What if Bush41 had continued to Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi regime?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Jesus Christ, Molly.

I'm sorry, but there's definitely no relation.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned


All you have to do is remember the nightmare of WWI. How could anyone not believe that a second European war would be any less bloody?

As to Britain in 1939, what would have happened, per chance, had Britain told Poland that it would not come to its aid over the corridor or Danzig, but would if Hitler violated any such deal and pulled another Czechoslovkia. Would Poland have negotiated a deal with Hitler? I think so. Would war have been avoided? Yes.

But you say, Hitler would not be stopped. He would moved on to his next victim.

Well he just might. But during the entire cold war, we found ourselves in similar situations with Stalin and his succcessors. We avoided war while opposing their aggression as best we could. In the end, we won and saved humanity, which WWIII would have destroyed.

One cannot, I submit, applaud our strategy with Stalin and also applaud Britian's decision to fight rather than negotiate after Czechoslovakia.

On nuclear war, the kind of war I am talking about is the kind of war we waged against Japan, the kind we intended to way against the USSR, the kind that the insane president of Iran wants to wage against Israel.

Do you support the mass slaugter of civilians in wars?

Ned are you saying that you think that if stalin had invaded one of the NATO countries that ww3 would not have resulted?

There was no hot war against Stalin's USSR during the cold war because he carefully avoided invading any western alliance countries during the cold war.

Stalin invading NATO country = ww3

Hitler invading a country with an open defense agreement with GB = war with GB and her treaty bound allies.

Where is the double standard?

Oh and if you re-read my post that you quoted you will see that I anticipated that you would ask me about my thoughts on the slaughter of civilians and I already made quite clear that I'm against it. It makes me very sad. What has that got to do with Britains desperate attempts in 1939 to stabilize europe and your claims that those attempts somehow constituted responsibility for the war Hitler started?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Hitler did not ask for the return of West Prussia. He wanted a RR to East Prussia.

He didn't ask for it because he planned to take it.

However, he had to lie first:

True statesmanship must face realities and not shirk them. The Italian nation and the new Italian State are realities.

The German nation and the German State are likewise realities.

And for my own fellow citizens I should like to state that the Polish nation and the Polish State have also become realities.

Adolf Hitler, speech 30th January 1937

But not just him; his emissary Goering had to lie too:

'Germany (Goering told Marshal Smigly-Rydz) was completely reconciled to her present territorial status.

Germany would not attack Poland and had no intention of seizing the Polish Corridor.

" We do not want the Corridor. I say that sincerely and categorically; we do not need the Corridor. "

He could not give proof of this; it was a question of whether his word was believed or not.

Minute of Goering's conversation with Marshal Smigly-Rydz, 16th February 1937, Polish White Book

That must have a familiar ring, eh, Ned ?

Hitler to the Polish Ambassador Lipski in Berlin 5th November 1937:

Danzig ist mit Polen verbunden

in English: Danzig is bound up with Poland.

But what had Hitler expounded at length on in 'Mein Kampf' years before ?

And so we National Socialists... take up where we broke off 600 years ago (!) We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and tirn our gaze towards the LAND OF THE EAST.

IF WE SPEAK OF NEW TERRITORY IN EUROPE TODAY, WE CAN PRIMARILY HAVE IN MIND ONLY RUSSIA AND HER VASSAL BORDER STATES...THIS COLOSSAL EMPIRE IN THE EAST IS RIPE FOR DISSOLUTION.

(Upper case- my emphasis)

Note how Hitler refers to taking up where the Teutonic Order and German settlers left off- 600 years previously.

But where were the reassurances to Poland leading ?

It was clear to me that a conflict with Poland had to come sooner or later... I wanted first to establish a tolerable relationship with Poland in order to fight against the West. But this plan, which appealed to me, could not be executed...

It became clear to me that, in the event of a conflict with the West, Poland would attack us... and in certain circumstances a conflict with Poland might come at an inopportune moment.

[...] The destruction of Poland has priority. The aim is to eliminate active forces, not to reach a definite line.

I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war, no matter whether it is plausible or not.

When starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory.

The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not.

Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. Eighty million people must obtain what is their right.

The strongest man is right.

The greatest harshness.

Adolf Hitler, in conference with senior commanders of the Armed Services, 22nd August 1939, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, From the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry, publ. H.M.S.O. London 1948-, D. VII, Nos. 192 & 193

Seems clear enough.

As to Silesia, North Silesia was highly German, voted to stay with Germany, and was forced to go to Poland anyway by the French occuppiers.

The French occupied North Silesia ? When was this ?

Or do you mean that British, French and Italian troops oversaw a plebiscite under the auspices of the League of Nations ? Sounds quite different put that way, doesn't it ?

And, Molly, you did quote me on the Jews of Poland above.

I did indeed. A privilege which you rarely extend to me when choosing instead 'to paraphrase' and misquote me.

I asked a question about whether the Soviets took over Jewish- occuppied Poland.

There's asking a question, then there's a rhetorical question, and there's also muddying the waters in orde to let Nazis off the hook.

Mr. Irving is quite adept at the latter two...

Here's what you supposedly 'asked':

BTW, weren't the Jewish areas of Poland occuppied by the USSR in October 1939?

Mmm. If one truly wanted to know the disposition of Poland's Jewish population, one might ask-

'In which areas did Poland's Jews live in 1939 ?' and not the overtly leading question you asked, cleverly formed with the date that the Russians occupied areas of Poland after the Nazis had already begun their invasions.

The answer I got is that the Jews lived in German-occuppied Poland.

Where ? From whom ?

Shouldn't be too difficult to reproduce that answer, eh ?

Let's see:

The area occupied by Germany in 1939 included very large Jewish populations, including Warsaw, which had the largest Jewish community in Poland, Lodz, and Cracow.

lord of the mark

But what do you say ?

This answer was only half true. So it was not me that was lying in this thread about this matter.

I'm sorry, but he doesn't say that all or the majority of Poland's Jews lived in the areas Nazi Germany invaded and occupied in 1939.

Can't get your story straight, can you, Ned ? Leading 'questions' then another paraphrase that isn't anywhere near accurate.

Oh dear me....

Moreover, the problem with your thesis about WWII being about the Jews is that you supply no evidence that either Britain or France gave one wit about them.

I haven't said WWII was 'about the Jews' or even mostly about the Jews. Given that Japan took part in WWII that would be a tad strange...

I have said, with plentiful direct quotes and cites and documentation, that Hitler was obsessed with race, race purity and the Jews.

All of which is true, and has been shown to be true. I do not have to show that the governments of Great Britain or France cared about Polish Jews or Ukrainian Jews because I have never set out to prove that.

False lead, Ned.

Germany for sure, but that is not why they invaded Poland.

Well you get something right at last. Yes, Nazi Germany's leadership cared about the Jews of Germany and the rest of Europe.

Cared enough to strip citizenship from German Jews, making them non-persons in their own country.

Cared enough to issue instructions to Einsatzgruppen to kill civilian populations of Jews in the areas of Poland to be occupied by the Nazis.

Because Hitler (as I have quoted at length) had called for Lebensraum for the Germans in the East. And some Jews (and Slavs of course) were taking up that Lebensraum.

And would have to go 'elsewhere'- temporarily and eventually permanently.

He described the Jews (and Communists) as harmful bacilli and spreaders of disease- and we all know what one does with harmful diseases, don't we ?

As to WWI, you do not quote my concessions (made to others) that there was no secret alliance.

I wasn't aware I had to- you after all, 'INVENTED' this secret alliance based on wish-fulfilment and a Florida high school girl's essay.

It was the treaty of 1839 that coordinated Britain and Belgium.

It was nothing of the sort. Mix in a little more untruth with the retractions and self-pity, why don't you ?

The Treaty of London, 1839, Article 7:

Belgium to Form an Independent and Neutral State

Article 7

Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles 1, 2, and 4, shall form an Independent and perpetually Neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such Neutrality towards all other States.

The treaty 'coordinated' as you rather misleadingly put it :

Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia

as guarantors of Belgium's neutrality.

I agreed with you that the resumption of unrestricted warfare was the proximate cause of America's DOW on Germany.

Only after having first stated (without proof) that:

i) the British 'forced' the Germans to begin unrestricted U-boat warfare

ii) this was the catalyst for bringing in the U.S.

iii) this was the British intent.

So shifting the responsibility once again from the Germans to the British.

Still, it only took memoranda from the German High Command and the Zimmermann Telegram to convince you otherwise.

All of which were readily available in printed and electronic forms....

You act as if I don't listen to the arguments of others and acknowledge merit when they make good ones.

Well, it only seems to take three or four people saying the same thing and quoting easily available histroical documents to get you to be aware that yet again you're spouting nonsense, so...

The stubborn one here and in other threads is you, molly.

I agree- I can't let rubbish and lies and distortion and revisionism go by.

My bad.

You never concede any points

Against you ? Not difficult.

and when trapped, you simply start asking questions and for more "proof"

You've never trapped me- except in your own fevered and deluded imaginings.

the fact that the whole argument is about previously stated or given facts, supported when necessary.

But you don't consistently support your assertions with facts, or support your theories with coherent fact-based arguments.

You don't even quote people directly- as in the case of lord of the mark's statement on Polish Jews above.

In fact, the only time you've consistently attempted to support your arguments, you've enlisted:

a mock up of a German 1919 newspaper by a schoolboy

a Florida high school girl's essay

and either David Irving, a Holocaust denying website, or an article in Wikipedia that lacked a citation for its 'facts'.

Not exactly the most scholarly of bases for an argument.

Trying discuss anything with you is more that annoying.

That's so heartening to know.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wycoff


If this were completely true, then shouldn't the German Austrians have been allowed to unify with the rest of Germany,

Why ? They weren't Germans, nor had they been part of Germany.

and shouldn't Alsace have been retained by Germany?

Well the citizens of Alsace hadn't taken kindly to Imperial German rule- they were part of the German Reich on the same footing as Germany's colonies in Africa- effectively treated as equivalent to Bushmen. I believe I've already quoted one inhabitant saying that they were now:

'obligatory Prussians'.

[Ecthy]

Ned do you honestly think I'm going to give you history lessons here?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by molly bloom Why ? They weren't Germans, nor had they been part of Germany.

Austrians in German Austria considered themselves to be German. They called their Republic that they established after the war "German Austria," and there was very stong popular sentiment in favor of unifying with Germany. The Allies put a stop to this in the Treat of St. Germain, forcing the republic to change its name from German Austria to simply Austria, and forbidding the unification of Germany and Austria. It seems to me that the German speaking Austrians considered themselves to be ethnically German. Many probably considered themselves Austrian first, German second, but the same could be said about Bavarians.

The fact that the German Austrians hadn't been a part of the 2nd Reich is irrelevant to the discussion of whether they should have been allowed to be included in an ethnically based German state. German Austria had always been part of the nationalist vision of Grossdeutchland, stemming back to before 1848. You know as well as I do that the fact that Bismarck and Prussia opted to go for a Kleindeutchland excluding Austria had everything to do with politics and little to do with nationalism / ethnic solidarity.

[Ecthy]

I'll bite for now.

The general premises are realist theory and the dstinction between imminent and potential threats.

OK, let's start with WWI. Why was Germany a threat to the US then?

Don't you know that the German economy was the strongest on Earth (more or less sharing #1 with the US) and the most advanced one prior to WWI? Furthermore, the recent growth in its economy (since the 1890s) had not yet been reflected very well in its geostrategic position and the country was fixed on expansion, be it peaceful (through negotiated colonialism) or through war (military build-up naval and on land and strong rhetoric against most rival powers). Germany was a non-status-quo power on the rise with potential of becoming a hegemon of Europe and with ambitions in the entire world (mostly colonial in Africa and the pacific). As I have said before, I doubt there has been talk of "peer competition" at the time, but the concept of the emergence of a hegemon in another part of the world has throughout history never been a pretty prospect to status-quo powers in relative geostrategic security. Germany was thus a long term potential threat to the US.

Now, lets move on to Stalin. Was he a threat as well? If not, why not?

To the US? His country was still building up an industrial economy and was lagging behind Europe all the time prior to WWII. The Soviet Union before WWII did not have the status as an emerging potential hegemon, and if so was far away from being in the strategic position to project power outside of its borders against rival powers. Germany was closer to that status, hence the ongoing US hostility toward Germany (in support to its enemies in the west) before and during WWII.

Britain was the most powerful nation on Earth prior to WWII. Why wasn't Britain a threat?

Status quo power. As a democracy only able to project power during wartime, they never managed very well to maintain their gains from WWI. On the downswing ever since 1914 they didn't pose a threat to anyone. All that saved them from demise was their geostrategic security as an island power. Their navy was big but they lacked resources to keep up the big race with the US and Germany.

Japan was engaged in a war of conquest in China. The war was started by China, but it was going to be finished by Japan in the most brutal way. FDR intervenes to stop the war.

How was Japan a threat to the United States?

You say that in Beijing you're mob food. The incident on the Marco Polo bridge as trigger of the war was the result of quite some chaos also in the totally chaotic National Chinese government. To say they started the war would imply they had prepared campaigns and whatnot with their allegedly prepared forces. None of this is true though, it wasa defensive war for China from the beginning, Japan ws merely using a pretext for staring it.

Why was Japan a threat? Similar to Germany, peer competition and potential threat-ness. Imagine a Japanese victory in the western pacific without US intervention - still economically inferior to the US would it mean large growth potential for Japan which they would surely use partly for military power projeciton - why let the only great power on the other side of the pacific (with possibilities to project some power there, to discount the UK and USSR) build up without doing anything about it? Think about the absolute sum of power in the system. The US had the option to decrease Japanese growth in overall power, and just that they did by boycotting them and finally destroying their force, although that war was also started by Japan.

Now, let's shift our attention to 1990-1. Saddam takes Kuwait to settle border and other disputes, and because historically, Kuwait was part of Iraq. But the US leads a coalition to oust him.

What threat did Saddam of 1990-1 pose to the US?

After the end of the cold war US strategic interests have shifted from a global to a regional sphere. Saddam was to become a regionally very strong power, balanced probably only by Israel and Iran. With the oil of Kuwit he was in a position to surmount both and emerge as a regional hegemon. He had ambitions ballistic and nuclear. Why allow him to grow endelssly when you can stop him? Also, Iraq can't possibly lay any historical claim on Kuwait.

What threat did Saddam of 2003 pose to the US?

Nice one. The 2003 war cannot be properly explained within the framewrk of realist theory where natin states as monolithic players are concerned. if on the other hand you think of ALL actors as players, IE also individual members of government et al, then you might find an explanation in the economic links between members of the Bush government and iraq regional mineral resources (new condottieri, private wars etc.). I'm not in support of this however, since we lack information and it gets really blurry and conspiracy-wise rapidly. It's been too shortly ago to tell.

Now let's uptick to the mid-'90s. Clinton attacks the Bosnian Serbs in support of the Bosniam muslims. What threat did the Bosnian Serbs pose to the United States?

Next Kosovo. The Serbs are facing a violent revolution in Kosovo by radical Albanian muslims. The US leads the world to intervene and end Serb dominion and must now stay to assure the violent, radical muslims don't massacre the Serbs.

What threat did the Serbs pose to the US?

We didn't fvck the Serbians out of any strategic interest. As any political systen, western democracy needs legitimacy to survive. Preserving human rights forms part of our legitimacy, especially in Europe (Darfur doesn't count). Also, there've been treaties in Europe about the way how to resolve conflict etc. We waged those wars to stop a dwarf who was trying to spit in our faces. That way, we (although mostly the US) did something to keep up legitimacy, keep face on the international level, and kept up our treaties, notably the Helsinki accords and uh would have to look up details.

All this realist theory obviously only sets the framework for precise situational human action. To explain the entire story it's always necessary to look into the details also, i.e. diplomacy, personal attitudes of leaders etc. But you can always go 70-80% of the way by making some basic economic and geostrategic analyses. The rest is history, in the scientific sense of the word.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ecthy
After the end of the cold war US strategic interests have shifted from a global to a regional sphere. Saddam was to become a regionally very strong power, balanced probably only by Israel and Iran.

What about Turkey?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


But what is clear to me, at least, is that Hitler rightly judged that Briton and France would one day DOW on Germany. They did.

And why did they declare war on Nazi Germany ?

Oh yes, the Germans had invaded Poland.

After breaking several treaties, and having invaded the remainder of Czech territory and created a puppet Slovakian state and having invaded Austria- after having sponsored a coup there.

So, no reason to fear Hitler's intentions then....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I have REPEATEDLY said that I fully understood the effect Czechoslovakia had on the hardening Polish position.

You have ? Where ?

What I have not heard from any defenders of Briton is even the slightest hint of a concession that the British guarantee given soon after the German takeover of Czechoslovakia may have had at least some reinforcing effect on the Polish hard line.

Ah yes, the Polish 'hard line' of 'No, we are not surrendering any Polish territory because we've seen what's happened to the Czechs and Austrians and what's become of Slovakia'.

Is that the hard line you're referring to ?

After all, it's not like you're actually quoting what any Polish leaders or diplomats have said...

I think it is clear that Warsaw expected a war and expected to win because of British and French support.

Please give us your 'reasons', and I say 'reasons' guardedly because reasoning from a logical position does not appear to be your forte, for thinking this outrageous rubbish.

What was the state of the Polish army and air force with regard to the German army and air force ?

How many states unfirendly to Poland bordered Polish territory ?

When was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact ?

Any and all of these things should be taken into account before coming out with this sort of vague, fact free speculation.

The states of Czechoslovakia and Poland were created by Versailles and depended upon continued British support for their existence.

Hogwash. Would you care to show us in the Treaty of Versailles where it is stated that only or mainly Great Britain is responsible for the continued existence of Czechoslovakia and Poland ?

They knew this. Briton knew this. Germany knew this. Everyone knew this.

Really ?

Could you for once be bothered to give us, oh say, a teeny weeny little quote from one of the leaders or diplomats from the era concerned stating this at the time ?

But here it is denied.

By whom and where ?

Not getting any better, are you Ned ?

Do you have an allergy to direct quotes or some kind of phobia of them ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

What Briton-defenders want you to beleive is that Hitler planned to attack Briton. That is highly inconsistent with the memo itself and, as you say, to the view of more recent historians.

He did. He also planned to attack Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia and so forth.

Hi splans are called 'Hitler's War Directives', and what's even more bizarre, they're even available in print- in English

Amazing the conveniences of the modern world, eh ?

Here's the man himself:

I had already made this decision in the Spring, but I thought that I would first turn against the West in a few years, and only afterwards against the East . . . I wanted to establish an acceptable relationship with Poland in order to fight first against the West.

[...] A beginning has been made for the destruction of England's hegemony.

from a speech Hitler made to his Commanders in Chief, 22nd August 1939.

I think I've already made reference to this. By the way, 'West' doesn't indicate Luxembourg....

That is highly inconsistent with the memo itself and, as you say, to the view of more recent historians.

Which ones ? David Irving and his cabal ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
El Tigre, I think your view that the Jews of Poland thought of themselves as patriotic Poles and considered that the only division between themselves and other Poles to be religion is, pun intended, beyond the pale.

Could you explain what the point is of this remark and why you think a map of pre-1939 Europe is of any significance to the Jewish population of Poland in the areas invaded by the Nazis ?


Especially given that so many Jews had fled from the Nazi Regime in Germany and Austria, the Bohemian-Moravian Protectorate and the puppet state of Slovakia...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

But, what of Briton? Did they miscalculate as well? Did they expect their guarantee to stop Hitler cold, or did they expect to find a pretext to DOW on Germany?

I'll ask again- what in Neville Chamberlain's opinions, speeches or writings or even the Foreign Secretary's speeches or writings, would lead anyone to expect that Great Britain was looking for a pretext to declare war on Nazi Germany ?

What had the British government done, comparable with the aggrandisement of German territory and the greatly enlarged and specialized German armed forces, to make anyone believe that they were looking for a pretext for a war against Nazi Germany ?

Really, in the absence of anything resembling the tiniest plausible piece of information, you should stop pointlessly speculating and attempting to shift the culpability.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Geronimo, so it is your view, then, that killing tens of millions of innocent people was a fair price to pay to remove Hitler from power?

The Soviet Union had a death toll of 20 million (at least) at the end of WWII.

More died at the Siege of Leningrad than there were war dead of the United States and Great Britain.

Hitler's oft-stated ambitions (as I've quoted from 'Mein Kampf' and his public speeches and his remarks in conference) was to find Lebensraum in the East, in Russia and at the expense of Russians.

Operation Barbarossa was preceded by a plan called Plan or Operation, Fritz.

From the beginning of Hitler's acquisition of land in Poland, to the invasion of Soviet Russia and Russian occupied territory, there was mass murder.

Mass murder of Polish leaders, intelligentsia and armed forces, Polish Jews, Jewish refugees, then Jewish communities in the Ukraine, Crimea, the Baltic States and Byelorussia and Russia itself.

What evidence is there to lead us to think that Hitler would not have had so many Jews killed ?

After all, in Nazi Germany they were non-persons.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Let me be more blunt.

Your characterization that Jews in the Pale considered themselves to be Russians or Poles or whatever and that the only difference between them and other Russians or Poles is their religion is more than wrong, it is obscene.

http://apolyton.net/forums//newreply...postid=4855181

It is ? Why is that ?

Is that some special rule laid down by Holocaust revisionists that none of us know about ?