BF2S Forums The Huge WW2 Discussion Thread

There was no shortage of evidence before that though.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

'Europe' didn't really exist as any kind of entity back then any more than North and South America share liability for each others problems now.

That is simply not true. See Munich Agreement.

Wut?

Four countries sign one - temporary - treaty and Europe is united?

Temporary? I guess when the war began it was nullified. That is not to say the original intent wasn't to organize in a clear voice. If that was not the general European consensus then why would France and Britain be permitted to negotiate land to Germany in the first place?

I want to say that the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.

"We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German naval agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

Britain and France were the powers charged with determining how far Europe would let Germany go. That is why they created the Munich Agreement after all. It's ridiculous to say that other European powers had no culpability in allowing Hitler's rapid expansion. They were in active negotiations with him. It's those repeated concession that eventually gave Hitler the green light. That isn't to say war wasn't inevitable. But how the events unfolded had a lot to do with the way circumstances were dealt with. Originally Hitler had no desire to go to war Britain. He admired the British. .. particularly their work in India.

Kmar wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Pick this up and read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler- … 030740515X

Try not to have a Brain Hemorrhage.

Human Smoke touches on much of the same material, as it focuses on the pacifist movement and how that led the US to turn a blind eye to much of what was going on in Europe pre-Pearl Harbor.

I haven't read that one. I was unable to take the author and this book's proposition serious after hearing Phil Hendrie school him on his show.

The book consists of personal notes, newspaper excerpts, and other writings from the period. It's not like the author was just making stuff up.

Would be interesting to hear Phil's interview, though. It was clear the author had an agenda, no doubt...one that Hendrie would not at all agree with. One that I do not necessarily agree with, either. But it was a different take on the historical facts of the interwar years. To me, that's what makes it a worthwhile read.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Why do you emphasize America when everything regarding the Jews was happening in Europe? Way to deflect ownership of the problem.

Had Europe not been intent on purging the Jews from Europe, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Nor would we be having multiple derails about Israel and Palestine.

The Nazis were intent on purging the jews from Europe, they weren't purged from anywhere which wasn't under direct Nazi control were they?

Were European countries purging the jews before or after the Nazis came and went?

No?

You're talking rubbish.

The fact is the Germans wanted them out and no other country one earth, including America and many others, wanted them.

German jews weren't Spain's problem, French jews weren't Switerland's problem, Polish jews weren't Ireland's problem any more than European jews were America's problem to deal with.

'Europe' didn't really exist as any kind of entity back then any more than North and South America share liability for each others problems now.

If other European countries hadn't had the same feelings as Germany about the Jews, they wouldn't have worked with Germany to find a solution to get the Jews out of Europe. Historical fact is not rubbish. It just is. Sorry if it's painful for you.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If that was not the general European consensus then why would France and Britain be permitted to negotiate land to Germany in the first place?

Who says there was a consensus? When America signs a treaty does that mean Canada, Mexico and Chile have given their approval?

A general consensus among those involved. This is exhibited by the very fact that it happened. It is logical to conclude that if Canada was ceding territory to the US then Canada would have been given the authority to do so.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Britain and France were the powers charged with determining how far Europe would let Germany go.

Says who?

Says history. Naturally since Britain and France were the only ones capable of real and decisive action against Hitler, they were the only ones with bargaining leverage.

...our two peoples...

You have it there, any 'European Project' was in Chamberlain's head, France and Britain weren't ready for war, Italy was on side with Germany and the rest of Europe wasn't involved in the discussion - the Czechs didn't have any say thats for sure.

Not sure where you get the idea there was a united states of europe in 1938 based on this....

What I've challenge is the notion that other European powers bore no responsibility in Hitler's rapid rise. Europe was either giving concessions, cheering annexation, or was attempting to sign alliances. Together this all encouraged Hitler. When the leading powers of Europe failed diplomatically Europe as a whole failed.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

none of which would lead to a definitive conclusion.

Kindly provide evidence to back your position. Pretty simple, really.

google.com

No. You provide evidence to back your position. Simply typing "google.com" doesn't count. Do I put in "Shahter's conspiracy theories" as a search criteria?

Evidence has been offered against your position. All you have offered is "nuh-uh" "you don't live here" "you don't read Russian" "didn't happen that way" and other nonsensical, child-with-his-fingers-in-his-ears counterarguments. If you want your position to be taken seriously, then offer something serious to back your position. Something like sourced facts, for starters.

Edit: BTW, google isn't kind to your position on Katyn. At all.

then post some sources ffs. stop acting all high and mighty as if you automatically know better than everyone else and because of that you're exempt from normal conventions about sourcing your statements or gtfo of the thread.

wikipedia > what you've given us thus far, which is nothing. so frustrating trying to argue with you when you don't have the basic sense to back up your position with a link or a book or two.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

then post some sources ffs. stop acting all high and mighty as if you automatically know better than everyone else and because of that you're exempt from normal conventions about sourcing your statements or gtfo of the thread.

the last post was about katyn incident specifically. on the rest sources are aplenty. do you really need me to post you a link to where parallels are being drawn between soviets and nazies?

I'll provide you a document. Translate what's written on it. Verbatim. To include signatures. Got from using Google.

http://i.imgur.com/NbcdF.gif

you want me to translate one page of that document (and a very lousy copy that is)? well... that kinda says it all.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'll provide you a document. Translate what's written on it. Verbatim. To include signatures. Got from using Google.

http://i.imgur.com/NbcdF.gif

you want me to translate one page of that document (and a very lousy copy that is)? well... that kinda says it all.

So you're not going to do it?

Let me guess why.

oh, i'll tell you why: there's no point translating, it's only a part of a document.

Varegg wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you're not going to do it?

Let me guess why.

oh, i'll tell you why: there's no point translating, it's only a part of a document.

How convenient

of course. he dug up something out of google and thrown it at me like it's somekinda huge evidence. he didn't bother to find the copy of actual document that is readable, he didn't bother researching details, which include pencil signatures, he's not bothered by the fact that his pic has a stamp on it that isn't on the original - he simply wants me to translate it.
no, thanks. when you find some evidence worth debating - get back to me.

Shahter wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Shahter wrote:

oh, i'll tell you why: there's no point translating, it's only a part of a document.

How convenient

of course. he dug up something out of google and thrown it at me like it's somekinda huge evidence. he didn't bother to find the copy of actual document that is readable, he didn't bother researching details, which include pencil signatures, he's not bothered by the fact that his pic has a stamp on it that isn't on the original - he simply wants me to translate it.
no, thanks. when you find some evidence worth debating - get back to me.

Actually we have provided you with lots of sources and proof, it's you on the other hand that fails terribly to dig up anything to prove your point ...

Aleksandr Shelepin's 3 March 1959 note to Khrushchev, with information about the execution of 21,857 Poles and with the proposal to destroy their personal files.) retrieved on 12 December 2010

Russian documents: http://rusarchives.ru/publication/katyn/05.shtml

The English version can be found inside this document: http://law.case.edu/lectures/files/2010 … a_docs.pdf