Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Crossbow]

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.

You do not know what you are talking about.

There most definitely was a genocide that was done by the Germans. The record of the German genocide is abundantly clear and unambiguous.

 

[Pacal]

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.

Give it a rest. Referring to the work of a Holocaust denying loon doesn't help your case. The bottom line is that the declaration of war was accepted has legal. (Probably because it was legal). The concern about it's alleged lack of legality emerged only with the Vichy regime, that was largely a puppet of the German Nazi regime.

Oh and are you concerned with the legality of the Nazi regime? A very good argument can be made that the Nazi regime was established largely through illegal means. (The rule of law in Germany had been breaking down since 1930.)

 

[Pacal]

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).

Oh good God!! You do realize that Roosevelt's oil embargo was a peaceful way of responding to Japanese aggressive stupidity. After all it didn't involve going to war. The Japanese Military caste that ran Japan was by early 1941 planning vast eastern conquests of the European Colonial Empires. Hitler himself had been encouraging Japan to attack Britain and the USA since April 1941 and even told them that he would declare war on the USA if they did so, even if Japan didn't attack Russia! Oh and what is your position on Germany declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour?

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.

Do we have to list in nauseating detail the abundant atrocities committed by both the Germans and Japanese against the populations of the countries they conquered and tried to conquer. For example Japan's "Four Alls" campaigns. ( Which included among the alls - Kill All!)

Even Gandhi recognized that against certain extraordinarily brutal regime's non violent resistance was pointless.

Nazi Germany was a brutal authoritarian dictatorship which very effectively and ruthlessly crushed dissent. And in occupied Europe non-violent resistance was crushed by terror. (You know bullets and mass murder.). In Germany itself organizations that could have resisted the Nazis were crushed by terror after the taking of power. The Nazis refused to allow the existence of organized opposition. All opposition had to be underground and guess what such opposition was meet by terror and violence. Let me but it another way. If an underground organization committed to non-violent resistance had emerged occupied Europe and China the response of the Germans and Japanese to that, especially if it had looked like it might cause problems would have been mass repression, terror and murder. How do we know this? Well because that is how both did in fact respond to such resistance.

As for convincing the leader of an aggressive country that he was wrong? Are you serious. Hitler was a vicious fanatic he would never have been convinced that his stunningly brutal acts were wrong. He was convinced he was right. And knowing Hitler lack of physical, armed, resistance would only have convinced him that his victims were indeed sub-humans worthy of exploitation and death.

Once again we see the logic of the lion who while devouring the goat whines about it's attempts to resist.

As for the protest referred to, (The Rosenstrasse incident of late February early March 1943), Richard J. Evans in his The Third Reich at War, pp. 271-272, says concerning the incident:

Subsequent legend elevated this incident into a rare public protest that secured the internees' release; but there had never been any intention of sending these particular Jews east for extermination and the crowd had not engaged in any kind of explicit protest.

Your delusions about the nature of those two regimes is amusing.

 

[Michel H]

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.

No, I don't think this is true, the Rosenstrasse events took place in 1943:

On 6 March 1943, Goebbels in his capacity as the Gauleiter of Berlin ordered all of the people imprisoned at Rosenstrasse 2-4 released

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest#Chronology )

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?

It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling. This probably would not have changed the outcome of the war (particularly after the Soviet invasion), but it would have been a show a support and solidarity, and shown that the UK and France keep their promises. This would also have been far less provocative to the Germans than a naval economic blockade (which was very painful for them during WWI), combined with an invasion of Saarland.

UK and France could also have sent some money to the Polish government, though the smartest thing to do (and which was really done) was probably to accept (military or civilian) Polish refugees on French and British soils.

 

[Arcade22]

It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling.

They might just as well have tried to send them on railways from France if they were so ******* stupid. LOL!

 

[Pacal]

No, I don't think this is true, the Rosenstrasse events took place in 1943:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest#Chronology )

It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling. This probably would not have changed the outcome of the war (particularly after the Soviet invasion), but it would have been a show a support and solidarity, and shown that the UK and France keep their promises. This would also have been far less provocative to the Germans than a naval economic blockade (which was very painful for them during WWI), combined with an invasion of Saarland.

UK and France could also have sent some money to the Polish government, though the smartest thing to do (and which was really done) was probably to accept (military or civilian) Polish refugees on French and British soils.

"Far less provocative" Are you for real!? Germany had just invaded Poland!! How is that for "provocative"!! As for sending supplies to Poland through Baltic ports controlled by Poland. Oh get real. That would at best have been possible for only a few days, if that. And given Hitler's disposition he would have undoubtedly seen that has "provocative".

And may I point out that the British viewed by this time sending naval forces into the Baltic has militarily suicidal. Which it was.

 

[Michel H]

Oh and what is your position on Germany declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour?

I don't think it was a smart move, for Hitler, to declare war on a powerful nation like the U.S., in 1941.

When you study the psychology of violent people, you often find that they have previously themselves have been victims of violence, it's a kind of vicious circle.

When I read your post, I don't find a great deal of concern or compassion for cities and civilian populations massively bombed by the British and American regimes (heard of Hiroshima?), in order to achieve their goals of unconditional surrender, invasions, occupation and humiliation of their opponents. I wonder why. Has it ever occurred to you that many Jewish lives could have been saved by trying to bring this war to an end much earlier, for example at the end of 1943?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I don't think it was a smart move, for Hitler, to declare war on a powerful nation like the U.S., in 1941.

When you study the psychology of violent people, you often find that they have previously themselves have been victims of violence, it's a kind of vicious circle.

When I read your post, I don't find a great deal of concern or compassion for cities and civilian populations massively bombed by the British and American regimes (heard of Hiroshima?), in order to achieve their goals of unconditional surrender, invasions, occupation and humiliation of their opponents. I wonder why. Has it ever occurred to you that many Jewish lives could have been saved by trying to bring this war to an end much earlier, for example at the end of 1943?.

Yes, had nazi Germany been utterly destroyed in 1943 there would have been many Jewish lives saved, but since that was military impossible it did not happen/
At least Hitler's incompetence shortened the war a bit, that may have saved a few lives.

And had Hitler just capitulated in 1943 Germany would never have been harmed all that much, but the regime intended to take Germany with it, one more crime to be laid at the Nazi door.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It seems to me the UK and France could have used British naval superiority to send (soon enough) a ship filled with modern tanks and warplanes to the Baltic sea ports that Poland was still controlling.

That's fantasy.

As tensions rose in the far East, Britain sent the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse to defend Singapore. Less than a week after Pearl Harbor they were both sunk. Putting capital ships within range of the enemy's land-based bombers and torpedo planes is game over, because no matter how tough you are or how skillfully you fight (and Repulse dodged attack after attack) they just come back and back until you're dead.

So now, how about tell us how the British navy were going to send a ship laden with tanks and planes into the Baltic and along the German coast to deliver these gifts to the Poles?

 

[Pacal]

I don't think it was a smart move, for Hitler, to declare war on a powerful nation like the U.S., in 1941.

When you study the psychology of violent people, you often find that they have previously themselves have been victims of violence, it's a kind of vicious circle.

When I read your post, I don't find a great deal of concern or compassion for cities and civilian populations massively bombed by the British and American regimes (heard of Hiroshima?), in order to achieve their goals of unconditional surrender, invasions, occupation and humiliation of their opponents. I wonder why. Has it ever occurred to you that many Jewish lives could have been saved by trying to bring this war to an end much earlier, for example at the end of 1943?

Has Charlie Brown says: "Good grief!". So Britain and France are morally coupable and at least partially responsible for Hitler's atrocities by declaring war on him. In fact according to you the Poles should not have resisted Hitler by arms and ditto for the Chinese resisting the Japanese. Which is a nice way of offloading responsibility for atrocities from the guilty to the innocent.

You also are saying it appears that Hitler merely made a mistake in declaring war on the USA. (I note that Hitler had been pushing Japan to attack the USA and Britain before.) But accepting your logic then Hitler is at least partially responsible for the destruction etc., caused by USA participation in the War.

Then you mouth some explaining about violent people. Mere excuse mongering. So what Hitler was and is fully responsible for his acts of mass murder etc. He didn't have to it just like he was not in anyway coerced into invading Poland in 1939.

Has for the last bit. Thanks for reading my mind wrongly. You should know I think that area bombing of civilian areas in World War II was both a mistake and a crime. But has for compassion, concern? While yours does indeed seem to be very selective. Both the Nazi and Japanese regimes were very interested in occupying, enslaving and grinding down resistance to their invasions via terror etc. They engaged in bombing, slaughter etc., to crush such resistance and both really loved humiliating their enemies. Yet you seem to condemn armed resistance to such acts. And rather interestingly you seem to think that Japanese and German armed resistance to unconditional surrender, occupation, humiliation etc., was at least understandable. Why? The Japanese and German's could have resisted by peaceful means and just let themselves be conquered. (Snark)

As for saving Jewish lives. Well aside from the fact that well over 1 / 2 of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were dead by then. There is the question of who would have ended the war. Hitler would never have given up his conquests. He had burned his bridges long ago. Peace would only have come only with the overthrow of the Nazi regime. Otherwise no peace. As for Japan, right almost to the end Japan wanted to retain at least some of it's conquests. Hitler would of course have fought to the end to stay in power. His overthrow was never a likely possibility. (Which is why assassinating him was an absolute prerequisite to overthrowing the regime.)

Oh and I seriously doubt that ending the war in 1943, if it left Hitler in power, would have ended the Holocaust.

You are of course accepting the excuse mongering put out by German and Japanese diplomats and Generals that "Unconditional Surrender" forced them to fight to the last. This trope was very popular in the 1950's and into the sixties. However it is very seriously overdrawn. A great deal of it is post hoc excuse mongering by people trying to explain away why they went along with a tyrannical regime(s).

In fact far more responsible for continued resistance was the delusions of the leadership about retaining their gains, a very effective repressive apparatus keeping the population in line and obeying to the end. And of course in Germany much of the civilian and military leadership had been Nazified. Something similar had happened in Japan. And what has until recently been ignored almost entirely by historians - large scale bribes paid by Hitler to Military and Civilians. (Tax free of course and secret!)

After the war many German Generals concocted stories to explain away their loyalty to the end to the regime. Unconditional Surrender was one of those. Another was their oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, (!934), ignoring that they frequently violated their oaths of loyalty to the Weimer Republic, and, also, frequently the oaths to tell the truth in post war trials.

Your compassion, like your indignation, has per usual is selective.

 

[Arcade22]

That's fantasy.

As tensions rose in the far East, Britain sent the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse to defend Singapore. Less than a week after Pearl Harbor they were both sunk. Putting capital ships within range of the enemy's land-based bombers and torpedo planes is game over, because no matter how tough you are or how skillfully you fight (and Repulse dodged attack after attack) they just come back and back until you're dead.

That and others are very good reasons why the British Navy wasn't singing Rule Britannia throughout the Baltic Sea.

 

[Michel H]

That's fantasy.

As tensions rose in the far East, Britain sent the battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse to defend Singapore. Less than a week after Pearl Harbor they were both sunk. Putting capital ships within range of the enemy's land-based bombers and torpedo planes is game over, because no matter how tough you are or how skillfully you fight (and Repulse dodged attack after attack) they just come back and back until you're dead.

So now, how about tell us how the British navy were going to send a ship laden with tanks and planes into the Baltic and along the German coast to deliver these gifts to the Poles?

The British (with the French) could perhaps have sent secretly a cargo ship laden with tanks and (perhaps not yet assembled) planes (rather than battleships or battlecruisers), and perhaps the Polish air force could have provided some air cover. They could have sent light weapons too (in order to "help"). In December 1939, the Royal Air Force tried to sink German ships in the Heligoland Bight, but they failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Heligoland_Bight_(1939)).

The tanks and planes could also have been sent before the German attack, on September 1, 1939.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That and others are very good reasons why the British Navy wasn't singing Rule Britannia throughout the Baltic Sea.

But but... I'm sure it was possible in {insert random strategy game here}, so we can ignore things like that. And fuel. And the fact that tanks need specialized ammo. And spare parts. Or the fact that transporting enough tanks be sea to make a strategic difference takes a LOT of preparation. Or anything else connected to the real world.

So it's quite in line with Micheal H's other posts really.

 

[Michel H]

Has Charlie Brown says: "Good grief!". ...Has for the last bit. Thanks for reading my mind wrongly. You should know I think that area bombing of civilian areas in World War II was both a mistake and a crime. But has for compassion, concern? While yours does indeed seem to be very selective. Both the Nazi and Japanese regimes were very interested in occupying, enslaving and grinding down resistance to their invasions via terror etc. They engaged in bombing, slaughter etc., to crush such resistance and both really loved humiliating their enemies. Yet you seem to condemn armed resistance to such acts. And rather interestingly you seem to think that Japanese and German armed resistance to unconditional surrender, occupation, humiliation etc., was at least understandable. Why? The Japanese and German's could have resisted by peaceful means and just let themselves be conquered. (Snark)

Pacal, you seem to have a tendency to write "has" instead of "as" (see three examples above), please check your spelling.

You should know I think that area bombing of civilian areas in World War II was both a mistake and a crime.

I am glad to read this.

Both the Nazi and Japanese regimes were very interested in occupying, enslaving and grinding down resistance to their invasions via terror etc. They engaged in bombing, slaughter etc., to crush such resistance and both really loved humiliating their enemies. Yet you seem to condemn armed resistance to such acts.

I actually believe that, when some people are invaded by a cruel and expansionist foreign power, they are entitled to armed resistance, I think such resistance is understandable, I wouldn't blame such people. However, I also think it is not always in the best interest of victims of an invasion to choose armed resistance. Often, a little patience, and possibly non-violent protests (when it is safe to do so) produce much better results for your personal safety.

 

[Pacal]

Pacal, you seem to have a tendency to write "has" instead of "as" (see three examples above), please check your spelling.

I am glad to read this.

I actually believe that, when some people are invaded by a cruel and expansionist foreign power, they are entitled to armed resistance, I think such resistance is understandable, I wouldn't blame such people. However, I also think it is not always in the best interest of victims of an invasion to choose armed resistance. Often, a little patience, and possibly non-violent protests (when it is safe to do so) produce much better results for your personal safety.

I've had enough of this rot.

Bye.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The British (with the French) could perhaps have sent secretly a cargo ship laden with tanks and (perhaps not yet assembled) planes (rather than battleships or battlecruisers), and perhaps the Polish air force could have provided some air cover. They could have sent light weapons too (in order to "help"). In December 1939, the Royal Air Force tried to sink German ships in the Heligoland Bight, but they failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Heligoland_Bight_(1939)).

The tanks and planes could also have been sent before the German attack, on September 1, 1939.

You haven't a clue.

 

[BStrong]

In these dark days of pandemic and widespread civil unrest it's good to know that someone, somewhere, is working to clear the good name of Adolph Hitler and set the historical record straight.

Actually, I'm reminded of a Belgian friend who'd told me that I should move to Belgium and "together we will drive out the undesirables!" Knowing him, I now know exactly who he was referring to. The premise of this thread is a logic and factual ***********.

 

[Arcade22]

The British (with the French) could perhaps have sent secretly a cargo ship laden with tanks and (perhaps not yet assembled) planes (rather than battleships or battlecruisers), and perhaps the Polish air force could have provided some air cover. They could have sent light weapons too (in order to "help"). In December 1939, the Royal Air Force tried to sink German ships in the Heligoland Bight, but they failed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Heligoland_Bight_(1939)).

The tanks and planes could also have been sent before the German attack, on September 1, 1939.

Note here that 90% of the luftwaffe combat aircraft were massing around the German-Polish border in preparation for the war. It would have been trivial for them to sink any British ships together with the German surface fleet, submarines, naval mines and coastal artillery.

You just demonstrate that you have no clue.

 

[Michel H]

In these dark days of pandemic and widespread civil unrest it's good to know that someone, somewhere, is working to clear the good name of Adolph Hitler and set the historical record straight.

Actually, I'm reminded of a Belgian friend who'd told me that I should move to Belgium and "together we will drive out the undesirables!" Knowing him, I now know exactly who he was referring to. The premise of this thread is a logic and factual ***********.

As you probably know, the original thread was split by the mod team. The message that I tried to deliver in the opening post was very simple, it was:"In human relations, very often, violence generates violence".

In this sense, it might be argued that ISIS is actually a creation of the U.S. (because of U.S. invasions and bombings), and that, similarly, the "Hitler monster" was a creation of the British government (and parliament), the most intent on going to war against Germany in 1939, because of something that had happened in a Central European country. This made the German chancellor angry, because he felt he had a right to restore the unity of his country divided by the Polish corridor, and we know what happened next. The practical lesson (in my opinion) is that it is better to try to understand the other people's point of view, to react with restraint, and to avoid resorting to military violence too quickly.

In this 1938 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WL5vFRBS9M , at about 40 seconds into the video, you can see Adolf Hitler apparently signing an autograph on a boy's shoulder, he speaks a little later. He was a racist man, and made a big mistake when he invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

 

[Michel H]

Note here that 90% of the luftwaffe combat aircraft were massing around the German-Polish border in preparation for the war. It would have been trivial for them to sink any British ships together with the German surface fleet, submarines, naval mines and coastal artillery.

On September 1, 1938, the UK was not in a state of war with Germany, and it would have been perfectly legal to provide some weapons to an invaded country. The Germans had perhaps other things to do than verifying each cargo ship (not necessarily British) in each Polish port.