American congress get maid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Germany is partitioned.

---

Yes, it is. Why was it partitioned? Because of the proclivity of German warmongers to see daggers stabbed in the back, to blame others, to blame international Jewry for all the misery that German warmongery has brought upon Germany. That's why Dresden was firebombed. That's why the Germans were expelled from the East. That's why the lands were never returned. If you seek any blame for the loss of the East, blame it on the nazis and their goosestepping fanboys. They are the betrayers of Germany, the ones responsible for everything Germany had to endure.

Gah! Goethe and Schiller. Bach and Beethoven. Cologne Cathedral. And then some see in goosestepping imbeciles murdering Jewish peasants in the Ukraine the pinnacle of two millenia of German civilisation. :wall:

Why do you hate Germany?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

The USSR hardly could have affected Communism in other nations. They finished a terrible civil war, fought Japan and Poland, and their officers were being purged. The "Great Red Terror" was simply nothing more than fear exploited.

---

This is entirely incorrect. After the Civil War, Lenin almost immediately attempted to spread the revolution into Europe through direct warfare. After that disaster, the USSR had a major part in founding, funding, guiding and even directly controlling the various communist movements throughout Europe and Asia to varying degrees and by the 30's they were little more than agents of Soviet policy. This direct Soviet influence can be easily recognized in the outright military support given to the Spanish communists.

As for the threat of communist takeover, it was very real - especially in Germany. You are aware of the armed communist groups and the street battles, correct? After the communist-nationalist alliance fell apart in a particularly bloody manner in China, Stalin shifted these groups, essentially Soviet proxies, to a far more militant posture.

Quote:

---

The Kaiser was the ultimate head of state of Germany. What happens in terms of internal and foreign affairs are normally brought to him. Therefore, he would know of the violation of Belgian neutrality, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium.

There was no "power vacuum". The Kaiser had abdicated before the official peace was signed, Prince Max resigned soon later. Friedrich Ebert took control as the first president.

---

The original plan was to shift to a constitutional monarchy. This would have given Germany a clear head of state with an established right of governance among the people to keep the nation in concert through the rough transition to democracy. Hindenburg just couldn't pull that off, and Weimar can be described as nothing less than a power vacuum, in which the nation was torn apart by both the radical Left and Right.

Quote:

---

And for the French, can you blame them? Germany chose to support Austria and chose to violate Belgian neutrality and declare war on the Allies, Germany was, in a way, responsible for the French and English deaths on the Western Front.

---

Yes, France can be blamed for activating its alliances just as Germany can. The Austrian and Russian power struggle in the Balkans had very little to do with either nation.

It should also be noted that Wilhelm, while a great proponent of German power, was not seeking a war. He made great efforts to de-escalate the situation just prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Unfortunately, the man was rather inept and didn't realize how little influence his personal relationships with other monarchs held in the power politics of the day that drove the powers to war.

The problems then, as now, lay with Europe. We're all in it together, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes, it is. Why was it partitioned? Because of the proclivity of German warmongers to see daggers stabbed in the back, to blame others, to blame international Jewry for all the misery that German warmongery has brought upon Germany.

---

Unfortunately, the allies, especially the French, bolstered this particular Nazi proclivity and gave it creedence in the eyes of most Germans of the time. Isn't that what's currently being discussed in this wandering thread?

This direct Soviet influence can be easily recognized in the outright military support given to the Spanish communists.

Weren't they just supporting the republic against the facists, to be honest i think its shocking western countrys didn't help out spain but let them get taken over by franco...

Lenin almost immediately attempted to spread the revolution into Europe through direct warfare. After that disaster, the USSR had a major part in founding, funding, guiding and even directly controlling the various communist movements throughout Europe and Asia to varying degrees and by the 30's they were little more than agents of Soviet policy.

I don't think the soviet union had much if any at all control over its partys abroad, as shown by china after getting power they are not going to follow the soviet union blindly they are going to follow thier own policys, communism was as much an excuse for germany to go all facist as it would have been for britian or france to turn facist just because there was the threat of germany.

If it weren't for the Treaty of Versailles, the second would not have happened.

Whilst that doesn't shift much blame off the germans i do think its true, the harsh conditions we imposed and forced the first goverment to agree too put them off a terrible start, though i think it could have still worked until the wall street crash (which you could also say if it weren't for it wouldn't have happened) but after that germany was set down a dark road, and of all the extreme elements that could have taken over Hitler did, after that the rest is history

The blame on germany lies in given into those extreme elements after the treaty of versailles, the blame for the treaty of versailles lies mainly on france and partially on UK, the blame for creation the situation where germany had to agree to surrender conditions goes back to the starting conditions for world war 1.

You can sympathise with the situations which caused the bad actions all the way through though, germany where put in a situation which caused people to reach out to extreme elements, France had suffered badly from ww1 and powers attacked that badly always tend to lash out, i think almost any country would have been as vengeful as france after ww1, and well the starting conditions for ww1 blame can be spread across all the great powers in europe fairly equally.

Stupid is perhaps a harsh word to describe a nation of people but considering what they where very responsible for (ww2) or what they just let happen in thier name, i think stupidity may perhaps be an apt description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Weren't they just supporting the republic against the facists, to be honest i think its shocking western countrys didn't help out spain but let them get taken over by franco...

---

Nope, nothing noble about it. They were supporting the communists in Spain - who took their orders directly from the Soviet Politburo - in a bid to help their ideology come out on top, just like the Nazis.

Quote:

---

I don't think the soviet union had much if any at all control over its partys abroad, as shown by china after getting power they are not going to follow the soviet union blindly they are going to follow thier own policys, communism was as much an excuse for germany to go all facist as it would have been for britian or france to turn facist just because there was the threat of germany.

---

Pre-WW2, history just doesn't back this up. The USSR had a tight leash on most communist movements during the 1920s and 1930s. :shrug:

Pre-WW2, history just doesn't back this up. The USSR had a tight leash on most communist movements during the 1920s and 1930s.

Im sure they helped fund them and communicated with them but i doubt they had much more control than america did with latin american dictators they helped, less even i imagine

Nope, nothing noble about it. They were supporting the communists in Spain - who took their orders directly from the Soviet Politburo - in a bid to help their ideology come out on top, just like the Nazis.

Well considering the communists won an election and the facists rebelled i can hardly see that as compelling evidence of germans needing to be worried about a communist threat, if anything this should have made them wary of facism, there is nothing noble about the su funding the communists before the civil war but once the facists started a civil war the su's funding was the right thing to do whether they were trying to spread thier ideaology or not, and im sure the spanish communists hopped into bed with the su to help them get power but they were not about to hand it over to the su afterwards, just like franco didn't follow hitler because of his support during the civil war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

The Prussians/Germans must've realised that 1871 would lead to another war

---

Possibly, though at that time war wasn't uncommon in Europe at all - nobody thought that there was going to be a war as big as the First World War. Many actions at that time could have led to war - Germany just tried to get the best deal. Even the terms Germany put on France weren't as crippling as the ones we got at the Treaty of Versailles, even though we took Paris.

Quote:

---

But it didn't have to lead to a second war if the Allies had been prepared (and willing) to follow the Treaty. That means stopping Germany from reentering the Ruhr, from rearming their army, from remilitarizing the Rhine...At every single one of those stages a second world war would've been prevented by some gunshaking.

---

I agree with you to a certain extent, and I won't elaborate on that, even though I want to.

Quote:

---

Well you did deny the stupid bunch of germans statement.

---

Yes, I did. Partially because his wording is insulting, partially because they weren't all Germans, and partially because I feel Germany had what I see as a casus belli right up until the invasion of Poland.

Sure, Germany started the war, but the Allies didn't help with the whole situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes, it is. Why was it partitioned? Because of the proclivity of German warmongers to see daggers stabbed in the back, to blame others, to blame international Jewry for all the misery that German warmongery has brought upon Germany.

---

All Germans are warmongers now? The German race is at fault for warmongering? Alright then, all the French people were at fault for Versailles, if you want to use that logic, and are therefore either all stupid, all arrogant, all shortsighted, or any combination of the above. That's fine, I can live with that.

No, Germany is partitioned because we lost a war and the Nazis were human scum. There's no other reason. It didn't matter who started the war, it mattered who ended it.

Quote:

---

That's why Dresden was firebombed. That's why the Germans were expelled from the East. That's why the lands were never returned. If you seek any blame for the loss of the East, blame it on the nazis and their goosestepping fanboys. They are the betrayers of Germany, the ones responsible for everything Germany had to endure.

---

Certainly the Nazi Party was at fault for the loss of the war and, at least in part, for the destruction of Germany. Are you trying to make a point, or just repeating what everyone already knows?

Now, back to the other point. You talk about the firebombing of Dresden. You can't blame the Germans for that, no matter how hard you try. The Allied leaders had a choice on whether to commit atrocities against Germany, and they chose to.

Secondly, the expelling of Germans from the east. I love your logic. Tell me, who is talking to me? A Frenchman who is angry because of the loss of one war and the near losses of two others, or a man with some sense? If you want to appeal to emotion, how many of your ancestors were tortured in Lubyanka? How many of your ancestors were shipped to Gulags? How many of your ancestors perished because of famine or fire? How many of your ancestors were conscripted into the Wehrmacht and sent to the hell that was the Russian steppes? Don't talk to me about death.

Quote:

---

Gah! Goethe and Schiller. Bach and Beethoven. Cologne Cathedral. And then some see in goosestepping imbeciles murdering Jewish peasants in the Ukraine the pinnacle of two millenia of German civilisation. :wall:

---

The "pinnacle" of German civilization? More like absolute bottom, but I love your sarcasm. :rolleyes: Judging Germany by the Holocaust is like judging the French by Robespierre's Terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Nope, nothing noble about it. They were supporting the communists in Spain - who took their orders directly from the Soviet Politburo - in a bid to help their ideology come out on top, just like the Nazis.





Pre-WW2, history just doesn't back this up. The USSR had a tight leash on most communist movements during the 1920s and 1930s. :shrug:

---

Would you like to provide evidence that the USSR was supporting Republican Spain based off their communist ideology? I always thought they were doing it to stop the spread of facism. Which makes me think, facist countries have tried to spread fasicm more then the USSR was trying to spread communism.

There were very few pre WW2 communist countries. Mongolia was one. However, Communist China was in no way a Soviet lapdog.

I always thought they were doing it to stop the spread of facism. Which makes me think, facist countries have tried to spread fasicm more then the USSR was trying to spread communism.

exactly, Hitler provided actual military support to the facists what did the communists do provide material support ?

Now, back to the other point. You talk about the firebombing of Dresden. You can't blame the Germans for that, no matter how hard you try. The Allied leaders had a choice on whether to commit atrocities against Germany, and they chose to.

I think you can blame the germans for the firebombing of dresden as much you can blame the allies for ww2, it was unjust and undeserved but through thier own injustice they triggered the actions, in both cases....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I always thought they were doing it to stop the spread of facism. Which makes me think, facist countries have tried to spread fasicm more then the USSR was trying to spread communism.

exactly, Hitler provided actual military support to the facists what did the communists do provide material support ?

Now, back to the other point. You talk about the firebombing of Dresden. You can't blame the Germans for that, no matter how hard you try. The Allied leaders had a choice on whether to commit atrocities against Germany, and they chose to.

I think you can blame the germans for the firebombing of dresden as much you can blame the allies for ww2, it was unjust and undeserved but through thier own injustice they triggered the actions, in both cases....

---

He seems to still be part of the "Red Scare" era.

Though Dresden was a shameful decision, when you look at German atrocities, they far outweigh the bombings.

One of the reasons of why German society became so polarized after WW1 is that it went immediately from a monarchy to a democratic republic- its aristocracy of dukes and petty kings had been a pillar of society. They were gone almost overnight.
Additonally the politicians immediately after WW1 didn't shine out in competency (for starters, they should have bargained more during the peace negotiations). There had been a Reichstag with political parties before, but they played a role that consisted largely out of giving advice or criticism rather than weilding any sort of real power.

I didn't mean to compare them in terms of effect, obviously the germans causing ww2 (mostly) was far worse, i just meant in terms of blame, the allies helped make the ground for ww2 and the germans helped make the ground for dresden, in neither case does it absolve those that did wrong for thier actions, just helps us understand how it reached that point...

Another point is the harshness of the treaty of versailles meant that hitler could rip the treaty up and worldwide it was seen as a fair move, so each little step didn't seem quite so bad

I think you could also put some blame on the UK for not backing the treaty, at some point im sure the french wanted to hold germany to the versailles conditions but the uk wouldn't back them up, maybe my memory is fuzzy can anyone confirm or deny this for me ?

Additonally the politicians immediately after WW1 didn't shine out in competency (for starters, they should have bargained more during the peace negotiations).

I always assumed they where simply given the document and told where to sign, my understanding always was as losers they didn't really have any say... is this wrong ?

If i remember right they where present at the negoations but simply powerless...

Quote:

---

I always assumed they where simply given the document and told where to sign, my understanding always was as losers they didn't really have any say... is this wrong ?

---

You're probably right, but in that case the republican government should never have signed the treaty. Germany was at rock bottom anyway, and the terms of the treaty would decide how much room they'd have to rebuild the economy. I don't think any of the victorious powers would be interested in an occupation of Germany if they rejected the first draft.

As for the 1871-->WW1 line of discussion, it's more complicated than that.
Napoleon III was as much of a military adventurist as Hitler (before anyone attacks me, I know that he wasn't interested in exterminating entire ethnic groups - but he was hardly peaceful) and I can't feel sorry for the humiliation France received after being at the wrong end of the stick for once.

Technically Germany was the agressor against France at the start of WW1, but you have to realize that if they went off fighting the Russians they'd expose their backs to the French. France and Russia were allies and France was still looking for a revanche. The Germans sent France an ultimatum demanding that they'd stay neutral while they were going to war with Russia; if France didn't respond they'd be considered hostile. After war with Russia was inevitable, they didn't have any other choice really.

On that point, as was mentioned before Wilhelm II did his honest best to defuse the situation and had pleaded the czar to leave Austria alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I think you can blame the germans for the firebombing of dresden as much you can blame the allies for ww2, it was unjust and undeserved but through thier own injustice they triggered the actions, in both cases....

---

To a certain extent, I can see your point. However, I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

the bombing off german towns actually saved the raf as german bombers where hitting raf airfields and doing a damn good job of it before hitler ordered bombs to fall on british towns as revenge.

Anyway that wasn't really my point, i was more making the comparison in terms of blame but i think the comparison works in terms of a trigger as well, it wasn't so much a direct trigger to bomb dreseden but ww2 up to dresden did build up some vengeful attitudes, i have always thought dresden was wrong but there was some strategic value in destroying it, it was full of industry not military but in its own indirect way it helped the nazi war machine.

Its too simplistic to say dresden couldn't have happened without ww2, but in terms of the blame game they partially brought it upon themselves and well by the time of dresden they where dropping bombs on our towns, even if we did start the bombing off towns they did start the war...

Maybe it doesn't work so much as a direct trigger, more of an indirect trigger... i was more making the point in terms of blame rather than direct triggers...

Edit
Technically Germany was the agressor against France at the start of WW1, but you have to realize that if they went off fighting the Russians they'd expose their backs to the French.

I think the fact that both france and russia mobilised thier forces first cancels out the fact that germany struck first, infact i think you could call mobilisation of both forces as much a declaration of war as an attack across the border...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

the bombing off german towns actually saved the raf as german bombers where hitting raf airfields and doing a damn good job of it before hitler ordered bombs to fall on british towns as revenge.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

but there was some strategic value in destroying it

---

By that point in the war, I'd disagree. The sheer extent of the bombing, and the specific design of the bombing, as well as statements by Arthur Harris himself, show that the bombing of Dresden was intended to terrorize and destroy people. Of course, you could argue that there was strategic value in destroying it to show the Soviets what the Allied bombing machine could do, which was part of the objective (as I recall).

Quote:

---

Maybe it doesn't work so much as a direct trigger, more of an indirect trigger... i was more making the point in terms of blame rather than direct triggers...

---

Indirect trigger I agree with.

By that point in the war, I'd disagree. The sheer extent of the bombing, and the specific design of the bombing, as well as statements by Arthur Harris himself, show that the bombing of Dresden was intended to terrorize and destroy people.

I have to be honest i wasn't sure on the date for dresden, if were talking 44 there probably wasn't much strategic gain, though i would assume just through indirect means it would have slowed the nazi war machine, if dresden was purely to terrorize and to show off to the soviets then it is an even worse decision than i thought originally, its seems much nicer to imagine a hothead seething with rage causing atrocities than it being simple cold calculated political decision

Though i would still assume revenge played its part in helping get the plan through its various stages

Yes.

Did Britian pull off a brilliant move by bombing german towns and thus making hitler change targets ?

or was it because british pilots didn't have the means to get to better targets, i seem to remember hearing we had a problem flying too far into germany because we wouldn't have enough fuel to get back, or was it simply a way to strike back ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I think the fact that both france and russia mobilised thier forces first cancels out the fact that germany struck first, infact i think you could call mobilisation of both forces as much a declaration of war as an attack across the border...

---

I'm not certain that this is true- quite sure it isn't, in fact. I have one of Keegan's books on WW1, I'll check.

From what i understand, which ill admit isn't all that much, france and russia could simply not afford to keep thier forces mobilised for too long without using them, the simple cost of mobilising thier entire forces meant that it was an aggressive move, there is no way they would have mobilised thier forces without using them, or not logically...

this has been my understanding of the subject for sometime, im prepared to admit i may be wrong here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Possibly, though at that time war wasn't uncommon in Europe at all - nobody thought that there was going to be a war as big as the First World War. Many actions at that time could have led to war - Germany just tried to get the best deal. Even the terms Germany put on France weren't as crippling as the ones we got at the Treaty of Versailles, even though we took Paris.

---

The deal was very harsh though, cripling their economy by taking Alsace-Lorraine or however it's called (that thing still isn't solved eh?), and imposing on them huge payments. I'd call it about as unfair as Versailles. And again both parties were the agressors in this conflict (just as in WWI)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Yes, I did. Partially because his wording is insulting, partially because they weren't all Germans, and partially because I feel Germany had what I see as a casus belli right up until the invasion of Poland.

Sure, Germany started the war, but the Allies didn't help with the whole situation.

---

I didn't see the wording as insulting, and I'm sorry you did. We all know they weren't al germans, but I don't see Germany's right to go to war. They accepted Versailles, like it or not, you're bound by such a treaty then. Annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and about ignoring every part of said treaty is no casus belli in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Now, back to the other point. You talk about the firebombing of Dresden. You can't blame the Germans for that, no matter how hard you try. The Allied leaders had a choice on whether to commit atrocities against Germany, and they chose to.

---

That's why I rate the deliberate bombing of cities (by Allies and Axis) as war crimes. But tell me, who began the bombing on cities? Where it the Germans when bombing the Netherlands into surrender, or accidently targetting London, or were it the Allies? I'm not sure here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The "pinnacle" of German civilization? More like absolute bottom, but I love your sarcasm. :rolleyes: Judging Germany by the Holocaust is like judging the French by Robespierre's Terror.

---

I think Louis is referring to the fact that the Nazi's saw themselves as the pinnacle of German civilization. Ofcourse we all realise now that's utter .......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

This direct Soviet influence can be easily recognized in the outright military support given to the Spanish communists.

Weren't they just supporting the republic against the facists, to be honest i think its shocking western countrys didn't help out spain but let them get taken over by franco...

---

No, PJ is quite correct on that one, the support also consisted of a considerble unwanted export of stalinism, something that was utterly detrimental to about all factions in the Spanish Republic.

That had of course something to do with that the Soviets were the only one supplying the Republic with about anything, while the "neutral" nations did in practice support the fascists, even long after the popular support was in favour of the Republic.

Isn't it ironic that the "red scare" forced all red factions into the really scary reds, making them stronger?

Quote:

---

I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

---

Oh dear oh dear Mars is off on the bombing again .
So then Germany repeatedly asked Britian .....isn't that nice , isn't that civilised , isn't it oh so pleasant , isn't it bollox .
After German bombing of Polish cities pressure was applied to get an agreement not to bomb civilian targets . The agreement was reached after much delay by Germany but was conditional , Germany quickly broke those conditions by bombing the hell out of Rotterdam .
So Mars Germany did trigger the bombing campaign that led to Dresden and no government was going to agree to another new deal when Germany had shown how quickly it was willing to throw deals out of the window .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Would you like to provide evidence that the USSR was supporting Republican Spain based off their communist ideology? I always thought they were doing it to stop the spread of facism. Which makes me think, facist countries have tried to spread fasicm more then the USSR was trying to spread communism.

There were very few pre WW2 communist countries. Mongolia was one. However, Communist China was in no way a Soviet lapdog.

---

Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.

General Soviet Policy:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

It is possible to detect three distinct phases in Soviet foreign policy between the conclusion of the Russian Civil War and the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939, determined in part by political struggles within the USSR, and in part by dynamic developments in international relations and the effect these had on Soviet security.

Although to begin within, and under the partial guidance of the Third International, the government of Lenin attempted to export revolution to the rest of Europe, this effectively came to a halt after the Soviet defeat in the war with Poland in 1921. Thereafter, a policy of peaceful co-existence began to emerge, with Soviet diplomats attempting to end the country's isolation, and concluding bi-lateral arrangements with 'capitalist' governments. Agreement was reached with Germany, Europe's other 'outcast' of the day, in the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.

There were, however, still those in the Soviet government, most notably Leon Trotsky, who argued for the continuation of the revolutionary process, in terms of his theory of Permanent Revolution. After Lenin's death in 1924 Trotsky and the internationalists were opposed by Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Bukharin, who developed the notion of Socialism in One Country. The foreign policy counterpart of Socialism in One Country was that of the United Front, with foreign Communists urged to enter into alliances with reformist left-wing parties and national liberation movements of all kinds. The high point of this strategy was the partnership between the Chinese Communist Party and the nationalist Kuomintang, a policy favoured by Stalin in particular, and a source of bitter dispute between him and Trotsky. The United Front policy in China effectively crashed to ruin in 1927, when Chiang Kai-shek massacred the native Communists and expelled all of his Soviet advisors, notably Mikhail Borodin.

The following year, after having defeated the left-opposition, led by Trotsky and Grigory Zinoviev, and the right-opposition, led by Nikolai Bukharin, Stalin began the wholesale collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, accompanied by a major programme of planned industrialisation. This new radical phase was paralleled by the formulation of a new doctrine in the International, that of the so-called Third Period, an ultra-left switch in policy, which argued that Social Democracy, whatever shape it took, was a form of Social fascism, socialist in theory but fascist in practice. All foreign Communist Parties-increasinngly agents of Soviet policy-were to concentrate their efforts in a struggle against their rivals in the working-class movement, ignoring the threat of real Fascism. There were to be no united fronts against a greater enemy. The catastrophic effects of this policy, and the negative effect it had on Soviet security, was to be fully demonstrated by the victory of Hitler in 1933, followed by the destruction of the German Communist Party, the strongest in Europe. The Third Way and Social Fascism were quickly dropped into the dustbin of history. Once again collaboration with other progressive elements was the key, in the form of the Popular Front, which cast the net still wider to embrace moderate bourgeois parties. Soviet-German cooperation, extensive until 1933, has been now limited.

Hand-in-hand with the promotion of Popular Fronts, Maxim Litvinov, Commissar for Foreign Affairs between 1930 and 1939, aimed at closer alliances with western governments, and placed ever greater emphasis on collective security. The new policy led to the Soviet Union joining the League of Nations in 1934, and the subsequent conclusion of alliances with France and Czechoslovakia. In the League the Soviets were active in demanding action against imperialist aggression, a particular danger to them after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, which eventually resulted in the Soviet-Japanese Battle of Khalkhin Gol.

But against the rise of militant fascism and imperialism the League accomplished very little. Indeed, in the end it was only USSR that took a stand in trying to preserve the Second Spanish Republic, and its Popular Front government, from the Fascist rebellion of 1936. The Munich Agreement of 1938, the first stage in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, gave rise to Soviet fears that they were likely to be abandoned in a possible war with Germany. In the face of continually dragging and seemingly hopeless negotiations with Great Britain and France, a new cynicism and hardness entered Soviet foreign relations when Litvinov was replaced by Vyacheslav Molotov in May 1939. The Soviets no longer sought collective but individual security, and the Pact with Hitler was signed, giving Soviets protection from the most aggressive European power and increasing Soviet sphere of influence.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...e_World_War_II

Spanish Communists:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

In the anarchist-controlled areas, Aragón and Catalonia, in addition to the temporary military success, there was a vast social revolution in which the workers and peasants collectivised land and industry, and set up councils parallel to the paralyzed Republican government. This revolution was opposed by both the Soviet-supported communists, who ultimately took their orders from Stalin's politburo (which feared a loss of control), and the Social Democratic Republicans (who worried about the loss of civil property rights). The agrarian collectives had considerable success despite opposition and lack of resources, as Franco had already captured lands with some of the richest natural resources.[55]

As the war progressed, the government and the communists were able to leverage their access to Soviet arms to restore government control over the war effort, through both diplomacy and force. Anarchists and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista, or POUM) were integrated with the regular army, albeit with resistance; the POUM was outlawed and falsely denounced as an instrument of the fascists. In the May Days of 1937, many hundreds or thousands of anti-fascist soldiers fought one another for control of strategic points in Barcelona, recounted by George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia.

---

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

(Pay careful attention to this next one.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

By the spring of 1937 the intervention of the USSR and of
the Comintern as such was having profound effects not only upon
the conduct of the war but on the Republican regime. On the
military level, the Comintern organized through national
communist parties the famous International Brigades, which
eventually numbered some 35,000 men, including future leaders of
East and West European communist parties; these "Spaniards" (for
example, Laszlo Rajk of Hungary) were later systematically
purged during the Stalinist show trials of the late 1940s in the
East European countries.

On the ideological level this intervention was represented
by the appointment of political commissars throughout the
Republican (or "Loyalist") forces, by the export to Spain of
Soviet secret police activities and personnel, and by attacks on
Trotskyites and other non-Stalinist revolutionary forces. This
last policy culminated in May 1937, when the Communists and the
Catalan government (clearly under Soviet pressure) first
provoked the CNT Anarchists and the anti-Stalinist militants of
the POUM to armed resistance and then used the excuse to outlaw
and crush them. The leader of the POUM, the former communist
Andres Nin, disappeared, and most historians accept that he was
killed by NKVD agents. Questioned about this case in 1983 by
the exiled Romanian scholar Lilly Marcou, Carrillo said that he
did not know who had assassinated Nin, though he had tried to
find out. One could, he said, advance the hypothesis, no more
than that, that "it was the Soviets present in Spain who decided
on and organized the death of Nin."

The "May Days" in Barcelona in 1937 brought a turning point
in other ways. The left-Socialist Prime Minister, Largo
Caballero, who opposed the action against the poumistas, had
to resign and was replaced by the right-socialist Juan Negrin,
who proved a more accommodating partner for the PCE (and the
Kremlin). This is linked with the fact that the Kremlin's
policies on the civil war were governed by Soviet state
interests and had little to do with support for the cause of
revolution. Similarly, the PCE's domestic policies during the
war were notably moderate compared with those of the
anarcho-syndicalists, the POUM, and the PSOE: the objective was
to win the war, not to bring about radical reforms, let alone
social revolution. At the same time, the PCE, through its
organizational strength and the zeal of its members, was a
leading force in the Republican war effort, even after Stalin
ordered the withdraw of the International Brigades and ended
Soviet arms shipments in November 1938. This dilemma was
expressed by Fernando Claudin, a member of the PCE Executive
Committee until he was expelled in the early 1960s for
expounding prematurely "Eurocommunist" ideas (he now heads a
research center for the PSOE). In his critique of the history
of the world communist movement he wrote:

All the sacrifice and heroism of three years went down with
a policy that, from the first day of the civil war, had
turned its back on the essential demands of Spanish
revolutionary reality in order to adapt itself to the
international strategy of Stalin. . . .

Stalin helped the Spanish Republic in order that it might
prolong its existence and arrive at a compromise solution
acceptable to the "Western democracies," within the
framework of a system of anti-Hitler alliances, and not
that it might win.[4]

---

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings...140-8-69.shtml



German Communists:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

In 1923 a new KPD leadership loyal to Joseph Stalin, the new Soviet Premier, was installed. This leadership, headed by Ernst Thälmann, abandoned the goal of immediate revolution, and from 1924 onwards contested Reichstag elections, with some success. Although the KPD advocated a "united front" during this period, it remained deeply hostile towards Germany's SPD leadership. In 1928 Stalin launched a new "leftist" policy, which the KPD loyally followed. This so-called Third Period policy held that capitalism was entering a deep crisis and the time for a revolution was approaching fast. The SPD was denounced as "social fascists" and any suggestion of co-operating with them was rejected.

During the years of the Weimar Republic the KPD was the largest Communist party in Europe, and was seen as the "leading party" of the Communist movement outside the Soviet Union. It maintained a solid electoral performance, usually polling more than 10% of the vote, and gaining 100 deputies in the November 1932 elections. In the presidential election of the same year, Thälmann took 13.2% of the vote, compared to Hitler's 30.1%. However the "social fascism" policy scuttled any possibility of a united front with the SPD against the rising power of the Nazis.

---

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




The Comintern:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

During its first chaotic and unsettled year of existence, the Comintern elicited support from the most varied quarters. Adherents of the most diverse revolutionist tendencies pledged their support, from such syndicalist and quasi-syndicalist groups as the american "wobblies" (the Industrial Workers of the World) to such sophisticated marxists as those who formed the communist parties in Poland and Germany. In some countries sections of the Comintern consisted of small sectarian groups, such as the Dutch Communist Party, formed for the purpose, while in others, already existing mass parties, such as the Norwegian Labour Party and the Italian Socialist Party, came over to the Comintern. At this time, Comintern leaders embraced the variety and diversity and preferred to keep their options open, negotiating in Germany, not only with the KPD, but with the KAPD and the USPD* as well.

However, by the time the 2nd world congress took place in July 1920, it had been decided to put the house in somewhat better order. In preparation, Lenin wrote Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and the west european bureau of the Comintern centered in Amsterdam and controlled by the dutch leftists was dissolved. Things were now to be tightened up, both organisationally and ideologically.

The 3rd international, in a radical departure from the precedents set by both the 1st and 2nd internationals, was no longer to be a series of national parties, but a single communist party with branches in different countries. A party line would be laid down for all and would be enforced by iron discipline according to the principles of democratic centralism. Between congresses, the highest authority was to be the executive committee, which would have powers parallel to and superseding the powers of the central committees of the individual parties. It was to be a directive centre of a world revolution, a far cry from the "mailbox" concept that had shaped the secretariat of the 2nd international.

The 2nd world congress adopted a list of 21 conditions to determine the admission of parties to the Comintern. Henceforth, each party was required to carry out systematic propaganda, including within the army and in the countryside, in favour of proletarian revolution; to remove reformists and centrists from all positions in the working class movement and to replace them by communists; to combine legal and illegal methods of work; to supervise the activities of its members in parliament; to denounce pacifism; to support colonial liberation movements; to secure the adherence of all sections of the labour movement to the Red Trade Union International as opposed to the "Yellow" Amsterdam Trade Union International; to organise on the basis of democratic centralism and to conduct periodical purges of its membership; to support all existing soviet republics by all possible means; to revise its party programme in accordance with the policies of the International; to accept all decisions of the Comintern as binding; to take the name of "Communist Party"; and to expel all members who voted against acceptance of the 21 conditions at a congress called for the purpose.2


The congress marked a sharp breach not only between communists and social democrats, but between communists and those who were still seeking a basis for compromise, such as the Austro-Marxists who still wished to find a 3rd way between "terrorist Moscow" and "impotent Bern."3

---

Quote:

---

From the beginning, there had been uneasiness about this situation, particularly among the KPD leadership, and Rosa Luxemburg had early warned against the potential subjection of the international movement to the "russian model." However, it seemed possible that this danger would be circumvented. The russians at this time fully expected that their pre-eminence would be superseded as soon as a proletarian revolution triumphed in an advanced industrialised society. Indeed, bolshevik leaders were inclined to state the matter quite sharply, pointing to their own backwardness and to the necessity of a more advanced country taking the lead.

However, as E.H. Carr has pointed out, it was only when the revolution obstinately stood still at the russian frontier and the bright hopes of the summer of 1920 faded, that the gap in authority between those who had succeeded in making their revolution and those who had failed widened, leaving the Comintern shaped in a russian mould and ensuring russian dominance.4

The congress was followed by bitter debates within the parties on acceptance of the 21 conditions and the period between the 2nd and 3rd congresses saw a series of splits and amalgamations based on the new policies. The lines were drawn and redrawn in the turmoil of sorting out who stood where in the new situation that had emerged.

Following extremely acrimonious proceedings at an extraordinary congress of the USPD in Halle in October 1920, the majority voted to join the Comintern. This majority then amalgamated in December 1920 with the KPD, giving Germany a mass communist party. The minority went back to the SPD. Also in December 1920, the French Socialist Party met in Tours and split, as did the Italian Socialist Party when they met in Leghorn in January 1921. In France, it was the majority that became the Communist Party, whereas in Italy it was the minority, resulting in the secession of the mass Italian Socialist Party from the Comintern. The czechoslovak party also split, whereas the bulgarian, norwegian, dutch, hungarian and austrian ones accepted the 21 conditions without splitting.

The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), formed in London of diverse groups that came together in August 1920, while the 2nd congress was still in session, held another congress in Leeds in January 1921, at which it accepted the 21 conditions and adhered to the Comintern. In March 1921 the Independent Labour Party rejected the conditions of adherence to the Comintern, although the minority, which argued in favour, resigned to join the new CPGB.

The Socialist Party of Ireland became the Communist Party of Ireland and duly expelled its few members not in favour of accepting the conditions.

---

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/comintern1.htm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

The realization that world revolution was not imminent led in 1921 to a new Comintern policy in order to gain broad working-class support. “United fronts” of workers were to be formed for making “transitional demands” on the existing regimes. This policy was abandoned in 1923, when the Comintern’s left wing gained temporary control. Joseph Stalin’s assault on the left group of his party, however, brought the expulsion of the Comintern’s first president, Grigory Y. Zinovyev, in 1926 and a further rapprochement with moderate socialism. Then Stalin’s move against the right wing of his party led to another turn in Comintern policy. In 1928 the sixth congress adopted a policy of “extreme leftism” set forth by Stalin: once again, moderate socialists and social democrats were branded as the chief enemies of the working class. The dangers of the rising fascist movement were ignored. In Germany in the early 1930s, the communists focused their attacks on the social democrats and even cooperated with the Nazis, whom they claimed to fear less, in destroying the Weimar Republic. World revolution was once more to be considered imminent, despite Stalin’s own concentration on “building socialism in one country.” At the Comintern’s seventh and last congress in 1935, Soviet national interests dictated a new policy shift: in order to gain the favour of potential allies against Germany, revolutionary ardour was dampened, and the defeat of fascism was declared the primary goal of the Comintern. Now communists were to join with moderate socialist and liberal groups in “popular fronts” against fascism. By now the Comintern was being used as a tool of Soviet foreign policy. The program of popular fronts ended with the signing of Stalin’s pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. Soon, however, Germany and the Soviet Union were at war, and in 1943 Stalin officially dissolved the Comintern in order to allay fears of communist subversion among his allies. From the Soviet point of view, Moscow was confident of its ability to control the foreign communist parties; and, in any case, much of the Comintern organization was preserved intact within the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1947 Stalin set up a new centre of international control called the Cominform, which lasted until 1956. The international communist movement broke down after 1956 owing to a developing split between the Soviet Union and China, among other factors.

---

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...International#

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

In March 1919 leading members of the Communist Party in Russia founded the Communist International (later known as Comintern). The aim of the organization was to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State".

To be admitted to the Comintern the Communist parties had to accept twenty-one conditions. This included: (1) conduct truly Communist propaganda and agitation and uphold the ideal of a dictatorship of the proletariat before the masses; (2) remove all reformists and supporters of centrists opinions from responsible posts; (3) create an illegal (in addition to the legal) organization for subversive work.

Gregory Zinoviev, was elected chairman of the Comintern. He held the post for seven years before being dismissed by Joseph Stalin because of his support for the ideas of Leon Trotsky. Zinoviev was replaced by Nickolai Bukharin but he was dismissed in 1928 and Stalin, as General Secretary of the Communist Party, became the head of Comintern. He then purged all members of the organization who supported Trotsky and his views on world revolution.

---

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScomintern.htm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Writings from the Third Congress, held in June-July 1921, talked about how the struggle could be transformed into "civil war" when the circumstances were favorable and "openly revolutionary uprisings".[15] The Fourth Congress, November 1922, at which Leon Trotsky played a prominent role, continued in this vein.[16]

During this early period, known as the "First Period" in Comintern history, with the Bolshevik revolution under attack in the Russian Civil War and a wave of revolutions across Europe, the Comintern's priority was exporting the October Revolution. Some Communist Parties had secret military wings. On example is the M-Apparat of the Communist Party of Germany. Its purpose was to prepare for the civil war the Communists believed was impending in Germany, and to liquidate opponents and informers who might have infiltrated the party. There was also a paramilitary organization, the Rotfrontkämpferbund.[17]

The Comintern was involved in the revolutions across Europe in this period, starting with the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919. Several hundred agitators and financial aid were sent from the Soviet Union and Lenin was in regular contact with its leader, Bela Kun. Soon an official "Terror Group of the Revolutionary Council of the Government" was formed, unofficially known as "Lenin Boys".[18] The next attempt was the "March Action" in Germany in 1921, including an attempt to dynamite the express train from Halle to Leipzig. When this failed Lenin ordered the removal of the leader of the Communist Party of Germany, Paul Levi, from power.[19] A new attempt was made at the time of the Ruhr Crisis. The Red Army was mobilized, ready to come to the aid of the planned insurrection. Resolute action by the German government cancelled the plans, except due to miscommunication in Hamburg, where 200-300 Communists attacked police stations but where quickly defeated.[20] In 1924 there was failed coup in Estonia by the Estonian Communist Party.[21]

Several international organizations were sponsored by the Comintern in this period:

Red International of Labour Unions (Profintern - formed 1920)
Red Peasant International (Krestintern - formed 1923)
International Red Aid (MOPR - formed 1922)
Communist Youth International (refounded 1919)
Red Sports International (Sportintern)
In 1924, the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party joined Comintern.[22] In China at first both the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang were supported. After the definite break with Chiang Kai-shek in 1927, Stalin sent personal emissaries to help organize revolts which at this time failed.[23

---

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi..._Popular_Front




General:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

For non-Russian communists questions about why the Bolshevik revolution could not be repeated and of the direction taken by Soviet communism became central preoccupations. Most of the discourse of the orthodox Communist Parties simply aped that of the Soviet government and the International. In particular, the idea that the Bolshevik path was simply unrepeatable in the conditions in the more economically and socially advanced societies in the rest of Europe was officially unacceptable. Even so, some creative intellectuals, often called the Western Marxists, did flourish. Chief among them were Antonio Gramsci, Karl Korsch, György Lukács, and some members of the so-called Frankfurt School (particularly Herbert Marcuse). They were active in the first flood of revolutionary enthusiasm for the Soviet experiment, when there was more space for creative thinking within communist movements. Questions about the significance of culture and aesthetics in Marxist analysis concerned them as much as, if not more than, economics and politics. They were aware that cultural and social circumstances often conditioned political possibilities. Often implicitly, rather than explicitly, they offered a critique of Leninism in all its variations (including Trotsky's). Gramsci in particular, without ever rejecting the Soviet model, suggested a path to revolution that contained the same sense of human agency as Lenin's views but rejected its insurrectionary and conspiratorial strategy as well as the primacy placed on the material conditions necessary for revolutionary change. In complex Western societies, Gramsci argued, revolution was intimately bound up with a competition or struggle for cultural dominance (egemonia). In order for socialism to be established it had to be as consensual as possible—more akin to the triumph of the Italian Renaissance. Such thinking remained a minority concern and was decisively marginalized after 1928 in the drive to impose Stalinist orthodoxy on all communists. Either purged from their parties, recanting their views, exiled or imprisoned by their governments, they were silenced and their writings ignored by contemporaries.

---

http://science.jrank.org/pages/8762/...rnational.html


As can be seen, the communist movements of Europe and around the world came increasingly under control of the Soviet Union. Those who didn't fall in line were eventually purged or moved to far left parties operating under the socialist banner.

First of all, I'm going to make it clear to Tribsey that I'm not responding to his posts, or even reading them. If anyone else wants to have a debate, go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I have to be honest i wasn't sure on the date for dresden, if were talking 44 there probably wasn't much strategic gain, though i would assume just through indirect means it would have slowed the nazi war machine, if dresden was purely to terrorize and to show off to the soviets then it is an even worse decision than i thought originally, its seems much nicer to imagine a hothead seething with rage causing atrocities than it being simple cold calculated political decision

---

It was February of 1944.

Quote:

---

Did Britian pull off a brilliant move by bombing german towns and thus making hitler change targets ?

---

Well, they did bomb Berlin intentionally. I'd like to make it clear that I don't think there's anything wrong with bombing a city in times of war as long as (at that time) they had followed Hague 1907.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

The deal was very harsh though, cripling their economy by taking Alsace-Lorraine or however it's called (that thing still isn't solved eh?), and imposing on them huge payments. I'd call it about as unfair as Versailles. And again both parties were the agressors in this conflict (just as in WWI)

---

It was harsh, but I don't recall Germany forcing the French army (or navy) to disband (though, to be fair, it was already in ruins). Indeed, Bismarck was against making the treaty that harsh, but he was essentially forced to.

Quote:

---

Annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia and about ignoring every part of said treaty is no casus belli in my opinion.

---

Austria was annexed by popular opinion of the Austrian people (I don't agree with the annexation as I firmly believe in the Kleindeutschland concept), and the Sudentenland was German territory in the eyes of the people at the time. Germany never should have annexed the rest of the Bohemian part of Czechoslovakia, however, I agree with you.

Quote:

---

That's why I rate the deliberate bombing of cities (by Allies and Axis) as war crimes. But tell me, who began the bombing on cities? Where it the Germans when bombing the Netherlands into surrender, or accidently targetting London, or were it the Allies? I'm not sure here.

---

The British bombed German towns before Germany bombed British towns. I only rate the bombing as a war crime if it fits Hague 1907.

Actually, and bear with me here, I think that the bombing of Rotterdam could have been justified in the same vein as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it may have saved the lives of people who otherwise would have died by forcing a surrender. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

I think Louis is referring to the fact that the Nazi's saw themselves as the pinnacle of German civilization.

---

I hope he is. :bow:

Imposing harsh conditions in 1871 is alrighty, while doing so in 1918 is being shortsighted ?

1871 led to 1918, period. If it wasn't for the Archiduke and Serbia, France and Germany would have warred eachother for another reason.
The whole French ideology was back then was aimed at this war. Everyone was eagerly waiting for it, from the socialists patriots to the die-hard far right nationalists.
Germany knew it and prepared itself, as any nation would have done.

Unhappilly, the winners, mostly led by France, just did what Germany has done 50 years earlier. Call it being arrogant, short sighted or whatever, I think I would have done the same thing.
Germany, despite its glorious past and civilisation was widely seen as an agressive nation that deserved to be trampled. Invading Belgium, sunking civilian ships and making dubious diplomatic move probably justified these harsh conditions back then.

Quote:

---

First of all, I'm going to make it clear to Tribsey that I'm not responding to his posts, or even reading them.

---

Thats fine , it isn't going to stop me rippng your nonsense about the strategic bombing campaign to pieces every time you post stuff that is clearly of the bollox variety .
Which when it comes to that particular subject happens to be just about every time you write about it .
Like this rubbish...

Quote:

---

The British bombed German towns before Germany bombed British towns.

---

The allies only bombed german towns after the Germans bombed allied towns , and they only bombed German towns after Germany agreed to not bomb allied towns and then bombed allied towns .
Oh and only germany bombed towns by using a tourist guide to determine which ones were more culturally interesting to attack .

Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.

I don't think anyone doubts that they helped fund these groups and had influence over them, but these people where not there to hand over power to the soviet union any more than franco would have handed over power to Hitler for his support or leaders in latin america hand over power to usa because of help getting into power. As clearly shown by the example of china...

*Ahem*

First of all, Meneldil, I see your point. ~:)

Second, I'll get to the whole "who bombed who first" tomorrow, because I'm exhausted now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Is this amature night or something? You're making plenty of conclusions based off of very little real knowledge.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union founded many communist movements abroad and took control of most organic ones, often through subversion and violence.


I don't think anyone doubts that they helped fund these groups and had influence over them, but these people where not there to hand over power to the soviet union any more than franco would have handed over power to Hitler for his support or leaders in latin america hand over power to usa because of help getting into power. As clearly shown by the example of china...

---

I'm sorry that just isn't correct. It was exactly the Chinese disaster that caused Stalin to tighten his control over foreign communists. Had they prevailed in Germany and especially Spain, they would have been direct proxies of the USSR, much like the Warsaw Pact nations.

Quote:

---

By the spring of 1937 the intervention of the USSR and of
the Comintern as such was having profound effects not only upon
the conduct of the war but on the Republican regime. On the
military level, the Comintern organized through national
communist parties the famous International Brigades, which
eventually numbered some 35,000 men, including future leaders of
East and West European communist parties; these "Spaniards" (for
example, Laszlo Rajk of Hungary) were later systematically
purged during the Stalinist show trials of the late 1940s in the
East European countries.

On the ideological level this intervention was represented
by the appointment of political commissars throughout the
Republican (or "Loyalist") forces, by the export to Spain of
Soviet secret police activities and personnel, and by attacks on
Trotskyites and other non-Stalinist revolutionary forces. This
last policy culminated in May 1937, when the Communists and the
Catalan government (clearly under Soviet pressure) first
provoked the CNT Anarchists and the anti-Stalinist militants of
the POUM to armed resistance and then used the excuse to outlaw
and crush them. The leader of the POUM, the former communist
Andres Nin, disappeared, and most historians accept that he was
killed by NKVD agents. Questioned about this case in 1983 by
the exiled Romanian scholar Lilly Marcou, Carrillo said that he
did not know who had assassinated Nin, though he had tried to
find out. One could, he said, advance the hypothesis, no more
than that, that "it was the Soviets present in Spain who decided
on and organized the death of Nin."

The "May Days" in Barcelona in 1937 brought a turning point
in other ways. The left-Socialist Prime Minister, Largo
Caballero, who opposed the action against the poumistas, had
to resign and was replaced by the right-socialist Juan Negrin,
who proved a more accommodating partner for the PCE (and the
Kremlin). This is linked with the fact that the Kremlin's
policies on the civil war were governed by Soviet state
interests and had little to do with support for the cause of
revolution. Similarly, the PCE's domestic policies during the
war were notably moderate compared with those of the
anarcho-syndicalists, the POUM, and the PSOE: the objective was
to win the war, not to bring about radical reforms, let alone
social revolution. At the same time, the PCE, through its
organizational strength and the zeal of its members, was a
leading force in the Republican war effort, even after Stalin
ordered the withdraw of the International Brigades and ended
Soviet arms shipments in November 1938. This dilemma was
expressed by Fernando Claudin, a member of the PCE Executive
Committee until he was expelled in the early 1960s for
expounding prematurely "Eurocommunist" ideas (he now heads a
research center for the PSOE). In his critique of the history
of the world communist movement he wrote:

All the sacrifice and heroism of three years went down with
a policy that, from the first day of the civil war, had
turned its back on the essential demands of Spanish
revolutionary reality in order to adapt itself to the
international strategy of Stalin. . . .

Stalin helped the Spanish Republic in order that it might
prolong its existence and arrive at a compromise solution
acceptable to the "Western democracies," within the
framework of a system of anti-Hitler alliances, and not
that it might win.[4]

---

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/files/holdings...140-8-69.shtml

Had they prevailed in Germany and especially Spain, they would have been direct proxies of the USSR, much like the Warsaw Pact nations.

I disagree entirely, people are mostly obsessed with power, what in gods name was going to make these foriegn communists work hard and then just hand it all over to the SU, they had thier own ideas thier own plans, they could have had good relations with su but they would have been under the su's control as much as france was under usa's control after ww2

I think the warsaw pact nations just proves the point even more, the only way for the su to rule over foriegn nations was through a huge army threatening any descent, and as this was one big land mass in eastern europe it was possible, but spain was half of europe away, through a load of countries or a damn long boat ride away, as shown by countless examples communists would not hand over power to the SU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I disagree entirely, people are mostly obsessed with power, what in gods name was going to make these foriegn communists work hard and then just hand it all over to the SU

---

Because they were Soviet agents.

So was the treatment of Germany harsher after the end of WWI or WWII?

And if it was harsher after WWII, which did not lead to another world war, does it not seem to say that one must destroy an enemy entirely and not just partly, as was the case after WWI?

Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then. Those idiots in Germany that led to WWII knew of the horrific scale of world war, and they started it. They had seen hell and again brought it to the world. That leaves me precious little sympathy for them. They just thought they could win this time, so it became necessary to more forcefully persuade them against ever thinking about it again. Bring back some of the hell they unleashed to their own doorstep.

And on air bombing, it seems Germany started that on Poland, then agreed not to bomb civilian targets with Britain and France, then proceeded to break that agreement by bombing Rotterdam.

Quote:

---

To a certain extent, I can see your point. However, I'm not sure exactly how Germany triggered Dresden - it's a historical fact that German towns were bombed first. The German government asked the British to halt the bombings of German towns repeatedly, before German bombs fell on Britain.

---

Well, except for Poland and Rotterdam...

Quote:

---

If you want to appeal to emotion, how many of your ancestors were tortured in Lubyanka? How many of your ancestors were shipped to Gulags? How many of your ancestors perished because of famine or fire? How many of your ancestors were conscripted into the Wehrmacht and sent to the hell that was the Russian steppes? Don't talk to me about death.

---

Again, I've little sympathy for when you dance with the devil and lose.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So was the treatment of Germany harsher after the end of WWI or WWII?

---

I'd go so far as to say WWI. Why? Because after WWII we had a functioning economy, and an enemy was presented to us in the Soviets. Not only that, our former enemies encouraged and backed our choice of enemy. Whereas after WWI, we had a destroyed economy, no hope, no way out. We were offered a way out, and we took it, as anyone would have done.

Quote:

---

Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then.

---

Germany was partitioned after WWI.

Quote:

---

That leaves me precious little sympathy for them. They just thought they could win this time, so it became necessary to more forcefully persuade them against ever thinking about it again.

---

*Sigh...*

I'll remind you of that statement next time America goes to war anywhere...

Quote:

---

Bring back some of the hell they unleashed to their own doorstep.

---

Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.

Quote:

---

Well, except for Poland and Rotterdam...

---

I've explained Rotterdam, and I have to leave home soon, so I'll address the rest later.

Quote:

---

Again, I've little sympathy for when you dance with the devil and lose.

---

And if the devil hits you over the head and drags you off to fight his wars? Or if you never entered his lair in the first place, and worked an ordinary respectable job in an ordinary neighbourhood? What then? Or is it the fault of the ordinary German?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Maybe the allies were to lenient on Germany after WWI, and should have partitioned it then.

---

By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it. :inquisitive:

No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it. :inquisitive:

No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.

---

That's pretty much the point CR. Good post Panzer. :bow:

More rubbish

Quote:

---

Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.

---

Illegal under what law ?
Oh yeah there was no law covering it:stupido3:

Quote:

---

I've explained Rotterdam

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yet facts about the event do not support your explanation in the slightest .

@Dresden.

I cannot understand how anyone would even try to excuse the firebombing of Dresden. It doesn't matter how many civilians the Germans bombed. By doing exactly the same thing the Germans were doing, the Allies were just as much in the wrong. The proper response to something as morally reprehensible as massacring civilians is not to do it back to them; the proper response is to keep the moral high ground by not doing what the enemy does.

I hate to pull out an old cliche, but two wrongs really don't make a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

More rubbish

Illegal under what law ?
Oh yeah there was no law covering it:stupido3:

---

Again with this?

Quote:

---

Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

---

-Hague Convention...



The first one is debatable, although a reading of Shimoda is in order for anyone interested. The second two define Dresden and other allied bombings as war crimes.

Quote:

---

Again with this?

---

And how exactly does that apply to Dresden ?
Oh yeah it doesn't does it , and even if it did apply in general it doesn't apply on specifics , Dresden was a garrison town , it was defended , it contained arms industries and materials of war , it was used for military operations and the aiming point for the bombardment was chosen due to the location of the infrastructure that was a vital component of the war effort that was being used to facilitate offensive and defensive operations .

Quote:

---

I cannot understand how anyone would even try to excuse the firebombing of Dresden.

---

Who is trying to excuse it , everyone will say it wasn't nice , it wasn't a really pleasant thing, however people cannot say it was illegal as there was no law which made it illegal .
They cannot say it was a war crime when it fits within the laws of war
When people repeatedly maintain that it was illegal and a war crime in the complete absence of any laws making it illegal and a war crime then they are showing ignorance of the legislation .
When they persist in their claims after already being shown that they are ignorant of the laws then it implies that they are more than just ignorant of the legislation , it shows that they are unable to learn and adjust their preconceptions .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil Maniac from Mars

Actually, and bear with me here, I think that the bombing of Rotterdam could have been justified in the same vein as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - it may have saved the lives of people who otherwise would have died by forcing a surrender. Just a thought.

---

The Americans chiefly bombed these cities because they wouldn't need to suffer casualties in an actual invasion of Japan. It can be argued that more Japanese civilians would have died as well if they felt that they could still defend their country, but that's mostly a rationalization in retrospect.

In contrast, when Rotterdam was bombed the Germans had IIRC secured pretty much all of the Netherlands. To say that more inhabitants of Rotterdam would have perished in street fighting is misguided.

If you're going to respond - are you suggesting that the Rotterdam bombing was morally "better" then the Dresden firestorm? The latter was actually more useful from a military point of view, and they were at least part of the country that started agression in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And how exactly does that apply to Dresden ?
Oh yeah it doesn't does it , and even if it did apply in general it doesn't apply on specifics , Dresden was a garrison town , it was defended , it contained arms industries and materials of war , it was used for military operations and the aiming point for the bombardment was chosen due to the location of the infrastructure that was a vital component of the war effort that was being used to facilitate offensive and defensive operations .

---

None of that changes the breaches of Articles 26 and 27.

As for whether Dresden was a garrison city, defended, etc; post war litigation has leaned towards finding cities that are not front line as being undefended, regardless of AA.

I found this interesting quote when I went to get copy/paste the articles. Seems the US has accepted this fact, internally at least.

Quote:

---

A fair reading of the [Rome Statute], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable.

---

-John Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations


In any event, the implications of this discussion are dubious at best. Trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to find legal technicalities in favor of the immolation of hundreds of thousands of women and children is never a strong position.

Quote:

---

None of that changes the breaches of Articles 26 and 27.

---

Yes it does , since article 26 doesn't apply and article 27 has the get out clause (plus all the other get out clauses in earlier articles) , plus of course non of this legislation covered air bombardment which is what Dresden was .

Quote:

---

post war litigation has leaned towards finding cities that are not front line are undefended, regardless of AA.

---

Does that use post war legislation though ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

I found this interesting quote when I went to get copy/paste the articles. Seems the US has accepted this fact, internally at least.

---

What relevance does a law that came into effect in 2002 have to legislation in place in 1944 ?

Quote:

---

In any event, the implications of this discussion are dubious at best.

---

Not dubious in the slightest .
You can say it was wrong , you can say it was immoral , you can say it was really really bad and difficult to justify , but you cannot say it was illegal or a war crime unless there was a law that made it illegal and a war crime . It really is that simple .
Interestingly though Germany itself did introduce legislation that determined certain air attacks to be war crimes and punishable as such , though they didn't list large scale attacks like Dresden as one of those .
Then again as that legislation was part of the extremely dubious commando orders actions taken under that legislation resulted in those who followed the German laws being tried for war crimes because they violated international laws on the conduct of war .:yes:

Wait... you're arguing over laws?! :dizzy2: I can't believe this.

If something is wrong, it's wrong. If it's wrong but still legal, then the laws need to be reformed; and in the case of something as bad as Dresden, I fully believe those responsible should have been punished ex post facto.

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes it does , since article 26 doesn't apply and article 27 has the get out clause (plus all the other get out clauses in earlier articles) , plus of course non of this legislation covered air bombardment which is what Dresden was .

---

26 does apply. It mentions nothing about whether the city is defended or not. 27 also applies, as cultural and medical areas were both marked and well known by the allies. Besides those facts, the allied command knew the effects of their weaponry, and the stated and documented mission was to destroy the city and kill/terrorize the civilian populace. Arthur Harris' implications removed all doubt as to this intention - which is against international law.

As to whether this covered air bombardment, one only needs to look to the revised Hague Treaty of 1907(IV), which made a subtle change from the 1899 convention.

Quote:

---

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

---

Now, if you really want to get creative, you could look at Article 23(e), which states:

Quote:

---

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering

---

It is quite obvious to anyone reading Harris' own writings on the subject, that the bombing was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering...

Quote:

---

Does that use post war legislation though ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

What relevance does a law that came into effect in 2002 have to legislation in place in 1944 ?

---

Just perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Wait... you're arguing over laws?! :dizzy2: I can't believe this.

If something is wrong, it's wrong. If it's wrong but still legal, then the laws need to be reformed; and in the case of something as bad as Dresden, I fully believe those responsible should have been punished ex post facto.

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

---

I agree, but the record should be set straight.

WW2 wasn't devoid of Victor's Justice.

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which :daisy: told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.
Bunch of lies. Poland is children of polish blood. Without polish victories not treaty would give us independence - we won it alone, without anyone. And idiot who claim that Koningsberg should be German not Poles is .... idiot - Konginsberg (today Kalingrad) is Russian, not polish city.
So please do not teach others about eastern europe while you don't know anything about it.

Quote:

---

It is quite obvious to anyone reading Harris' own writings on the subject, that the bombing was calculated to cause unnecessary suffering...

---

And its quite obvious that the weapons which were used were calculated to destroy property , the ratio of the bombloads was carefully calculated specificly to destoy property and since that section deals with killing people it is not applicable , the only part of that section that deals with property allows for actions like Dresden .

Quote:

---

26 does apply.

---

Nope ,since notice was given by the allies to Germany that all towns and villages with railroads would be subject to bombardment so there's your advance notice .

Quote:

---

27 also applies, as cultural and medical areas were both marked and well known by the allies.

---

27 does not apply , note the get out clause it contains . The earlier precision raids on Dresden were not succesful from a military viewpoint because it was not possible to achieve the aims using the technology of the time .

Quote:

---

one only needs to look to the revised Hague Treaty of 1907(IV), which made a subtle change from the 1899 convention.

---

And once again that only applies to undefended towns .

Quote:

---

Just perspective.

---

I know , the earlier American proposed legislation Mars used last time gives a better perpective , but however it wasn't adopted so while it is interesting from a wider angle it isn't really relevant .

Quote:

---

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

---

Because if someone wants to call it a war crime then they have to show that it was illegal .

Quote:

---

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which :daisy: told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.
Bunch of lies. Poland is children of polish blood. Without polish victories not treaty would give us independence - we won it alone, without anyone.

---

Well thats Krook showing that the blindness caused by his rabid nationalism means that he doesn't understand history in the slightest .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which :daisy: told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.

---

I'm having this sig'd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I agree, but the record should be set straight.

WW2 wasn't devoid of Victor's Justice.

---

Yeah... never thought I would be on your side, against Tribesman.

Panzer, there's no real point trying to argue with Tribes. But I digress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Wait... you're arguing over laws?! :dizzy2: I can't believe this.

If something is wrong, it's wrong. If it's wrong but still legal, then the laws need to be reformed; and in the case of something as bad as Dresden, I fully believe those responsible should have been punished ex post facto.

Why would you even argue over whether it was legal or not anyway?

---

Totally agree, and I also agree with Panzer. I'm not saying stuff like the bombing of Warsaw wasn't despicable, but this is Dresden we're talking about now. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

In contrast, when Rotterdam was bombed the Germans had IIRC secured pretty much all of the Netherlands. To say that more inhabitants of Rotterdam would have perished in street fighting is misguided.

---

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.


EDIT: And about the "did the British bomb the Germans/Germans bomb British first" debate, I'll have that probably tomorrow night or Sunday night. I'm too tired to look up the book passages.

It is rather humorous, to say the least, that our congress, which can't seem to pass a good piece of legislation that isn't completely compromised by special interests, doesn't find it hypocritical to be pointing out the flaws of another countries legislative body. :scastle3: Sheesh, what will they think of next? Please forgive our wayward politicos my Polish friends, for "they no not what they do." Here is a picture of what they do best: :gathering: Here is what the average American taxpayers do trying to figure out how to pay for the wonderful legislation they pass: :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Because if someone wants to call it a war crime then they have to show that it was illegal .

---

I think the information speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Sorry but im too drunk to check but which :daisy: told that Poland was children of Versal Treaty.

---

:daisy: here! :laugh4:

I wrote that simply to stimulate conversation, but its kinda, sorta... true.

Poland was absorbed by its neighbors over a century before and without allied victory Poland would not exist today. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.

---

It was also a botched mission, and there is some question whether it was actually supposed to happen.


*Note to mods. Please don't close this due to Krook's slur! Its developed into several interesting discussions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

It was also a botched mission, and there is some question whether it was actually supposed to happen.

---

That's true. In fact, German forces on the ground signalled the bombers to turn around, but only a few actually saw/understood the flare signals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Only nine hundred people perished in the bombing of Rotterdam, not tens of thousands. The bombing probably did save lives, in the same manner as Hiroshima.

---

The Germans were simply in a rush and didn't feel like committing the necessary manpower for taking Rotterdam by conventional fighting. It was a quick solution and they didn't care how many civilians would have died so long as it would force the surrender of the city. The only reason that so few people died was because the bombing had been announced and because of the air alarm, but nearly a hundred thousand people lost their homes.

In retrospect you could say that more than 900 civilians would have died in streetfighting (an assertion wich I'm not ready to accept just like that) but to say that this "justifies" the bombing is misguided - it was not the reason Rotterdam was bombed.

Neither was it the reason for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Japan had been the agressor in that part of the war and wouldn't have left the Americans alone if they had stopped after Iwo Jima. Japan was a threat that needed to be put an end to, Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense. In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

Quote:

---

It was also a botched mission, and there is some question whether it was actually supposed to happen.

---

Which is why the justification Mars used is not correct .
Plus of course what was requested was a precision strike to cover the advance not a wide ranging strike to force negotiations . Once it became the latter it breached the agreement the Americans had brokered making that agreement null and void.

Quote:

---

I think the information speaks for itself.

---

It certainly does , yet you are unable to understand it .
The legislation was so flawed , out of date and contained so many loopholes that it was useless for the purpose by that time which was why new legislation was required , the proposed new legislation didn't come in time .
Which is why no prosecutions can be brought for war crimes , if it was possible to do so the allies would have done so to the axis for all the air raids on allied towns .
That is why all charges relating to destruction of towns and cities from the Nuremburg trials had wording that restricted it to those acts which didn't utilise any of the loopholes in the legislation .
It really is that simple Panzer . The Dresden raid was covered by a legal loophole so it wasn't a war crime and unless retroactive legislation is ever introduced it will never be a war crime .

Quote:

---

In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

---

Well to be fair he did originally order that countries neutrality should be strictly respected , but being a fickle sort of fellow he changed his mind .
Just like he ordered that British cities should not be bombed unless he decided that they should be bombed .

Quote:

---

Poland was absorbed by its neighbors over a century before and without allied victory Poland would not exist today.

---

Not at all Jaeger.

In the beginning of WW1 Poland was divided by Austria, Russia and Germany.
Majority of Poles support rather Austria and Germany. Later even more.
Before 1917 and bolshevik revolution Ententa did not want independent Poland - because Russia
would have to loose territory. Later Ententa need soldiers as much as Central States, so they
announced "Independent Poland". However Poles knew that they can be independent only if won it alone. Into 1917-1918 Poles started support rather Ententa than Central States and Central States completely lost support after Peace into Brzesc between Ukraine and Germany (due to its condition territories with polish majority would be given Ukraine). And that was situation into November of 1918
when due to Franco-Anglo-US victories on Western Front Germans had to capitulate and on East there were generally MESS.

Then war stopped and Poles
1) Took weapon from German Garrison into Warsaw
2) Organised local governments
3) Welcomed Jozef Pilsudski, who was released from camp into Magdeburg and made him leader.
4) Started forming army (no one believed that will be so easy without fight).
5) Made agreement with commanders of German army into Russia and let that army get back to Germany.
6) Luckily due to point 5 and German and Austrian victories on Eastern Front Russia was not a problem into that moment (became problem a bit later).

So I would say that Poland could recapture independence due to so luckily end of war beetwen Russia and Germany when both sides destroyed each other and France and England were too far from Poland to establish here their protectorates. No one gave Poland freedom - Poles took it alone.
You can't remember that it was not so easy as I wrote - Poland payed big price of war. Well known are loses into Belgium - here there were big too. Maybe to as big as into ww2, but really big.

Poland was mainly controled by Russia, then transfered to the German Empire due to Brest-Lostvik (I do not think that is the right spelling). In the Treaty of Versaille, Poland was given independance and the Germans actually had to give most of West Prussia. Had Germany won, I don't think you Poles would have gotten so lucky.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

In retrospect you could say that more than 900 civilians would have died in streetfighting (an assertion wich I'm not ready to accept just like that) but to say that this "justifies" the bombing is misguided - it was not the reason Rotterdam was bombed.

Neither was it the reason for Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Japan had been the agressor in that part of the war and wouldn't have left the Americans alone if they had stopped after Iwo Jima. Japan was a threat that needed to be put an end to, Hiroshima and Nagasaki made sense. In contrast Hitler could have simply opted to leave us alone entirely.

---

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

Quote:

---

On May the 14th the Dutch situation seemed to have improved: although the Germans occupied most of the territory, the major cities and the bulk of the Dutch population were still under Dutch control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I'd go so far as to say WWI. Why? Because after WWII we had a functioning economy, and an enemy was presented to us in the Soviets. Not only that, our former enemies encouraged and backed our choice of enemy. Whereas after WWI, we had a destroyed economy, no hope, no way out. We were offered a way out, and we took it, as anyone would have done.

---

No, you took the easy way out - the way of scapegoats and hatred, because of deep rooted bigotry towards certain peoples.

Quote:

---

Germany was partitioned after WWI.

---

Yes, but they didn't have other nations take over all the sectors of their country; perhaps I should have been more clear.

Quote:

---

Still illegal and disgusting, regardless of your moralizing.

---

And who started the illegal bombing of cities? If Dresden even was illegal. But I don't particularly care if Dresden was illegal or completely necessary. I don't care if it can or can't be excused or explained. It's war, and if Germany wanted total war, they got it.

I think Germany deserved it, because they set the tone for WWII.

Sherman burned our own country in the civil war, so I have little sympathy for countries led by Nazis.

Quote:

---

And if the devil hits you over the head and drags you off to fight his wars? Or if you never entered his lair in the first place, and worked an ordinary respectable job in an ordinary neighbourhood? What then? Or is it the fault of the ordinary German?

---

Oh, because the Germans didn't support the Nazis at all, did they?

Quote:

---

By that logic, if I were going to punish my puppy for pissing on the carpet even though it actually did no such thing, I should really beat the hell out of it so it doesn't grow up and attack me for it.

No, a far more reasonable approach would have been to make a just treaty that accurately represented history, and not to cripple a nation that was not responsible for the war and whose leader was the only to make an attempt to stop it.

---

Dogs don't hold grudges for twenty years. Are you suggesting dog and human psychology are the same?

The history was world war one was a war unlike any other before it. Yes, parts of the treaty were probably unfair and overly harsh.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

---

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

And yeah, occupying the Neth's was pretty useless as far as I know. Belgium was on the way around the Maginot line, but I never figured out why Hitler thought that taking the Netherlands was necessary or even desirable. The nazi's loved to preach their nonsense about a pan-germanic master race, but that doesn't explain why they let the Swedes and the Swiss get away with their quasi-neutrality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

---

Not necessarily justified, but hey, the Americans did it. ~;)

Quote:

---

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

---

Completely different story.

Okay, how are they different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Okay, how are they different?

---

Namely the fact that it didn't succeed. Rotterdam, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It certainly does , yet you are unable to understand it .
The legislation was so flawed , out of date and contained so many loopholes that it was useless for the purpose by that time which was why new legislation was required , the proposed new legislation didn't come in time .
Which is why no prosecutions can be brought for war crimes , if it was possible to do so the allies would have done so to the axis for all the air raids on allied towns .
That is why all charges relating to destruction of towns and cities from the Nuremburg trials had wording that restricted it to those acts which didn't utilise any of the loopholes in the legislation .
It really is that simple Panzer . The Dresden raid was covered by a legal loophole so it wasn't a war crime and unless retroactive legislation is ever introduced it will never be a war crime .

---

I see your point, I just don't agree. The language is very rudimentary for a legal document, but the intention is quite clear, as supported by post-war investigation. A case could be made either way, but I feel the intent of the writers falls in line with my position - they did not want such things happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CR

Dogs don't hold grudges for twenty years. Are you suggesting dog and human psychology are the same?

The history was world war one was a war unlike any other before it. Yes, parts of the treaty were probably unfair and overly harsh.

CR

---

Of course not.

I think you may have momentarily blended Germans from WW1 with those of WW2 in order to make a broader point. Its quite easy to do as they wore the same helmets and many from the first carried over to the second. :clown:

However, Germany did not start the First World War and in fact the Kaiser made more of an effort than any other world leader involved to stop it. Therefore, I fail to see how punishing Germany even more severly is just or logical. If your goal is to stop WW2 at all costs, a far more reasonable approach would have been to be fair to Germany, thus denying future Hitlers of their biggest grievances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

However, Germany did not start the First World War and in fact the Kaiser made more of an effort than any other world leader involved to stop it.

---

I agree that we didn't start the war but the Kaiser gave Austria blanket support which meant he was basically asking for trouble. I mean if you want to prevent a war you don't go to your enraged ally and tell them "go ahead and do whatever you want, we'll be right behind you".
Pretty much everyone wanted the war and they all also happily jumped onto their trucks and trains prematurely celebrating their big victory, until they arrived at the actual front and got a dose of reality, or lead. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

I see your point, I just don't agree. The language is very rudemnetary for a legal document, but the intention is quite clear, as supported by post-war investigation. A case could be made either way, but I feel the intent of the writers falls in line with my position - they did not want such things happening.

---

Ah there lies the problem , the language and the intent .
Of course the intent originally was clear , people didn't want too much nasty stuff to happen in wars , a rather laudable intent .
Then comes the problem and a major problem it is too , countries negotiate and water down the wording because while they on the face of it they agree that war is a really nasty thing and something realy ought to be done to stop it being too nasty , they at the same time don't want to be too resricted when they make wars , so little words are added and taken away , one small change makes an originally strong and clear intent a wishy-washy affair that has as many holes as a delicate fabric put on an intense cycle and then quick dried .
While the various Hague and Geneva conventions are really good examples of this the Kellog pact is even better . It had the best intent possible , it meant to be really clear , then the parties involved started putting it through the mangle argueing with each other over which words to change , then when they agreed with which words to change they went and argued with themselves over what the words they had agreed to really meant .
The result was a piece of legislation that was so badly worded and so full of loopholes that it could never really be used at all .
So the original intent is clear Panzer , but the resulting document does not reflect that intent and as this concerns a legal document it is the resulting document that matters when it comes to the issue of the legality of the actions in question .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I agree that we didn't start the war but the Kaiser gave Austria blanket support which meant he was basically asking for trouble. I mean if you want to prevent a war you don't go to your enraged ally and tell them "go ahead and do whatever you want, we'll be right behind you".
Pretty much everyone wanted the war and they all also happily jumped onto their trucks and trains prematurely celebrating their big victory, until they arrived at the actual front and got a dose of reality, or lead.

---

You could likewise argue that the Czar was responsible because he refused to back down from supporting the Serbians.

Well, at least the Italians had no problems weasling themselves out of their treaty obligations...or turning on their former allies, for that matter.

I don't get that whole "XXX started WWI, that's their fault !". Everyone was seeing it coming since the 1880's.
The whole debate about who mobilized first, who attacked first, who did this and that is pretty much pointless. Unlike WWII that could IMHO have been avoided by simply spanking Hitler when he started the troubles, WWI was the main aim of most european nations.

And lol @ Krook. He alone makes visiting this forum worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

You could likewise argue that the Czar was responsible because he refused to back down from supporting the Serbians.

---

Well yeah, my point was that pretty much everyone was responsible in a way, including the people of the respective countries who mostly supported their leaders with their blind nationalism.

I remember writing an essay on the causes of WWI.

I think I went along with Fritz Fischers "Krieg der Illusionen" (sp?) view, basically that the Germans started the war based on domestic concerns.

Quote:

---

I remember writing an essay on the causes of WWI.

---

Was it "Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry" ?

Gentlemen,

Parts of this thread have devolved into beastliness and deliberate provocation.

If it is to remain open, such behaviour will stop immediately.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

No, you took the easy way out - the way of scapegoats and hatred, because of deep rooted bigotry towards certain peoples.

---

Germany was offered a way out that led to more prosperity than Germans had known since before the war. In countries with twenty years of death and rampant inflation, you tend to vote for the parties that promise the most radical change. These parties were the National Socialists and the Communists. In the 1933 elections (where the Nazi Party had 43.9% of the vote, so the "all Germans voted for Hitler" myth is pretty much shot), the next two parties after the Nazi Party were what? That's right, the SPD and the KPD. That's three evils.

Maybe you should look at Austria instead if you want you "overwhelming support."

Quote:

---

And who started the illegal bombing of cities?

---

I'll go into that later, like I said. I'm treading the line with my schedule just by posting this.

Quote:

---

I think Germany deserved it, because they set the tone for WWII.

---

If you were blamed for something you didn't do, your country was plunged into civil war, your territories were stripped, and your national pride destroyed, what would happen in most countries? You find a way to fight back. Germans did that. The Lloyd George quote holds true:

"You may strip Germany of her colonies,
reduce her armaments to a mere police force,
and her navy to that of a fifth-rate power;
all the same, in the end if she feels she has been unjustly treated
in the peace of 1919 she will find means of exacting
retribution from her conquerors."

Quote:

---

Sherman burned our own country in the civil war, so I have little sympathy for countries led by Nazis.

---

You have no sympathy for civilians? Germany was a dictatorship, not a democracy. I bet you have no sympathy for Iraqi civilians either? They were led by a pretty brutal man as well, were they not (in a dictatorship).

Quote:

---

Oh, because the Germans didn't support the Nazis at all, did they?

---

I was talking about my family specifically. Whether Germans (less than half in the 1933 election, you may recall) supported Hitler or not is rather irrelevant. The last chance for the German voice to be heard was in 1933. And regardless of what you think, many Germans did not support the Nazi Party, and even less supported it after 1943.

But that does not matter. Is a firestorm justified for the women and children of Germany? Is the same justified for America when it wages wars of aggression?

Quote:

---

Dogs don't hold grudges for twenty years. Are you suggesting dog and human psychology are the same?

The history was world war one was a war unlike any other before it. Yes, parts of the treaty were probably unfair and overly harsh.

---

Panzer answered this very eloquently and correctly.

EDIT: And I'd like to make it clear to all Orgahs that I in no way, shape, or form condone the crimes of the Nazi Party. I also disagree with that party on an idealogical basis.

It makes as much sense as violent criminals claiming bad youth as a reason for their behaviour. It might go a long way in explaining things, but not in excusing them.

So let me get this argument straight...

How many maids did the American Congress hire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

So let me get this argument straight...

How many maids did the American Congress hire?

---

And more importantly - are the taxpayers aware of these new expenses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

So let me get this argument straight...

How many maids did the American Congress hire?

---

Given the nature of american politicans it will be one for each desk in the House and two for each desk in the Senate. Then they will hide the cost by adding a rider in another bill to pay for it, probably under the defense spending bills.