Revisiting History: The Unlikely Campaign to Vilify Winston Churchill

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Which came first? The Luftwaffe bombing Britain or Britain bombing Germany? Have you heard of the Blitz?

 

Before that there there was the bombing of Poland by the Germans. This is news to you?

Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.^[33

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on,in an aerial bombardment campaign.

 

And also  Rotterdam:

"In 1940, Rotterdam was subjected to heavy aerial bombardment by the Luftwaffe during the German invasion of the Netherlands during the Second World War. The objective was to support the German troops fighting in the city, break Dutch resistance and force the Dutch army to surrender. Bombing began at the outset of hostilities on 10 May and culminated with the destruction of the entire historic city centre on 14 May,^[2] an event sometimes referred to as the Rotterdam Blitz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_bombing_of_Rotterdam

 

 

 

Strategic bombing, ie the deliberite carpet bombing of civilians, did not start with Poland. As was established the British invented this in the Middle East. They were the first to use it. Bomber Harris was carpet bombing Iraqi civlians long before he bombed civilians in Europe.

 

Neither Poland nor Rotterdam, especially not Rotterdam, were "area bombings" of the kind the British invented and started since 1942 in Germany.

 

"In February 1942, the British abandoned their "precision bombing" strategy. For the rest of the war, the British concentrated on the systematic widespread destruction of German cities by RAF nighttime air raids, a strategy called "area bombing." One reason the British took this fateful step was to "dehouse" the German people, which hopefully would shatter their morale and will to continue the war."

 

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii

 

Remember we have the actual Strategic Bombing Directive from the British where it is documented they seek to target civilians. Nothing like this exists for the Luftwaffe, which did of course  on occasion bomb civilians inadvertently during military operations.

 

However, what the British did was qualitatively different. They actually invented carpet bombing and then systematically sought to carpet bomb civilians. Of course after the British started this Hitler replied in kind. But before this happened Hitler offered to outlaw the bombing of civilians for all parties, but unsurprisingly the British did not take him up on it.

[Cameroni]

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

What is untrue about my original post?

You have chosen to ignore what it says.

 

What I wrote was: "A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF WAR (addition of capitals): Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not".

 

Churchill was Secretary of State for War at the time of your examples, so his words/ actions need to be seen in that context and are outside of the scope of my proposition.

 

Whether Churchill's actions were necessary and/or moral are different questions, but Churchill is no more a murderer than any other Head of Government or Defence/ War Minister of any nation at any point in time.

 

The fundamental difference between Hitler & Stalin and Churchill is that the former pair deliberately murdered their political opponents - and in Hitler's case engaged in genocide - Churchill did not.

 

Apologies, I thought you were only talking about WWII. I see what you're saying now. However, the punishment raids Churchill authorised for subject colonial tribes, can hardly be called "wars".

 

I strongly disagree that Churchill did not engage in genocide. He carpet bombed German civilians, signed off on their ethnic cleansing and also signed off on the Morgenthau plan, which was genocidal and envisaged 32 million Germans dying of starvation. All this was okayed by Churchill.

[Chadnik]

 

On 9/11/2024 at 5:15 AM, Tug said:

Right wing populist politicians are now mouthpieces for Putin in my humble opinion.This is just another way for putin to sow discord among the world’s democracy’s.

 

Populism if anything is nativist. You could not be more wrong

 

Same with all your sheeple upvoters 👍👍

Edited September 17 by Chadnik

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Strategic bombing, ie the deliberite carpet bombing of civilians, did not start with Poland. As was established the British invented this in the Middle East. They were the first to use it. Bomber Harris was carpet bombing Iraqi civlians long before he bombed civilians in Europe.

 

Neither Poland nor Rotterdam, especially not Rotterdam, were "area bombings" of the kind the British invented and started since 1942 in Germany.

 

"In February 1942, the British abandoned their "precision bombing" strategy. For the rest of the war, the British concentrated on the systematic widespread destruction of German cities by RAF nighttime air raids, a strategy called "area bombing." One reason the British took this fateful step was to "dehouse" the German people, which hopefully would shatter their morale and will to continue the war."

 

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii

 

Remember we have the actual Strategic Bombing Directive from the British where it is documented they seek to target civilians. Nothing like this exists for the Luftwaffe, which did of course  on occasion bomb civilians inadvertently during military operations.

 

However, what the British did was qualitatively different. They actually invented carpet bombing and then systematically sought to carpet bomb civilians. Of course after the British started this Hitler replied in kind. But before this happened Hitler offered to outlaw the bombing of civilians for all parties, but unsurprisingly the British did not take him up on it.

By September 1940, the Luftwaffe had lost the Battle of Britain and the German air fleets (Luftflotten) were ordered to attack London, to draw RAF Fighter Command into a battle of annihilation.^[5][6] Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, ordered the new policy on 6 September 1940. From 7 September 1940, London was systematically bombed by the Luftwaffe for 56 of the following 57 days and nights.^[7][8] Notable attacks included a large daylight attack against London on 15 September, a large raid on 29 December 1940 against London resulting in a firestorm known as the Second Great Fire of London,^[9] and a large raid on the night of 10–11 May 1941.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

 

Here's a map of where the bombs fell in the London Blitz. This is the bird's eye view or maybe the satellite eye's view. You can focus it on a smaller scale to see local detail.

http://bombsight.org/#8/51.349/0.497

It's only for London not for other cities such as Coventry which also suffered.

[RayC]

32 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Apologies, I thought you were only talking about WWII. I see what you're saying now. However, the punishment raids Churchill authorised for subject colonial tribes, can hardly be called "wars".

 

I strongly disagree that Churchill did not engage in genocide. He carpet bombed German civilians, signed off on their ethnic cleansing and also signed off on the Morgenthau plan, which was genocidal and envisaged 32 million Germans dying of starvation. All this was okayed by Churchill.

 

What ethnic cleansing? Where is there any evidence that Churchill wanted to eliminate all Germans?

 

Churchill may have 'signed off' on the Morgenthau plan, but Hoover came up with a figure of 25 million displaced Germans much later. There is little evidence that this figure is accurate and/or that Churchill would have been aware of the long-term effects of population numbers. In any event, this plan was soon discarded.

 

It is disingenuous to imply, as you did in your reply to @placeholder that the bombings of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry were different (and presumably somehow more noble?) than the bombing of German cities by the Allies: The effects were similar. Imo it is also ridiculous to imply that 'carpet bombing' of the sort seem in WW2 was somehow similar to warfare waged by England in the Middle Ages. Presumably this is another attempt to lay guilt at the feet of the English?

 

You have still not addressed the fundamental difference between Hitler/Stalin and Churchill. Churchill's actions were dictated by the context i.e. war/ conflict; call it what you will. On the other hand, Hitler and Stalin's murderous actions also took place outside of the theatre of war, and were a systematic attempt to eradicate political opponents (and in Hitler's case, a whole race(s)).

[Cameroni]

27 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

What ethnic cleansing? Where is there any evidence that Churchill wanted to eliminate all Germans?

 

Churchill may have 'signed off' on the Morgenthau plan, but Hoover came up with a figure of 25 million displaced Germans much later. There is little evidence that this figure is accurate and/or that Churchill would have been aware of the long-term effects of population numbers. In any event, this plan was soon discarded.

 

It is disingenuous to imply, as you did in your reply to @placeholder that the bombings of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry were different (and presumably somehow more noble?) than the bombing of German cities by the Allies: The effects were similar. Imo it is also ridiculous to imply that 'carpet bombing' of the sort seem in WW2 was somehow similar to warfare waged by England in the Middle Ages. Presumably this is another attempt to lay guilt at the feet of the English?

 

You have still not addressed the fundamental difference between Hitler/Stalin and Churchill. Churchill's actions were dictated by the context i.e. war/ conflict; call it what you will. On the other hand, Hitler and Stalin's murderous actions also took place outside of the theatre of war, and were a systematic attempt to eradicate political opponents (and in Hitler's case, a whole race(s)).

 

The ethnic cleansing of Germans that took place after the war.

 

"The idea to expel the Germans from the annexed territories had been proposed by Winston Churchill, in conjunction with the Polish and Czechoslovak exile governments in London at least since 1942."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)

 

Churchill did sign off on the Morgenthau plan. Hull had informed Truman that 32 million Germans would starve to death. It gave him nightmares and affected his health. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have been informed of these reservations or advised by his own staff that 32 million Germans would starve due to the Morgenthau Plan.

 

This was Plan was partially implemented and informed the occupation policy of Germany for a long time.

 

In regards to bombing, the British bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4th September 1939, killing 435 Germans. Between Britain and Germany the British started the bombing. And they certainly started serious carpet bombing, whilst Germany did bomb Polish cities and Dutch cities, that was always within the context of military operations. The bombings of German civilians by the RAF were just bombings of civilians plain and simple terror operations. A big difference. The same with the Blitz, the German intent was always to hit military targets until the British started carpet bombing German cities.

 

Middle ages? I do not think I mentioned the middle ages.

 

I think the distinction you make between the big three is not a sustainable one. They were all murderers.

 

Edited September 17 by Cameroni

[Cameroni]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, ordered the new policy on 6 September 1940. From 7 September 1940, London was systematically bombed by the Luftwaffe for 56 of the following 57 days and nights.^[7][8] Notable attacks included a large daylight attack against London on 15 September, a large raid on 29 December 1940 against London resulting in a firestorm known as the Second Great Fire of London,^[9] and a large raid on the night of 10–11 May 1941.

 

See, this is how history becomes lies. You quote this without saying that all this was done AFTER the British initated the bombing of civilians officially in May 1940. 

 

The Second Great Fire of London was of course payback for the carpet bombing the British had started in May 1940.

 

You should state the full facts.

Edited September 17 by Cameroni

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

See, this is how history becomes lies. You quote this without saying that all this was done AFTER the British initated the bombing of civilians officially in May 1940. 

 

The Second Great Fire of London was of course payback for the carpet bombing the British had started in May 1940.

 

You should state the full facts.

When and where in Europe

Edited September 18 by placeholder

[RayC]

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The ethnic cleansing of Germans that took place after the war.

 

"The idea to expel the Germans from the annexed territories had been proposed by Winston Churchill, in conjunction with the Polish and Czechoslovak exile governments in London at least since 1942."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)

 

 

I was using the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' to mean the eradication of a race.

 

As your link explains, the reason(s) behind the expulsion of Germans from the Annexed terrorities did not include purposefully killing Germans.

 

The action may have wrong, inhumane even, but it is hardly comparable to Hitler's 'Final Solution' for the Jews.

 

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Churchill did sign off on the Morgenthau plan. Hull had informed Truman that 32 million Germans would starve to death. It gave him nightmares and affected his health. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have been informed of these reservations or advised by his own staff that 32 million Germans would starve due to the Morgenthau Plan.

 

This was Plan was partially implemented and informed the occupation policy of Germany for a long time.

 

The Morgenthau Plan was not implemented to any large extent; the Marshall Plan was.

 

The Morgenthau Plan was a US initiative. Churchill was initially opposed to it but was effectively bribed into accepting it. Churchill can be labelled unscrupulous, but he was acting within the context of war and its direct aftermath, and in what he saw as the UK's best interests.

 

"Although Winston Churchill was initially opposed to the idea, he eventually came around, thanks to the US offering the United Kingdom a sizeable Lend-Lease agreement"

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/morgenthau-plan.html

 

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

In regards to bombing, the British bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4th September 1939, killing 435 Germans. Between Britain and Germany the British started the bombing. And they certainly started serious carpet bombing, whilst Germany did bomb Polish cities and Dutch cities, that was always within the context of military operations. The bombings of German civilians by the RAF were just bombings of civilians plain and simple terror operations. A big difference. The same with the Blitz, the German intent was always to hit military targets until the British started carpet bombing German cities.

 

An alternative view:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on,in an aerial bombardment campaign.

 

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Middle ages? I do not think I mentioned the middle ages.

 

You didn't. I confused your post with an article. My apologies.

 

14 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think the distinction you make between the big three is not a sustainable one. They were all murderers.

 

 

To repeat, Churchill was a flawed individual. Outside of the context of WW2, I - and I suspect many (most?) others - would find it difficult to say much good about him. However, within that context, he was a great leader. 

 

More to the point, I think that your (implied) contention that Churchill should be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and Stalin is without any merit.

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

When and where in Europe

 

The RAF bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4 Sept 1939, killing about 450 German. However, that can be seen as a "mistake" because the target were military targets, much like when the Luftwaffe bombed London and accidentally killed civilians though the targets were military in nature.

 

However, as of May 1940 the British proceeded to "dehouse" German civilians, aiming to kill civilians from the outset.

 

The day after the directive was issued (on 15 February), the Chief of the Air Staff Charles Portal sought clarification from the Deputy Chief of Air Staff Air Vice Marshal Norman Bottomley who had drafted it:

 

ref the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive

 

Dehousing was a strategy adopted by the British against the Germans during World War II. It sought to maximize the damage to civilian housing. The strategy was proposed via a memorandum on March 30, 1942, by Professor Frederick Lindemann, Baron Cherwell, the British government's chief scientific adviser. 

 

The dehousing paper had been delivered to Churchill at a time of mounting criticism about the RAF Bomber offensive. Criticism was coming from other branches inside the War ministry and was becoming public.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing

 

Interestingly, the entire premise of the Dehousing paper proved wrong, there was no lasting effect of the British terror bombing, no mass panic and drop in war production. 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I was using the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' to mean the eradication of a race.

 

 

Okay, well, there is a defined meaning in law today.

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

As your link explains, the reason(s) behind the expulsion of Germans from the Annexed terrorities did not include purposefully killing Germans.

 

There would have been no doubt advisors would have told the decision makers how many would likely die as a result. In the end it was 1.4 million Germans at least, probably a lot more, often in the most tortured, brutal revenge kilings.

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

The action may have wrong, inhumane even, but it is hardly comparable to Hitler's 'Final Solution' for the Jews.

 

Well, they killed 1.4 million Germans in the ethnic cleansing after 1945, so it was worse than Auschwitz, where 900,000 jews died. But yes, it is different to Einsatzgruppen systematically rounding up jews and kiling them, after 1945, it was the amateurs that rounded up Germans and tortured them.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

To repeat, Churchill was a flawed individual. Outside of the context of WW2, I - and I suspect many (most?) others - would find it difficult to say much good about him. However, within that context, he was a great leader. 

 

More to the point, I think that your (implied) contention that Churchill should be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and Stalin is without any merit.

 

I agree, Churchill was flawed and he was undoubtedly a great leader. Also highly intelligent, more so than anyone in British politics at the time, courageous, creative, a man of action and valour. All these things I don't want to deny, Churchill was a very interesting character. However, he very much should be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and Stalin, even though these latter killed more people, Churchill killed millions, and was willing to kill millions more. Moreover, it was Churchill who prolonged the war in Europe, and who was instrumental in turning the war into  war involving the US and Russia. He conspired to achieve this at every opportunity, for the simple reason that he knew Britain alone could not defeat Germany.

Edited September 18 by Cameroni

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The RAF bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4 Sept 1939, killing about 450 German. However, that can be seen as a "mistake" because the target were military targets, much like when the Luftwaffe bombed London and accidentally killed civilians though the targets were military in nature.

 

However, as of May 1940 the British proceeded to "dehouse" German civilians, aiming to kill civilians from the outset.

 

The day after the directive was issued (on 15 February), the Chief of the Air Staff Charles Portal sought clarification from the Deputy Chief of Air Staff Air Vice Marshal Norman Bottomley who had drafted it:

 

ref the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive

 

Dehousing was a strategy adopted by the British against the Germans during World War II. It sought to maximize the damage to civilian housing. The strategy was proposed via a memorandum on March 30, 1942, by Professor Frederick Lindemann, Baron Cherwell, the British government's chief scientific adviser. 

 

The dehousing paper had been delivered to Churchill at a time of mounting criticism about the RAF Bomber offensive. Criticism was coming from other branches inside the War ministry and was becoming public.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing

 

Interestingly, the entire premise of the Dehousing paper proved wrong, there was no lasting effect of the British terror bombing, no mass panic and drop in war production. 

For starters I have been unable to find any evidence that the RAF managed to kill anyone apart from 2 German pilots in the disastrous for the RAF raid on Wilhelmshaven.

https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/3642/Airraid-on-the-German-Navy-at-Wilhelmshaven-18-December-1939.htm

And even if 450 were killed, that's your idea of carpet bombing?

 

This is more like it. As part of the German invasion of Poland:

"Another German innovation of the September Campaign was mass terror bombing. One hundred and fifty towns and villages were targeted in first days; the little town of Wieluń was flattened on the first of September. Warsaw was repeatedly hit, marking the first time a major European city was bombed systematically by an enemy air force."

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/invasion-poland-september-1939

 

And by the way, here's a little extra something for you:

"On August 22, just before the invasion, Hitler delivered a speech to his military commanders at Obersalzberg. In the speech, he said that the object of the war was to physically destroy the enemy. Men, women, and children of Polish descent or language were to be killed without pity. The campaign was to be carried out “with the greatest brutality and without mercy.”[4] "

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/invasion-poland-september-1939

Does that ring any bells?

 

 

[Cameroni]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

For starters I have been unable to find any evidence that the RAF managed to kill anyone apart from 2 German pilots in the disastrous for the RAF raid on Wilhelmshaven.

https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/3642/Airraid-on-the-German-Navy-at-Wilhelmshaven-18-December-1939.htm

And even if 450 were killed, that's your idea of carpet bombing?

 

This is more like it. As part of the German invasion of Poland:

"Another German innovation of the September Campaign was mass terror bombing. One hundred and fifty towns and villages were targeted in first days; the little town of Wieluń was flattened on the first of September. Warsaw was repeatedly hit, marking the first time a major European city was bombed systematically by an enemy air force."

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/invasion-poland-september-1939

 

And by the way, here's a little extra something for you:

"On August 22, just before the invasion, Hitler delivered a speech to his military commanders at Obersalzberg. In the speech, he said that the object of the war was to physically destroy the enemy. Men, women, and children of Polish descent or language were to be killed without pity. The campaign was to be carried out “with the greatest brutality and without mercy.”[4] "

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/invasion-poland-september-1939

Does that ring any bells?

 

 

 

I clearly said that Wilhelmshaven was not an area bombing, that 435 civilians died was a result of errors made by the RAF, just the Luftwaffe made some errors  when bombing military targets in London. I also said British area bombing started in earnest around May 1940.

 

It is striking how the German wikipedia article mentions the 435 Germans killed, whereas the English wikipedia page does not. In the German page you will find the 435 victims.

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Wilhelmshaven

 

To this day English historians try to obfuscate the fact that the British started carpet bombing in WWII, claiming that German raids on London where civilians were killed while the Luftwaffe was trying to hit military targets were "carpet bombings" which is of course untrue. It is true however, that after the British began carpet bombing  the Luftwaffe also adopted this tactic.

 

I am looking only at the engagement between German and England, not the Polish war.

 

The Poles had annexed German territory after 1918 and refused to return it, Germany's war against Poland was legitimate. Most bombing raids were in the course of military operations. However, to the extent that civilian deaths resulted that is of course very regrettable. Nevertheless, in the bombing of Warsaw for instance the Germans dropped leaflets before bombings to advise civiilians to leave. It was the Polish military that kept them in Warsaw.

 

Later killings of the Pole, after the country was occupied, performed  by the  2400 members of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland, estimated at around 60,000 to  80,000 were of course war crimes and had to be prosecuted, as indeed they were.

Edited September 19 by Cameroni

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I clearly said that Wilhelmshaven was not an area bombing, that 435 civilians died was a result of errors made by the RAF, just the Luftwaffe made some errors  when bombing military targets in London. I also said British area bombing started in earnest around May 1940.

 

It is striking how the German wikipedia article mentions the 435 Germans killed, whereas the English wikipedia page does not. In the German page you will find the 435 victims.

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Wilhelmshaven

 

To this day English historians try to obfuscate the fact that the British started carpet bombing in WWII, claiming that German raids on London where civilians were killed while the Luftwaffe was trying to hit military targets were "carpet bombings" which is of course untrue. It is true however, that after the British began carpet bombing  the Luftwaffe also adopted this tactic.

 

I am looking only at the engagement between German and England, not the Polish war.

 

The Poles had annexed German territory after 1918 and refused to return it, Germany's war against Poland was legitimate. Most bombing raids were in the course of military operations. However, to the extent that civilian deaths resulted that is of course very regrettable. Nevertheless, in the bombing of Warsaw for instance the Germans dropped leaflets before bombings to advise civiilians to leave. It was the Polish military that kept them in Warsaw.

 

Later killings of the Pole, after the country was occupied, performed  by the  2400 members of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland, estimated at around 60,000 to  80,000 were of course war crimes and had to be prosecuted, as indeed they were.

Your original claim was that Britain introduced carpet bombing into Europe. That is false. 

As for Wilhelmshaven, what the German text says is that 435 civilians died throughout the war due to bombings. Not during that first raid.

Per the terms of the Versailles treaty, which was put into effect on 20 January 1920, the corridor was established as Poland's access to the Baltic Sea from 70% of the dissolved province of West Prussia,^[65] consisting of a small part of Pomerania with around 140 km of coastline including the Hel Peninsula, and 69 km without it.^[66]

The primarily German-speaking seaport of Danzig (Gdańsk), controlling the estuary of the main Polish waterway, the Vistula river, became the Free City of Danzig and was placed under the protection of the League of Nations without a plebiscite.^[67]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor}

 

^{From the very first hours of World War II, Warsaw, the capital of Poland, was a target of an unrestricted aerial bombardment campaign initiated by the German Luftwaffe, which was controlled by Hermann Göring. Apart from the military facilities such as infantry barracks and the Okęcie airport and aircraft factory, the German pilots also targeted civilian facilities such as water works, hospitals, market places and schools, which resulted in heavy human casualties that possibly led to the early surrender by lowering of morale of the Polish army defending the city.}

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Warsaw_(1939)}

^{And Germany didn't just confine its bombing to Warsaw.}

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your original claim was that Britain introduced carpet bombing into Europe. That is false. 

 

No, in WWII the British were the first to introduce carpet bombing as a systematic and stand alone policy to dehouse cvilians. Actually, no other nation did this.

 

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Per the terms of the Versailles treaty, which was put into effect on 20 January 1920, the corridor was established as Poland's access to the Baltic Sea from 70% of the dissolved province of West Prussia,^[65] consisting of a small part of Pomerania with around 140 km of coastline including the Hel Peninsula, and 69 km without it.^[66]

The primarily German-speaking seaport of Danzig (Gdańsk), controlling the estuary of the main Polish waterway, the Vistula river, became the Free City of Danzig and was placed under the protection of the League of Nations without a plebiscite.^[67]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor}

 

The Poles stoles massive swathes of German territory after 1918 when Germany lay injured and defeated in social turmoil. All German political parties supported reconstituting German territorial integrity. This was a legitimate grievance Germany was entitled to address.

 

 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, in WWII the British were the first to introduce carpet bombing as a systematic and stand alone policy to dehouse cvilians. Actually, no other nation did this.

 

 

The Poles stoles massive swathes of German territory after 1918 when Germany lay injured and defeated in social turmoil. All German political parties supported reconstituting German territorial integrity. This was a legitimate grievance Germany was entitled to address.

 

 

So your claim about Wilhelmshaven was false, correct? And that was the evidence you based your claim. Now you're just making assertions that fly in the face of evidence.

Given that the Germans via bombing systematically destroyed housing and other faciliities for civilians, such as hospitals and schools, during their invasion of Poland, your claim is clearly nonsense.

The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Poland be given that land. Germany signed that treaty. You fail to note that the Poles had legitimate reasons to fear German aggression after WW1. As the Czechs before them would find out. And since Germany didn't exactly stop with repossessing the territory  it lost to Poland after WW1, your claim that the seizure was to correct an injustice is ludicrous.

[Cameroni]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So your claim about Wilhelmshaven was false, correct? And that was the evidence you based your claim. Now you're just making assertions that fly in the face of evidence.

Given that the Germans via bombing systematically destroyed housing and other faciliities for civilians, such as hospitals and schools, during their invasion of Poland, your claim is clearly nonsense.

The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Poland be given that land. Germany signed that treaty. You fail to note that the Poles had legitimate reasons to fear German aggression after WW1. As the Czechs before them would find out. And since Germany didn't exactly stop with repossessing the territory  it lost to Poland after WW1, your claim that the seizure was to correct an injustice is ludicrous.

 

No, absolutely not, the British did bomb Wilhelmshaven. 435 people died.

 

The evidence for British area bombing is massive, and has already been referred to here, the area bombing directive, strategic bombing directive, Dehousing Paper. not to mention evidence of the actual bombings of civilians the RAF undertook.'

 

German actions in Poland were obviously not a systematic attemtpt to implement carpet bombing, those were military operations to conquer Poland which occasionally led to civilian deaths in Poland. It is rather different to a political leader deciding to target all his Air Force resources on dehousing civilians with carpet bombing, as the British did.

 

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Poland be given that land.

 

Utter and complete lies, or just plain shocking ignorance. Whilst Poland was handed large swathes of German land in the Versailles treaty, and German officials signed under duress, a bit like a putting a gun to man's head and forcing him to sign, in actual fact the Versailles Treaty also stipulated a plebiscite should decide the fate of Upper Silesia. So what happened?

 

The plebiscite was held. In the plebiscite, 707,605 votes were cast for Germany, and 479,359 for Poland. However, the Poles refused to accept the result, and by violence and intimidation forced massive civil unrest, so that the question was referred to the League of Nations, who, surprise surprise, gave the largest part to Poland DESPITE the provision in the Versailles treaty providing the plebiscite should decide Upper Silesia and DESPITE the fact that the overwhelming majority of Upper Silesia had voted to be part of Germany.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

 

In fact Poland was for hundreds of years, and most of the 20th century a predatory and awful neighbour, who annexed not just German lands, but Ukrainian, Czech, Romanian, Lithuanian and many other nations' land.

 

Very obviously Germany had a right to reconstitute its territory which the Poles stole after 1918, this was a legitimate war in 1939. Only when Hitler invaded Russia did his war become a colonial and unjust war.

 

 

Edited September 19 by Cameroni

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, absolutely not, the British did bomb Wilhelmshaven. 435 people died.

 

The evidence for British area bombing is massive, and has already been referred to here, the area bombing directive, strategic bombing directive, Dehousing Paper. not to mention evidence of the actual bombings of civilians the RAF undertook.'

 

German actions in Poland were obviously not a systematic attemtpt to implement carpet bombing, those were military operations to conquer Poland which occasionally led to civilian deaths in Poland. It is rather different to a political leader deciding to target all his Air Force resources on dehousing civilians with carpet bombing, as the British did.

 

 

Utter and complete lies, or just plain shocking ignorance. Whilst Poland was handed large swathes of German land in the Versailles treaty, and German officials signed under duress, a bit like a putting a gun to man's head and forcing him to sign, in actual fact the Versailles Treaty also stipulated a plebiscite should decide the fate of Upper Silesia. So what happened?

 

The plebiscite was held. In the plebiscite, 707,605 votes were cast for Germany, and 479,359 for Poland. However, the Poles refused to accept the result, and by violence and intimidation forced massive civil unrest, so that the question was referred to the League of Nations, who, surprise surprise, gave the largest part to Poland DESPITE the provision in the Versailles treaty providing the plebiscite should decide Upper Silesia and DESPITE the fact that the overwhelming majority of Upper Silesia had voted to be part of Germany.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

 

In fact Poland was for hundreds of years, and most of the 20th century a predatory and awful neighbour, who annexed not just German lands, but Ukrainian, Czech, Romanian, Lithuanian and many other nations' land.

 

Very obviously Germany had a right to reconstitute its territory which the Poles stole after 1918, this was a legitimate war in 1939. Only when Hitler invaded Russia did his war become a colonial and unjust war.

 

 

The German text does not say that the RAF bombing in 1939 killed 435 people. It clearly is about the total death toll during the war from bombings. That first bombing attempt was a miserable failure. Stop making things up.

 

Yes, you are right about Silesia. But this justified the occupation of Poland by the Nazis? It was a legitimate war? Even thought it meant the erasure of Poland as a nation? Now, you definitely qualify as a Nazi fellow traveler. You condemn the racism and war crimes (although downplaying those) but condone the aggression and conquest.  And the massive carpet bombing?  And your potted history is very misleading. For at least the last 250 years Poland has been a victim of the Germans, not the aggressor. Share with me the dates of the epoch when Poland was a predatory and awful neighbor. 

[placeholder]

On 9/17/2024 at 10:01 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Strategic bombing, ie the deliberite carpet bombing of civilians, did not start with Poland. As was established the British invented this in the Middle East. They were the first to use it. Bomber Harris was carpet bombing Iraqi civlians long before he bombed civilians in Europe.

 

Neither Poland nor Rotterdam, especially not Rotterdam, were "area bombings" of the kind the British invented and started since 1942 in Germany.

 

"In February 1942, the British abandoned their "precision bombing" strategy. For the rest of the war, the British concentrated on the systematic widespread destruction of German cities by RAF nighttime air raids, a strategy called "area bombing." One reason the British took this fateful step was to "dehouse" the German people, which hopefully would shatter their morale and will to continue the war."

 

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii

 

Remember we have the actual Strategic Bombing Directive from the British where it is documented they seek to target civilians. Nothing like this exists for the Luftwaffe, which did of course  on occasion bomb civilians inadvertently during military operations.

 

However, what the British did was qualitatively different. They actually invented carpet bombing and then systematically sought to carpet bomb civilians. Of course after the British started this Hitler replied in kind. But before this happened Hitler offered to outlaw the bombing of civilians for all parties, but unsurprisingly the British did not take him up on it.

I think you're going to regret posting that link Here's a tidbit you apparently failed to notice:

 

"In the late afternoon of April 26, 1937, German bombers and other warplanes attacked Guernica, a town of about 7,000 persons in northern Spain. This raid was part of the Spanish Civil War , fought just before World War II. The Spanish Republic was battling rebels led by Spanish General Francisco Franco. Hitler had sent a special air force unit to Spain to aid Franco and to test new military aircraft and bombing tactics.

In the assault on Guernica, German pilots left a small munitions factory and other possible military targets untouched. They aimed their explosive and incendiary (fire) bombs into the center of the town. A squadron of experimental aircraft dropped the first bombs on the plaza in front of the railroad station filled with war refugees. An eyewitness described what happened:

A group of women and children. They were lifted high into the air, maybe 20 feet or so, and they started to break up. Legs, arms, heads, and bits and pieces flying everywhere."

https://usawatchdog.com/a-period-of-great-uncertainty-martin-armstrong/

 

[placeholder]

On 9/17/2024 at 10:01 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Strategic bombing, ie the deliberite carpet bombing of civilians, did not start with Poland. As was established the British invented this in the Middle East. They were the first to use it. Bomber Harris was carpet bombing Iraqi civlians long before he bombed civilians in Europe.

 

Neither Poland nor Rotterdam, especially not Rotterdam, were "area bombings" of the kind the British invented and started since 1942 in Germany.

 

"In February 1942, the British abandoned their "precision bombing" strategy. For the rest of the war, the British concentrated on the systematic widespread destruction of German cities by RAF nighttime air raids, a strategy called "area bombing." One reason the British took this fateful step was to "dehouse" the German people, which hopefully would shatter their morale and will to continue the war."

 

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii

 

Remember we have the actual Strategic Bombing Directive from the British where it is documented they seek to target civilians. Nothing like this exists for the Luftwaffe, which did of course  on occasion bomb civilians inadvertently during military operations.

 

However, what the British did was qualitatively different. They actually invented carpet bombing and then systematically sought to carpet bomb civilians. Of course after the British started this Hitler replied in kind. But before this happened Hitler offered to outlaw the bombing of civilians for all parties, but unsurprisingly the British did not take him up on it.

And I noticed that you rather conveniently left out 2  paragraphs preceding what you quoted:

Here they are:

"From fall 1940 through spring 1941, Hitler's air force struck London and other English cities with terrifying night bombing raids. The bombing of London, the main target of German planes, cost the lives of 30,000 people.

Driven from the continent, the British could only strike back by mounting their own bombing campaign against the Germans. At first, the Royal Air Force (RAF) attempted to bomb only specific German military and industrial targets in daytime raids. But the lack of fighter-plane support made these raids risky, and bombs often missed their precise targets because of poor bombsights."

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii

 

[Cameroni]

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The German text does not say that the RAF bombing in 1939 killed 435 people. It clearly is about the total death toll during the war from bombings. That first bombing attempt was a miserable failure. Stop making things up.

 

This level of misrepresentation is starting to look deliberate now, very clearly the article states that 435 people died from the RAF bombing

 

Wilhelmshaven, and the only reason the death toll was so low was because of the extensive bunkers which provided protection. Otherwise the death toll would have been considerably higher.

 

But again, obviously this is a deflection. In reality, as I stated repeatedly, the British area bombing started around May 1940.

 

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes, you are right about Silesia. But this justified the occupation of Poland by the Nazis? It was a legitimate war? Even thought it meant the erasure of Poland as a nation? 

 

 

Silesia was of course not the only territory the Poles annexed from Germany after 1918. Poland also annexed 

the following:

 

Most of the Prussian province of Posen (This territory, btw, had already been taken over by local Polish insurgents during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918–1919, ie before it was ceded by Versailles)

 

70% of West Prussia (Polish Pomerania) along with a 10% German minority, creating the so-called Polish corridor.

 

The east part of Upper Silesia was awarded to Poland after a plebiscite. Sixty percent of residents voted for German citizenship, and 40 percent for Poland; as a result the area was divided - you can see how mendacious this is, the majority wanted to be part of Germany, but rather than accept the plebiscite the territory was still divided.

 

To provide a Polish railway line connecting Danzig and Warsaw, the area of Soldau in East Prussia was annexed by Poland

.

From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia in the provinces of Ermland and Masurien, this area was annexed too by Poland.

 

It is also important to realise that all of these lands were historically German and inhabited by Germans. These were not historically Polish lands.

 

So the territorial piracy of Poland was shameless, extensive and on a grand scale.

 

Of course negotiation and compromise would have been better, this was seriously attempted by Germany.  But with the British whispering in the Polish ear, concede nothing, of course the Poles refused to take negotiations seriously. So what other option did Germany have?

 

Of course a war to reconstitute territorial integrity is legitimate.

 

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For at least the last 250 years Poland has been a victim of the Germans, not the aggressor. Share with me the dates of the epoch when Poland was a predatory and awful neighbor. 

 

Completely false, Poland itself has been attacking its neighbours repeatedly, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, they all know about Polish agression, even Russia!

 

It's all in here, just google Lithania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, Russia.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I think you're going to regret posting that link Here's a tidbit you apparently failed to notice:

 

"In the late afternoon of April 26, 1937, German bombers and other warplanes attacked Guernica, a town of about 7,000 persons in northern Spain. This raid was part of the Spanish Civil War , fought just before World War II. The Spanish Republic was battling rebels led by Spanish General Francisco Franco. Hitler had sent a special air force unit to Spain to aid Franco and to test new military aircraft and bombing tactics.

In the assault on Guernica, German pilots left a small munitions factory and other possible military targets untouched. They aimed their explosive and incendiary (fire) bombs into the center of the town. A squadron of experimental aircraft dropped the first bombs on the plaza in front of the railroad station filled with war refugees. An eyewitness described what happened:

A group of women and children. They were lifted high into the air, maybe 20 feet or so, and they started to break up. Legs, arms, heads, and bits and pieces flying everywhere."

https://usawatchdog.com/a-period-of-great-uncertainty-martin-armstrong/

 

 

No, I saw it, but I was aware of the history of the bombing of civilians and of course Guernica. Very regrettable.

[Cameroni]

34 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And I noticed that you rather conveniently left out 2  paragraphs preceding what you quoted:

Here they are:

"From fall 1940 through spring 1941, Hitler's air force struck London and other English cities with terrifying night bombing raids. The bombing of London, the main target of German planes, cost the lives of 30,000 people.

Driven from the continent, the British could only strike back by mounting their own bombing campaign against the Germans. At first, the Royal Air Force (RAF) attempted to bomb only specific German military and industrial targets in daytime raids. But the lack of fighter-plane support made these raids risky, and bombs often missed their precise targets because of poor bombsights."

https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii

 

 

I think you are leaving out the key fact, that this was AFTER the British had initiated area bombing of Germany.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

This level of misrepresentation is starting to look deliberate now, very clearly the article states that 435 people died from the RAF bombing

 

Wilhelmshaven, and the only reason the death toll was so low was because of the extensive bunkers which provided protection. Otherwise the death toll would have been considerably higher.

 

But again, obviously this is a deflection. In reality, as I stated repeatedly, the British area bombing started around May 1940.

 

 

 

Silesia was of course not the only territory the Poles annexed from Germany after 1918. Poland also annexed 

the following:

 

Most of the Prussian province of Posen (This territory, btw, had already been taken over by local Polish insurgents during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918–1919, ie before it was ceded by Versailles)

 

70% of West Prussia (Polish Pomerania) along with a 10% German minority, creating the so-called Polish corridor.

 

The east part of Upper Silesia was awarded to Poland after a plebiscite. Sixty percent of residents voted for German citizenship, and 40 percent for Poland; as a result the area was divided - you can see how mendacious this is, the majority wanted to be part of Germany, but rather than accept the plebiscite the territory was still divided.

 

To provide a Polish railway line connecting Danzig and Warsaw, the area of Soldau in East Prussia was annexed by Poland

.

From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia in the provinces of Ermland and Masurien, this area was annexed too by Poland.

 

It is also important to realise that all of these lands were historically German and inhabited by Germans. These were not historically Polish lands.

 

So the territorial piracy of Poland was shameless, extensive and on a grand scale.

 

Of course negotiation and compromise would have been better, this was seriously attempted by Germany.  But with the British whispering in the Polish ear, concede nothing, of course the Poles refused to take negotiations seriously. So what other option did Germany have?

 

Of course a war to reconstitute territorial integrity is legitimate.

 

 

Completely false, Poland itself has been attacking its neighbours repeatedly, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, they all know about Polish agression, even Russia!

 

It's all in here, just google Lithania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, Russia.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

 

 

 

Here's the translation

During the Second World War, the Western Allies carried out 102 air raids on Wilhelmshaven, 16 of which were so-called major raids.[1] Two thirds of the city's buildings were destroyed. Thanks to the numerous air raid shelters (built before the war), only 435 people died. Wilhelmshaven was the first German city to be targeted by British air raids in the Second World War.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Wilhelmshaven

And if it's a deflection, then that deflection comes from you. You're the one who raised the point.

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's the translation

During the Second World War, the Western Allies carried out 102 air raids on Wilhelmshaven, 16 of which were so-called major raids.[1] Two thirds of the city's buildings were destroyed. Thanks to the numerous air raid shelters (built before the war), only 435 people died. Wilhelmshaven was the first German city to be targeted by British air raids in the Second World War.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Wilhelmshaven

And if it's a deflection, then that deflection comes from you. You're the one who raised the point.

 

I raised the point that the RAF had bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4. September 1939 to show that between German and Britain it was Britain who started bombing the other. And indeed 435 civilians did die due to the the RAF bombing Wilhelmshaven, thanks for confirming it.

 

In terms of carpet bombing too, the British started it between these two nations.

[MarkBR]

On 9/15/2024 at 9:11 PM, placeholder said:

What you fail to mention is that Britain was facing the Japanese in Burma and didn't want supplies to fall into their hands. It wasn't  so much about keeping supplies from the British but rather keeping supplies from the Japanese. Was Churchill callous about the Indians. Absolutely. But was he purposely engaged in a war of extermination against them? Absolutely not. Posterity revealed that he made the wrong call.

Yes, the Army in Burma, their engineers were blowing up lots of things to deprive the Japanese of these resources. My grandfather was blowing up oil fields that further back in time he had helped to build at Yeungyang, Burma.  I assume prior to the battle of Yeungyang from 16th - 19th April 1942.; he survived whilst my great uncle died.

Edited September 19 by MarkBR
typographic error

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I raised the point that the RAF had bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4. September 1939 to show that between German and Britain it was Britain who started bombing the other. And indeed 435 civilians did die due to the the RAF bombing Wilhelmshaven, thanks for confirming it.

 

In terms of carpet bombing too, the British started it between these two nations.

As the English language article I cited explains, that first bombing, which you characterized as an assault on civilians, was actually meant for ships of the German navy. And not only didn't the English bomb the city,  which they purposely kept clear of, but they failed to accomplish their mission.  In fact, it was a debacle for them. And you repeatedly claimed that 435 civilians died in that first bombing.  No carpet bombing or anything like it occurred then and there's no evidence that any civilians at all died.

[placeholder]

34 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think you are leaving out the key fact, that this was AFTER the British had initiated area bombing of Germany.

And you previously had claimed that the UK was the first to deliberately target civilians in Europe. Now we know that at least as early as 1937, the germans did that. And on a massive scale against the Poles in 1939.

As for the British bombing of germany in may...

"While it was acknowledged bombing Germany would cause civilian casualties, the British government renounced deliberate bombing of civilian property, outside combat zones, as a military tactic.^[66] The British changed their policy on 15 May 1940, one day after the German bombing of Rotterdam, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr Area, including oil plants and other civilian industrial targets which aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self-illuminating. The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 15/16 May 1940 while the Battle of France was still continuing.^[67"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=The first RAF raid on,of France was still continuing.}

 

As for Rotterdam,

In 1940, Rotterdam was subjected to heavy aerial bombardment by the Luftwaffe during the German invasion of the Netherlands during the Second World War. The objective was to support the German troops fighting in the city, break Dutch resistance and force the Dutch army to surrender. Bombing began at the outset of hostilities on 10 May and culminated with the destruction of the entire historic city centre on 14 May,^[2] an event sometimes referred to as the Rotterdam Blitz. According to an official list published in 2022, at least 1,150 people were killed, with 711 deaths in the 14 May bombing alone,^[2] and 85,000 more were left homeless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_bombing_of_Rotterdam

[placeholder]

40 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

This level of misrepresentation is starting to look deliberate now, very clearly the article states that 435 people died from the RAF bombing

 

Wilhelmshaven, and the only reason the death toll was so low was because of the extensive bunkers which provided protection. Otherwise the death toll would have been considerably higher.

 

But again, obviously this is a deflection. In reality, as I stated repeatedly, the British area bombing started around May 1940.

 

 

 

Silesia was of course not the only territory the Poles annexed from Germany after 1918. Poland also annexed 

the following:

 

Most of the Prussian province of Posen (This territory, btw, had already been taken over by local Polish insurgents during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918–1919, ie before it was ceded by Versailles)

 

70% of West Prussia (Polish Pomerania) along with a 10% German minority, creating the so-called Polish corridor.

 

The east part of Upper Silesia was awarded to Poland after a plebiscite. Sixty percent of residents voted for German citizenship, and 40 percent for Poland; as a result the area was divided - you can see how mendacious this is, the majority wanted to be part of Germany, but rather than accept the plebiscite the territory was still divided.

 

To provide a Polish railway line connecting Danzig and Warsaw, the area of Soldau in East Prussia was annexed by Poland

.

From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia in the provinces of Ermland and Masurien, this area was annexed too by Poland.

 

It is also important to realise that all of these lands were historically German and inhabited by Germans. These were not historically Polish lands.

 

So the territorial piracy of Poland was shameless, extensive and on a grand scale.

 

Of course negotiation and compromise would have been better, this was seriously attempted by Germany.  But with the British whispering in the Polish ear, concede nothing, of course the Poles refused to take negotiations seriously. So what other option did Germany have?

 

Of course a war to reconstitute territorial integrity is legitimate.

 

 

Completely false, Poland itself has been attacking its neighbours repeatedly, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, they all know about Polish agression, even Russia!

 

It's all in here, just google Lithania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, Russia.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

 

 

 

I'm not going to go into detail about your characterization of whose lands these really were. They were ethnically mixed. But the Germans did seize Danzig from the Poles in 1793, 

But of course, what you're really up to is defending Hitler and the reasons for the invasion. There are voluminous records about what the Germans planned for the Poles. We know what Hitler said about lebensraum. There's no point in continuing with someone who denies the huge role that Nazi racial theories played in the German invasion. You are a Nazi apologist. You may declare that you don't support their crimes that were based on their vile racial theories, but you pretend that they can somehow be abstracted from Hitler's motivations to invade Poland.and elsewhere.  That somehow Nazism is irrelevant to the invasion, It's obvious  nonsense. You may not subscribe to Nazi racial theories, but you are a definitely a defender of Hitler's motivations in launching this war. As though his vile racism can somehow be ignored when it comes to his motivations. 

[kingstonkid]

On 9/17/2024 at 9:25 PM, RayC said:

 

What is untrue about my original post?

You have chosen to ignore what it says.

 

What I wrote was: "A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF WAR (addition of capitals): Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not".

 

Churchill was Secretary of State for War at the time of your examples, so his words/ actions need to be seen in that context and are outside of the scope of my proposition.

 

Whether Churchill's actions were necessary and/or moral are different questions, but Churchill is no more a murderer than any other Head of Government or Defence/ War Minister of any nation at any point in time.

 

The fundamental difference between Hitler & Stalin and Churchill is that the former pair deliberately murdered their political opponents - and in Hitler's case engaged in genocide - Churchill did not.

What I find interesting in all this CRAP is that people that were not there and have never lived under the dear of the NAzis of Extremist rule are 80 years later trying to frame what happened and make a moral judgement of what is right and wrong.   

 

It is like the white people in the UK and US decrying that Washington and most of the great leaders in history should be vilified because they hired slaves.  

 

In both cases the people then did what was necessary to survive.  Was slavery wrong yes in some instances but was having a black butler and house staff wrong.  

 

Did lend lease do what was needed or did the country have enough WHO THE F CARES.  

 

Both the production of equipment and the borrowing of equipment was ecessary in order to win the war.  While Lend Lease may not have been an overall winner or loser, it sure made a difference unti the Russian and British factories could start producing equipment.