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


Walter Richard Rudolf Hess (Heß in German) (April 26, 1894–August 17, 1987) was a prominent figure in Nazi Germany as Adolf Hitler's deputy in the Nazi Party. On the eve of war with the Soviet Union, he flew to Scotland in an attempt to negotiate peace. He was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to life in prison.

Like Joseph Goebbels, Hess was privately distressed by the declaration of war on England. According to William L. Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hess may have hoped to score a stunning diplomatic victory by sealing a peace between the Reich and Britain. He flew to Britain in May 1941 to meet the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, parachuting from his Messerschmitt Bf 110 over Renfrewshire on May 10 and landing (which broke his ankle) at Floors Farm near Eaglesham, just south of Glasgow.


Funny how revisionist scum love to omit the above from history books. I never learnt the above when being taught WWII history.
Retards like to parrot that Germany was imperalistic, yet it was Britain and France which declared war on Germany first. The excuse that 'Germany invaded Poland' is a lame old cop out. Naughty Germany for attempted to restore its old borders before going to smash the Communists. It's not like Russia invaded any countries during WWII... right? Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland welcomed the Russians with open arms!!! :rolleyes:

Guess what Rudolf Hess was charged with at Nuremburg?



Hess was detained by the British for the duration of the war, then was a defendant at the Nuremberg Trials for crimes against peace and given a life sentence.


Yeah, like, Hess was committing crimes against peace when he risked his life to parachute into Britain to negotiate a peace with the British Govt.

I rest my case. The Nazis were nothing more than war mongers!!!

History is written by the victors.
Just like the civil war- damn yankees.

Funny how revisionist scum love to omit the above from history books. I never learnt the above when being taught WWII history.

It's in many of the books. Maybe you didn't read enough.


It's not like Russia invaded any countries during WWII... right?

Two wrongs don't make a right.


Yeah, like, Hess was committing crimes against peace when he risked his life to parachute into Britain to negotiate a peace with the British Govt.

I think the prosecution was referring to what happened before that.

James R:


It's in many of the books. Maybe you didn't read enough.

Oh yes, I don't doubt that it is in some obscure history books. But not the history books used children in secondary school. When I went to school, WWII was portrayed as 'Good' vs 'Evil', where the Nazis were evil, imperialistic scum.



Two wrongs don't make a right.

Where did I claim that it does? However, it is rarely, if ever, mentioned to schoolkids that Russia invaded Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland. Because the obvious questions they would ask are 'Why did France and Britain declare war on Russia?' and 'Why wasn't Russia charged with 'crimes against peace' at Nuremburg?'

At least Germany had a valid excuse for invading France and Poland. It wanted to restore old borders. Whether Alsace and Lorraine, plus part of Poland, belonged to Germany is controversial, since the European powers have been warring and annexing land from each other for centuries. However, at least Germany had a claim to it (Franco-Prussian War). Russia did not.



I think the prosecution was referring to what happened before that.

Hess risks his life to get into Britain, breaking his ankle. He wants peace with Britain.
Britain not only imprisons him, but refuses to accept peace with Germany, despite Hitler repeatedly begging for peace. The British then bomb Germany, including aiming at civilian targets in German cities such as Dresden.

And then Hess is charged with 'crimes against peace'. Can you not see the hypocrisy? Why was Russia not charged with 'crimes against peace'? What about Britain, who refused to accept a peace deal with Germany?

...despite Hitler repeatedly begging for peace.



Excuse me! Where did you dredge up THAT piece of fiction?!?!

The fucking Nazis always wanted to make peace, so they could avoid a coordinated allied attack and pick them off one by one when it was convenient. You can't possibly believe that they were just misunderstood peaceniks, they wouldn't have honored any treaty, they were ruthless.

Exactly! The Nazi's tried to make peace with Brittain to prevent them from attacking Germany. It was a trick, and it failed. Like Spidergoat said, Hitler would have made peace with them, then destroyed them the first chance they had for a one-on-one battle.
Who feeds you this shit, mountainhare? Who made you believe that the bastards who tried to kill an entire race were really peaceful people? Not only that, but what makes you believe it?

JD

The Nazis had a peace treaty with Russia, just before they invaded.

You never heard of the faithful bulldog Hess losing his marbles and flying the channel to try to talk peace?! Really? What rock have you been living under?


Oh yes, I don't doubt that it is in some obscure history books. But not the history books used children in secondary school. When I went to school, WWII was portrayed as 'Good' vs 'Evil', where the Nazis were evil, imperialistic scum.

Ah. The rock of secondary school...
High school history classes are shit. Can't really blame them. They only have 9 months or so to cram it all into a single course. I... don't really recall what I was taught in high school about WWII. Not much. Certainly not the nuts and bolts. The beginning. The ending. The Holocaust. Russia's involvement. Japan and the nukes...
Hmm. All I can remember clearly from high school history is the older stuff. Revolutionary war. War of 1812. Etc... I'd think that more time would be spent on WWII as there is such a wealth of information on it (take note of the History Channel and their obsession with WWII because of all the archival footage).

Anyway.
Yeah. Hess went off his rocker and thought that he'd save the Reich by single-handedly establishing a peace accord with the UK.

Hitler wasn't happy about this, you know. It certainly wasn't his plan. It showed weakness and he despised the showing of weakness.

Now. As to the question of Hitler only wanting peace for the moment... well. It's possible. There's no true way to answer that question. But, it is known that Hitler always wanted peace with England. He always thought that Germany and England were natural partners. He always thought in his heart that England would someday realize this as well. In fact, it has been said that he invaded Russia because he thought that would inspire the Brits to ally with him against the commies. (And you can bet your ass they thought about it too...)

So. Would Hitler have betrayed England in the end? Maybe. Hitler was certainly powerhungry. But, he was also Eurocentric. He wanted the continent. His Eurocentrism cost him dearly in the war. He lost North Africa largely because he didn't feel it important to the war effort. If properly supplied, Rommel would have held and the course of the war might have gone completely differently.

So. Considering this, I find it likely that Hitler would have allowed Britain to maintain its non-European empire. What would he care? He would have had what he wanted.


Consider also his relationship with Mussolini. Hitler admired Mussolini. He was a true ally to the man. Even when Mussolini and his forces failed time and time again to add anything positive to the war effort, Hitler still stood by him and defended him. Called him friend. He even rescued him from Allied captivity. Hitler wasn't necessarily the traitorous dog he was made out to be. Sure, he was crazy, racist fucker. But that doesn't mean he was all bad.


Anyway.
Obscure history books?
Right.
You really ought to try reading sometime.

I find the whole Hess affair really intriguing. The generally accepted theory is that Hess acted without Hitler's knowledge yet there is no record of any retalitory action taken against Hess's family. Not exactly Hitler's style when confronted with public opposition. There is also the insistence on keeping Hess at Spandau. Very curious.
My wild guess. Prior to invading the USSR Hess was dispatched to negotiate with the British carring an ultimatum make peace or the Nazi's implement a final solution. Certainly a good reason to see that Hess never told his story.

The book to read on the Hess affair is "Double Standards" by Lynn Picknett et al (Time Warner 2002). Read it with utmost skepticism, of course, but it is well researched and referenced. The Hess affair is indeed intriguing!

I agree with most of what invert nexus has to say -- save that I do not believe Hess was mad. The theory that a political or military figure went mad, apparently very suddenly, must always be treated as a very suspect historical explanation. He may, of course, have been tricked. Or those who invited him over may have been infiltrated.

My wild guess. Prior to invading the USSR Hess was dispatched to negotiate with the British carring an ultimatum make peace or the Nazi's implement a final solution. Certainly a good reason to see that Hess never told his story.

sounds like a very good guess.

JDawg:


Exactly! The Nazi's tried to make peace with Brittain to prevent them from attacking Germany.

Lyke OMG, that is so unorthodox! What sort of assholes try to make peace with a country so that that country won't attack it!? That's definitely not the point of a peace treaty...

I agree with most of what invert nexus has to say -- save that I do not believe Hess was mad.

Well. I didn't really mean that he went crazy... more like he made a stupid choice.

Hess's decision to attempt to make peace as he did speaks volumes about the types of things Hitler said to those close to him during those long boring dinners that Hitler was famous for throwing... Hitler believed that England and Germany were meant for each other. Partners made in heaven. And he would go on and on about how this was so and why.

Hess believed him. And therefore he acted on that belief. He acted in a manner which he thought was best for his country and for his Fuhrer. He believed that peace with England was inevitable and only bitter pride was keeping them apart. Hess, a simple man, elected to forego said pride and to act as the bridge between these two noble empires...

He misjudged.

Can't blame him though. Hess was never known for deep thought. A man with a mind far too simple to ever 'go crazy'.

Or perhaps that is merely the facade created by the historians to cover up something more sinister?

Perhaps. I doubt it though. Unless you think Speer lied as well in his book Inside the Third Reich?


Another thing to consider on this is that the Nazi's were anal about documentation. They documented everything from war plans to the extermination of the jews to how many rolls of toilet paper were used in the governmental buildlings on a yearly basis (this last is pure conjecture, but I bet I'm right...) As secret as Hess's mission might have been, it would still have been documented.

Man, I love the Nazis. They make such good historical characters.

It's too bad about the whole Jew thing, otherwise Hitler would make an excellent traic hero. It's just so tough these days, trying to romanticize a genocidal bastard.

My wild guess. Prior to invading the USSR Hess was dispatched to negotiate with the British carring an ultimatum make peace or the Nazi's implement a final solution.
Trouble with history, it's hard work -- and not at all the place for wild guesses! If you read and read and read, then by the time you are a Senior Citizen, you begin to understand the way of things.

First of all, you have to understand how things stood in May 1941. The war was going badly for Britain -- on almost every front. Worst of all, loss of merchant ships to U-boats brought the prospect of starvation. Churchill faced a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, surviving it at least in part because his opponents did not wish to gratify the Germans with the image of a nation divided.

Labour MP Richard Stokes wrote to former Premier Lloyd George, "What many of us hope [is] that if the Hess visit holds out any prospect of bringing the war to an early conclusion that opportunity should not be lost." Among members of the House of Lords, this may have been a majority opinion. Because things afterwards turned out as they did, much correspondence and many diaries expressing pro-Peace views have conveniently disappeared.

Hess was neither mad nor a simpleton. In fact, as a prisoner he was given IQ tests and scored well. [1] Hess came with Hitler's blessing. [2] He was invited to Britain by highly placed individuals in the "Peace Party". [3] He came with peace terms that would have been acceptable to much of the population of Britain. Indeed, it would have been in Britain's best interest to accept those terms. [4] The plans for Hess's visit were learned of by those opposed to peace, but they saw the advantage of letting Hess arrive, and of letting Hitler believe in the prospect of peace.

Each of these assertions can be argued separately. I believe each of them can be justified.

Nazi's imperialism was all about so called Lebensraum

revisionist scum .....Retards like to parrot ......a lame old cop out. Are you always so constrained when discussing history? Where did you acquire such emotional detachment? It is a credit to all Lepus timidus scoticus. And it isn't even March.

Lyke OMG, that is so unorthodox! What sort of assholes try to make peace with a country so that that country won't attack it!? That's definitely not the point of a peace treaty...

The Russians...

And we know how well that worked out for them.

;)


One "obscure history book" you might try reading is Mein Kampf, in which none other than the "Crazy Austrian Paperhanger" himself lays out his plans to carve out a German empire.

As to this business of "restoring Germany's borders"...
Please recall that Germany lost that territory because of WW1, a conflict which the Kaiser was itching to get into, even if accusing Germany of starting it might be oversimplifying things a bit.
"To the victors go the spoils", so the saying goes, and the victorious European powers did what they had been doing for centuries to the losing side - namely chopping up their lands and taking some prime hunks for themselves - no big surprise, there.
That they set the stage for the next dustup to some degree by their post-war policies is a lot easier to see from the vantage point of 80+ years after the fact.


From a personal perspective - mind you, some people are wont to call me a kook, but what the hey - I always thought it quite amusing that in the propaganda of the period, Britain was portrayed in the West as "The Last Bastion of Freedom In Europe", fighting doggedly the dark, evil, "ratzi" menace to all things right and good and civilized.
When I look at the nazi model for the "Grossdeutsche Reich", I see a sort of land-locked version of the British Empire:
A vast area of conquered people made to serve the interests of their imperial masters.

It's over-simplifying somewhat, obviously. Clearly the British didn't pursue a consistent policy of extermination of anyone who was non-British, for example.
Still... I find it hard not to view British opposition to the rise of Germany under any manner of regime in some sense as amounting to an elder slave-empire not wanting it's quite profitable status quo upset by a perceived rival power.

.

Riverwind,

Perhaps. The conspiracy would be quite deep though. As I said, even Speer backs up the mainstream historical view of Hess as a simpleton who took it on himself to do what he did. Speer's memoirs were written in secret, by the way, on bits of toilet paper and the like. (Or maybe that's more conspiracy?)

As to Hess's IQ tests. I never said he was stupid. I said he was simple. There is a difference.


Indeed, it would have been in Britain's best interest to accept those terms.

You're probably right on this one. If Britain had made peace with Germany, then they probably would be a stronger world power today. They'd still likely have an empire because in a world where Germany was victorious, imperialism would still be a-ok. In fact, I bet they'd have a larger empire than they had before.

I do wonder about Japan, however. Would Germany have annulled the pact with Japan in favor of one with Britain? Britain faced territorial disputes with Japan that were not present with Germany. I wonder if they could have settled those disputes amicably?

And then you'd have to consider America's role in this new world. If Britain had made peace, then America would have had no reason nor incentive to fight. Plus, there were contingents in America who sued for peace with Germany as well. "Better than the communists," it was said.

So. What would have happened? The question, again, is over Japan. Japan had its eyes on the Pacific islands and China. Both of which were already claimed, in part, by Americans. I doubt that these disputes could have been settled peacefully even if Britain's were.

So. The queston of peace would have been Germany's attitude with Japan. I find Germany and Japan to be strange bedfellows to begin with. So perhaps Germany would have given America and Britain a free hand with Japan while it dealt with Russia.

This would have been in Germany's best interest as it would have made Russia wary of invasion from the east and likely would have reduced its capability of defending its western borders somewhat.

Also, one might consider that if the war with Japan still occurred, then it is quite possible that America might still have developed the atomic bomb. And if that happened.... who knows? America might well have threatened Germany with it and America might still have ended up the world power of a completely new world... And George Bush would have fit right in... (Kidding. He is far too incompetent and the truth is that he hasn't taken advantage of several opportunities for consolidating power.)

Anyway. Starting to go along a Turtledove tangent in here.


Killjoy,


One "obscure history book" you might try reading is Mein Kampf, in which none other than the "Crazy Austrian Paperhanger" himself lays out his plans to carve out a German empire.

There was another thread around here where an excellent argument was made that Germany's intent towards Russia was merely a diversionary tactic. The most damning piece of evidence towards this regard is the lack of any intelligence or war plans made for an invasion of Russia prior to 1941. If Hitler had been planning on attacking Russia since the days of Mein Kampf, then there should have been reams and reams of notes, papers, reports, etc... The Germans were sticklers for this type of thing. But there was nothing until mid-1941. Very unusual. I never thought about it before reading it in this other thread but it makes sense. Look how well it worked out. France was completely taken off guard.


Please recall that Germany lost that territory because of WW1, a conflict which the Kaiser was itching to get into, even if accusing Germany of starting it might be oversimplifying things a bit.

WWI is a weak spot in my historical knowledge. I've been meaning to dig into it a bit better but haven't found any good resources for it. However, I've heard that Germany was not exactly the aggressive power in WWI. If Hapsburg stumbles across this thread, he'd probably know. He's got the Kaiser tattooed on his penis (or he will when he turns 18...)

Trouble with history, it's hard work -- and not at all the place for wild guesses! If you read and read and read, then by the time you are a Senior Citizen, you begin to understand the way of things.

First of all, you have to understand how things stood in May 1941. The war was going badly for Britain -- on almost every front. Worst of all, loss of merchant ships to U-boats brought the prospect of starvation.

When governments continue to keep the documents classified guesses are all you have. We never did get to hear Hess's story because the Allied Powers would never allow it to be revealed.

We hear alot about the desperate situation in Britian because it could not be resupplied by the it's colonies but logistics were begining to effect the Nazi's too. They had only what was available in the area's they occupied. They had no colonies to resupply from. Mass exterminations were not just a political statement they were a logistical necessity if they wanted to win.

I do not think Speer was part of the inner circle until after Hess was in British custody so I would doubt that Speer would have had knowledge of any high level plans in 1941.

When governments continue to keep the documents classified guesses are all you have. We never did get to hear Hess's story because the Allied Powers would never allow it to be revealed.
These are statements with which I have a lot of sympathy. There is an extraordinary amount of information still held under wraps by governments, and we cannot tell what records have been deliberately destroyed. It is very frustrating!

We should not forget how long it took for the wartime exploits of GCHQ Bletchley to become known. All the histories written in the years immediately following WWII were compiled in ignorance of the intelligence triumphs of Enigma codebreakers. France has consigned many wartime records to extraordinary periods of quarantine, making it difficult to investigate Jean Moulin -- in some ways as mysterious a figure as Hess.

However, there is more known (actually “on the record”) about Hess than many people realise. And not all records are under the control of governments; individuals have their own recollections. There are things that happened ahead of Hess's arrival at Dungavel House that indicate that his arrival was expected by what might loosely be described as "the authorities". We do know that “negotiations” took place with Hess, which he was allowed to believe were genuine. We know (and this comes as a surprise to many) that Hess had an aide in these “negotiations” – a PoW whom he had asked to be released to assist him.

What we do not know is who were the people involved in inviting Hess to make his visit to Scotland – and which of them were genuinely seeking a peace settlement, and which intended to betray him. Nor can we be sure what it was that led Hess to believe he had been assured “safe conduct”.

Picknett et al record the testimony of an Elizabeth Adam whose father was involved in the peace plan. Her father had told her, “It must have been pukka because of [the Duke of] Kent’s involvement.” (Imagine my surprise reading this on page 283 of Double Standards. I used to know Elizabeth in my student days!) There is other evidence pointing to the Duke of Kent as an active player in the search for a peaceful settlement.

There is much about Hess that we do not know, but when it comes to the big picture we can do much better than “guess” -– in the popular meaning of that word.

If you prefer you can call it an undocumented hypothesis.

I wish we could know more about "Ultra Secret" and the Enigma machine. The US has everything about it ultra classified.

At least Germany had a valid excuse for invading France and Poland. It wanted to restore old borders...

How many times in history have aggressors used that old line?

It would justify an Italian move to invade about half of Europe. Then we could all watch ghastly quiz shows with semi-naked females.
Or should we take it back much earlier in time: I think I'll start a movement - Europe for the Neanderthals.

But the Neanderthals migrated from Africa.
Europe was just an African colony.
Africa should own the whole world.

James R:


How many times in history have aggressors used that old line?

Numerous times. However, sometimes their claims have a ring of truth. It is not a crime to steal back something which was yours originally.

If you condemn the land grab by the Germans in WWII, you have to condemn the land grab by the French in WWI. And then you condemn the land grab by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War... etc etc.

James R:

Numerous times. However, sometimes their claims have a ring of truth. It is not a crime to steal back something which was yours originally.



Just a wee tad silly, don't you think? By that simplistic logic, England would be acting properly to attack a large portion of the world - including much of the U.S. and Canada. :bugeye:

think? By that simplistic logic, England would be acting properly to attack a large portion of the world - including much of the U.S. and Canada.

Because England has never attacked the U.S... or burnt Washington D.C to the ground.

I never mentioned anything about 'proper'. Attempting to put words in my mouth now, hmmm?

Because England has never attacked the U.S... or burnt Washington D.C to the ground.

I never mentioned anything about 'proper'. Attempting to put words in my mouth now, hmmm?

Not at all! You clearly said "It is not a crime to steal back something which was yours originally." And that perfectly implies that it would be proper.

You clearly said "It is not a crime to steal back something which was yours originally." And that perfectly implies that it would be proper.

Once again, I never mentioned anything about 'properness'. I mentioned that in the eyes of the law, it is not a crime to steal back something which was stolen from you. I never made any comment about moral 'correctness'.

Technically you appear to be correct Mountainhare. However:
The phrase 'it is not a crime' is colloquial and relates not to the legality of an act, but, as Light has suggested to its properness, or, in your words, its moral correctness.
Had you said It is not against international law ...etc you would appear to have a leg to stand on.
However:
"It is not a crime to steal back....". Stealing is a crime, so your original statement is shown to be logically flawed.
You might be best advised to quit now while you are still behind.

Technically you appear to be correct Mountainhare.

Wrong. Technically, I AM correct.


The phrase 'it is not a crime' is colloquial and relates not to the legality of an act, but, as Light has suggested to its properness, or, in your words, its moral correctness.

Wow, it seems that you are a mind reader as well! Tell me, at what age did you learn to read minds?



"It is not a crime to steal back....". Stealing is a crime, so your original statement is shown to be logically flawed.

And you are shown to be a retard, who can't grasp even simple statements.

Once again, in the eyes of the LAW, it is perfectly fine for someone to steal something back which is originally theirs.

That has nothing to do with what I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is proper. At no point did I state that since American law states that stealing what originally belonged to you is proper, then Germany's invasion was proper. However, if we are to hold Germany up to the same standards as the law in America or the U.K, it had a legitimate claim for going to war. If you are going to call Germany's actions evil, then you have to brand America's law as corrupt if you are to remain consistent.

It's amazing how blithering retards keep failing to grasp simple concepts.
"OMG, HE SAID THAT GERMANY'S INVASION WAS RIGHT BECAUSE AMERICA'S LAW SAYS SO!!111"

No you illiterate dumbfucks, I am pointing out the hypocrisy often employed by victors. Before spouting bullshit like 'Evil insane Germany' having 'no justification to restore old borders', explain why you see nothing wrong with American laws stating that stealing something which originally belonged to you is not theft. Also explain why it was fine for the British to invade America and drive the Indians off their land, or for the Israelis to drive the Arabs of their land. Israel 'restoring old borders' is fine, but God forbid Germany doing the same (despite it having a legitimate claim)!

No country has been created without war. If you're going to pick and choose about what sorts of imperialism are good and evil, you have to explain why, instead of just saying "OMG HITLER WAZ EVIL BECUZ HE INVADED COUNTRIES WHICH FORMERLY CONSTITUTED PRUSSIA!!!1111"

Mountainhare,


Wrong. Technically, I AM correct.

No. Technically you're a fucking jackass and possibly a troll. (I'm betting that you're just stupid though. Too dumb to be a troll.)


Wow, it seems that you are a mind reader as well! Tell me, at what age did you learn to read minds?

No, you illiterate bastard, he's reading your words, not your mind. I know that your semantical confusions make this a difficult distinction to comprehend, but just take my word for it. "Mind" does not equal "words". (Although, in a way mind does equal words.... Hmm. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying though, so I won't waste my time on this tangent.)


And you are shown to be a retard, who can't grasp even simple statements.

Now, now. Don't be so hard on yourself. Yes. You are proving to be a retard who not only has difficulty understanding simple statements but also doesn't even know basic history (and are also showing paranoid tendencies in your feelings that things are being hdden from you just because you're too stupid to pick up a real history book or even to turn on the history channel from time to time). But, there's hope for you still. If you listen to people who actually know how to communicate and have taken the time to learn some history then maybe you'll be more than the subhuman that you feel that yourself to be at present. There's always hope. But you will have to work for it. Humans don't have everything handed to thiem, you know.


Once again, in the eyes of the LAW, it is perfectly fine for someone to steal something back which is originally theirs.

Kindly quote me the law that states this. Can you? I suspect your legal education is as poor as your history.

Now. This isn't a law, per se, but you might have heard an old adage that goes like this: "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." Ring any bells? Does that have the 'ring of truth'? (What the fuck does that mean? Are you some kind of human truth-detector? Oh. Wait. You're not human, are you?)


That has nothing to do with what I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is proper. At no point did I state that since American law states that stealing what originally belonged to you is proper, then Germany's invasion was proper.

Stop your semantically stubborn bullshit. You're being a fucking ass.
The concept is simple. By saying that the invasion of Europe by Germany was legally sanctioned, then you are saying that it was legally proper. Yes. There is some slight semantical difference between the concept of legal properness and polite properness (i.e. sticking out your pinky while drinking tea) but I think the concept is simple enough even for your tiny mind to comprehend... maybe. Time will tell.


If you are going to call Germany's actions evil, then you have to brand America's law as corrupt if you are to remain consistent.

What law?


It's amazing how blithering retards keep failing to grasp simple concepts.

Yes. It is.


Also explain why it was fine for the British to invade America and drive the Indians off their land

That was a different time. Difficult as it is to believe, morals change. In the days of colonialism, it was considered proper to establish colonies in lands occupied by 'savages'. (*gasp*)

It was also considered proper to rule by the fist. Hitler was just born in the wrong time, that's all. Colonialism and imperialism is no longer an acceptable way of life. However, had Germany been successful in its landgrab then things would be different. In this way, England would have been better served to have joined with Germany and then she could have maintained her empire. America too might have jumped on the empire bandwagon in this new world. (As per my previous post on such things.)


or for the Israelis to drive the Arabs of their land

Now this is another story altogether. Many don't believe that the establishment of Israel is 'proper'. I am one of them.


No country has been created without war. If you're going to pick and choose about what sorts of imperialism are good and evil, you have to explain why, instead of just saying "OMG HITLER WAZ EVIL BECUZ HE INVADED COUNTRIES WHICH FORMERLY CONSTITUTED PRUSSIA!!!1111"

No. We don't consider Hitler evil because he invaded foreign countries (By the way, Germany was a part of Prussia. Therefore Germany had no right to the lands which constituted Prussia. Germany was only a vassal state (or something. Hapsburg knows all this shit. Where the fuck is that Kaiser-kissing bastard?))

Hitler is considered 'evil' (or at least sociopathic) because of a little thing called the Holocaust. He also slaughtered gypsies and slavs wholesale. Not in the act of war, but in the act of housecleaning. (Let me guess. That's something else you were never taught?)

And you're considered dumb becase you have amazing levels of difficulty with rather simple concepts.

Moutainhare, my post, where I pointed out some minor illogic in your arguments, was a lighthearted dig. I had assumed you were a moderately intelligent and reasonably educated individual who had just been momentarily sloppy in their writing - my own posts are replete with such oversights.

I had expected a similar lighthearted response from yourself, perhaps picking out a flaw in my own case (though I thought I hade been careful to exclude that possibility), or a wry grin accompanying an "you got me there Ophiolite".
But to my delight you suprised me with a torrent of invective and thoughtless nonsense. I say delight, since predictable responses can become so boring, don't you think. Sorry, you've already established that point.

I would like you to reflect on one thing. You stated this "Once again, in the eyes of the LAW, it is perfectly fine for someone to steal something back which is originally theirs." MountainHare, you cannot seriously mean that statement. Please identify the law that makes it legal to steal. Do you understand the meaning of the word steal.
Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you. There is no law that permits you to do that, is there? By that statement you are revealing yourself, to every reader of this site to be slightly foolish. To continue to to defend the statement you reveal yourself to be very immature. Fess up. You got it wrong. Saying so will earn respect. The reverse will generate little more than contempt.

Your choice.

invert nexus:


No. Technically you're a fucking jackass and possibly a troll. (I'm betting that you're just stupid though. Too dumb to be a troll.)

Oh look, the dumb sheep is bleating 'troll', as if I give a shit.



No, you illiterate bastard, he's reading your words, not your mind.

Apparently he needs to take a reading comprehension lesson, as do you.



Kindly quote me the law that states this. Can you?

Oh look, the dumb retard fails to grasp the concept that if you have ownership rights, taking something back which is yours is NOT classified as theft in the first place. He wants me to go hunting through precedent and previous rulings to prove something which even schoolkids know.



It was also considered proper to rule by the fist. Hitler was just born in the wrong time, that's all. Colonialism and imperialism is no longer an acceptable way of life.

Oh, colonialism and imperialism were no longer an 'acceptable' way of life? Says who, the French, who were quite happy with their land annexed in WWI? The British, who had humiliated Germany and had forced it to pay compensation? Yeah, colonialism was no longer acceptable to the Western powers who had grabbed plenty of land in previous wars.

If colonialism and imperalism were 'no longer acceptable', then explain why nobody protested when France made a land grab in WWI? Why nobody gave a shit when Russia took Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland? Why Russia continued to occupy countries like Poland and portions of Germany after WWII? Why France tried to retake Vietnam after WWII? Why France and Britain didn't want to give up their African colonies without a fight (Algeria, anyone?)

Of course, you're too fucking ignorant (or stupid) to realize that Hitler was merely doing what the other imperalistic, Western powers were doing AT THAT VERY TIME, and even AFTER WWII. The difference was that Hitler occupied European countries who could bite back, while countries like Britain and France occupied African, Arab or Asian countries. But then again, who has ever given a shit about the Arabs, Africans, or Asians, hey?

Imperialism is OK if you're occupying inferior races who don't know how to drink wine or sip tea!



Now this is another story altogether. Many don't believe that the establishment of Israel is 'proper'. I am one of them.

Good. At least you are consistent. But explain why the U.S saw Germany's 'redrawing' of borders was evil and imperalistic, while Israel's 'redrawing' was perfectly fine.


By the way, Germany was a part of Prussia. Therefore Germany had no right to the lands which constituted Prussia. Germany was only a vassal state

During the Franco-Prussian war, the German states, INCLUDING PRUSSIA, unified, coming under Prussian leadership. Prussia constituted a large part of the German Empire. Where are you pulling the above shit from? The Germany of today was never a 'vassal' state, because the Germany of today is a result of LOSING Prussian land to the French, Polish, and Russians. The Germany of today didn't exist back then...


Hitler is considered 'evil' (or at least sociopathic) because of a little thing called the Holocaust. He also slaughtered gypsies and slavs wholesale. Not in the act of war, but in the act of housecleaning. (Let me guess. That's something else you were never taught?)

Oh goodie. That means you'll be able to produce documentation from Hitler that demanded the mass murder of gypsies and slavs!

Oh wait, I've long given up on a parrot of THE Holocaust of producing evidence that the Nazis engaged in mass murder.

Last things first:


Oh wait, I've long given up on a parrot of THE Holocaust of producing evidence that the Nazis engaged in mass murder.

What the hell exactly do you know about any of this, Mountainhare? You didn't even know the widely-known fact on Hess's strange peace mission. Now you're going to say that you're knowledgeable enough to deny the validity of anything anyone else says?

You're a fucking joke, dude.

And a joke who denies the holocaust as well. Always strange when one comes across one as blatantly blind as that. So. I suppose you're a skinhead or something then? Pictures of Herr Hitler hanging on your bedroom wall? Do you masturbate to thoughts of Eva Braun? (Actually, for a WWII era chick, she was pretty cute. I'd fuck her. Even if she was a little chunky.)

Anyway.
Ha!
I'm not going to get into this issue of whether the holocaust occurred or not with you. The very fact that you deny it says a lot about the futility of this whole conversation.


Oh goodie. That means you'll be able to produce documentation from Hitler that demanded the mass murder of gypsies and slavs!

Yeah. I've got all Hitler's documents right here in my wall safe. Let me get them for you.
Jerkoff.

What exact tactic are you using here? Are you denying the holocaust altogether or just saying that Hitler wasn't part of it and that it was actually undertaken by people under Hitler rather than from the top man himself?

There exists documentation in piles and piles on the mass murder that took place in WWII. Beginning with the Einsatzgrupen and ending with the Zyklon gas chambers and crematoriums.

And how can you deny the film footage of walking skeletons?

You're seriously an anus. (Are you, by the way, a nihilist? I have this hunch...)


Oh look, the dumb retard fails to grasp the concept that if you have ownership rights, taking something back which is yours is NOT classified as theft in the first place. He wants me to go hunting through precedent and previous rulings to prove something which even schoolkids know.

No. Douchebag. That's what the court of laws are for. You have to prove your ownership. You have to prove it in a court of law. To just take it back is vigilanteism and is frowned upon.

So. You want me to dig up some holocaust documents. I'll do it if you can dig up the law that says its ok to steal back what was stolen from you.


Oh, colonialism and imperialism were no longer an 'acceptable' way of life? Says who, the French, who were quite happy with their land annexed in WWI? The British, who had humiliated Germany and had forced it to pay compensation? Yeah, colonialism was no longer acceptable to the Western powers who had grabbed plenty of land in previous wars.

You have no grasp of history seeing as how you only have the historical education of a 'secondary school' so I'll clue you in a little bit here.

The 20th century brought change to the world. It made the world a much smaller place and it made keeping things quiet practically impossible.

Colonialism and imperialism, to a large part, depend upon isolation. This is why the imperial and colonial powers were so successful in lands far from home. It took so long for information to trickle back to the common people from the colonies that the extent to which the powers could maintain their hold was quite extreme.

With the shrinking of the world this was made impossible. Any difficulty in the colonies was front page news the very next day. And in the newsreels. Soon to be on television.

To hold one's colonies demanded a certain heavy-handedness. Most modern nations had long since pretended that they no longer were warlike and yet their behavior in their colonies showed different.

This is why colonialism and imperialism are no longer 'proper'. Because the moral implications of colonialism are unstomachable by the present and 'proper' philosophies of governance.

This is why I stated that if Germany had won the war and if Britain had sided with Germany then there'd still be a British Empire. And the odds are that America would have joined the team and there'd be an American Empire as well. Germany probably would have satisfied itself with Europe and possibly North Africa (although Hitler never cared much about North Africa). And Britain and America probably would have split much of the rest of the globe. In this new world view, brutal dominance over an area would be perfectly acceptable and colonialism would not have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

But, Germany lost. It's colonialist viewpoint lost with it. Such are the vagaries of fate. Came pretty close to winning. If only Hitler hadn't been such a fool.


If colonialism and imperalism were 'no longer acceptable', then explain why nobody protested when France made a land grab in WWI?

Because it was an outcome of a war. That's what happens at the end of wars. Boundaries change. That's usually the cause of wars. The heart of wars. Territory.

However, I wouldn't say nobody objected. Plenty objected. Plenty didn't think the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were proper. However, such is the fate of war.

Why are you so focused on the end of WWI? Let's look instead to the end of WWII. Did France make a huge land grab there as well? Did the western powers learn a lesson from the Treaty of Versailles or did they not?


Why nobody gave a shit when Russia took Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland? Why Russia continued to occupy countries like Poland and portions of Germany after WWII?

Because this was a mexican standoff. A little thing called the cold war.

How old are you, Mountainhare? Do you remember what it was like when the Soviet Union existed?

The Soviets took land and held it (although they didn't actually annex the land. Each of those countries were self-ruling... ostensibly.) And they were 'allowed' to do so because the west didn't want to fight a war with Russia. Especially after Russia got the bomb. (You might have heard of the atom bomb perchance? Do they teach that in history class?)


Why France tried to retake Vietnam after WWII? Why France and Britain didn't want to give up their African colonies without a fight (Algeria, anyone?)

Because old ways change hard. That's why. The various nations strived to maintain their colonies as long as they could. But, eventually they all got the message. Colonialism is dead. It's not possible with the modern political philsophies.

(France's attitudes towards its colonies is especially ironic considering its modern stance as bastion of freedom.)


Imperialism is OK if you're occupying inferior races who don't know how to drink wine or sip tea!

Basically? Yeah.
That's another thing that's changed (is changing still) in the past century.


The Germany of today didn't exist back then...

NO shit?
Did you know the Holy Roman Emperor held the title of the King of Germany?
But. Germany didn't exist back then, I suppose...
Idiot.

Anyway. I'm not going to argue this point with you as I really don't have the best understanding of the dynamics of pre-WWI Germany. That's why I wish Hapsburg would show up in here. That's his area of expertise.

I'll just suffice it to say that, to my knowledge (which might well be wrong) the Prussians were something like overlords to the German Empire. The Prussians made up the nobility. Thus. The Germany which you're discussing. The Germany that got its land grabbed, had no claim to much of that land as it actually belonged to Prussia and not to Germany. I could be wrong about the dynamics. In fact I probably am.

(How does someone who never even heard of Hess's peace flight know anything about that anyway? Spent the night reading Wikipedia or something?)

Anyway.
Let's just take your statement "The Germany of today didn't exist back then..." and examine that. Shall we? If the "Germany of today" didn't exist back then (I'm assuming you're also talking about the Germany of post WWI/pre WWII right?) then what claim did it have to those lands?

And even if you could connect them and say that it did have some type of historical claim to the lands, then how do you get away from the fact that the lands weren't 'stolen' but were given away in treaty?

You do know what treaties are, don't you? They're legal documents.

There was no land stolen from the Germans. The Germans gave away their land (among other things such as the right to a sizeable army) in order to secure peace.

That's the way it works.

Now. If they'd won the war. Then we could say that the French and every other European power who lost their land due to signing of peace treaties would have been equally held by such treaties.

This is a sticky situation, of course, as one generally doesn't consider a document signed under duress as having any legally binding power. And yet, practically all peace treaties, by their very definitions, are signed under duress.

So. In the end, we have the right of the victor. It's a dog eat dog world. And the Germans were the dog that got eaten. They're doing pretty good nowadays, though, aren't they?

Of course, you're too fucking ignorant (or stupid) to realize that Hitler was merely doing what the other imperalistic, Western powers were doing AT THAT VERY TIME, and even AFTER WWII. The difference was that Hitler occupied European countries who could bite back, while countries like Britain and France occupied African, Arab or Asian countries. But then again, who has ever given a shit about the Arabs, Africans, or Asians, hey?

Imperialism is OK if you're occupying inferior races who don't know how to drink wine or sip tea!

So, now that we've all agreed that we're all guilty as charged, Imperialism is a bad thing, soundly flagellated ourselves, and sworn never to do it again, would you like to make a cogent and sensible argument about something?

invert:


What the hell exactly do you know about any of this, Mountainhare? You didn't even know the widely-known fact on Hess's strange peace mission.

Lie. I obviously did know about Hess's peace mission, since I was the one who started this thread about it. I made it quite clear previously that I did not learn about Hess during secondary school. Gee, I wonder why?



Now you're going to say that you're knowledgeable enough to deny the validity of anything anyone else says?

You're a fucking joke, dude.

Bla bla bla, you're a dickhead and missed the clue train.



And a joke who denies the holocaust as well.

Wrong again, dumbass. There are very few holocaust deniers. I'm a Holocaust Dimisher. And I also object to the Jewish Holocaust being called THE Holocaust, because it was far from the first Holocaust in history.



Always strange when one comes across one as blatantly blind as that. So. I suppose you're a skinhead or something then? Pictures of Herr Hitler hanging on your bedroom wall? Do you masturbate to thoughts of Eva Braun? (Actually, for a WWII era chick, she was pretty cute. I'd fuck her. Even if she was a little chunky.)

Ahh, the dumb troll needs to whip out tired old stereotypes. Truth be told, I'm not German at all. Of course, only weak-minded, spineless retards believe that anyone doubting the exaggerations of the Jewish Holocaust in Germany must be Nazis who believe in German superiority.



I'm not going to get into this issue of whether the holocaust occurred or not with you. The very fact that you deny it says a lot about the futility of this whole conversation.

So now you're assuming that I'm close minded because my opinions differ from yours? Not only are you ignorant of basic history, you are also act like an intellectual snob (note that I said ACT LIKE. You aren't an intellectual snob, since that requires intelligence)



You have no grasp of history seeing as how you only have the historical education of a 'secondary school' so I'll clue you in a little bit here.

*yawns* Credentialism. Merely because I haven't taken a university degree in history doesn't make me 'ignorant' of history. More spin from the resident parrot.



But, Germany lost. It's colonialist viewpoint lost with it.

*sighs* Whatever you say. It's ironic how Holocaust diminishers are called 'revisionists'. Germany's 'colonialist' viewpoint never lost, it continued to be practiced by the French in Algeria, the Israelis in Palestine, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the Americans in Vietnam (where 'Democracy' was merely New Age imperialism).

Countries like Britain and France didn't lose their colonies because they lost the stomach to rule. They lost there colonies because they became WEAK AS PISS. After WW2, America and Russia rose to power, and grabbed their own land. Britain and France lost theirs.

It's amazing how you entertain the delusion that colonialism and imperialism were 'out' when Hitler came into power.



Because it was an outcome of a war. That's what happens at the end of wars. Boundaries change. That's usually the cause of wars. The heart of wars. Territory.

WELL DONE! You caught the clue train, and then fell off. Ripping land off someone via war is imperialism, is it not? The fact that the French didn't start the war doesn't make their actions any less imperialistic. They took land which didn't belong to them prior to WWI via force.

I thought imperialism was a thing of the past back then? :confused:



Why are you so focused on the end of WWI?

It is merely an example of imperialism, which supposedly was 'taboo' back then (according to your fallicious revisionism).



Let's look instead to the end of WWII. Did France make a huge land grab there as well? Did the western powers learn a lesson from the Treaty of Versailles or did they not?

You tell me. What was all that nonsense about the Berlin Wall about? I guess the U.S and Russia didn't grab German land, nor did Poland...



Because this was a mexican standoff. A little thing called the cold war.

How old are you, Mountainhare? Do you remember what it was like when the Soviet Union existed?

The Soviets took land and held it (although they didn't actually annex the land. Each of those countries were self-ruling... ostensibly.) And they were 'allowed' to do so because the west didn't want to fight a war with Russia. Especially after Russia got the bomb. (You might have heard of the atom bomb perchance? Do they teach that in history class?)

Aha, lovely. Once again, you catch the clue train, and then jump off, missing my obvious point. Imperialism was QUITE OK if you were Russia, but not Germany. Germany was an evil imperialistic country, whereas the Polish 'greeted the Russians with open arms'.

Imperialism wasn't always wrong. It was quite OK if the the country you invaded, and their allies, were too scared to say anything.

To call Germany an 'evil imperalistic power' while locking your lips to the well worns asses of the French who tried to cling onto Algeria, the Israelis who grabbed Arab land, and the Americans who tried to enforce their 'New Age' colonialism on Korea and Vietnam is inconsistent and downright hypocritical.



Because old ways change hard. That's why. The various nations strived to maintain their colonies as long as they could. But, eventually they all got the message. Colonialism is dead.
Not it's not. Colonialism is alive and well, in a new form. The occupation of Arab land is merely one example. Subtle American infiltration into Arab land is yet another. The Russians dominating the Chechyans is another.



NO shit?
Did you know the Holy Roman Emperor held the title of the King of Germany?
But. Germany didn't exist back then, I suppose...
Idiot.

Once again, you miss the point. You are aware that the Israel of today is not the same Israel which existed 40 years ago? It has incorporated extra landmass. To assume that 'Germany' was dominated by 'Prussia' is absurd, because the German Empire INCLUDED Prussia back then.



ng. The Germany that got its land grabbed, had no claim to much of that land as it actually belonged to Prussia and not to Germany. I could be wrong about the dynamics. In fact I probably am.

You are. Prussia was part of the German Empire. The German Empire belonged to the Germans. Hence, Prussia belonged to Germans.



Let's just take your statement "The Germany of today didn't exist back then..." and examine that. Shall we?

Oh look, the retard is going to misinterpret a simple statement I made...



If the "Germany of today" didn't exist back then (I'm assuming you're also talking about the Germany of post WWI/pre WWII right?) then what claim did it have to those lands?

The 'Germany of Today' didn't exist back then because the German Empire 'back then' was partially made up of Prussia. Amazing how simple points slide right by you.


And even if you could connect them and say that it did have some type of historical claim to the lands, then how do you get away from the fact that the lands weren't 'stolen' but were given away in treaty?

You do know what treaties are, don't you? They're legal documents.

Legal documents signed under duress. After being hammered by the British, French, and the U.S. Lands gained through imperialism. Naughty Germany for using war to gain back lands taken from it via war.



There was no land stolen from the Germans. The Germans gave away their land (among other things such as the right to a sizeable army) in order to secure peace.

That's the way it works.

Good. I agree. When the French surrendered in WW2, they also surrendered their land to the Germans. The Germans won that land through conquest. They also won it through conquest in the Franco-Prussian war. The French won it through conquest in WWI.


So. In the end, we have the right of the victor. It's a dog eat dog world. And the Germans were the dog that got eaten.

I'm glad you admit it. There was nothing inherently evil about what the Germans did. If what they done was 'evil', then the French, British and U.S were just as bad.

Isn't it amazing what conclusions one reaches when one looks at a situation objectively?

I look at WWII, and do not realize it as a war between 'Good' and 'Evil'. I recognize it as one country acting imperalistically, something which happened frequently between European countries, and even in Africa and Asia. I recognize that it was a common occurance, and that to brand Germany 'evil' for going to war to restore its old borders is the height of hypocrisy.

One of the great ironies of history is that Hitler did favor the Zionist idea of creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

More recent calculations have placed the number of civilians murdered by the Nazi's at closer to 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million nonjews).

The Holy Roman Empire was mainly a very loose confederation of the Germanic principalities usually lead by the Austrian Emperor. In the mid 1700's Frederich of Prussia took leadership from Auastria. Following the Napoleonic wars power reverted to Austria until Bismark forged the Northern German Confederation under Wilhelm I which lasted until the end of WWI.

One of the great ironies of history is that Hitler did favor the Zionist idea of creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.
That's only because he figured the Arabs could carry out the final solution.

Lie. I obviously did know about Hess's peace mission, since I was the one who started this thread about it.

Yeah. But you make it seem like the Hess thing is some big secret that you managed to dig up despite it being so hidden away by 'the man'. Therefore, before your great revelation (which I assume to be quite recent considering the great shock that seemed to come through your writing) you were ignorant of it.

I also assume that you didn't learn this from any of the usual sources or that would have diminished the 'secret' aspect of the knowledge. So. Where did you learn this from? Got a friend who's cluing you into the great iniquities of the past?


I made it quite clear previously that I did not learn about Hess during secondary school. Gee, I wonder why?

I already gave you the answer. You generally have one year of history in High School. In that year they cram in over 200 years of history. There's hardly any time to talk about the important things let alone the side notes such as Hess. Now. It's been speculated that Hess was actually part of an official peace offer from Hitler... Well. That's never been proven and even if it were, there's no reason that England had to accept any peace offers. They were within their rights to continue the war and maintain their treaties with their allies.

You did know that WWII started because France had a mutual protection treaty with Poland, right? And even though they were unable to save Poland directly they were obligated to declare war? And England the same once France declared war? Did you know that Chamberlain desperately tried to talk peace to the Germans one final time but was pushed aside because it was too far? They'd given them Austria. They'd given Czechoslavakia. Poland was too much.

By the way, reading this and that I came across a nifty term. Ostflucht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostflucht). Check it out. You might find it interesting.


There are very few holocaust deniers. I'm a Holocaust Dimisher. And I also object to the Jewish Holocaust being called THE Holocaust, because it was far from the first Holocaust in history.

Ok. So you just don't think it was as bad as it was made out to be. Fair enough. Many feel that way. I'm one of them as well. Sure it was shit, but it was hardly the only genocide that's ever been taken place. The Rape of Nan-King, for instance, was never made such a big deal. And there are genocides even closer to modern day that never made much impact on the world.

However, it was called the Holocaust because that was the label applied to it. Calling it the Holocaust doesn't deny that other genocides have taken place. It's merely a handy way of referencing a single instance of genocide.

Anyway. My point was that this is why Hitler and his reign were considered evil. Not because of his war mongering but because of his mass murder. Do you deny that mass murder is a bad thing? Do you think it deserves an appellation different than 'evil'? Personlly, I don't use the term 'evil', but many do. And it suffices, I suppose, in this instance if any.


Ahh, the dumb troll needs to whip out tired old stereotypes.

No. Just wondering is all. One comes across deniers of the Holocaust so rarely, and generall when one does they're skinheads or KKK. So, I just wondered. You're not a skinhead then? No white laces for our boy Mountainhare?


Truth be told, I'm not German at all.

What does being a skinhead have to do with being German?


Germany's 'colonialist' viewpoint never lost, it continued to be practiced by the French in Algeria, the Israelis in Palestine, the Russians in Afghanistan, and the Americans in Vietnam (where 'Democracy' was merely New Age imperialism).

Like I said, old habits died hard.

I agreed with you about colonizing the savages was regarded as kosher while Hitler's mistake was making war in Europe amongst the civilized folk.

One thing that is vital to understanding the beginnings of WWII is that WWI was such a brutal war that it sapped the will to fight from all the nations of Europe. (Except Germany.) There was an attitude of Peace at all Costs. This is why so many concessions were made to the Germans before war was finally deemed inevitable. Chamberlain lost his career over it because he didn't realize that the time for peace was over and here he was still desperately following the adage of Peace at all Costs.


Countries like Britain and France didn't lose their colonies because they lost the stomach to rule. They lost there colonies because they became WEAK AS PISS. After WW2, America and Russia rose to power, and grabbed their own land. Britain and France lost theirs.

America had colonies?
I stand by my statement that colonialism failed because of the spread of information. The nearness of every location on the earth made it impossible to pretend to be freedom loving nations while imposing subjectivity on foreign nations.


It's amazing how you entertain the delusion that colonialism and imperialism were 'out' when Hitler came into power.

Going out, douchebag. Going out.

But, Hitler's problem was, as you've stated, that he attacked civilized folk. He might have actually had some success were he to attack some third world nation somewhere and start a colony. But Hitler wanted Europe.


Ripping land off someone via war is imperialism, is it not? The fact that the French didn't start the war doesn't make their actions any less imperialistic. They took land which didn't belong to them prior to WWI via force.

Didn't France start the war? What exactly was the sequence of events of WWI? Like I said, WWI isn't an area that I know a great deal about (other than its outcomes) but I have heard that Germany wasn't necessarily the agressor in this case. Is this wrong?

Anyway.
Well. Like I said. That's the way it goes.
I'm not sure France really 'grabbed' much land anyway, did they? I mean they occupied the Rhineland. But what else? Most of the land lost from the old German Empire was in the East. Austria. Poland. Czechoslavakia. Etc.. All the buffer states between Germany and Russia.

How did France 'grab land'?


Plus. I've already stated that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and it's a pretty well accepted fact that the injustice of that treaty (joined with the worldwide depression and other factors such as nostalgia for the monarchy) led directly to WWII.

The defeat of Germany in WWII was total. Complete. All the way to Berlin. And yet the occupation and consequences of their loss were actually quite light. Yes. Russia went mad dog and stole East Germany, but that's another story. I'll comment on that in a bit.

Overall they did quite well.


I thought imperialism was a thing of the past back then?

You seem to have this tendency to smear the conversation.
Back then?
When is 'back then'?
You mean at the end of WWI? 1918?
Or do you mean 20 years later at the beginnings of WWII?
Do you think that the time periods were identical? Do you think that no changes took place during that time? Don't you realize that the technology that makes the world small were being developed in that time? And can't you see the war weariness that was a direct result of the bloody trench war? And the sense of status quo that was maintained for 20 years? Nobody wanted to rock the boat. And even when Hitler began rocking the boat, they thought they could appease him with a little more land. Just a little more breathing room. After all Versailles was a rather harsh treaty, wasn't it?

Hitler was never satisfied. Even when he had most of Europe in the palm of his hands he wasn't satisfied.

Anyway. I've already clearly stated that the idea of colonialism and imperialism didn't just vanish at the drop of a hat. It was an idea that had to develop and had to be forced into practice. Colonialism was made unsalvageable to any country that hoped to maintain the air of lover of freedom.


It is merely an example of imperialism, which supposedly was 'taboo' back then (according to your fallicious revisionism).

You just completely ignore a point and just continue to drive your ignorance home, don't you?

I asked you why concentrate on the end of WWI because of the difference between the end of WWI and WWII and you just completely miss the point. The WWII era was what I was discussing when I said colonialism and imperialism were out. However, as I've made clear repeatedly, this was a long process. It was going out in WWI but was even more 'out' in WWII. The remnants of the ideal are still with us today and probably will spring up from time to time for years to come.

Old Habits Die Hard.


You tell me. What was all that nonsense about the Berlin Wall about? I guess the U.S and Russia didn't grab German land, nor did Poland...

Uh.
"Nor did Poland..."?
Huh?
Poland was 'grabbed'. By your own admission.

Anyway. I've already addressed this, idiot.
The Cold War. The Atom Bomb. Duh. Der. Derp.


Imperialism was QUITE OK if you were Russia, but not Germany. Germany was an evil imperialistic country, whereas the Polish 'greeted the Russians with open arms'.

Just how old are you? I asked you before and you didn't answer. Do you remember the Cold War?

What the fuck are you talking about? It was 'ok' for Russia to do what it did? Really? Says who? Reagan? You fucking numbskull. You're seriously deficient in logic if you're going to say anything of the sort.


Imperialism wasn't always wrong. It was quite OK if the the country you invaded, and their allies, were too scared to say anything.

Sort of.
Russia ostensibly took all that land because they'd suffered so much in the war. Do you know how many Russians were killed by the Germans? They suffered enormously and they took the land to act as a buffer between them and any possible future aggressions.

The same idea was the idea behind the creation of the buffer states after WWI. However, when Germany got aggressive, instead of standing by their convictions and preventing Germany from taking them, the West acquiesced and allowed Hitler quite a bit of leeway before finally stepping in with the partition of Poland.

The U.S.S.R. was well within its rights to take those lands and to administer them in case the Germans tried the same thing again. It's understandable. Why should they trust the French or the English to prevent such an occurrence from happening again? They didn't pre-WWII so why would things be any different later?

This is the reasoning behind the 'land grabs' by the Soviet Union post-WWII.


To call Germany an 'evil imperalistic power' while locking your lips to the well worns asses of the French who tried to cling onto Algeria, the Israelis who grabbed Arab land, and the Americans who tried to enforce their 'New Age' colonialism on Korea and Vietnam is inconsistent and downright hypocritical.

You've already forgotten about what I already said about why Hitler was considered evil, haven't you? Diminished indeed.

Anyway. Again. Old habits die hard.

As to Korea and Vietnam...
Uh.
You're stretching things if you want to call those 'colonies'. But, I'm not surprised that you would attempt it.

Interesting thing about Vietnam. While America was fighting Korea, we had a pact with the French that neither side would pull out of our respective 'conflicts' while the other was still fighting. The French had a chance of peace (I forget the year) but refused the treaty because America was still fighting theirs. Later, America pulled out of Korea, leaving the French still fighting in Indochina.

Quite traitorous, that.

You really need to understand the terror that the communist threat had over all the nations of the West. I think that you suffer from too great a distance from all these things you're speaking of. Your history lessons have been far too abstract for you to get any sort of perspective on the whole affair.


Not it's not. Colonialism is alive and well, in a new form. The occupation of Arab land is merely one example. Subtle American infiltration into Arab land is yet another. The Russians dominating the Chechyans is another.

And these actions are looked at as....?


Once again, you miss the point. You are aware that the Israel of today is not the same Israel which existed 40 years ago? It has incorporated extra landmass. To assume that 'Germany' was dominated by 'Prussia' is absurd, because the German Empire INCLUDED Prussia back then.

I've already said I'm not going to argue this as its not my area of knowledge. However, I've heard from several sources that Prussians were looked at as an elite. A nobility. The Junker Nobility.

However, I'll concede this point because what little I have read recently does say that Germany took Prussia in. Interesting though considering the status of the Prussians within the German Empire.

I really wish Hapsburg would show up.


The 'Germany of Today' didn't exist back then because the German Empire 'back then' was partially made up of Prussia. Amazing how simple points slide right by you.

Yeah. But what does that have to do with anything? What does the 'Germany of Today" have to do with the 'Germany of Yesterday"?


Legal documents signed under duress. After being hammered by the British, French, and the U.S. Lands gained through imperialism. Naughty Germany for using war to gain back lands taken from it via war.

Paris was land taken from it by the French, I suppose? Naughty French. How dare you steal Paris from your German Overlords?!


Good. I agree. When the French surrendered in WW2, they also surrendered their land to the Germans. The Germans won that land through conquest. They also won it through conquest in the Franco-Prussian war. The French won it through conquest in WWI.

Exactly my thought when I made those statements. When France surrendered, then there was no reason for the English and the Americans to 'liberate' them.

However, this is where the stickiness of 'duress' comes in.

War is hell, right?


I'm glad you admit it. There was nothing inherently evil about what the Germans did. If what they done was 'evil', then the French, British and U.S were just as bad.

Nothing except for the mass extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and Russians.

No one is stating or has stated otherwise.

However, if one wants to look at land 'stolen' and 'rightfully reclaimed' then where does it end? Land has been shifted back and forth since the dawn of time. It's in the nature of the beast.


I look at WWII, and do not realize it as a war between 'Good' and 'Evil'. I recognize it as one country acting imperalistically, something which happened frequently between European countries, and even in Africa and Asia. I recognize that it was a common occurance, and that to brand Germany 'evil' for going to war to restore its old borders is the height of hypocrisy.

You keep repeating this so I take it this is your main point.

I repeat. Nobody considers them 'evil' because they started a war. Antisocial. Anachronistic. Imperialistic. Nationalistic. War-mongering. Aggressive. Opportunistic. Etc... But not evil.

(I'm sure that you will find some who call them evil for such things, but these people are morons.)

They're considered evil because of the contempt they offered to human life. They are considered evil because of their mass murder campaigns. They are considered evil because Hitler's moustache was the mark of the beast... (Kidding.)

Seriously.

Imperialism is not 'evil'. It's just not socially acceptable.

Yeah. But you make it seem like the Hess thing is some big secret that you managed to dig up despite it being so hidden away by 'the man'.

It IS a big secret in high school history class. Just like how they tell you about the evil Japs invading Pearl Harbour 'unprovoked', yet how they neglect to mention the oil + scrap metal embargo placed on the Japs by the Americans, and how Japan would have collapsed without a supply of oil.

When you reach liberal universities, you tend to hear a 'broader' view of history.


Therefore, before your great revelation (which I assume to be quite recent considering the great shock that seemed to come through your writing) you were ignorant of it.

So fucking what? We are ignorant of everything before making the discovery. The fact that I discovered it shows that I have presently been researching historical events.



I also assume that you didn't learn this from any of the usual sources or that would have diminished the 'secret' aspect of the knowledge. So. Where did you learn this from? Got a friend who's cluing you into the great iniquities of the past?

LOL. I learnt about it from Wikipedia... I read his name in a liberal history book, and done a little research.



I already gave you the answer. You generally have one year of history in High School. In that year they cram in over 200 years of history. There's hardly any time to talk about the important things let alone the side notes such as Hess. Now. It's been speculated that Hess was actually part of an official peace offer from Hitler... Well. That's never been proven and even if it were, there's no reason that England had to accept any peace offers. They were within their rights to continue the war and maintain their treaties with their allies.

You're quite right. Britain had every right to continue the war. But they are being hypocritical turds when they charged Rudolf Hess with 'crimes against peace'. The British committed 'crimes against peace' when they refused the peace offer. I was merely amused by the hypocrisy of the British, which is why I started this tongue in cheek thread. It also aimed to destroy the notion that the British were little angels in WWII (which is a load of bullshit. As an Australian, you learn that the British REFUSED to send our soldiers back to the Pacific after Singapore fell. They forced Australian soldiers to fight in a European war, while the Japs were on our doorstep. Then again, Australia was just a backwater colony to them).



You did know that WWII started because France had a mutual protection treaty with Poland, right? And even though they were unable to save Poland directly they were obligated to declare war? And England the same once France declared war? Did you know that Chamberlain desperately tried to talk peace to the Germans one final time but was pushed aside because it was too far? They'd given them Austria. They'd given Czechoslavakia. Poland was too much.

Whoops. Once again, you forget Russia. Russia invaded Poland a couple of weeks later. I guess the mutual protection treaty became irrelevant, because the Polish welcomed the Russians with open arms. So did the Fins, who turned to the Axis when the Russians invaded!

If the mutual protection treaty was the reason France and Britain declared war on Germany, why didn't they declare war on Russia? I'll discuss why at the end of this post...



Ok. So you just don't think it was as bad as it was made out to be. Fair enough. Many feel that way. I'm one of them as well. Sure it was shit, but it was hardly the only genocide that's ever been taken place.

Who ever said anything about genocide? I accept that the Holocaust occured, in that the Jews were oppressed and mistreated, stuck in concentration camps and had land grabbed of them, but I am skeptical of 6 million being gassed by the Germans.



The Rape of Nan-King, for instance, was never made such a big deal. And there are genocides even closer to modern day that never made much impact on the world.

My feelings exactly. Whenever Hitler is mentioned, you always hear "Hitler oppressed the Jews. BOO HISS!"
They seem to forget that when Japan attacked America, American citizens of Japanese descent were seen as 'threats', and stuck in concentration camps without trial. They also forget that the European Jews were not welcome in many mainland European countries, such as Poland and Ukraine.

They also forget the treatment of blacks in America AFTER WWII, AFTER the Nuremburg trials were America denounced the Germans for the oppression of the Jews.

The rape of Nanking is forgotten. Just yellow-skinned Asians killing other Asians. Who really cares, as long as the victims don't sip wine or tea?

What Germany did was not THE Holocaust, it was A holocaust. Merely another morally questionable act during a long and bloody war, in a region which has seen many questionable acts before, during, and after WWII.



However, it was called the Holocaust because that was the label applied to it. Calling it the Holocaust doesn't deny that other genocides have taken place. It's merely a handy way of referencing a single instance of genocide.

Calling it THE Holocaust is drumming it up as something especially horrible and unique. It was A holocaust, not THE Holocaust. The Jews were not the only ones to suffer, either. Political prisoners (communists) and Poles were the first to get stuck into concentration camps.



Anyway. My point was that this is why Hitler and his reign were considered evil. Not because of his war mongering but because of his mass murder. Do you deny that mass murder is a bad thing? Do you think it deserves an appellation different than 'evil'? Personlly, I don't use the term 'evil', but many do. And it suffices, I suppose, in this instance if any.

Many view Hitler as 'mad' and 'evil' because he tried to conquer Europe (although I believe he was merely would have restored old German borders after going East and smashing the Communists. My opinion is supported by his attempts to sue for peace with Britain. But then again, who would honestly want the British Isles? They are more trouble then they are worth!). As for the mass murder, there was never one shred of documentation which proved that Hitler wanted the mass murder of Jews. He wanted them OUT of Germany, something which was quite natural at that time. What he wanted done was what many German, and even Europeaners, wanted. And even what other nations wanted to do regarded foreigners, who they believed were 'destroying their proud culture' (eg. Chinese and Boxer Rebellion).

In today's society, Hitler's aims to rid Germany of the Jews may seem inhumane. However, you must look at his decisions in the context of the 1930's, decisions which a majority of Germans supported!



No. Just wondering is all. One comes across deniers of the Holocaust so rarely, and generall when one does they're skinheads or KKK. So, I just wondered. You're not a skinhead then? No white laces for our boy Mountainhare?
No... I'm not skinhead. My grandparents were Polish, and were the first rounded up by the Germans when they stormed into Poland. This is part of the reason why I feel such contempt for Britain and France's excuse that they declared war on Germany due to its invasion of Poland, yet allowed Russia to grab part of Poland and slaughter the Polish army and Polish resistance, who bravely attempted to resist. The Germans got punished, the Russians did not. Even worse, the Russians continued to oppress the Polish after WW2, where opponents of the Communists just 'disappeared' (into the Gulags, I guess, although we'll never know).



But, Hitler's problem was, as you've stated, that he attacked civilized folk. He might have actually had some success were he to attack some third world nation somewhere and start a colony. But Hitler wanted Europe.

Thank you. Imperialism was not going out, as you originally stated. Countries like Britain and France declared it 'immoral', because they were quite happy with where their borders were situated. They had a subdued Germany, and France had Alsace and Lorraine. So it was all very well and convenient for them to say "OMG, IMPERIALISM IS BAD!1111!", while France oppressed the Vietnamese and the Algerians, and Britain danced on African and Arab countries given to it in 'trust'.

Colonies were lost after WWII , not due to moral qualms or a change in what was 'socially acceptable', but because countries like Britain and France could not longer hold onto then. Witness France's defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, or how the French scurried out of Algeria after being driven off by the naughty terrorists.



Uh.
"Nor did Poland..."?
Huh?
Poland was 'grabbed'. By your own admission.

Anyway. I've already addressed this, idiot.
The Cold War. The Atom Bomb. Duh. Der. Derp.

Non-sequitor, and you're still failing to miss the point.

During WWII, Poland was grabbed by the Germans. After WWII, Poland gained German territory, as did America and Russia. That is the very definition of imperialism.



Sort of.
Russia ostensibly took all that land because they'd suffered so much in the war.

So Russia suffered when it signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, which allowed them to gobble up the Baltic States, Finland and Poland? You see, you continue to dodge simple facts which throw a spanner in your works. Imperialism was practiced by Russia, and no-one batted an eyelash.



Do you know how many Russians were killed by the Germans? They suffered enormously and they took the land to act as a buffer between them and any possible future aggressions.

LOL! Why don't you try and explain how the land they stole acted as a 'buffer'? I guess Hitler took mainland Europe so that it could act as a buffer between them and Britain, hmmm?

Stalin wanted the land for no other reason that it was there for him to grab. Also, Russia has had a negative history with MANY nations, why not build a buffer zone around their whole country!? Why not build a buffer zone for that buffer zone as well, while they are at it?

I guess you would feel that Russia was justified if it had invaded Japan or Indonesia to act as a 'buffer zone' against the United States during the Cold War!

Oh how smart it is to build a buffer zone right next to, and on top of, your enemy's land. It's sort of like a criminal setting up a hideout near a police station!



The same idea was the idea behind the creation of the buffer states after WWI. However, when Germany got aggressive, instead of standing by their convictions and preventing Germany from taking them, the West acquiesced and allowed Hitler quite a bit of leeway before finally stepping in with the partition of Poland.

Yes, imperialism was wrong, which is why the 'West' (Britain and France, NOT the U.S) stepped in when Hitler grabbed France. And never stepped in when Russia grabbed Poland. Hey, you seem to enjoy ignoring inconsistencies!



The U.S.S.R. was well within its rights to take those lands and to administer them in case the Germans tried the same thing again. It's understandable.

No. The Germans were defeated and subdued.



As to Korea and Vietnam...
Uh.
You're stretching things if you want to call those 'colonies'. But, I'm not surprised that you would attempt it.

The Americans wanted their influence and strength in places like Korea and Vietnam against the Red Scare. They enforced a system of government and ideals on a nation of people who did not want their interference. That sounds like 'New Age' imperialism to me...




Mountain Hare:Not it's not. Colonialism is alive and well, in a new form. The occupation of Arab land is merely one example. Subtle American infiltration into Arab land is yet another. The Russians dominating the Chechyans is another. ”

invert:And these actions are looked at as....?

I don't know... why don't you ask America, who is currently doing diddly squat about the Russian occupation of the Chechyan, or the Israeli occupation of Arab land? Sure, many Americans don't like the aggression displayed by Russia and Israel, but what the hell are they doing about it? They leapt to the aid of Kuwait when Saddam wanted to unite the Arab states and redraw borders, but they continue to ignore Resolution 242. Imperialism is out of practice, hmmm?



However, I'll concede this point because what little I have read recently does say that Germany took Prussia in. Interesting though considering the status of the Prussians within the German Empire.

I really wish Hapsburg would show up.

To be honest, so do I. Hapsburg definitely is quite an authority in this area.



Paris was land taken from it by the French, I suppose? Naughty French. How dare you steal Paris from your German Overlords?!

Haha... I'm actually talking about Alsace and Lorraine, which were won by Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.



However, if one wants to look at land 'stolen' and 'rightfully reclaimed' then where does it end? Land has been shifted back and forth since the dawn of time. It's in the nature of the beast.

EXACTLY MY POINT!!!

In my second post on this thread, I mentioned:


At least Germany had a valid excuse for invading France and Poland. It wanted to restore old borders. Whether Alsace and Lorraine, plus part of Poland, belonged to Germany is controversial, since the European powers have been warring and annexing land from each other for centuries. However, at least Germany had a claim to it (Franco-Prussian War). Russia did not.





They're considered evil because of the contempt they offered to human life. They are considered evil because of their mass murder campaigns. They are considered evil because Hitler's moustache was the mark of the beast... (Kidding.)

Hahah, I understand that many people consider Hitler evil due to their belief that he committed mass murder. However, imperialism often plays a major part when people I talk to say 'Boo WWII Germany, how dare you invade France and steal their way of life!'


Imperialism is not 'evil'. It's just not socially acceptable.

I agree that Imperialism is not 'evil'. However, I will continue to quibble that it was socially acceptable at the time Germany invaded, as long as you were white, and the top dog. Observe Russia and France's imperialistic behaviour just prior to WW2, during WW2, and after WW2.

Quite simply, the French and the British were jealous and spiteful of the Germans, who were a world power. Racism was also involved (comparing the Germans to the Huns). Ever since the Franco-Prussian war, the French HATED the Germans, and believed that they would one day reclaim Alsace and Lorraine (which they did, in WWI. Sweet revenge!) Which is turn caused the Germans to hate the French.

BTW, my age is actually irrelevant to this discussion. I never claimed to be an authority in this area, so I fail to see why I should have to discuss my age or credentials. What matters here are the facts, which I have continuously put forward in these posts. We differ on opinion, fair enough. And I think that you definitely are a worthy adversary. But bringing my age/credentials into this discussion is nothing more than a cheap ploy, and an ad hom.

mountainhare makes some interesting observations about Poland and Stalin. In many ways it does seem like Stalin got rewarded for helping get the whole war in motion.

It can be noted that the French did not think it was possible for the Germans to invade France because of the defenses built after WWI. Hitler went around the stationary defensive fortifications.

OT, though the Nazis were a bit "imperialistic" in a certain sense (expanionistic, enslavement, and all that jazz), you can say the same thing about the other major powers, and minor ones too. France, Belgium, Britain, etc. had larger land empires than the DR, and treated a lot of the people miserably. Though not to the same extent as Nazi Germany, they still mistreated a large amount of people.
Hypocritial, much?

they were winners

They lost it all...

same shit as losers... germany will rise again :/

The word german and the word Nazi do not mean the same thing.

are you from europe?

Let me guess...you are from somewhere south in the US?

no
i'm from europe

What a shame.

too proud to be american?

Maybe we should discuss the topic?

it's ok to me

One aim of the nazis was to prevent communism to spread in Europe. Ironically their actions brought communism right into the heart of Europe, dividing europe in half. It is doubtful that this would have happened without the actions of the nazis.

yeah that was shit

Nazism is the most stupid, pointless, retarded ideology ever invented by humankind.
Racism is the only rival to nazism's stupidity.

Germany under the Kaisers was a land of pros-fucking-sperity. Unified, nationalistic, and not ashamed of shit because then, they had nothing to really be ashamed of.
If Germany had won WW1, hitler would NEVER had come to power, the holocaust would NEVER have happened, and WW2 would NEVER have occurred.
The world, in short, would probably have been better if the US never got involved in WW1, and if the Centrals had won the First World War. Shit would not have fucked up into the seriously horrible condition that allowed the nazis to come to power.

Well alot could have been done if the treaty of versailles had been created a little bit more lenient.

Hapsburg,

Thank you for showing up as I requested. In response to your pm, yes, I know you've posted earlier in this thread. I requested your return for some specific reasons. You're our resident expert on pre-WWI Germany. One of Mountainhare's main lines of thought is this whole 'land-grabbing' issue. A run-down of the shifting of borders and land-possession would be helpful. The whole issue is quite muddled.

Also, I made a comment about how the Prussians were a sort of elite in the German Empire and thus after the split-up, Germany didn't necessarily have any claim to the lands held by a Prussian overlordship.

What exactly was the nature of the relationship between the Prussians and the Germans? Junkers were a sort of nobility, were they not?

And. As to 'claim' mentioned above. A vital point is that the land changes in hand in treaties and thus the idea of any party being able to lay claim to land taken from them as a result of loss in war and treaty is highly debatable.

I realize that Mountainhare's and I 'discussion' got quite heated there for a while and perhaps reading through our posts would be tedious, but you would be extremely helpful if you'd answer what I've just put to you.

Also, when I have more time, I'll go back through and see if any other issues pop up with which you might be able to help and I can't remember right now.


Mountainhare,

I will return.
(And. I will offer an apology for being so harsh with you. I've had a rather rough time of it this past week or more. I've been extremely worried about a loved one and I've probably been taking my worries out on certain scapegoats. However, you made yourself a target by that first response where you started calling people idiots or whatever. To Ophiolite, I think it was directed. Anyway. I understand many of your points and the thing is that they're not that controversial. However, I still contend that your reasoning is flawed in several key areas. I'll elaborate further when I have time.)

Good day.

Yeah, the Junkers were a kind of aristocracy, prussian landowners. And, since the Prussians led the German Empire, the junkers were kind of at the top of the empire. Emperor William II, though theoretically vested with absolute power, was sort of a figurehead, at least through some parts of his reign.
But, after 1871, Prussians were Germans, just as Bavarians were germans, at least officially. Before that, they were germans, but in name only, no true legitimacy to be a german nation.
In my opinion, The German Republic had legitimate claims to land that the majority population were germanic. I.E, Austria, Sudeten, East Prussia; generally the territory they held in 1938. Beyond that, they had no legitimate claim to any other land. If only they had been able to do that without having to resort to letting a maniac like Hitler come to power, a whole buncha shit could have been avoided...

Where did I claim that it does? However, it is rarely, if ever, mentioned to schoolkids that Russia invaded Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland. Because the obvious questions they would ask are 'Why did France and Britain declare war on Russia?' and 'Why wasn't Russia charged with 'crimes against peace' at Nuremburg?'

Because power politics aren't practiced to uphold points of law. It's an exercise in calculated self-interest, where morality and law are used to camouflage national self-interest. Germany was a threat to European hegemony due to her geographical position, culture, technology, economy, and Hitler's ruthless disposition. Communist Russia - both savage and primitive - was not. As such, Germany was the danger, and the Soviet Union the method by which she could be brought down.


Hess risks his life to get into Britain, breaking his ankle. He wants peace with Britain. Britain not only imprisons him, but refuses to accept peace with Germany, despite Hitler repeatedly begging for peace. The British then bomb Germany, including aiming at civilian targets in German cities such as Dresden.

IMO, a more powerful argument might be made in the form of the apparent unwillingness of the west to try to kill Hitler during the war.


Now. As to the question of Hitler only wanting peace for the moment... well. It's possible. There's no true way to answer that question. But, it is known that Hitler always wanted peace with England. He always thought that Germany and England were natural partners. He always thought in his heart that England would someday realize this as well. In fact, it has been said that he invaded Russia because he thought that would inspire the Brits to ally with him against the commies. (And you can bet your ass they thought about it too...)

I think Hitler's objective was to have Germany play the same role in Europe as Prussia did in forging Germany.


As to this business of "restoring Germany's borders"...
Please recall that Germany lost that territory because of WW1, a conflict which the Kaiser was itching to get into, even if accusing Germany of starting it might be oversimplifying things a bit.
"To the victors go the spoils", so the saying goes, and the victorious European powers did what they had been doing for centuries to the losing side - namely chopping up their lands and taking some prime hunks for themselves - no big surprise, there..

In many ways, Versailles was the opposite to the German vision espoused in Brest-Litovsk. Under the allied scheme, the great eastern European empires were shorn of large territories - which superficially promoted national identity, but also just happened to allow Europe to descend into diplomatic disunity (which the west could dominate), and over a dozen states were cast into vacuum without any meaningful method to protect their security. Under the German scheme, the peoples of Europe would have organized under one banner - Germany's - as a sort of 1918 version of NATO. I think it probable that had the Germans won the war, Europe would have been in the long run better off.




WWI is a weak spot in my historical knowledge. I've been meaning to dig into it a bit better but haven't found any good resources for it. However, I've heard that Germany was not exactly the aggressive power in WWI. If Hapsburg stumbles across this thread, he'd probably know. He's got the Kaiser tattooed on his penis

Don't we all?

Germany's role in the outbreak of World War One was to enflame the Austrian reaction to the murder of the heir to the throne. They had become fearful, too pessimistic, of encirclement and increasingly saw war as a method to break the ring perceived to be descending upon Germany. Without Berlin's overarching support, it is possible that the Hapsburgs would not have carried matters as far as a great power war.

However, there is ample room within the documentary evidence to suggest that the war came about in equal parts due to the fears of Great Britain and the expansionist ambitions of Imperial Russia. Here, the critical variables are the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 (which allowed for an anti-German policy in London) and the defeat of Russia in the 1904-1905 war against Japan in the Far East (which turned Russian ambitions into Europe and allowed England to secure an Entente with the Asiatic giant in 1907).

In the wake of her defeat against Japan, the Russian army essentially collapsed and her domestic preoccupation for several years thereafter was to prevent revolution. During this period, neither the French nor Russians supported each other in various crises (1904, 1905, 1908, 1911), and so Great Britain was able to wield a relatively harmless, but effective, sword to bring Germany's ill-considered Weltpolitik to heel. But after 1912 the Russian bear began to regain former strength, and as it did so it exerted increasing pressure upon all points of contact with the west (German, Austrian, Turkish and British) - from Afghanistan all the way to the Balkans. By 1914, Sir Edward Grey (the British Foreign Secretary, and author of the Entente policies) was essentially losing control of an increasingly aggressive Russia. When Bethmann (the German Chancellor) undertook a strong demarche in the wake of the heir's murder at Sarajevo, there is sufficient latitude to suggest that the British may have lured the Germans onwards to promote a head-on smash with Russia.


When governments continue to keep the documents classified guesses are all you have. We never did get to hear Hess's story because the Allied Powers would never allow it to be revealed.

I remember on an old 60 Minutes piece that it was mentioned on at least one occasion the Russians, Americans and French all voted to release Hess, and the British vetoed it. (In most cases the Soviets themselves nixed it, so the Brits didn't have to). Further, there were rumors that Hess was murdered in the end because the Wall was coming down and keeping him in captivity was becoming too problematical.

I'm uncertain as to why Hess was singled out for life in prison - when all the other Nazis were either executed or released from prison within a number of years. Why keep Hess and no one else if not because of a story that couldn't be released? It's a poser. The worst case scenario, IMO, would look this: Hess was indeed carrying a peace offer from Hitler - but not one where Hitler invades Russia and Britain is supposed to cheer him on. Rather, a dark possibility might be Hitler, fearing the uncertainty of war in Russia, seeks peace with Britain on the basis of Germany not invading Russia. That would be the historical equal to a 20 megaton H-Bomb, and about the only thing I can think of that would require deep burial.



Once again, in the eyes of the LAW, it is perfectly fine for someone to steal something back which is originally theirs.

Yes, but the LAW doesn't show up over your home country in a swarm of B-29's and flatten it with carpet bombing. Shorn of extrania, the argument appears to be that the precedent and settlement of World War One both underscored the legitimacy of force as diplomacy, as well as erased any meaning inherent in the then-current delineation of national borders. If so, that and a nickel would get the Germans a piece of gum. Realpolitik - the rule of force - was the last thing Germany could lightly risk, and by willingingly ushering violence to center stage in 1939, Hitler willed the partition of his country.




There exists documentation in piles and piles on the mass murder that took place in WWII. Beginning with the Einsatzgrupen and ending with the Zyklon gas chambers and crematoriums…And how can you deny the film footage of walking skeletons?

Denying or diminishing the Holocaust isn't worth discussion. The pattern of lies in Western history are little things - occasional omissions, deletions, strategic distortions of a fact here and there to change or "spin" the color of an issue. The Holocaust is too damn big for this kind of tactic. Ergo, it happened.

Re - Walking skeletons: In 1944 the Russian army overran the breadbasket of Rumania, while the Americans took France. These two crippling blows to the German food supply system, coupled with massive disruption in German communications, led to a severe famine in Nazi occupied Europe during the fall and winter of 1944/1945. With not enough to go around, the Nazis appear to have deliberately chosen to selectively starve certain groups.


One thing that is vital to understanding the beginnings of WWII is that WWI was such a brutal war that it sapped the will to fight from all the nations of Europe. (Except Germany.) There was an attitude of Peace at all Costs. This is why so many concessions were made to the Germans before war was finally deemed inevitable. Chamberlain lost his career over it because he didn't realize that the time for peace was over and here he was still desperately following the adage of Peace at all Costs.

This may be too charitable of British and French intentions. The problem, IMO, wasn't a lack of morale fiber in the west, it was the failure to glean just how war could result in a Europe that the west may find more appealing than the status quo. That is to say, Chamberlain wasn't keen on war with Germany in large part because it would see the Soviet Union and France partition Europe between them. Britain didn't mind flattening Europe in destructive wars, but they also didn't wish to have one simply to hand power to another country! His policy was to try to deter the Germans short of war, and keep them hemmed up as much as possible. He did not wish to bring on a showdown because he wasn't certain of the outcome.




Anyway.
Well. Like I said. That's the way it goes.
I'm not sure France really 'grabbed' much land anyway, did they? I mean they occupied the Rhineland. But what else? Most of the land lost from the old German Empire was in the East. Austria. Poland. Czechoslovakia. Etc.. All the buffer states between Germany and Russia.

How did France 'grab land'?


The British and French conquered large amounts of territory - both the former German colonies as well as massive swaths in the Middle East. That the Ottoman Empire was sitting on top of an oil goldmine in Iraq was known to the Entente before the war. This may have been tempting to imperialist powers. Perhaps this is why, in 1917 while her European allies were withering away, the British were on the march (to the tune of 750,000 men, IIRC) against an enemy that would have turned friendly in a heartbeat - the Turks.




Plus. I've already stated that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and it's a pretty well accepted fact that the injustice of that treaty (joined with the worldwide depression and other factors such as nostalgia for the monarchy) led directly to WWII.


Versailles is over rated in this respect. The core issue surrounding World War One was the fact that the basic issue wasn't decided. The war happened because power in Europe was divided into three camps - London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, that were all natural rivals, did not trust one another, and most importantly - any two could defeat the third. Because power wasn't binary, because any two could defeat the third, the situation was not only unstable, but dynamically so. For each of the "lucky" two powers would wish to finish matters before some diplomatic hiccup or other could mosey along and cast them as the isolated, sure to be defeated, third.

It was because of this - the rise of Germany and Russia and the return to a trip balance of power between natural enemies, that World War Two was inevitable. The major feature change in the second conflict was that Germany exercised her ability to buy Russian neutrality with territory and face the west without a second front. Had she done so in the first war, she'd have probably won it.



The defeat of Germany in WWII was total. Complete. All the way to Berlin. And yet the occupation and consequences of their loss were actually quite light. Yes. Russia went mad dog and stole East Germany, but that's another story. I'll comment on that in a bit.

12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe - as many as two million of whom may have perished. Further, the accusation that as many as 1.5 million German POW's died after the war in Allied camps has never been, to my knowledge, resolved. In comparison to Hitler's program of genocide, these types of numbers are small potatoes. But still significant.




The same idea was the idea behind the creation of the buffer states after WWI. However, when Germany got aggressive, instead of standing by their convictions and preventing Germany from taking them, the West acquiesced and allowed Hitler quite a bit of leeway before finally stepping in with the partition of Poland.

I'd add that the war beginning in Poland was a dead-on sign that Hitler started it. He attacked Poland for no good reason - the Poles siding with Germany in the 1938 Munich Crisis. That a war broke out for such frivolous reasons supports the notion that Hitler had no master plan, and simply moved from situation to situation, looking to break Europe to his will.


I repeat. Nobody considers them 'evil' because they started a war. Antisocial. Anachronistic. Imperialistic. Nationalistic. War-mongering. Aggressive. Opportunistic. Etc... But not evil.
…(I'm sure that you will find some who call them evil for such things, but these people are morons.)…They're considered evil because of the contempt they offered to human life. They are considered evil because of their mass murder campaigns.

This is not a bad point. I think a strong case can be made that Germany, sitting in the middle of Europe without a friend in the world and no guarantees whatever, had a right to re-forge the map in a fashion that assured her security. But, at the same time, it was crucial for her to adhere to the strictest rules protecting human rights while doing so. Hitler's crime wasn't necessarily launching a war inevitable anyway, it was needlessly, eagerly, making it so bloody.


It IS a big secret in high school history class. Just like how they tell you about the evil Japes invading Pearl Harbour 'unprovoked', yet how they neglect to mention the oil + scrap metal embargo placed on the Japes by the Americans, and how Japan would have collapsed without a supply of oil….When you reach liberal universities, you tend to hear a 'broader' view of history.

I think this point has some merit. School programs can have political undertones. Witness the continued bitterness in China that Japanese schools teach a history of the Japanese Empire at variance with reality.




You're quite right. Britain had every right to continue the war. But they are being hypocritical turds when they charged Rudolf Hess with 'crimes against peace'. The British committed 'crimes against peace' when they refused the peace offer. I was merely amused by the hypocrisy of the British, which is why I started this tongue in cheek thread.

It depends what the alleged "offer" was. If it were to sit back and let Hitler dismember Russia, then it would have been nothing but a joke, and not worthy of discussion.




The world, in short, would probably have been better if the US never got involved in WW1, and if the Centrals had won the First World War. Shit would not have fucked up into the seriously horrible condition that allowed the nazis to come to power.

It's interesting to note that, when the Americans took over, all the nonsense stopped. Cold.

1) The British Empire broke up while America stood over its deathbed, looking on without pity at the unplugged life support system as the patient expired. No more archaic, destructive, stupid, counterproductive balance of power tactics, where one half of Europe was set against the other.

2) Any possibility of a Franco-Russian alliance against Germany was intolerable to Washington. Should Paris have pulled that crap, they'd have made a formidable American enemy indeed.

3) Germany was, for the first time ever, welcomed into the fold with rock-solid guarantees of territorial security and integrity, backed by the armed forces of the entire western world. No longer would Europe's strongest power lay adrift in the center of Europe, alone and unprotected by any international organization.

4) Russia, that trailer trash menace to Europe, was quarantined.

5) NATO policy in the Balkans has mimicked that of the old Central Powers - Serbia is regarded as a menace that must be contained.

6) The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has sprung forth anew from the grave, as the territories of the former Soviet Union split off from Russia and join the west.

The Americans seem, when in charge, to have become somewhat...German...in their approach to things.

Austria allying with Turkey in WW1, to me, seems a very odd thing. I mean, the Austrians and Germans have fought against the Turks since, well even before the Osmanli dynasty took power in the mideast. Suddenly allying with them seems to be a total reverse of tradition, a powerful thing in Austro-German society.

Austria allying with Turkey in WW1, to me, seems a very odd thing.

A side effect of the German-Ottoman alliance, to be sure.

In the prewar period there were factors at play pushing forward the idea of an Austro-Turkish axis. It was recognised in Vienna that Turkey (by checking Greece), could allow the unchaining of Bulgaria (defeated in 1913). If so, then Serbia was doomed - being unable to withstand even a dozen K.u.K. divisions if the Bulgars were taking her down from behind.

The Austrians, as with the Germans, were too prone to panic in 1914. After all, even though they were defeated on the battlefield everywhere (The Washington Generals of the History Channel, to borrow a Simpsons classic), by the end of 1915 the Austrians had essentially won their war - Serbia vanquished, Russia thrown back, and Italy at bay.