with nothing but the shirt on their backs, because you think they didn't deserve any better, it seems to me like you lost all rights to complain that the Allies didn't care to defend your borders, when they thought YOU didn't deserve any better. The former is far more callous than the latter.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th October 2017 at 05:44 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 28th October 2017, 05:46 AM   #332
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...
The expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was nonetheless an unjustifiable act. It was also attended by many anomalies.

I have read that some Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, seeking to return to their homes in the Sudetenland, were expelled because they were categorised as of German ethnicity in the latest Czechoslovak census. An apology for the unwarranted expulsion of anti-Nazi Sudeten Germans has been made by the government of the Czech Republic.
Craig B 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 28th October 2017, 05:59 AM   #333
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yeah, well, everyone getting expropriated for... being fed up with the forced expropriations imposed by the Czechs in the interwar period, is at best poetic injustice. It's kinda like beating up your wife for wanting to leave you because she got beaten before.

And it was hardly the rest of the Allies that came up with that idea.

But ultimately, you know, if you're going to play the card that you don't give a flip about deporting some millions of your own citizens with nothing but the shirt on their backs, because you think they didn't deserve any better, it seems to me like you lost all rights to complain that the Allies didn't care to defend your borders, when they thought YOU didn't deserve any better. The former is far more callous than the latter.
I can't agree with that at all. The integrity of borders against annexation by predatory neighbours is not conditional on the good behaviour of the state possessing the borders.

On the whole, despite the Sudetenland question, Czechoslovakia was a democracy. Poland was much less so; but that was quite rightly not taken into consideration when the UK and France declared war on Germany for violating that country's territory.
Craig B 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 28th October 2017, 06:13 AM   #334
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I can't agree with that at all. The integrity of borders against annexation by predatory neighbours is not conditional on the good behaviour of the state possessing the borders.
Neither is violating several human rights of your citizens. That was my point. One can't proclaim they don't give a flip about several millions of their citizens, while at the same time condemning someone else for not protecting SOMEONE ELSE's. Or not without losing any semblance of moral high ground.

Of course, it doesn't make either of them RIGHT. But it might make one a hypocrite, if they only care about protecting people when they're the ones to protect. Is all I was saying.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 28th October 2017 at 06:15 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 28th October 2017, 06:54 AM   #335
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Neither is violating several human rights of your citizens. That was my point. One can't proclaim they don't give a flip about several millions of their citizens, while at the same time condemning someone else for not protecting SOMEONE ELSE's. Or not without losing any semblance of moral high ground.

Of course, it doesn't make either of them RIGHT. But it might make one a hypocrite, if they only care about protecting people when they're the ones to protect. Is all I was saying.
And all I'm saying is that I don't agree. The repeated malpractices of the Polish government didn't deter the U.K. or France from declaring war on Germany, when it invaded Poland, soon after the Munich transactions. Nor did these malpractices imply that Poland was being hypocritical to request help from these western states.

It was right to go to war; just as it was right for the Allies to support the USSR, a monstrous tyranny, following Germany's invasion of that country.
Craig B 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 28th October 2017, 07:12 AM   #336
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
I think you're answering to something completely other than I was saying. Probably my limited communication skills. I was just saying that Klimax should pipe down, not anything about France or the UK.

THAT said, I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Seems to me like you're saying that we can choose our allies for whatever damn reason we wish. Then that includes not just stuff like "we like them more than we like the Germans", but also stuff like "we don't like them any more". So what's the exact problem, then?
__________________
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 28th October 2017, 07:16 AM   #337
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I think you're answering to something completely other than I was saying. Probably my limited communication skills. I was just saying that Klimax should pipe down, not anything about France or the UK.

THAT said, I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Seems to me like you're saying that we can choose our allies for whatever damn reason we wish. Then that includes not just stuff like "we like them more than we like the Germans", but also stuff like "we don't like them any more". So what's the exact problem, then?
I don't have any problem with that. I was just saying it wasn't hypocritical of the Czechoslovak government to want help to protect its borders, even if less than utopian conditions prevailed within them.
Craig B 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 28th October 2017, 10:34 AM   #338
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Good gods, I wasn't talking about the government either. I may be a windbag in my old age, but not every message is some history lecture
__________________
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 30th October 2017, 09:49 AM   #339
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,765
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, and Vojvodina were taken from Austria-Hungary and joined with Serbia, and the Serbs really proceeded to treat them as some kind of imperial subjects, like they wanted to have all along. We only saw the end of that in the 90's. Etc.
There was a National Council in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs - encompassing current Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina - that voluntarily declared they wanted to merge their new country with Serbia. And of course, it wasn't Tito's post-war policy that the Serbs should dominate the other nations within Yugoslavia - Tito himself being half-Slovene, half-Croat.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And really that was all that mattered: that it was very much included in the version that England and France had been preaching and applying for the last 20 years straight.
It wasn't so much the version that UK and France had been preaching as much as Wilson had. And the nations living within the Austrian-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires didn't need the call from the UK or France to strive for independence, as nationalism had been brewing there for at least half a century.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about AnjezŽ Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt 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 30th October 2017, 09:50 AM   #340
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,765
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
First, it was done under mandate of Allies. Stalin on his own was only part of that. Second, they wanted to be part of Germany, they got to be part of Germany...
I'm not sure why anyone introduced Stalin into this discussion. I don't think Benes needed Stalin's encouragement for one iota to kick out the Sudeten Germans.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about AnjezŽ Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt 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 30th October 2017, 01:39 PM   #341
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
There was a National Council in the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs - encompassing current Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina - that voluntarily declared they wanted to merge their new country with Serbia.
Quite so, old chap, but I'm not sure why you think it contradicts anything I've said. It IS an example that the right to self-determination DOES include the right to move yourself to another state, right? Which is what Craig was questioning.

Originally Posted by ddt View Post
It wasn't so much the version that UK and France had been preaching as much as Wilson had.
Wilson DID originate the idea, but most of the splitting Germany and Austria-Hungary was supervised and supported by the UK and France, unless my memory fails me. Seems to me like they were at the very least more than happy with that idea.

Originally Posted by ddt View Post
And the nations living within the Austrian-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires didn't need the call from the UK or France to strive for independence, as nationalism had been brewing there for at least half a century.
I'll agree, of course, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying that the UK or France gave them the idea. I was just saying all along that the idea of self-determination was that if you want to split, you should be able to have a referendum and split.

Which made it kinda hard to turn around and say "unless you're the Sudeten" in '38. Is all I'm saying.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th October 2017 at 01:40 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 30th October 2017, 03:07 PM   #342
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,765
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Quite so, old chap, but I'm not sure why you think it contradicts anything I've said. It IS an example that the right to self-determination DOES include the right to move yourself to another state, right? Which is what Craig was questioning.
You made it sound like Serbia somehow annexed them, whereas the process was voluntary from the Slovenes, Croats and Bosnians.

But there's a difference here with the Sudeten Germans: the Slovenes and Croats and Bosnians had already attained de facto independence from Vienna.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Wilson DID originate the idea, but most of the splitting Germany and Austria-Hungary was supervised and supported by the UK and France, unless my memory fails me. Seems to me like they were at the very least more than happy with that idea.
I'm a bit hazy on AH, but as to Germany, politics equally played a role as national self-determination. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, no questions asked. Belgium had to get some territorial compensation so it got Eupen-Malmedy, and thus its German-speaking minority. There was a plebiscite in Schleswig about the border with Denmark. Poland should get a corridor to the Baltic, never mind population wishes; ditto Danzig should become an independent city-state. The rest of the border with Poland was informed by population ratios, with a plebiscite in Upper Silesia. Lastly, Austria was forbidden from joining Germany even though there were strong wishes for that among the Austrian population and politicians. I count 5 political decision and only 2 based on self-determination.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'll agree, of course, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying that the UK or France gave them the idea. I was just saying all along that the idea of self-determination was that if you want to split, you should be able to have a referendum and split.
It's not so clear cut. The plebiscites on Schleswig and Upper Silesia were held against a defeated country. The independence of, e.g., the Czechs and the Slovenes etc. was simply proclaimed against a crumbling empire that could not control its territory. That's basically the declarative notion of statehood.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Which made it kinda hard to turn around and say "unless you're the Sudeten" in '38. Is all I'm saying.
There were actually enough exceptions in 1918 that one more in 1938 would not have been noticed.

Of course, there was also that Vietnamese cook in Paris who petitioned Wilson for an audition...
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about AnjezŽ Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt 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 30th October 2017, 04:35 PM   #343
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
You probably realize that I was answering to this, "Is the transfer of a territory from one polity to another a case of self determination, in particular if the receiving state is vastly more tyrannical and imperialistic than the relinquishing one? Did the Sudeteners, idiots that they were, seek self determination, or a change of suzerain? And if it was the second, is that a recognised right possessed by peoples?"

I thought it was obvious that my examples are about THAT question, which is pretty explicitly about whether self-determination includes the right to "a change of suzerain" or not. You know, since that's what I was answering to.

To "make it sound like Serbia somehow annexed them" kinda needs reading it out of context, innit?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th October 2017 at 04:38 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 30th October 2017, 07:13 PM   #344
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,765
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
You probably realize that I was answering to this, "Is the transfer of a territory from one polity to another a case of self determination, in particular if the receiving state is vastly more tyrannical and imperialistic than the relinquishing one? Did the Sudeteners, idiots that they were, seek self determination, or a change of suzerain? And if it was the second, is that a recognised right possessed by peoples?"

I thought it was obvious that my examples are about THAT question, which is pretty explicitly about whether self-determination includes the right to "a change of suzerain" or not. You know, since that's what I was answering to.

To "make it sound like Serbia somehow annexed them" kinda needs reading it out of context, innit?
The latter is only a nitpick from my side. But your reaction does not address the two other, major points I raised.

First, Slovenes, Croats and Bosnians achieved independence first and setup their own state while Vienna could not do one thing about it, because Austria-Hungary had been utterly beaten in WW1, to the point that Vienna donated the fleet to the new Slav state (poor Horthy...). By contrast, in 1938 Prague could have crushed a Sudeten uprising like a bug, even if they'd gotten some more covert help from Hitler.

Second, the "self determination" rule was maybe preached, but in practice not much put into practice. We can go over the dismemberment of AH as well, but IIRC, South Tyrolia was still in majority German in character and Istria was Slavic, i.e., neither was Italian or in favour of change to Italy.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about AnjezŽ Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt 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 30th October 2017, 11:22 PM   #345
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
I'm still not usre what the point is.

1. While all those states may have started proclaiming their independence on their own -- as you say, the ethnic tensions were already boiling over in Austria-Hungary -- ultimately they were recognized in the Paris Peace Conferece. And you're not a country, no matter what you've proclaimed, until enough other countries recognize you.

Guess which right was invoked? That of self-determination.

2. "Maybe preached, but in practice not much put into practice" only works as long as either nobody calls you out on it, or you have enough support for that at home anyway.

And in 1919 it was either the latter or both. It wasn't exactly a political problem to reward a few allies or punish one's enemies, after losing some millions of soldiers to those enemies. In fact, it would have been more of a problem not to.

But in '38 neither was true. Hitler was explicitly call them out on it, AND there really wan't much support for the idea of going to war to prevent some Germans from living in Germany.

How do we know the latter? Well, because there actually were a lot of folks talking to the parliament for or against it. Including Churchill, since we talk about him lately. Yet we don't see the parliament being moved by the anti-german sentiment until after Czechoslovakia was dismembered.

And in France -- because let's not forget, France also had a say at Munich -- the popular support for war remained somewhat low even AFTER Czechoslowakia got dismembered. The "Why die for Danzig?" slogan was coined in May 1939, and not by fascist sympathizers, but by the socialists.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 31st October 2017 at 12:51 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 2nd November 2017, 11:16 AM   #346
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
I'm not sure why anyone introduced Stalin into this discussion. I don't think Benes needed Stalin's encouragement for one iota to kick out the Sudeten Germans.
Correct. I wasn't also the one to introduce him.

===

Reminder: The only reason why Germans were in lands called later Sudetes is, they were invited to settle there by Charles IV! Those lands were always part of Bohemia!

They never had any right for self-determination.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 03:55 AM   #347
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Reminder: The only reason why Germans were in lands called later Sudetes is, they were invited to settle there by Charles IV! Those lands were always part of Bohemia!

They never had any right for self-determination.
What?

I'm sorry, but 600+ years is plenty enough time to be considered native.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:14 AM   #348
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
What?

I'm sorry, but 600+ years is plenty enough time to be considered native.
Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

ETA: Again, They were invited to settle there. They never lived there before! They had no a priory right to lands. Original settlements were long gone by the time Germans were invited.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400

Last edited by Klimax; 3rd November 2017 at 05:16 AM.
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 12:09 PM   #349
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

ETA: Again, They were invited to settle there. They never lived there before! They had no a priory right to lands. Original settlements were long gone by the time Germans were invited.
They may have had a right to self determination in the circumstances you refer to. The use of the German language was common in nineteeenth century Bohemia, but that did not extinguish the right of Czechs to gain self determination from Austria.

What interests me, however, is that the desire of the Sudeteners was not for independence but for annexation by the Reich. Were they entitled to demand that? I think probably not.

Can Catalans demand independence from Spain? I would say yes. Can they demand that their region should be annexed by France? I'm not so sure about that. Of course they are demanding no such thing.

Last edited by Craig B; 5th November 2017 at 12:23 PM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 12:50 PM   #350
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Craig, have you even SEEN the borders of the Sudetenland? If you forbid them to join anyone, it's not even a CONTIGUOUS country. You're going to enforce... what? That they need a passport and to go through Germany or Czechoslovakia just to move from point A to point B in the same country?

Plus, again, see up the thread, the allies hadn't prevented other break-off countries from joining another country.

After WW1 Transylvania LITERALLY decided to break off from Hungary and be "annexed" (as you call it) by Romania.

Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina LITERALLY decided to break off from Austria-Hungary and glue themselves to Serbia.

Can you see a palatable reason -- as in, one you could actually sell to the Parliament and press back home -- for why those were any different from the situation the Sudeten were in?

I mean, sure, in retrospect we can come up with reasons like "because Hitler is a dick", but that wasn't very clear to most people in 1938, so I doubt that it would have worked.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th November 2017 at 01:07 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 5th November 2017, 01:11 PM   #351
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.

ETA: Again, They were invited to settle there. They never lived there before! They had no a priory right to lands. Original settlements were long gone by the time Germans were invited.
Mate, did you even stop to think about the fact that the same can be said for you and Israel? The original settlements from the 2nd century AD are long gone. The Sudeten had been invited there 600 years before, you were invited there 60 years ago.

Now mind you, I'm all for Israel existing and all. But I find it jarring and hypocritical that you'd deny the Sudeten the same rights when they literally have 10 times the history there.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 01:40 PM   #352
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Craig, have you even SEEN the borders of the Sudetenland? If you forbid them to join anyone, it's not even a CONTIGUOUS country. You're going to enforce... what? That they need a passport and to go through Germany or Czechoslovakia just to move from point A to point B in the same country?

Plus, again, see up the thread, the allies hadn't prevented other break-off countries from joining another country.

After WW1 Transylvania LITERALLY decided to break off from Hungary and be "annexed" (as you call it) by Romania.

Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina LITERALLY decided to break off from Austria-Hungary and glue themselves to Serbia.

Can you see a palatable reason -- as in, one you could actually sell to the Parliament and press back home -- for why those were any different from the situation the Sudeten were in?

I mean, sure, in retrospect we can come up with reasons like "because Hitler is a dick", but that wasn't very clear to most people in 1938, so I doubt that it would have worked.
Following its defeat in 1918 the Austrian Empire disintegrated and the "Compromise" union with Hungary was dissolved. The constitutional arrangements, including monarchical sovereignty, by which these possessions had been tied together were no longer in place. Nobody took anything from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. It wasn't there any more, and its former vassals decamped.

The Czechoslovak Republic, by contrast, was a state in reasonably good order, and part of it (including much of its territorial defence system) was removed and given to its main enemy, causing its speedy collapse.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 03:34 PM   #353
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,385
I suppose, but once you allow the Sudeten to separate, you're back to the same situation anyway. Now they can vote to glue themselves to Germany, just like the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs voted to glue themselves to Serbia. Now what? Decide that a country isn't allowed to do that, after all?

I mean, the precedent kinda existed with Austria being forbidden to join up with Germany, but that was because of the whole causing-a-world-war thing. It's kinda hard to impute the Sudeten the same.

Plus, the precedent of the Anschluss also existed, where Austria was allowed to join up with Germany after all. So now what excuse could they claim? Claim that the Sudeten are a bigger threat to world peace than Austria?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th November 2017 at 03:35 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 6th November 2017, 04:31 AM   #354
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Native as Czechs under Czech rule? Yes. Otherwise, no.
No.
Natives, as in natives of the land they occupied for 600 years, in whatever way they wish to be recognised.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 11:28 AM   #355
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
No.
Natives, as in natives of the land they occupied for 600 years, in whatever way they wish to be recognised.
What part of "They were invited by Czech King" is unclear to you?
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 11:46 AM   #356
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,502
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
What part of "They were invited by Czech King" is unclear to you?
Its relevance. If the Czech king invited their ancestors into the country 600 years previously, they had in 1938 the same rights as any other natives of the country.

Do these rights possessed by all inhabitants include separation of various chunks of that country with the intention of their being then annexed by another country? That's the thing I'm not sure about.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 02:26 PM   #357
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,750
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Its relevance. If the Czech king invited their ancestors into the country 600 years previously, they had in 1938 the same rights as any other natives of the country.

Do these rights possessed by all inhabitants include separation of various chunks of that country with the intention of their being then annexed by another country? That's the thing I'm not sure about.
Yes, they had same rights. But those rights never included right to secede! Nobody had them. That land was always under Czech kingdom.

Frankly, I am not even sure where the hell you get notion that settlers of land under one country should be somehow entitled to that thing...
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 06:03 PM   #358
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Yes, they had same rights. But those rights never included right to secede! Nobody had them. That land was always under Czech kingdom.

Frankly, I am not even sure where the hell you get notion that settlers of land under one country should be somehow entitled to that thing...
Until the Czech Kingdom was absorbed by the Hapsburgs. Essentially, if the Czechs had the right to break away from the Hapsburg polity, then the Sudetens had the right to break away from the Czechs.

Or like the Americans had the right to break away from the British Empire. Or Mexico from Spain, etc.

However, they are only entitled to it if:

a. They have the ability to have other polities recognize their rights;
b. They have the ability to make the other polity recognize their right to secede.

Which is why the CSA was not entitled to that right.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 November 2017, 07:55 AM   #359
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,014
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
However, they are only entitled to it if:

a. They have the ability to have other polities recognize their rights;
b. They have the ability to make the other polity recognize their right to secede.

Which is why the CSA was not entitled to that right.
That sounds like "they are entitled to secede if they secede successfully" in which case why talk about it in the language of rights at all?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 November 2017, 08:34 AM   #360
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That sounds like "they are entitled to secede if they secede successfully" in which case why talk about it in the language of rights at all?
In the society of nations, you've only got the rights that the other members of society accept that you have. It's a lot like legal rights for people - we can argue that human rights are intrinsic, etc - but in the end if society will not allow you to exercise those rights then you really don't have them.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 05:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.