Split Thread The causes and legality of the declaration of WWII

[Rincewind]

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

And I wonder who it was that 'blitzed' Britain in 1940-41 for eight months before they moved off to do the same to Russia?

Can you really think that the British people would have been happy to talk peace with Adolf after that?

 

[catsmate]

And I wonder who it was that 'blitzed' Britain in 1940-41 for eight months before they moved off to do the same to Russia?

Can you really think that the British people would have been happy to talk peace with Adolf after that?

Indeed not, the practices developed in Spain were used extensively in France and Britain.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.

Poor, poor, Hitler! Treated like "trash" by the allies!! (Snark)

I mean really? This is a man who deliberately originated and ordered policies to be carried out that resulted in millions upon millions of deaths.

Lets see this man, so unfairly treated like "trash", (Snark), had well over a million men, women and children murdered in camps, by gas, specially set up to kill them for no even remotely sensible reason. This man set up housing and deliberately had it organized so that people, men, women and children would painfully starve, in his eyes, hopefully to death!! This man set up squads of killers who would go to towns, villages and cities to round up men, women and children and shot them en mass in trenches. And these people would frequently would be the victims of hideous sadism before their deaths.

Frequently the killers would proudly take pictures of their "heroic" deeds and often celebrate their heroism with parties etc.

And Hitler arranged it so that Military and Police units would comb cities and country for people trying to hide from the slaughter and when the hiders were found they would be shot to death. Every man woman and child. And there is of course those worked to death under incredibly brutal conditions.

The number of people worked to death, slaughtered one way or the other by the Nazis was in the millions. All to satisfy Hitler's pathological fantasies.

And of course Hitler had hundreds of thousands of Germans murdered by his security forces.

And just before he died Hitler celebrated his most terrible atrocity and called his slaughter "humane".

To call this person "trash" is merely accurate.

And where was Hitler's "dialogue" with for example the Jews of Europe? Nope he decided that they had to all be murdered. Has if he had the right to decide whether they should live or die.

As for negotiations. No such luck. Hitler had burned his boats. In order to preserve himself and his regime he had to win. It is such a pity he wasn't murdered before the end. In all likely hood the Nazi regime would have collapsed with far less loss of life.

Someone like Hitler had shown by his deeds that he desecrated Humanity and the Earth. He should have been removed from existence earlier.

 

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.

Michel - no dialogue or negotiations?

Whatever do you think happened at Munich?

Like I mentioned before - even Neville Chamberlain, who did negotiate with Hitler - came to realize that there was no point.

 

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
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.

Michel - no dialogue or negotiations?

Whatever do you think happened at Munich?

Like I mentioned before - even Neville Chamberlain, who did negotiate with Hitler - came to realize that there was no point.

What I said in my post was:

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).

But neither of these conditions were met when the Allies bombed Germany (and even France and Belgium). They basically treated Adolf Hitler like some kind of human trash that had to be removed (much like the Islamic State nowadays), that's all. There was no attempt to have dialogue or negotiations.

There was dialogue with Hitler in Munich, in 1938, but no longer in 1943, when Hamburg was firebombed, for example.

 

[erwinl]

What I said in my post was:

There was dialogue with Hitler in Munich, in 1938, but no longer in 1943, when Hamburg was firebombed, for example.

All the reasonable efforts towards dialogue were exhausted in 1938 and 1939.
That takes care of point 2. Point 1 is also taken care of in that there was a very clear political goal. It being removing the nazis from the occupied countries, freeing the people they had in their hands and making certain they would not be able to do these things again.

 

[Michel H]

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?

It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead. Wikipedia writes:

This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports, leading the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to estimate it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining and to support the existing plans to seize oil resources in the Dutch East Indies. Planning had been underway for some time on an attack on the "Southern Resource Area" to add it to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Japan envisioned in the Pacific.
... Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina (July 24) following an agreement between Japan and Vichy France, the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.[12][13][14] The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States.[15]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor).

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable. More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).

 

[abaddon]

It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead. Wikipedia writes:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor).

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable. More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).

Sure. A sternly worded letter would have changed it all, right? Those always work.

 

[Arcade22]

What I said in my post was:

There was dialogue with Hitler in Munich, in 1938, but no longer in 1943, when Hamburg was firebombed, for example.

Hitler had only himself to blame for burning his bridges, and the German people could only blame themselves for tolerating his leadership when they now were to experience the same treatment as their military had subjected others to.

The only way there was going to be negotiations was if the war dragged on into a stalemate, but that was never going to happen after Hitler declared war on the rest of the world.

 

[Michel H]

Sure. A sternly worded letter would have changed it all, right? Those always work.

Perhaps this would not have been quite enough. Roosevelt (with possibly U.S. Congress) had certainly a range of possible options in 1941, including raising the price of oil (and of other raw materials) for Japan, imposing export quotas (limits) and so on. More extreme is not necessarily better.

 

[Loss Leader]

Do you think that those who bombed Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Dresden, Munich and Hamburg ever faced convictions for genocide (or mass murder)?

Well, let's get one thing completely straight: Neither the US nor any other country in the world had any capacity for precision bombing during WWII. It just didn't exist and only came to exist in any form at the very end of the war. That meant that any attempt to drastically alter the course of the war meant carpet bombing of militarily important cities. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Berlin, munich and Hamburg were all important centers making Japanese/German military equipment. There was no other way to end Japan/Germany's ability to produce war supplies without bombing those cities.

As for Dresden, I would admit that the US was wrong in considering it an important military target. However, a mistake during the fog of war is not a crime. Besides, if we hadn't bombed Dresden, then Kurt Vonnegut may never have written Slaughterhouse Five.

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.

Yep. This.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, if we're talking Japan, then the worst thing that happened to Japan wasn't the USA embargo, but... Hitler.

See, a HUGE chunk of the imports before WW2 were from the Netherlands. Including, yes, the oil from the Dutch Indies, but also minerals and other materials. When Hitler blitzed through the Netherlands, it joined the Allies and started giving the oil to the UK, who was fighting their common enemy. Leaving Japan with a huge oil deficit and entirely dependent on the USA.

Which made the embargo even do anything, really. If Hitler had stayed put, then Japan could get enough oil from the Netherlands to not be in a desperate situation. I mean, it may have been less than ideal, but far from desperate.

Along with such effects as that Germany's unrelenting aggression and the war of the Atlantic prompting the USA to start rearming fast, including start building the two ocean fleet fast. The airplane production was also gearing up fast and getting better at it. (Well, so was the tank production and design, but that played a more minor role in the Pacific.) So when Japan did decide to attack, the USA was ALREADY out-producing it where it mattered. Which really made Pearl Harbour less than the devastating sucker-punch that Yamamoto had hoped.

And all that ticking clock to defeat had started with their nutcase friend in Europe.

(Though I don't doubt that when one is determined to find excuses for the Nazis, we'll just get to see some kind of mental gymnastics as to how when it's Hitler, attacking Japan's main supplier is somehow ok, and it's still all USA's fault )

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead. Wikipedia writes:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events...n_Pearl_Harbor).

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable. More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).

I guess Michel H doesn't realize that the oil embargo, along with scrap metal limitations, was in fact a "limited action to rein in Japan". I should also point out that Japanese had already decided to go after the European Colonial Empires in South East Asia. The USA rightly feared this. But the Japanese insisted upon acting provocatively. (Occupying all of French Indo-China for example.) The oil embargo etc., was an attempt to rein in Japan without going to war. The Japanese government went to war anyway in order to create it's East Asian Empire and lost.

 

[Crossbow]

Perhaps this would not have been quite enough. Roosevelt (with possibly U.S. Congress) had certainly a range of possible options in 1941, including raising the price of oil (and of other raw materials) for Japan, imposing export quotas (limits) and so on. More extreme is not necessarily better.

A much better approach would have been for the Germans and the Japanese to stop being a bunch of stupid, greedy, idiotic, brutal liars who were trying to steal as much as they could in the time available.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I promised myself that I wasn't going to waste any more time on this thread, but oh, well . . .

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.

Your opinion on this matter is of no value for a variety of reasons, the most prominent of which is again your outrageous and ridiculous views on collective security. And as for the hilited, to steal a line that Garrison used in another thread, you keep repeating this; it keeps not being true. You have failed to explain why the Vichy supporters who claimed the declaration of war had been illegal waited until after France had fallen to do so, and why none of them spoke out about the highly irregular and clearly illegal appointment of Pétain as dictator in perpetuity. You have also failed to explain why the opposition never called for a no-confidence vote against Daladier if Parliament did not approve of the guarantee, the ultimatum, and the declaration of war.

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.

There were reasons for the bombing other than achieving unconditional surrender; all German and Japanese cities were major manufacturing and transportation centers, and damaging them damaged the Axis's ability to wage war. Additionally, bombing did not result in the unconditional surrender of Germany (the Allies still had to physically conquer most of the country), and whether it led to the unconditional surrender of Japan is debatable (though it probably contributed).

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.

As I have explained, and you have ignored, as usual, the "economic war" was not "brutal." Japan could have continued to run its economy for years based on their domestic production and their reserves, provided they'd slashed their military consumption. What was "brutal" was Japan's war against China. Further, as I and others have also explained, and you have also ignored, the Japanese Army was not going to abandon the war in China, whether the US imposed a full oil embargo, or just a partial one. So your proposal would also have led to war, except the Japanese would have had even more oil stockpiled when they attacked.

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.

Erm, pardon me, but your swastika is showing. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that the Holocaust occurred substantially as is generally accepted, and anyone claiming otherwise is either incredibly ignorant, or a Nazi sympathizer and an anti-Semite.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Perhaps this would not have been quite enough. Roosevelt (with possibly U.S. Congress) had certainly a range of possible options in 1941, including raising the price of oil (and of other raw materials) for Japan, imposing export quotas (limits) and so on. More extreme is not necessarily better.

As I explained to you, export duties are expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. That aside, as has also been explained to you, Japan was going to attack American, British, and Dutch possessions in the Far East with or without an embargo (limited or otherwise). The embargo simply accelerated the process.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is difficult to compare these two events, because the rape of Nanjing involves a large loss of life (perhaps 100,000 people killed), while the oil embargo did not (directly).

There was no indirect loss of life due to the US oil embargo. You keep implying that the embargo was somehow bound to wreck Japan's economy; the fact is, all Japan had to do was make peace in China and the embargo would have been lifted.

However, from the point of view of the emperor of Japan, the brutal loss of more than 80% of oil imports created probably a more complicated problem than a hypothetical bombing of a Japanese city, with 100,000 dead.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The embargo was almost an invitation to Japan to invade the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to get the oil they needed, this was not clever, to say the least (in my opinion).

No. It was an invitation for them to end their brutal war in China. As for your Wikipedia quote, it makes clear, as I've mentioned, that the militarists were already making plans to seize the Dutch East Indies, and the embargo simply moved those along. Again, though, even a limited embargo would have had the same effect, because it would have meant either abandoning the war in China, or attacking the Allies.

The Japanese had watched European powers (and the U.S., in the Philippines) build colonial empires, sometimes using brutal military methods, so they thought: "If they could do this, why not us", this was to some extent understandable.

The US had already passed the Tydings–McDuffie Act^WP, which granted the Philippines independence after a ten-year transition period, and Britain had passed the Government of India Act 1935^WP, which granted India a significant amount of autonomy. So the claim that the Japanese were only emulating the other colonial powers is dubious at best.

More limited action to rein in Japan, would have been better (in my opinion).

Again, you're simply wrong; it would be nice if you could admit it.

 

[Michel H]

The US had already passed the Tydings–McDuffie Act^WP, which granted the Philippines independence after a ten-year transition period

One can perhaps compare the Commonwealth of the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines) with Manchukuo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo).

 

[Michel H]

Again, you're simply wrong; it would be nice if you could admit it.

I remain unconvinced by your arguments about Japan. It seems to me that, in July of 1941, Roosevelt could have invited ambassador Nomura to have a discussion in the Oval Office, with Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and explained to him that the American people were gravely concerned about reports (from multiple reliable sources) of Japanese atrocities in China. If these didn't stop, and if Japan didn't stop its invasion of China, he could have said, then, to their great regrets, the United States would have to sanction Japan by restricting oil exports, in order to apply serious pressure on Japan, without, however, going so far as trying to crush its economy and its military (there was no need to humiliate Japan by withdrawing all the oil used by its military). I see no reason why ambassador Nomura, and Japanese leaders, would not have understood such a pedagogic (and gradual) approach.

 

[SpitfireIX]

One can perhaps compare the Commonwealth of the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines) with Manchukuo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo).

No. First, according to the article, which you seem not to have bothered to read, the League of Nations, your favored arbiter of international disputes of the period, took the official position that Manchukuo was still a part of China. Second, with a few minor exceptions, international recognition of Manchukuo was limited to other Axis and Axis-friendly nations (including the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed). Third, and most important, Japan had no plans to grant Manchukuo independence, and maintained a puppet government with a rubber-stamp parliament.