Why did WWII happen ?

redcoat said:
The myth that the concentration camp was invented by the British is actually WW2 Nazi propaganda.
The term was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78 )
At the start of the 20th century there was quite a fad for their use.
In fact, they were even used by America in the Philippines (1898–1901),

Hhmm... I didn't know that. But they were used by the Brits during the Boer War right?
 
Ted said:
Hhmm... I didn't know that. But they were used by the Brits during the Boer War right?

Once again, concentration camps are necessary, an army won't fit in a jail. Death camps with custom built ovens to burn masses of people killed every day with poison gas, not even in the same catagory. There is not now nor will anyone ever convince me that Germany was not attempting to commit genocide as a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem."
 
Ollie Garchy said:
My response:

(1) Stalin killed the following people in addition to the "Russians": Ukranians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Germans, Rumanians, Croats, Czechs, Slovakians, etc.

Sure he did. That's what monsters do. Throw in Catholics, Jews, Siberians, and just about everything else that breathed.

Ollie Garchy said:
(2) Killing your "own" people? That is still a crime as bad as killing "other" people. Or do you think that Bundy was less a murderer because he only killed (and partially ate) Americans?

Ted Bundy wasn't a cannibal, I think you're thinking of Jeffery Dahmer. And the fact that they are both dead for their crimes should be explanation enough of what America thought of their extracurricular activities. As for your question as being relevant, it missed the target of the thread completely.

Ollie Garchy said:
(3) "We can give as good as we get". This barbaric philosophy is still illegal and counter to world law and the laws of war. I have never seen the following caveat in the Geneva Convention or any other legal document: "The killing of civilians is permitted under the following circumstances...(a) as a tool of vengeance, (b) a demonstration of power, (c) for fun"....well, you get my point.
Ollie Garchy

Someone should have mentioned that little jewel to Hitler, then there wouldn't have been a war at all.
 
Missileer said:
Once again, concentration camps are necessary, an army won't fit in a jail. Death camps with custom built ovens to burn masses of people killed every day with poison gas, not even in the same catagory. There is not now nor will anyone ever convince me that Germany was not attempting to commit genocide as a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem."

I know that you can't compare the concentration camps of the Brits to the extermination camps of the Nazi's. But the internment of women and children in these camps and the poor conditions which caused them to die, didn't quite make it a holiday camp either. And yes, Germany did try to achieve the extermination of a complete ethnic group via the usage of industrial mass murder...
 
But the internment of women and children in these camps and the poor conditions which caused them to die, didn't quite make it a holiday camp either.

Ted your usally pretty reliable for accurate information, but can I have a souce on this?
 
Rabs said:
Ted your usally pretty reliable for accurate information, but can I have a souce on this?

I'll have a go at this:
The term "concentration camp" was first used by the British military during the Boer War (1899-1902). Facing attack by Boer guerrillas, British forces rounded up the Boer women and children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to 31 camps scattered around South Africa. This was done as part of a scorched earth policy to deny the guerrillas access to the supplies of food and clothing they needed to continue the war.
The camps were situated at Aliwal North, Balmoral, Barberton, Belfast, Bethulie, Bloemfontein, Brandfort, Heidelberg, Heilbron, Howick, Irene, Kimberley, Klerksdorp, Kroonstad, Krugersdorp, Merebank, Middelburg, Norvalspont, Nylstroom, Pietermaritzburg, Pietersburg, Pinetown, Port Elizabeth, Potchefstroom, Springfontein, Standerton, Turffontein, Vereeniging, Volksrust, Vredefort and Vryburg.
Though they were not extermination camps, the Boer camps were noted for their poor nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high mortality rates (28,000 women and children died). The Boer situation was only relieved when Emily Hobhouse brought the conditions in the camps to the attention of the British public.
You'll find the rest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps or http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm or http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/boerwar.html

I guess this will suffice. But I am not comparing them to the Nazi or communist camps..... I thouht I'd just add that to make sure.
 
Thanks Ted, at least the British citizens stopped it before things got really bad. The POW camps, at least in Texas were a joke. The Germans had things better than the people who lived around them. They could work on farms or service stations for pay and many either stayed after the war or returned to America later. There were a lot of widows in all of the countries involved so many former enemies married. Odd.
 
Missileer said:
Sure he did. That's what monsters do. Throw in Catholics, Jews, Siberians, and just about everything else that breathed.



Ted Bundy wasn't a cannibal, I think you're thinking of Jeffery Dahmer. And the fact that they are both dead for their crimes should be explanation enough of what America thought of their extracurricular activities. As for your question as being relevant, it missed the target of the thread completely.



Someone should have mentioned that little jewel to Hitler, then there wouldn't have been a war at all.

The point is simple: Why declare Hitler evil when you act the same way!

I am not pro-Hitler, I am an anarchist!
 
Rabs said:
Oh sweet jesus, I'd have more respect for you if you were pro-hitler hell pro-holocaust for that manner.

If we want to know why WWII happened, we have to look at the dynamics of state power, definitions of power, etc. The issue of power is at the heart of the question. An anarchist is someone who believes in the restriction of the power process to many small groups or local communities. (A syndicalist). A dictator (whether leftist or rightist) is impossible in such an atmosphere. Why have no respect for a person who wants a system whereby the people regain the right to control their own destiny? Do you like living as a slave of the new order? I don't. Do you want people in one thousand years to remember the deeds of those who freed the human race from the bonds of slavery? I do.

WWII represented a clash of the global elite much more than Russians against Germans or Germans against Americans. The evidence here is striking. Ask Americans where Germany sits on the globe. They do not really know. Ask Germans about America. The same sort of thing. The mass of people believe the simplistic B.S. they see on t.v. Things were no different in the 1930s. Hell, most people do not even read. They know nothing. They are just chess pieces for the elite. Period.

The "Germans" of the period fall under the same category. They only knew what the government and elite wanted them to know. If that. Like all men of the west today, they were fed the information that made the government-sponsored course of action acceptable and possible.

We often hear that the "Germans" should have voted against Hitler (over 50% did) or have fought the nazi system. Again, come on. Most Germans were too busy trying to survive the depression. These people were also royally pissed off. Do you think that the British and French and Polish governments made things easy for Germany after 1918? Do you really think that the largest population in western Europe would just sit back and take Versailles up the butt?

Regarding the other comment that this has nothing to do with this thread, again, come on! All of these matters are at the heart of the issue. The German government of the period (many of the people for that matter) could not stomach living under a French/British dictatorship. Can you blame them? We all want to be free.

The schools and universities in both Germany and North America teach the same line of crap (I know I went through both systems): "the Germans of the period wanted world domination. They therefore went on the attack and were stopped by the holy alliance of the rest of the planet. The Russians, Americans and British (others as well) were all noble or whatever. The sun shone out of their asses". Come on. This is just propaganda. Sure. Right. Correct.

Ollie Garchy
 
Reiben said:
Stalins annexation were not ignored by the west. Fighting against Germany was enough for Britain and France. After all they remembered 1914-18. Both countries made attempts to provide an alliance similar to 1914 with Russia.

Both Britain and France supplied equipment to the Finnish in the Winter War against Russia.

Germany wanted and started a war of aggression. You could argue that the people of Germany didnt want a war, the reaction of 1914 may not have been repeated, but there was support.

Germany waged a war aggression with racist overtones. It seems hard to argue that Germany was not an aggressive racist state during world war 2.

I do not want to be mean, and I like you guys, but this is just crap. You are refuting your own argument in the same damn sentence. "Germany wanted and started a war of aggression", you say. The British (who literally forced the French government to respond) declared war because they had offered the Polish government a blanket guarantee against Germany -- the first time in modern history that the British government did so.

This has nothing to do with (1) strategy, (2) morality, or even (3) international diplomacy. Chamberlain was forced to respond to the increasing militancy of the British public against Germans. Wow. Nuttin' new here.

That the British did not punish Stalin for his invasions comes as no surprise. The British governent did not give a rat's ass for Finland or whatever. Poland only mattered because germany invaded. Canada could have landed marines and the world would have chuckled.

We learn in school that Hitler was militant and he sent troops into the Rhineland -- his own damn country! Or Austria!

What about all the other invasions of the 1930s. That we actually learn about the Rhineland is farcical. The Japanese invasions of China, or Italy in Africa, or the US in Central American. NO, we concentrate on the German "invasion" of their own damn country.

Ollie Garchy
 
Ollie Garchy said:
I do not want to be mean, and I like you guys, but this is just crap. You are refuting your own argument in the same damn sentence. "Germany wanted and started a war of aggression", you say. The British (who literally forced the French government to respond) declared war because they had offered the Polish government a blanket guarantee against Germany -- the first time in modern history that the British government did so.

This has nothing to do with (1) strategy, (2) morality, or even (3) international diplomacy. Chamberlain was forced to respond to the increasing militancy of the British public against Germans. Wow. Nuttin' new here.

That the British did not punish Stalin for his invasions comes as no surprise. The British governent did not give a rat's ass for Finland or whatever. Poland only mattered because germany invaded. Canada could have landed marines and the world would have chuckled.

We learn in school that Hitler was militant and he sent troops into the Rhineland -- his own damn country! Or Austria!

What about all the other invasions of the 1930s. That we actually learn about the Rhineland is farcical. The Japanese invasions of China, or Italy in Africa, or the US in Central American. NO, we concentrate on the German "invasion" of their own damn country.

Ollie Garchy

So if I understand you correct it was the British actions that forced the war? Its a rather simplistic case. I accept the point about the guarantee for Poland. German actions had becoming increasingly aggressive. Munich, then the annexation of czechoslovakia, the invasion of Poland lead to someone drawing a line in the sand.

I didnt mention the Rhineland. The militarisation of the Rhineland was against the treaty. A treaty which is still causing problems throughout the world. The annexation of czechoslovakia is the more important evet, especially after Munich, Hitler said he had no more territorial demands, which we know wasnt true.

The point is surely that the western democaries followed a line of appeasement in the 1930s. Allowing Germany and Japan to bully and wage war.
 
The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

The British declaration of war was not an automatic result of Nazi actions. Other countries invaded other countries. Nobody cared. In this case, the British government cared. They technically hold responsibility. They started WWII.

The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time. No penalties for them. You CANNOT argue that Poland was the issue.

The Rhineland is an example. Teachers inform their students about the Rhineland as if it were criminal. Simultaneously, the rest of the world was involved in wars of expansion. (Japan, USA, Italy, etc.) You have to start thinking that Germans are treated differently from the rest of mankind. They can do nothing. The rest of the planet can rape and plunder at will. Great scholarship. Great morality.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.
Germany had already started a war with its invasion of Poland, Britains declaration merely widened it.
The British declaration of war was not an automatic result of Nazi actions. Other countries invaded other countries. Nobody cared. In this case, the British government cared. They technically hold responsibility. They started WWII.
No Germany did.
They invaded a country, with the full knowledge of the guarantee that Britain and France had given to it

The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time. No penalties for them. You CANNOT argue that Poland was the issue.
No. The Soviets invaded two weeks after Britain and France had declared war on Germany.
The reason the british and french didn't declare war on the Soviet Union is quite simple. They had been forced into a war they didn't want by Germany, they knew they would have enough difficulty beating Germany without taking on the Soviet Union as well.
As an American president once said " One war at a time, gentlemen please"
 
Ollie Garchy said:
The point is simple: Why declare Hitler evil when you act the same way!

The list of evil people is as long as the road to hell, I just put Hitler at the top.:firedevi:
 
The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

This is one of the strangest versions I have heard regarding the start of WWII. If England wouldn't have done anything about Poland, do you really think that would be the end of it? I mean Fall Gelb was already planned so was the invasion of Norway and many France. Germany was on the war-path and it was a question of time before England would respond.
We could also turn it around. If Germany would have invaded Poland, do you think England would have declared war?...... I don't think so, do you?
 
Ollie Garchy said:
The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

Germany invaded Poland on September 1st. Britain and France declared war on September 3rd. The declaration by Britain and France widened the war. If the hadnt stood by Poland (and sorry if your Polish, seemed to stand and watch) the war wouldnt have occured then, but it would have done at another time.

I hope your not saying its ok to invade Poland.

Ollie Garchy said:
The British declaration of war was not an automatic result of Nazi actions. Other countries invaded other countries. Nobody cared. In this case, the British government cared. They technically hold responsibility. They started WWII.

I think the French had free will. You do them a diservice.

Ollie Garchy said:
The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time. No penalties for them. You CANNOT argue that Poland was the issue.

The Germans had defeated the Polish by them. The fighting carried on, but the Polish had no chance of victory. It doesnt make what the Russians did right.

Ollie Garchy said:
The Rhineland is an example. Teachers inform their students about the Rhineland as if it were criminal. Simultaneously, the rest of the world was involved in wars of expansion. (Japan, USA, Italy, etc.) You have to start thinking that Germans are treated differently from the rest of mankind. They can do nothing. The rest of the planet can rape and plunder at will. Great scholarship. Great morality.

Surely this is a wider point, that you are making that the Germans were victims.

Germany was an aggressor! Who carried out some of the biggest crimes in history.

Japan was also an aggressor and committed war crimes. Japan was occupied for a long period, as was Germany.

Perhaps the difference was in the nature of the unwinding of the alliance against Germany and Japan. Japan being defeated after Germany and the desire to exclude Russia from Japan. For the west the enemy became Communism following the defeat of fascism.
 
One of the major questions that has to be asked is this.

What was the real reason for Great Britain and France guarenteeing the independence of Poland?

And following on from this.

What would have been Great Britain and France's response had the Soviet Union invaded Poland first?
 
I think that the UK especially, worried about Germany's industrial capacity. In the haydays of Imperialism you couldn't afford to become a back-benchers. Of course I don't know if this played a role, but I can't imagine it didn't. But also the British view on Germanies expansion became more and more critical. If Chamberlain would not stiffen his back and chin-up he would be politically unmaintainable. The Brits had learned their lesson well after the Munich debacle....
I (personally) think that the UK and France wouldn't have done anything if Russia had invaded Poland. Actually it would make for a "good" or "well balanced" geopolitical situation. Germany would be on their toe's and the UK and France could just sit by and watch how the two superpowers would grind themselves down. Of course this is pure speculative on my account, but it sounds logical to me.
 
Doppleganger said:
One of the major questions that has to be asked is this.

What was the real reason for Great Britain and France guarenteeing the independence of Poland?

And following on from this.

What would have been Great Britain and France's response had the Soviet Union invaded Poland first?

What was the terms of the guarantee? Was it specific to an aggressor ie Germany?
 
Back
Top