http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/world/europe/russian-ambassador-says-poland-was-partly-to-blame-for-world-war-ii.html
QuoteRussian Ambassador Says Poland Was Partly to Blame for World War II
WARSAW — The Russian ambassador to Poland has prompted outrage here for putting some of the blame for World War II on Poland, creating a new spat amid deepening tensions between the nations.
Ambassador Sergey Andreev of Russia on Friday described the Soviet Union's 1939 invasion of Poland as an act of self-defense, not aggression. Poland's Foreign Ministry responded on Saturday, saying the ambassador "undermines historical truth" and seemed to be trying to justify the crimes of Stalin, then the Soviet leader.
World War II began after Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union sealed a pact in 1939 that included a secret provision to carve up Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe. Germany soon invaded Poland from the West, followed by a Soviet invasion from the east 16 days later. Millions of Poles were killed in the war.
In an interview broadcast on the private TVN station, Mr. Andreev also said: "Polish policy led to the disaster in September 1939, because during the 1930s Poland repeatedly blocked the formation of a coalition against Hitler's Germany. Poland was therefore partly responsible for the disaster which then took place."
Poland's Foreign Ministry expressed "surprise and alarm" at those comments, and Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna summoned Mr. Andreev for a meeting on Monday.
"The narrative presented by the highest official representative of the Russian state in Poland undermines the historical truth and reflects the most hypocritical interpretation of the events known from the Stalinist and Communist years," the ministry said in a statement.
Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz of Poland also expressed displeasure with the ambassador.
Relations have never been easy since Poland, a former Soviet bloc nation, rejected Moscow's control and embraced the West, joining NATO and the European Union. But tensions have been especially high since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, a step that Poland has strongly condemned.
I'm guessing Russia is trolling after Poland removed another Soviet war memorial?
:D
I guess if Poland didn't attack that radio station in 1939...
It's Poland's fault for having such irresistably huge tracts of land.
If Russia goes a week without trolling Poland they start getting the shakes. ^_^
Uh-oh, grumbler is not gonna be happy with the NYT.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 07:02:27 AM
I guess if Poland didn't attack that radio station in 1939...
I still don't understand what was the whole point of doing it. Yes, Germany's response was a bit disproportionate, but still...
Did they play the Devil's music?
This is not a new idea in Russia - the refrain that Stalin was desperate to form an anti-Nazi coalition, because he saw through the Nazi's while the West was bust appeasing them, is the basic foundation of the Russian excuse for jumping into bed with Hitler once Stalin sadly realized that nobody was going to join him in resisting evil.
And then when the west did resist evil he had the Comintern help Hitler and undermined the West because...it gave the Soviets more time to fight Hitler in some inscrutable way. It is all in the great noble Stalinist plan.
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2015, 06:02:18 AM
I'm guessing Russia is trolling after Poland removed another Soviet war memorial?
First off, as Berkut pointed out, Russia has been saying this for many years now. Just google it.
That said, if we take into account that:
1. During the Czech crisis, when there was a chance of formation of a united front to stop Hitler, Poland actively said it would not allow Soviet troops to pass through its territory to defend the Czechs and would, in fact, attack those troops. This stopped any allied cooperation in its tracks and very much made the Munich Treaty and all that followed possible;
2. Poland happily took part in the dismemberment of Chzecoslovakia, taking the Teschen region for itself;
3. Poland refused to accept that the citizens of Danzig could use their right to self-determination to rejoin Germany, even though Danzig was a Free City under the League of Nations, and not part of Poland;
4. The ONLY territorial demand that Germany did to Poland before the war was the construction of a small extrajudicial [i.e. not subject to the sovereignty of the Polish state] rali line that would link Germany to East Prussia. This request was denied.
[and if this seems to you like a violation of the sovereign rights of Poland, I would like to remember you that Russia demanded the EU the construction of an identical - but rather longer - rail line though Lithuania, in order to link Russia to East Prussia. And nobody today seems to think that the existance of this rail line is some infringement on Lithuania's sovereignity].
Given these points then yes, Poland DOES share part of the responsibility for WW2.
This is basically part of the Polish "selective memory", that only remembers the bad things that happen to them, and always forgets the bad things they do to others.
A case in point would be the dismemberment of Poland in the late 18th century at the hands of Prussia, Austria and Russia.
Poles keep hammering this as an injustice and claim they got no help at the time, but at the same time totally 'forget' that just a few years before, tiny Prussia [rather smaller than Poland] was fighting for survival against a coalition of France, Austria and Russia [a stronger coalition than the one that destroyed Poland], and that at the time Poland did nothing to help.
But Polish impassivity in the Seven Years War is forgotten, while the impassivity of other powers in the partitions of Poland is criticized because... well, that time it hurt Poles and not others.
The real question is: why is Russia pushing this idea now as part of their foreign policy?
Martim Silva :lol:
I used to think Portugal is such a nice country, but based on two Portuguese posters we have, it seems like a shithole full of racists.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 27, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
The real question is: why is Russia pushing this idea now as part of their foreign policy?
A better question would be - why not? Russia is not losing anything by doing that, and potentially gains both domestically and abroad, by increasing disinformation among useful idiots and provoking Polish officials to say something stupid.
Quote from: Martim Silva on September 27, 2015, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2015, 06:02:18 AM
I'm guessing Russia is trolling after Poland removed another Soviet war memorial?
First off, as Berkut pointed out, Russia has been saying this for many years now. Just google it.
That said, if we take into account that:
1. During the Czech crisis, when there was a chance of formation of a united front to stop Hitler, Poland actively said it would not allow Soviet troops to pass through its territory to defend the Czechs and would, in fact, attack those troops. This stopped any allied cooperation in its tracks and very much made the Munich Treaty and all that followed possible;
2. Poland happily took part in the dismemberment of Chzecoslovakia, taking the Teschen region for itself;
3. Poland refused to accept that the citizens of Danzig could use their right to self-determination to rejoin Germany, even though Danzig was a Free City under the League of Nations, and not part of Poland;
4. The ONLY territorial demand that Germany did to Poland before the war was the construction of a small extrajudicial [i.e. not subject to the sovereignty of the Polish state] rali line that would link Germany to East Prussia. This request was denied.
[and if this seems to you like a violation of the sovereign rights of Poland, I would like to remember you that Russia demanded the EU the construction of an identical - but rather longer - rail line though Lithuania, in order to link Russia to East Prussia. And nobody today seems to think that the existance of this rail line is some infringement on Lithuania's sovereignity].
Given these points then yes, Poland DOES share part of the responsibility for WW2.
You assume that Russians would just cross through Poland to attack Germany. That is very doubtfull, and we've seen it at the end of WWII, they didn't exactly all go back home.
You assume that Germany's small territorial concessions would have been the end of it and that Germany invaded Poland solely to link up with Prussia and ethnic Germans living there.
You make all those assumptions like:
a) Hitler was a very reasonable man through to his word
b) Mein Kampf was never published
That is the fallacy of your argument.
Quote
Poles keep hammering this as an injustice and claim they got no help at the time, but at the same time totally 'forget' that just a few years before, tiny Prussia [rather smaller than Poland] was fighting for survival against a coalition of France, Austria and Russia [a stronger coalition than the one that destroyed Poland], and that at the time Poland did nothing to help.
But Polish impassivity in the Seven Years War is forgotten, while the impassivity of other powers in the partitions of Poland is criticized because... well, that time it hurt Poles and not others.
But Prussia was an innocent victim fighting for its life, right. It's not like they were allied with the United Kingdom in a war of agression against France to take over their colonies worldwide. Prussia occupying French troops on the continent while Great Britain was free to move theirs oversea.
No, really, all it was various European States trying to deny the right of existance of Prussia. It never was about the money Great Britain gave to Prussia or the territorial ambitions of said country. Nope. Prussia was a victim.
Now, who is doing revisionism?
Louis XV man. Throwing away the Prussian alliance to side with Austria. Il était bête comme la paix
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 27, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
The real question is: why is Russia pushing this idea now as part of their foreign policy?
Because Russian propaganda is in overdrive. The narrative is that Russia is the good guy, and the West has always been the bad guy. Making Poland the bad guy in WWII has two goals: absolving Stalin of any guilt, since Stalin is now back to being a good guy who may have been tough occasionally, and insulting Poland directly, since today it is solidly in the Western camp.
can i switch camp
Quote from: viper37 on September 27, 2015, 10:54:57 AM
But Prussia was an innocent victim fighting for its life, right. It's not like they were allied with the United Kingdom in a war of agression against France to take over their colonies worldwide. Prussia occupying French troops on the continent while Great Britain was free to move theirs oversea.
No, really, all it was various European States trying to deny the right of existance of Prussia. It never was about the money Great Britain gave to Prussia or the territorial ambitions of said country. Nope. Prussia was a victim.
Now, who is doing revisionism?
When you fight against France, you fight for what is right. -_-
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2015, 10:14:13 AM
And then when the west did resist evil he had the Comintern help Hitler and undermined the West because...it gave the Soviets more time to fight Hitler in some inscrutable way. It is all in the great noble Stalinist plan.
By that point the USSR was already committed to an alliance of convenience with the Nazis--especially given how much effort they saw France and Britain put in to saving Poland. You'll recall that this effort amounted to "nearly nothing."
The Polish government had its reasons (and they weren't even necessarily bad ones), but they really were serious obstacles to the creation of an anti-Nazi entente. So were large elements within the British establishment.
The bigger question is "who gives a shit today?" The answer should be "nobody, this is a meaningless liberal arts topic of interest only to hobbyists." Unfortunately, this is not the state of the world and in Europe 70 year old history questions apparently matter.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2015, 12:31:40 PM
By that point the USSR was already committed to an alliance of convenience with the Nazis--especially given how much effort they saw France and Britain put in to saving Poland. You'll recall that this effort amounted to "nearly nothing."
Committing yourself to a war that put your country in existential danger is considerably more than nothing. The alliance with Germany was a fucking week old I can see why they were so hopelessly enter-twined with it and unable to help from attempting to undermine resistance to Germany at every front.
QuoteThe bigger question is "who gives a shit today?" The answer should be "nobody, this is a meaningless liberal arts topic of interest only to hobbyists." Unfortunately, this is not the state of the world and in Europe 70 year old history questions apparently matter.
True but I am such a hobbyist :P
And yes it is absurd events that happened hundreds of years ago move the needle in international politics, much less ones that remain in living memory. But, you know, what are you going to do. Next thing you know people will debate why the ACW happened.
Well, the alliance with Britain and France was dead, partly thanks to Poland's unwillingness to allow the transit of Soviet troops through its territory under any circumstances short of what actually occurred, which was the only way the USSR could have conceived of a partnership with Poland being useful. (Why would I get involved in a war to protect a buffer state if the buffer state has already been swallowed whole and its strategic usefulness has been eradicated?) My intention isn't to totally absolve the USSR of opportunistically preying upon their neighbors, which they certainly did, to varying levels of competence.
It didn't help that the Soviets were in a terrible shape, militarily, and knew it, and so would have preferred avoiding war with a great power anyway. It also didn't help that large segments of the British establishment hated the USSR as much or more than the Nazis, and many would have welcomed the chance to watch the two illiberal powers destroy each other. (This is, after all, how WWI ultimately shook out.)
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2015, 12:38:24 PM
And yes it is absurd events that happened hundreds of years ago move the needle in international politics, much less ones that remain in living memory. But, you know, what are you going to do. Next thing you know people will debate why the ACW happened.
Today, we are all Balkantards. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
Well, the alliance with Britain and France was dead, partly thanks to Poland's unwillingness to allow the transit of Soviet troops through its territory under any circumstances short of what actually occurred, which was the only way the USSR could have conceived of a partnership with Poland being useful. (Why would I get involved in a war to protect a buffer state if the buffer state has already been swallowed whole and its strategic usefulness has been eradicated?) My intention isn't to totally absolve the USSR of opportunistically preying upon their neighbors, which they certainly did, to varying levels of competence.
It didn't help that the Soviets were in a terrible shape, militarily, and knew it, and so would have preferred avoiding war with a great power anyway. It also didn't help that large segments of the British establishment hated the USSR as much or more than the Nazis, and many would have welcomed the chance to watch the two illiberal powers destroy each other. (This is, after all, how WWI ultimately shook out.)
That's a bit like arguing that a woman is to blame for being raped, because she didn't want to have consensual sex with the attacker in the first place. :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2015, 11:13:35 AM
Louis XV man. Throwing away the Prussian alliance to side with Austria. Il était bête comme la paix
yes, he was.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 12:53:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2015, 12:46:33 PM
Well, the alliance with Britain and France was dead, partly thanks to Poland's unwillingness to allow the transit of Soviet troops through its territory under any circumstances short of what actually occurred, which was the only way the USSR could have conceived of a partnership with Poland being useful. (Why would I get involved in a war to protect a buffer state if the buffer state has already been swallowed whole and its strategic usefulness has been eradicated?) My intention isn't to totally absolve the USSR of opportunistically preying upon their neighbors, which they certainly did, to varying levels of competence.
It didn't help that the Soviets were in a terrible shape, militarily, and knew it, and so would have preferred avoiding war with a great power anyway. It also didn't help that large segments of the British establishment hated the USSR as much or more than the Nazis, and many would have welcomed the chance to watch the two illiberal powers destroy each other. (This is, after all, how WWI ultimately shook out.)
That's a bit like arguing that a woman is to blame for being raped, because she didn't want to have consensual sex with the attacker in the first place. :P
Geopolitics isn't sexual morality. Ordinarily.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2015, 12:31:40 PM
The Polish government had its reasons (and they weren't even necessarily bad ones), but they really were serious obstacles to the creation of an anti-Nazi entente. So were large elements within the British establishment.
Yeah, the Poles were as afraid of the Soviets, if not moreso, as they were of the Germans (and with good reason).
Quote from: dps on September 27, 2015, 01:42:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2015, 12:31:40 PM
The Polish government had its reasons (and they weren't even necessarily bad ones), but they really were serious obstacles to the creation of an anti-Nazi entente. So were large elements within the British establishment.
Yeah, the Poles were as afraid of the Soviets, if not moreso, as they were of the Germans (and with good reason).
Well, for starters, Poland was at war with the Soviets in 1920.
I wonder what would be the outcome if Poland acted like Hungary and sided with Hitler in 1930s. Or if this was an option at all.
Because we are probably the only country in Europe that got the shittiest end of the stick - first being subject to the nazi occupation and then ending up in the Soviet bloc. Noone else had that shitty luck.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
Because we are probably the only country in Europe that got the shittiest end of the stick - first being subject to the nazi occupation and then ending up in the Soviet bloc. Noone else had that shitty luck.
Czechoslovakia definitely did. The Baltics, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine did. Even the erstwhile Axis minor allies experienced some degree of "occupation" once their governments decided to make separate peaces.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
I wonder what would be the outcome if Poland acted like Hungary and sided with Hitler in 1930s. Or if this was an option at all.
Because we are probably the only country in Europe that got the shittiest end of the stick - first being subject to the nazi occupation and then ending up in the Soviet bloc. Noone else had that shitty luck.
Well, Poland did get a lot of German territories out of the whole deal, while losing the shit they're better off without. And they've pretty much been the only big country in that region that won the aftermath of the Cold War.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2015, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
Because we are probably the only country in Europe that got the shittiest end of the stick - first being subject to the nazi occupation and then ending up in the Soviet bloc. Noone else had that shitty luck.
Czechoslovakia definitely did. The Baltics, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine did. Even the erstwhile Axis minor allies experienced some degree of "occupation" once their governments decided to make separate peaces.
Not really. Czechoslovakia was annexed "peacefully" and did not suffer through the same kind of oppression Poland did as a conquered country. The Baltics weren't even occupied - the people there welcomed the nazis.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 02:28:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2015, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
Because we are probably the only country in Europe that got the shittiest end of the stick - first being subject to the nazi occupation and then ending up in the Soviet bloc. Noone else had that shitty luck.
Czechoslovakia definitely did. The Baltics, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine did. Even the erstwhile Axis minor allies experienced some degree of "occupation" once their governments decided to make separate peaces.
Not really. Czechoslovakia was annexed "peacefully" and did not suffer through the same kind of oppression Poland did as a conquered country. The Baltics weren't even occupied - the people there welcomed the nazis.
wut
How strong was the pro-German faction in Sweden?
Quote from: Jaron on September 27, 2015, 02:35:21 PM
How strong was the pro-German faction in Sweden?
Are you doubting us?
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2015, 02:47:04 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 27, 2015, 02:35:21 PM
How strong was the pro-German faction in Sweden?
Are you doubting us?
No, of course not. In fact, one of my best Mormon friends served his mission in Sweden.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Finternational%2Fmission%2520accomplished%2520banner%252023423423.jpg&hash=ceac302f8e1440a6f382372df36268373b9f289c)
The Russian ambassador has now "expressed regret" for having been misunderstood.
Russia is the best troll. :D
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
I wonder what would be the outcome if Poland acted like Hungary and sided with Hitler in 1930s. Or if this was an option at all.
Because we are probably the only country in Europe that got the shittiest end of the stick - first being subject to the nazi occupation and then ending up in the Soviet bloc. Noone else had that shitty luck.
It wasn't an option. The Nazis were out to crush Poland for ideological/racial reasons. Stalin was out to crush Poland, because the Poles had humiliated him personally by winning the 1920-21 war, in which his contribution was less that stellar. ;)
It's polands fault for blocking an anti anti coalition which meant the soviets had to form a coalition with the nazis.... Err... Right,
It is certainly true that interwars Poland was a bit of a cock and not entirely the sweet and innocent victim it is portrayed as but.... Come on.
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
He is a Gamecock.
Has Raz hacked Hamilcar's account? :hmm:
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
It's Ide's schtick to solve everything with long range bombing campaigns.
I never saw Americans prosecuted for nuking Hiroshima or Brits prosecuted for Dresden bombings, so why would what Ide is advocating be a war crime?
Chemical weapons. :secret:
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
So is this some sort of continually kick Ide in the teeth move?
Hami seems to have a problem with nazis dying in droves - unlike, say, tornado victims.
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
if the british government had (british) legal authority to firebomb foreign cities, it probably had (british) legal authority to gasbomb foreign cities. unless there's some obscure british law/precedent from that era that prohibited the british government from using gas weapons. but, if that were the case, neither ide nor any law graduate could reasonably be expected to know that.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2015, 04:40:36 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
if the british government had (british) legal authority to firebomb foreign cities, it probably had (british) legal authority to gasbomb foreign cities. unless there's some obscure british law/precedent from that era that prohibited the british government from using gas weapons. but, if that were the case, neither ide nor any law graduate could reasonably be expected to know that.
Chemical weapons are forbidden in warfare by international law since 1925. The UK was one of the original signers of the treaty, and had signed an earlier one in 1922, part of the Washington Arms Conference Treaty, that prohibited the use of gases in warfare.
QuoteThe Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, or the Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into international Law at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol)
Quote from: The Larch on September 29, 2015, 05:38:12 AMChemical weapons are forbidden in warfare by international law since 1925. The UK was one of the original signers of the treaty, and had signed an earlier one in 1922, part of the Washington Arms Conference Treaty, that prohibited the use of gases in warfare.
QuoteThe Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, or the Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into international Law at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol)
i knew an international treaty existed at the time that prohibited chemical weapons, hence why i kept saying british. :P
as far as i'm aware, international treaties don't bind national governments. i don't see how such treaties could without a nation's constitution (or non-constitution constitution) requiring the national government to adhere to international treaties. and, why would drafters of a constitution ever put that in. wouldn't make much sense with the possible harm it could inflict on the nation.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2015, 02:05:01 AM
I never saw Americans prosecuted for nuking Hiroshima or Brits prosecuted for Dresden bombings, so why would what Ide is advocating be a war crime?
Now now we did the Dresden bombings as well. You want to get the Brits for the Hamburg bombings.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2015, 02:05:01 AM
I never saw Americans prosecuted for nuking Hiroshima or Brits prosecuted for Dresden bombings, so why would what Ide is advocating be a war crime?
I would think we'd be in hotter water over dispersal of Agent Orange.
Plants lack legal standing in Vietnam.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2015, 06:38:56 AM
i knew an international treaty existed at the time that prohibited chemical weapons, hence why i kept saying british. :P
as far as i'm aware, international treaties don't bind national governments. i don't see how such treaties could without a nation's constitution (or non-constitution constitution) requiring the national government to adhere to international treaties. and, why would drafters of a constitution ever put that in. wouldn't make much sense with the possible harm it could inflict on the nation.
I am not sure where you are coming from on this. Under the US Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land, and can only be abrogated in accordance with the treaty. In the UK, I am sure that the case is somewhat different, in that Parliament is sovereign and is technically not bound by any previous acts of Parliament, including treaties, but I am sure that their "constitution" (unwritten but nonetheless held to be binding) requires that the government abrogate treaties only in accordance with the treaty, rather than unilaterally by act of Parliament, else no one would sign a treaty with it.
Oh, and I am sure we can forgive Hami for not knowing that Ide routinely advocates silly stuff as part of his shtick.
Hami, Ide is just carrying his sincere beliefs to absurd extremes, as a matter of humor.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2015, 04:10:24 PM
Oh, and I am sure we can forgive Hami for not knowing that Ide routinely advocates silly stuff as part of his shtick.
Hami, Ide is just carrying his sincere beliefs to absurd extremes, as a matter of humor.
Do Swiss know what "humor" is? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on September 29, 2015, 04:12:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2015, 04:10:24 PM
Oh, and I am sure we can forgive Hami for not knowing that Ide routinely advocates silly stuff as part of his shtick.
Hami, Ide is just carrying his sincere beliefs to absurd extremes, as a matter of humor.
Do Swiss know what "humor" is? :hmm:
http://www.cleeseblog.com/2008/06/29/swiss-sense-of-humour/
QuoteTo say the Swiss have no sense of humour is to imply that they are not aware of their own foibles which they clearly are. During their otherwise excellent co-hosting of the Euro 2008 football competition, suffering the most dreadful weather conditions, coping with electrical storms and blackouts, SBC the Swiss national broadcaster managed to offend the entire German nation by by using long since abandoned verse "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" as sub-titles during the German national anthem. Cue red faces, and sincere apologies all round.
A couple of comedic phrases the more daring among you might find useful in Switzerland, which should work well so long as you're in the German-speaking parts of the country, and which will do much illustrate the admirable self-deprecating and honest Swiss sense of humour:
"Wer hat das ganzes Nazigold gestohlen?" – who stole all the Nazi gold? This is always a good one to trot out if you're lost for a witty remark and among civilised company – especially to the older Swiss who know more about these things and understand the tortuous processes by which their forebears avoided occupation and remained neutral during WW2.
Younger comedians, especially if you're at the cup final and close enough to the touchline, why not shout at the referee or either of his well-fed assistants, "Wer aß das ganzes muesli?" – who ate all the muesli? – this popular breakfast being something the healthy Swiss did invent, and of which they are rightly proud, down to the very last piece of dried fruit.
:hmm:
I'm pretty sure my peak advocation of area bombing for shock value predates Hamilcar's depature. But it has been awhile. :(
Anyway, maybe I really don't know more about international law than Mr. Astronomy. While I'm quite aware that chemical weapons were made illegal by international treaty after WWI, I'm afraid it's Hamilcar alone who knows who would have actually prosecuted the officials of a victorious Allied nation that had elected to use them. But I wonder if perhaps he means the same attorneys who handled the cases against Curtis LeMay and Arthur Harris, and who secured severe sentences against the defendants for their crimes?
:hmm:
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
Ide's devotion to total war and strategic bombing in particular as the only practical and moral form of warfare goes back to the very foundation of this forum and beyond. He's a big fan of Curtis LeMay and Buck Turgidson.
Quote from: The Larch on September 29, 2015, 05:38:12 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2015, 04:40:36 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
if the british government had (british) legal authority to firebomb foreign cities, it probably had (british) legal authority to gasbomb foreign cities. unless there's some obscure british law/precedent from that era that prohibited the british government from using gas weapons. but, if that were the case, neither ide nor any law graduate could reasonably be expected to know that.
Chemical weapons are forbidden in warfare by international law since 1925. The UK was one of the original signers of the treaty, and had signed an earlier one in 1922, part of the Washington Arms Conference Treaty, that prohibited the use of gases in warfare.
QuoteThe Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, or the Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into international Law at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol)
Didn't seem to cover biological weapons since they had plans to carpet bomb germany with anthrax and render it uninhabitable for centuries if the Germans gassed British cities.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 29, 2015, 05:38:12 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2015, 04:40:36 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities. Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.
I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.
if the british government had (british) legal authority to firebomb foreign cities, it probably had (british) legal authority to gasbomb foreign cities. unless there's some obscure british law/precedent from that era that prohibited the british government from using gas weapons. but, if that were the case, neither ide nor any law graduate could reasonably be expected to know that.
Chemical weapons are forbidden in warfare by international law since 1925. The UK was one of the original signers of the treaty, and had signed an earlier one in 1922, part of the Washington Arms Conference Treaty, that prohibited the use of gases in warfare.
QuoteThe Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, or the Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into international Law at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol)
Didn't seem to cover biological weapons since they had plans to carpet bomb germany with anthrax and render it uninhabitable for centuries if the Germans gassed British cities.
That was because the treaty apparently didn't forbid stockpiling them or retaliating with them in case of being attacked first. It's one of the many weaknesses it had, like not forbidding its use against non signataries or within a country's borders.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2015, 04:07:32 PMI am not sure where you are coming from on this. Under the US Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land, and can only be abrogated in accordance with the treaty. In the UK, I am sure that the case is somewhat different, in that Parliament is sovereign and is technically not bound by any previous acts of Parliament, including treaties, but I am sure that their "constitution" (unwritten but nonetheless held to be binding) requires that the government abrogate treaties only in accordance with the treaty, rather than unilaterally by act of Parliament, else no one would sign a treaty with it.
pretty sure supreme law of the land refers only to states. i.e., federal gov makes a treaty with a foreign nation -> the states cannot reject those treaties. it's a check on the states to ensure they comply with the federal decision to impose a treaty on the nation. i don't think it imposes any requirement on the
federal government to uphold the treaty.
FDR wasn't a criminal; he was a cripple.