Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Michel H]

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

I did not see anything like that in this thread (WWII was, however, already mentioned in the opening post). And the past shapes our present.

 

[Michel H]

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

It can always ask for military help, but not necessarily get it, if there are far better, less violent methods to help the invaded nation. Remember the medical principle: Primum non nocere.

 

[theprestige]

I did not see anything like that in this thread (WWII was, however, already mentioned in the opening post). And the past shapes our present.

It's in every post you make, pretty much.

There are any number of examples of good people being driven to violence by unjust or ill-considered aggression.

Your chosen examples? ISIS and the Nazis.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

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".

Firstly, my condolences for the loss of your mother. This disease is just awful.

That aside, what a load of piffle. The reason the Belgians wanted to be "liberated" was that they were being held under a reigime that executed people for crimes as far ranging as peaceful protests to just being Jewish, disabled, gay or a Slav.

That Nazis were as close as it's possible to get to being actually evil.

ISIS are not attempting to defend anything from anyone.

You could make the tenuous claim that Al Quaeda were fighting back against western aggression (VERY tenuous, I do NOT agree with this argument) because the actions of the US made their recruitment easier and so on, but ISIS? ISIS are just lunatics.

When Bashar Al-Assad and the Taliban think you're taking your Islamic fundementalism a bit far you've gone very, very badly wrong somewhere. They make Iran look secular!

They murder aid workers. They're scum.

 

[Michel H]

Firstly, my condolences for the loss of your mother. This disease is just awful.

Thank you.

ISIS are just lunatics.

I assume they would be more humane if they were treated more humanely themselves. You should perhaps reflect about the tonnage of bombs that the U.S. has caused to explode in the past 80 years.

 

[McHrozni]

Something similar happened during WWII: Nazi violence against the Jews enormously increased after the UK and France (joined later by the U.S., after Pearl Harbor) declared war to them.

In other words, if you want real progress (in Afghanistan and elsewhere), and not just more of the same, the U.S. should (in my opinion) learn to treat the members of the Islamic State like human beings, as opposed to some kind of infected rats that would need to be eliminated.

I'm pretty sure you debunked yourself.

McHrozni

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It can always ask for military help, but not necessarily get it, if there are far better, less violent methods to help the invaded nation. Remember the medical principle: Primum non nocere.

And prevention is better than cure.

Would it have been okay in your view if France and the UK had been more explicit that an attack on Poland would lead to retaliation? That's the basis of NATO for example, that an attack on any member will be treated as an attack on all.

I don't want to mischaracterise your argument but are you saying that France should not have declared war because Germany called their bluff and invaded Poland anyway, thereby proving Germany didn't believe France would retaliate which somehow removes France's moral right to do what it said it would do?

 

[Michel H]

I'm pretty sure you debunked yourself.

McHrozni

I am not sure why you are saying this, McHrozni.

However, it is possible that my post:

Something similar happened during WWII: Nazi violence against the Jews enormously increased after the UK and France (joined later by the U.S., after Pearl Harbor) declared war to them.

In other words, if you want real progress (in Afghanistan and elsewhere), and not just more of the same, the U.S. should (in my opinion) learn to treat the members of the Islamic State like human beings, as opposed to some kind of infected rats that would need to be eliminated.

lacked clarity somewhat, I shall therefore try to clarify. Perhaps I should have written:

Something similar happened during WWII: Nazi violence against the Jews enormously increased after the UK and France (joined later by the U.S., after Pearl Harbor) declared war to Germany.

(when I said "them" in my original post, I meant of course the Nazis, or Nazi Germany).

I think there is no question Nazi violence and persecution against the Jews considerably increased after the start of the second world war. In the pre-war period, "Jewish people were removed from public office and professions – civil servants, lawyers and teachers were sacked." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zn8sgk7/revision/5), and other forms of persecution (Nuremberg laws). This was of course unacceptable, but there was no mass murder of Jews yet.

After the war started (and I believe the UK and France had a very big and major responsability in the start of this war),

Between 1941 and 1945, across German-occupied Europe, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. ... As German forces captured territories in the East, all anti-Jewish measures were radicalized.

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

Hitler had, however, warned Europe and the world: he said, in a January 1939 Reichstag speech:

Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

When you have to take an important decision, you ought to carefully evaluate all the consequences, but apparently the British and French leaders did not bother to do this (the French did not even bother to set up a debate on whether to declare war, members of parliament were silenced, and their constitution - requiring a parliamentary vote - was violated) .

Now, why this analogy between ISIS and Hitler? I believe that, when you attack some people with a "somewhat dubious" reputation, they may angrily strike back, not necessarily directly against their aggressors, but rather against some people who are loosely perceived as "allied" with the aggressors, or even against innocent people. And the good reaction in such a situation, in my opinion, isn't to say "I don't care, I attack anyway", but rather to investigate carefully whether there is no possibility of dialogue, and peaceful solution, based on considerations of political independence, fairness, international law and basic human rights.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

… the good reaction in such a situation, in my opinion, isn't to say "I don't care, I attack anyway", but rather to investigate carefully whether there is no possibility of dialogue, and peaceful solution, based on considerations of political independence, fairness, international law and basic human rights.

That "good reaction" allowed the Nazis to swallow up Czechoslovakia. When the British and French caved in at Munich and let Germany take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Hitler declared it was his last territorial claim in Europe. But then he seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. And then came Poland. At what point do you conclude that pleading with them to leave their neighbours alone isn't working?

 

[Michel H]

Would it have been okay in your view if France and the UK had been more explicit that an attack on Poland would lead to retaliation? That's the basis of NATO for example, that an attack on any member will be treated as an attack on all.

I think they were already pretty clear about this, both the UK and France had agreements of mutual assistance with Poland in September 1939, which were quite public:

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.
... Because of the pact's signing, Hitler postponed his planned invasion of Poland from 26 August until 1 September.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance#Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance)

Franco-Polish alliance
... During the interwar period the alliance with Poland was one of the cornerstones of French foreign policy. ...
... The political alliance was signed ... on February 19, 1921.
... The agreement assumed a common foreign policy, the promotion of bilateral economical contacts, the consultation of new pacts concerning Central and Eastern Europe and assistance in case one of the signatories became a victim of an "unprovoked" attack. As such, it was a defensive alliance. ...
Finally, a new alliance started to be formed in 1939. The Kasprzycki-Gamelin Convention was signed May 19, 1939 in Paris. It was named after Polish Minister of War Affairs General Tadeusz Kasprzycki and Commander of the French Army Maurice Gamelin[6]. The military convention was army-to-army, not state-to-state, and was not in force legally, as it was dependent on signing and ratification of the political convention.[3] It obliged both armies to provide help to each other in case of a war with Germany. In May, Gamelin promised a "bold relief offensive" within three weeks of a German attack.[4]

The treaty was ratified by France on September 4, 1939, on the fourth day of German offensive on Poland.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance_(1921)#1939)

I don't want to mischaracterise your argument but are you saying that France should not have declared war because Germany called their bluff and invaded Poland anyway, thereby proving Germany didn't believe France would retaliate which somehow removes France's moral right to do what it said it would do?

I don't think France was bluffing when it said it would try to protect the Poles if they were attacked by Germany, since they really declared war after the German invasion. They were reasonably loyal to Poland, but I personally think that, if you have to choose between being loyal and dumb on the one hand, and disloyal and smart on the other hand, it is generally better to choose cleverness. In my opinion, these mutual assistance agreements are very dangerous, because they tend to enlarge initially local wars.

 

[Michel H]

That "good reaction" allowed the Nazis to swallow up Czechoslovakia. When the British and French caved in at Munich and let Germany take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, Hitler declared it was his last territorial claim in Europe. But then he seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. And then came Poland. At what point do you conclude that pleading with them to leave their neighbours alone isn't working?

It seems to me that the case of Czechoslovakia is "special", just like Poland's case is special. Poland's case is particular because, by invading Poland in September 1939, Hitler restored the unity of his country, Germany, which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles (creation of a Polish corridor).

The case of Czechoslovakia is special because, in March 1939, its president Emil Hácha agreed himself to a German occupation after meeting Hitler:

After the secession of Slovakia and Ruthenia, British Ambassador to Czechoslovakia Basil Newton advised President Hácha to meet with Hitler. ... Von Ribbentrop testified at the Nuremberg trials that during this meeting Hácha had told him that "he wanted to place the fate of the Czech State in the Führer's hands."
... by four o'clock he contacted Prague, effectively "signing Czechoslovakia away" to Germany.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Hácha#Second_Czechoslovak_Republic)

Hitler probably wanted to be careful, and to not trigger a war by offending his European colleagues he had met in Munich a few months earlier.

Anyway, when you are dealing with a dangerous autocrat who displays an annoying tendency to conquer neighboring states, I think it is usually better to resort to a general right to self-determination of peoples, rather than war, which is really the most horrible option (and, if necessary, to discussions, demonstrations, strikes, very limited local violence if indispensable, think of Hong Kong for example). Nowadays, this right to self-determination might apply to Taiwan for example, and the People's Republic of China should be encouraged to grant independence to the island, if this is what they want.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The point of such pacts of course is to prevent wars rather than allow small wars. France also had an alliance with Czechoslovakia but didn't go to war over that invasion. Maybe that's why Hitler thought they wouldn't go to war over Poland either. How many more territories would you like them to have let Hitler seize before concluding he wasn't going to play nicely and leave his neighbours in peace?

 

[Joe Random]

<...>

Now, why this analogy between ISIS and Hitler? I believe that, when you attack some people with a "somewhat dubious" reputation, they may angrily strike back, not necessarily directly against their aggressors, but rather against some people who are loosely perceived as "allied" with the aggressors, or even against innocent people. And the good reaction in such a situation, in my opinion, isn't to say "I don't care, I attack anyway", but rather to investigate carefully whether there is no possibility of dialogue, and peaceful solution, based on considerations of political independence, fairness, international law and basic human rights.

 

[Michel H]

France also had an alliance with Czechoslovakia but didn't go to war over that invasion. Maybe that's why Hitler thought they wouldn't go to war over Poland either.

This seems reasonable and quite possible to me. However, in Poland's case, a German occupation by the country had not been formally accepted by the president (Ignacy Mościcki in 1939: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacy_Mościcki).

How many more territories would you like them to have let Hitler seize before concluding he wasn't going to play nicely and leave his neighbours in peace?

I believe it is possible Hitler would have stopped invading neighboring countries after the invasion of Poland in September 1939, if the UK and France had not declared war to him.

In a September 1938 speech, Hitler had said, about the Sudeten territories of Czechoslovakia, that this would be "his last territorial demand in Europe" (sic). It seems to me it would have been better that the appeasement policy of 1938 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA) continue for some time, rather than rushing to war over the "unforgivable crime" of wanting to restore one's country unity by force. Such a more patient attitude could have saved millions of lives (and many Jews, remember Hitler's speech about Jews being destroyed if they "cause war"). The Franco-British decision to attack may have had the effect of amplifying and developing the dangerous Führer's worst side, and of creating a dangerous climate of hate and violence in Europe.

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 prevent over the fantasies of a half-mad dictator. Such an "empire" might have disintegrated peacefully like the Soviet Union in 1991.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Only someone who has absolutely no idea what ISIS and the Taliban are could make such a statement.
By the way, when you say "the Iranians", do you mean all of them, or just some of them?

 

[Michel H]

Only someone who has absolutely no idea what ISIS and the Taliban are could make such a statement.

To me, ISIS is a violent and religion-obsessed organization, but it seems to me they have some limited legitimacy as a resistance organization, fighting U.S. control over Iraq. Did all Iraqis have to agree, in 2003, that their country would, from now on, be run by a puppet government imposed by a brutally invading power, and which perhaps sides systematically with the U.S. and Israel whenever a vote takes place in the U.N. General Assembly?

No, I don't think so, so I understand that an armed resistance developed, just like I understand that an armed resistance developed in France around 1940 after the Germans invaded.

I don't see why ISIS could not improve and modernize itself, towards more democracy, science and human rights for all. I once saw a video by them (I think these videos are hard to find and watch because they get quickly censored and removed). It looked fairly normal, almost like a CNN report. There were some gruesome images, but they were edited to avoid shocking the public. If you want that ISIS improves, perhaps the first thing to do is ask them. How many times has a U.S. president tried to talk with an ISIS leader before bombing them? I believe the answer is zero. Perhaps this gives you a hint as to who the really violent people are.

By the way, when you say "the Iranians", do you mean all of them, or just some of them?

I meant the Iranian (real) leaders, and the millions who follow them. Iran needs to greatly improve its democratic system:

Iran's system allows for elections, but political groups must operate within the strict boundaries of the Islamic Republic.

In the 2016 parliamentary elections, nearly half of the candidates were disqualified by Iran's Guardian Council, which vets them for their commitment to Iran's Islamic system.

And for this year's parliamentary elections, which are due to be held in February, thousands of potential candidates have again been disqualified, including 90 current lawmakers.

Any candidates from groups opposed to the Islamic Republic, or who want to change the existing system altogether, are not allowed to run.

The Guardian Council can also bar any would-be presidential candidates, and veto any legislation passed by parliament if it is deemed to be inconsistent with Iran's constitution and Islamic law.

(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51093792)

I believe U.S. persecutions against Iran make it harder to get a change towards more democracy, because any change might be perceived as yielding to their persecutors.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To me, ISIS is a violent and religion-obsessed organization, but it seems to me they have some limited legitimacy as a resistance organization, fighting U.S. control over Iraq.
…

I don't see why ISIS could not improve and modernize itself, towards more democracy, science and human rights for all.

ISIS is not principally concerned with fighting the US. ISIS is concerned with destroying anyone who isn't ISIS.

ISIS does not see modernising, democracy, science or human rights as improvements. Turning the clock back a thousand years would suit them just fine. Having everyone totally obedient to their caliphate is as close as possible to perfect, anything else is worse.

 

[Michel H]

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 prevent over the fantasies of a half-mad dictator. Such an "empire" might have disintegrated peacefully like the Soviet Union in 1991.

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)

 

[Michel H]

ISIS is not principally concerned with fighting the US. ISIS is concerned with destroying anyone who isn't ISIS.

ISIS does not see modernising, democracy, science or human rights as improvements. Turning the clock back a thousand years would suit them just fine. Having everyone totally obedient to their caliphate is as close as possible to perfect, anything else is worse.

They indeed do have this reputation of being very violent and intolerant. However, I don't think bombing and censorship is the best method to bring out the best qualities in human beings. It would perhaps be useful to let them have a website and social media accounts (Facebook, MeWe, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, ...), perhaps with a minimum age requirement. This would encourage them to improve their message, and to interact and discuss with world viewers. It could also be an opportunity for many people to know their real goals from an original source.

 

[theprestige]

They indeed do have this reputation of being very violent and intolerant. However, I don't think bombing and censorship is the best method to bring out the best qualities in human beings.

The goal isn't to bring out the best qualities in the people of ISIS. The goal is to put a stop to their naked aggression. They're welcome to be as horrible as they want, as long as they keep it to themselves, and don't bother their neighbors and our friends.

Also, why are you making the Extortionist's Argument? You're saying that the best way to stop violent people from being violent is to let them have whatever they want. That's extortion. Why are you promoting extortion? Why are you supporting ISIS's goals and methods?