Alex Libman
Banned
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 219
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
No it was not, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire the territory of Palestine which is Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Jordan came under the authority of the British Empire, and under that authority they gave 90% back to the Arabs and 10% to the Jews who had a sizable population size and a large immigration rate there too. But even 90% of the Mandate of Palestine was to much for them.
Once again, you use words like "authority" and "mandate" to justify acts of violence (as I've already explained in more detail on another thread).
No it had less business, as we payed for Hawaii and today Hawaii is free and prosperous and we didn't slaughter them, in the Philippines we were in a war against the Spanish to release Cuba from their empire as well as the Philippines, took the Philippines and had to fight an insurgency to help protect the fledgling Constitutional Republic that we had created, an insurgency not unlike the one in Iraq.
You're still failing to make a rational distinction between the American annexation of Hawaii and the Japanese annexation of Taiwan, for example. The "paid for Hawaii" argument is pure slavery. All governments look for ways to expand their power and then influence the public opinion in those areas to their advantage. What Japan was doing did not justify aggression any more than America's westward expansion a 1-2 centuries earlier.
Hitlers concept of life unworthy of life Lebensunwertes Leben existed long before the war had even begun, to suggest that his intentions were not to slaughter the Jews is simply historically inaccurate.
Yeah, Hitler was obviously one evil dude, but his intentions for the Jews changed over time. The "final solution" started out as eviction, not murder. Remember that even the Nazis have to sell themselves as a benevolent government to their subjects. Heck, they were all about animal rights dontchyaknow... :roll:
lol the U.S. didn't enter the war until 2 years later.
Yeah, I screwed up when I changed that sentence and forgot to edit out the United States.
Furthermore; if you have ever heard of the sequel to Mein Kampf you would know that war with the U.K., the U.S., and France were always on the agenda, it seems to me that you think further appeasement of Hitler was the right cause of action even though he had already violated the Czech deal and had invaded Poland with the Communists through the secret protocol of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
Zweites Buch is very likely to be an outright forgery, since very little pre-1945 references to it exist. Besides, it was a futurist vision that saw an alliance between Greater Germany and the British Empire, and war with the United States only a distant eventuality. This fits the Madagascar Plan or a similar eviction scenario perfectly.
And then you use the word "appeasement" - which is precisely what the United States is now doing to China and North Korea, but it's not what non-interventionism would entail. When two sharks called Fascism and Communism start to bite each-other, you just get out of the way and watch them bleed, while sticking to free market capitalism yourself and thus surpassing them both evermore economically. And you accept any and all refugees, which would have prevented the Holocaust outright.
The U.K. would have fallen or been forced to capitulate the Soviets would have taken Berlin and then set their cites to the west and in all probability the Manhattan Project couldn't have happened without a total war driven industrial complex leaving the U.S. sitting ducks.
The U.K. had declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And the idea that USSR could have held out more than a month without western aid is ridiculous - their system was on the verge of collapse even without Hitler.
Furthermore; the Jews never attacked Germany the Japanese attacked the U.S. and we never did anything like what the Germans did. Not even the British with the Boers did what the Germans did.
Japan is a nation with an army. Jews are a religious and ethnic group, which contained certain movements within it, some perfectly innocent, some dangerous, and some downright criminal. You can't compare the two because they don't attack the same way.
So was Hitler so are you probably if you go back far enough who gives a ****? Do Jews somehow act differently than other human beings?
Why ask me? I'm only explaining Hitler's thinking, I'm not agreeing with him.
I meant they were born Christian.
I was born Soviet. So what?
No he didn't that is just what he used for his will to power, claim there's an outside foreign entity out to get you and use it to gain more power to stop this imaginary foe.
Yes, that's a possibility too. Most politicians lie, they just aren't as great actors as Hitler. He really had the world convinced that he was a genuine nut. :lol:
Quite frankly sir I don't think that you have ever even read Mein Kampf.
That's true. I downloaded it on audio book, but it was so incoherent I never made it past the first 20 minutes or so.
(I'm going to skip the rest - either because I've already addressed it, or because the discussion has lost its original context. I'm not here to defend Axis tyranny, I'm here to criticize government as an institution. If the United States wasn't the greatest nation on Earth, then I wouldn't be living here, but "the lesser of multiple evils" is not necessarily "good".)