Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Michel H]

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.

It seems to me Hitler ordered a modification of his book for the French because he wanted to have good relations with them, and did not want to unecessarily provoke them.

 

[Michel H]

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.

Way to hijack a tragedy. ISIS are determined to be the worst of the worst.

This is what you say, but you are not really bothering to quote them. I hope that your beliefs do not stem from reading Donald Trump on Twitter.

A few years ago, after a terror attack in Europe, I watched a video by them (this doesn't mean approval, of course). It seems to me that, in it, they explained the attack was an act of retaliation, following Western bombings against them.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So, no comment about how peaceful anti-Nazi protests went for the White Rose then? I'm shocked.

 

[Michel H]

So, no comment about how peaceful anti-Nazi protests went for the White Rose then? I'm shocked.

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).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It seems to me Hitler ordered a modification of his book for the French because he wanted to have good relations with them, and did not want to unecessarily provoke them.

Yes. He wanted to avoid hostility at that time. He didn't want to provoke them by revealing his true feelings about them. And it in no way suggests he wanted to avoid war with France, only that he preferred to do so on his own terms and at a time of his choosing. Very similar to his pact of friendship with the Soviet Union.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A few years ago, after a terror attack in Europe, I watched a video by them (this doesn't mean approval, of course). It seems to me that, in it, they explained the attack was an act of retaliation, following Western bombings against them.

Were you surprised to find that an ISIS propaganda video sought to justify their actions? This is a rhetorical but nevertheless serious question.

Do you suppose Western governments began bombing ISIS because they decided they needed the target practice, or do you suppose there might have been previous significant events which that ISIS "retaliation" video didn't dwell on?

 

[abaddon]

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.

So the Polish horsemen could have defeated the German tanks if sufficiently motivated. Have you any clue how daft such an idea is?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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:

("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.

No. The parliament voted to allow Daladier to rule by decree, so in effect they gave advance approval to all of the actions he took. The wisdom of granting the head of government of a democracy the power to rule by decree is questionable, but the practice had well established precedents in France in 1939. Can you point to any rulings by French courts, or any opinions of distinguished French legal scholars, that Daladier's declaration was illegal? If not, you are merely throwing this claim out in an attempt to delegitimize France's declaring war on Germany, merely because you wish France and Britain had simply given Germany free reign in Eastern and Central Europe.

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.

And if the parliament had been concerned about Daladier's declaring war without good cause, they could have explicitly reserved that power to themselves when they voted to allow him to rule by decree. Undoubtedly most deputies and senators were aware that a war was likely to break out before the end of the year. But they did not make any such reservation in the decree law.

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.

Again, exactly how do you believe the Nazis would have dealt with such resistance?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Yes, because the Nazis never killed anyone for political "crimes" prior to 1939.

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).

Exactly what conditions do you believe the Axis powers would have accepted? And what reason would the Allies have had to have believed that the Axis (especially Germany) wouldn't have attacked again after they'd licked their wounds for a few years?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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).

But you suggested that the Poles should have peacefully protested against the Nazis when they (the Nazis) invaded. You made the rather obvious inferred claim that they would have been much more successful than in trying to resist them with force. That the deaths of a large number of Poles weren't due to the Nazi's being evil bastards but due to them fighting against a hostile resistance.

I showed you what happened to peaceful protest movements in Nazi Germany. They were executed. Brutally.

 

[Michel H]

But you suggested that the Poles should have peacefully protested against the Nazis when they (the Nazis) invaded. You made the rather obvious inferred claim that they would have been much more successful than in trying to resist them with force. That the deaths of a large number of Poles weren't due to the Nazi's being evil bastards but due to them fighting against a hostile resistance.

I showed you what happened to peaceful protest movements in Nazi Germany. They were executed. Brutally.

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".

 

[Michel H]

Do you suppose Western governments began bombing ISIS because they decided they needed the target practice, or do you suppose there might have been previous significant events which that ISIS "retaliation" video didn't dwell on?

Claiming Western governments began bombing ISIS "because they decided they needed the target practice" would certainly be an exaggeration.

The reality is sinister enough, there is no need for exaggeration, and the reality, as I understand it (or I think I understand it) is that Western nations are bombing ISIS in order to provide military support to essentially the United States of America (their NATO ally) who illegally invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. I believe lawyers call this "aiding and abetting a crime".

And it seems to me the fundamental reason why the U.S. (with some allies) invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (after 9/11) was to help Israel "steal" more land every month to the Palestinians. This has been basic U.S. policy for about 50 years now, and is (and has been) probably the basic cause of much of Middle East terrorism (at least, before the war in Yemen, which is more related to opposition and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran).

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the ISIS people and the Taliban (and even the Iranians) should also make an effort to evolve and change: they should adopt democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, education for girls, right to divorce, right to dress as they like for women, without a dress code imposed by elderly male clerics, and so on. As long as the Taliban and ISIS do not adopt basic human rights, there may unfortunately be some legitimacy to Western occupation (or military assistance).

 

[Michel H]

No. The parliament voted to allow Daladier to rule by decree, so in effect they gave advance approval to all of the actions he took. The wisdom of granting the head of government of a democracy the power to rule by decree is questionable, but the practice had well established precedents in France in 1939. Can you point to any rulings by French courts, or any opinions of distinguished French legal scholars, that Daladier's declaration was illegal? If not, you are merely throwing this claim out in an attempt to delegitimize France's declaring war on Germany, merely because you wish France and Britain had simply given Germany free reign in Eastern and Central Europe.




And if the parliament had been concerned about Daladier's declaring war without good cause, they could have explicitly reserved that power to themselves when they voted to allow him to rule by decree. Undoubtedly most deputies and senators were aware that a war was likely to break out before the end of the year. But they did not make any such reservation in the decree law.

The New York Times link you gave yourself in post #21 explains:

Putting his dictatorial powers for national defense into immediate operation, Premier Edouard Daladier has decreed absolute silence on himself and his Ministers with respect to all decisions taken.

Granting a government "special powers" (as was indeed done in France, on March 19, 1939, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_en_France#Mars ) for "national defense" is not the same thing as granting the power to launch a very grave offensive war with huge and tragic consequences because another country was attacked. This goes way beyond defense of the national territory.

This book: "La drôle de guerre. L'entrée en guerre des Français" ("The phony war. The entry into war for the French") by Fabrice Grenard: https://books.google.be/books?id=fJ...dier déclaration guerre illégale 1939&f=false
, and which seems rather neutral explains:

Après la défaite de la France, ceux qui étaient partisans de la paix et rallièrent le régime de Vichy accuseront Daladier et son gouvernement d'avoir "fait entrer la France dans la guerre illégalement", sans demander l'avis de la représentation nationale.

(translation: After the defeat of France, those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime accused Daladier and his government of having "brought France into the war illegally", without asking for the opinion of the national representation.)

 

[abaddon]

Claiming Western governments began bombing ISIS "because they decided they needed the target practice" would certainly be an exaggeration.

The reality is sinister enough, there is no need for exaggeration, and the reality, as I understand it (or I think I understand it) is that Western nations are bombing ISIS in order to provide military support to essentially the United States of America (their NATO ally) who illegally invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003. I believe lawyers call this "aiding and abetting a crime".

And it seems to me the fundamental reason why the U.S. (with some allies) invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (after 9/11) was to help Israel "steal" more land every month to the Palestinians. This has been basic U.S. policy for about 50 years now, and is (and has been) probably the basic cause of much of Middle East terrorism (at least, before the year in Yemen, which is more related to opposition and rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran).

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the ISIS people and the Taliban (and even the Iranians) should also make an effort to evolve and change: they should adopt democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, education for girls, right to divorce, right to dress as they like for women, without a dress code imposed by elderly male clerics, and so on. As long as the Taliban and ISIS do not adopt basic human rights, there may unfortunately be some legitimacy to Western occupation (or military assistance).

OK. At what point did the great nation state of palestine exist, ever?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The New York Times link you gave yourself in post #21 explains:

Granting a government "special powers" (as was indeed done in France, on March 19, 1939, see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_en_France#Mars ) for "national defense" is not the same thing as granting the power to launch a very grave offensive war with huge and tragic consequences because another country was attacked. This goes way beyond defense of the national territory.

There were no such reservations in the law. Further, how is it that no one whose opinion mattered (that is, no one except Nazi and Soviet sympathizers and extreme pacifists) objected at the time? And declaring war in defense of an ally who has been (by your own admission) brutally attacked is not an "offensive war." Fail. Finally, if the French parliament didn't approve of declaring war, then why didn't the opposition call a vote of no confidence?

This book: "La drôle de guerre. L'entrée en guerre des Français" ("The phony war. The entry into war for the French") by Fabrice Grenard: https://books.google.be/books?id=fJ...dier déclaration guerre illégale 1939&f=false
, and which seems rather neutral explains:

(translation: After the defeat of France, those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime accused Daladier and his government of having "brought France into the war illegally", without asking for the opinion of the national representation.)

I asked for court rulings and opinions of distinguished legal scholars, not the opinions of Vichy supporters. Fail.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

My condolences on the loss of your mother to Covid-19, Michel.

 

[Michel H]

There were no such reservations in the law. Further, how is it that no one whose opinion mattered (that is, no one except Nazi and Soviet sympathizers and extreme pacifists) objected at the time? And declaring war in defense of an ally who has been (by your own admission) brutally attacked is not an "offensive war." Fail. Finally, if the French parliament didn't approve of declaring war, then why didn't the opposition call a vote of no confidence?




I asked for court rulings and opinions of distinguished legal scholars, not the opinions of Vichy supporters. Fail.

There were no such reservations in the law.

I have not seen the exact text of the March 19, 1939 law granting special powers to the French government. I tried to read it, but the wikipedia link seems to be inactive. If you have seen it (either in French or in English), I invite you to post it here (or a good summary). However, from the various descriptions of it I have seen, it is rather clear to me that this was not a text transforming France into a dictatorship led by "Führer Daladier", I think its scope was more limited.

Further, how is it that no one whose opinion mattered (that is, no one except Nazi and Soviet sympathizers and extreme pacifists) objected at the time?

There was a meeting of French parliament on September 2, 1939 in order to allocate money to the military (war declared the next day). Some members of parliament wanted to speak, but they were not allowed to, there was no debate at all (this is obviously not good in a democracy, before an important decision). This is explained in this book: https://books.google.be/books?id=fJ...dier déclaration guerre illégale 1939&f=false.

And declaring war in defense of an ally who has been (by your own admission) brutally attacked is not an "offensive war."

I disagree. The invaded Poland had a right to defend itself (note though that Hitler's goal was to unify his country which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles), but, if the French decide to invade and bomb Germany, they are going on offense against Germany to ridiculously try to play the "heroes".

I asked for court rulings and opinions of distinguished legal scholars, not the opinions of Vichy supporters.

I think that, when you read the sentence: "After the defeat of France, those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime accused Daladier and his government of having brought France into the war illegally, without asking for the opinion of the national representation.", it must presumably be understood that "those who were supporters of peace and joined the Vichy regime" were the finest and most distinguished politicians of the time (probably many of them were law and government experts), who were unanimous in saying the war was illegal. Supporting Maréchal Pétain seemed to be a very good option at the time to bring peace to the country (and it worked: France suffered probably much less in WWII than in WWI).

 

[Michel H]

My condolences on the loss of your mother to Covid-19, Michel.

Thank you, Jack by the hedge.

 

[theprestige]

I like how quickly this thread, ostensibly about a terrorist attack in Afghanistan, has turned into yet another apologia for Nazi atrocities.

 

[theprestige]

The invaded Poland had a right to defend itself (note though that Hitler's goal was to unify his country which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles), but, if the French decide to invade and bomb Germany, they are going on offense against Germany to ridiculously try to play the "heroes".

A nation has the right to defend itself from invasion, but can't ask for help in defeating their aggressor?

That seems stupid and perverse.