When is war justified?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Serbia assassinates the Austrian heir.

No, as I've already pointed out in the History Forum, individuals assassinated Franz Ferdinand.

When asked to prove that the Serbian government sponsored the murder, you were strangely silent.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned



The Austrians "knew" the Black Hand was associated with the Serbian government and demanded Austrian participation in an investigation.

They did rather more as you well know. Lies of omission as well as commission. You're expanding your range.

But, the propaganda view simply maintains that the Black Hand was an independent organization

No, it's not the 'propaganda' view, it's the view arrived at by people who don't live in a fantasy world propped up by paranoid conspiracy theories about what is meant to have been British foreign policy.

It's the view arrived at by addressing the available evidence, the data, hard facts.

All of those are of course alien concepts to you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well were does Ned think they weren't going to invade?

Liechetenstein.

Andorra.

Rockall.

Well, that is if there weren't any Jews, or suspiciously Jewish looking seabird colonies on them.

Big puffins, small Hasids, it's a tough call.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


He thought the English had allied with Stalin and that Stalin planned to attack him. The Military Channel just ran a piece on this with this explanation.

It must be true !!

I note again Ned, you offer no other 'proof' for this than a television programme you claim to have seen.

Well they must have based their programme on more than the vapours from their colon, so where's the evidence ?

In case anyone is interested in facts (Ned I kindly exclude you just in case you're allergic to them) the plan for attacking Russia is Directive No. 21, dated 18th December 1940 from Fuhrer Headquarters.

It is called 'Case Barbarossa'.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/direct21.html

Hitler had been talking about attacking Russia for much of his political career, and the necessity for Lebensraum. An attack on Russia by 1943 at the latest was a general idea. Barbarossa was the specific plan.

Also, at the time, Stalin was mobilizing (and had been for some time) and did have millions of Soviet troops on the border.

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were thought to be commanding two of the army groups, with Alexander Nevski's revived corpse on station in Latvia.



Facts, Ned. Just the facts.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, why don't you viist the thread in the History forum for a fuller explanation, but Hitler's belief was not entirely a fantasy. He had good reason to believe that England had made a breakthrough with Stalin.

You haven't offered a shred of evidence to support this, despite being asked repeatedly.


One more time for the people in the seats at the back:


WHERE'S YOUR PROOF ?

Good grief.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


But, in October 1939, the Brits declare it their intention to destroy the Nazi regime in response to a peace offer, and this is not aggression [even if it were somewhat justified by prior German betrayals]?

This is a flat out lie.

Do you ever tire of spouting manure ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I can't find the text of Chamberlain's reply to the Hitler offer.

No sh!t.

At this stage of my incredulity I'm surprised you can find your arse with your elbow.

You haven't even produced Hitler's offer.

Are you really this obtuse ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Nice. But too simple.

Let's look at WWI.

Serbia killed the Austrian heir.

As we've discussed previously, no it didn't. Move along.

Austria demanded satisfaction and did not get it.

Untrue: even Austria-Hungary's main military backer, the Kaiser (and his advisers) believed the Serbs had done enough to satisfy all reasonable Austrian demands. Move along.

I would argue that Austria's war was just and that joining Serbia was joining with the party at fault.

Austria-Hungary (according to you) is justified going to war over one dead prince (and wife), an act not sanctioned by the Serb government, and carried out by a Bosnian.

Great Britain and France are apparently unjustified in declaring war on Nazi Germany despite a vastly greater death toll of Poles and Jewish refugees at the hands of German government forces..

What a peculiar twisted perspective.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

The case of Belgium is more complicated, to be sure.

No it isn't. The German Empire was a guarantor of Belgian independence. Attempts had previously been made to 'induce' the Belgian rulers to see the 'German side' and even before the invasion of 1914, the Germans cooked up a c0ck and bull story about spurious French attacks on German territory to get Belgium to allow their troops through to attack France.

I've gone into some detail about this in the relevant thread in the History Forum, so if you read my post and you're repeating this garbage, you're just a big fat liar.

Britain used Belgium as a pretext to join the larger war against Austria and the Ottoman Empire.)

Horsesh!t. Not a fly speck of proof for this drivel.

But, again, the truth is more complicated than that.

How do you even presume to know what truth is, after the lies you've posted ?

Deluded.

[molly bloom]

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.

Well Germany did invade Belgium- a neutral state.

Please demonstrate to us just how 'hard' Kaiser Wilhelm II worked for peace, especially when he thought that his armies wouldn't have to go West as well as East.

Demonstrate with quotations, correctly dated, that is. Not from ten years or two years after the events are meant to have taken place.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
The one life was the heir to the throne.

And ?

One Austrian heir, 50 000 Poles.

Is that the going rate ?

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

No it didn't- it issued an ultimatum.


You don't even bother referring to the diplomatic exchanges, do you ?


They're not hard to find- in books or on the internet.

[Ned]

Molly, I post links, once, twice, three times. When I still get from you is repeated, "Where are your sources?", I stop responding.

Empires are formed largely from an agglomeration of smaller acquistions each of which began with a just pretext, at least from the conquerors point of view. A small incident is used by the empire-builder to attack and take over the territory of his most recent victim. Every addition to the Roman Empire had this character. The Japanese were doing the same in the Far East until they ran into FDR. England's empire was formed in just the same way.

WWI was a fine example of England using Belgium as a pretext to go after the German, Austian and Ottoman Empires all at once in a major land grab unparallel in all history. She framed that war as a war to save "democracy" in order to sucker the Americans in on her side to seal the deal. Then she partitioned the conquered empires among her friends as rewards and kept a good deal for herself. She formed new nations, such as Yugoslavia, Poland and Czechoslovakia from the ruins, and, in the process, laid the groundwork for WWII.

Had the Brits (and her French partner) simply left Germany to negotiate with her neighbors to undo the nastier parts of Versailles, there would have been no WWII, at least, not as we know it. Given the communist state to the East, I think, as everyone at the time thought, that Germany and communism would eventually come to blows. But what actually happened was that Britain and France tried to enforce Versailles against Germany. This resulted in a major world war.

The reason for the war was Versailles, crafted by Britain and France, and a British and French effort to impose their will on Germany as she tried to negotiate her way out of that treaty.

The only road to peace in that era was a general European peace conference that would address the various border disputes that were the result of WWI. FDR proposed this prior to the outbreak of war. But it did not happend and the rest is history.

We all know why the Brits and French (and Poles) did not want to negotiate with Hitler when FDR made his proposal. They said so in their address to the German people on declaring war. They could not trust Hitler. His prior behavior and lies were a major cause of the war to be sure. But focusing on this point ignores the fact that the British and French were involved in the negotiations in the first place because they were trying to enforce Versailles.

So, we circle back to WWI as the cause of WWII; but not just WWI in the abstract, but the allied victory in that war and its unjust treatment of Germany and Austria.

[notyoueither]

Yes, Ned, I agree that is the lunatic reading of... the links you've provided count amoung them neo-Nazi sites, yes?

Can we safely conclude from that and your continued insistence on this silly line of argument that you are a neo-Nazi?

[notyoueither]

Ned? I'd really like to know why the sources you quote from wrt to the argument are neo-Nazi websites.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I post links, once, twice, three times. When I still get from you is repeated, "Where are your sources?", I stop responding.

No, you don't.

Or if you have, they're invisible links in invisible ink, obviously.

Where are these 'links', that hold the unalloyed truths you refer to ?

Which specifically refer to what Kaiser Wilhelm II said or did, to what Grey offered or didn't offer, to what the Austrian or German ambassadors said or wrote...

..all sadly lacking and glaringly absent.

Empires are formed largely from an agglomeration of smaller acquistions each of which began with a just pretext, at least from the conquerors point of view. A small incident is used by the empire-builder to attack and take over the territory of his most recent victim. Every addition to the Roman Empire had this character. The Japanese were doing the same in the Far East until they ran into FDR. England's empire was formed in just the same way.

So much opinion and verbiage and general windbaggery. Please be specific and try to answer specific questions.

WWI was a fine example of England using Belgium as a pretext to go after the German, Austian and Ottoman Empires all at once in a major land grab unparallel in all history.

Utter unfounded unsupported rubbish.

The Belgian response to a German ultimatum:

This note [asking free passage] has made a deep and painful impression upon the Belgian Government. The intentions attributed to France by Germany are in contradiction to the formal declarations made to us on August 1, in the name of the French Government. Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, Belgian neutrality should be violated by France, Belgium intends to fulfil her international obligations and the Belgian army would offer the most vigorous resistance to the invader. The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870 vouch for the independence and neutrality of Belgium under the guarantee of the Powers, and notably of the Government of His Majesty the King of Prussia.

Belgian refusal of 'free passage' to the Imperial German armed forces, August 3rd 1914

The King's speech to the Belgian Parliament:

The irreproachable mobilization of our army, the multitude of voluntary enlistments, the devotion of the civil population, the abnegation of our soldiers' families, have revealed in an unquestionable manner the reassuring courage which inspires the Belgia n people.

It is the moment for action.

I have called you together, gentlemen, in order to enable the Legislative Chambers to associate themselves with the impulse of the people in one and the same sentiment of sacrifice.

You will understand, gentlemen, how to take all those immediate measures which the situation requires, in respect both of the war and of public order.

No one in this country will fail in his duty.

If the foreigner, in defiance of that neutrality whose demands we have always scrupulously observed, violates our territory, he will find all the Belgians gathered about their sovereign, who will never betray his constitutional oath, and their Government, invested with the absolute confidence of the entire nation.

I have faith in our destinies; a country which is defending itself conquers the respect of all; such a country does not perish!

King Albert of the Belgians, August 4th 1914

As the Belgians pointed out:

The attack upon her independence with which the German Government threaten her constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. No strategic interest justifies such a violation of law.

You keep ignoring this.

'Peacemaker' Kaiser Wilhelm II:

A momentous hour has struck for Germany. Envious rivals everywhere force us to legitimate defense. The sword has been forced into our hands.

[...] Today all have gathered to pray for the triumph of our weapons, for now that oath must be proved to the last drop of blood. The sword, which I have left in its scabbard for decades, shall decide.

[...] Our ancient fame is an appeal to the German people and their sword. And the entire German nation to the last man has grasped the sword. And so I draw the sword which with the help of God I have kept in its scabbard for decades.

(At this point the Kaiser drew his sword from its scabbard and held it high above his head.)

The sword is drawn, and I cannot sheathe it again without victory and honor.

Speech in Berlin, 31st July 1914

The English ambassador inBerlin confers with the German Chancellor:

I found the Chancellor very agitated. His Excellency at once began a harangue, which lasted for about twenty minutes. He said that the steps taken by His Majesty's Government was terrible to a degree; just for a word -- "neutrality," a word which in war time had so often been disregarded -- just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her.

August 4th 1914

Note- Great Britain was 'going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her'.

So what the f*ck was the German ultimatum to and invasion of neutral Belgium ? Heavy foreplay ?

She framed that war as a war to save "democracy" in order to sucker the Americans in on her side to seal the deal.

Blah blah blah. Any relevant quotes for us ?

Anything to substantiate this drivel ?

Then she partitioned the conquered empires among her friends as rewards and kept a good deal for herself.

Blah blah blah. What did Imperial Germany do at Brest-Litovsk in 1918 ?

Oh yes, it forced Russia to cede: the Ukraine, Finland, Poland, the Caucasus, and the Baltic provinces.

And what had the German forces done to France at the end of the Franco-Prussian War ?

To Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein ?

She formed new nations, such as Yugoslavia, Poland and Czechoslovakia from the ruins, and, in the process, laid the groundwork for WWII.

Blah blah blah. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

I seem to recall President Wilson and the Czechs being involved, as well as other national groupings, along with the Allied nations at Versailles.

Woodrow Wilson's 14 points- note, Wilson was not President of the British Empire, nor was he British:

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918/14points.html

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

I think that clears things up a bit, doesn't it ?

Had the Brits (and her French partner) simply left Germany to negotiate with her neighbors to undo the nastier parts of Versailles, there would have been no WWII, at least, not as we know it.

Opinion, not based on facts.

But what actually happened was that Britain and France tried to enforce Versailles against Germany.

When and where ? Be specific.

This resulted in a major world war.

No it didn't. Just plain wrong.

The reason for the war was Versailles, crafted by Britain and France, and a British and French effort to impose their will on Germany as she tried to negotiate her way out of that treaty.

The reason for war was an unprovoked attack on Polish territory by Nazi Germany, an attack which had been planned for in advance: from April 1939 onwards in fact.

On April 3rd Keitel, acting for Hitler, issued a directive concerning future war operations against Poland. Affixed to the directive was a document, 'Fall Weiss' or 'Case White', which called for the annihilation of Polish armed forces, at a time when the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact had yet to be repudiated by Nazi Germany.

Nice neighbour to have.

The only road to peace in that era was a general European peace conference that would address the various border disputes that were the result of WWI.

So the League of Nations didn't exist, is that what you're saying ?

We all know why the Brits and French (and Poles) did not want to negotiate with Hitler

Let's see: Hitler was a liar, unprincipled, a bully and his party and government had been sponsoring terrorist groups in the Sudetenland and Austria prior to their occupation by Nazi Germany.

His party was involved in the funding of the Austrian Nazis who murdered the Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss; his party had fomented unrest in the free city of Danzig, and had spread propaganda and lies about alleged mistreatment of German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

His government had set up concentration camps for political opponents, driven some into exile and murdered others, disenfranchised German Jews, and had broken the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of St Germain, the Locarno Pact, the Munich Agreement and went on to repudiate the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact.

They had deliberately armed Spanish Nationalist forces alongwith Mussolini's Italy to test out new German armaments and military theories in Spain.

Yes, I can see why Chamberlain, Daladier and Poland might not want to talk to Hitler after the invasion of Poland.