GabonX interjects an interesting poll

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think it was so much parania as a firm belief in their superiority and destiny to rule the world. Remember, at the time, their Emperor was GOD.

As for us attacking them.. true, there were no plans. Perhaps there should have been, given what was happening in China, but back then those were largely just "strange countries with funny faces" as far as most Americans were concerned, including our leadership (to a point -- our leaders certainly recognized their power and trade potential).

Well to be fair America and others did recognise Japan's 'right' to interfere in China and had done so since at least the Boxers.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but are you saying you think Japan's inroads into China were justified? or that our responses were?

Surely someone who has been railing against Soviet transgressions is aware of the far extremes to which Japan went? IN fact, those killed and tortured under Japanese occupation were far greater, went on far longer and has never really recieved the international condemnation that Germany recieved.

[Rustovitch]

I don't think it was so much parania as a firm belief in their superiority and destiny to rule the world. Remember, at the time, their Emperor was GOD.

As for us attacking them.. true, there were no plans. Perhaps there should have been, given what was happening in China, but back then those were largely just "strange countries with funny faces" as far as most Americans were concerned, including our leadership (to a point -- our leaders certainly recognized their power and trade potential).

Well to be fair America and others did recognise Japan's 'right' to interfere in China and had done so since at least the Boxers.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but are you saying you think Japan's inroads into China were justified? or that our responses were?

Surely someone who has been railing against Soviet transgressions is aware of the far extremes to which Japan went? IN fact, those killed and tortured under Japanese occupation were far greater, went on far longer and has never really recieved the international condemnation that Germany recieved.

No what I mean is this, 'we' at the time understood and accepted that Japan had an interest in China. I think you have suggested that Japans militarism with regards china should have given us the alarm, but then it should have have given as the alarm decades before.

I've not been railing against any trangressions. I just feel that a war started for politics, with political objectives, where each side sought to fight to increase their own nations power and/or contain another nations power should not be distorted into the concept of a war between good and evil.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think it was so much parania as a firm belief in their superiority and destiny to rule the world. Remember, at the time, their Emperor was GOD.

As for us attacking them.. true, there were no plans. Perhaps there should have been, given what was happening in China, but back then those were largely just "strange countries with funny faces" as far as most Americans were concerned, including our leadership (to a point -- our leaders certainly recognized their power and trade potential).

Well to be fair America and others did recognise Japan's 'right' to interfere in China and had done so since at least the Boxers.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but are you saying you think Japan's inroads into China were justified? or that our responses were?

Surely someone who has been railing against Soviet transgressions is aware of the far extremes to which Japan went? IN fact, those killed and tortured under Japanese occupation were far greater, went on far longer and has never really recieved the international condemnation that Germany recieved.

No what I mean is this, 'we' at the time understood and accepted that Japan had an interest in China. I think you have suggested that Japans militarism with regards china should have given us the alarm, but then it should have have given as the alarm decades before.

I've not been railing against any trangressions. I just feel that a war started for politics, with political objectives, where each side sought to fight to increase their own nations power and/or contain another nations power should not be distorted into the concept of a war between good and evil.

hmmm... you disagree with the "just war" concept?

I agree, in theory. Perhaps even in reality, today. However, throughout history there have been plenty of wars that really did need to be faught. WWII was one.

[Rustovitch]

I don't think it was so much parania as a firm belief in their superiority and destiny to rule the world. Remember, at the time, their Emperor was GOD.

As for us attacking them.. true, there were no plans. Perhaps there should have been, given what was happening in China, but back then those were largely just "strange countries with funny faces" as far as most Americans were concerned, including our leadership (to a point -- our leaders certainly recognized their power and trade potential).

Well to be fair America and others did recognise Japan's 'right' to interfere in China and had done so since at least the Boxers.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but are you saying you think Japan's inroads into China were justified? or that our responses were?

Surely someone who has been railing against Soviet transgressions is aware of the far extremes to which Japan went? IN fact, those killed and tortured under Japanese occupation were far greater, went on far longer and has never really recieved the international condemnation that Germany recieved.

No what I mean is this, 'we' at the time understood and accepted that Japan had an interest in China. I think you have suggested that Japans militarism with regards china should have given us the alarm, but then it should have have given as the alarm decades before.

I've not been railing against any trangressions. I just feel that a war started for politics, with political objectives, where each side sought to fight to increase their own nations power and/or contain another nations power should not be distorted into the concept of a war between good and evil.

hmmm... you disagree with the "just war" concept?

I agree, in theory. Perhaps even in reality, today. However, throughout history there have been plenty of wars that really did need to be faught. WWII was one.

I am sympathetic to the concept of a just war, it is just that very few of them could be described as such. Certain countries had no choice but to fight Germany, Poland and Russia etc. Others may have been able to avoid it, at the cost of empowering a rival power so it was not really in their interests, which brings me back to my point that it was essentially down to power and politics.

[PLAYER57832]

I am sympathetic to the concept of a just war, it is just that very few of them could be described as such. Certain countries had no choice but to fight Germany, Poland and Russia etc. Others may have been able to avoid it, at the cost of empowering a rival power so it was not really in their interests, which brings me back to my point that it was essentially down to power and politics.

Except when "empowering a rival power not in their interests" means defeating countries who have made it plain they plan to conquer the world, and who are developing the technology that would have let them do it (namely, atomic power), I believe it does become a "just war".

Furthermore, at some point it really IS your business if thugs are coming to harass your neighbor, even if they are partially guilty.

[Rustovitch]

I am sympathetic to the concept of a just war, it is just that very few of them could be described as such. Certain countries had no choice but to fight Germany, Poland and Russia etc. Others may have been able to avoid it, at the cost of empowering a rival power so it was not really in their interests, which brings me back to my point that it was essentially down to power and politics.

Except when "empowering a rival power not in their interests" means defeating countries who have made it plain they plan to conquer the world, and who are developing the technology that would have let them do it (namely, atomic power), I believe it does become a "just war".

Furthermore, at some point it really IS your business if thugs are coming to harass your neighbor, even if they are partially guilty.

According to Nazi ideology Germany did not intend to conquer the world, they intended to conquer a vast swathe of territory true, but not the world. You could argue that success would have encouraged greater ambition, and you would probably be right.

But it's a moot point. Germany took too much too soon. To ignore it would have allowed the balance of power to shift too far in Germany's favour. If you want to argue that creates a moral justification for war then so be it, you won't be alone. It all depends on your world view.

[PLAYER57832]

I am sympathetic to the concept of a just war, it is just that very few of them could be described as such. Certain countries had no choice but to fight Germany, Poland and Russia etc. Others may have been able to avoid it, at the cost of empowering a rival power so it was not really in their interests, which brings me back to my point that it was essentially down to power and politics.

Except when "empowering a rival power not in their interests" means defeating countries who have made it plain they plan to conquer the world, and who are developing the technology that would have let them do it (namely, atomic power), I believe it does become a "just war".

Furthermore, at some point it really IS your business if thugs are coming to harass your neighbor, even if they are partially guilty.

According to Nazi ideology Germany did not intend to conquer the world, they intended to conquer a vast swathe of territory true, but not the world. You could argue that success would have encouraged greater ambition, and you would probably be right.

But it's a moot point. Germany took too much too soon. To ignore it would have allowed the balance of power to shift too far in Germany's favour. If you want to argue that creates a moral justification for war then so be it, you won't be alone. It all depends on your world view.

However, you spoke of evil versus good. In most western people's minds, a regime that sought to so strictly control its populace would be evil, even without the slaughter of millions. I certainly don't hold Stalin up, (he was not in the question, anyway), but the Nazis actually had a far more highly controlled economy as well as a more heavily controlled population than even Stalin. Hitler and Germany was the evil empire back then, not just for "political" reasons.

[muy_thaiguy]

I am sympathetic to the concept of a just war, it is just that very few of them could be described as such. Certain countries had no choice but to fight Germany, Poland and Russia etc. Others may have been able to avoid it, at the cost of empowering a rival power so it was not really in their interests, which brings me back to my point that it was essentially down to power and politics.

Except when "empowering a rival power not in their interests" means defeating countries who have made it plain they plan to conquer the world, and who are developing the technology that would have let them do it (namely, atomic power), I believe it does become a "just war".

Furthermore, at some point it really IS your business if thugs are coming to harass your neighbor, even if they are partially guilty.

According to Nazi ideology Germany did not intend to conquer the world, they intended to conquer a vast swathe of territory true, but not the world. You could argue that success would have encouraged greater ambition, and you would probably be right.

But it's a moot point. Germany took too much too soon. To ignore it would have allowed the balance of power to shift too far in Germany's favour. If you want to argue that creates a moral justification for war then so be it, you won't be alone. It all depends on your world view.

However, you spoke of evil versus good. In most western people's minds, a regime that sought to so strictly control its populace would be evil, even without the slaughter of millions. I certainly don't hold Stalin up, (he was not in the question, anyway), but the Nazis actually had a far more highly controlled economy as well as a more heavily controlled population than even Stalin. Hitler and Germany was the evil empire back then, not just for "political" reasons.

Actually, they were more or less about the same. The only difference was, was that Hitler took it beyond Germany's borders first. They both had secret police, both had work/death camps (gulags anyone?), except that Stalin killed almost anyone that knew military strategy while Hitler promoted them. During the war, Stalin promoted them and Hitler ignored them. A little give and take, but overall, about the same really.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, they were more or less about the same. The only difference was, was that Hitler took it beyond Germany's borders first. They both had secret police, both had work/death camps (gulags anyone?), except that Stalin killed almost anyone that knew military strategy while Hitler promoted them. During the war, Stalin promoted them and Hitler ignored them. A little give and take, but overall, about the same really.

In that regard, yes. However, I think Germany had more control over its economy. Probably in part because it was smaller and being in a war did not hurt, then of course it split afterward. So, its not precisely an equal comparison. Still, that is why I said Germany was more controlled, economically and politically than Stalin's government. Also, while Stalin had a long list of undesirables, I do believe Hitler's was far more extensive. Stalin mostly took out political opponents (some others, for sure). Hitler took out whole groups of "undesirables". (and political opponents)

[Titanic]

Actually, they were more or less about the same. The only difference was, was that Hitler took it beyond Germany's borders first. They both had secret police, both had work/death camps (gulags anyone?), except that Stalin killed almost anyone that knew military strategy while Hitler promoted them. During the war, Stalin promoted them and Hitler ignored them. A little give and take, but overall, about the same really.

In that regard, yes. However, I think Germany had more control over its economy. Probably in part because it was smaller and being in a war did not hurt, then of course it split afterward. So, its not precisely an equal comparison. Still, that is why I said Germany was more controlled, economically and politically than Stalin's government. Also, while Stalin had a long list of undesirables, I do believe Hitler's was far more extensive. Stalin mostly took out political opponents (some others, for sure). Hitler took out whole groups of "undesirables". (and political opponents)

I dont think having economic control makes anyone evil... Rest of it I agree with.

[PLAYER57832]

I dont think having economic control makes anyone evil... Rest of it I agree with.

No, but I was speaking in terms of the western view capitalism = good, communism/controlled economy = bad. Many people today tend to forget about Nazis economics in light of the true horrors they created, but one of the marks was a very heavily controlled economy. I suspect had they succeeded, that part might have been seen much the way communism came to be seen/is seen. (not that communism has to be evil, either .. its just that its real-life encarnations have not been very nice to date).

[Rustovitch]

However, you spoke of evil versus good. In most western people's minds, a regime that sought to so strictly control its populace would be evil, even without the slaughter of millions.

Well they had spent the past 6 years prior to war praising such a system, if you turn a blind eye to the genocide etc which most did the system would actually not appear very dictatorial. For instance there were outspoken critics of the nazi party in high government positions even during the war, that would never have happened under Franco, Stalin or Saddam.

I certainly don't hold Stalin up, (he was not in the question, anyway), but the Nazis actually had a far more highly controlled economy as well as a more heavily controlled population than even Stalin. Hitler and Germany was the evil empire back then, not just for "political" reasons.

As I understand it the Nazis actually allowed some limited political freedoms, and still enjoyed what was essentially a capitalist economy. So I'd disagree.

[Titanic]

I dont think having economic control makes anyone evil... Rest of it I agree with.

No, but I was speaking in terms of the western view capitalism = good, communism/controlled economy = bad. Many people today tend to forget about Nazis economics in light of the true horrors they created, but one of the marks was a very heavily controlled economy. I suspect had they succeeded, that part might have been seen much the way communism came to be seen/is seen. (not that communism has to be evil, either .. its just that its real-life encarnations have not been very nice to date).

The Nazis economic legacy is actually fairly good. When they came into power there was huge unemployment, hyperinflation, lack of public funds, negative economic growth etc... Even before WWII they had made the economy grow at a very fast rate, abolished unemployment, invested heavily and also kept a very low tax rate. The way they did this was evil, through forced labour and politicising the economy. Also don't confuse the Nazi economy with a communist economy, Hitler hated both capitalism and communism and made his economy in the "third position". Btw having a controlled economy is not necessarily bad, during WWII Britain took complete control of its economy and literally told every factory what to produce and took state control of a huge amount of different industries. Desperate times calls for desperate measures.

[PLAYER57832]

I dont think having economic control makes anyone evil... Rest of it I agree with.

No, but I was speaking in terms of the western view capitalism = good, communism/controlled economy = bad. Many people today tend to forget about Nazis economics in light of the true horrors they created, but one of the marks was a very heavily controlled economy. I suspect had they succeeded, that part might have been seen much the way communism came to be seen/is seen. (not that communism has to be evil, either .. its just that its real-life encarnations have not been very nice to date).

The Nazis economic legacy is actually fairly good. When they came into power there was huge unemployment, hyperinflation, lack of public funds, negative economic growth etc... Even before WWII they had made the economy grow at a very fast rate, abolished unemployment, invested heavily and also kept a very low tax rate. The way they did this was evil, through forced labour and politicising the economy. Also don't confuse the Nazi economy with a communist economy, Hitler hated both capitalism and communism and made his economy in the "third position". Btw having a controlled economy is not necessarily bad, during WWII Britain took complete control of its economy and literally told every factory what to produce and took state control of a huge amount of different industries. Desperate times calls for desperate measures.

True. I guess my analogy was wrong. That is, economically, the Nazis were not so bad. (we agree on the other parts, I believe).

[Titanic]

I dont think having economic control makes anyone evil... Rest of it I agree with.

No, but I was speaking in terms of the western view capitalism = good, communism/controlled economy = bad. Many people today tend to forget about Nazis economics in light of the true horrors they created, but one of the marks was a very heavily controlled economy. I suspect had they succeeded, that part might have been seen much the way communism came to be seen/is seen. (not that communism has to be evil, either .. its just that its real-life encarnations have not been very nice to date).

The Nazis economic legacy is actually fairly good. When they came into power there was huge unemployment, hyperinflation, lack of public funds, negative economic growth etc... Even before WWII they had made the economy grow at a very fast rate, abolished unemployment, invested heavily and also kept a very low tax rate. The way they did this was evil, through forced labour and politicising the economy. Also don't confuse the Nazi economy with a communist economy, Hitler hated both capitalism and communism and made his economy in the "third position". Btw having a controlled economy is not necessarily bad, during WWII Britain took complete control of its economy and literally told every factory what to produce and took state control of a huge amount of different industries. Desperate times calls for desperate measures.

True. I guess my analogy was wrong. That is, economically, the Nazis were not so bad. (we agree on the other parts, I believe).

Yer, definitely agree on the other parts.

[Rustovitch]

True. I guess my analogy was wrong. That is, economically, the Nazis were not so bad. (we agree on the other parts, I believe).

Though it is now argued that were it not for a war Germany would have been forced into bankruptcy, all that military spending was built on shaky grounds!

[jonka]

Notice how it says Nazi's and not Germans. But even then the National Socialist German Workers' Party wasn't evil, there was just one psychopath that got into power(In fact Socialists were major dissenters of WW1), and his cronies that would do anything to get a pat on the head. Like we have noted in many middle east threads, there would have been somebody else willing to seize power, if not Hitler. I think the fault lies with the Treaty of Versailles.
If the Central powers had won WW1 and placed similar restrictions against France and England, there might have been a WW2 started by France, (and the Ottoman Empire would have continued to control in the middle east, rather than it decline into what it is today).

[GabonX]

That's very speculative to say the least..

[Rustovitch]

Very speculative indeed, if the central powers had won WW1 then it probably would not have been quite so convincing a victory as the one secured by the allies. Russia had been defeated, but it is more likely than not that the western front would have ground to a stalemate. Germany would been desperate to come to terms even in victory through fear of revolution. Britain would have been able to broker a return to the status quo and to an extent save the French bacon in the peace negotiations. The Ottoman Empire would have been screwed, allied armies still would have marched throughout the middle east and arab nationalism still would have been strong... I think the best it could hope for would be a slower more painful death.

In any case France and Britain did start WW2, they declared war on Germany!

[jonka]

Very speculative indeed, if the central powers had won WW1 then it probably would not have been quite so convincing a victory as the one secured by the allies. Russia had been defeated, but it is more likely than not that the western front would have ground to a stalemate. Germany would been desperate to come to terms even in victory through fear of revolution. Britain would have been able to broker a return to the status quo and to an extent save the French bacon in the peace negotiations. The Ottoman Empire would have been screwed, allied armies still would have marched throughout the middle east and arab nationalism still would have been strong... I think the best it could hope for would be a slower more painful death.

In any case France and Britain did start WW2, they declared war on Germany!

The German strategy at that point was trying for a decisive offensive victory, I am saying if they had won that victory, not if the scales were slightly tipped in there direction. I'm saying they get a decisive victory at the Second Battle of the Marne (or at some other point in the war broke through enemy lines, etc. and made it to Paris, and other large cities, threaten to destroy them, France would surrender (I think a good analogy would be New York, Chicago, Philadelphia: If there were nukes in these three cities, would the US cave in, or let them be destroyed). They could seize the French Navy, and then Germany's navy would Rival the British and they could easily resume sub warfare, they could get the Italians to Join them for a swathe of land, and could focus their army towards the Balkans, Middle east, India, wherever. Eventually subs would have gotten lucky, and sunken large British ships, and then Germany could defeat the British Navy with its now superior surface navy, and land on it. A large chunk of its army would be captured, starved, or surrounded in western Europe.

The Aggressor starts a conflict, a declaration of war means very little, are you saying France and England invaded Poland?

But this is distracting from the point, I am saying if Germany had done the same to France and England (reperations, the rhineland, restrictions on army,ect)that they did to it. France and England likely would have responded like Germany did after ww1.

[Rustovitch]

The German strategy at that point was trying for a decisive offensive victory, I am saying if they had won that victory, not if the scales were slightly tipped in there direction. I'm saying they get a decisive victory at the Second Battle of the Marne (or at some other point in the war broke through enemy lines, etc. and made it to Paris, and other large cities, threaten to destroy them, France would surrender (I think a good analogy would be New York, Chicago, Philadelphia: If there were nukes in these three cities, would the US cave in, or let them be destroyed). They could seize the French Navy, and then Germany's navy would Rival the British and they could easily resume sub warfare, they could get the Italians to Join them for a swathe of land, and could focus their army towards the Balkans, Middle east, India, wherever.

The 2nd battle of the Marne was far too late in the war, sure things were turning back in Germany's favour but Germany was exhausted from the war.

To win the war outright Germany really needs to take Paris/force a French surrender by say 1916, but in any case seizing the French navy would be all well and good. By the combined German and French fleets would have been smaller than the British navy, and of course the Italians through their lot in with the other side.

The Aggressor starts a conflict, a declaration of war means very little, are you saying France and England invaded Poland?

In WW2 Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland.

But this is distracting from the point, I am saying if Germany had done the same to France and England (reperations, the rhineland, restrictions on army,ect)that they did to it. France and England likely would have responded like Germany did after ww1.

Maybe, but thats not a very likely turn of events.