 |
|
private hudson
|
|
The Wirral
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
I was merely pointing out the irony behind the Nazi view of perfect people and the fact that none of Gobbels, Hitler, Himmler or Goering fit that category at all.
And although they come from the same racial and ethnic background they were seperate when Hitler was born and are now seperate countries and should be considered as such.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by private hudson
Ned that's not exactly the entire story, the americans gave money to all of europe without clauses, except the UK. They insisted on us giving up the empire, and even now we owe huge sums of money on debts incurred during WWII that america still holds over us, and we pay interest on that sum. Sure you bailed out Europe don't get me wrong, but you did not do it entirely fairly.
On germany, that remark was stupid, but bush is not entirely innocent of being a dictator. When for example are those prisoners in camp xray to be charged? But he is not comparable to hitler in any way.
Besides that he's too damn tall  |
At the end of WWII, we asked generally asked all our allies to decolonize.
As to the Marshall Plan, I believe this was intended primarily to rebuild. England was not destroyed like Germany.
As to the prisioners, since when do POW's have to be charged with anything. They stay there until the war is over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
private hudson
|
|
The Wirral
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
mmmmmmmmm so we were'nt destroyed like germany, but bankrupting ourselves fighting hitler off for 2 years whilst we waited for you wasn't good enough clearly........... Either way is it fair that we pay billions each year to pay off such a debt that we incurred fighting for the freedom of the world? You would think by now that America would forgive and forget given all the times we have stood together to fight for freedom recently when no-one else backed the US.
On POW's who decides they are that? Who decides when the war is over? How long will it be before you determine whether these people are actually members of the terror neworks and PROVE it? From what Bush sounds like it could be a long time before these wars end, will America hold these people there for years on end, without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves? I don't mind them being held, but America and the west would do better to prove they are above such matters by trying these people and proving thier guilt under law, rather than holding them indefinately. How can you persuade someone that your governmental system is better if you do not show it by according these people a fair trial. Don't get me wrong if they are guilty then send them to jail forever for all I care, but prove this first before you condemn them to an indefinate period of time.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
private hudson
|
|
The Wirral
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
private, I wholly agree that UK's support in Iraq over the last ten years has merited elimination of any remaining WWII debt. However, you have to remember, you started WWII in Europe. Roosevelt told you not to go to war with Germany, but to call a European conference. But you chose the path to war.
I still don't understand why you have to try POWs found on the battlefield. What are we supposed to do, give them lawyers? |
Now hang on a sec there, we did not start WWII. We were not the ones invading every damn country under the sun were we? We fought Hitler because talking did not work, hell nothing worked with hitler and especially not a damn conference like Munich in 1938. There Hitler promised to stop invading sovereign nations, 1 year later he invades poland. Somewhere I might add that Britain had a treaty to defend and Hitler knew this so he must have known we might declare war but did he stop?
What was america doing to stop hitler at the time? that's right damn little whatsoever! Hitler began concentration camps PRIOR to WWII, would it have been advisable to let him continue indefinately whilst he took over one nation after another, killing jews and other minorities whilst we stood to one side whistling? We recognised the threat of hitler and stood up to him (with France of course) and had we not he would have been a lot more powerful when America would finally have had to deal with him.
You may not know it, but we tried "talking" to hitler for 6 years and we got nowhere with it. Talking more whilst hitler and Stalin carved up Poland would have been stupid. America on the other hand was busy ignoring these actions, presumably because no-one had yet threatened you!
And to the POW thing. Well you don't have to..... but it would I believe give their prison terms some legality and also prove their guilt. Having them there indefinately only heightens the calls of the extremists that you are not the all magnificent democracy you are claiming to be
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by private hudson
Now hang on a sec there, we did not start WWII. We were not the ones invading every damn country under the sun were we? We fought Hitler because talking did not work, hell nothing worked with hitler and especially not a damn conference like Munich in 1938. There Hitler promised to stop invading sovereign nations, 1 year later he invades poland. Somewhere I might add that Britain had a treaty to defend and Hitler knew this so he must have known we might declare war but did he stop?
What was america doing to stop hitler at the time? that's right damn little whatsoever! Hitler began concentration camps PRIOR to WWII, would it have been advisable to let him continue indefinately whilst he took over one nation after another, killing jews and other minorities whilst we stood to one side whistling? We recognised the threat of hitler and stood up to him (with France of course) and had we not he would have been a lot more powerful when America would finally have had to deal with him.
You may not know it, but we tried "talking" to Hitler for 6 years and we got nowhere with it. Talking more whilst Hitler and Stalin carved up Poland would have been stupid. America on the other hand was busy ignoring these actions, presumably because no-one had yet threatened you! |
After Czechoslovakia, Roosevelt advised Britain to not enter into a war with Germany, but to call a conference of all European nations in the Azores. He would attend. The purpose would be to revisit the Versailles Treaty that the United States never ratified in the first place.
If the United States were part of the negotiations and treaties, Roosevelt probably would have used US influence and power to guarantee the peace in Europe. There is no guarantee of this of course, but the power of the United States has kept the issue of a new European war off the table for the past five decades.
But rather than heed Roosevelt’s remarks, Britain junked its policy of appeasement and began forming defensive alliances with all the remaining countries East of Germany. This included Romania and Poland. I am not sure of the status of Hungary. Britain told these countries to stand firm, that Britain and France would protect them.
As German demands extended to the Corridor, Poland bargained hard with Hitler because they were repeatedly assured of British support. When Hitler gave the Poles and ultimatum - show up in Berlin on Aug. 31 or else, the Poles ignored Hitler.
Of course, the British had made it clear to Hitler that they had a deal with Poland.
Germany then invaded Poland and Britain declared war on Germany.
Now, who caused this war? It depends on your point of view doesn't it? If the Versailles Treaty was "proper," "just" and fully agreed to by Germany, of course Hitler was in the wrong.
But the Versailles treaty was none of these.
I believe WWII was inevitable after Britain rejected Roosevelt's offer of a European conference. Britain chose instead the path to war.
Why did they do it? I think they intended to keep the United States out of European affairs - this and nothing more.
quote:
And to the POW thing. Well you don't have to..... but it would I believe give their prison terms some legality and also prove their guilt. Having them there indefinately only heightens the calls of the extremists that you are not the all magnificent democracy you are claiming to be |
I don't see how you can give a POW a prison term. This implies they can be released at the end of the term even if the war is still ongoing.
The whole issue of trials for POWs doesn't make sense.
Last edited by Ned on 21-09-2002 at 22:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
private hudson
|
|
The Wirral
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
No i'm sorry I can't agree with you there. I may be biased but as I said hitler was on a crash course with europe. He had retaken the rhineland, taken the sudentanland and all of czechosolvakia when he agreed not to do so, united Germany and Austria and threatened poland. Do you think we did not try to deal with him first? We spent 6 years talking to him and appeasing him whilst america ignored him. then suddenly you expect us to believe you would do anything to stop his antics when you did not before? Why when you stayed out of politics in europe for the post WWI period until then would we put faith in your will or ability to stop him then? We had no need to keep you out of our affairs YOU chose to stay out!
And to the defensive alliances, well that was our measures in place to try to ensure hitler did not continue to make unreasnoble demands on the rest of europe. You have to look at it this way, defensive alliances in themselves threaten no-one unless the countries are invaded. WWII had it's roots in Versailles and the depression that followed, but had hitler used diplomacy and peaceful means to achieve his aims, many of which were unworkable the war would not have occured at all. Restoring the country is one thing, invading sovereign nations is entirely different.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Like he did when he logically decided to declare war on the US despite being at war with Britain, the Commonwealth nations (Canada, Australa, NZ etc) and the USSR.  |
You have a good point here. But, you have to consider that the war had been going for more than two years by the end of 1941, and on the whole, Germany was doing quite well. Besides, with Lend Lease, the US was already in the war to an extent.
But also, Hitler had an obligation to declare war under the Axis pact with Japan.
So the fact that he declared war against the US in late 1941 then does not necessarily mean he would declare war against the US in 1939. Hitler wanted to undo Versailles and attack the home of communism, the USSR. He had no desire to fight the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
You have a good point here. But, you have to consider that the war had been going for more than two years by the end of 1941, and on the whole, Germany was doing quite well. |
Means little in logical terms. If you are in a fight for survival, the fewer enemies the better. Attacking the US and bringing down its full wrath was stupid at best - more likely suicidal insanity.
quote:
But also, Hitler had an obligation to declare war under the Axis pact with Japan. |
So Hitler is allowed to honour loose alliances in order to go to war, but Britain and France aren't? That's a double standard and you know it.
quote:
So the fact that he declared war against the US in late 1941 then does not necessarily mean he would declare war against the US in 1939. |
Hitler would attack anyone who opposed him. He said as much.
quote:
Hitler wanted to undo Versailles and attack the home of communism, the USSR. |
He was a megalomaniac madman who hated Slavs, Jews, gypsies and a host of others. His only desire was for power and the destruction of races that did not fit his ideals.
Versaille was a matter of pride, but had that been avenged peacefully he would have continued on the path to total annihilation.
quote:
He had no desire to fight the US. |
Hitler partly blamed the US and Wilson for the Versaille treaty:
History has given its verdict about Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal of a pledge in history. The result was the disruption of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made the imposed Treaty of Versailles possible, countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined
And he blamed Roosevelt for the lack of peace in Europe:
The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.
Those above extracts from his declaration of war in 1941, as are the following. They show he felt he had to fight the US to stop their interference. If the US had interfered in 1939 Hitler would doubtless feel compelled to fight them.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of 27 September 1940, German and Italy have consequently now finally been forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our nations and empires against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement which was signed today in Berlin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
I doubt Hitler would have declared war on the UK first. His goal was to make Germany supreme on the continent, unite all German-speaking lands (and those closely related, like the lowlands and Denmark) into a "Greater Germany." He did not welcome the UK's war declaration, and made repeated attempts to sue for peace, like dropping Hess into the UK via parachute with a peace offer. He knew the UK would be a formidable opponent that would tax his resources. So when the Brits declared war, he believed the best tactic was to hit the UK with everything he could to hopefully bring British opinion agains the war and bring the country to its knees via a naval blockade with u-boats, etc. Unfortunately, he crippled the Luftwaffe's ability to destroy the RAF through his own stupid orders.
His invasion of the USSR wasn't suicidal, either, it was a desperate gamble. He needed fuel to continue the war, and he believed the best way to secure it was by seizing the oil fields in the southern USSR.
The war declaration against the U.S. is still a mystery to me. SD's claim of suicidal tendencies does seem to have merit. It looks like Hitler intentionally set up his regime to fail so he could achieve some sort of mythic, martyred status. The Lost Cause has a powerful allure. His miscalculation, however, was that he didn't realize the world would come to see his genocide as the monstrous act of a half-mad, evil man rather than some sort of glorious crusade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
SD, I don't think Hitler was fighting for survival in 1941. As to honoring alliances, you seemed to miss my point. England deliberately set about setting up the mutual protection pacts with the likes of Poland in 1939, after Roosevelt warned against such moves in favor of a conference. The problem was, England failed to include the US (unlikely given Roosevelt's desires for peace and a conference) and the USSR. I think England was delusional in thinking either that it could beat Germany all by itself or that Hitler would not attack Poland or Romania with only England's and France's threats to intervene.
By the time Germany declared war, Roosevelt had indeed formed a secret aliance with Churchill and embarked on aggression against the Axis, exactly as described by Hitler.
As to Wilson, the United States judgment of Wilson is the same as that of Hitler's.
I just scanned through Mein Kampf for mention of Wilson. He is mentioned once, in a positive light.
Of course Hitler was a racist megalomaniac. But whether he could have convinced the Germany Army to declare war on the United States in 1939 is another thing. In fact, Mein Kampf is all about accomplishing Germany's aim while avoiding another world war.
The evidence is clear. England rejected peace (Roosevelt's offer) and deliberately embarked on a plan of war with Germany.
It is interesting to read in the diplomatic correspondence the fact that Hitler was fully aware of England's encirclement policy and was livid. Many were predicting that Hitler would sneak-attack the English fleet to attempt a knock-out blow. This is exactly what happened at Pearl Harbor two years later.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2002 06:39
Deutschland.
|