When is war justified?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned

Germany has often been accused of being the warmonger in 1914. But if you see just how hard the Kaiser worked for peace, particularly with the Russians, I am not sure history got this one right.

Including by German scholars.

[Ned]

The one life was the heir to the throne. This was not a simple matter that could be ignored by the Austrian goverment. The people responsible had to be identified and brought to justice.

Austria tried to negotiate, but was, in the end, denied justice.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Including by German scholars.

Do any Brit scholars see any justice at all in Austria's position?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned

Do any Brit scholars see any justice at all in Austria's position?

I'm not aware of any scholars who share your view that the Austrians were the innocents. That doesn't mean none exist.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Japher
I thought Ned was dead?

Only from the neck up and scalp down.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


From your list, I see no justification for a Bush I march on Baghdad. Agreed?

Q. When was the massacre of Kurds at Halabja ? When did other measures against the Kurds as a minority begin ?


Q. When was the programme of repression/extermination against the Marsh Arabs begun ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


or attending a European peace conference called by Hitler,

There was no serious call for a peace conference, since the base for startig discussions was the situation in hand- which is to say the continued German occupation of Polish lands conquered by that date and the continued occupation of Czech territory and Austria and Memelland and Danzig.

You have no proof that this call by Hitler for a 'peace conference' was anything but propaganda, in line with his previous efforts, to show him as the 'peacemaker' and offended party.

Put up or shut up on this one, as it's getting old, real fast.

The war ended up destroying Germany as Britain intended, but it did not result in Poland's freedom, and in the process, tens of millions of innocent people were killed.

Casualty list for civilians and military in German attack on Poland, including the bombing of Warsaw:

66 000 dead, 200 000 wounded. About 700 000 members of the Polish armed forces were captured. Special German forces, the Einsatzgruppen, were to eliminate the Polish intelligentsia and anyone likely to form a resistance or opposition to their rule in Poland.

Heydrich on the Einsatzgruppen:

21st September.1939
Berlin

To Chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police Subject: Jewish
Question in Occupied Territory

I refer to the conference held in Berlin today, and again point out that the planned total measures (i.e., the final aim) are to be kept strictly secret.

Distinction must be made between:

1. the final aim (which will require extended periods of time)
and

2. the stages leading to the fulfillment of this final aim (which will be carried out in short periods).

It is obvious that the tasks ahead cannot be laid down from here in full detail. The instructions and directives below must serve also for the purpose of urging chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen to give practical
consideration to [the problems involved.]

Note the date, Ned.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Unprovoked?

Remind us if you will, of the Operation Canned Goods at Gleiwitz which the Nazis needed to 'prove' Polish aggression against Nazi Germany.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

I think, given what happened after the fall of Poland, that one more shot at negotiations would have been the better course.

Perhaps you think Hitler, Chamberlain and Daladier could have arrived at a suitable tariff of dead Poles and Jews and political prisoners which the Nazis shouldn't exceed.

What figure do you have in mind ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Most wars have underlying disputes. That was my point.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that Neville Chamberlain or perhaps some strange conglomeration of British-American Masonic Illuminati and Jewish Bolsheviks skilfully manoeuvred Hitler into going to war- a war the poor man really didn't want, even though he'd been expanding the German military way beyond purely defensive levels since he came to power.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I think that both WWI and WWII were both avoidable. Britain and Poland might have had to give up the corridor, Danzig and perhaps Silesia.

I think you are quite honestly as daft as a brush, and utterly incapable of producing anything remotely resembling a fact, based on previous knowledge of Hitler's conduct in the domestic or international arenas, to support this grotesque assertion.

But it would have regained its independence.

What, like Austria and the Czechs ?

Didn't happen.

But most importantly, millions upon millions of lives would have been saved.

Really ? Because plans for Barbarossa were begun in December 1940.

Plans were also in place for the invasions of Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.

Why would Nazi Germany stop once unprovoked aggression had been rewarded with territorial gains ?

Because Hitler was a man of his word ?

Pass me the sick bag, Alice.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Both were to blame, of course.

Only in your mind and the minds of revisionists, crypto-fascists, anti-semites and those who generally believe Hitler had a bad press and the job wasn't followed through.

Oddly enough there are still Germans who refuse to believe the extermination and concentration camps existed- even one woman who was taken through Dachau. She is still convinced it was 'American propaganda'.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I see. "Goal of conquering Europe."

That was in all the American propaganda films and literature at time. Makes it true, of course.

He had plans to occupy the Atlantic coasts of Spain and Portugal. His forces did turn against Vichy France and Italy. And Hungary- they were a bit tardy in killing Hungarian and refugee Jews for his liking.


Will your stupidity never cease ?

There were even contingency plans for the occupation of Switzerland and Sweden, and the Republic of Ireland too.

Your lack of research is glaringly obvious.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Germany was blamed for WWI because it gave a blank check to Austria.

Austria-Hungary acted as it did against Serbia (even though it knew the likelihood of Russia coming in to defend Serbia) precisely because the Kaiser and his staff issued the 'blank cheque' without knowing in advance what Austria-Hungary proposed to do or where it would stop.

Then, to beat Russia, Germany followed the Schlieffen Plan as revised by von Moltke and made a pre-emptive strike through a neutral country on France.

FDR did as much to Britain.

No, he did not.

It really is getting a bit tiresome asking you to prove your baseless assertions, but once again: prove it.

The onus is on those who sought war and avoided peace.

Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary. And later, Nazi Germany.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

What about Lend Lease? That brought us into conflict with Germany and made the DOW by Germany inevitable.

What about it ? What about American companies continuing to trade with Nazi Germany after the beginning of WWII ?

In no way did 'Lend Lease' make a declaration of war inevitable.

'Your honour, I submit this rape victim was wearing... a skirt! Thus clearly asking for it....'


Odd how compelling Lend Lease as a reason for war was, isn't it ? Makes you wonder why Herr Hitler procrastinated until Japan attacked at Pearl Harbour.