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 31st May 2020, 01:40 PM   #81
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,383
The world would indeed be a very different place if the response to a country declaring its intention to invade and take over its neighbour was for the neighbour always to allow it to march in and simply rely on its citizens' peaceful protests to make the invaders see the error of their ways and go home.

The first effect I foresee is that anyone who had a resource worth taking would quickly find it grabbed by anyone who wanted it, only to be grabbed again by a larger and more powerful neighbour and so on.
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 31st May 2020, 02:32 PM   #82
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
First, you strongly implied that Hitler's occupation of what was left of Czechoslovakia should not be taken as evidence that he wanted territory for any reason other than bringing ethnic Germans into Germany, because Hácha "agreed" to the occupation of Czechoslovakia. However, the parts of the article you omitted clearly indicate that Hitler was going to occupy the country with or without Czech cooperation, and that Hácha "agreed" only under extreme duress.

Second, after I called you on this, you pivoted back to your outrageous contention that the way to prevent wars is to refrain from resisting aggression, which is irrelevant to my point.




This is also irrelevant.
It seems that Hitler threatened to invade. Whether he would really have done so is less clear, because this could have started WWII a few months before September 1939. It is also of some interest to point out that the remaining part of Czechoslovakia (in March 1939) was never integrated into the German Reich. Instead, it became the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" (I assume this had practical consequences when it comes to getting drafted into the German Army).

When you write "extreme duress", this seems exaggerated to me (he wasn't tortured). The sentence:
Quote:
Hácha also signed into law legislation modeled after the Nazi Nuremberg Laws that discriminated against Czech Jews.
was important because it showed (or suggested) that Hácha had (like Pétain at some point) a pro-Nazi side.

In September 1939, war was declared by the UK and France to Germany (and this was followed quickly followed by some military operations, including the bombing of Munich), it was not Germany which declared war to the UK and France. You might say "they had to" because of their pacts of mutual assistance with Poland, but an interesting question which is usually not raised is "why were these pacts signed?". And I am afraid a possible answer is "because they wanted to play the role of policemen of Europe", and they couldn't stand the idea Germany could recover its lost territories after WWI. When you look at these pacts in this way, this give a certain view very different from from the usual one:"standing up to barbary".

In addition, the French declaration of war by president Lebrun was illegal because the French constitution required a vote by parliament ... which never happened. This was explained (in French) by controversial revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard in a fine video entitled: "La déclaration de guerre illégale en 1939 et le rôle de Pétain" ("The illegal declaration of war in 1939 and Pétain's role") which unfortunately has recently been removed by Dailymotion (but you can verify its existence by googling its title). This shows that, like in China, it remains difficult to defend some political truths in Western countries.
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 31st May 2020, 04:21 PM   #83
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 seems that Hitler threatened to invade. Whether he would really have done so is less clear, because this could have started WWII a few months before September 1939.

Irrelevant; the point is that he told Hácha that Germany would invade with or without Czech cooperation. Further, how would it have started the war early, when France and Britain hadn't guaranteed what was left of Czechoslovakia? And your implied assumption that Hitler cared whether or not his actions could have started a war is at best highly questionable.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is also of some interest to point out that the remaining part of Czechoslovakia (in March 1939) was never integrated into the German Reich. Instead, it became the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" (I assume this had practical consequences when it comes to getting drafted into the German Army).

Also irrelevant; in fact it damages your already extremely weak case that Hitler's only war aim was integrating ethnic Germans into the Reich.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
When you write "extreme duress", this seems exaggerated to me (he wasn't tortured).

So Göring's threatening to bomb Prague, which caused Hácha to suffer a heart attack, doesn't qualify as extreme duress? Only torture does? Also, even granting for the sake of argument that it doesn't, would the fact that he was only subjected to "moderate duress" somehow excuse Hitler's actions?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The sentence:
Quote:
Hácha also signed into law legislation modeled after the Nazi Nuremberg Laws that discriminated against Czech Jews
was important because it showed (or suggested) that Hácha had (like Pétain at some point) a pro-Nazi side.

It suggests no such things, unless you can present evidence that Hácha signed the legislation willingly, and not under duress. Further, Pétain may have been a traitor to France (possibly) an anti-Semite (likely) and a reactionary (certainly), but he was not pro-Nazi.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In September 1939, war was declared by the UK and France to Germany (and this was followed quickly followed by some military operations, including the bombing of Munich), it was not Germany which declared war to the UK and France.

What is your source for Munich's having been bombed in 1939? The RAF didn't begin bombing industrial and civilian targets in Germany until after the Luftwaffe bombed Rotterdam in May, 1940, and one account I found says that Munich was first bombed in 1942.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
You might say "they had to" because of their pacts of mutual assistance with Poland, but an interesting question which is usually not raised is "why were these pacts signed?". And I am afraid a possible answer is "because they wanted to play the role of policemen of Europe", and they couldn't stand the idea Germany could recover its lost territories after WWI. When you look at these pacts in this way, this give a certain view very different from from the usual one:"standing up to barbary".

No. This is just a ridiculous fantasy you've dreamed up in yet another lame attempt to delegitimize Britain and France's having declared war on Germany. Why would they suddenly have wanted to stop Germany from recovering lost territory from Poland, when Germany had already taken over and incorporated Austria and the Sudetenland, which together had a far greater land area, and far more ethnic Germans, than the territory that Germany had lost to Poland in 1919? Further, even if this were true, a significant portion of the territory that Germany had lost was the Alsace-Lorraine region, which Germany had taken from France in 1870, so France certainly had legitimate reasons for not wanting Germany to "recover its lost territories."

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In addition, the French declaration of war by president Lebrun was illegal because the French constitution required a vote by parliament ... which never happened. This was explained (in French) by controversial revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard in a fine video entitled: "La déclaration de guerre illégale en 1939 et le rôle de Pétain" ("The illegal declaration of war in 1939 and Pétain's role") which unfortunately has recently been removed by Dailymotion (but you can verify its existence by googling its title). This shows that, like in China, it remains difficult to defend some political truths in Western countries.

You have provided no real evidence for this claim, and your continuing to repeat it will not magically make it true. Citing a "controversial revisionist historian" and Vichy supporters who only made the accusation after France had surrendered do not constitute providing real evidence.
__________________
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

Last edited by SpitfireIX; 31st May 2020 at 04:22 PM.
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 31st May 2020, 04:54 PM   #84
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
It occurred to me to check and see whether Reynouard is actually a historian. It turns out that he's a Holocaust denier, and has no formal training in history (or law, for that matter). He has a degree in chemical engineering.

__________________
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 31st May 2020, 05:52 PM   #85
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
In 1939, Britain actually banned attacks on ANY ground targets, because they didn't want to cause civilian casualties. And if we're talking specifically September 1939, the only targets they tried to bomb were German military vessels in port. Without a whole lot of success (the first two bombing raids combined killed 8 Kriegsmarine sailors total,) except discovering the hard way how vulnerable their bombers were to Luftwaffe fighters.

By the start of the winter, the Brits actually banned even bombing warships in port, on account that a stray bomb might hit the dock and kill some dock worker.

So basically all I'm seeing is the usual neo-nazi... err, I mean "alt-right" bullcrap, where OMG the allies started bombing cities first. Or even depending on how big a neo-nazi BS-er is peddling it, even continued bombing after the end of the war. (No, really, there are some peddlers of THAT nonsense too.)
__________________
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 31st May 2020, 06:14 PM   #86
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
What is your source for Munich's having been bombed in 1939? The RAF didn't begin bombing industrial and civilian targets in Germany until after the Luftwaffe bombed Rotterdam in May, 1940, and one account I found says that Munich was first bombed in 1942.
I found this (and other things) in the wikipedia article: Timeline of World War II (1939) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli..._War_II_(1939)):
Quote:
(October 1939) 10: British Prime Minister Chamberlain declines Hitler's offer of peace.
(October 1939) 12: French Premier Édouard Daladier declines Hitler's offer of peace.
(November 1939) 8: Hitler escapes a bomb blast in a Munich beerhall, where he was speaking on the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. British bombers coincidentally bomb Munich.
It is, however, possible that wikipedia is incorrect on this. Better sources indicate:
Quote:
The Saar Offensive was a French ground invasion of Saarland, Germany, during the early stages of World War II, from 7 to 16 September 1939.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive)
Quote:
The Blockade of Germany (1939–1945), also known as the Economic War, was carried out during World War II by the United Kingdom and France in order to restrict the supplies of minerals, metals, food and textiles needed by Nazi Germany
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocka...ny_(1939-1945))
The Saar offensive and the blockade of Germany were actions of an aggressive nature against Germany taken very early in the war by France and the UK, following their declarations of war (after the invasion of Poland by Germany, of course).

Why did Britain (for example) sign an agreement of mutual assistance with Poland in 1939? The answer is given by wikipedia, and it is not a fantasy:
Quote:
On 25 August, two days after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland was signed. The agreement contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations if either was attacked by some "European country". The United Kingdom, sensing a trend of German expansionism, sought to discourage German aggression by this show of solidarity.
In other words, the UK, which was not directly threatened by Germany, wanted to be a "policeman of Europe".
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 31st May 2020, 06:48 PM   #87
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
It occurred to me to check and see whether Reynouard is actually a historian. It turns out that he's a Holocaust denier, and has no formal training in history (or law, for that matter). He has a degree in chemical engineering.
I don't disagree with you on this. However, I found the historical and legal analysis he presented in his now deleted video rather good (he has a university degree, and is also a former teacher of mathematics). I would call a "historian" somebody who has done historical reseach of sufficient importance and quality. However, I disagree with many of Reynouard's ideas.

Last edited by Michel H; 31st May 2020 at 06:53 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 31st May 2020, 08:24 PM   #88
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
In September 1939, war was declared by the UK and France to Germany (and this was followed quickly followed by some military operations, including the bombing of Munich), it was not Germany which declared war to the UK and France.

I'm sorry if this sounds dim, but does any country in the world - including Germany - dispute that German aggression inexorably led to war in Europe?

Does Poland agree that, rather than resist, they should have just let Germany build reinforced roads? Does Germany itself agree that England would have been left entirely alone if they hadn't themselves declared war on Germany?

I'll go even farther. Did East Germany, while it existed, ever agree with any of these statements?

Here's one I don't know for sure: Did Nazi Germany agree that they would have left the UK alone if it hadn't been for English aggression?
__________________
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 31st May 2020, 10:09 PM   #89
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,041
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I don't disagree with you on this. However, I found the historical and legal analysis he presented in his now deleted video rather good (he has a university degree, and is also a former teacher of mathematics). I would call a "historian" somebody who has done historical reseach of sufficient importance and quality. However, I disagree with many of Reynouard's ideas.

in view of your outrageous and ridiculous views about collective security, your opinion of Reynouard's analysis is not in the least bit persuasive.
__________________
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 1st June 2020, 07:49 AM   #90
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
[info=Agatha] ... snipped for relevance ...

This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939 (illegally because not approved by parliament in France's case; Nazi Germany did not want a new war with France and the UK at that time, partly because of ideological and racial reasons, and partly because of some bad memories from the previous war).

... snipped for relevance ...
While there have been several excellent posts in this thread refuting that various bits of nonsense posted by 'Michel H', I have not yet seen one which refutes this one bit of nonsense concerning how Hitler did not want a war with France and the UK (see the underscored poriton of his opening statement).

While it is true that Hitler did not want a war with France and the UK in 1939. Instead, what Hitler wanted, and expected, was for France and the UK to stay out of his way in 1939 while he conquered Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

And then, once the issue of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union was resolved to the favor of Germany, then Germany would go to war with France and the UK.

Hitler foolishly expected to conquer and occupy Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in a matter of months and at the same time he expected France and the UK would do anything substantive to oppose his plans for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union because Germany would be fighting the communists.

However, even if France and the UK would not have gone to war with Germany 1939, then Germany would have gone to war with France and the UK sooner or later all the same.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2020, 08:15 AM   #91
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Mod Info This thread began as a discussion on the attack on a maternity ward in Afghanistan, but has been comprehensively derailed into a discussion on WWII. Accordingly I have split the thread.
Posted By:Agatha



This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939 (illegally because not approved by parliament in France's case; Nazi Germany did not want a new war with France and the UK at that time, partly because of ideological and racial reasons, and partly because of some bad memories from the previous war).

The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.

Perhaps it would also have been a good thing that the Poles accept the construction of a highway between East Prussia and the rest of Germany (with appropriate bridges), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlinka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor.
Absolutely hilarious!!

Are you actually condemning the Poles for defending themselves, with arms, from an unprovoked attack!? Whatever.

Are you aware of he German False Flag operation in which they arranged for a fake "attack" on a German Radio post by "Poles" who were actually German prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms who were killed and placed around the installation? The attack on Poland was entirely unprovoked. Hitler wanted a war at least with Poland and was very concerned that someone would drop a mediation proposal at the last minute and spoil his fun. If Hitler's aims in Poland were limited he could simply have defeated Poland and forced the Poles to accept the annexation of the Danzig corridor. Nope he destroyed the Polish state, along with Russia, and started to brutally oppress the Poles in an effort to turn them into serfs.

The Nazi regime had absolutely no right to invade Poland in order to secure roads to East Prussia or control of Danzig. Hitler also admitted to his Generals before the attack that Danzig etc., were mere excuses and that the goal was to attack and destroy the Polish state.

This comment:

Quote:
The invaded Polish people could have defended their rights and their sovereignty too, but I think they should have done this in a mostly peaceful way, though dialogue, demonstrations/protests and so on.
You have absolutely no idea of the nature of the Nazi regime. Their rule of Poland was brutal and vicious and the terror and murder started right away. Lets see mass murder of Polish civilians, mass arrests etc. Any demonstrations were crushed by force and terror. AS for "dialogue" you must be joking! Hitler's goal was the liquidation of the Polish state and the subordination of the Poles into a class of serfs to be exploited by the "superior race". Sadly., according to you, the victim committed the terrible crime a physically resisting an unprovoked attack. (Snark)

May I also point out Hitler's comments in Mein Kampf about wanting "Living Space" in Eastern Europe, mainly Russia., Or the idiocy in Nazi Ideology about Russia being Germanys "India".

May I also point out the huge military spending of the Nazi regime before the war started. by 1939, before the war Nazi Germany was spending c., 17% of is GNP on "Defence" for peace time regime such figures are incredible. In fact more than 50% of all government spending was "Defence". Germany before World War II was gearing up for War. Hitler of course wanted for the time being France and England to stay out of the War so that he could continue his plans of eastern conquest. But sooner or later he would have to deal with England and France. And certainly neither England or France wanted German hegemony in Europe which control of Eastern Europe would give Germany. I could go into here Hitler's plans for world hegemony but that is not needed.
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 1st June 2020, 08:40 AM   #92
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
And even if Hitler had eventually attacked the Soviet Union to create a vast empire extending in Eastern Europe, somewhat similar to the Soviet Union, I believe, in the long run, the will of the people, and common sense tends to prevail over the fantasies of a half-mad dictator. Such an "empire" might have disintegrated peacefully like the Soviet Union in 1991.
(error correction, sorry)
Hilarious! I guess you don't know about "Plan East". The German plan for occupied Russia. Which would have made the brutality of Stalin's regime seem like a mild prelude to utter horror. This plan involved mass murder on a colossal scale, along with mass starvation and the forcible deportation of tens of millions to Siberia. The initial phase of the plan would have involved according to the Nazi idiots at least 20 million deaths. And of course much of the remaining population would be subject to later liquidation and the remnants reduced to a subject serf population, which would be brutally oppressed. Hitler planned his war in the East to be a war of annihilation and to a large extent it was. Forty years of this sort of rule would have been much worst than even High Stalinism.

Since however you are taking seriously the crap given out by a Holocaust denier, who are by definition liars, I guess you don't know this.

Last edited by Pacal; 1st June 2020 at 09:11 AM.
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 1st June 2020, 08:57 AM   #93
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Trying to oppose Adolf Hitler in wartime, when Germany was under allied bombing, was certainly very dangerous. I am not surprised several members of the group you mention ended up executed.

Perhaps they could have criticized a little more the UK and US, who had demanded unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy and Japan in January 1943 (Casablanca conference).
Wow!! You actually have the unmitigated gall to condemn The White Rose!! Whose "crimes" consisted of printing and distributing pamphlets and writing graffiti condemning the war!

You even state that they should have condemned the demand for unconditional surrender. Why? It is always so easy to condemn the other guys atrocities. The White Rose movement was almost entirely motivated by moral reaction to Nazi atrocities, which they knew about in sickening detail and which they felt that in some small way they could do something about. But no they should have condemned the Allies more. Why? The Nazi propaganda machine was already doing that at hysterical decibel levels while being absolutely silent about it's own spectacular atrocities. (And in fact trying to actively suppress detailed knowledge of same.) So it took great moral and physical courage to try to combat this ignorance.

I should point out that in Britain and the USA speech condemning area bombing etc., did not lead to executions.
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 1st June 2020, 09:09 AM   #94
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Well, assuming you live in an occupied country by Germany around 1940, your best course of action is probably to do nothing special, and to obey the orders of the occupying power (and, if you are a Jew, try to hide, or hide your identity, though I think the French Jews were actually generally not deported by the Germans during the German occupation of France), at least for some time.

My mother, born in 1933, and who unfortunately died a few days ago from COVID-19, lived the occupation period by Germany in Belgium, and, believe it or not, she once told me that, at some point, the Germans had oranges distributed in schools, and they said this was a present from the German military (!). The British and Americans were more distributing bombs from the sky, I believe (business as usual ).

Nevertheless, the Germans were not well liked by most Belgian people at the end of the war, and many felt happy to be "liberated".
Sorry about your mother.

As for the rest. Hilarious! The fact you put "liberated" in quotation marks in amusing . So it really wasn't "liberation". So what was it? Certainly the vast majority of the people of Belgium felt it has liberation.

No doubt the Belgium workers forcibly taken to Germany to work, the people tortured by the SS and Gestapo and the overall repressive system instituted by the Nazis, including torture etc., are just not important. Or how about the more than 20,000 Jews living in Belgium murdered by the Nazis? And of course the fate of those found "guilty" of the "crime" of hiding Jews.

And it appears according to you, that because the German Army on one or more occasions gave oranges to School Children in Belgium that it was so unfair that the people of Belgium ended up not liking the Germans. Whatever.
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 1st June 2020, 09:16 AM   #95
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,724
I like how some Hitler fanboys keep ignoring all evidence.

Micheal H claims the occupied poles should have peacefully protested.

Thus ignoring the clear nazi policies of exterminating the poles as a race which were implemented from the moment the war was over in Poland, and the fact that when occupied peoples NOT slated for extermination protested these protests were violently suppressed.
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 1st June 2020, 05:07 PM   #96
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
It also helps if one understands what the racial views of the Nazis were. Which they hadn't invented, but adopted nevertheless. And sadly it didn't die with the actual NSDAP either.

Basically the view was that (successful) empires can only be founded and run by Aryans, and they fall when they get clogged by too many subhumans. Quite literally. Rome for them for example started to go downhill fast when all the immigrants polluted them.

And again, sad to say, they weren't the first, nor the last to take such views. It may not be framed in terms of "kill the jews" any more, or not overtly, but states decaying because of all those pesky immigrants... well, let's just say, you can still find people on youtube preaching that kind of ideology.

It must also be said that not all Nazis were created equal, even in that aspect. Himmler for example believed he could "purify" all sorts of non-Aryans if they fight in his special SS units. Basically the ones who were brave enough and survived, would be good enough. That's actually a slightly saner version than his purifying souls ideas, but basically that's the end result: you can become a good enough second class citizen if you earn it in battle.

Hitler pretty much would have none of that, although he did let some into the army and especially SS. If nothing else, for pragmatic reasons. If anyone wants to get shot at by the Red Army, well, you could do worse than letting some pad the front line.

Once you understand that -- including that in his set of premises, Hitler probably genuinely believed that he was saving the world -- it's pretty clear that there was not much hope in the long run for the Poles and generally Slavs, Roma, Jews, etc. There's no peaceful demonstration that will change the mind of someone, when his views are basically that you're the menace that he's saving the world from.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 1st June 2020 at 05:08 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 2nd June 2020, 12:02 PM   #97
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I'm sorry if this sounds dim, but does any country in the world - including Germany - dispute that German aggression inexorably led to war in Europe?

Does Poland agree that, rather than resist, they should have just let Germany build reinforced roads? Does Germany itself agree that England would have been left entirely alone if they hadn't themselves declared war on Germany?

I'll go even farther. Did East Germany, while it existed, ever agree with any of these statements?

Here's one I don't know for sure: Did Nazi Germany agree that they would have left the UK alone if it hadn't been for English aggression?
Many people (even in Germany and Japan) have adopted the British and American viewpoints on the real responsabilities for WWII.

In my opinion, if the UK and France had not declared war to Hitler in 1939 (even though Hitler wanted peace with them), there would have been a 90% chance he would have attacked neither France nor the UK (if neither of these two countries had showed hostility towards Germany), but only a 40% chance he wouldn't have attacked the Soviet Union.

I believe the Anglo-French decision to attack was a blunder which led to the invasion of France, Belgium and the Netherlands, more deaths, bombing and suffering, more persecution for the Jews, a climate of hate and violence and solved really nothing (at least, in the short term).

Last edited by Michel H; 2nd June 2020 at 01:35 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 2nd June 2020, 12:57 PM   #98
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Many people (even in Germany and Japan) have adopted the British and American viewpoints on the real responsabilities for WWII.

In my opinion, if the UK and France had not declared war to Hitler in 1939 (even though Hitler wanted peace with them), there would have been a 90% chance he would have attacked neither France nor the UK (if neither of these two countries had showed hostility towards Germany), but only a 40% chance he wouldn't have attacked the Soviet Union.

I believe the Anglo-French decision to attack was a blunder which led to the invasion of France, Belgium and the Netherlands, more deaths, bombing and suffering, more persecution for the Jews, a climate of hate of violence and solved really nothing (at least, in the short term).
If Hitler had really wanted peace with France and Britain he would not have invaded Poland. He knew quite well that by doing so he was risking war with them. But the idiot did it anyway. If Hitler had really wanted peace he would have not had his insane level of military expenditure. Your percentages are totally bogus. But I suppose turning over much of Eastern Europe over to Hitler and his Nazi goons should not have been a problem. (snark)

Hitler had shown repeatedly he could not be trusted. His annexation of Bohemia and Moravia had convinced virtually everyone in France and England of that. (The Czechs were not made citizens of the Reich because they were "inferior" slavs.)

Nothing forced Hitler to do anything and even after his invasion of Poland, if his demands had in fact been "reasonable" he could simply after his successful invasion negotiated with the Polish Government to agree with the annexation of Polish corridor. He did not! Instead he liquidated the Polish state and proceeded to institute a reign of terror deliberately designed to eliminate Polish identity and reduce the Poles to serfs.

And may I again point out that Hitler had plans for hegemony in Europe and eventually global ambitions all of which put him on a collision course with Britain and France.

Nothing the Britain and France did forced Hitler to do anything. He mass murdered Jews because he wanted to. He invaded because he wanted to. He indulged in a myriad of atrocities because he wanted to and it felt good. As for a climate of hate - welcome to Nazi Germany early 1939. (Like Cersi in Game of Thrones)
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 2nd June 2020, 01:30 PM   #99
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
But I suppose turning over much of Eastern Europe over to Hitler and his Nazi goons should not have been a problem. (snark)
No, I agree that this would have been a real problem (if it had happened at all). I just think that declaring war to Germany (as the UK and France did, illegally in the case of France, because without a proper vote by both chambers of parliament) wasn't the good answer to this threat. This just led to more violence and a lot of unnecessary suffering for many French, British and Belgian citizens.

It might be argued that the conquest of the American West in the nineteeth century was a problem too (from the point of view of the basic human rights of Indians sent to reservations), but fortunately the British and the French did not try to solve this problem by declaring war to the U.S.A.

A comparison between the Nazis and the U.S. is made in this recent book:
The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective
https://www.amazon.com/American-West.../dp/023027515X

Some comments about this book (found on the Amazon webpage):
Challenging and provocative, this well-researched and clearly written account utilizes the cutting-edge approaches of comparative genocide studies to identify what Kakel rightly calls 'disquieting underlying patterns of empirical similarity' in the genocidal policies and practices that flowed from colonial ambitions in the American West and the Nazi East. Kakel's judicious and insightful analysis can withstand the controversies that are likely to swirl around this important book.

Although historians have recognized that the Euro-American colonization of North America inspired the Nazi war for "living space," Carroll Kakel's study is the first sustained and detailed comparison of the American West and the Nazi East. These episodes of territorial expansionism, which combined settler colonialism with the expulsion and killing of indigenous people, occurred at different times and they evinced important differences arising from their specific contexts. Nevertheless, their similarities, among them the obsession with "space" as vital to national survival and the desire to expel or eliminate racial "undesirables" which Kakel demonstrates with rich detail and telling side-by-side comparisons, show conclusively that empire and race lay at the foundations of the American Republic, and that American expansionism became the most important imperialist model for the National Socialists.
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 2nd June 2020, 02:03 PM   #100
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
Just repeating that it's illegal, doesn't make it so. I realize that for neo-nazi apologists it's the best they can do, but it still doesn't become a valid argument just because someone is unable to make a better one.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 2nd June 2020 at 02:13 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 2nd June 2020, 02:38 PM   #101
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, I agree that this would have been a real problem (if it had happened at all). I just think that declaring war to Germany (as the UK and France did, illegally in the case of France, because without a proper vote by both chambers of parliament) wasn't the good answer to this threat. This just led to more violence and a lot of unnecessary suffering for many French, British and Belgian citizens.

It might be argued that the conquest of the American West in the nineteeth century was a problem too (from the point of view of the basic human rights of Indians sent to reservations), but fortunately the British and the French did not try to solve this problem by declaring war to the U.S.A.

A comparison between the Nazis and the U.S. is made in this recent book:
The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective
https://www.amazon.com/American-West.../dp/023027515X

Some comments about this book (found on the Amazon webpage):
Challenging and provocative, this well-researched and clearly written account utilizes the cutting-edge approaches of comparative genocide studies to identify what Kakel rightly calls 'disquieting underlying patterns of empirical similarity' in the genocidal policies and practices that flowed from colonial ambitions in the American West and the Nazi East. Kakel's judicious and insightful analysis can withstand the controversies that are likely to swirl around this important book.

Although historians have recognized that the Euro-American colonization of North America inspired the Nazi war for "living space," Carroll Kakel's study is the first sustained and detailed comparison of the American West and the Nazi East. These episodes of territorial expansionism, which combined settler colonialism with the expulsion and killing of indigenous people, occurred at different times and they evinced important differences arising from their specific contexts. Nevertheless, their similarities, among them the obsession with "space" as vital to national survival and the desire to expel or eliminate racial "undesirables" which Kakel demonstrates with rich detail and telling side-by-side comparisons, show conclusively that empire and race lay at the foundations of the American Republic, and that American expansionism became the most important imperialist model for the National Socialists.
First it has been well known for quite sometime that Nazi expansionism ideology owed much to racism and a particular view of American expansion. Also the notion that Eastern Europe was to be Germany's "India". You do realize that the American West and Eastern Europe were quite different from each other. Context means a lot. and your little comment about "if it ...", is amusing. By conquering Poland and instituting his racist policies in Poland Hitler was making it happen. (Check the ration amounts given to various groups in Poland by the Germans in 1939, the genocidal implications are obvious.)

So what that has to do with anything in this thread is beyond me.

And you have been told over and over again, complete with evidence that - "I just think that declaring war to Germany (as the UK and France did, illegally in the case of France, because without a proper vote by both chambers of parliament) wasn't the good answer to this threat.", is totally bogus. And the argument comes from a Holocaust denier who are by definition assumed to be liars until proven otherwise.

You do realize that doing nothing at all in the face of a German invasion of Poland would have discredited the government's of both France and Britain and would have convinced virtually anyone in Europe that British and French promises to help if attacked were meaningless. Also almost certainly the reaction of the countries populations to such behavior would have been, (Especially in Britain), wholly negative to such crap. Chamberlain did in fact try to find a way to get out of declaring war on Germany but his cabinet had had enough of the crap of appeasement and basically forced him to do so.

Once again Hitler could have avoided this by not invading Poland by not being a dick by annexing what was left of Bohemia and Moravia which infuriated both the French and British public along with the Political class in both countries and made them determined to stop him.

A good answer to the threat earlier would have France sending troops into the Rhineland when Hitler sent in troops in 1936. A good response would have been holding fast in 1938, rather than have Munich. (There might have been a coup against Hitler. Thus saving us a lot of bother.)

Both France and Britain had made promises, very serious promises, to Poland. Failure to honour those promises would signal to Europe, very clearly, that neither France not Britain took seriously the security of "small" states in Europe. Hitler has abundant evidence indicates was planning for European hegemony and felt that sooner or later there would be a showdown with Britain and France. He knew damn well, but didn't care very much that invading Poland ran the very high risk of war with France and Britain. He did it anyway and his behavior both during and after ensured that the war would continue. (The liquidation of the Polish state, the attempt to destroy the Poles has a national group, except has serfs in a Racial state.)

What led to more violence was Hitler's unprovoked behavior, lying, deception and cruelty. Before Sept. 1, 1939 both Britain and France had behaved with reckless forbearance; well they had reached their limits.

Oh and just in case your wondering. Why did Hitler invade neutral, Belgium, Holland and luxembourg in 1940? He certainly didn't have to. But he did anyway. And thus Hitler is responsible for any war damage etc., there.
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 2nd June 2020, 03:53 PM   #102
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,138
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
First it has been well known for quite sometime that Nazi expansionism ideology owed much to racism and a particular view of American expansion. Also the notion that Eastern Europe was to be Germany's "India". You do realize that the American West and Eastern Europe were quite different from each other. Context means a lot. and your little comment about "if it ...", is amusing. By conquering Poland and instituting his racist policies in Poland Hitler was making it happen. (Check the ration amounts given to various groups in Poland by the Germans in 1939, the genocidal implications are obvious.)
And lets not forget the horrors of the Hunger Plan visited on the Ukraine. But you are of course trying to explain reality to a Nazi, note that I'm deliberately not bothering with the 'neo', and Nazi's don't do reality...
__________________
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 2nd June 2020, 04:03 PM   #103
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,507
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Many people (even in Germany and Japan) have adopted the British and American viewpoints on the real responsabilities for WWII.

In my opinion, if the UK and France had not declared war to Hitler in 1939 (even though Hitler wanted peace with them), there would have been a 90% chance he would have attacked neither France nor the UK (if neither of these two countries had showed hostility towards Germany), but only a 40% chance he wouldn't have attacked the Soviet Union.

I believe the Anglo-French decision to attack was a blunder which led to the invasion of France, Belgium and the Netherlands, more deaths, bombing and suffering, more persecution for the Jews, a climate of hate and violence and solved really nothing (at least, in the short term).
One declares war ON another, not TO another.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12. Please be understanding of those who speak English as a second or third language.


Because until you learn to communicate then there will be no communication.

And I know full well it is intentional. You have quite easily been grammatically perfect in other threads.

No linguistic pretzel logic for you.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by Agatha; 3rd June 2020 at 11:04 AM.
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 2nd June 2020, 04:08 PM   #104
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,507
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
First it has been well known for quite sometime that Nazi expansionism ideology owed much to racism and a particular view of American expansion. Also the notion that Eastern Europe was to be Germany's "India". You do realize that the American West and Eastern Europe were quite different from each other. Context means a lot. and your little comment about "if it ...", is amusing. By conquering Poland and instituting his racist policies in Poland Hitler was making it happen. (Check the ration amounts given to various groups in Poland by the Germans in 1939, the genocidal implications are obvious.)

So what that has to do with anything in this thread is beyond me.

And you have been told over and over again, complete with evidence that - "I just think that declaring war to Germany (as the UK and France did, illegally in the case of France, because without a proper vote by both chambers of parliament) wasn't the good answer to this threat.", is totally bogus. And the argument comes from a Holocaust denier who are by definition assumed to be liars until proven otherwise.

You do realize that doing nothing at all in the face of a German invasion of Poland would have discredited the government's of both France and Britain and would have convinced virtually anyone in Europe that British and French promises to help if attacked were meaningless. Also almost certainly the reaction of the countries populations to such behavior would have been, (Especially in Britain), wholly negative to such crap. Chamberlain did in fact try to find a way to get out of declaring war on Germany but his cabinet had had enough of the crap of appeasement and basically forced him to do so.

Once again Hitler could have avoided this by not invading Poland by not being a dick by annexing what was left of Bohemia and Moravia which infuriated both the French and British public along with the Political class in both countries and made them determined to stop him.

A good answer to the threat earlier would have France sending troops into the Rhineland when Hitler sent in troops in 1936. A good response would have been holding fast in 1938, rather than have Munich. (There might have been a coup against Hitler. Thus saving us a lot of bother.)

Both France and Britain had made promises, very serious promises, to Poland. Failure to honour those promises would signal to Europe, very clearly, that neither France not Britain took seriously the security of "small" states in Europe. Hitler has abundant evidence indicates was planning for European hegemony and felt that sooner or later there would be a showdown with Britain and France. He knew damn well, but didn't care very much that invading Poland ran the very high risk of war with France and Britain. He did it anyway and his behavior both during and after ensured that the war would continue. (The liquidation of the Polish state, the attempt to destroy the Poles has a national group, except has serfs in a Racial state.)

What led to more violence was Hitler's unprovoked behavior, lying, deception and cruelty. Before Sept. 1, 1939 both Britain and France had behaved with reckless forbearance; well they had reached their limits.

Oh and just in case your wondering. Why did Hitler invade neutral, Belgium, Holland and luxembourg in 1940? He certainly didn't have to. But he did anyway. And thus Hitler is responsible for any war damage etc., there.
Apologies, Pacal, but I must ask. Are you familiar with Michel H's track record?
__________________
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 2nd June 2020, 04:17 PM   #105
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,507
<double>
__________________
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 2nd June 2020, 04:18 PM   #106
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
[info=Agatha]
This is not exactly what I am arguing, but, yes, I believe the 55 millions deaths of WWII could have easily been avoided if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939
You are entirely correct, and Winston Churchill agreed with you, calling WW II 'The Unnecessary War', and that is the title of a book by Pat Buchanan that gives the details.

But, noting the moronic nature of the replies I've quickly perused, or let's be generous and call them uninformed, I don't think this is the place to discuss the subject.

There is a WW II forum on codoh.org, also stormfront has a history forum, those are the only places I'm aware of where the standard Zionist narrative is not strictly enforced. And both forums have some very knowledgeable people posting.

In any case, for a quick intro to Buchanan's book see ....
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ALp2GkpcuzZi/

For a funny speech by Hitler that responds to a preposterous telegram from FDR, see ....
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FRTJ5IzO8fR5/

For the uncensored part of a speech by Lindberg on the subject of the US entry ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FegCJ4MbAub8/

And the illuminating talk by Rabbi ben Porat on why Hitler hated the Jews
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FegCJ4MbAub8/

The Buchanan book is really the place to start, it is incredibly good.
__________________
"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

Last edited by Saggy; 2nd June 2020 at 04:24 PM.
Saggy 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 June 2020, 04:39 PM   #107
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
One declares war ON another, not TO another. Can you give me your best assessment as to when you will learn anything?

Because until you learn to communicate then there will be no communication.

And I know full well it is intentional. You have quite easily been grammatically perfect in other threads.

No linguistic pretzel logic for you.
I agree that it is common to say in English "declaring war ON another country", but it seems to me the word "on" in this context has a certain connotation of violence that the word "to" doesn't have.

This webpage: https://www.histecon.magd.cam.ac.uk/...pe_memory.html
, supported by the University of Cambridge, says:
Quote:
Mussolini measured the strength of a nation by the number of its bayonets. The inauguration took place on 22 September 1935. Ten days later Mussolini declared war to Ethiopia and started the invasion, which led to Italy's exclusion of the League of Nations and its fatal embrace with Nazi Germany, preparing a repetition of the war of the worlds.
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 2nd June 2020, 06:21 PM   #108
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,224
Can't wait to hear Michel H's opinion on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2020, 07:35 PM   #109
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Apologies, Pacal, but I must ask. Are you familiar with Michel H's track record?
I guess not.
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 2nd June 2020, 07:39 PM   #110
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,064
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I agree that it is common to say in English "declaring war ON another country", but it seems to me the word "on" in this context has a certain connotation of violence that the word "to" doesn't have.

This webpage: https://www.histecon.magd.cam.ac.uk/...pe_memory.html
, supported by the University of Cambridge, says:
Are you serious? Wars are violent by definition. If you declare war on someone you are declaring an intention to commit violence on a person, country etc. Talk about sematic petty fogging nonsense.
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 2nd June 2020, 11:14 PM   #111
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
more persecution for the Jews

More persecution? I didn't realize there actually could be any more.

France and England declared war on September 3, 1939. By that point:

Dachau concentration camp opened
A boycott of Jewish shops and businesses started
Laws barred Jews from holding civil service, university, and state positions
Books written by Jews were burned
East European Jewish immigrants were stripped of German citizenship
SS chief Himmler created the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps under the leadership of SS General Theodor Eicke. This move formalizes the SS takeover and centralization of the concentration camp system that had taken place in July 1934.
The Nuremberg Laws were enacted: Jews no longer considered German citizens; Jews could not marry Aryans, nor could they fly the German flag
Germany defined a “Jew” as anyone with three Jewish grandparents or someone with two Jewish grandparents who identifies as a Jew
Jewish doctors were barred from practicing medicine in German institutions
Sachsenhausen concentration camp opened
Buchenwald concentration camp opened
Incorporation of Austria extended all anti-Semitic decrees to immediately apply in Austria
Mandatory registration was required of all property held by Jews inside the Reich
Adolf Eichmann established the Office of Jewish Emigration in Vienna to increase the pace of forced emigration
Germans marked all Jewish passports with a large letter “J” to restrict Jews from immigrating to Switzerland
Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) occured: Anti-Jewish pogroms in Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland; 200 synagogues destroyed; 7,500 Jewish shops looted; 30,000 male Jews sent to concentration camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen)
Decree forced all Jews to transfer retail businesses to Aryan hands
All Jewish pupils were expelled from German schools
One billion mark fine was levied against German Jews for the destruction of property during Kristallnacht

And you think a declaration of war by England made that worse?
__________________
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 2nd June 2020, 11:46 PM   #112
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,526
This!

Another thing that someone is very fond of mentioning as a possible strategy.

The one time that there were widespread peacefull protestations against the nazi treatment of the jews (the February strike in 1941), it was beaten down by the nazis.
And the jews were killed anyway!

So much for peacefull protests in the nazi world.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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 June 2020, 12:43 AM   #113
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 45,780
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
You are entirely correct, and Winston Churchill agreed with you, calling WW II 'The Unnecessary War', and that is the title of a book by Pat Buchanan that gives the details.

But, noting the moronic nature of the replies I've quickly perused, or let's be generous and call them uninformed, I don't think this is the place to discuss the subject.

There is a WW II forum on codoh.org, also stormfront has a history forum, those are the only places I'm aware of where the standard Zionist narrative is not strictly enforced. And both forums have some very knowledgeable people posting.

In any case, for a quick intro to Buchanan's book see ....
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ALp2GkpcuzZi/

For a funny speech by Hitler that responds to a preposterous telegram from FDR, see ....
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FRTJ5IzO8fR5/

For the uncensored part of a speech by Lindberg on the subject of the US entry ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FegCJ4MbAub8/

And the illuminating talk by Rabbi ben Porat on why Hitler hated the Jews
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FegCJ4MbAub8/

The Buchanan book is really the place to start, it is incredibly good.


https://scottmanning.com/content/wha...necessary-war/
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 June 2020, 12:50 AM   #114
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,526
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
More persecution? I didn't realize there actually could be any more.
Sadly enough, history proved soon enough that there could be more. As soon as the invasion of Poland started, einsatzgruppen were sent along to start rounding up and shooting Jews in the occupied territories. And in July 1941 Heydrich was tasked with finding a "final solution to the Jewish problem", which was finalized at the Wannsee Conference in January 1942. When basically it was turned from ad hoc pogroms into an industrial-like operation.

So, yeah, if you thought it couldn't get any worse at at the time of the Kristallnacht, hoo boy, it was about to get a whole lot worse.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
And you think a declaration of war by England made that worse?
You're presumably not well versed with Adolf's speeches. What Michel does here is basically repeating the propaganda point from 1942 that the world war was caused by the international jewry, and taking it out on the European Jews was somehow the just retaliation for that.

Of course, looking at the causes of it, such as the poor harvests and the decision to kill off "useless mouths" to feed, like, you know, Jews and Slavs, the war wasn't a necessary ingredient there. At most at the next crop failure the same thing would have been discussed anyway.
__________________
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 3rd June 2020, 04:11 AM   #115
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,383
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
… But, noting the moronic nature of the replies I've quickly perused, or let's be generous and call them uninformed, I don't think this is the place to discuss the subject.

There is a WW II forum on codoh.org, also stormfront has a history forum, those are the only places I'm aware of where the standard Zionist narrative is not strictly enforced. And both forums have some very knowledgeable people posting.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree, looking for a recruit. Michel isn't complaining about Britain and France declaring war on Germany because he hates Jews.

He's complaining because it brought a Nazi invasion of Belgium and he thinks that could have been avoided.
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 3rd June 2020, 05:40 AM   #116
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Michel isn't complaining about Britain and France declaring war on Germany because he hates Jews.
No, this is not true. I think it is very unfortunate that the Jews, who were already suffering so much (and very unfairly) under Hitler in Nazi Germany, suffered even more after the declaration of war by UK and France, in September 1939, apparently brought the Holocaust, as Hitler had warned in January 1939:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud
(and, by the way, thank you to Saggy for his post).

I do think, however (we should always think a little about our current time, about 2020), that there is an analogy between U.S. and Israeli policies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan (and towards Iran) and other countries on the one hand, and Nazi expansionist policies in Eastern Europe on the other hand.

Last edited by Michel H; 3rd June 2020 at 05:47 AM.
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 3rd June 2020, 05:46 AM   #117
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
No, this is not true. I think it is very unfortunate that the Jews, who were also suffering so much (and very unfairly) under Hitler in Nazi Germany, suffered even more after the declaration of war by UK and France, in September 1939, apparently brought the Holocaust, as Hitler had warned in January 1939:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud
(and, by the way, thank you to Saggy for his post).

I do think, however (we should always think a little about our current time, about 2020), that there is an analogy between U.S. and Israeli policies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan (and towards Iran) and other countries on the one hand, and Nazi expansionist policies in Eastern Europe on the other hand.
I'm sorry if I was ambiguous and seemed to be accusing you when I meant the opposite. Can I make it clear I meant hating Jews is not the reason you oppose France and Britain's declaration of war.
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 3rd June 2020, 05:52 AM   #118
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,034
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I'm sorry if I was ambiguous and seemed to be accusing you when I meant the opposite. Can I make it clear I meant hating Jews is not the reason you oppose France and Britain's declaration of war.
Ah ok, this is much 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 3rd June 2020, 06:02 AM   #119
Saggy
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, this is not true. I think it is very unfortunate that the Jews, who were also suffering so much (and very unfairly) under Hitler in Nazi Germany, suffered even more after the declaration of war by UK and France, in September 1939, apparently brought the Holocaust, as Hitler had warned in January 1939:
https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud
(and, by the way, thank you to Saggy for his post).
Note that Hitler wanted the Jews out of Europe, and for very good reasons ... but don't take my word for it, take that of Rabbi Josef ben Porat ....
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uKbrffKEyE3m/

From Mein Kampf ....
Quote:
In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under other circumstances might have necessitated decades of study - namely, that under the cloak of social virtue and love of one’s neighbour a veritable pestilence was spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped out of the world without delay it may eventually succeed in exterminating the human race.
.......
Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people's Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave's lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people."

Further, there is no evidence linking Hitler to the 'holocaust' but, don't take my word for it, take that of the dean of 'holocaust' historians, Raul Hilberg ...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/I12BCjlgl282/
Quote:
Elie Wiesel and other survivors sometimes ask, ‘Where was God?’
The German prosecutors, the political scientists, the historians, ask a more modest question - ‘Where was Adolf Hitler?’

Note that any discussion of the 'holocaust' that deviates from the Zionist account will get you kicked off most sites on the internet, and is quarantined on skeptics international, so I've only quoted Jewish sources. For more info consult http://holohoax101.org


Originally Posted by Michel H View Post

I do think, however (we should always think a little about our current time, about 2020), that there is an analogy between U.S. and Israeli policies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan (and towards Iran) and other countries on the one hand, and Nazi expansionist policies in Eastern Europe on the other hand.
Nazi Germany was not expansionist, which you can discover by reading Buchanan, or just paying any attention at all to the historical record. He did want to reunite the German and Austrian people. The primary thing to note is that Hitler did not want a war with the west, and tried to end the war during the six month 'sitzkrieg' that followed the attack on Poland and preceded the war proper, even agreeing to return most of Poland save Danzig and corridor - https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Re.../dp/B00M5K8OEM

The link between Wiemar Germany and the US is striking on many levels ...
https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/

From Mein Kampf ....
Quote:
As I listened to Gottfried Feder's first lecture about the 'breaking of interest slavery,' I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder's lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle.
__________________
"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid."

Last edited by Saggy; 3rd June 2020 at 06:21 AM.
Saggy 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 June 2020, 08:26 AM   #120
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,674
Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
Nazi Germany was not expansionist, which you can discover by reading Buchanan, or just paying any attention at all to the historical record.
Paying attention to the historical record absolutely proves that Nazi Germany was expansionist - The Sudetenland was never part of Imperial Germany, and the occupation of the rump state of Czechoslovakia really doesn't help with the idea that Germany really was only interested in uniting ethnic Germans. The invasion of Poland, most of which had never been part of either Germany or Austro-Hungary doesn't exactly help you either.

Quote:
He did want to reunite the German and Austrian people.
Who had never been united, making "reunification" a misnomer.

Quote:
The primary thing to note is that Hitler did not want a war with the west, and tried to end the war during the six month 'sitzkrieg' that followed the attack on Poland and preceded the war proper, even agreeing to return most of Poland save Danzig and corridor - https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Re.../dp/B00M5K8OEM
If he really wanted to avoid a war Hitler could have simply not engaged in activities (namely the invasion of Poland) that he was aware would result in war with the West. Instead, he gambled that he could wage his expansionist war and that the West would acquiesce to his actions. Instead he waged agressive war and ultimately lost.

I'd say that you need to become historically aware, and not a Nazi apologist, but your body of work indicates that you are incapable of both.
__________________
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 04:37 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.