"World War II" as just another standard war

[Masada]

But if that wasn't justified, how was it justified to guarentee a régime which was anti-semitic, authoritarian and overall anti-minority, which the Polish régime was.

The Nazis were worse in 1939? Seems a good enough reason for me.

Besides, Britain and France had their fair share of vileness too, but that doesn't warrant an unprovoked German invasion does it?

When did Britain invade Belgium?

Was this before or after the embargo by Britain, the Netherlands and the USA?

You could just Google the dates?

Oh, and this embargo was only made possible by Western colonial domination of Asia. An independent Malaysia or Indonesia wouldn't have embargoed Japan.

You don't know much about Indonesia or Malaya before the war amirite? Hint: I teach on the subject.

By that reasoning, the world should embargo Israel right now. Would that be good?

False equivalence. Last time I checked Israel wasn't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. If it did, I'd be among the first to sign up to fight against it.

No, I don't. I'm a little bit too left-wing to do things like that.

I'm kind of dubious about this claim at the moment.

 

[LightSpectra]

Worse than people immune to any sort of historical revisionism are the sort who are so dead-set that their contrarian opinion against the standard narrative must be true, even if it makes no sense at all, simply because they are being contrarian and edgy.

A lunatic fringe ethicist could think that the antisemitism in 1930s Poland is equatable to 1930s Germany, or that the war crimes of 1930s Germany are equatable to 2010s Israel, or that Japan invading China is equatable to giving an oil embargo to Japan for invading China, but most people are pretty easy to accept that they are not.

I would consider a thread like this to basically be trolling considering the history of its poster. We already debunked all these fallacious arguments back when Kaiserguard was arguing that war was just a natural mechanic of society and therefore had no inherent moral value; but we should still blame the Allies for World War II.

 

[Domen]

and France completely unwilling, despite massively outnumbering the Germans on the Maginot line.

What time period are you talking about?

Because neither on 1 September 1939 nor on 10 May 1940 French forces outnumbered German forces - it was the other way around.

how was it justified to guarentee a régime which was anti-semitic, authoritarian and overall anti-minority, which the Polish régime was.

So you say that Germany invaded Poland in defence of Jews ???

BTW - Polish authoritarian authorities were never openly anti-semitic or openly anti-minority like those in Germany since 1933.

And besides, how about cosistency? The Soviet Union attacked Poland as well, why didn't Britain and France declare war on the USSR?

Many factors contributed to this. One - defending a lost cause is not cost-effective. Two - fighting against two strongest military powers in the world would be quite suicidal for Britain and France. Three - Poland did not officially declare war on the USSR as well.

But you might want to read about the planned anti-Soviet "Operation Pike" (which was completely unrealistic to accomplish, BTW).

 

[Tahuti]

A lunatic fringe ethicist could think that the antisemitism in 1930s Poland is equatable to 1930s Germany, or that the war crimes of 1930s Germany are equatable to 2010s Israel, or that Japan invading China is equatable to giving an oil embargo to Japan for invading China, but most people are pretty easy to accept that they are not.

I never ever said these were equal, and saying that I've ever said any of them is a false accusation. I could have given you tons of names for the contrarian positions you hold, all defended with ad hominem attacks and what not, but alas, I'm too sportsmanlike to do such stuff. You should too. Unfortunately, in terms of convincing people, debates are won by the ones who most disguised as expert churn out ad hominem fallacies.

We already debunked all these fallacious arguments back when Kaiserguard was arguing that war was just a natural mechanic of society and therefore had no inherent moral value; but we should still blame the Allies for World War II.

I still think it is natural outcome of the society at that time and hardly could've been avoided. The internal politics of both the axis and allies powers were deadset on war anyway. In the end, the axis are much more too blame than the allies are. However, every sane person already knows that, hence my focus on the allies. That doesn't mean I solely blame the allies, nor that I condone Germany or Japan. People who opposed the Vietnam war did not necessarily condoned Pol Pot either. I just seek to light another perspective without necessarily cordoning off others, yet for some reason I have been accused of solely negating.

I would consider a thread like this to basically be trolling considering the history of its poster.

This whole reply of yours is an ad hominem attack on me personally of the worst kind. That's even worse than whatever you've accused me of. Much worse in fact. It felt as if you wanted me to die (and I'm serious). I'm quite surprised that ended up giving a civilized answer to you (and that also applied to you Masada).

False equivalence. Last time I checked Israel wasn't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. If it did, I'd be among the first to sign up to fight against it.

The equivalence is not in the severity of both countries' deeds but in the fact both Israel and 1930s Japan are international pariah's. The case of 1930s Japan is obviously much more well founded and justified than Israel's.

I'm kind of dubious about this claim at the moment.

It is already highly offensive to imply that I'm a nazi apologist, like you did along with LightSpectre. You should be ashamed.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To a large extent, this has to do with a progressive shift in our thinking from the old days of enemy civilians to the more modern concept of innocent civilians and the (largely Western) avoidence of collateral damage.

One remark:
To call the fire bombing collateral damage shouldn't be avoided for some political correctness or moral considerations, nor would collateral damage be an euphemism. It is flat out the wrong word. Because collateral damage doesn't mean "Civilians we are very sorry to have killed but it was deemed necessary" or some such, but it means the unintentional killing of people. It was however intentional.
And systematic intentional killing of civilians was already back then a quality of recklessness of its very own I would think.

You seem to be forgetting about the "German-Czech war" and the Anschlusz. Obviously Britain and France share a responsibilty in accomodating Htiler to the point where he thought he could get away with anything.

Here you portray why appeasement is often judged unfairly. It in the end didn't interest Hitler weather he could get away or not. The plan was set. Appeasement or not he was going to risk it all for his goals. And to have such a lunatic at the wheel of a powerful nation is quit extraordinary and can not to be asked to be anticipated at all.
Yeah when the opprtunity became clear he ceased it and it made it all a bit easier, but that is it.
Judging appeasement by this metric is like judging the general weather conditions of the East Coast by Sandy.

You don't post on SF do you Kaiserguard?

Ah, another Nazi Masada managed to identify beneath his veil. After all, what possibly could motivate to question standard narratives other than being evil?
For shame

I think Kaiserguard has somewhat a point. WWII was caused by struggle a for influence and power like all the other wars. Not moral responsibility or moral recklessness. Such may have shaped the war to a degree, though. To say that France and the UK caused the war is not much better than the narrative of the light and dark though. Actually, worse, I can agree with that. You always need two sides to have a war start. Who "caused" it is not a question of facts, but a question of what behavior is deemed legitimate. And there Hitler and Japan seem to kind of have drawn the short straw. In contrast to WWI, where everybody was more or less playing by the same rules.

 

[Masada]

Ah, another Nazi Masada managed to identify beneath his veil. After all, what possibly could motivate to question standard narratives other than being evil?

Kaiserguard is employing a series of arguments popular with neo-Nazis. I think I can be forgiven for supposing therefore he might indeed be a neo-Nazi. As a means of demonstrating my line of thinking, I grabbed some of Kaiserguard's text and had a look at SF for similar posts. Examples below:

So was World War II really the war that needed to be fought between good & evil, or was it simply just another war between empires, that ex-post facto received a moral element to justify subsequent wars such as Vietnam?

Weird, I lost the quote that was going here. But it was something fatuous along the lines of: victors write history.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Explain to people that it was Britain and France who declared war on him and Germany, he offered Britain peace three times which they refused. He didn't even want a world war neither.

FYI this example is from a thread entitled: "how to win someone over to Hitler's side".

But if that wasn't justified, how was it justified to guarentee a régime which was anti-semitic, authoritarian and overall anti-minority, which the Polish régime was. And besides, how about cosistency?

The same oppressive measures were employed against the German minority within Poland also. I'm not saying that the Germanization of the Poles in Germany was in any way correct, but in strictly legal terms, Germany was not obliged to cater for minority groups within its borders.

Poland, a despotic military regime at that time, got treaties with France

Another common line of argument, Poland was bad, therefore invasion was justifiable and/or Anglo-French declarations of war in her defense were unjustifiable.

Soviet Union attacked Poland as well, why didn't Britain and France declare war on the USSR?

‘Great Britain and France came to the defence of Poland.’ If that were true, why did they not declare war on the Soviet Union once it invaded (17 Sep), let alone ally themselves? The fact is kept remarkably quiet that Poland was invaded by the Red Army as well. The Führer undoubtedly calculated that Britain and France would hesitate to go to war against both powers. And, as has already been intmated, the German invasion was for the purpose of regaining Vestpreussen and Schlesierland, whilst the Soviets’ motive was simply aggrandisement. It would be interesting to get the Polish leadership’s reaction to this bizarre turn of events (before they were shot by the NKVD).

This line of argument ("the Allies as hypocrites"), and its close kin ("the Soviets were worse/eviler than the Nazis"), are hilariously common. There's literally whole threads devoted to them.

You always need two sides to have a war start.

That's a problematic view. For example, what did Belgium ever do to Germany? Obviously, there's still two sides to the conflict. But the one side had nothing whatsoever to do with starting the war.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That's a problematic view. For example, what did Belgium ever do to Germany? Obviously, there's still two sides to the conflict. But the one side had nothing whatsoever to do with starting the war.

I can not respond to the rest of your post because I need to get going, but I quickly reply to this:
When you talk about that Belgium never did anything to Germany, you imply that everything Belgium did and which somewhat concerned Germany was fully legitimate. I see no reason to differ from you here, I just think it is important to emphasize that this is what you are saying. Because in contrast to that, Beligium actually did things to Germany. Like not crwaling up their ass to avoid anyk ind of conflict. Just that we wouldn't make that a condition of legitimate behavior. That may seem pedantic or as you say problematic, but it really is just a more organized way to discuss.
The alternative is that people at times forget what it is really about, think something like "Well it is all about power and France and the UK also were only about power" and then conclude that WWII is their fault. When we emphasizes what actually makes someone responsible - which is what we deem legitimate and illegitimate behavior - such mental acrobatics become a lot harder. Because we have a better grip on what we are actually talking about.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So back for some more word
I don't know Masada. You made a good case for how relativization is something Kaiserguard shares with the Stormfront people, but if you look at his argument, it couldn't be any other way. It still comes down to him merely wanting to argue against common paradigms of good and evil, for which relativization is the natural way to go.
It just is IMO not enough to not give KG the benefit of the doubt. I wonder where your eagerness comes from to expose subtext fascism/racism,/anti-semitism etc. I certainly felt my own share of that, but I can assure with full certainty that neither of those things - literally ever - in the least appealed to me (well except the "We are all one and strong" - part, that has a kind of fully natural appeal IMO). Maybe I am wrong about KG and you are right, but a by the necessity of his premise natural correlation with ST like that is IMO not enough to start making thinly-veiled accusations as you did.

edit: Oh and as an interesting side note: anyone noticed how I said "Hitler and Japan" instead of "Germany and Japan"? German reprocessing of its Nazi past surely did a number on me

 

[Agent327]

Here you portray why appeasement is often judged unfairly. It in the end didn't interest Hitler weather he could get away or not. The plan was set. Appeasement or not he was going to risk it all for his goals. And to have such a lunatic at the wheel of a powerful nation is quit extraordinary and can not to be asked to be anticipated at all.
Yeah when the opprtunity became clear he ceased it and it made it all a bit easier, but that is it.
Judging appeasement by this metric is like judging the general weather conditions of the East Coast by Sandy.

Judging appeasement by metric? The appeasement policy was partly induced by the Allies not being ready for another war. The same goes true for Germany, however. Hitler didn't expect war in the West til around 1942, so he seriously miscalculated in 1939. But seeing Hitler as a lunatic - instead of a warmonger - is not helping at all. The success against France certainly increased his inclination towards selfdelusion, but politically speaking he was a gambler. He wanted war in 1938, yes. But not with the West. Germany simply wasn't ready for that, and he knew it.

You don't know much about Indonesia or Malaya before the war amirite? Hint: I teach on the subject.

Then I'm sure you know Malaysia and Indonesia weren't there prior to 1945; they were British resp. Dutch colonies.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If a gambler gambles high enough and does so repeatedly to the point of absurdity - yes it in my eyes is better understood as a loon. A loon who still is capable of some rational thought, some calculus, alright, but still a loon. Point being - not a representation of what is to be expected in general. Likewise, no matter what motivated appeasement, Nazi Germany's reaction can IMO only be doubted to entail this decisive meaningfulness with regards to appeasement often attributed to it.

 

[Masada]

I don't know Masada. You made a good case for how relativization is something Kaiserguard shares with the Stormfront people, but if you look at his argument, it couldn't be any other way. It still comes down to him merely wanting to argue against common paradigms of good and evil, for which relativization is the natural way to go.

That's part of it. The main point I was trying to make though was that Kaiserguard's arguments were exactly those I expect a neo-Nazi to make. I highlighted the most obvious ones that I could find an analogue for on SF with a quick search. Other factors such as the language he used "German-Polish war", "anti-Semitic... anti-minority... Poland" and how it was "heresy" to talk about it also set off alarm bells for the same reasons. As did his approach, "I don't want to be controversial but... the Allies were responsible, in part, for the Second World War", which has a whole thread devoted to its use and abuse on SF. So it wasn't just his method of argument, relativism, so much as whole package of tools that neo-Nazis use to argue their case. Taken together these factors all made the question a valid one to ask.

Then I'm sure you know Malaysia and Indonesia weren't there prior to 1945; they were British resp. Dutch colonies.

You should learn to muzzle the desire to ignore context and, I dunno, learn stuff how normal people use words.

 

[Tahuti]

That's part of it. The main point I was trying to make though was that Kaiserguard's arguments were exactly those I expect a neo-Nazi to make. I highlighted the most obvious ones that I could find an analogue for on SF with a quick search. Other factors such as the language he used "German-Polish war", "anti-Semitic... anti-minority... Poland" and how it was "heresy" to talk about it also set off alarm bells for the same reasons. As did his approach, "I don't want to be controversial but... the Allies were responsible, in part, for the Second World War", which has a whole thread devoted to its use and abuse on SF. So it wasn't just his method of argument, relativism, so much as whole package of tools that neo-Nazis use to argue their case. Taken together these factors all made the question a valid one to ask.

That's part of it. The main point I was trying to make though was that Kaiserguard's arguments were exactly those I expect a neo-Nazi to make. I highlighted the most obvious ones that I could find an analogue for on SF with a quick search. Other factors such as the language he used "German-Polish war", "anti-Semitic... anti-minority... Poland" and how it was "heresy" to talk about it also set off alarm bells for the same reasons. As did his approach, "I don't want to be controversial but... the Allies were responsible, in part, for the Second World War", which has a whole thread devoted to its use and abuse on SF. So it wasn't just his method of argument, relativism, so much as whole package of tools that neo-Nazis use to argue their case. Taken together these factors all made the question a valid one to ask.

Undoubtedly those who opposed the Iraq will have completely valid arguments that nevertheless overlap made by Radical Islamists and Ba'athists as well. Doesn't mean critics of the Iraq support radical Islamism or Saddam's dictatorship. My questioning does not come from any support of Nazism. But as evil the Axis powers themselves might be, the problems I have with the too generous depiction of all those who would oppose the Axis powers, did certainly contribute to a reckless political culture of pre-emptiveness, regime changes, foreign intervention that led to such idiotic wars as Vietnam and Iraq, to name just a few. We all know what the axis powers stood for and the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean we cannot allow their opponents free pass.

Pretty much everyone has correctly begun scrutinizing the Soviet Union's role in WWII, but it must be noted that the Soviet Union was one of the few nations that was attacked completely unprovoked by the Axis and that their participation (but not their methods, of course) in WWII was completely justified, more so than Great Britain, which simply entered the war to show off balls and in so doing could maintain imperial prestige. By declaring war on Germany, the British Empire also preserved much of Germany's international standing that would've otherwise gone to oblivion had Germany declared war on France and Britain. The problem with the current "commonly accepted" narrative of WWII, was that the war guarantee to Poland was a major strategic blunder (because it led to a war neither Britain nor France were prepared for and resulted in blowback in which the smaller countries in Western Europe were invaded as well) and this very narrative is conveniently rigged to justify modern-day injustices inflicted by great political powers.

 

[LightSpectra]

Ignoring your previous reply to me since it was quite evasive of any of my comments and vaguely insinuated that I was threatening you;

The problem with the current "commonly accepted" narrative of WWII, was that the war guarantee to Poland was a major strategic blunder (because it led to a war neither Britain nor France were prepared for and resulted in blowback in which the smaller countries in Western Europe were invaded as well)

They weren't ready for it because they made some serious blunders and misjudgments regarding Hitler's foreign policy, which was far more insane and risky than anybody could have fathomed (and they were right; the success of the Manstein plan was seen by the Allies, the Soviets, and even Hitler's own cabinet to be nigh-impossible).

Nevertheless, it was a war that needed to be fought. Nobody was in better shape by further appeasing the Germans in sacrificing Poland to them. It actually would have been better if the Entente preemptively disarmed the Nazis when they tried to annex Austria, but mistakes were made.

and this very narrative is conveniently rigged to justify modern-day injustices inflicted by great political powers.

According to you, war has no moral basis and it's just an inevitable, naturally occurring human phenomenon, so this is obvious right?

 

[Dachs]

Nevertheless, it was a war that needed to be fought. Nobody was in better shape by further appeasing the Germans in sacrificing Poland to them.

The summer 1939 crisis wasn't initially about "sacrificing" Poland to anybody; it started out over the proposed annexation of Danzig and more extensive German rights of transit through the so-called Polish Corridor.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I've just had a similar... eh, argument with some guy from Quora, when following that relatively-popular-here Tim O'Neill fellow.

http://www.quora.com/Hypocrisy/Why-do-people-make-Germany-look-bad-because-of-its-history-as-the-Reich-yet-England-Denmark-and-the-Netherlands-still-have-their-colonial-empires-intact

I post under the name of Nick Krutikov, the "discussion" is under his answer to O'Neill's answer.

This was mildly surreal (he linked to the site of British fascists, then started talking about how horribly racist the British were, then he claimed that Hitler just loved his race, but then insisted that he isn't apologising for the Nazis). I wasn't aware that autism has such an effect on you.

Since I still felt some genuine confusion there, I attempted to calmly reason with the guy. We came to a consensus of sorts. It was timecubish.

I guess CFC-WH may have a good laugh over it.

 

[LightSpectra]

The summer 1939 crisis wasn't initially about "sacrificing" Poland to anybody; it started out over the proposed annexation of Danzig and more extensive German rights of transit through the so-called Polish Corridor.

KG was defending letting Poland get invaded by Nazi Germany.

 

[Agent327]

The summer 1939 crisis wasn't initially about "sacrificing" Poland to anybody; it started out over the proposed annexation of Danzig and more extensive German rights of transit through the so-called Polish Corridor.

That was Hitler's pretext, yes. He knew Poland wouldn't accept, and that would finally give him the war he'd been wanting since '38. And he still pretended Poland started aggression in the broadcast that made public the invasion had actually already started, as it was issued more or less simultaneously.

 

[Dachs]

That was Hitler's pretext, yes. He knew Poland wouldn't accept, and that would finally give him the war he'd been wanting since '38. And he still pretended Poland started aggression in the broadcast that made public the invasion had actually already started, as it was issued more or less simultaneously.

That assumes a great deal of planning and assumptions by Hitler that are impossible to substantiate. It's like saying the Nazis had the Holocaust planned out already at the Machtergreifung.

It also seems unnecessarily convoluted; the Nazis could have a war there whenever they wanted, however they wanted. They certainly had more than ample pretext. The annexation of Danzig itself could've been carried out without reference to Poland's government at all, if it was a war that Hitler wanted. That's not an argument in and of itself, but it induces me, at least, to think that Hitler's grand long-term plan for war of all against all wasn't actually a thing.

 

[Domen]

Dachs - the crisis started long before the Summer of 1939, already in March 1939. And already in March 1939 Hitler decided that he was going to invade Poland and established the date of the invasion to be 26 August 1939. That decision was not taken in the Summer.

 

[Dachs]

Dachs - the crisis started long before the Summer of 1939, already in March 1939. And already in March 1939 Hitler decided that he was going to invade Poland and established the date of the invasion to be 26 August 1939. That decision was not taken in the Summer.

Yes, the crisis started in March 1939, but saying "spring-summer 1939" seemed unwieldy. Excuse me.

Point is that the whole train of negotiations with Poland over the Corridor and Danzig were not undertaken solely as a blind for preparations for war, and the complete conquest of all of Poland was not necessarily at stake when the British and French made their alliance with Poland in March.