History

Re: WWII a just war?

Josh Dennis — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:41:18 GMT

GilesStratton:
but Stalin had killed 1000 people to Hitler's 1 by the the outbreak of the war, and yet, the British thought it was acceptable to ally with Stalin.

always thought that was interesting myself

GilesStratton:
Hitler was never going to attack Britian or France, in fact, he wanted an alliance with Britain.

well thats because the duke of Windsor harry was a nazi sypathizer and in line to be king

Re: WWII a just war?

Natalie — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:26:26 GMT

Babi Yar massacre, 1941, 33000 Jews killed (Soviet history downplayed this by preferring to call them simply "Soviet citizens").

It's obvious that the West, including US, didn't enter the war to save the Jews (they did little enough to help them before it), but to say that they cause Holocaust is really stretching it.

Re: WWII a just war?

process — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:10:24 GMT

"by the beginning of the war most Germany's Jews had been expelled or left. It is only around 1942 (when Hitlers sees that the war might be lost and in his paranoia blames the Jews) at the Swansee conference in Berlin that the final solution begins. It is then that Jews start being transferred to the concentration camps from the Ghettos they were originally being held in."

On the contrarry, Jews were being sent en mass to the concentration camps from late 1938 following the policy of 'extermination through labour' whereby they were worked to death rather than being killed directly.
The direct extermination began towards the end on 1939 when gas vans were first used, there was also mass extermination through shooting as the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
The Wannsee Conference resulted in the creation of the death camps themselves, mainly as a result of Heydrich's complaints about the inefficiency of other methods and his impatience with the progress of the Final Solution.
Also, I don't think Hitler had realised that the war was lost by the winter of '41-42, although Operation Barbarossa had ground to a halt, it hadn't yet become clear that the USSR was able to make a successful counter-offensive.

Re: WWII a just war?

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:04:29 GMT

Hence I opened with asking "effective at what", because there is no point in formulating an argument if the term is not qualified to begin with...

Re: WWII a just war?

Lord Shore-Twilly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:56:26 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
Which has what to do with it being economically efficient

As I asked another user; what has that got to do with the price of tea in China? You are making a retort to point nobody has made. The point I have been attempting to raise and defend is not whether ensuring military 'might' is economically efficent, but rather does it fulfill the purpose of "providing a greater insentive among other power(s) to find a peaceful conclusion to disputes and should that fail to ensure that the military in question defeats its opponent". I am not attempting to argue that there are not firm reasons to oppose a military, financial cost being perhaps the least important.

Jon Irenicus:

Which I did, by asking his Lordship to define "effective".

Evidently you are confused. Requesting that I define various words within my post is not a substitute for formulating an actual argument. I hope that has put your confusion to rest.

Re: WWII a just war?

sirmonty — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:32:21 GMT

Jon Irenicus:
Which I did, by asking his Lordship to define "effective".

I lol'd.

Jon I hope you publish a book someday because you seem to be very well informed and I really enjoy reading your posts.

Re: WWII a just war?

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:10:26 GMT

More capable in fulfilling its purpose; providing a greater insentive among other power to find a peaceful conclusion to disputes and should that fail to ensure that the military in question defeats its opponent. Quite obviously a military that commands more might than its opponent has a far greater probability in fulfilling these aims.

Which has what to do with it being economically efficient, i.e. geared to serving its consumer's needs? I bet in a sense gulags were "effective" too, as well as NASA, as well as the Soviet space programme... as is conscription, if you want a slave army... basically anything you throw bucket-loads of money at. Why don't minarchists support it then?

Another example of a retort that basically boils down to "nu-uh", but lacks anything to discuss or convince. Why don't you explain the problem you have with my position? I will either offer a responce, or, if I find your argument to be insurmountable, revise my position.

Which I did, by asking his Lordship to define "effective".

Re: WWII a just war?

Lord Shore-Twilly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:45:18 GMT

Juan:
I take it you are 'british' ?

What has nationality got to do with the price of tea in China?

Re: WWII a just war?

Lord Shore-Twilly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:39:50 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

Define "effectiveness"

More capable in fulfilling its purpose; providing a greater insentive among other power to find a peaceful conclusion to disputes and should that fail to ensure that the military in question defeats its opponent. Quite obviously a military that commands more might than its opponent has a far greater probability in fulfilling these aims.

Jon Irenicus:
because I think it is you who has not bothered thinking it through.

Another example of a retort that basically boils down to "nu-uh", but lacks anything to discuss or convince. Why don't you explain the problem you have with my position? I will either offer a responce, or, if I find your argument to be insurmountable, revise my position.

Re: WWII a just war?

Juan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:24:09 GMT

I take it you are 'british' ?

Re: WWII a just war?

Lord Shore-Twilly — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:22:56 GMT

Juan:
Your retort is ridiculous and purposely misses the point. Let me put it this way - the aim of public militarism is not defense.

Not at all, your point was a strawman proffering a retort to a point nobody had made, and worse still it was a complete exaggeration aimed to score emotive points.

Re: WWII a just war?

Wilmot of Rochester — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:52:29 GMT

Natalie:

I'm not suggesting anything, much less than anyone is blameless. I just question some assertions here that it's the Japanese (and Germans even) always seem to be "provoked" into attacking or committing atrocities. Black ships of Commodore Perry is not an excuse for imperialist invasions of other countries.

Not always.

Just in this particular case. It's not a narrative here for me. It's just the facts that I've seen which are a bit deeper than what my high school history teacher could tell me.

Re: WWII a just war?

Juan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:17:23 GMT

I think the point is that all sides commit unprovoked atrocities...

What is being objected to, I believe, is the idea that the American government had 'no choice' but to always engage in 'defensive' wars including WWI & WWII.

Re: WWII a just war?

Natalie — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:11:28 GMT

I'm not suggesting anything, much less than anyone is blameless. I just question some assertions here that it's the Japanese (and Germans even) always seem to be "provoked" into attacking or committing atrocities. Black ships of Commodore Perry is not an excuse for imperialist invasions of other countries.

Re: WWII a just war?

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:47:16 GMT

You should ponder what you are actually saying. In this case, where the quality of the armed forces is entirely qualified by 'might', 'might' manifestly is what determines 'right'. What other way do you determine the effectiveness of an armed force than attempting to analyse its 'might'?

I guess you didn't think this through.

Define "effectiveness" because I think it is you who has not bothered thinking it through.