PDA

View Full Version : Was Holocaust part of WWII?



Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 06:40 AM
I'd exterminate them, but there's a difference between extermination an nest of ants and a people...

In respect of your graphic signature where do the five million plus Jews who died in World War II figure, are they counted in the Axis or Allied dead? That is are they included in the 11,000,000 Axis or 17,000,000 Allied dead.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
03-13-2009, 07:26 AM
In respect of your graphic signature where do the five million plus Jews who died in World War II figure, are they counted in the Axis or Allied dead? That is are they included in the 11,000,000 Axis or 17,000,000 Allied dead.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Five million plus Jews didn't die in WWII, in the sense of war deaths.

They died during it, and for reasons and from activities not related to the deaths in combat

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 09:23 AM
Five million plus Jews didn't die in WWII, in the sense of war deaths.

They died during it, and for reasons and from activities not related to the deaths in combat

They were not in the main in uniform and armed but the Third Reich was at War with them, hence they should be included in combat deaths, in the graphic which I have referred too.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 09:58 AM
I did not include the Holocaust victims in my signature, as I support the same stance as Rising Sun*, that is that the Holocaust and the war were two different events taking place at the same time.

While it is true that the latter enhanced the former, they were still somewhat independent from each other. Even if Germany had not gone to war, the Holocaust would have still taken place, except instead of international victims, the murdered would have been purely German and Austrian.

I chose only to include dead soldiers into my signature, excluding both civilian and holocaust victims.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 10:11 AM
I did not include the Holocaust victims in my signature, as I support the same stance as Rising Sun*, that is that the Holocaust and the war were two different events taking place at the same time.

Are you arguing that the extermination of the Jews was not a War aim?



While it is true that the latter enhanced the former, they were still somewhat independent from each other. Even if Germany had not gone to war, the Holocaust would have still taken place, except instead of international victims, the murdered would have been purely German and Austrian.

What is the difference if a War is being waged within the frontiers of a country and if the War is being waged outside the frontiers of a country.



I chose only to include dead soldiers into my signature, excluding both civilian and holocaust victims.

So civilians murdered by the Nazis are irrelevant?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
03-13-2009, 10:33 AM
They were not in the main in uniform and armed but the Third Reich was at War with them, hence they should be included in combat deaths, in the graphic which I have referred too.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

You are just trolling here (as you are in previous and subsequent posts) because you know full well that there was nothing approximating a war between the Third Reich and Jews, nor was there any more reason to include Jews in combat or warlike operation deaths than there was to include the hundreds of thousands of Russians who died in German captivity as combat or warlike operation deaths.

As your recent reappearance on this forum has been notable primarily for your overt trolling, and as you have been on this board before and know how it works, I am going to abandon my normal practice of giving an informal warning, in the nature of a shot across the bows, before giving a formal warning.

You have just incurred a formal warning which will be recorded in your personal profile.

Ignore it and you will incur as many infraction points as are appropriate to your offence.

If you continue your trolling you will be amazed by how quickly I shall ramp up your penalties so that you will pick up enough infraction points to be catapulted into the cyber ether in just a few more trolling posts. You could manage it one intemperate post, if you like martyrdom.

Your future on this board is entirely in your own hands.

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 10:38 AM
Are you arguing that the extermination of the Jews was not a War aim?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It was a political aim, not a war aim. They didn't wage war against to get more Jews to kill. They waged for out of a hunger for more Power in the East, and because war was declared on them in the West. The Holocaust is more of an Interior affair. Don't confuse the Holocaust with war crimes.


What is the difference if a War is being waged within the frontiers of a country and if the War is being waged outside the frontiers of a country.

The Holocaust wasn't a war against the Jews, it was an extermination campaign. A war would require them to be organized with a political agenda and -most importantly- a serious fight. Most of them were simply kidnapped and murdered by the Nazis. Even though there was armed Resistance, it was often unorganized and relatively insignificant. If there was a war, it would suggest that at least some of the murders were legal, and I hope you aren't suggesting that.


So civilians murdered by the Nazis are irrelevant?

They, as well as the civilians murdered by the Allies, are irrelevant to my signature which remarks dead soldiers. If you want to make a signature remembering the civilian deaths, feel free to do so, nobody hinders you and if you want I can even help you with it. But my signature remembers those that fell in battle.

I am neither saying that they aren't worth remarking nor that they insignificant. They just aren't part of what I wanted to show in my sig, case closed.

Rising Sun*
03-13-2009, 10:53 AM
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It was a political aim, not a war aim. They didn't wage war against to get more Jews to kill. They waged for out of a hunger for more Power in the East, and because war was declared on them in the West. The Holocaust is more of an Interior affair. Don't confuse the Holocaust with war crimes.



The Holocaust wasn't a war against the Jews, it was an extermination campaign. A war would require them to be organized with a political agenda and -most importantly- a serious fight. Most of them were simply kidnapped and murdered by the Nazis. Even though there was armed Resistance, it was often unorganized and relatively insignificant. If there was a war, it would suggest that at least some of the murders were legal, and I hope you aren't suggesting that.



They, as well as the civilians murdered by the Allies, are irrelevant to my signature which remarks dead soldiers. If you want to make a signature remembering the civilian deaths, feel free to do so, nobody hinders you and if you want I can even help you with it. But my signature remembers those that fell in battle.

I am neither saying that they aren't worth remarking nor that they insignificant. They just aren't part of what I wanted to show in my sig, case closed.

Agreed, and correct, in every respect.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 10:55 AM
You are just trolling here (as you are in previous and subsequent posts) because you know full well that there was nothing approximating a war between the Third Reich and Jews, nor was there any more reason to include Jews in combat or warlike operation deaths than there was to include the hundreds of thousands of Russians who died in German captivity as combat or warlike operation deaths.

What is often described as trolling in forums, is often in fact nothing more than than the personal opinions of posters which happen to be at variance with the personal opinions of the site moderators. There was not a War between the Jews and the Third Reich in the conventional sense and it would be hard to argue that there was a War in even the unconventional sense, however given the nature of World War II and the fact the extermination of the Jews was a major War aim of the Third Reich, there is reason for legitimate concern about signature, which I referred to.



As your recent reappearance on this forum has been notable primarily for your overt trolling, and as you have been on this board before and know how it works, I am going to abandon my normal practice of giving an informal warning, in the nature of a shot across the bows, before giving a formal warning.

You can accuse me of trolling whatever that is, whether such an accusation would stand up in a court of law is an entirely different matter.



You have just incurred a formal warning which will be recorded in your personal profile.

You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.



Ignore it and you will incur as many infraction points as are appropriate to your offence.

You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.



If you continue your trolling you will be amazed by how quickly I shall ramp up your penalties so that you will pick up enough infraction points to be catapulted into the cyber ether in just a few more trolling posts. You could manage it one intemperate post, if you like martyrdom.

You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.



Your future on this board is entirely in your own hands.

You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
03-13-2009, 10:59 AM
What is often described as trolling in forums, is often in fact nothing more than than the personal opinions of posters which happen to be at variance with the personal opinions of the site moderators. There was not a War between the Jews and the Third Reich in the conventional sense and it would be hard to argue that there was a War in even the unconventional sense, however given the nature of World War II and the fact the extermination of the Jews was a major War aim of the Third Reich, there is reason for legitimate concern about signature, which I referred to.



You can accuse me of trolling whatever that is, whether such an accusation would stand up in a court of law is an entirely different matter.



You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.



You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.



You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.



You can do precisely what you wish to do, whether your actions constitute fair and reasonable judgment, that is an entirely different matter.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Noted.

I'd suggest you note mine, above.

There won't be a second warning.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 11:02 AM
Don't confuse the Holocaust with war crimes.

Was there a "holocaust" trial of Germany's War Leaders?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 11:09 AM
Yes, it was a part of the Nuremberg Trials. There were leaders found guilty for war crimes (murder of POWs, civilians) as well as crimes against the humanity (Genocide = Holocaust), some where only found guilty of the former, some only of the latter, some of both.

So your argument really has pretty much no ground to stand on, as even the courts saw it as two different things.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 11:30 AM
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It was a political aim, not a war aim. They didn't wage war against to get more Jews to kill. They waged for out of a hunger for more Power in the East, and because war was declared on them in the West. The Holocaust is more of an Interior affair. Don't confuse the Holocaust with war crimes.

Since Adolf Hitler was the Third Reich and killing Jews was a priority to him, I am somewhat confused how to make a neat differentiation between a War aim and a Political aim. Well in so far as one can understand Hitler's rantings, he regarded the USSR as part of the International Jewish Conspiracy and was in part waging War on the USSR because he regarded the USSR as a Jewish State entity.



The Holocaust wasn't a war against the Jews, it was an extermination campaign. A war would require them to be organized with a political agenda and -most importantly- a serious fight. Most of them were simply kidnapped and murdered by the Nazis. Even though there was armed Resistance, it was often unorganized and relatively insignificant. If there was a war, it would suggest that at least some of the murders were legal, and I hope you aren't suggesting that.

It was a campaign of extermination against the Jews, I think we are are discussing whether it was a war or a political initiative. I have never sought to imply legality on the part of the Third Reich in its actions against the Jews. I regard the entire War conducted by the Third Reich in World War II as an illegal War and hence when uniformed military personnel of the Third Reich such as Luftwaffe fighter pilots in Me Bf 109s shot down British Spitfires attacking German bombers, I regard that as illegal killing. The Jews in Europe did not even have the military capability of a small country like Denmark and the Third Reich picked a fight with them, not the other way round and the Third Reich was careful to lull the Jews in to a false sense of security about its intentions towards them, so they were not even in a position to offer what little resistance they could have offered, if they had been aware of their intended fate.



They, as well as the civilians murdered by the Allies, are irrelevant to my signature which remarks dead soldiers. If you want to make a signature remembering the civilian deaths, feel free to do so, nobody hinders you and if you want I can even help you with it. But my signature remembers those that fell in battle.

What do you mean civilians murdered by the Allies? There are problems with your signature, if I was to create a similar signature, it would have problems too, two wrongs do not make a right.



I am neither saying that they aren't worth remarking nor that they insignificant. They just aren't part of what I wanted to show in my sig, case closed.

There are more people in the world than you and it might not be unreasonable to bear that in mind.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 11:52 AM
Since Adolf Hitler was the Third Reich and killing Jews was a priority to him, I am somewhat confused how to make a neat differentiation between a War aim and a Political aim. Well in so far as one can understand Hitler's rantings, he regarded the USSR as part of the International Jewish Conspiracy and was in part waging War on the USSR because he regarded the USSR as a Jewish State entity.

Adolf Hitler was not the Third Reich. Adolf Hitler was its dictator, but that doesn't mean that the high Officers and Ministers didn't commit actions of their own and had personal agendas. Even if, through his position as a Dictator, everything came back to his orders, there are still differences between Interior policies and Exterior policies.


It was a campaign of extermination against the Jews, I think were are discussing whether it was a war or a political initiative. I have never sought to imply legality on the part of the Third Reich in its actions against the Jews. I regard the entire War conducted by the Third Reich in World War II as an illegal War and hence when uniformed military personnel of the Third Reich such as Luftwaffe fighter pilots in Me Bf 109s shot down British Spitfires attacking German bombers, I regard that as illegal killing.

That is your position, but it is not a valid legal position. By declaring war against Germany, France, England and the US automatically made it legal for German fighter pilots to shoot them down, German soldiers to shoot their soldiers, and German tanks to shoot their tanks. It was war, whether Germany declared it against them, too, or not, as in a way the Western Allies started the war against Germany by invading them. (This is not saying that Germany did not provoke it through its invasion of Poland)


The Third Reich was careful to lull the Jews in to a false sense of security about its intentions towards them, so they were not even in a position to offer what little resistance they could have offered, if they had been aware of their intended fate.

You're kidding me, right? The Nazi government started introducing anti-Semitic laws as soon as they got to power in 1933. The actual Holocaust did not start until the second half of their time in power. By then, many Jews had already left Germany because they could foresee what all the policies were slowly leading towards. What they could not foresee was the quick and complete defeat of almost every bordering nation, so many were caught in countries like Holland, Belgium and Poland after their quick capitulations.


What do you mean civilians murdered by the Allies?

What I mean by civilians murdered by the Allies are Axis civilians killed by the advancing armies as well as the bombing raids on the cities, which are quite numerous, too.


There are problems with your signature, if I was to create a similar signature, it would have problems too, two wrongs do not make a right.

No, YOU have problems with my signature, and so far you're the only one who had this problem. You might want to apply to yourself what you said next:


There are more people in the world than you and it might not be unreasonable to bear that in mind.

I am very well aware of that, but this is my signature based on my opinions, and I believe I made those clear.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 12:28 PM
Adolf Hitler was not the Third Reich.

Adolf Hitler was the Third Reich.


Adolf Hitler was its dictator, but that doesn't mean that the high Officers and Ministers didn't commit actions of their own and had personal agendas.

I never said otherwise.



Even if, through his position as a Dictator, everything came back to his orders, there are still differences between Interior policies and Exterior policies.

Your point being?



That is your position, but it is not a valid legal position. By declaring war against Germany, France, England and the US automatically made it legal for German fighter pilots to shoot them down, German soldiers to shoot their soldiers, and German tanks to shoot their tanks. It was war, whether Germany declared it against them, too, or not, as in a way the Western Allies started the war against Germany by invading them. (This is not saying that Germany did not provoke it through its invasion of Poland)

Declaring war on a country does not legalize a war, which is being conducted by the country which the War has been declared against, when that War is an illegal War. Having as a War aim genocidal extermination, places the Third Reich in the position of conducting an illegal War. Hence members of the German military were engaged in an illegal War, whether they were Luftwaffe pilots bombing British cities or camp guards at an extermination concentration camp.



You're kidding me, right? The Nazi government started introducing anti-Semitic laws as soon as they got to power in 1933. The actual Holocaust did not start until the second half of their time in power. By then, many Jews had already left Germany because they could foresee what all the policies were slowly leading towards. What they could not foresee was the quick and complete defeat of almost every bordering nation, so many were caught in countries like Holland, Belgium and Poland after their quick capitulations.

No I am not kidding you at all. The Nazis went to some considerable efforts to deceive Jews as to what they intended to do to them, for example the showpiece concentration camp of Theresienstadt intended to be featured in the Nazi propaganda film, Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt The Fuhrer gives the Jews a City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_concentration_camp



What I mean by civilians murdered by the Allies are Axis civilians killed by the advancing armies as well as the bombing raids on the cities, which are quite numerous, too.

So are are you saying then that, German housewives who were killed by British and American bombing raids on German cities but who were very happy to see Warsaw, Rotterdam and London Blitzed by the Luftwaffe and the German Jews treated like dirt are the same as German veteran Jewish frontline soldiers from the Kaiser's Imperial Army who were decorated in World War One for bravery for fighting for the fatherland, who were sent to the concentration camps to be gassed by the Third Reich, were the same way murdered?




No, YOU have problems with my signature, and so far you're the only one who had this problem. You might want to apply to yourself what you said next:



I am very well aware of that, but this is my signature based on my opinions, and I believe I made those clear.

Just because I may have been the one to say it, does not mean that I am the only person who would hold such an opinion.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Yes, it was a part of the Nuremberg Trials. There were leaders found guilty for war crimes (murder of POWs, civilians) as well as crimes against the humanity (Genocide = Holocaust), some where only found guilty of the former, some only of the latter, some of both.

So your argument really has pretty much no ground to stand on, as even the courts saw it as two different things.

Have you any third party evidence for these assertions?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 12:43 PM
Do your regard murder as a crime and if you do, what do you believe is a suitable punishment for a person convicted in a court of law of the crime of murder?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 01:02 PM
Adolf Hitler was the Third Reich.

I don't know what your definition for that is, but as the Third Reich was a name given to Greater Germany by the Nazis, it is a country, not a person.



I never said otherwise.

You did by claiming that Hitler alone was the Third Reich


Your point being?

That you are wrong. Duh.


Declaring war on a country does not legalize a war, which is being conducted by the country which the War has been declared against, when that War is an illegal War.

You make no sense. Germany did not declare war to France and Britain, but as the Allies did declare war, and in fact attacked Germany first (See Saar Offensive) they fought and defeated France. (I'm not saying that it wasn't very much expected and planned by Hitler)


Having as a War aim genocidal extermination, places the Third Reich in the position of conducting an illegal War. Hence members of the German military were engaged in an illegal War, whether they were Luftwaffe pilots bombing British cities or camp guards at an extermination concentration camp.

The Allied forces did not know of the Holocaust at that point in time. They based their decision to declare war on the German invasion of Poland. Neither did all German troops know that the Jews were exterminated, not deported as it was claimed.


No I am not kidding you at all, the Nazis went to some considerable efforts to deceive Jews what they intended to do to them, for example the showpiece concentration camp of Theresienstadt intended to be featured in the Nazi propaganda film Der Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt The Fuhrer gives the Jews a City.

As you said, those were propaganda effort. Every Jew with the possibility and half a mind should have left after Hitler had declared in one of his numerous speeches that he was going to exterminate the Jews. Even though the Propaganda tried to hide it, Hitler never really made a secret of his plans, as anybody who read 'Mein Kampf' can prove.


So are are you saying then that, German housewives who were killed by British and American bombing raids on German cities but who were very happy to see Warsaw, Rotterdam and London Blitzed by the Luftwaffe and the German Jews treated like dirt are the same as German veteran Jewish frontline soldiers from the Kaiser's Imperial Army who were decorated in World War One for bravery for fighting for the fatherland, who were sent to the concentration camps to be gassed by the Third Reich, were the same way murdered?

Your ignorance is amazing. Not even your sentence structure makes any sense. Still, you assume that every German, be it woman, elderly or child knew about what horrors awaited the people in the death camps? You assume that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis? If you honestly believe that completely innocent members deserve to be killed in cold blood, just because they are the citizens of a murderous Regime, I can only be disgusted by you.


Just because I may have been the one to say it, does not mean that I am the only person who would hold such an opinion.

Well, I've received a lot more positive feedback than negative one, and so far, you've shown me absolutely nothing that proves to me that I should value your opinion.


Have you any third party evidence for these assertions?

It differs between the two right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial


Do your regard murder as a crime and if you do, what do you believe is a suitable punishment for a person convicted in a court of law of the crime of murder?


Dumb question. Of course I consider murder a crime. But the same way not everything is black or white, not every killing can be described as murder in the legal sense.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 01:59 PM
I don't know what your definition for that is, but as the Third Reich was a name given to Greater Germany by the Nazis, it is a country, not a person.

The Third Reich was not a country, Germany was and is a country. The Third Reich was a statuary legal instrument pertaining to a certain geographic territory, hence the Third Reich was whatever Hitler said it was, in so far as he had the power to enforce his will. There was one authority in the Third Reich Adolf Hitler, hence Hitler was the Third Reich.



You did by claiming that Hitler alone was the Third Reich

If I claimed that, why did you not cut and paste it?



That you are wrong. Duh.

Is that supposed to constitute an argument, on your part?



You make no sense. Germany did not declare war to France and Britain, but as the Allies did declare war, and in fact attacked Germany first (See Saar Offensive) they fought and defeated France. (I'm not saying that it wasn't very much expected and planned by Hitler)

Are you claiming that, the Republic of Poland attacked the Third Reich Radio station Sender Gleiwitz in upper Silesia on 31 August 1939, violating the sovereign territory of the Third Reich and murdering innocent citizens of the Third Reich.



The Allied forces did not know of the Holocaust at that point in time. They based their decision to declare war on the German invasion of Poland. Neither did all German troops know that the Jews were exterminated, not deported as it was claimed.

You seem to be implying, because of the fact that Britain and France would not have known that the Third Reich would go ahead to wage a campaign of extermination against the Jews, when Britain and France declared War on Germany, that makes the Third Reich's War legal, I can not see any logic to that.



Neither did all German troops know that the Jews were exterminated, not deported as it was claimed.

So, having Jewish children turfed out of their beds in a TB hospital in Berlin and made to dance in their night clothes in their bare feet on broken glass, in the cold night air, was in accordance with the code of honor of the Prussian officer class of the German Army, was it?



As you said, those were propaganda effort. Every Jew with the possibility and half a mind should have left after Hitler had declared in one of his numerous speeches that he was going to exterminate the Jews.

Are you saying then, that the Jews in Germany brought their fate on themselves by ignoring fair warnings? If so, how come you are also saying that the Allies did not know Hitler was going to exterminate the Jews?



Even though the Propaganda tried to hide it, Hitler never really made a secret of his plans, as anybody who read 'Mein Kampf' can prove.

See my previous comment.



Your ignorance is amazing.

How do you know what I know and do not know?



Not even your sentence structure makes any sense.

Why does my sentence structure not make sense?



Still, you assume that every German, be it woman, elderly or child knew about what horrors awaited the people in the death camps?

Where and when, did I make a statement to that effect?



You assume that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis?

You have made a statement that, I am assuming that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis and then just plonked a question mark on to the end of it, to apparently give some vague aspect of a question to it. That is outside the conventions of the English language.



If you honestly believe that completely innocent members deserve to be killed in cold blood, just because they are the citizens of a murderous Regime, I can only be disgusted by you.

What your definition of completely innocent is and what my definition of completely innocent is may be completely different and what is your definition to be killed in cold blood and my definition to be killed in cold blood is, may be completely different. For example, would members of the Einstatz SS who worked as guards in concentration camps be completely innocent, when they would be merely followed the orders of superiors?



Well, I've received a lot more positive feedback than negative one, and so far, you've shown me absolutely nothing that proves to me that I should value your opinion.

Well I am happy for you that you happy such a high level of confidence in your position.




It differs between the two right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#The_main_trial

I am going to have to come back to you on that one.




Dumb question. Of course I consider murder a crime. But the same way not everything is black or white, not every killing can be described as murder in the legal sense.

So what punishment do you think there should be for murder, as you say yourself murder is a crime?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 02:43 PM
The Third Reich was not a country, Germany was and is a country. The Third Reich was a statuary legal instrument pertaining to a certain geographic territory, hence the Third Reich was whatever Hitler said it was, in so far as he had the power to enforce his will. There was one authority in the Third Reich Adolf Hitler, hence Hitler was the Third Reich.

The Third Reich, (Reich = Empire) was the name given by the Nazis to the Dictatorial Empire they were intending to create. It is true that nobody was supposed to replace Hitler as the 'Führer' after his suicide, and maybe this is what lead you to believe that he alone was the Third Reich. In fact, however, it survived him by at least two days, to the 2 May 1945, or depending on the definition, until the 5th of July, 1945, when the Allies officially assumed power over Germany. I consider your claim that the Third Reich was solely Hitler as proven to be false.


If I claimed that, why did you not cut and paste it?

You did so in the previous paragraph of your own post!


Is that supposed to constitute an argument, on your part?

No, this was an answer to your question. I don't see a point of argument in the question 'What is your point?'.


Are you claiming that, the Republic of Poland attacked the Third Reich Radio station Sender Gleiwitz in upper Silesia on 31 August 1939, violating the sovereign territory of the Third Reich and murdering innocent citizens of the Third Reich.

Stop throwing Red Herrings around you. I never claimed that, I was talking about the Western powers, being France and the UK.


You seem to be implying because of the fact that Britain and France would not have known that the Third Reich would to go ahead to wage a campaign of extermination against the Jews, when Britain and France declared War on Germany that makes the Third Reich's War legal, I can not see any logic to that that.

This statement once again doesn't make any sense in the way you've written it. What has the lack of knowledge about the Holocaust to do with legalizing the Third Reich's War? I can't even recall ever having stated something like that.
Anyway, what I did state, was that by declaring war on Germany, theoretically, Germany had the right to defend itself, so your claim that any fighting of German troops against British or French ones was illegal (on Germany's part) is wrong.


So having Jewish children turfed out of their beds in a TB hospital in Berlin and made to dance in their night clothes in their bare feet on broken glass in the cold night air was in accordance with the code of honor of the Prussian officer class of the German Army, was it?

Please give me a reference that states that the entire German army watched, as soldiers committed this atrocity towards these children. Also, please give me a concrete resource where I can look up that this actually happened in the way you describe it.
Or was this just another attempt to provoke?


Are you saying then that the Jews in Germany brought their fate on themselves by ignoring fair warnings? If so, how come you are also saying that the Allies did not know Hitler was going to exterminate the Jews?

I am not saying they brought their fate on themselves. What I am saying, though, is that they should have very well been able to tell that they were not going to be safe in Germany, as many of them in fact did.
The Antisemitism in the Third Reich was terrible, but it was no indication of Extermination.


How do you know what I know and do not know?

I do not know if you're actually ignorant, that is very true. But I do know how you portray yourself through your post, which leaves to only two options:

1. You know very well that you're just trolling, which would make you an *******.

2. You do not know that you're just trolling, which would make you ignorant.

As you might be able to tell, I chose to assume the more flattering possibility.


Why does my sentence structure not make sense?

Because it is faulty and unclear.


Where and when, did I make a statement to that effect?

Right here:


So are are you saying then that, German housewives who were killed by British and American bombing raids on German cities but who were very happy to see Warsaw, Rotterdam and London Blitzed by the Luftwaffe [...]

I only chose to expand on who the victims of the bombing raids were, as they were not only housewives.


You have made a statement that I am assuming that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis and then just plonked on a question mark on to the end of it to apparently give it some vague aspect of a question to it.[/quote

Wrong. It was a question. If you do not know how to differ between a counter-question and a statement, then I can only refer you to Grade 2.

[quote]That is outside the conventions of the English language.

Wrong. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question
And then come back.



What is your definition of completely innocent and what is my definition of completely innocent is may be completely different

Allow me to clarify: In this context, completely innocent would mean that they did not commit a crime, such as Genocide or Murder.


and what is your definition to be [I]killed in cold blood[I] and my definition to be killed in cold blood is may be completely different.

Well, my definition would be that they were killed without having personally provoked anything. That would include the Allied and Axis bombing raids aimed to demoralize the people, without targeting any military institutions.


For example would bmembers of the Einstatz SS who worked as guards in concentration camps be completely innocent, when they would be merely followed the orders of superiors?

No, as they actually committed a crime against humanity, whether they were ordered to do so or not. You cannot compare these people to the civilians, and you should know that. You should really watch out, or you won't be posting on this board for very long anymore.


Well I am happy for you that you happy such a high level of confidence in your position.

My confidence is simply based on my ability to, unlike you, back my claims with facts.


So what punishment do you think there should be for murder, as you say yourself murder is a crime?

As I said beforehand, not everything is so simple, you cannot compare one murder to another. Generally speaking, I agree with the local Canadian law that differs between 1st degree Murder, which has life-long imprisonment as punishment, and 2nd degree murder, which sees a minimum of 10 years imprisonment as punishment.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 02:59 PM
The Third Reich, (Reich = Empire) was the name given by the Nazis to the Dictatorial Empire they were intending to create. It is true that nobody was supposed to replace Hitler as the 'Führer' after his suicide, and maybe this is what lead you to believe that he alone was the Third Reich. In fact, however, it survived him by at least two days, to the 2 May 1945, or depending on the definition, until the 5th of July, 1945, when the Allies officially assumed power over Germany. I consider your claim that the Third Reich was solely Hitler as proven to be false.

I have placed this item in its own posting because it is an important issue and you are quite spectacularly wrong. Right, so the the Third Reich lasted two day after Hitler died, very possibly because Karl Dönitz could not put in place all the elements necessary for a surrender, in any shorter time. And that is your argument that the Third Reich had an existence independent of Hitler. Have you ever heard of the expression, making oneself look absolutely ridiculous?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 03:08 PM
I have placed this item in its own posting because it is an important issue and you are quite spectacularly wrong. Right, so the the Third Reich lasted two day after Hitler died, very possibly because Karl Dönitz could not put in place all the elements necessary for a surrender, in any shorter time. And that is your argument that the Third Reich had an existence independent of Hitler. Have you ever heard of the expression, making oneself look absolutely ridiculous?

It was an example. Anyway, do you think that the Third Reich would have ended if Hitler had been assassinated in 1941? I don't, as I'm pretty sure another high Nazi would have replaced him, such as Himmler.
It was a part of the Nazi-Ideology, and as long as the Nazis remained in Power, it, too, would have continued to exist.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 04:31 PM
You did so in the previous paragraph of your own post!

If so, you should be able to weblink to or cut and paste my comment?



No, this was an answer to your question. I don't see a point of argument in the question 'What is your point?'.

It means, what are you trying to say?



Stop throwing Red Herrings around you. I never claimed that, I was talking about the Western powers, being France and the UK.

So, do you accept the Third Reich's claim of a Polish attack on Sender Gleiwitz was a complete and utter lie?




This statement once again doesn't make any sense in the way you've written it. What has the lack of knowledge about the Holocaust to do with legalizing the Third Reich's War? I can't even recall ever having stated something like that.

I was under the impression you were arguing that, because France and Britain did not know Hitler would go on to exterminate the Jews, a claim can not be made that Third Reich was engaged in an illegal War?



Anyway, what I did state, was that by declaring war on Germany, theoretically, Germany had the right to defend itself, so your claim that any fighting of German troops against British or French ones was illegal (on Germany's part) is wrong.

But they did not declare War on Germany they declared War on the Third Reich, which was an illegal entity.



Please give me a reference that states that the entire German army watched, as soldiers committed this atrocity towards these children. Also, please give me a concrete resource where I can look up that this actually happened in the way you describe it.
Or was this just another attempt to provoke?

Did I say members of the Heer committed this act? And you are being patently ridiculous, as how could the Heer all be in the one place at the one time and defend the Third Reich.



I am not saying they brought their fate on themselves. What I am saying, though, is that they should have very well been able to tell that they were not going to be safe in Germany, as many of them in fact did.
The Antisemitism in the Third Reich was terrible, but it was no indication of Extermination.



As you said, those were propaganda effort. Every Jew with the possibility and half a mind should have left after Hitler had declared in one of his numerous speeches that he was going to exterminate the Jews. Even though the Propaganda tried to hide it, Hitler never really made a secret of his plans, as anybody who read 'Mein Kampf' can prove.

Half a mind sounds to me like a description of a mentally subnormal person, is that your position that the Jews that stayed on Germany were mentally subnormal?




I do not know if you're actually ignorant, that is very true. But I do know how you portray yourself through your post, which leaves to only two options:

1. You know very well that you're just trolling, which would make you an *******.

2. You do not know that you're just trolling, which would make you ignorant.

As you might be able to tell, I chose to assume the more flattering possibility.



Your ignorance is amazing. Not even your sentence structure makes any sense. Still, you assume that every German, be it woman, elderly or child knew about what horrors awaited the people in the death camps? You assume that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis? If you honestly believe that completely innocent members deserve to be killed in cold blood, just because they are the citizens of a murderous Regime, I can only be disgusted by you.

So, I take it then, you are happy to present what are assumptions on your part, not as the assumptions they are but as the facts they are not?




Because it is faulty and unclear.

Well I have had dealings with some very prestige persons and they seem to have understood exactly what I was writing, so why do you think my language has apparently, ( at least according to you ), become faulty and unclear?




Right here:


I only chose to expand on who the victims of the bombing raids were, as they were not only housewives.

By what right did you expand it, what is the logic for expanding it?



You have made a statement that I am assuming that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis and then just plonked on a question mark on to the end of it to apparently give it some vague aspect of a question to it.[/quote



Wrong. It was a question. If you do not know how to differ between a counter-question and a statement, then I can only refer you to Grade 2.



Wrong. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question
And then come back.

You can use words to make an item a question.



Allow me to clarify: In this context, completely innocent would mean that they did not commit a crime, such as Genocide or Murder.

So I take it then, say to a take a fictional possibility, a German woman had witnessed SA men beating a elderly Jew with iron bars, for no other reason than he was a Jew and she had seen a German policeman try to stop the beating of the Jew and she had reported, what the German policeman had done to the authorities for stoping the beating of the Jew and the policeman gets sent to a concentration camp, is she a completely innocent person?



Well, my definition would be that they were killed without having personally provoked anything. That would include the Allied and Axis bombing raids aimed to demoralize the people, without targeting any military institutions.

How did Hitler become Chancellor of Germany?



No, as they actually committed a crime against humanity, whether they were ordered to do so or not. You cannot compare these people to the civilians, and you should know that. You should really watch out, or you won't be posting on this board for very long anymore.

Membership of the Nazi Party is a criminal offense in several jurisdictions. With that in mind, you would be well advised not to make the mistake attributing the promotion of Nazism to persons, where it is plainly ridiculous to do so.



My confidence is simply based on my ability to, unlike you, back my claims with facts.

In your personal opinion.



As I said beforehand, not everything is so simple, you cannot compare one murder to another. Generally speaking, I agree with the local Canadian law that differs between 1st degree Murder, which has life-long imprisonment as punishment, and 2nd degree murder, which sees a minimum of 10 years imprisonment as punishment.

So, would it be your opinion then, that the Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, should have been tried as a War Criminal at Nuremberg, as a result of the British Empire bombing campaign against the Third Reich and if found guilty, sentenced to at least 10 years imprisonment?

NB I am not saying he should have been tried at Nuremberg, nor am I making any claim of wrong doing on his part, I am merely trying to clarify your position.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 05:14 PM
It was an example. Anyway, do you think that the Third Reich would have ended if Hitler had been assassinated in 1941? I don't, as I'm pretty sure another high Nazi would have replaced him, such as Himmler.
It was a part of the Nazi-Ideology, and as long as the Nazis remained in Power, it, too, would have continued to exist.

Well then if you thought that, you should have given a what if example, not the absolutely silly and pathetic example of the two day 1945 Third Reich? Would you like to discuss what happens if Hitler is assassinated in 1941, I will be happy to discuss it to see if your apparent contention that the Third Reich outlives Hitler, is actually a viable proposition.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 05:30 PM
It means, what are you trying to say?

And that I did. With my argumentation, I was trying to show you that you're wrong.


So, do you accept the Third Reich's claim of a Polish attack on Sender Gleiwitz was a complete and utter lie?

Yes, it was a complete lie, but I never said anything else. I referred to the declarations of war by France and Britain.


I was under the impression you were arguing that, because France and Britain did not know Hitler would go on to exterminate the Jews, a claim can not be made that Third Reich was engaged in an illegal War?

No, what I am arguing is that , because they did not know of the exterminations, the British and French could not declare war on Germany for them. The only thing they could declare war on them for was the Invasion of Poland. And until after the war, when the documents were shown during the Nuremberg Trials, it wasn't even completely proven that Poland didn't provoke Germany. Following that train of thought, the German soldier could not know they were fighting for the wrong side, and should therefore not be held responsible for fighting against the Allies.


But they did not declare War on Germany they declared War on the Third Reich, which was an illegal entity.

Wrong. It was declared an illegal entity after the War, in order to allow the Allies to persecute the Nazi Leadership. At the time, it was legal.


Did I say members of the Heer committed this act? And you are being patently ridiculous, as how could the Heer all be in the one place at the one time and defend the Third Reich.

You suggested everybody knowing it, which would mean they would have had to see it. Of course it is ridiculous, it was supposed to show you how wrong you are.


Half a mind sounds to me like a description of a mentally subnormal person, is that your position that the Jews that stayed on Germany were mentally subnormal?

No, because even healthy people sometimes do irrational things. The fact that huge numbers of German Jews left the country, though, speaks for the irrationality of staying. Those Jews that left the country but were caught in a different country that was invaded were extremely unlucky.


Well I have had dealings with some very prestige persons and they seem to have understood exactly what I was writing, so why do you think my language has apparently, ( at least according to you ), become [I]faulty and unclear?

Sure you did. :rolleyes:


By what right did you expand it, what is the logic for expanding it?

When I claimed that the Allied bombing raids killed German civilians, too, you responded by saying that the German housewives deserved it, so I felt the need to make it clear to you that not only housewives died in the Raids.


So I take it then, say to a take a fictional possibility, a German Woman had witnessed SA men beating a elderly Jew with iron bars for no other reason than he was a Jew and she had seen a German policeman try to stop the beating of the Jew and she had reported what the German policeman had done to the authorities for stoping the beating of the Jew and the policeman gets sent to a concentration camp, is she a completely innocent person?

Wait, you say she reported the Policeman for stopping the beating of the Jew? Well, even in that case she is still innocent. She reported him for something she considered illegal, for whatever reason. But neither did she partake in the beating, nor did she do anything to the policeman. She went to the appropriate authority and reported what she saw, without having any influence on what the authority did. Even nowadays, there would be absolutely no legal ground on which to charge her with anything, except possibly her not personally intervening, though this is debatable, as she would have risked her own life.


How did Hitler become Chancellor of Germany?

He was elected. But that doesn't mean that everybody who voted for him agreed with what he did once he got into power, nor does it criminalize them. How often have you been disappointed with the Party you voted for, as they would do things you did not agree with?

Alternatively, if you actually lived in Communist China, then how would you feel if, once the Communist Regime is abolished, you and all your countrymen, were held responsible for any political murders, kidnaps and other crimes committed by the Communists? Would you really feel responsible?


Membership of the Nazi Party is a criminal offense in several jurisdictions, with that in mind you would be well advised not to make the mistake attributing promotion of Nazism to persons, where it is plainly ridiculous to do so.

Who is promoting Nazism?


So would it be your opinion then that the Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King should have been tried as a War Criminal at Nuremberg as a result of the British Empire bombing campaign against the Third Reich and if found guilty, sentenced to at least 10 years imprisonment?

If he had specifically ordered these bombings against civilians, then yes. But this was one of the spoils of the victors at Nuremberg. They could choose what they considered illegal, and they could choose who to persecute. Who was to challenge them? Why do you think the Trials have come under a lot of fire by, along others, several very established persons such as Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone, Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and A. L. Goodhart, Professor at Oxford.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 06:53 PM
Yes, it was a complete lie, but I never said anything else. I referred to the declarations of war by France and Britain.

Okay, then what is the Third Reich's justification for attacking Poland?



No, what I am arguing is that , because they did not know of the exterminations, the British and French could not declare war on Germany for them. The only thing they could declare war on them for was the Invasion of Poland.


Okay, right we have that sorted.



And until after the war, when the documents were shown during the Nuremberg Trials, it wasn't even completely proven that Poland didn't provoke Germany.

So, would be saying then, for example that Polish PZL P. 11 fighter was such a superior aircraft to the Me Bf-109, that Germany was worried that the Polish Airforce could devastate the Third Reich and the only way for the comparatively weak state the Third Reich was, ( as compared to the Polish Military super power ), to have an chance of success against Poland, was to launch a preemptive strike on Poland.



Following that train of thought, the German soldier could not know they were fighting for the wrong side, and should therefore not be held responsible for fighting against the Allies.

I did not claim that German soldiers who fought with honor and dignity in defense of their homeland in World War II, who had been told lies and who honestly believed such lies were criminals, merely they were fighting an illegal War, which is a separate matter to personal criminal responsibility.



Wrong. It was declared an illegal entity after the War, in order to allow the Allies to persecute the Nazi Leadership. At the time, it was legal.

Something can not be retrospectively made illegal. It is against basic legal principles. The Third Reich was an illegal entity, a state which has as a primary purpose genocide, is an illegal entity.



You suggested everybody knowing it, which would mean they would have had to see it. Of course it is ridiculous, it was supposed to show you how wrong you are.

When and where did I suggest, everybody in Germany would know of that particular incident?



No, because even healthy people sometimes do irrational things. The fact that huge numbers of German Jews left the country, though, speaks for the irrationality of staying. Those Jews that left the country but were caught in a different country that was invaded were extremely unlucky.

Well, if you are a man with a wife and daughters, have a home and just enough money for some food and some heat and some clothes in Germany and you are afraid of what Hitler might do to you but are afraid too, if you move to another country, because the Nazis will let you take nothing, that you will starve and your wife will go hungry too and what about your children how will you feed them and where will they live and how will you have money to buy fuel to stay warm, so you think this is an easy choice do you?




Sure you did. :rolleyes:

It is your choice whether you choose to believe it or not.




When I claimed that the Allied bombing raids killed German civilians, too, you responded by saying that the German housewives deserved it, so I felt the need to make it clear to you that not only housewives died in the Raids.

No I did not.




Wait, you say she reported the Policeman for stopping the beating of the Jew? Well, even in that case she is still innocent. She reported him for something she considered illegal, for whatever reason. But neither did she partake in the beating, nor did she do anything to the policeman. She went to the appropriate authority and reported what she saw, without having any influence on what the authority did. Even nowadays, there would be absolutely no legal ground on which to charge her with anything, except possibly her not personally intervening, though this is debatable, as she would have risked her own life.

You have been very frank and honest on that and I thank you for your honesty.



He was elected. But that doesn't mean that everybody who voted for him agreed with what he did once he got into power, nor does it criminalize them. How often have you been disappointed with the Party you voted for, as they would do things you did not agree with?

But I thought you said previously, that Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, just what he was going to do and he did it and people should have known he was going to do it?



Mein Kampf, in English: My Struggle, is a book dictated by Adolf Hitler. It combines elements of autobiography with an exposition of Hitler's political ideology. Volume 1 of Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and Volume 2 in 1926

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf



On the morning of 30 January 1933, in Hindenburg's office, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor during what some observers later described as a brief and simple ceremony. His first speech as Chancellor took place on February 10. The Nazis' seizure of power subsequently became known as the Machtergreifung.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler



As you said, those were propaganda effort. Every Jew with the possibility and half a mind should have left after Hitler had declared in one of his numerous speeches that he was going to exterminate the Jews. Even though the Propaganda tried to hide it, Hitler never really made a secret of his plans, as anybody who read 'Mein Kampf' can prove.

So Hitler comes to power in 1933 and Mein Kampf is published in 1926, and you apparently are saying that on the one hand that, people who voted for him did not know what he was going to do and on the other hand you are saying he said what was going to do because he had written down what he was going to do in Mein Kampf and people should have known he meant, what he wrote in Mein Kampf and intended to do it. Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf is a very very long book or Germans are very very slow readers?



Alternatively, if you actually live in China, then how would you feel if, once the Communist Regime is abolished, you and all your countrymen, were held responsible for any political murders, kidnaps and other crimes committed by the Communists? Would you really feel responsible?

There is one country called China. But there are two states, one of them being the People's Republic of China and the other the Republic of China on Taiwan. Citizens and long stay residents of the Republic of China on Taiwan, are responsible with respect to the actions of the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan, they can have no political responsibility for what the Communist Party as the Government of the People's Republic of China do. Your question is rather like asking a resident of Munich in Bavaria in the FRG in late 1970s, if they should be held responsible for the actions of the Government of the German Democratic Republic, it is somewhat bizarre.



Who is promoting Nazism?

Well it is certainly not me.



If he had specifically ordered these bombings against civilians, then yes. But this was one of the spoils of the victors at Nuremberg. They could choose what they considered illegal, and they could choose who to persecute. Who was to challenge them? Why do you think the Trials have come under a lot of fire by, along others, several very established persons such as Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone, Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and A. L. Goodhart, Professor at Oxford.

So, would it you position then that Canada during World War II only seemed morally better than the Third Reich, but in reality was no better than the Third Reich?

NB I am not arguing that WW2 Canada and the Third Reich were morally equivalent, I am merely seeking to establish your position on these matters.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 07:14 PM
Also, please give me a concrete resource where I can look up that this actually happened in the way you describe it.
Or was this just another attempt to provoke?



A Personal Memoir By Michael Bruce
Michael Bruce, a non-Jewish Englishman, provided this eyewitness account :
…Hurriedly we went out into the street. It was crowded with people, all hurrying towards a nearby synagogue, shouting and gesticulating angrily.
We followed. As we reached the synagogue and halted, silent and angry, on the fringe of the mob, flames began to rise from one end of the building. It was the signal for a wild cheer. The crowd surged forward and greedy hands tore seats and woodwork from the building to feed the flames.

Behind us we heard more shouts. Turning, we saw a section of the mob start off along the road towards Israel’s store where, during the day, piles of granite cubes, ostensibly for repairing the roads, had been heaped. Youths, men and women, howling deliriously, hurled the blocks through the windows and at the closed doors. In a few minutes the doors gave way and the mob, shouting and fighting, surged inside to pillage and loot.
By now the streets were a chaos of screaming bloodthirsty people lusting for Jewish bodies. I saw Harrison of The News Chronicle, trying to protect an aged Jewess who had been dragged from her home by a gang. I pushed my way through to help him and, between us, we managed to heave her through the crowd to a side street and safety.
We turned back towards Israel’s, but now the crowd, eager for fresh conquests, was pouring down a side road towards the outskirts of the city. We hurried after them in time to see one of the foulest exhibitions of bestiality I have ever witnessed.
The object of the mob’s hate was a hospital for sick Jewish children, many of them cripples or consumptives. In minutes the windows had been smashed and the doors forced. When we arrived, the swine were driving the wee mites out over the broken glass, bare-footed and wearing nothing but their nightshirts. The nurses, doctors, and attendants were being kicked and beaten by the mob leaders, most of whom were women.

http://www.eucmh.com/2009/02/20/kristallnacht-night-of-broken-glass/

Gott Mit Uns
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 07:37 PM
Okay then what is the Third Reich's justification for attacking Poland?

Officially? The (fake) attack of the Poles on the radio station. Really? Hunger for power and Hitler's desire for German living space in the East.


So would be saying for example that Polish PZL 11 fighter was such a superior aircraft to the Me Bf 109 that Germany was worried that the Polish Airforce could devastate the Third Reich and the only way for the comparatively weak State of Third Reich ( as compared to the Polish Military super power ) to have an chance of success against Poland was to launch a preemptive strike on Poland.

No, the Nazi leadership knew full well that they really had nothing to fear from Poland. That didn't stop them from telling their people that they did.


I did not claim that German soldiers who fought with honor and dignity in defense of their homeland in World War II who had been told lies and who honestly believed such lies were criminals

Great, so we have that issue sorted out, too.


illegal War

Here lies my problem. I do not see how the war against France, England and the US was illegal. I agree that the Invasion of Poland was an illegal, unprovoked attack. But by declaring war on Germany, the Western Allies allowed the German army to fight them, therefore making the war effort against them legal. Even though the Invasion was the cause for the Declarations of War, they were still separate, as the Allies were never really involved in Poland.


Something can not be retrospectively made illegal.

True, ex post facto laws were not accepted, and still aren't. Still, this is exactly what happened at the Nuremberg Trials, which is one of the major arguments of its Critics.
Here's the problem: Before Nuremberg, the principle of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali" (latin for "No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law") was accepted by pretty much all Allied nations. By this principle, the Allies would not have been able to charge the Nazi leadership for any crimes they had committed inside areas under their control, as the legal, elected governing body and legislature (the Nazis) had allowed it.
But obviously, the Allies couldn't let the Nazis get away with Genocide and Mass murder, so they had to ignore this basic principle of law.

They pretty much created several laws, which, along other things, established crimes against the humanity as a clearly defined crimes, and charged the Nazis post facto with it. They also banned the "Tu Quoque" (You, too) Defense, which would have forced them to uphold the laws they applied against the Nazis against themselves (especially the Soviets), too, especially in relations to the Invasion of Poland, in which the USSR took part, the Invasion of Finland through the USSR and the bombing of civilians to break the enemy's morale, which almost every warring nation had done.

Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Validity_of_the_court


It is against basic legal principles. The Third Reich was an illegal entity a State which has a primary purpose as genocide is an illegal entity.

The criminalization of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich was one of the post facto actions of the Nuremberg Trials, as I had stated a bit further up.


When and where did I suggest, everybody in Germany would know of that particular incident?





What I mean by civilians murdered by the Allies are Axis civilians killed by the advancing armies as well as the bombing raids on the cities, which are quite numerous, too.
So are are you saying then that, German housewives who were killed by British and American bombing raids on German cities but who were very happy to see Warsaw, Rotterdam and London Blitzed by the Luftwaffe and the German Jews treated like dirt are the same as German veteran Jewish frontline soldiers from the Kaiser's Imperial Army who were decorated in World War One for bravery for fighting for the fatherland, who were sent to the concentration camps to be gassed by the Third Reich, were the same way murdered?

This is when I consider you as suggesting that.


Well if you are a Man with a wife and daughters have a home and just enough money for some food and some heat and some clothes in Germany and you are afraid of what Hitler might do to you but are afraid too if you move to another country because the Nazis will let you take nothing, that you will starve and your wife will go hungry too and what about your children how will you feed them and where will they live and how will you have money to buy fuel to stay warm, so you think this is an easy choice do you?

I never said it would be an easy choice, but I do definitely believe that it was the more reasonable choice, considering the circumstances.


No I did not.[suggest that the German housewives deserved to die by the Bombing Raids compared to the Allied ones(Schuultz)]

I can only refer to the quote I just pulled 2 paragraphs higher.


But I thought you said previously, that Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf, just what he was going to do and he did it and people should have known he was going to do it?

So Hitler comes to power in 1933 and Mein Kampf is published in 1926, and you say that on the one hand that people who voted for him did not know what he was going to do and on the other hand you are saying he said what was going to do because he had it written down what he was going to do in Mein Kampf and should people have known he meant what he wrote in Mein Kampf and intended to do it. Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf is a very very long book or Germans are very slow readers?

Here's the thing: In 1933, not everybody had read the book, nor did everybody believe he would actually manage pull that through.

Now, before you go ahead and say 'But Schuultz, then how should the Jews know?', let me say this:

I don't claim that they should have known in 1933, when he was elected. But they should have learned it in the 5 years following, before the War broke out and the serious murdering of Jews really began. Reichskristallnacht comes to mind, for example, which, even though it was too late to get rid of Hitler again, should have been a warning to every Jew, that worse is still to come.

Also, even though it wasn't that popular beforehand, once the Nazis got to Power, they pretty much forced 'Mein Kampf' down the German's throat, going even so far as to make it a crime not to have at least one copy in every household, and establishing the book as a 'Must-Have' present for Newlyweds.


The is one country called China. But there are two states one of them being the People's Republic of China and the Republic China on Taiwan. Citizens and long stay residents of the Republic of China on Taiwan are responsible with respect to the action of the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan, they can have no political responsibility for what the Communist Party as the Government of People's Republic of China do. Your question is rather like asking a resident of Munich in Bavaria in the FRG in late 1970s if they should be held responsible for the actions the Government of the German Democratic Republic, it is somewhat bizarre.

I'm sorry, I realized my mistake shortly after posting, too, and corrected it accordingly.


So would it you position then that Canada during World War II only seemed morally better than the Third Reich, but in reality was no better than the Third Reich?

No I would not. Nazi Germany waged a war of extermination in the East, committed one of the worst Genocides in history and was generally an oppressive dictatorial regime. There is no comparing the two as general nations. However, if you reduce the question to whether I think that the Canadian bombing raids aimed at German civilians were just as brutal and immoral as those of Germany on Allied civilians, then yes, I do think that. Never should the civil population be killed in order to deal damage to the enemy military.

(Keep in mind, though, that Canada didn't have an Air Force involved in WW2, and the Canadian pilots flew for the RAF or USAF, but that has nothing to do with my point.)

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 08:11 PM
Here lies my problem. I do not see how the war against France, England and the US was illegal. I agree that the Invasion of Poland was an illegal, unprovoked attack. But by declaring war on Germany, the Western Allies allowed the German army to fight them, therefore making the war effort against them legal. Even though the Invasion was the cause for the Declarations of War, they were still separate, as the Allies were never really involved in Poland.

And here lies your problem, Mein Freund



Polish-British Common Defence Pact

On August 25th, two days after the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed. The treaty contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country. The United Kingdom, sensing a dangerous trend of German expansionism, sought to prevent German aggression by this show of solidarity. In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other.[4]

Because of the pact's signing, Hitler postponed his planned invasion of Poland from August 26 until September 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

An attack on Poland is de jure an attack on the United Kingdom since the UK was treaty bound to come to the assistance of Poland.

Hals und Beinbruch
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Officially? The (fake) attack of the Poles on the radio station. Really? Hunger for power and Hitler's desire for German living space in the East.

You have provide me with the fake justification, which you are agreeing is a fake justification. And you are providing with a motivation. But you have not answered whether, the Third Reich had justification or not in attacking Poland?



No, the Nazi leadership knew full well that they really had nothing to fear from Poland. That didn't stop them from telling their people that they did.

Okay.



Great, so we have that issue sorted out, too.

okay.



Here lies my problem. I do not see how the war against France, England and the US was illegal. I agree that the Invasion of Poland was an illegal, unprovoked attack. But by declaring war on Germany, the Western Allies allowed the German army to fight them, therefore making the war effort against them legal. Even though the Invasion was the cause for the Declarations of War, they were still separate, as the Allies were never really involved in Poland.

covered in specific posting




True, ex post facto laws were not accepted, and still aren't. Still, this is exactly what happened at the Nuremberg Trials, which is one of the major arguments of its Critics.
Here's the problem: Before Nuremberg, the principle of "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali" (latin for "No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law") was accepted by pretty much all Allied nations. By this principle, the Allies would not have been able to charge the Nazi leadership for any crimes they had committed inside areas under their control, as the legal, elected governing body and legislature (the Nazis) had allowed it.
But obviously, the Allies couldn't let the Nazis get away with Genocide and Mass murder, so they had to ignore this basic principle of law.

They pretty much created several laws, which, along other things, established crimes against the humanity as a clearly defined crimes, and charged the Nazis post facto with it. They also banned the "Tu Quoque" (You, too) Defense, which would have forced them to uphold the laws they applied against the Nazis against themselves (especially the Soviets), too, especially in relations to the Invasion of Poland, in which the USSR took part, the Invasion of Finland through the USSR and the bombing of civilians to break the enemy's morale, which almost every warring nation had done.

Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Validity_of_the_court



The criminalization of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich was one of the post facto actions of the Nuremberg Trials, as I had stated a bit further up.


There is a lot of heavy weight legal stuff in that, so I would just have to say your comments are noted.



This is when I consider you as suggesting that.

I am trying to reference that to?



I never said it would be an easy choice, but I do definitely believe that it was the more reasonable choice, considering the circumstances.

Yes you did, you as much as said only an idiot would have stayed.



I can only refer to the quote I just pulled 2 paragraphs higher.

But what you were doing was taking a reference I made to German housewives who were gung ho for smashing cities in other countries to pieces and applied it globally to non-combatants in Germany, which you can not do, they have to be of similar attitude that is, gung ho for smashing cities in other countries to pieces.



Here's the thing: In 1933, not everybody had read the book, nor did everybody believe he would actually manage pull that through.

Now, before you go ahead and say 'But Schuultz, then how should the Jews know?', let me say this:

I don't claim that they should have known in 1933, when he was elected. But they should have learned it in the 5 years following, before the War broke out and the serious murdering of Jews really began. Reichskristallnacht comes to mind, for example, which, even though it was too late to get rid of Hitler again, should have been a warning to every Jew, that worse is still to come.


And where were the Jews going to go to?



Also, even though it wasn't that popular beforehand, once the Nazis got to Power, they pretty much forced 'Mein Kampf' down the German's throat, going even so far as to make it a crime not to have at least one copy in every household, and establishing the book as a 'Must-Have' present for Newlyweds.

Comment noted



I'm sorry, I realized my mistake shortly after posting, too, and corrected it accordingly.

No problem.




No I would not. Nazi Germany waged a war of extermination in the East, committed one of the worst Genocides in history and was generally an oppressive dictatorial regime. There is no comparing the two as general nations. However, if you reduce the question to whether I think that the Canadian bombing raids aimed at German civilians were just as brutal and immoral as those of Germany on Allied civilians, then yes, I do think that. Never should the civil population be killed in order to deal damage to the enemy military.

(Keep in mind, though, that Canada didn't have an Air Force involved in WW2, and the Canadian pilots flew for the RAF or USAF, but that has nothing to do with my point.)

Well for example the Canadian Prime Minister could have demanded that Canadian aircrew only fly fighter aircraft and not be involved in the bomber squadrons, so the fact that RCAF personnel served not in a separate organization but as Squadron Units within the RAF is somewhat besides the point.

NB I am not criticizing the RCAF, its personnel or the WW II Canadian Government, I am seeking to establish your position on certain matters.

I am not a Nazi because I use Gott Mit Uns, I use it as a mark of respect to Imperial Germany Army of WW 1 and nothing to do with its use by the Third Reich in World War 2

Gott Mit Uns
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 09:05 PM
True, and I'm not arguing that the UK didn't have a reason for declaring war, but here's the thing:

Germany, like the other 63, signed the Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928, promising to refrain from using War as a political means, which includes War of Aggression.

However, while you're completely right that Nazi Germany breached this contract with the Invasion of Poland, the Pact does not include any penalties for any breach of it.

So while Germany broke its word and breached the Pact, there was no international law back then according to which it could be held guilty, and according to which it could be penalized.

This was not introduced until Nuremberg, and it wasn't officially declared illegal until the United Nations Charter in October 1945.

So while, as I said, the War was without a doubt Germany's fault, back then, especially before Nuremberg, there was simply no international law to declare it illegal, unless you apply post facto law, as the Nuremberg Trials do.

I know this is a rather shaky argument, but you have to understand that even though I think the Allied were right in fighting Nazi Germany, the statement that the war was 'illegal' is, in itself, not correct.

Adrian Wainer
03-13-2009, 11:03 PM
True, and I'm not arguing that the UK didn't have a reason for declaring war, but here's the thing:

Germany, like the other 63, signed the Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928, promising to refrain from using War as a political means, which includes War of Aggression.

However, while you're completely right that Nazi Germany breached this contract with the Invasion of Poland, the Pact does not include any penalties for any breach of it.

So while Germany broke its word and breached the Pact, there was no international law back then according to which it could be held guilty, and according to which it could be penalized.

This was not introduced until Nuremberg, and it wasn't officially declared illegal until the United Nations Charter in October 1945.

So while, as I said, the War was without a doubt Germany's fault, back then, especially before Nuremberg, there was simply no international law to declare it illegal, unless you apply post facto law, as the Nuremberg Trials do.

I know this is a rather shaky argument, but you have to understand that even though I think the Allied were right in fighting Nazi Germany, the statement that the war was 'illegal' is, in itself, not correct.

The problem though for the Third Reich, is that the state has to derive its moral justification from somewhere, it can not justify it own existence through it own existence, it must have a moral basis and the Third Reich has no moral basis, unless one accepts the Fuhrerprinzip of Adolf Hitler, the racial superiority of the German Aryan and necessity to subjugate and exterminate inferior races. Whether the Third Reich complied with this or that international law is not worth diddly. It was without moral basis, hence it was an illegal entity. Since the Third Reich was an illegal entity, it was not able to fight a legal war, except in such a case where more harm would be done by not fighting than fighting.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-14-2009, 12:44 AM
What do you mean with its lack of a moral basis?

If the idea that one is racially superior, and the commitment of Genocide and Slavery makes a nation illegal, then the US, the UK, France and Spain would all be illegal nations.
I can identify only three main differences between them and Nazi Germany:

1. The Third Reich was stopped by foreign powers and didn't abolish the policies themselves like the nations listed above did.

2. The Third Reich conquered and exterminated at a higher rate, though over a shorter time that the others.

3. The Third Reich was the most recent one.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this makes their actions morally or ethnically correct, but it does show that (with the exception of its downfall), it was by no way unique to Europe.

Fun Fact: Edward I. first forced Jews to wear a yellow Star of David, then prosecuted and banned all Jews from England. It wasn't until 350 years later that Oliver Cromwell allowed them to slowly move back to England, of course only if they paid the crown a decent sum of money to support the Naval Cold War against Holland...
(I know those were different times, I just think it's an amazing fact to think about)
Jews just never seemed to have a good time in Europe, no matter whether it's the Spanish, English, French, Italians or Germans. Somebody always prosecuted them...


Funny enough, the Ottoman Empire was, by comparison, a lot more tolerant towards Jews than the Europeans were.
(Yay, the first on topic statement in a long time)

Uyraell
03-14-2009, 06:14 AM
That assumes that Islam is a hierarchical and well organised religion like Christianity, as typified most by the Catholic Church.

But it isn't, so there can't be any policing.

Anyway, even if Islam was organised like the Catholic Church there would still be splinter groups, as there are in the Catholic Church, who are out of communion with the main body of the church while pursuing their own version of the religion.

If there is to be any significant change in Islam, I think it will come from the women when they demand and achieve equality with men which will undermine much of the medieval thinking and practices in some Islamic cultures. However, that is not really a revolution in Islam but a revolution in those cultures.

For example, every day I see Muslim women from different national and ethnic backgrounds and of varying degrees of observance of what is supposedly their religiously ordained dress code (which ranges from the slit showing the eyes with everything else covered to girls in jeans and blouses with scarves covering a little of their hair) driving cars. In Saudi Arabia they'd be in prison.



I don't see any reason for patience and absorbing blows from the bastards who were responsible for 9/11, Bali, London, and Barcelona. In the total scheme of things they are utterly insignificant as military forces and operations. They are just crazy propaganda operations which fail to achieve an unstated objective by a group of delusionally violent religious ****wits who have not the slightest prospect of defeating any Western nation they have in their sights.

Rather than absorbing their blows we should just hit back harder at their source, as we did by invading Afghanistan to root out the likes of bin Laden. Unlike Afghanistan, we should not use an army of occupation which is bound to fail against irregular forces but should go in, defeat, destroy, and get out. And the next time the bastards grow enough to be a problem we do it again.

Of course, we should also have done the same with Pakistan at the same time as we invaded Afghanistan instead of letting it switch sides when it realised that the Yanks were on the warpath against the bastards that Pakistan had supported, and still supports.

But we can always rely upon politicians to corrupt potentially successful military operations for political reasons. In which case there is no point to doing anything.

I accept your points.
While I do (be assured) condemn Bali, Barcelona, London, and 9-11,
I also believe that maybe the west has gone about solving the issues in an inefficient way.
I did not mean to in any way suggest that the acts of terrorism noted were in any way justified.
I was more expressing the hope that moderate Islam would "wake up" and police the extremist elements, citing Saladin as example of said successful actions in the past.

In truth, the realistic view to take is the one you express.
Go in, smack the responsible group down inside it's own national borders, leave, and repeat as often as necessary. The only other viable alternative I can see is to bomb the responsible group's nation flat, and to hell with worrying about civilian casualties. That though, would be very far from popular with the looney left and liberal elements of the western world.

Regards, Uyraell.

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 07:19 AM
What do you mean with its lack of a moral basis?

If the idea that one is racially superior, and the commitment of Genocide and Slavery makes a nation illegal, then the US, the UK, France and Spain would all be illegal nations.
I can identify only three main differences between them and Nazi Germany:

1. The Third Reich was stopped by foreign powers and didn't abolish the policies themselves like the nations listed above did.

2. The Third Reich conquered and exterminated at a higher rate, though over a shorter time that the others.

3. The Third Reich was the most recent one.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this makes their actions morally or ethnically correct, but it does show that (with the exception of its downfall), it was by no way unique to Europe.

Fun Fact: Edward I. first forced Jews to wear a yellow Star of David, then prosecuted and banned all Jews from England. It wasn't until 350 years later that Oliver Cromwell allowed them to slowly move back to England, of course only if they paid the crown a decent sum of money to support the Naval Cold War against Holland...
(I know those were different times, I just think it's an amazing fact to think about)
Jews just never seemed to have a good time in Europe, no matter whether it's the Spanish, English, French, Italians or Germans. Somebody always prosecuted them...


Funny enough, the Ottoman Empire was, by comparison, a lot more tolerant towards Jews than the Europeans were.
(Yay, the first on topic statement in a long time)

A state is a construct, it most certainly can therefor be either legal or illegal. The word nation can refer to a people or a state. so I will therefor use the word state. Let us say that, during the Roman Empire, a Roman cargo passenger ship sailing off the coast of what is today Britain, is blown off course and ends up on the coast of South America. Amongst the passengers are a number of Jewish scientists and a rabbi. In the fifteenth century, Christopher Columbus sets sail for the indies. As he approaches the coast of America, he is met by three strange flying machines, a voice comes from one, which tells him in Spanish that he if he continues further, his ship will enter an exclusion zone declared by the Inca Hebrew State and will be met by deadly force if his ship do not halt. Columbus seeing the apparent power of these flying machines, ( we would know them as helicopter gunships ), halts his ships progress. After he is told, by the voice from the flying machine, that he should turn back but first he should drop anchor and his ships will be provisioned, so he he has sufficient commodities to make the return journey to the best of his ability. A ship appears, apparently to the eyes of Columbus this ship is for the purpose of carrying cargo but moves without sails and emits a smoke from a chimney for some reason. It is escorted by other smaller ships that travel at great speed and which have strange cannon which rotate. Columbus returns to Spain and tells what has happened but he is not believed and locked in a prison as a mad man. Some months after that, a very strange ship anchors outside outside a major Spanish port. The captain of the ship says that he has an Ambassador from the Inca Hebrew State on board and requests that representatives of their Majesty's King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella open negotiations between their Majesty's dominions and the Inca Hebrew State. An Ambassador arrives from their Majesty's and he is presented with a number of requests and told that if their Majesty's fail to comply with such requests, as for example that Jewish subjects in their majesty's dominions should practice their religion without fear or discrimination and that their majesty's should make reparations to their Jewish subjects, who have been unfairly harmed by the State or State sanctioned measured directed against Jews, well then if their majesty's fail to comply, the Inca Hebrew State will declare their Majesty's dominions to be under illegal rule and and their Majesty's Kingdom to be an illegal entity and that Inca Hebrew State will place the subjects of their majesty's under its protection and pursue war if necessary to achieve that end. The Ambassador leaves the ship and returns to the Royal Court, he speaks of the great power of this strange and foreign ship and tries to convince them of the power of these foreigners, as he is a admiral himself and was the chief Admiral of their Royal Armada and he knows this one ship can destroy every ship in the Royal Armada also the Ambassador has Columbus released from prison as it is obvious now he was not crazy and his tales of strange ships without sails along with his story about the flying machines is true and the Ambassador brings Columbus before his King and Queen, to tell of his experiences of such strange ships and flying machines on his voyage to the Indies. The King listens carefully what his Ambassador has to say and appears to be willing to seek to enter in to negotiations but then Queen Isabella asks what religions are these foreigners and Ambassador says your "Majesty, they are of some different religions but most of the leadership seems to be of the Jewish religion". "And who is their most high leader" asks the Queen, "they call him the Caesar" replies the Ambassador, "he is chosen by all the people of their country and he may serve for four years and then if he is chosen again he may serve for another four years and then he can not serve more". "And what religion is this Caesar the one who now is in office" asks the Queen and the Ambassador answers their "Caesar at present is a woman and she is a Jew". The King says to the Queen "We must enter in to negotiations with these foreigners for their power is great", the Queen responds by saying "If we recognize the Jews as having right to hold negotiations with us as equals, we and all Christians in our land will be placing our souls in jeopardy in the afterlife, what she we should do, is to have some Jewish Rabbis, we have in prison awaiting trial by the inquisition, killed and send their heads to the captain of this foreign ship and then they will know, we believe that Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary, God's only begotten son who died on the cross and who rose from the dead is our shield and lance and we will prevail in War over them, should they seek to dispute our authority by the Grace of God". The Rabbis are duly executed and their heads brought to the ship by the Ambassador of their Majesties, the captain of the ship receives the Ambassador with courtesy and the Ambassador gives him the heads of the executed rabbis and tell the captain of the rejection by their majesty's of the offer to open negotiations with the Inca Hebrew State. The captain complements the Ambassador on the audacity of his rulers in having the Jewish Rabbis executed and having much faith that their God and their bravery will deliver them victory against foreigners such as himself with strange and seemingly powerful machines. The Ambassador replies that he fears that all their Majesty's have achieved, "is to awaken a sleeping giant". The captain tells the ambassador that, he may have safe passage to the shore and once he is safely ashore, their majesty's dominions will have been declared an illegal entity and will be placed under attack.



Funny enough, the Ottoman Empire was, by comparison, a lot more tolerant towards Jews than the Europeans were.
(Yay, the first on topic statement in a long time)

By the way everything we have been discussing is relevant to The Islam Menace the fact that, you are apparently suggesting that it is not relevant, does not alter its relevancy, your apparent view that such matters are not relevant is merely your apparent view and an inaccurate one, if that is indeed your view. After I made the above statement, which I hold still stands. This exchange has been allocated its own thread, which is actually in my view a better situation than, had it been left within the thread it originated in, so complements to whoever moved this exchange to its own thread, it was a good call.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 07:51 AM
The problem though for the Third Reich, is that the state has to derive its moral justification from somewhere, it can not justify it own existence through it own existence, it must have a moral basis and the Third Reich has no moral basis, unless one accepts the Fuhrerprinzip of Adolf Hitler, the racial superiority of the German Aryan and necessity to subjugate and exterminate inferior races. Whether the Third Reich complied with this or that international law is not worth diddly. It was without moral basis, hence it was an illegal entity. Since the Third Reich was an illegal entity, it was not able to fight a legal war, except in such a case where more harm would be done by not fighting than fighting.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

110% nonsense!

A state derives its status solely from international law, which prior to WWII was largely expressed in the Montevideo Convention of 1933.

That is, however, utterly irrelevant to Germany's statehood under the Nazis as Germany was already unquestionably a state long before the Nazis took power. Its status as a state was not altered by that.

You are confusing the legitimacy of a government with the existence of a state, as you are confusing the Third Reich, which was a Nazi construction, with the state of Germany which existed independently of the Third Reich in international law. As, for example, did the British Empire exist independently of Britain.

As for there being a necessary moral basis for statehood, nowhere does this have any relevance in international law, which is the sole source for determining whether or not a state exists.

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 07:54 AM
This exchange has been allocated its own thread which is actually in my view a better situation that had it been left within the thread it originated in it, so complements to whoever moved this exchange to its own thread, it was a good call.

I did it at the suggestion of another member, who shall remain anonymous unless he wishes to reveal himself to bask in your gratitude.

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 08:29 AM
What do you mean with its lack of a moral basis?

If the idea that one is racially superior, and the commitment of Genocide and Slavery makes a nation illegal, then the US, the UK, France and Spain would all be illegal nations.
I can identify only three main differences between them and Nazi Germany:

1. The Third Reich was stopped by foreign powers and didn't abolish the policies themselves like the nations listed above did.

2. The Third Reich conquered and exterminated at a higher rate, though over a shorter time that the others.

3. The Third Reich was the most recent one.

And I can give you a 4th one and that is that, the Third Reich put the development of the state as a moral entity, as a moral entity would be understood in a Liberal Judeo Christian tradition, in to reverse both globally and locally specifically with the context of the development of German society, in that the Third Reich was World class in its barbarity and very contrasting, to the often positive record of Germany before. For example, Jews in the Kaiser's Germany had, if not an entirely satisfactory situation, at least many of the same rights and privileges as Christians.



Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this makes their actions morally or ethnically correct, but it does show that (with the exception of its downfall), it was by no way unique to Europe.

Well yes it does, unless you want to argue the USSR was in Europe and even then, there are qualifications.



Fun Fact: Edward I. first forced Jews to wear a yellow Star of David, then prosecuted and banned all Jews from England. It wasn't until 350 years later that Oliver Cromwell allowed them to slowly move back to England, of course only if they paid the crown a decent sum of money to support the Naval Cold War against Holland...
(I know those were different times, I just think it's an amazing fact to think about)
Jews just never seemed to have a good time in Europe, no matter whether it's the Spanish, English, French, Italians or Germans. Somebody always prosecuted them...

"Fun fact"........what is your intention behind the use of such phraseology?



Funny enough, the Ottoman Empire was, by comparison, a lot more tolerant towards Jews than the Europeans were.
(Yay, the first on topic statement in a long time)

What is Funny, sorry it must be the Prussian in me, that I lack your no doubt highly developed sense of humor, perhaps you are an Austrian?

Gott Mit Uns
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 08:38 AM
I did it at the suggestion of another member, who shall remain anonymous unless he wishes to reveal himself to bask in your gratitude.

Well given my reputation in some quarters, basking in my gratitude might well be considered by some to be a poisoned chalice. LOL

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 08:43 AM
Well given my reputation in some quarters, basking in my gratitude might well be considered by some to be a poisoned chalice. LOL

I said basking in your gratitude, not your attitude. ;) :D

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 08:51 AM
"Fun fact"........what is your intention behind the use of such phraseology?

Not being able to see into Schuultz's deeply disturbed mind ;), I am inclined to suspect, and I don't want to be held to this because it is just my inference rather than a logical certainty, that he was introducing a fun fact.

However, after giving this issue deep consideration, it is possible that he was really referring to a funf act.

If so, I think that it is deplorable to engage in funf acts and, come the revolution, anyone engaging in funf acts will be hanged from the lampposts.

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 08:57 AM
110% nonsense!

A state derives its status solely from international law, which prior to WWII was largely expressed in the Montevideo Convention of 1933.

A state derives its legitimacy from its moral worth. You claim to the contrary and I assert you are wrong.



That is, however, utterly irrelevant to Germany's statehood under the Nazis as Germany was already unquestionably a state long before the Nazis took power. Its status as a state was not altered by that.

Are you talking about the Wiemar Republic? Germany under the Wiemar Republic was a legitimate State. After Wiemar Germany had ceased to exist, the former German State known as the Wiemar Republic, had become a pirate territory.



You are confusing the legitimacy of a government with the existence of a state, as you are confusing the Third Reich, which was a Nazi construction, with the state of Germany which existed independently of the Third Reich in international law. As, for example, did the British Empire exist independently of Britain.

Germany existed an ideological, cultural and ethnic construct during the Third Reich period, it does not have legal basis it is not a state as such in the sense I am using it during the period of the existence of the Third Reich. The territory which is to be called Germany can exist under the Third Reich but there can be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich. Germany was a State during the Wiemar period and re-emerges as a state once again the shape of the post WW II, Federal Republic of Germany.



As for there being a necessary moral basis for statehood, nowhere does this have any relevance in international law, which is the sole source for determining whether or not a state exists.

I did not say that lacking a moral basis makes a state non-existent merely that it make it illegal.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 09:06 AM
Not being able to see into Schuultz's deeply disturbed mind ;), I am inclined to suspect, and I don't want to be held to this because it is just my inference rather than a logical certainty, that he was introducing a fun fact.

However, after giving this issue deep consideration, it is possible that he was really referring to a funf act.

If so, I think that it is deplorable to engage in funf acts and, come the revolution, anyone engaging in funf acts will be hanged from the lampposts.

That is quite as clear to me, as mud.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

navyson
03-14-2009, 09:07 AM
Germany existed an ideological, cultural and ethnic construct during the Third Reich period, it does not have legal basis it is not a state as such in the sense I am using it during the period of the existence of the Third Reich. The territory which is to be called Germany can exist under the Third Reich but there can be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich. Germany was a State during the Wiemar period and re-emerges as a state once again the shape of the post WW II, Federal Republic of Germany.

I'm getting lost, why could there be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich, in your opinion?

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 09:10 AM
I said basking in your gratitude, not your attitude. ;) :D

Well association with me, in any shape or form may be a poisoned chalice, so my assertion still holds good.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 09:16 AM
I'm getting lost, why could there be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich, in your opinion?

Because the Third Reich whilst it did incorporate Germanic aspects of was not in my opinion authentically Germanic and therefor can not claim the title of Germany.

http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/

http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/Beckhard.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3xr7xUlLlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJjfkAzLPfM

Note the swastika carried by Jewish First World War German fighter pilot's Berthold Guthman's aircraft. This is a European, Asian and Jewish symbol of good fortune not the expession of evil the Nazis tried to turn it in to.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

navyson
03-14-2009, 09:41 AM
Because the Third Reich whilst it did incorporate Germanic aspects of was not in my opinion authentically Germanic and therefor can not claim the title of Germany.

http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/

Although interesting, (thanks for posting) I couldn't find anything in the site related to Germany not being a state during the Third Reich. Could you give me a synopsis of that reasoning again? I guess I missed it somewhere.

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 09:41 AM
A state derives its legitimacy from its moral worth. You claim to the contrary and I assert you are wrong.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.



Are you talking about the Wiemar Republic? Germany under the Wiemar Republic was a legitimate State. After Wiemar Germany had ceased to exist, the former German State known as the Wiemar Republic, had become a pirate territory.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.



Germany existed an ideological, cultural and ethnic construct during the Third Reich period, it does not have legal basis it is not a state as such in the sense I am using it during the period of the existence of the Third Reich. The territory which is to be called Germany can exist under the Third Reich but there can be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich. Germany was a State during the Wiemar period and re-emerges as a state once again the shape of the post WW II, Federal Republic of Germany.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.



I did not say that lacking a moral basis makes a state non-existent merely that it make it illegal.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.


Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in these terms:


This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that, unless we hear from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

Do you find it just a touch odd that Britain would have had an ambassador in an illegal state; had its ambassador hand the German Government of the allegedly illegal state of Germany a note of intention of war? And that the British Prime Minister was so deluded that he thought his country was at war with a state called Germany, which according to you didn’t exist because it was illegal and therefore was not an entity with which Britain could be at war?

What other countries had embassies in Germany as WWII approached?

Which particular worm hole in reality do you rely upon to slip out of the fact that pre-war Germany under Hitler was recognised by all the major nations who would be engaged in conflict with it during WWII as a state run by Hitler and his Nazi crew?

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 09:50 AM
I'm getting lost, why could there be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich, in your opinion?

You're getting lost? ;)

The rest of us are totally bamboozled.

Rising Sun*
03-14-2009, 10:03 AM
Because the Third Reich whilst it did incorporate Germanic aspects of was not in my opinion authentically Germanic and therefor can not claim the title of Germany.


Given that Germany didn't exist until 1871, exactly what aspects of its creation were the authentically Germanic elements which entitled it to statehood?

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 10:23 AM
Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in these terms:



Do you find it just a touch odd that Britain would have had an ambassador in an illegal state; had its ambassador hand the German Government of the allegedly illegal state of Germany a note of intention of war? And that the British Prime Minister was so deluded that he thought his country was at war with a state called Germany, which according to you didn’t exist because it was illegal and therefore was not an entity with which Britain could be at war?

Most Politicians are not moral philosophers, they should at least be competent trades persons in the practice of realpolitik, Neville Chamberlain managed to be something of a moral philosopher in his declaration of War and did quite well in the practice of appeasement as regards realpolitik.

What I am talking about, is what should be aspired to. If Britain had reached higher towards these aspirations, the Spitfire Mk 18 would have been in service in 1938 and Winston Churchill would have been Prime Minister and Neville Chamberlain Foreign Secretary and Neville Chamberlain would have flown to Munich and told Herr Hitler that HM Government viewed with favor a desire of the Sudetenland Germans to have autonomy within Czechoslovakia, whilst matters such as border controls, defense and policing should remain in the authority of the central government in Prague and if the Fuhrer did not like that and tried to enforce a military decision by sending troops in to the Sudetenland, he should know the British Royal Air Force squadrons now currently deployed to Czechoslovakia will engage the Wehrmacht forces from the get go of any such hostile against the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia.

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/other-fighter-planes/supermarine-spitfire-mk-xviii.htm

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 10:26 AM
Given that Germany didn't exist until 1871, exactly what aspects of its creation were the authentically Germanic elements which entitled it to statehood?

Was it putting people in to concentration camps and gassing them on its territory?

Best and Warm regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 10:46 AM
Do you find it just a touch odd that Britain would have had an ambassador in an illegal state; had its ambassador hand the German Government of the allegedly illegal state of Germany a note of intention of war? And that the British Prime Minister was so deluded that he thought his country was at war with a state called Germany, which according to you didn’t exist because it was illegal and therefore was not an entity with which Britain could be at war?

It appears to me that you are making an argument that a State can not exist and be illegal at the same time, whereas I argue I it can and should be described an illegal State. If Neville Chamberlain had publicly declared The Third Reich to be an illegal State as he was morally entitled to do, that would have upped the stakes in the War with Germany, whereas at the time of declaration of War against Germany, Chamberlain may have been hoping to have say confined the conflict to say Poland and to have limited the War aims to restoring Polish Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of the Czech Republic and seeing a new Government in power in power in Germany perhaps still Nazi but not of the mentalist variety of Nazi as Adolf Hitler represented and Germany's military once again restricted by treaty as to its size and type of equipments it operated.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-14-2009, 10:48 AM
Was it putting people in to concentration camps and gassing them on its territory?

Those were the crimes of a government. They do not criminalize the state, though, only the people who ordered it.


Most Politicians are not moral philosophers

Wait, are you trying to talk philosophy with us or actual facts?

If you talk philosophy, we can stop right here, as in that case your point of view - as irrational as it is in a factual sense - can obviously not be changed.


If Neville Chamberlain had publicly declared The Third Reich to be an illegal State as he was morally entitled to do

But who or what would have given him any right to do so? Morals are something very fluid and individual to every culture. What is absolutely immoral for the one culture can be perfectly moral for the other.

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Those were the crimes of a government. They do not criminalize the state, though, only the people who ordered it.

They criminalize the state if such measures are in accordance with the rules and statutes of the State.




Wait, are you trying to talk philosophy with us or actual facts?

If you talk philosophy, we can stop right here, as in that case your point of view - as irrational as it is in a factual sense - can obviously not be changed.

What is the difference between philosophy and fact?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-14-2009, 10:58 AM
What is the difference between philosophy and fact?


:shock:

Ok, nevermind. Until now, I actually thought you were actually up for a somewhat serious discussion about the legality of Nazi Germany, but that's obviously not the case.

Cheers.

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 11:00 AM
But who or what would have given him any right to do so? Morals are something very fluid and individual to every culture. What is absolutely immoral for the one culture can be perfectly moral for the other.

He could have done so, by his powers granted to him by the Monarch and if that was insufficient, he could have sought such powers from Parliament and have been granted such powers by Parliament.



Morals are something very fluid and individual to every culture. What is absolutely immoral for the one culture can be perfectly moral for the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

So you can make a moral case in favor of Kristallnacht?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-14-2009, 11:05 AM
He could have done so, by his powers granted to him by the Monarch and if that was insufficient, he could have sought such powers from Parliament and have been granted such powers by Parliament.

So he would have had the right on his Government's behalf. But this doesn't give him any international right. Why do you think all these international laws were introduced after WW2? So that there is an international right.

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 11:06 AM
:shock:

Ok, nevermind. Until now, I actually thought you were actually up for a somewhat serious discussion about the legality of Nazi Germany, but that's obviously not the case.

Cheers.

In other words I take it you do not have effective argument to offer to counter my position and have decided therefor to pretend I do not have a valid position, is that indeed your position?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 11:14 AM
So he would have had the right on his Government's behalf. But this doesn't give him any international right.

Yes it does if in 1940 he has the Spitfire XVIII in service, the Avro Lancaster in Service and the Gloster Meteor Jet fighter starting to come off the assembly lines.



Why do you think all these international laws were introduced after WW2? So that there is an international right.

So what happened to South Vietnam then?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Schuultz
03-14-2009, 11:16 AM
Can you get more specific?

navyson
03-14-2009, 11:27 AM
How did South Vietnam get into this?:confused:

Schuultz
03-14-2009, 11:41 AM
@navyson:

Red Herring is the term, I think... ;)

Adrian Wainer
03-14-2009, 11:48 AM
How did South Vietnam get into this?:confused:

Well if a new World order was created after World War 2 ensuring proper rights in respecting the sovereignty of nations, where did South Vietnam go? And did the German Democratic Republic properly reflect the aspirations of the people contained within its territory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZVsFjWnbI

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Uyraell
03-16-2009, 01:08 AM
"South VietNam" did Not Exist til approximately 1947.

Uyraell
03-16-2009, 01:29 AM
The Holocaust was manifestly NOT part of WW2.

It took place during that conflict, yes, as did the activities of H731, and various other illegal, immoral, activities.
NONE of those can be said to have been PART of WW2, merely to have occurred within the same Time Frame.

International Jurisprudence has long since established this viewpoint as De Jure Fact.


Regards, Uyraell.

Uyraell
03-16-2009, 05:02 AM
110% nonsense!

A state derives its status solely from international law, which prior to WWII was largely expressed in the Montevideo Convention of 1933.

That is, however, utterly irrelevant to Germany's statehood under the Nazis as Germany was already unquestionably a state long before the Nazis took power. Its status as a state was not altered by that.

You are confusing the legitimacy of a government with the existence of a state, as you are confusing the Third Reich, which was a Nazi construction, with the state of Germany which existed independently of the Third Reich in international law. As, for example, did the British Empire exist independently of Britain.

As for there being a necessary moral basis for statehood, nowhere does this have any relevance in international law, which is the sole source for determining whether or not a state exists.
The way I was taught it was: "A State is a geopolitical entity formed from the expressed (presumably cohesive) will of its' populace, within its' own borders."

Cases in point: Montenegro, Dalmatia, Poland, France. While each had exerted upon it various international elements, such influences came about as a result of the definition I give above.

"Moral Basis" as such never existed in International Jurisprudence until AFTER the Nuremburg Trials and the events you cite.
Retroactive application of legislation was outlawed under Roman Law, which observance held good until Nuremburg Trials et-al.

Warm Regards, Uyraell.