Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Michel H]

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

So the takeaway lesson from this event, in which some people decided their best course of action was to murder babies (Afghan babies, not the babies of the people who bombed them) is that perhaps if we had just let the Nazis have Poland we wouldn't have annoyed them so much that they murdered all those millions of Jews.

Is that what you're arguing?

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.

 

[Garrison]

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.

So basically you've never learnt any actual history of WWII, just perused whatever is on Stormfronts recommended reading list?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Why are you making excuses for Nazi aggression?

 

[Darat]

Why are you making excuses for Nazi aggression?

Edgy uniforms?

 

[bruto]

Why are you making excuses for Nazi aggression?

One could make an ugly utilitarian argument. If the Jews had just marched to the camps like good little volk, and the Poles had just said, sure, build a highway, what could possibly go wrong, the rest of the world would not have suffered so.

Forget the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the Nazis' characterization of the poles as expendable cattle to be enslaved and displaced, and the expressed and implemented desire to eradicate the Jews altogether. No doubt Hitler would have been quite reasonable if we'd just let him have his way on those minor details. Now Adolph, you've had enough streusel for tonight. You wouldn't want to get a tummyache would you?

No doubt Hitler would have stayed true to his word and never broken a promise. It's not his fault if he got all pissed off and stuff.

 

[theprestige]

One could make an ugly utilitarian argument. If the Jews had just marched to the camps like good little volk, and the Poles had just said, sure, build a highway, what could possibly go wrong, the rest of the world would not have suffered so.

Forget the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the Nazis' characterization of the poles as expendable cattle to be enslaved and displaced, and the expressed and implemented desire to eradicate the Jews altogether. No doubt Hitler would have been quite reasonable if we'd just let him have his way on those minor details. Now Adolph, you've had enough streusel for tonight. You wouldn't want to get a tummyache would you?

No doubt Hitler would have stayed true to his word and never broken a promise. It's not his fault if he got all pissed off and stuff.

There's also the horrific double standard. Michel H says, "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."

Prior to Hitler, the Germans could easily have done the same, regarding the Polish Corridor. But Michel H doesn't condemn the Nazis for resorting to violence instead of peaceful protests. He just condemns the Poles for meeting violent aggression with violent defense.

Michel H, why do you keep making excuses for Nazi aggression? Why do you not hold Hitler to the same standard of peaceful dialogue that you impose on the Poles?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes indeed.

And the Soviets would have been so moved by Hitler's good example that they would have apologised for the Katyn massacre and meekly withdrawn from the other half of Poland.

Further, without the dastardly provocation of the British and French, Hitler would never have got so annoyed that he accidentally invaded Russia, so all that unpleasantness would have been avoided, and thus inspired by the power of appeasement the US would have persuaded all nations to suspend their embargoes against Japan, and Japan in turn would suddenly have seen the foolishness of their rampant culture of militarism and imperial expansion, and swept it away.

Peace would reign for a thousand years.

All spoiled because the UK and France wouldn't just let Germany invade Poland, not even a little bit. Meanies.

 

[Michel H]

There's also the ... double standard. Michel H says, "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."

Prior to Hitler, the Germans could easily have done the same, regarding the Polish Corridor. But Michel H doesn't condemn the Nazis for resorting to violence instead of peaceful protests. He just condemns the Poles for meeting violent aggression with violent defense.

Michel H, why do you keep making excuses for Nazi aggression? Why do you not hold Hitler to the same standard of peaceful dialogue that you impose on the Poles?

I agree that the rules, and the duty to always try to avoid war, should apply uniformly to all. This means: just as much to the Germans (assuming we are in 1939, rather than in 2020), than to the British, the French, the Soviets and so on.

After Britain and France declared war in 1939, they first badly lost, in the initial phase of the conflict, and this emboldened Hitler who felt invincible, and attacked the large Soviet Union. Similarly, Japan felt emboldened and encouraged by the initial military successes of its Axis ally, and dared to attack the U.S., another major power, a decision that it would dearly regret.

So I think that saying the decision by the UK and France to attack Germany was a bad move is really an understatement.

The Germans were understandably unhappy in 1939 because their country had been divided by the Treaty of Versailles (the so-called Polish Corridor separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany), but they had a great responsibility in WWI, and they had to accept (in my opinion) the consequences. If they wanted a large highway connecting Eastern Prussia with the Western part of Germany, something apparently refused by the Poles, they could have filed a complaint to the League of Nations, or try to provide financial or economic incentives to try to make the Poles change their mind.

The current view held by many on WWII can be summarized by the simplistic equation "Hitler = the Devil". And the Americans are also often portrayed as the "good guys" of WWII.

However, being able to manufacture more bombs (including atomic ones) and being ready to use them on civilian populations (including women and children), on a massive scale, while demanding unconditional surrender for personal confort and "enjoyment", should really not make any nation "the good guys". This means that the current interpretation and analysis of WWII is both wrong and dangerous, because it sets the stage for American "madness" and arrogance, which is, in my opinion, one of the great political diseases of our time.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

After Britain and France declared war in 1939, they first badly lost, in the initial phase of the conflict, and this emboldened Hitler who felt invincible, and attacked the large Soviet Union.

So now you're saying the great sin of the UK and France was not declaring war on Germany, it was failing to win, thereby forcing Germany to attack more countries. Does your analysis also consider whether conflict between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was eventually inevitable, even if France and the UK had done nothing?

Similarly, Japan felt emboldened and encouraged by the initial military successes of its Axis ally …

Japan was not Germany's ally and there was no axis until both nations found themselves fighting the same enemies, and that was basically the moment Hitler chose to declare war on the USA after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact Japan was more closely allied to Britain until breaking that alliance became a condition of the disarmament talks that led to the Washington Naval treaty of the 1920s.

The current view held by many on WWII can be summarized by the simplistic equation "Hitler = the Devil". And the Americans are also often portrayed as the "good guys" […] the current interpretation and analysis of WWII is both wrong and dangerous

Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? You describe a moronically simplistic two slogan view of WWII and then imply that represents "the current interpretation and analysis".

Have you considered that you might be massively wrong?

 

[Michel H]

So now you're saying the great sin of the UK and France was not declaring war on Germany, it was failing to win, thereby forcing Germany to attack more countries.
...
Have you considered that you might be massively wrong?

So now you're saying the great sin of the UK and France was not declaring war on Germany, it was failing to win, thereby forcing Germany to attack more countries.

No, that's not at all what I am saying (or trying to say; I really would not like this kind of Trumpian mentality: "your great sin was that you failed to win"). What I am saying is that the (bad) decision to declare war to Germany triggered a kind of catastrophic chain reaction.

Japan was not Germany's ally and there was no axis until both nations found themselves fighting the same enemies, and that was basically the moment Hitler chose to declare war on the USA after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact Japan was more closely allied to Britain until breaking that alliance became a condition of the disarmament talks that led to the Washington Naval treaty of the 1920s.

This is completely wrong, I am afraid. Wikipedia explains:

The Axis grew out of the diplomatic efforts of Germany, Italy, and Japan to secure their own specific expansionist interests in the mid-1930s. The first step was the treaty signed by Germany and Italy in October 1936. Benito Mussolini declared on 1 November 1936 that all other European countries would from then on rotate on the Rome–Berlin axis, thus creating the term "Axis".[1][2] The almost simultaneous second step was the signing in November 1936 of the Anti-Comintern Pact, an anti-communist treaty between Germany and Japan. Italy and Spain joined the Pact in 1937. The "Rome–Berlin Axis" became a military alliance in 1939 under the so-called "Pact of Steel", with the Tripartite Pact of 1940 leading to the integration of the military aims of Germany, Italy and Japan.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers)

Have you considered that you might be massively wrong?

Yes, sure. Like when we debate telepathy, I could be wrong, this is always a possibility. However, to convince me (or other people) that I am wrong, you have to present convincing arguments.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Like when we debate telepathy, I could be wrong

Yes. Exactly like then.

I will though certainly concede I was wrong about Japan's move towards alliance with Germany and Italy. An anti-communist pact does rather indicate that Hitler's attack on Russia didn't come out of a clear blue sky, don't you think? (If only I could have heard what you were thinking, I might not have made that mistake.)

 

[Michel H]

An anti-communist pact does rather indicate that Hitler's attack on Russia didn't come out of a clear blue sky, don't you think?

Yes, you may be right on this, but you also have to take into account that Germany and the Soviet Union had signed a treaty of non-aggression in August 1939, which had led to the division of Poland, which was shared between the Nazis and the Soviets from 1939 to 1941, until the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. In 1941, Germany and the Soviet Union seemed to be allied, this is why many people were surprised at the time, I think (including Stalin), when Hitler decided to attack. I suppose overconfidence after his military successes on the Western front was probably a factor there.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

He might have got confident after his success in France, and Stalin might have got cautious after his failure in Finland. It doesn't mean they were going to be pals and live in harmony if the battle of France hadn't happened. Britain and France had their hands forced by the invasion of Poland. Neither was ready to do anything about it. Hitler wasn't ready to fight on two fronts when he attacked Russia either but the Western front was static with neither side able to invade the other and if you wait until you're ready you'll find the other guy has decided not to wait.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

The White Rose (German: Weiße Rose) was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in the Third Reich led by a group of students including Hans and Sophie Scholl. They attended the University of Munich. The group conducted an anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign that called for active opposition to the Nazi regime. Their activities started in Munich on 27 June 1942, and ended with the arrest of the core group by the Gestapo on 18 February 1943.[1] They, as well as other members and supporters of the group who carried on distributing the pamphlets, faced show trials by the Nazi People's Court (Volksgerichtshof), and many of them were sentenced to death or imprisonment.

Hans, Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst were executed by guillotine four days after their arrest, on February 22nd, 1943. During the trial, Sophie interrupted the judge multiple times. No defendants were given any opportunity to speak.

 

[Garrison]

Obviously it was the British and the French who drove Hitler to war, its not like Hitler wrote down some manifesto in which revenge against France and the occupation of Eastern Europe and the USSR was explicitly spelled out along with his undying hatred of the Jews...

 

[SpitfireIX]

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).

New York Times, March 19, 1939 p.1:

Deputies Accord Decree Powers To Daladier to Defend France

PARIS, March 18.--Dictatorial powers for the remainder of this year were conferred on Premier Edouard Daladier today by the Chamber of Deputies by a vote of 321 to 264.

Tomorrow it will be the turn of the Senate, and, if it does as expected, parliamentary rule will be in effect suspended in France until M. Daladier sees fit to permit its resumption.​

And the next day:

DALADIER IS UPHELD STRONGLY IN SENATE

Further, from 1939: Countdown to War, by Richard Overy:

The Chamber and Senate unanimously voted 90 billion francs [more than three times the entire defense budget for 1938] in war credits, the equivalent, in Daladier's view, to a declaration of 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.

Yes, because the Nazis would never have ordered their troops to open fire on peaceful demonstrators.

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.

First, Hitler didn't just demand a highway, he demanded the entire city of Danzig (Gdansk). But that was just a pretext for war. He wanted all of Poland for lebensraum. From Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947, by Tadeusz Piotrowski, p. 115:

On August 22, 1939, just before the German army crossed the Polish border, Hitler personally instructed the top Wehrmacht officers in what was to be done with the Poles:

Our strength lies in our speed and our ruthlessness. Genghis Khan caused the death of millions of women and children deliberately and without any qualms. But history sees him only as a great founder of a state. I do not care what the helpless civilisation of Western Europe thinks about me. I have issued orders to shoot anyone who dares utter even one word of criticism of the principle that the object of war is, not to reach some given line, but physically to destroy the enemy. That is why I have prepared, for the moment only in the East, my "Death's Head" formations with orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need." [italics original; note omitted]​

 

[Michel H]

The Chamber and Senate unanimously voted 90 billion francs [more than three times the entire defense budget for 1938] in war credits, the equivalent, in Daladier's view, to a declaration of war.​

It is true that, on September 2 1939, France's parliament approved a bill for large military spending (without any debate, those who wanted to speak were not allowed to), after Hitler's (brutal) invasion of Poland, but this still is not a vote for an offensive war.

Article 9 of the French Constitution at the time said:

Le président de la République ne peut déclarer la guerre sans l'assentiment préalable des deux chambres.

("The president of the Republic may not declare war without previous approval by both chambers of parliament")

But such an approval never happened! This is explained for example in this book (in French): https://books.google.be/books?id=nJ...sans l'assentiment préalable des" 1939&f=true

France's declaration of war of September 3, 1939 was therefore illegal.

By the way, historically, this article was introduced in 1875 in the French Constitution after emperor Napoleon III recklessly declared war to Germany in 1870, which led to a bad defeat (of France). This shows its meaning and great importance.

When a country is illegally invaded by another, I think it is generally better to resort to local resistance rather than war (which, with modern technological means, can lead to enormous number of deaths and casualies, and huge destruction). Of course, you have to be careful, to try to limit the risks for yourself and for others.

 

[Michel H]

Obviously it was the British and the French who drove Hitler to war, its not like Hitler wrote down some manifesto in which revenge against France and the occupation of Eastern Europe and the USSR was explicitly spelled out along with his undying hatred of the Jews...

I assume you are referring here to Hitler's book Mein Kampf. There is an interesting anecdote about this book, which actually shows how much Hitler wanted to avoid war with France.

Mein Kampf's original text (in German) contained anti-French statements like:

The new development of the German nation must take place in particular to the detriment of the Russian territories, the countries of central and Danubian Europe, but also in the west, to the detriment of France which he considers as "inexorable and deadly enemy of German people ".

However, Hitler was very angry when he learned that this text was be published in French without his approval. He sued the publisher, won, and approved a different translation, which said:

The border between Germany and France is definitively fixed. The French and German peoples who are equal before the law must no longer consider themselves as hereditary enemies but must respect each other.

(Reference: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In no way does that suggest Hitler wanted to avoid war with France, rather it suggests that he preferred to offer reassuring lies to the French about his true feelings and intentions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Way to hijack a tragedy. ISIS are determined to be the worst of the worst. They exist partly as the result of the American invasion of Iraq, but also partly as the result of the rise of extreme, fundamentalist Islam that was created by Saudi Arabia. Whatever it was that created them, they are insane and determined to be so.