Patriotism and being a JFB.

[DuckofTindalos]

Actually, the agreement was for France and Britain to guarantee Poland's independence and security (IIRC). This means that Poland was under no obligation to invade Germany if she'd attacked France first (a ludicrous idea, looking at pre-war strengths). France and Britain most certainly failed to live up to this treaty, and they most certainly appeased Hitler pre-war.

This, however, is irrelevant to the discussion of who were the bad guys and good guys in WWII. Again, Germany/Japan knowingly, willingly and deliberately pursued their evil racial policies (don't tell me that the Japanese didn't see themselves as superior to Chinese, Koreans, Malays, et al) to the detriment of EVERYONE, including themselves.

Did Western Allied troops kill POW's, shot-down airmen, sailors from sunken ships etc? Of course they did. Did they do it because it was government policy, officially sanctioned in national ideology? NO!

[CV Zuikaku]

By their unwilligness to do anything, allied missed the chance to end the war by 1940. There were only a handfull of poorly equipped german divisions guarding Siegfried line during the Polish campaigna, and French army alone woul'd be sufficient to smash the defensive line and overrun at least Ruhr area- if not even more...
But my opinion is they declared the war on Hitler and hoped he will then sue for peace...

[CV Zuikaku]

Terminus, they did not shoot at German raider , U-boat and merchant marine crews. But they regularly did shoot on japanese merchant and warship crews. Maybe becouse they also thought they are racially more worth than japanese. Just look at the US propaganda movies and leaflets concerning the war in the Pacific. Can you really tell me that they were not rasistic? I fail too see the reason why this matter is so hard to discuss even after 60 years...

[DuckofTindalos]

Of course there was racism on the Allied side towards the Japanese. I'm not saying there wasn't.

What I am saying, however, is that the Allies did not use Japanese civilians for biological weapon experiments, kept them as slaves in brothels or force them to build railroads through the jungle, leaving them to die in their thousands. The Japanese did. This is a historical fact, and that's why they were the bad guys.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I understand what you want to say, Steve. But if someone declares a no fly zone over Croatia, and bomb me at will, I'll be enraged enough to try too shoot them down by any means available. And I am sure you will be too as well if someone did that to your coutry. When you force someone to obey something by using force, then you can not expect that they will be very happy about that. Imposed solutions are rarely good...

If you are given a choice...Surrender or die.....you are being imposed upon. Frankly , despite being married to an international lawyer , I don't much belive in international law (come to think of it, niether does my wife, nor most international lawyer that I know). In 1992 I though signing an agreement with Iraq was a very bad idea. Like many of my fellow soldiers and sailors (airmen too, and let's not forget Marines) I wanted to finish the job , and Saddam right then and there. The problem with signing an agreement or contract is that both sides have to agree with it. Pretty much everyone I knew there assumed that we would be re-fighting that fight again.

If you are not willing to live up to a treaty or agreement, don't sign it! And if you don't want to risk losing a war , don't start one. I am not sympathetic to Saddam. I am sympathetic to the Iraqi people , the same way that I was sympathetic to Germans under Hitler or Japanese under Tojo (and his successors). The people suffer for their leaders. But please don't try to convince of illegal wars unless you first read the law (and the fine print).

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Of course there was racism on the Allied side towards the Japanese. I'm not saying there wasn't.

What I am saying, however, is that the Allies did not use Japanese civilians for biological weapon experiments, kept them as slaves in brothels or force them to build railroads through the jungle, leaving them to die in their thousands. The Japanese did. This is a historical fact, and that's why they were the bad guys.

I never said that allies did that. Althoug they experimented a bit in the end, too se the effects of A-bomb blasts [;)]
Let's say that they were generally better than the Japanese and Germans concerning war crimes. But I am having difficulties too say that good guys are machinegunning survivors in the water. I respect Royal Navy , IJN and Kriegsmarine for not doing such things... I know only of one raider and U-boat doing such things....

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Terminus, they did not shoot at German raider , U-boat and merchant marine crews. But they regularly did shoot on japanese merchant and warship crews. Maybe becouse they also thought they are racially more worth than japanese. Just look at the US propaganda movies and leaflets concerning the war in the Pacific. Can you really tell me that they were not rasistic? I fail too see the reason why this matter is so hard to discuss even after 60 years...

And Japanese in the water frequently did shoot at their intended rescuers! How many times did a surrendering Japanese pull out a grenade or pistol and kill his rescuer? I recall one famous case off the Phillipines when a downed Japanese aviator pulled out a pistol and shot the young PT boat sailor who was offering him a cup of coffee. The word went out , "The Japanese don't want rescuing", and the troops heard the words loud and clear.

[mdiehl]

am, repeat, I am happy that Nazis, Fascist and Japanese governments were defeated! But you have to be stupid (like terminus, mdiehl and alike) to think that they were fighting for moral values. If it was the fight for moral values than they would try to follow the vision of president Wilson= world order where all the states were equal states and nations would have the right of self-determinaton (see 14 points).

My general sentiment is that people who are quick to attack people rather than arguments aren't nearly bright enough to deploy the word "stupid" unless they're addressing themselves in a mirror.

The problem with your argument is that you have confused morality in cause with morality in conduct. I basically agree that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, combined with the general economic depression of the 1930s, left Germans feeling hostile. But European states had fought many wars of mutual conquest prior to World War 2, and managed along the way to NOT systematically exterminate captive populaces. World War 2 in Europe became a MORAL issue, for most Americans, when Edgar R. Murrow began broadcasting during the German bombings of London. World War 2 in the USSR became a MORAL issue, for most Russians, when Germany began systematically enslaving and eliminating captive populaces on the Eastern Front.

In the Pacific, there was no reasonable cause for Japan to attack the United States. The oil embargo was, for President Roosvelt, a MORAL issue from the outset. American diplomatic response to the Three Demands was in essence "We are not going to provide you with the capability for waging a war of enslavement in China." Japan had other courses that Japan could have followed, but chose war for territorial expansion and enslavement over open trade and peace. Beyond that, Japan's conduct in occupied states and towards captives made fighting the war to a unconditional surrender a MORAL issue for the Allies; there were, once again, alternatives that Japan could have pursued. Nothing in the Bushido code would have found the various beheading contests, in which Japanese officers tried to see who could run up the greatest corpse count in exterminating civilians, to be moral. It was quite contrary to the Bushido Code to execute prisoners as well. So Japan could not even protest that their treatment of captive prisoners and civilians was consistent with Asian or Japanese cultural practice. It was pure barbarity, and the people implementing the barbarity knew it darned well. That is one of the contributing reasons why the Japanese surrender was delayed -- the Japanese army staff knew that if Japan surrendered unconditionally, alot of high ranking army officers might be held criminally accountable for their conduct.

Before you dismiss other people as "stupid," you ought to (1) remember to act like an adult, and (2) learn a little bit about a subject before you try to argue a position about that subject. Terminus' reaction was over the top. But his evaluation, that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany pursued courses of action that were objectively "evil" by any rational standard, is correct.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I understand what you want to say, Steve. But if someone declares a no fly zone over Croatia, and bomb me at will, I'll be enraged enough to try too shoot them down by any means available. And I am sure you will be too as well if someone did that to your coutry. When you force someone to obey something by using force, then you can not expect that they will be very happy about that. Imposed solutions are rarely good...

If you are given a choice...Surrender or die.....you are being imposed upon. Frankly , despite being married to an international lawyer , I don't much belive in international law (come to think of it, niether does my wife, nor most international lawyer that I know). In 1992 I though signing an agreement with Iraq was a very bad idea. Like many of my fellow soldiers and sailors (airmen too, and let's not forget Marines) I wanted to finish the job , and Saddam right then and there. The problem with signing an agreement or contract is that both sides have to agree with it. Pretty much everyone I knew there assumed that we would be re-fighting that fight again.

If you are not willing to live up to a treaty or agreement, don't sign it! And if you don't want to risk losing a war , don't start one. I am not sympathetic to Saddam. I am sympathetic to the Iraqi people , the same way that I was sympathetic to Germans under Hitler or Japanese under Tojo (and his successors). The people suffer for their leaders. But please don't try to convince of illegal wars unless you first read the law (and the fine print).

Well, I'm a lywyer myself and I don't believe in internationall law too anymore... Iz is not the law, but the law of the stronger... or the law of the jungle...
In my oppinion it was legal for US to bring Saddam down in 1991. But failing to do that then... you lost your chance and this invasion in 2003 was higly illegal...

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: hosho

Terminus go milk a cow or something you impolite danish bastard !

Haven't seen that one used a derogative since, uh, the cartoon thing. I was going to make a quip about the Ustaše but why bother.

[DuckofTindalos]

Ved du hvad "gå hen og malk en ko" betyder (som fornærmelse)?[:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I understand what you want to say, Steve. But if someone declares a no fly zone over Croatia, and bomb me at will, I'll be enraged enough to try too shoot them down by any means available. And I am sure you will be too as well if someone did that to your coutry. When you force someone to obey something by using force, then you can not expect that they will be very happy about that. Imposed solutions are rarely good...

If you are given a choice...Surrender or die.....you are being imposed upon. Frankly , despite being married to an international lawyer , I don't much belive in international law (come to think of it, niether does my wife, nor most international lawyer that I know). In 1992 I though signing an agreement with Iraq was a very bad idea. Like many of my fellow soldiers and sailors (airmen too, and let's not forget Marines) I wanted to finish the job , and Saddam right then and there. The problem with signing an agreement or contract is that both sides have to agree with it. Pretty much everyone I knew there assumed that we would be re-fighting that fight again.

If you are not willing to live up to a treaty or agreement, don't sign it! And if you don't want to risk losing a war , don't start one. I am not sympathetic to Saddam. I am sympathetic to the Iraqi people , the same way that I was sympathetic to Germans under Hitler or Japanese under Tojo (and his successors). The people suffer for their leaders. But please don't try to convince of illegal wars unless you first read the law (and the fine print).

Well, I'm a lywyer myself and I don't believe in internationall law too anymore... Iz is not the law, but the law of the stronger... or the law of the jungle...
In my oppinion it was legal for US to bring Saddam down in 1991. But failing to do that then... you lost your chance and this invasion in 2003 was higly illegal...

By what law, by what argument? I'm NOT a lawyer , but even I know that you never say something is illegal without some legal citation. So where is your citations? What single legal authority had the power to declare the US in the wrong? The UN? It's own mandates and resolutions were the ones being enforced! If they are illegal , then so is the UN. ???? OK, the EU? Out of it's jurisdiction. The league of nations? Sorry Jim, it's dead. Outside of CNN, the BBC and of course Sadam hiself, what jurisdiction do you cite? I eagerly await your response.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Terminus, they did not shoot at German raider , U-boat and merchant marine crews. But they regularly did shoot on japanese merchant and warship crews. Maybe becouse they also thought they are racially more worth than japanese. Just look at the US propaganda movies and leaflets concerning the war in the Pacific. Can you really tell me that they were not rasistic? I fail too see the reason why this matter is so hard to discuss even after 60 years...

And Japanese in the water frequently did shoot at their intended rescuers! How many times did a surrendering Japanese pull out a grenade or pistol and kill his rescuer? I recall one famous case off the Phillipines when a downed Japanese aviator pulled out a pistol and shot the young PT boat sailor who was offering him a cup of coffee. The word went out , "The Japanese don't want rescuing", and the troops heard the words loud and clear.

that was one case and the propaganda did the rest. There were not even that many cases of surrendering Japanese that killed their captives. Panic+ shellshock + propaganda = our enemies are evil monsters

[timtom]

Jeg tror han er fra Randers kanten - de har en del pussige udtryk deroppe.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Jeg tror han er fra Randers kanten - de har en del pussige udtryk deroppe.

Sære typer...[:D]

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve




If you are given a choice...Surrender or die.....you are being imposed upon. Frankly , despite being married to an international lawyer , I don't much belive in international law (come to think of it, niether does my wife, nor most international lawyer that I know). In 1992 I though signing an agreement with Iraq was a very bad idea. Like many of my fellow soldiers and sailors (airmen too, and let's not forget Marines) I wanted to finish the job , and Saddam right then and there. The problem with signing an agreement or contract is that both sides have to agree with it. Pretty much everyone I knew there assumed that we would be re-fighting that fight again.

If you are not willing to live up to a treaty or agreement, don't sign it! And if you don't want to risk losing a war , don't start one. I am not sympathetic to Saddam. I am sympathetic to the Iraqi people , the same way that I was sympathetic to Germans under Hitler or Japanese under Tojo (and his successors). The people suffer for their leaders. But please don't try to convince of illegal wars unless you first read the law (and the fine print).

Well, I'm a lywyer myself and I don't believe in internationall law too anymore... Iz is not the law, but the law of the stronger... or the law of the jungle...
In my oppinion it was legal for US to bring Saddam down in 1991. But failing to do that then... you lost your chance and this invasion in 2003 was higly illegal...

By what law, by what argument? I'm NOT a lawyer , but even I know that you never say something is illegal without some legal citation. So where is your citations? What single legal authority had the power to declare the US in the wrong? The UN? It's own mandates and resolutions were the ones being enforced! If they are illegal , then so is the UN. ???? OK, the EU? Out of it's jurisdiction. The league of nations? Sorry Jim, it's dead. Outside of CNN, the BBC and of course Sadam hiself, what jurisdiction do you cite? I eagerly await your response.

I might ask too which international convention gave you right for 2003 invasion? Except that you can do it and want to do it? Your casus belly was a fake. Hoax. You did not have support of UN. You acted allone with UK like cowboys when it was obvios that you do not have casus belly. So, Iraq did not attack you and was not threat to anyone anymore. US sanctions made only ordinary people to suffer. While politicians were getting richer. The same thing is now. So, you did nor have any legal right like you did in 1991. I know you won't agree. But people outside US looks a little differently at the problem. And we are getting more and more offtopic....

[AW1Steve]

This thread has never been on topic. But back to the sanctions....the UN sanctions, not the US. You tell me that the UN did not approve. Did it withdraw any of its resolutions? Did it declare war or sanctions on the US? Did it even cancel our ambassador's parking pass? No. The security council did nothing, said nothing , just looked uncomfortable. The General assembly did nothing , said nothing , then went out to lunch. Even the "gang of 77" did nothing but issue press releases. Show me a document, a declaration , a statute, a vote. Something , to declare this war illegal. Please. Surely in your law books there must be something. I'm still waiting.

Oh and no "convention" gave the US the right to invade. The ceasefire accord signed by Iraq in 1992 gave us and the other allies that right.

[Dora09]

You acted allone with UK like cowboys

How do you act alone, but with someone else?
We also "acted alone" with Poland, Australia, Romania, El Salvador, Ukraine, Denmark, South Korea, Italy, Spain etc.

[CV Zuikaku]

There were no ANY chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. There was no UN approvall to intervene. Why woul'd any country obbey UN after that "one man" show. Saddam was sick bastard, but that was just not the way.... Now we will get an Iranian clone in Iraq instead of secular governmant as it were...
And that has to do anything with the WITP forum, so we must end this quarrel [:-]

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Dora09

You acted allone with UK like cowboys

How do you act alone, but with someone else?
We also "acted alone" with Poland, Australia, Romania, El Salvador, Ukraine, Denmark, South Korea, Italy, Spain etc.

Which still does not make this actio legal. And you know they mostly turn their tales and turn for home, as soon as possibble because public opinion shread those governments to bits...