Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Matthew Ellard]

I don't think these mass murders perpetrated by the U.K. and U.S. had any real justification, neither from the point of view of their dubious war aim ("total victory" or "unconditional surrender"),

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg, were manufacturing centres for war materials or rail hubs for troops and war materials.

The fastest method to save innocent Germans and Europeans from being murdered by the NSDAP dictatorship was to end the war quickly.

Your crap fascist view ignores that Hitler ended elections in 1933 and they didn't care what the actual civilians thought.........but you're OK with dictatorships, right?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations..

Now you are just making up crap. Himmler attempted peace talks in Sweden, so Hitler, the dictator sacked him.

....but you're OK with that, right? (You think only Hitler, the dictator should have made decisions)

 

[Matthew Ellard]

An interesting book on Hitler's peace offers has been posted by Saggy in post #119: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM.

So you, like Saggy, are a fan of the German author, Friedrich Stieve?

Did you also enjoy his 1939 book, issued on order of the National Socialist government’s Ministry for Propaganda, "New Germany: A Picture Book for Foreign German Youth"?

Do you get a lot of your understanding of history from Nazis working for the wartime Nazi propaganda ministry?

https://www.amazon.com/New-Germany-Picture-Foreign-German/dp/1684549752

 

[erwinl]

I'm not convinced it's even that. IF aggression is excused, defense is not, then just characterize the UK and France as being aggressive -- which in fact pretty much is Michel's argument about them -- and they're excused too. Then Germany should have just folded and peacefully demonstrated.

But that's not the argument made, is it? It's only when it's Adolf that apparently everyone ELSE is to blame for pretty much anything he's ever done.

Sorry, missed this answer.

You're right. If you look at it rationally.
Which is not what our Belgian is doing.

I think that deep inside he, and others like him, know, just know who was the instigator of all the brouhaha that was WWII. So he has to rationalise it away by saying that the defenders are to blame, even while lambasting the UK and France for declaring war on nazi Germany.
The alternative would be admitting that indeed the Nazis were the cause of all the misery that followed.

 

[catsmate]

<drivel snip>

Your unwillingness to accept the reality of the measures needed to eradicate Nazism are irrelevant.

They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.

Wow, you really have no connection to reality do you?

(much like the Islamic State nowadays),

A group that wishes to impose it's will on others and has no other aim?

<drivel snip>

Fascinating. You may be eager to lap up Nazi apologist propaganda but others aren't.

The second king of Belgium Leopold II (who, by the way, never bombed entire cities using incendiary or atomic bombs to achieve some crazy world domination aim)

No, he just had millions enslaved, mutilated, and murdered to satisfy his greed.
Pathetic.

However, it is widely agreed that some serious human rights violations occurred in the Congo Free State.

"Some serious human rights violations", what a pathetic whitewash attempt.

 

[HansMustermann]

A legitimate political goal in a war would for example to expel an invader/occupier and to restore local democracy, but this is different from demanding unconditional surrender. It seems to me that, in order that violent military action be warranted, two conditions must be met: (1) having a reasonable political goal (e.g. restoring local democracy) and (2) having exhausted all peaceful means to reach a peaceful settlement (after having worked very hard on this).

Right. So now please explain how do any of those apply to Hitler, since you've been trying so hard to excuse him for several pages now. Or do those criteria only apply to everyone else but him?

 

[Marras]

An interesting book on Hitler's peace offers has been posted by Saggy in post #119: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM.

I hope that you are aware that if you keep on relying on neo-nazi holocaust deniers for your sources (or, as in this case original nazi sources edited by neo-nazis) people will soon conclude that you are a neo-nazi?

Especially when you keep whitewashing Hitler. The way that neo-nazis do.

If it looks like a neo-nazi, it swims like a neo-nazi, and it quacks like a neo-nazi, it's either a neo-nazi or so close to a neo-nazi that no one will care about the difference.

 

[Arcade22]

An interesting book on Hitler's peace offers has been posted by Saggy in post #119: https://www.amazon.com/What-World-Rejected-Hitlers-1933-1940-ebook/dp/B00M5K8OEM.

An excerpt from this book:
.

Fun fact: Hitler and many other Nazi leaders were actually quite poorly informed on how the British political establishment and people viewed them and their war.

Britain and France had gone to extreme lengths to appease Nazi Germany in a attempt to stop another World War from breaking out, only to find out that Hitler and Nazi Germany was intent on going to war no matter what. Unless Hitler was to suddenly had a change of heart, it became clear that peace was not an option.

But much of the Nazi leaders had convinced themselves that the British really would give in. That was basis of Rudolf Hess's delusional flight to Britain to broker peace.

 

[Michel H]

Right. So now please explain how do any of those apply to Hitler, since you've been trying so hard to excuse him for several pages now. Or do those criteria only apply to everyone else but him?

I am not trying to excuse Hitler for all the wrong things that he did, since I said:

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.

But I added:

However, the Allies commited many violent and cruel crimes too, which seem to be ignored.

I don't think it was a good idea for the UK and France to declare war on Germany in 1939 (in France's case, illegally, because without the mandatory vote by its parliament), and to follow this by an naval blockade, and an offensive into German-speaking Germany. I also believe that it was a bad idea to massively and inhumanely bomb German and Japanese cities using incendiary and atomic bombs, in order to achieve unconditional surrender of these countries. It is also my opinion that it was an error by the Roosevelt administration to launch a very brutal economic war against Japan in 1941, by cutting off all oil exports (and other exports), and closing the Panama canal.

But this does not mean the Axis countries were innocent at all, major and well documented crimes were committed by Germany and Japan. One problem regarding Nazi crimes though is that, if you deny them, you might be sent to jail in many countries (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial). In my opinion, this is a problem, because historians can no longer work freely (and working freely means making sometimes mistakes too). When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.

 

[Marras]

When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.

And there you get it, holocaust denialism.

You should stay away from neo-nazi lies, if you genuinely are not yet one yourself.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Poor Nazi's, after breaking treaty after treaty, terrorbombing cities of all their neighbors with the express target of civilians, occupying many countries without any actual reason apart from greed (Poland, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Greece) and then both plundering those and committing massive atrocities the Allies did not give them whatever they wanted when they started losing and used their tactics against them.

On a different note, what IS the deal with denying the holocaust by neo-nazis? After all, given their utter hatred of jews, why not admit that Hitler did what they only dream of?

 

[Garrison]

Fun fact: Hitler and many other Nazi leaders were actually quite poorly informed on how the British political establishment and people viewed them and their war.

Britain and France had gone to extreme lengths to appease Nazi Germany in a attempt to stop another World War from breaking out, only to find out that Hitler and Nazi Germany was intent on going to war no matter what. Unless Hitler was to suddenly had a change of heart, it became clear that peace was not an option.

But much of the Nazi leaders had convinced themselves that the British really would give in. That was basis of Rudolf Hess's delusional flight to Britain to broker peace.

The British and French engaged in appeasement because they wanted to avoid another catastrophic European war, not because the expected to lose but because they believed that it would be utterly draining and the only really winners would be the 'peripheral' powers, the USA and USSR. they were right about that but as you point their fundamental mistake was to believe that Hitler talk of war was just rhetoric and that he understood the inevitable effect as well they did.

By the time the summer of 1939 rolled round Hitler was determined to have his war because Germany had reached the peak of its military advantage relative to the British and French, that is German rearmament had maxed out while the British and French were rapidly closing the gap with their rearmament. Germany was under no strategic threat in 1939, only Hitler's belief in war as a means of racial struggle and a closing of Germany's 'window of opportunity' led to war.

It should also be borne in mind that attacking France was every bit as much a part of Nazi ideology as destroying communism or seizing Lebensraum in the east. Revenge for 1918, reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine and removing the threat from the French army all dictated striking against France before turning east.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is also my opinion that it was an error by the Roosevelt administration to launch a very brutal economic war against Japan in 1941, by cutting off all oil exports (and other exports), and closing the Panama canal.

How brutal do you consider it to have been, relatively? Do you think that America, by brutally not selling oil to Japan, was more brutal or less brutal than, say, the rape of Nanjing?

When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.

Nobody except fantasist holocaust deniers wonder even for a moment whether authors really believe the truth when they report the truth.

When astronauts write about orbiting the earth, what sort of person wonders if they are perhaps just too scared to deviate from the "official" view that the earth is not flat?

 

[catsmate]

Poor Nazi's, after breaking treaty after treaty, terrorbombing cities of all their neighbors with the express target of civilians, occupying many countries without any actual reason apart from greed (Poland, <snip>

And let's not forget the (primarily) German bombing of Guernica and their meddling the Spanish Civil War.

 

[erwinl]

The British and French engaged in appeasement because they wanted to avoid another catastrophic European war, not because the expected to lose but because they believed that it would be utterly draining and the only really winners would be the 'peripheral' powers, the USA and USSR. they were right about that but as you point their fundamental mistake was to believe that Hitler talk of war was just rhetoric and that he understood the inevitable effect as well they did.

By the time the summer of 1939 rolled round Hitler was determined to have his war because Germany had reached the peak of its military advantage relative to the British and French, that is German rearmament had maxed out while the British and French were rapidly closing the gap with their rearmament. Germany was under no strategic threat in 1939, only Hitler's belief in war as a means of racial struggle and a closing of Germany's 'window of opportunity' led to war.

It should also be borne in mind that attacking France was every bit as much a part of Nazi ideology as destroying communism or seizing Lebensraum in the east. Revenge for 1918, reclaiming Alsace-Lorraine and removing the threat from the French army all dictated striking against France before turning east.

Well they were under threat.

Pity that the threat that was looming over them, was all of their own doing.With them having an army that was too large and contained too many men, that they simply didn't have enough fuel to last for too long. Also an economy that would collapse in a very short time, unless the nazi's conquered other countries, so that they could plunder those in order to fuel their economy for just that little bit longer.

The nazis had turned Germany and its economy into the industrial equivalent of a locust swarm. They had to expand and plunder, or else collapse into chaos and nothingness. And nobody forced them to do that. That was all of their own doing (although I'm sure Michel H will think of something, anything, that would make it anybodies but the nazi's fault).

 

[HansMustermann]

SORT OF. They could get all the oil they needed, actually, even with that overblown army, because the USSR was more than happy to sell it to them, along with food and other materials Germany needed. Most of the rest of the world hated the USSR enough to not do much trading with them, but Germany had all sorts of trade and research and industrial agreements with the USSR. And was willing to pay with what Stalin needed the most: industrial equipment.

As I've said before, the NSDAP could have learned a thing or two from the Ferengi. Starting with Rule Of Acquisition Number 3: Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to. They chose to get into a very expensive war, both in material means and in human lives, when they could have gotten everything MUCH cheaper.

I mean, hell, even that Generalplan Ost where they planned to starve a few million Ukrainians to death to get their grain? Stalin was already doing it for them. Pay for enough grain imports from the USSR, and Stalin would happily starve a few million Ukrainians for you. So, like, WTH, even the genocidal goals could have been achieved cheaper

But anyway, genocide jokes aside, they actually managed to stock up oil before Barbarossa, so obviously they were getting enough.

The ONLY reason to want to invade for resources was Hitler's belief that he needs to prepare an autarchy. Which may or may not have been based on his seeing how vulnerable Germany had been to a blockade in WW1, or may or may not have been based on a belief in an imminent shrinking markets problem, depending on who you ask. (It's basically the belief that those countries selling you grain and minerals will eventually use the money to achieve industrial parity with you, at which point they stop selling you stuff.) The former however ONLY applied if he wanted to start a war, and the latter still shows no signs of happening some 100 years later than when Hitler got his ideas, yeah, it seems like an unsound motivation. You can see how he reached that conclusion, but it's still unsound.

And in any case, when the "solution" involves basically trying to DEindustrialize and DEurbanize the country in the 20'th century, yeah, it's safe to say he wasn't exactly an economic genius.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.

You were already made aware, that in 2014 there was a formal university forensic excavation of Treblinka II extermination camp (Poland) which identified the mass graves. This is why most holocaust deniers stopped posting back then, and moved on to other conspiracies, such as JFK, ESP, and so on.

You seem to be returning to holocaust denial, against the evidence, using your earlier "ESP test" BS "I can pick and choose evidence" claim.

 

[Arcade22]

In my opinion, this is a problem, because historians can no longer work freely (and working freely means making sometimes mistakes too). When you see a webpage explaining that Hitler killed six million Jews, you never know if its author really believes that, or if he/she is actually too scared to deviate from the "official" view.

No it's about preventing neo-nazis, nazi sympathizers and other antisemites from inciting hatred against Jews indirectly.

Holocaust deniers and trivializers are invariably antisemitic and the point of denying the holocaust, or minimizing the scale of it, is to attack Jews because if there was any truth to it then clearly the Jews together with the rest of the world has been guilty of prepetuating a gigantic lie. A huge conspiracy against the innocent Nazis.

Of course this just a continuation of the same false victim playing narrative that the Nazis themselves engaged in to justify their own crimes.

 

[HansMustermann]

TBH, I don't even understand why these guys have such a fixation with Jews in this day and age. And I don't even mean as in whether it's an acceptable position. But from a pragmatic point of view, for example Belgium has about 29,000 Jews total, or literally 0.25% of the population. No, literally: a quarter of a percent. Even if you include the largest possible connection, as in up to and including people who live in a household that also has a Jew, you still end up at about a third of a percent.

Dunbar's number for humans being 150, the average Belgian doesn't actually know anyone who's Jewish. In fact a lot probably don't even know someone who personally knows some Jew.

And it's not like most even look any different from your average garden-variety white citizen.

I mean, the US rednecks being triggered by blacks... well, I don't understand them, but at least I understand what the trigger IS. Like, Billy Joe Bob saw a black and had to lock his car doors today, because he's that stupid. But, you know, at least he SAW one. I can see the trigger.

Belgians having a raging boner about Hitler and his anti-semitism... why? Exactly what would even be the trigger there, other than idiots reaffirming to each other that they too hate Jews.

 

[Garrison]

But anyway, genocide jokes aside, they actually managed to stock up oil before Barbarossa, so obviously they were getting enough.

Only by slashing the consumption of the civilian sector across the whole of Europe and the stockpile was extremely thin, there were serious proposals to partially 'demotorize' the Wehrmacht in 1941 and Stalin kept applying pressure when it came to payment for grain oil and other raw materials. On one occasion Stalin demanded the construction of a Buna plant and Coal Hydrogenation plant on Soviet soil with full blueprints provided to the Soviets. The Germans fought that demand off, but it was a clear example that Stalin would exploit any moment of weakness or setback for Germany to ratchet up his demands. There was also the problem that among the things the German were forced to agree to trade were machine tools, meaning that Germany was actually upgrading the Soviet military-industrial complex and strengthening Stalin's hand. The long term choice was become essentially the junior partner in an alliance with the Soviets or take control of the resouces for themselves.

Note that the above doesn't even allow for the impact of ideology on the decisions making process.