Responsability for the outbreak of the war in Europe

Well, sadly I did not stab anybody.
The only knife I could find was a rather pathetic butterknife.

Izaak - how did your patients manage?



But seriously, I chose not to. I looked at my options:
I believe that murdaer is wrong. I know that I would regret it forever, and that I would upset a lot of people, and that I would go to prison. So I chose not to. That is free will also.

Roel - I find that it you want to explain a concept, use as few words as possible, and keep it as simple as possible, and use examples if possible.

 

I did stab two folks in the back, actually. I had to, in order to prove I am free.
No, it was because I was asked to. They had water about their lungs.

So we proved to be automas, Ricky, after all!

 

Well, sadly I doubt anybody would believe:
"I had to stab him, your honour, to prove that I had free will"

We do tend to dig little 'behavioural ruts' for ourselves to travel through life in. But does this make us automatons, or does this simply mean we have an easier life? After all, if we all went around stabbing people just to prove we had free will, where would 'civilisation' be?

 

Well, I say it's a rational decision, postdeterminable and therefore not "free", strictly.

Izaak, as to the automat question, no, I don't believe man is an automat because many of the things that determine what we do have to do with emotion, experience and personal memory, things an automat cannot have. Therefore though we may be able to post-predict what a person has done, we can't say what he will do beforehand until we know enough about him to do so. If he doesn't, he's exercising free will.

Lovely example though, the stabbing in the back.

 

Yes, and very relevant example, at least for me this afternoon. No, not just this. I make holes in people every single day. Sometimes very deep holes.
And leave things in people. Metallic and other things. It´s fun! :smok: and it pays.

As to you Roel: I must say, your answer why we are not automats shocked me deeply. Because, no matter how complicated and thus difficult to predict a machine is, if it acts without a possibility of a truly free decision - is still an automat. A very sophisticated, maybe even impossible to predict for others and himself, but still an automat. Even if you put the newest computer chip (you know, one of those NSC can only use, one of these "deep blue" things) and teach it lots and lots of kinds of behavior and so on, and make it drive a robot - it´s still an automat.
It´s first when a being has several possibilities what to do and chooses one, because he thinks "it is the right thing to do", against some unpleasant odds, it´s free will in action. Not because he´s been taught it, nor because it´s more pleasant or gives more money at tne end of the day, but because it is the right, just, DECENT thing to do. Or indecent.

I think we have such an ability. I hope so very much.

 

You could, if you wish stab the Lurpak git. :lol:

 

doesn´t pay

 

Lesson 1 - this debate is supposed to be entertaining and possibly enlightening, but definitely not deciding on anything. You are talking to a 16-year old, who isn't exactly done thinking about things for lack of time, and is also in an age of easy thoughtswings and moodswings. So no matter what I write, please do not be shocked.

I've acknowledged all along that this is indeed free will. What gave you the idea that meant it differently?

 

I LIKE TO GET SHOCKED, ROEL! this is my little secret or perversion, if you like.
take it or leave it. :smok:

ok. so we agree on the free will thing. it´s just because the discussion got so complicated that we began to write the same things in different terms. let´s proceed the main topic, ok?

 

Right.

Has appeasement been covered?

 

You mean - between us? :lol: or in 1938? If you want to talk about 1938, I am ready, my salivary glands in readiness. :smok:

 

The appeasers must take some responsibility for the start of WWII, or at least some moral responsibility for selling out the rights of people over whom they had no soveriegnty.
I have heard the arguments that the French and British leaders were trying to buy time and that staring a war in 1938 would have had worse results than Sept 1939, I don't buy it.
Was the military gap between France, GB and Germany worse in Sept 1939 (or even April 1940 when the war in the West really started) than it was in Oct 1938? or March 1938 (Austria)? or March 1936 (the Rhineland)?
Shouldn't Stalin be counted among the appeasers? Without the Pact of August 1939 there may well have been no attack on Poland. The Soivets were also supplying the Nazi's right up to June 22, 1941.

 

Dear Canambridge, you probably know by now, what is my opinion on the origins of WW2. The shortest possible contents of it can be found at

www.patriot.dk/suvorov.html

I can sign under every word of the text there.

As to the appeasers - I think there was a healthy tendency in European politics at that time, to try to avoid war. After all, war is nowadays extremely destructive and nobody really gains, except weapons producers and other suppliers for the armies.
European politicians seem to have at that time to be under the influence of predominantly other circles than military/industrial complex and also under influence of healthy thinking populations of Europe, which was heavily traumatized by WW1 (not even 20 years since the end of The War to end All Wars, as one said). So, one can say - Europe was attempting to avoid a new carnage.
Another problem is that democratic governed institutions tend to be short-sighted and their attention-span is ususally "till the next elections", so, with the populations not ready but rather hostile to war, it would under any circumstances difficult and suicidal for the politicians to propose war in the early phases of the rise of Hitler.
By the time of Poland´s "turn", a barrier was reached, at least for some influential sections in England (particularly) and it was decided that the crazy man of Europe must be stopped at any price.

Sure, it was very late, and unfortunate: by then, hitler´s industrial basis was more than doubled (plus the very substantial deliveries of raw materials, oil and food from the USSR).
Human resources also very much increased (Austrians, German minorities of Czech protectorate and of Poland).

As to Stalin: he was, in my opinion, he was the Architect of the whole conflict from the very start (see the Link above). To understand it fully, you would have to read Suvorovs books themselves. I have also read a lot of other literature on the subject, published (or not even published) in Russian.

 

Unfortunately, they did this by turning a blind eye to aggression.

The link Izaak posted is interesting... worth a read.

 

Appeasement in the 1930's is a difficult debate.

As I view it, many people in the USA and Britain already in the 1920's considered that the Versailles treaty was too draconian and made pressure on France not to insist too harshly on certain conditions.
For example the french occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 was seen in a very negative way by Britain.

So very soon Britain showed herself ready to "renegociate" on certain terms with Germany while the french attitude was seen as "gallic intransigeance".(Good example for this is the anglo-german naval agreement of 1935)

Later came the Rhineland crisis of 1936.
Here too many french politicians were ready to intervene, but Britain was opposed to it.
Generally there was a fear in Britain that if France acted too resolutely, it might crush Germany and fulfill it's war objectives of 1918:end Germany as an unified state, which would mean that France would become the dominating country in Europe.
That was unacceptable for Britain, and France had no statesmen willing to go for confrontation with both Britain and Germany.
Another important consequence of french inactivity in 1936, was that Belgium was lost as an ally, as they choose neutrality from that year on.
From that period on, France too adopted appeasement.

After 1936 Germany rearmed quickly, and any french/british intervention became much more difficult and would end in a bloody war.
In 1938 when Hitler annexed Austria and the Sudetes, it was very difficult for any french/british politician to oppose this, as both the inhabitants of Austria, as well as those of the sudetes massively favoured being integrated in the Reich.
It's difficult to imagine France and Britain(with their pacifist populations) start a war against the right to self determination.
Would british or french soldiers be willing to sacrifice themselves(possibly by millions) to oppose the wishes of the populations of Austriâ and the sudetes??

It was only in march 1939 when Hitler occupied the rest of Czekoslovakia, that western politicians realised that Hitler definately wanted more than reunify all germans in his reich.

 

Thanks, Ricky for the recommendation of THE LINK. I did try to show the unfortunateness of the policy later in my entry. But, however you look at it: if, as some voices in Europe wanted it,

hitler took Poland, then a Russo-German war would have been a question of (short) time. Then, Europe would see a battle of Giants from a cozy distance, while rearming in order to destroy the Winner Giant, tired of war.

Castelot shows very persuasively that France was much more bent upon stopping hitler earlier. However, it was Britain that signed the treaty with Poland first. And it was the French who demonstrated with banners “We don´t want to die for Danzig!”. Isn´t it true too?
As to the possible Franko-German war, without Britain´s aquiescence: it´s hard to believe Britain stab France in the back during such a war. Britain would have probably intervened diplomatically and economically, but by that time the French Army would have been in Berlin and hitler in French jail. (OK, I am exagerrating, but AT THE LEAST, by that time the Germans would have asked for cease fire and agreed to French conditions which would have rendered Germany unable to wage war for many years in the future).
Even after 1936, the French army alone was much stronger than the German. Germany´s only superiority was surprise and a very precise plan of aggression. If France started the war, Germany would not have had these advantages.
Your point about Anschluss – excellent, imo, but still – it was forbidden by Versailles.
As to what hitler had in mind generally could have been read by everybody in his boring book. It seems that only Stalin took the book seriously. It is widely known that Stalin was one of the first politicians outside Germany to read the book and take it seriously.
Generally, I think, Castelot´s analysis of the roots of appeasement are excellent. Chapeau bas, Castelot!

 

Britain signed an assistance pact with Poland in 1939, but the french-polish allaince dated from 1921 if I remember correctly.

An interesting question to me would be wether both the british and the french alliance with Poland forced both countries to help the poles only in case of german agression, or were they also bound to help in case of soviet agression??I don't really know the answer.Does anyone else know?

Yes, that is true, but eventually many frenchmen "died for Danzig" nevertheless.

I was not saying that Britain would have intervened militarily, I was thinking of economical and diplomatical measures.[/quote]

 

I don´t have the text of British/French guarantees before me. But I am sure I remember correctly that it was formulated "against any foreign power attacking Poland". Thus, both countries showed lack of consequence vs. USSR.

Btw: I am sure that Stalin was counting precisely on this not entering Poland at the same time as the Germans.
He waited patiently for 17 days and entered Poland when it was defenceless.

It was the first of a series of unpleasant surprises he made to hitler.
When astounded Ribbentrop telegraphed to Molotov why USSR is not attacking, the answer was: "our army is unfortunately not ready" !!!

 

[

One may call it lack of consequence, but one could also call it "Realpolitik".

If you have just begun a war against the country posessing the second biggest army in Europe, you don't do the same against a country that has the biggest army.(If you intend to win that war, which suposedly Britain and France were hoping for....)

 

Quite so, adding Russia to our enemies in 1939 would have been foolhardy in the extreme