Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Pacal]

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/...Jews_gives-speech-at-Reichstag_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.

Ah poor Hitler!! (Snark) The horrible allies forced him to persecute the Jews and mass murder them!! (Snark) No doubt they held a gun to his head and forced him to do it!!! (Snark)

What absolute rot. Hitler wasn't forced etc., to do it. He did of his own free will. What sort of ideological fanatic mass murders millions of men, women and children, by means of starvation, bullets and gas because he has a delusional belief that some how they are guilty of causing a war? Well Hitler was that sort of fanatic and just how safe were other Europeans and the Germans themselves with that sort of ideological fanatic prey to delusionary notions running around wielding power?

Already in January 1939 Hitler was planning for war with Poland and was concerned that like with Munich someone might deprive him of the war he wanted. So Hitler decided, well ahead of time, to blame others for causing the war he was planning to start. It is called projection. (I will here put in here that Hitler had started his preparations for war right from early 1933 on.)

Hitler hated Jews with an intensity that was truly remarkable and in my opinion psychotic. All you have to do is read Mein Kampf were you can find purple prose passages about Jews being Vampires, Jewish youths waiting to rape Aryan women, Jews being parasites etc. And of course you will find passages in which Hitler hallucinates that the Jews will destroy humanity etc. And a couple of passages where Hitler hallucinates with satisfaction mass murdering Jews via gassing! That such a man ruled a powerful nation is astounding. To me it is obvious that at least as early has the writing of Mein Kampf Hitler had decided that if he could he would commit genocide against the Jews.

To repeat All Hitler had to do to avoid war was not invade Poland. He did anyway knowing full well the risk he was running and then proceeded to institute policies that made peace, except at the price of destroying the Nazi regime impossible. (His liquidation of the Polish state etc.)

Before Hitler committed suicide he dictated a last will, where once again he whined about how "International Jewry" etc., forced him into war and that the real enemy paid for it with their lives, although Hitler then whined about it being by more "humane methods", and Hitler then proceeded to call upon the Germans to continue the fight Against "Jewry" to the end. UGH!! If there is a hell Hitler belongs in it.

Hitler viewed Jews has basically not just "sub-humans" but has anti-humans, whose existence was a threat to the survival of the human race. That along with Jews being compared to germs, parasites, disease in general was obviously genocidal in implication. Hitler's attempts to offload his responsibility onto his victims is mere projection. Just like his attempt to blame the war he wanted on his victims also.

That this murderous loon attained high office and wielded great power is one of the greatest, if not greatest, tragedy in human history.

 

[theprestige]

It seems to me that there is no such thing as "the declaration of World War II".

A lot of related things happened over the period 1938-1939. Together, they mark the overall onset of the conflict later known as "the second World War."

Was the anschluss legal?

Was the annexation of Sudetenland legal?

Was the further annexation of Czechoslovakia legal?

Was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact legal?

Was the military alliance between Great Britain and Poland legal?

Was the invasion of Poland legal?

Was the allied response to the invasion legal?

Legal in what sense?

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I think we can put a pretty exact date on when it became World War 2. And that is early December 1941. Until that point there were a lot of conflicts around the world, but they were separate conflicts. E.g., the Japanese fighting in China were not obviously the same war as what happened between Germany and Poland. When both Japan and Germany ended up all in the same war against the same powers, that's basically when you can start properly calling it a world war. IMHO.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, I think we can put a pretty exact date on when it became World War 2. And that is early December 1941. Until that point there were a lot of conflicts around the world, but they were separate conflicts. E.g., the Japanese fighting in China were not obviously the same war as what happened between Germany and Poland. When both Japan and Germany ended up all in the same war against the same powers, that's basically when you can start properly calling it a world war. IMHO.

Ah, that's one way to claim the USA weren't late to enter a World War for the second time.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, I think we can put a pretty exact date on when it became World War 2. And that is early December 1941. Until that point there were a lot of conflicts around the world, but they were separate conflicts. E.g., the Japanese fighting in China were not obviously the same war as what happened between Germany and Poland. When both Japan and Germany ended up all in the same war against the same powers, that's basically when you can start properly calling it a world war. IMHO.

The US was actively if unofficially involved in the European conflict, on the side of the UK and France, before any formal declaration of war.

Was that legal?

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

Yes, I get your point. I would argue that the seeds of the Holocaust had been so thoroughly sown by 1939 that England's declaration of war did little to nothing to speed it up. Frankly, since Hitler had to expend so much manpower on his western front, it may have slowed it down.

And for those fond of quoting Mein Kampf, they might take notice of the virulent anti-semitism on full display in that thing. Hitler was not in the mood to not murder Jews.

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.

There was the Rosenstrasse protest in 1943, where the gentile wives of Jewish men protested their deportation. The men were eventually returned to them and not harmed again during the war. This was a small group of a few hundred women but it was peaceful and, in order to head off a public relations nightmare, it did work.

I believe Hitler ordered that the men be ultimately deported (murdered) after the end of the protests, but Goebbels disregarded the order.

 

[dudalb]

let's face it, peaceful protest against fascist in power seldom if ever works.
Once they are in power you genrally have to shoot them to get them out of power...

 

[dudalb]

The only support Micahel H is getting in this thead is from an open Neo Nazi. He should really think hard about that.

 

[HansMustermann]

And for those fond of quoting Mein Kampf, they might take notice of the virulent anti-semitism on full display in that thing. Hitler was not in the mood to not murder Jews.

TBH, as someone who's actually read Mein Kampf, I'd say a lot of the *ahem* Adolf fans seem to either not know what's in it, or basically ignore it. Kinda like with Jesus fans and the Bible.

E.g., Adolf spends whole pages in Mein Kampf going on about how Germany must secure and control resources and vital space in the east. And then there's all the foaming at the mouth about Judeo-Bolshevism (somehow for him the Jews controlled the money in order to... then lose it all to communism.) And so on. And then the *ahem* fans come with stuff like that oh noes, he (probably) wouldn't have attacked the USSR if England and France hadn't declared war. Err... hello? Never mind that the logic is rather shoddy anyway, that somehow already having a front makes one want to go for two. But apparently, nah, he may have spent almost two DECADES arguing the need to invade the east, but apparently he totes wouldn't have done it unless he also had a front with the west too

Or he may have gone on about how France is Germany's arch-enemy and must be dealt with, but if it was removed from the French version, I'm supposed to believe that he totally didn't actually MEAN it

So, yeah, I never thought I'd feel an urge to ENCOURAGE neo-nazis to read Mein Kampf, but sometimes... you know...

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Thank you for continuing to avoid answering direct questions. The lack of a direct response speaks volumes.

Which direct question do you have in mind?

Really? You quote direct questions and you don't answer them. Did you forget them?

Questions to you:

[edited post showing selected questions that were avoided ]
First, what sort of peace terms do you believe Germany and Japan would have accepted?
And why would the Allies have believed that those countries wouldn't have attacked again in a few years?

Second, if the French Parliament didn't approve of Daladier's guaranteeing Poland, his giving Germany an ultimatum, or of his declaring war on Germany, then why didn't the opposition call for a vote of no confidence on any of those occasions? And why was it only after France had surrendered that some Vichy supporters started claiming that the declaration of war was illegal?


First, are you seriously suggesting that the Western Allies' occupations of Italy, Germany, and Japan bore any resemblance to Italy's occupation of Ethiopia, Germany's occupation of Poland and Ukraine (or even of France), or Japan's occupation of the Philippines, Malaya, and other countries and colonies in Asia?

Second, are you aware of ISIS's stated goals? What possible compromise could be achieved by negotiation?

Finally, can you give us some evidence of any significant anger or desire for revenge against the Western Allies in any of those countries today, or at any time after the occupations ended?

And your reply?

Perhaps the U.S. and its allies (governments of Iraq and Afghanistan) could offer to free some ISIS prisoners. As you probably know, this has been decided and done for Taliban prisoners (I suspect, though I shall not claim to be an expert, that the difference between the Taliban and the Islamic State is less big than what the U.S. is saying - but it seems, unfortunately, to be part of U.S. ideology to try to demonize some people). Another possible idea (?): the Taliban could try to bring an ISIS representative next time they meet the Americans.

Nothing to do with anything.

 

[Michel H]

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.

The reason why France's declaration of war to Germany, on September 3, 1939, was (in my opinion) illegal is explained in detail (in French) by revisionist historian Vincent Reynouard on his blog:
3 septembre 1939 : une guerre antidémocratique et illégale
(3 September 1939: an anti-democratic and illegal war)
Link: https://blogue-sc.com/2019/09/3-septembre-1939-une-guerre-antidemocratique-et-illegale
, using two videos:
https://vk.com/video463816896_456239294
https://vk.com/video463816896_456239295.
I find his arguments rather convincing (although I somewhat disagree on some details).

According to article 9 of the French Constitution at the time, the President of the Republic could not declare war without a previous agreement given by both chambers of parliament, an agreement which was never given and never sought.

France had in 1939 agreements of mutual assistance with Poland (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance_(1921)), but these agreements required mutual "aid and assistance" (which could take the form of sending arms to an invaded Poland, or accepting Polish refugees [Jewish or non-Jewish] for example) in case of aggression, they did not require to invade Germany and kill German soldiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive), or to start an economic war by imposing a naval blockade to Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939-1945) ). France did these two (war-like) things, and got an invasion.

 

[Michel H]

Really? You quote direct questions and you don't answer them. Did you forget them?

Questions to you:


And your reply?

SpitfireIX asked:

First, what sort of peace terms do you believe Germany and Japan would have accepted?
And why would the Allies have believed that those countries wouldn't have attacked again in a few years?

what sort of peace terms do you believe Germany and Japan would have accepted?

If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries), and therefore no peace terms would have been necessary. In the case of Japan, Roosevelt launched a very serious and devastating economic war by imposing an oil embargo, the war could have been avoided by using a more prudent and moderate approach (for example, a reasonable export quota, as SpitfireIX suggested himself).

why would the Allies have believed that those countries wouldn't have attacked again in a few years?

In the case of Germany, knowing the kind of person Adolf was, there was, in 1939, a serious possibility he would have eventually attacked the Soviet Union, but I don't think a declaration of war by the UK and France was the best response to this threat. Generally (and the same is true for China, which was partly occupied by Japan in 1939), when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people. I believe that war should be made mostly obsolete.

 

[Arcade22]

If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries), and therefore no peace terms would have been necessary.

Yes if they had just let Nazi-Germany establish a warmongering genocidal empire throughout Central and Eastern Europe, whose war machine is fueled by captured slaves being worked to death, everything would have worked itself out in the end and the world would be at peace.

 

[Michel H]

Yes if they had just let Nazi-Germany establish a warmongering genocidal empire throughout Central and Eastern Europe, whose war machine is fueled by captured slaves being worked to death, everything would have worked itself out in the end and the world would be at peace.

There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, the US clearly left the Iranian government no choice but to open fire on unarmed demonstrators.

Congratulations, you join the small list of members whose dishonest posts I skip over without reading.

Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2007

The United States, which was leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear plans, has said Iran's gasoline imports are a point of "leverage."

2007 Gasoline Rationing Plan in Iran

In an interview Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "They [Americans] had a plan and idea that is neutralized. They don't know our nation. They think if they refuse to provide us with gasoline, our nation would say we don't want nuclear energy.

Actions, Consequences. Intended or not, once again the US was responsible for triggering violence in a foreign country. And once again an apologist tries to deflect. If that is the standard of your debate...

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.

Or, alternatively, Hitler was a genocidal maniac with a loyal following of genocidal maniacs that *needed* to loot other countries to pay for the crippling debts their economic mismanagement was causing and if they'd been allowed a free hand it's possible there would also be virtually no more Poles by the time he would have attacked France anyway.

You seriously need to read up what happened in the so-called General government and the annexed parts of Poland the minute the Nazi's were in charge. That was not a panic action caused by a war, that was the execution of a pre-planned policy that was disrupted by the war so it could not be carried out to the fullest.

 

[Loss Leader]

In the case of Japan, Roosevelt launched a very serious and devastating economic war by imposing an oil embargo, the war could have been avoided by using a more prudent and moderate approach.

What the what? Japan had designs on the entire ring of fire. It had invaded Korea and coastal China. It had designs on Australia. Japan was never going to stop. Economic sanctions would hardly have worked given the resources Japan would have been fully in control of except for American intervention.

when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people.

That's bananas. The Rosenstrasse protests were not by an invaded country and they did not convince the leader that he did something wrong. They were a tiny (couple hundred) group of German women protesting inside Germany regarding their German husbands. And even as the husbands were returned, they were told not to get comfortable because they would be deported again. The leader, Hitler, was never convinced he did anything wrong or against the people. Goebbels disregarded Hitler's order for public relations purposes. By that point, it was already 1945 and Hitler had far bigger problems than finding out whatever happened to the Rosenstrasse husbands.

France had in 1939 agreements of mutual assistance with Poland (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance_(1921)), but these agreements required mutual "aid and assistance" (which could take the form of sending arms to an invaded Poland, or accepting Polish refugees [Jewish or non-Jewish] for example) in case of aggression,

By what route?

Seriously, by what route would Hitler had allowed France to send military equipment to Poland? France-England-Norway-Sweden-Latvia-Poland? Or France-Algeria-Libya-Egypt-Turkey-Ukraine-Poland?

The Germans under Hitler had completely walled off all of Eastern Europe and Russia from Allied help. Which was their plan. Because they were genocidal lunatics hell-bent on blaming the whole rest of the world for their problems.

 

[HansMustermann]

In the case of Germany, knowing the kind of person Adolf was, there was, in 1939, a serious possibility he would have eventually attacked the Soviet Union, but I don't think a declaration of war by the UK and France was the best response to this threat. Generally (and the same is true for China, which was partly occupied by Japan in 1939), when you are invaded by an aggressive country, probably the best, and most modern approach, is to use psychological methods, like (prudently, when possible) demonstrating in the streets (see the example given by Loss Leader in post #126), to try to convince the leader of the invading country that he did something wrong, against the people. I believe that war should be made mostly obsolete.

Jesus F Christ, this has to be the most retarded thing I've read all year. You want to abolish DEFENSIVE war (as in, when attacked, just do some peaceful protests and otherwise let them have what they want), but try to defend the aggressors in a war of AGGRESSION.

And even then apparently only as long as it's Adolf...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If the UK and France had not recklessly declared war to Germany in September 1939, there would have been no war (between these countries)…

… until the expanded Greater Germany had built itself up to the point where they couldn't hope to resist its attack. Dumb plan. They went to war when they weren't ready because the alternatives were worse.

Maintaining the balance of power had been a British obsession for a century at least.

Consider the Crimean war. Another Anglo-French declaration of war, that time against Russia, in support of Ottoman Turkey. They didn't go through all that dismal butchery over the original point of conflict, which was protection of the rights of Christians in the Holy Land, they did it to prevent the Tsar rolling over the Turks and absorbing their empire, giving him more lands, free access to control the Eastern Mediterranean and threatening Britain's routes to and from India. History would have been very different if they had not intervened.

 

[Arcade22]

There was no genocide (although there already was a serious persecution of Jews) during the 1933-1939, pre-war period, and when Hitler met Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini in Munich in 1938, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SetNFqcayeA.

The Anglo-French declaration of war may have contributed to create a climate of violence, hatred and savagery which led to later tragedies.

No it was a inevitable consequence of the glorification of violence, brutality and extreme racist supremacism that the Nazis had believed in since before they came to power. The war against Poland was genocidal from the very beginning.