Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Loss Leader]

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.

Ah yes, the moral relativism of adding up bodies. The bombing of Dresden was a war crime, therefore we need to excuse Germany's war crimes? Hiroshima had massive civilian casualties and therefore we need to excuse Pearl Harbor or some other set of deaths, slavery, and rapes caused by the Japanese?

It is possible to be less than proud of one's own history and still find plenty of blame for the far more recalcitrant and belligerant enemies.

The US committed some acts that were unwarranted in hindsight. That doesn't excuse the German and Japanese obsession with the control of large areas of the world along with the death and/or enslavement of everybody there.

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?

I'm told that many people were trying to end the war by 1943. German machine guns, tanks, planes, U-boats, and rockets slowed them down.

 

[Rincewind]

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.

OK - let's have some examples of non-violent protests that worked, after a brutal invasion.

 

[Michel H]

OK - let's have some examples of non-violent protests that worked, after a brutal invasion.

One may perhaps cite Hong Kong. They were not invaded, but there was an extradition bill the people didn't like in 2019. They protested in the streets, and the bill was withdrawn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_bill). The Chief Executive of Hong Kong (currently Carrie Lam) is appointed by mainland China, which has a somewhat authoritarian regime.

 

[Michel H]

I'm told that many people were trying to end the war by 1943. German machine guns, tanks, planes, U-boats, and rockets slowed them down.

There were certainly many military people who were trying to end the war in 1943, using their violent methods. However, the Allied leaders, particularly the U.S. president, could also have tried to end the war in a negotiated way to save many lives, for example by having Germany go back to their 1939 borders, and stop their mad persecutions of the Jews. But no effort was made along these lines, Allied leaders became obsessed with unconditional surrender from the Casablanca conference (note btw that "casa blanca" means "white house" in Spanish) in January 1943, in order to be able to invade and humiliate enemy countries, much like Hitler did. This demand lead probably to the death of millions. I find this morally reprehensible and shocking.

 

[Arcade22]

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.

Except the British didn't want to give Hitler any excuse to declare war. The amount of arms that they would have to send to make any difference would have been enormous. Nazi-Germany would field thousands of armored fighting vehicles, Tanks and aircraft when they invaded Poland.

If the British were sending that much Hitler could reasonably argue that he had no choice but to preemptively attack Poland.

Not that the British ever would consider sending that amount of arms even if they could as that would compromise their own rearmament. The British were not in a very good position in that regard either.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

One may perhaps cite Hong Kong. They were not invaded, but there was an extradition bill the people didn't like in 2019. They protested in the streets, and the bill was withdrawn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_bill). The Chief Executive of Hong Kong (currently Carrie Lam) is appointed by mainland China, which has a somewhat authoritarian regime.

You conveniently forget that a harsher law has been instituted now, police are once again cracking down on the protesters, that China at least pays lip service to caring what the rest of the world thinks and the fact that the Chinese government at least does not have the policy of execute everyone protesting and ten random other persons per protester, like the nazis did.

 

[Loss Leader]

Allied leaders became obsessed with unconditional surrender from the Casablanca conference (note btw that "casa blanca" means "white house" in Spanish)

One must only wonder at what thoughts go through your head while watching the movie Casablanca. "That poor, misunderstood Major Strasser," you must sob. "All he wanted to do was bring a peaceful, enlightened, new regime to those ungrateful French and Moroccans."

 

[Little 10 Toes]

OK - let's have some examples of non-violent protests that worked, after a brutal invasion.

One may perhaps cite Hong Kong. They were not invaded, [snip]

Since Hong Kong was not brutally invaded, let alone invaded, your example is worthless. Once again, you have not responded to the request.

 

[Rincewind]

I realize that this will be pointless but was curious to see what response I might get.

At the end of WWI, the German Army was still occupying foreign territory, so it was straightforward for those like Hitler to invent the ‘stab in the back’ theory.

Why would you think that the Allied leaders would want to risk the same thing happening again, so that every few decades the world has to fight yet another huge war, with way more casualties?

If Churchill and Roosevelt had wanted to negotiate in 1943, Stalin would have opposed them anyway. Hitler would have thought it was a show of weakness, so would have fought even harder. If the impossible had happened and the West and the Nazis had come to an agreement, they’d all have ended up fighting the Russians. Just imagine the death toll of that!

And – please read about Japan in 1945, when pretty much all of them knew they were defeated, but still refused to surrender, even after the bombs. And they came so close to stopping the effort to surrender.

By the way, in case you didn’t know, around three million Polish Jews and between 1.8 and 2.8 million ethnic Poles were murdered by the Nazis. About 90% were civilians. And you think they should have complained peacefully with the perpetrators? Unbelievable! And how on Earth could they have done that?

You can pick up similar statistics from the Sino-Japanese war.

 

[Michel H]

I realize that this will be pointless but was curious to see what response I might get.

At the end of WWI, the German Army was still occupying foreign territory, so it was straightforward for those like Hitler to invent the ‘stab in the back’ theory.

Why would you think that the Allied leaders would want to risk the same thing happening again, so that every few decades the world has to fight yet another huge war, with way more casualties?

Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations). And here you see part of the problem: because of an incorrect analysis of WWII by historians, too favorable to the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., these two countries became too confident and made mistakes, and this situation is continuing to this day.

If Churchill and Roosevelt had wanted to negotiate in 1943, Stalin would have opposed them anyway.

Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.

If the impossible had happened and the West and the Nazis had come to an agreement, they’d all have ended up fighting the Russians. Just imagine the death toll of that!

I don't see why. If everybody goes back to the September 1, 1939 borders, there is no reason why anyone should fight anyone else.

And – please read about Japan in 1945, when pretty much all of them knew they were defeated, but still refused to surrender, even after the bombs. And they came so close to stopping the effort to surrender.

For Japan, there was no need to surrender. They could have just withdrawn from the territories they were occupying (with a possible exception for their "puppet state" of Manchukuo, which they perhaps needed for their economy).

By the way, in case you didn’t know, around three million Polish Jews and between 1.8 and 2.8 million ethnic Poles were murdered by the Nazis. About 90% were civilians. And you think they should have complained peacefully with the perpetrators? Unbelievable! And how on Earth could they have done that?

Perhaps you should read this:

When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they caused so much death and disease that it changed the global climate, a new study finds.

European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years in South, Central and North America, causing large swaths of farmland to be abandoned and reforested, researchers at University College London, or UCL, estimate.

(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/world/european-colonization-climate-change-trnd/index.html)

Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and uneven combat – of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

— P. 202, “Adolph Hitler” by John Toland

(https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/commu...-longest-holocaust-in-the-history-of-mankind/)

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.

 

[Rincewind]

Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations). And here you see part of the problem: because of an incorrect analysis of WWII by historians, too favorable to the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., these two countries became too confident and made mistakes, and this situation is continuing to this day.

Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.

I don't see why. If everybody goes back to the September 1, 1939 borders, there is no reason why anyone should fight anyone else.

For Japan, there was no need to surrender. They could have just withdrawn from the territories they were occupying (with a possible exception for their "puppet state" of Manchukuo, which they perhaps needed for their economy).

Perhaps you should read this:

(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/world/european-colonization-climate-change-trnd/index.html)

(https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/commu...-longest-holocaust-in-the-history-of-mankind/)

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.

Please check the title of the OP. Your constant dodging is noted.

I mentioned two world wars, both started by Germany. You may have read about WWI - started for the UK and France when Germany invaded Belgium? Following the end of WWI, when you actually read about what happened, you note that the Germans lied to themselves, so Hitler was able to easily get his war going. HE WANTED A WAR!!!! And then guess what? After being comprehensively defeated they've been good neighbors since 1945. So what I said was correct. Iraq? Not relevant to this thread.

If you had read books about Hitler, you'd have read that there was no way he'd have stopped. He believed that he was going to win, so why would he stop?

After Stalingrad, Stalin wanted revenge. Pure and Simple. He realized that it was possible to beat the Germans, and was prepared to do that whatever the cost.

In 1945 the Japanese were starving and had virtually no manufacturing. the waters around Japan was filled with US submarines, so nothing could get in or out. It was only Army lunatics who wanted to keep fighting. If they'd had their way there would likely be no Japan or Japanese people today.

European colonization and the Native Americans - not relevant to this thread.

So - please remove your rose-colored glasses and checkout what the world was really like in the middle of last century.

 

[CORed]

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

I would agree that we entered WWII later than would have been ideal. OTOH, IMO, we shouldn't have entered WWI at all; therefore we entered it too early. The Germans did to their damnedest to make it difficult for us not to enter, though.

 

[Michel H]

Following the end of WWI, when you actually read about what happened, you note that the Germans lied to themselves, so Hitler was able to easily get his war going. HE WANTED A WAR!!!!

How do you know that? Did you ask him?

History teaches us that the UK and France declared war to Germany (even though Germany didn't want war with either of these countries) in September 1939, after Hitler had invaded Poland, probably mostly to restore the unity of his country which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles ("Polish corridor").

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations). And here you see part of the problem: because of an incorrect analysis of WWII by historians, too favorable to the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., these two countries became too confident and made mistakes, and this situation is continuing to this day.

Not necessarily. In 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad (which ended on 2 February 1943), Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.

I don't see why. If everybody goes back to the September 1, 1939 borders, there is no reason why anyone should fight anyone else.

For Japan, there was no need to surrender. They could have just withdrawn from the territories they were occupying (with a possible exception for their "puppet state" of Manchukuo, which they perhaps needed for their economy).

Perhaps you should read this:

(https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/w...rnd/index.html)

(https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/commun...ry-of-mankind/)

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.

Please check the title of the OP. Your constant dodging is noted.

I mentioned two world wars, both started by Germany. You may have read about WWI - started for the UK and France when Germany invaded Belgium? Following the end of WWI, when you actually read about what happened, you note that the Germans lied to themselves, so Hitler was able to easily get his war going. HE WANTED A WAR!!!! And then guess what? After being comprehensively defeated they've been good neighbors since 1945. So what I said was correct. Iraq? Not relevant to this thread.

If you had read books about Hitler, you'd have read that there was no way he'd have stopped. He believed that he was going to win, so why would he stop?

After Stalingrad, Stalin wanted revenge. Pure and Simple. He realized that it was possible to beat the Germans, and was prepared to do that whatever the cost.

In 1945 the Japanese were starving and had virtually no manufacturing. the waters around Japan was filled with US submarines, so nothing could get in or out. It was only Army lunatics who wanted to keep fighting. If they'd had their way there would likely be no Japan or Japanese people today.

European colonization and the Native Americans - not relevant to this thread.

So - please remove your rose-colored glasses and checkout what the world was really like in the middle of last century.

You might has well give up M H will continue to ignore most of what other people are posting.

The above quote of his is a perfect example first he creates a straw man:

you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany.

No one ever said anything like that.

Then he says the following:

Stalin might have found very interesting to recover all the territory lost to the Germans since June 1941 without firing a single shot and without losing a single drop of blood of his men. Similarly Hitler, who had repeatedly asked for a peace deal with the UK (and France) in 1939 and 1940, could have found interesting and in his interest to accept a peace deal having him go back to the 1939 borders (plus perhaps the Polish corridor; this issue could have been decided by a referendum) because he was feeling he was beginning to lose the war, having to face two major superpowers like the Soviet Union and the U.S.

This is pure crap. M H has ignored all we have posted about Hitler's irrationality and brutality, his desire for "living space" and European and eventually world hegemony. The idea that Hitler would have been willing after Stalingrad to accept Germany reducing it boundaries to Sept 1, 1939 is so silly that it is laughable. AS for a referendum, really? I mean really! Done under Hitler's auspices it would have been fraudulent at best. And Hitler's response to the defeat at Stalingrad was to redouble efforts to win not negotiations. And by then Stalin had decided he could not live with Hitler. AS for peace with Britain and France. Well Hitler had indicated that he could not be trusted and fro the terms Hitler imposed on France and the terms proposed with Britain basically it would mean submission to German hegemony and aside from that Hitler could not be trusted to abide by the terms. Hitler had every intention of fighting to the last and dragging Germany down with him. (Along with murdering vast numbers of people.) In the end he decided that the German people had proven undeserving and so should perish. M H's basic ignorance of Hitler and Nazism is stunning.

As for Japan. Well once again idiot extremists helped drag her down to disastrous defeat. Oh and the post war period indicated quite strongly that Japan did not "need" either Manchuria or Korea. And in fact those imperial conquests, (Accompanied by mass repression of the populations involved.), were in the end drains on Japan's economy but of much benefit to the higher ups in the Japanese army.

For Poles living in occupied Poland, it was probably less dangerous to do what you are told to do, and to protest peacefully (with perhaps a few strike actions) than to attack German soldiers. A peace deal between Germany and the Allies in 1943 (for example) would have solved the problems of the unfortunate Poles, because they would have recovered their own country.

M H has totally ignored everything posted about just how brutal, indeed genocidal was German occupation of Poland from 1939 on. The Germans in engaged in massive brutal repression, including mass murder, right from the beginning. Resistance, including non violent, was crushed by arrests, terror and murder. Strikes were broken up by the same methods. The Polish intellectual class was scheduled for liquidation, Polish Priests were murdered in the thousands. The aim was to destroy the Poles has a distinct ethnic group and reduce the remnants to serf status. But the Poles in M H eyes committed the terrible crime, it seems, of resisting the Germans with arms.

A peace deal with Hitler in 1943 would almost certainly have left most of the Poles under brutal German rule. And I doubt Hitler would have changed his attitude.

And of course M H ignores that any chance of peace in 1943 would have required Hitler being killed. And of course we see once again that resisting armed attacks, occupation and humiliation by force are unacceptable but Germany and Japan are entirely exempt from this requirement. (Or should I say the Nazis of Germany and the Military Fascists of Japan are exempt.)

So I think M H is just never going to get it, because he doesn't want to get it. Some victims are simply more worthy than others to him.

 

[catsmate]

It occurred to me to check and see whether Reynouard is actually a historian. It turns out that he's a Holocaust denier, and has no formal training in history (or law, for that matter). He has a degree in chemical engineering.

The Salem Effect strikes again.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

It's funny to see Michel H struggle so hard to justify his interpretation of history.

Quote:
Rincewind, you seem to assume here that wars are always caused by Germany and that, once Germany had been completely defeated, the world would finally be at peace. But wars are not necessarily caused by Germany. For example, in 2003, Iraq was invaded by the main victors of WWII, the U.S. and the U.K. (and some other nations)

Looks like he forgot that Iraq started the Gulf War.

The CNN article is about climate change.

I find it sad that Michel T does not understand that the Geman and Japanese invasions are, for me, the reasons for WWII. I also notice that he never addresses that what Japan and Germany did was wrong. A lot of Europe still remembered The Great War and the results and loss. That's one of the reasons, if I recall correctly, why everyone didn't jump right in.

 

[catsmate]

I found this (and other things) in the wikipedia article: Timeline of World War II (1939) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_II_(1939)):

No citation and better sources including a detailed examination of Munich in the 1939-48 period and detailed studies of Allies aerial bombardment don't mention this. Munich was on the edge of RAF capability at the time. Even Wikipedia doesn't mention the incident elsewhere, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1939.

Furthermore I have studied the Elser attack and these are no mentions of any RAF raid. Given Hitler's rapid departure from the city I rather expect it would have been mentioned.

However, I found the historical and legal analysis he presented in his now deleted video rather good

Given how will his claims mesh with your demonstrated prejudices this is unsurprising and also irrelevant.

A comparison between the Nazis and the U.S. is made in this recent book:

I take it you accept Dr. Kakels's proposal that Hitler'r war "provided both the cover and the pretext for genocidal assaults against allegedly inferior and unwanted out groups"
Though he has failed to overcome the numerous problems with his analogy, such as the sheer scale of the Nazi mass murder programme (>11 million) and its intensity. Even he acknowledges the unique project of terror and industrial murder that Hitler and his acolytes implemented.

But then that'd mean actually reading the book rather than lackadaisical Googling and quote mining.



Wow I see our resident Nazi is inviting visits to Stormfront....

 

[catsmate]

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:

You mean: anti-semitic, Holocaust denying, neo-Nazi engineer and failed maths teacher.
Hopefully he'll be back in jail soon.

 

[Michel H]

I also notice that he never addresses that what Japan and Germany did was wrong.

No, that's not true, see for example:

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.

Germany and Japan did many wrong things during the 1930s and 1940s. Their racism, and brutal racist expansionism was unacceptable. However, the Allies commited many violent and cruel crimes too, which seem to be ignored.

My country, Belgium, was for example repeatedly bombed by the British and Americans during the war. For example, on April 5, 1943, the American Air Force bombed the city of Mortsel, near Antwerp, 936 people died, see https://pieterserrien.be/english/bombing-of-mortsel/ or (in French) https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/d...r-mortsel-anvers-faisant-936-morts?id=9884896 (you can imagine the number of injured and the destruction).

But, of course, the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender of Germany, so you got to understand ...

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Again, you are focusing only on the Allies. Pray tell, who was occupying the city? How did they get there? What was the target in the bombing? Why do you forget to mention the V2 rocket attack on the city?

Why aren't you mentioning the occupation of your country?