WW2 was a criminal act

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you going to run, or only the "fundamentally evil"?

Give me a break.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... the self-proclaimed anarchist runs for office... Nope, sorry, don't think it would fly

But I'm not going to defend my personal beliefs here. I only threw that in lest it be construed that I was somehow championing Herr Hitler and his pogroms.

Babs Out.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Darren J Pierson]

Regarding the British guarantee to Poland:

Certainly if the only concern of the British was to guarantee Poland's security then declaring war on both Germany and the Soviet Union makes sense, but even the British acknowledged that they were also fighting for their own national interests. Sometimes the interests of two nations can coincide.

Of course, a British declaration of war on the Soviets while at war with Germany would have been a suicidal decision. That would not have helped the Poles at all.

Finally, the British did push very hard at the war's end to get a free Poland, but it was moot as has been pointed out by other posters. Stalin was not going to be moved out of Poland.

I'm not sure what Britain could have really done in 1939 to save Poland.

Darren

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, the ONLY reason this OT thread is still here is because it is still civil. Just wanted to remind folks of that, 'cause it will close up REAL fast if it doesn't

As for the hypocracy in post WWII Europe, there are PLENTY of examples. Having the Soviets sit in judgement at Nuremburg was like having Bundy decide deciding the fate of Ramerez (both are infamous US mass murderers). The fact that the SU signed a pact with Hitler to divide up Poland, which is the "excuse" that officially started WWII, yet only Germans were charged with waging "aggressive warfare" is simply WRONG. In fact, prior to Poland the Soviet Union was the first major nation to wage "aggressive warfare" on its neighbors in Europe since all the land grab attempts various countries made against each other (including Poland against Germany) just after the close of WWI.

OK, I'll stop now

Trying to think about WWII as absolute good and evil, or the peace as good and evil, will give any serious student of that time period a terrible headache. So I just used the sliding scale system and take major issues on a case by case basis. In general the Soviets come out looking pretty bad, the French not so hot, Britain much better, and the US (at least in the ETO) pretty good. Other nations ranged from horrible (puppet states in what was Yugoslavia) to almost admirable (Norway). BUT, nobody gets a clean bill of health in the "Good vs. Evil" department. As so many people said above, all nations are by definition out to serve their own needs first and foremost, which means someone else is nearly always going to lose something in the process.

All nations are selfish, and that is a given. The degree that selfishness can be surpressed for higher ideals is what counts in my book. The Allies could have had all German authorities shot out of hand, Morganthau could have had his way and West Germany would have been as pillaged as East Germany, France could have annexed the Ruhr, etc., etc. etc. So moderation *must* get some credit, even if it is in some way self serving. Otherwise, what is the point in trying to make things better?

Steve

[Guest GriffinCheng]

...and IIRC, the SU had denied of such pact with Nazi German at the end of WW2....

[tss]

Of course, a British declaration of war on the Soviets while at war with Germany would have been a suicidal decision. That would not have helped the Poles at all.

Still, UK and France were ready to declare the war against Soviet Union in early 1940 in support of Finland. However, the cynic in me thinks that their main contribution to Winter War would have been securing Petshenka nickel mines and Swedish iron ore.

The 13th March 1940 is one of the less known turning points of WWII, not because of what happened then but because of what didn't happen. The Finnish government chose to accept peace with heavy terms instead of escalating the war. Both British and French governments had given an unofficial promise that they would send troops to help Finland as soon as Finns officially asked help. If this had happened, the Western Allies would have ended in a war against both Germany and SU.

- Tommi

[JoshK]

It is easy to oversell historical relativism. States do commit genocide. That does not make genocide a normal act that can be explained away by "every one does it."

What the U.S. did the native Americans was evil.

What the Turks did to the Armenians was evil.

What the Germans did to the Jews and Roma was evil.

What the Hutus did to the Tutsi was evil.

However, that does not mean that each of these regimes is equally illegitimate.

Someone (Winston Churchill or Madeline Albright) said that no type of government will ever be perfect, but at least democracy is perfectible.

So, while the Turks were killing Armenians, the U.S. was finally giving women the right to vote.

While Stalin was starving millions of Ukrainians, the U.S. was embarking on the New Deal

While Hitler was murdering millions of Jews and Roma, the U.S. was fighting a two-front war against Nazism and Japanese militarism.

Am I overstating my case? Clearly. There are plenty of counter arguments about all of the horrible things that democracies do.

My point is, they do far less horrible things than other types of regimes, they are more accountable for those things, and they are much less likely to repeat them.

[Mark IV]

I see that my post of yesterday was lacking in civility. While I stand by the statements, I do apologize for its tone.

They say God created whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world....

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 02-01-2000).]

[Darren J Pierson]

Re: Britain's almost war with Russia over Finland

tss: You are absolutely correct. I can remember Churchill saying how "interesting" that would have been in his history of WWII.

Perhaps it was because of the timing (prior to the fall of France) and Britain had gotten cocky, but this close call illustrates just how foolish countries can be. Good politicians have to know when to back down, as unpalatable as that is to many.

Darren

[This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-01-2000).]

[Guest Babra]

It's getting so interesting I find it hard to let go...

Focussing again on the original premise: "WW2 was a criminal act."

We all (myself included) seem to be focussing on the holocaust here. In fairness, this is what most people do when they think of Nazi Germany. It's hard to separate. Hitler took advantage of his sweeping powers during the war to begin his final solution schemes, but that's not really what the war was about. Certainly nobody declared war on Germany to save the oppressed jews.

So back to the war... Hitler was the quintissential Machiavellian national leader. Treaty maker and treaty breaker, bandit, blackmailer. Some like to credit his intelligence for achieving as much as he did, but really any schoolyard bully could do the same. In anything resembling normal times he would never even have achieved power let alone been permitted to keep it. And therein lies the mystery in the great insanity that engulfed Europe less than a lifetime ago, and that's why it is counterproductive to label the events as good and evil. We MUST understand them if we are to avoid repeating them, or recognize their growth elsewhere.

The psychology that drove Nazi Germany is the psychology of mass-man, and it is the least understood and possibly most dangerous of mental processes. Germany wanted what is best for Germany. Many good and decent Germans embraced Nazism to advance the German cause. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

Britain, my own dear patria, was no better. Concepts of good and evil bore no weight in Parliament. Churchill himself, when criticized for signing a treaty with Stalin, said (paraphrasing) "I would sign a treaty with the Devil himself, if he would come out against Herr Hitler." Britain turned her guns on her ally at Oran in the name of self preservation, which is apparently justified somehow. Britain was in the very act of invading Norway without a formal declaration of war when the Germans beat them to it by a matter of days.

The second world war was an extension of the first, and the first was a war of unadulterated Imperialism. Machiavelli might have been a prick, but every politician reads The Prince. But something happened during that time, something which created the twin societies of fascism and communism and it's important we understand as much as we can about the driving forces behind that dynamic. That is the true lesson of the wars. To shrug it off and say "Hitler was evil" is to dismiss something which may rise to haunt us again.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Guest Big Time Software]

States have to have SOME degree of Realpolitik or they will be bested by another that does. My philosphy is to look at the what, why, and result of such a decision. The attack on the French navy at Oran was, IMHO, a justifiable act within the context of the situations surrounding it. The same act at another time might very well not stand up so well. The same goes for the ill fated raid on Dieppe. As terrible as it was, it served its purpose in the large Allied plan by giving them a reality check as to how hard it would be to attack Fortress Europe. Not to say that everything that happened during that operation is absolved of judgement, but the act itself was not a total waste as it might seem.

As for Britain's war plan, don't forget that they had plans to invade Sweden, a neutral, once they got Norway, also a neutral, under their military control. From a Realpolitik point of view, this might have been justified. But it would be yet another case that would place the Allies' judgement of Third Reich actions on even shakier ground. If a nation wishes to take the high road it had better do it in act as well as word. The western Allies were better than other nations in history, but they sure do have a fair number of stains on their records.

Steve

[dumbo]

Mood lightner:

As churchill qoutes are flying around here is one for you.

A female member of parliament who was a regular opponent of Churchill was once so outraged by one of Churchills remarks she said "Sir if I was your wife, I would put poison your coffee."

To which he responded.

"Madame if you were my wife, I would drink it."

_dumbo

[Guest Babra]

"He (Churchill) mobilized the English Language and sent it to war."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[werfer]

Yes, Winston Churchill had many good quotes, most of which are usefull and factual (unlike his predesecor Chamberlain). My favorite being "Those who forget the past are condemned to relieve it". It kinda makes you think doesn't it?.

werfer

[Neutral Party]

"Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it" hmm.. This should be the motto of this bulletin board

Joe

[Guest Captain Foobar]

No offense to BillWood, but I am of the opinion that the title of this thread "WW2 was a criminal act" is completely subjective. Hitler was obsessed with finding LEGAL ways to commit the acts he wanted to. Now under the Weimar Republic, his acts would rarely be legal. The NSDAP did as they pleased under their own jurisdiction. I only bring this up to point out that Criminal is merely a legal term. I have little faith in the endurance and justness of law, in a world wide sense.

I would fight against what is wrong, in a moral sense, regardless of law. War *is* everything that is wrong, whether or not politicians find "legal" reasons to engage in it or not.

[rdreyer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

States have to have SOME degree of Realpolitik or they will be bested by another that does. My philosphy is to look at the what, why, and result of such a decision. The attack on the French navy at Oran was, IMHO, a justifiable act within the context of the situations surrounding it.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean the British attack on the French navy at Mers El Kebir? What was justifiable

about it? The British slaughtered many French sailors after having been show official documents guaranteeing the fleet would never been used against them, by the anglophile fleet commander. They attacked a country they were not at war with. This criminal act caused widespread outrage in France against

the British. Ciao,

Renaud

[Neutral Party]

Along with rum, sodomy and the lash, the destruction of a potential enemy's fleet while they were tied up was one of the time-honoured traditions of the Royal Navy (see Copenhagen, Nile).

The RN would have been in very deep **** had the French Navy become allied with the Kreigsmarine or Italian Navy against it. It was, IMHO, correctly decided that that the risk of (1) neutralization of the RN (2) invasion of the UK and (3) possible German conquest was too great to take. Unfortunately the British had been burned once too often by "a piece of paper" guaranteeing "peace in our time".

The later behaviour of the French Navy, while no doubt related to being attacked by the RN, can hardly be interpreted as pro-allied. Remember Richelieu (or was it Jean Bart) fired at US warships during the Torch landings.

Joe

[Guest BillWood]

What a great thread. Argument IS the essence of conversation.

First off, I want to say that Bill Clinton is not a Hitler. No matter how badly a National Leader wants to prevent the death of innocent people, either abroad or at home, ther are times when precedence allows him to do some pretty serious things. The German desire to bomb civilian targets from the air ( a practice the performed with Zeppelins) was honed to a high art by Nazi desire, and imitated by the Allies, and the modern legacy is that it can still be justified, even by decent people.

Stalin was, without doubt, a owner of a much higher butcher bill than Hitler. Hitler's was at least driven by age old nationalism and a willingness to kill, but Stalin's seems to have been all for himself, no action to heinous or broad to achieve his own pinnacle.

Yes, I am to all aware of the fact that ALL nations have committed some serious acts in kind if not on the scale of Nazism or Stalinism.

It amazes me how focused we are WW2 in Europe.

Why are we?

1. It was sold as a Crusade, an English tradition in war, i.e, that God and Country must be good and that who we fight must be Evil. Nazism was such an Evil to Britain and the US.

2. The German war machine was and is recognized as one of the most efficient and feared in history. And the English speaking people of the world helped to crush it and its Allies with justifiable pride. (The Soviets did a lot of damage, but alone they could not of done it, especially if alone meant they did not get trucks from the West. Just how much oppurtunity to build their excellent tanks would they have lost if they instead had to build trucks?).

3. The political puzzle inherent to the situation. Every concievable type of political event seemes to have taken place in a very short time of say 15-20 years. It was "compressed" history, things moved probably 10 times faster than normal.

4. Well documented, tons of film, pictures, books, paper and cardboard wargames.

5. The mechanized battle is very interesting, manuever warfare is just plain fun to game and exciting to study.

Now to the important thing.

Combat Mission, in my opinion, is likely to have an impact on the wargaming community as much as WW2 has on the military history student, significant and well deserved attention.

Ever since I first played GDW's Operation Crudader with its Si Plot, Si Move system, I knew it was the correct way.

When I played Squad Leader +, I was willing to put up with its complexity to delve into that one segment no one had done well until then, squad/vehivle level WW2 warfare. I enjoyed hundreds of hours playing this game.

Combat Mission is the game I always wanted to play, and I am mightily impressed with just the beta.

Getting long winded, so look forward to reading more posts.

Bill

[Guest Big Time Software]

Renaud, as Joe pointed out the British did not KNOW that the French were going to keep their fleet neutral. Papers "proving" this? Er... I wouldn't have done anything but wipe my bum with such documents under the circumstances. The British response, while still controversial, was a sound and rational decision. Personally, I think it was a wise move based on the circumstances of when they did it. The outrage of the French citizens is irrelevant. The British KNEW it would be an unpopular move, but felt it was a necessary one. If I were a Frenchman today I would try and understand that the British didn't do what they did for the pleasure of killing French saliors, but because they felt it was in their best military interest to do so. However, the British should not have been so quick to pass judgement on the Third Riech for their actions against neutrals.

Bill, I'm not really clear what your point is now. Your original post was an over simplification and very blame oriented statement. The bulk of the responses have been pointed at showing that the world is a pretty rough place and that the Allies do not have totally solid moral ground beneath their feet. Sure Nazism was a bad thing, but it wasn't a unique one, either for its day or any time prior or since. Plenty of nasty people get into positions of power...

As for your comment about the Soviets playing a secondary role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, I must point out that this is not the case. The Soviets were more responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany than any other single nation and arguable more than the entire Western Allied alliance.

Also, Hitler was all about power for himself, not for Germany. Stalin also tapped into nationalism, which is why the Germans got their asses kicked so hard in Russia. People fought and died for Mother Russia first, possibly Stalin second.

Sorry for the nit picking, but I am a historian after all

Steve

[rdreyer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neutral Party:

Along with rum, sodomy and the lash, the destruction of a potential enemy's fleet while they were tied up was one of the time-honoured traditions of the Royal Navy (see Copenhagen, Nile).

The RN would have been in very deep **** had the French Navy become allied with the Kreigsmarine or Italian Navy against it. It was, IMHO, correctly decided that that the risk of (1) neutralization of the RN (2) invasion of the UK and (3) possible German conquest was too great to take. Unfortunately the British had been burned once too often by "a piece of paper" guaranteeing "peace in our time".

The later behaviour of the French Navy, while no doubt related to being attacked by the RN, can hardly be interpreted as pro-allied. Remember Richelieu (or was it Jean Bart) fired at US warships during the Torch landings.

Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those "pieces of paper" were official secret French government instructions to the Navy, instructing officers to prepare to resume the fight against Germany and to refrain from responding to any provocation from the British. The British commander was satisfied upon seeing those documents, and on the word of honor of the French commander. Churchill ordered the criminal slaughter anyways.

When the British gave the French fleet the ultimatum, the French ships were put on alert, and the sailrs where delighted. thinking theyw ere going to fight Germans...

[rdreyer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neutral Party:

The later behaviour of the French Navy, while no doubt related to being attacked by the RN, can hardly be interpreted as pro-allied. Remember Richelieu (or was it Jean Bart) fired at US warships during the Torch landings.

Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sudden invasion of (at the time) French territory, can hadly be interpreted as pro-French. What would you expect those warships to do when an uninvited and unanounced invasion force suddenly arrived at their doorstep. Especially after Mers El Kebir?

During the armistice discussion, Darlan, the

French top admiral, threatened to take the whole fleet to North Africa to continue the fight but relented at the last moment. The French commander at the fleet at Mers El Kebir was willing to set sail and join the British, but couldn't because he didn't want to be responsible for giving a pretext to the German for taking over the free zone in France. And when the Germans did invade the free zone, the fleet at Toulon sunk itself

rather than fall to the Germans. Ciao,

Renaud

[Guest Babra]

The question of the French fleet is a fascinating and unfortunately too-much overlooked facet of the war. What it boils down too is the deep mistrust that the French and British still felt for one another, even after the events of the first war. On the one hand there are loud criticisms in French circles of the British abandoning her ally at Dunkirk, though what else the British were supposed to do (except die) isn't clear. On the other, loud British criticisms of the French capitulating "without a fight", though again, what the French were supposed to do with German armies running wild over the countryside isn't clear either. That the French fleet was viewed as a "potential enemy" as someone has said in this thread, speaks volumes. No doubt it was viewed that way, more's the pity. I'm just glad I wasn't one of those British sailors, because I'd feel two inches tall for the rest of my life.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Neutral Party]

rdreyer

I'm sure the RN commander was satisfied of the best intentions of the French Admiral. Unfortunately, irrespective of the content of the secret documents, it was judged that the risk was too great. For all the British knew there could be another set of secret documents shown to the Germans letting them know that the French fleet would never be used against them. Alternatively the Germans could have held the French government to ransom until the fleet was delivered. You say as much yourself

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The French commander at the fleet at Mers El Kebir was willing to set sail and join the British, but couldn't because he didn't want to be responsible for giving a pretext to the German for taking over the free zone in France.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are all what-ifs - nobody knew what would happen.

I agree that the Torch landings put the Vichy forces in a difficult position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would you expect those warships to do when an uninvited and unanounced invasion force suddenly arrived at their doorstep. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well this is the point - nobody knew what to expect. Just like they didn't know what to expect from the French fleet had it been left alone. Maybe some people expected the French to lay down their arms - like they did when the Japanese entered Indo-China.

Babra

I think you have identified a very important aspect of this problem. There was a deep distrust between the French and British - still is (British beef anyone ?). They had been enemies for so long that the folk memory of both nations still considered each other as the real enemy. The entante cordiale was really driven by the fear of Germany and its expanding militarism rather than any genuine affection.

There is absolutely no doubt (or argument) that the attack on the French fleet at Mers el Kebir was a terrible tragedy and certainly the most odius task that the Royal Navy performed in the course of the war. All the British sailors involved were sickened and disgusted by the affair. Was it a crime ? I don't think so.

Joe

[rdreyer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neutral Party:

rdreyer

I'm sure the RN commander was satisfied of the best intentions of the French Admiral. Unfortunately, irrespective of the content of the secret documents, it was judged that the risk was too great.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchill was not worried about the risk but wanted his "king's head" (a reference, which he was very fond of, to the French revolutionaries in 1793). The RN officers were convinced the French navy would never fight against them and were proven rights by events, even after the French navy had all reasons to have the British.

The consequences however were quite bad for the British. The rest of the French fleet set sail to Toulon for better protection against British attack, where they ended up of course closer to the Germans. The French navy became very anti-British, as did the army, making the North African operation much slower for the Allies than it could have been, and delaying the invasions of Tunisia and Italy. Valuable British forces were tied down in Syria and Madagascar at a crucial time.

It's a miracle that the French goverment didn't declare war on the UK over this. That they didn't speaks volumes of how likely the French navy was to ever join the Axis.

[Guest Babra]

Another barely remembered episode is the British invasion of French Lebanon in 1941. Few histories even mention it, and fewer the reasons for it.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !