Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Rincewind]

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?

And the around 375,000 forced-labor workers deported from Belgium to Germany?

And the fact that of 25,000 Belgian-Jews deported 24,000 were killed, mostly at Auschwitz?

 

[Rincewind]

Say, Michel! How about the fact that Hitler broke virtually every agreement that he made?

And this is the guy that you think other heads of state should have negotiated with in good faith?

Man - even Neville Chamberlain saw through the lies eventually!

 

[Michel H]

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?

I am not focusing only on the Allies, since I just said:

Germany and Japan did many wrong things during the 1930s and 1940s. Their racism, and brutal racist expansionism was unacceptable.

I just think a more balanced view of the crimes committed by both the Axis powers and the Allies is needed, this is not the same thing as being a supporter of Hitler. You mention real things, like the occupation of Belgium and the V2 rocket attacks on Antwerp, and you ask "How did they (the Germans) get there?". Well, they got in Belgium because, after France had declared war on them, launched an offensive in German territory, and imposed a naval blockade with the British, they counter-attacked through Belgium to bypass the Maginot line. Then there were also probably some strategic reasons why they wanted to remain in Belgium, they could control Belgian agricultural products, forced labor and so on (note that I am not trying to excuse). Germany was of course massively bombed by the Allies too.

The bombing of Mortsel by the U.S. military was part of a plan for regime change, invasion and unconditional surrender of Germany. All considerations of respect for human life (including for the lives of unfortunate Jews in concentration camps) or human property were secondary, only total victory mattered. It would have been easy to invite Germany to go back to its normal borders, but the Allied leaders didn't care about that. They bombed massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This has to be a joke?

 

[Michel H]

Say, Michel! How about the fact that Hitler broke virtually every agreement that he made?

And this is the guy that you think other heads of state should have negotiated with in good faith?

Man - even Neville Chamberlain saw through the lies eventually!

The German occupation of Czechoslovakia was formally accepted by their president Emil Hácha. Hitler did probably lie, but a lie is not an act of war, like what the UK and France did when they attacked Germany. And I have heard of a certain president who is rumored to have said quite a few lies or misleading statements.

 

[Arcade22]

It would have been easy to invite Germany to go back to its normal borders, but the Allied leaders didn't care about that. They bombed massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.

Oh please Hitler didn't give a **** how many Germans were killed or what borders Germany would have (if it existed at all) once the German people failed him. Spare your crocodile tears for Stormfront.

 

[dudalb]

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

So he's a David Irving wannabe?

 

[dudalb]

The German occupation of Czechoslovakia was formally accepted by their president Emil Hácha. Hitler did probably lie, but a lie is not an act of war, like what the UK and France did when they attacked Germany. And I have heard of a certain president who is rumored to have said quite a few lies or misleading statements.

This snetence is so full of nonsense no other response fits.

 

[dudalb]

Oh please Hitler didn't give a **** how many Germans were killed or what borders Germany would have (if it existed at all) once the German people failed him. Spare your crocodile tears for Stormfront.

That's the ulitmate irony, Hitler was pretty much tried to commit genocide on his own people in the last few weeks of the war with his orders to destroy all infrastructure rather then let it fall into Allied hands.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I am not focusing only on the Allies, since I just said:

I just think a more balanced view of the crimes committed by both the Axis powers and the Allies is needed, this is not the same thing as being a supporter of Hitler.

But you have not brought up the crimes the Axis has done.

You mention real things, like the occupation of Belgium and the V2 rocket attacks on Antwerp, and you ask "How did they (the Germans) get there?". Well, they got in Belgium because, after France had declared war on them, launched an offensive in German territory, and imposed a naval blockade with the British, they counter-attacked through Belgium to bypass the Maginot line.

Belgium was neutral. Why were they invaded?

Then there were also probably some strategic reasons why they wanted to remain in Belgium, they could control Belgian agricultural products, forced labor and so on (note that I am not trying to excuse). Germany was of course massively bombed by the Allies too.

Think about what you just said.

The bombing of Mortsel by the U.S. military was part of a plan for regime change, invasion and unconditional surrender of Germany. All considerations of respect for human life (including for the lives of unfortunate Jews in concentration camps) or human property were secondary, only total victory mattered. It would have been easy to invite Germany to go back to its normal borders, but the Allied leaders didn't care about that. They bombed massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.

Once again you avoid the question. Mortsel was bombed, but the target was as factory used to repair German airplanes. The bombs unfortunately missed the target.

What about the V2 attacks to Belgium and the UK?

And yes, since the Germans were the ones that started the whole thing, it is not unreasonable to have the leaders punished for starting the war. They attacked and murdered massively (including civilians, deliberately) and invaded until they got what they wanted, like a criminal child.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

The Germans had been fighting a guerilla war inside America long before we knew of it, let alone appreciated its significance. Through the German Embassy, agents bombed ships in New York harbors, disguising it to look like worker dissatisfaction.

Wilson was a strong anti-interventionist. However, there came a point where even he realized the US was already under attack. Our first goals were to secure our shipping lanes to sell our goods to our trade partners. That failed. Strong militarization of the Atlantic fleet also failed. Attempts to lend money to our allies failed to make a difference. Entry into France was all we had left.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Wilson was a strong anti-interventionist.

That wasn't the half of it.

More Americans Supported Hitler Than You May Think.

American exchange students went to Germany and returned with glowing reviews, while none other than Charles Lindbergh denounced Jewish people for pushing the U.S. toward unnecessary war. In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe....

“It’s always been uncomfortable in this country to talk about isolationism, though the ideas are still out there,” he says, “It’s part of the American mythology. We want to remember ourselves as always having been on the right side in this war.”

It was also possible for those who had participated in Nazi-sympathetic groups to later cloak their beliefs in the Cold War’s anti-communist push — a dynamic that had in fact driven some of them to fascism in the first place, as it seemed “tougher on communism than democracy is,” as Hart puts it. (One survey he cites found that in 1938, more Americans thought that communism was worse than fascism than vice versa.)

We had our reasons - and they weren't good ones.

 

[Aber]

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.

No, Stalin was not that stupid.

He wasn't interested in 1939 borders, or having a major military power on his western border, or having limited influence in the Balkans.

I find it fascinating that when Michel H criticises the "Allies" he never seems to mention the Soviet Union.

 

[catsmate]

No, that's not true, see for example:
<drivel snip>

By your previous "logic" shouldn't the Germans have left and eliminated the necessity of bombing occupied Belgium?

 

[catsmate]

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

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.

Perhaps we should start examining the atrocities and mass murder of the Belgian regimes in the Congo? Or do those 3-8 million bead not matter?

 

[catsmate]

This has to be a joke?

No, some people really are that dumb.

 

[catsmate]

So he's a David Irving wannabe?

Without the academic rigour or patina of respectability.

 

[HansMustermann]

"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.

I would add: WHAT Baltic ports? The only contact at all with the Baltic at the time was around Danzig, which was under attack from day one. As in, heavy bombing and heavy artillery shelling of the Westerplatte pretty much STARTED the hostilities, right from the first hour. So exactly WHICH Polish port was a safe place there for the Brits to send convoys to?

All our friend Michel is proving is that, as they say, those who don't learn history, are doomed to make idiotic excuses for Hitler

 

[Michel H]

By your previous "logic" shouldn't the Germans have left and eliminated the necessity of bombing occupied Belgium?

Yes, I think you can defend that point of view too. Particularly when their military situation got bad, the Germans could have made the wise decision to leave all occupied territories and stop persecuting innocent Jews. This would probably have saved many lives.

My general point of view in this thread (and possibly in some other threads too) is not to try to praise Hitler, Nazism, or fascists regimes, but instead to try to point out major crimes and errors committed (in my opinion) by Allied powers which are either ignored or minimized. Ignorance of these facts leads straight to American (and Israeli) arrogance and an individual like Donald Trump. So, you will understand that this problem is still very current.

 

[Arcade22]

My general point of view in this thread (and possibly in some other threads too) is not to try to praise Hitler, Nazism, or fascists regimes, but instead to try to point out major crimes and errors committed (in my opinion) by Allied powers which are either ignored or minimized.

No serious impartial historian ignores the missteps, questionable ethics, opportunism and war crimes that the Allies were guilty of.

The simple fact is that, with the exception of the Soviet Union, the Allies come out looking like heroes compared to Nazi-Germany, Japan and (to a notably lesser degree) Fascist-Italy is not because uncritical propaganda being taken as fair historical account. It's because their crimes, misdeeds and questionable actions were far less sever than those of the Axis.

The only black sheep that even comes close was The Soviet Union, which had actually sought to join the Axis in sharing the spoils of war. You can easily blame The Allies for opportunisticly becoming allies with the Soviet Union, even-though many continued to view them as a threat. Notably FDR treated the Soviets, and Stalin specifically, very naively.