BS: WWII unjustified?

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 01:02 AM

My goodness. If all of the members of every country in which people collaborated with the Nazis were shot for treason or imprisoned for life, that would mean that everyone in the US would have been shot or imprisoned for life. An imagination that can come up with that kind of interpretation of my words is a spongy one indeed.

As has been speculated, I was referring only to the specific individuals who did the collaborating. So in the case of Sweden, that would be the Swedish industrialists who provided materials to the Nazis that I would have been talking about had I been talking about any country other than the US. As it happens, however, I was only thinking about people in the US when I said what I did.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jun 08 - 12:51 AM

I said this...

"I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time."

After mentioning Bush, not before.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:11 PM

But the moral judgment which led to World War I seems to have been easier to take for the country at large--witness the initial enthusiastic response of the men who actually would fight it--and their families.   Seems to have been very like the start of the US Civil War--each side convinced it would be an easy victory for their side.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

The First World War should never have been fought at all.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: GUEST,Notatroll
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 10:45 AM

The best resolution of World War 1 would probably have been a cease-fire and negotiated peace in 1915, but neither side had much interest in negotiating one.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 08 - 01:50 AM

Britain had opportunity to take the easy way out in both the First and the Second World War. In both cases what was superficially the "best" and financially the most beneficial course of action for the country was overriddden by what was unquestionably the right course of action to pursue. Both were moral judgements, both were totally correct.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: GUEST,Notatroll
Date: 23 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

Isolationism was so strong here in 1941 that when Hitler declared war on the United States, a Congressional committee was busy investigating the movie industry for turning out anti-German films that might offend the Nazis. Among the movies that aroused suspicion was Sergeant York, which was entirely about a real World War I hero. The committee quietly gave up before the end of the year.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jun 08 - 08:32 PM

I suspected there was something to do with isolationists behind this. Some people berate the US for coming late to the war--and World War I.   But they don't seem to realize the strength of isolationists in the US. And the government has to pay attention to the views of the electorate. In 1916 Wilson won--narrowly--on the strength of "He kept us out of war". And in 1940 FDR's Republican opponent did not try to run on a similar platform--but there was strong sentiment in favor of keeping out. Even after Pearl Harbor it was not a given that the US would come in strongly against Nazi Germany--until Hitler solved the problem by declaring war on the US.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: GUEST,Notatroll
Date: 21 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Context:

"To coax isolationist elements in Congress into accepting [Lend-Lease], President Roosevelt stipulated that the British should hand over gold reserves held in South Africa and sell assets held in the United States."--Britain and the Americas...An Encyclopedia (2005), p. 997.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 08 - 10:53 PM

Not exactly on the topic, but certainly related--and also linked to the Sunday Mail postings, some of which bring up the same argument.

Book just out: The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire, by Peter Clarke. Reviewed in today's Wall St Journal.

Thesis is: " Britain's postwar problems were rooted in precisely those wartime commitments that had brought victory." Not a new idea, but sounds very well supported in this book. I didn't know, for instance, that the war "left India a creditor on a vast scale, with Britain owing it huge sums in the form of the sterling balances. London actually owed New Delhi some 1.3 billion pounds sterling (or $5.2 billion in 1945 dollars.)"

Nor just how FDR exploited the situation:   "In 1940, when Britain balked at surrendering nearly everything, Roosevelt summarily dispatched an American warship to Cape Town, South Africa to collect Britain's remaining gold reserves there."

Whether Churchill had a choice to do anything else but mortgage the UK to the hilt is not the question: it seems evident he had no choice. But the "partners" drove a hard bargain--it was by no means just the English-speaking peoples sticking together against the forces of darkness--as has been the general impression in some other presentations of the era.

If I can find the book for a good price, I will definitely buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 06:37 PM

Thanks, Don, for that link to the Sunday Mail.   Those are fascinating perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 11:00 AM

"I'm quite sure that the wartime population of Sweden included many more Resistance fighters, rescuers of Jews, etc., than war profiteers." - PoppaGator

Come out with that to a Norwegian and he'd probably deck you. Swedish resistance fighter? They weren't even occupied, although to easy Hitler's logistics problems they (The Swedes) did allow right of transit to German troops invading Norway.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Gulliver
Date: 19 Jun 08 - 08:56 AM

A review of Pat Buchanan's and Nicholson Baker's books by the conservative journalist Peter Hitchens, with a large number of interesting comments, can be found on the Sunday Mail site here .

He is a Euro-sceptic and ex-member of the Conservative Party (and before that the Labour Party and before that the International Socialists).

Don

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 05:55 PM

I really do not thnk that "everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way" should be interpreted to include all citizens of a nation where a few highly-placed industrialists profited by doing business with Nazi Germany, or for that matter with both sides of the conflict.

I'm quite sure that the wartime population of Sweden included many more Resistance fighters, rescuers of Jews, etc., than war profiteers.

Of course, the vast majority of the people were undoubtedly neither heroes nor collaborators, just humble individuals keeping their heads down and trying to survive.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Les from Hull
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM

About Churchill. I've no brief for him at all - I hate everything he stood for, but it's wrong to think of him as some kind of evil dictator. He didn't declare war on Germany - he wasn't Prime Minister until 1940 - war was declared by the Conservative Government lead by Neville 'Appeasement' Chamberlain.

Winston Churchill wasn't the great war leader and intellect that many people think he was. General Sir Alan Brooke, Churchill's chief of staff, wrote that "Winston had 10 ideas every day, only one of which was good, and he did not know which it was". Civilian bombing was one of the bad ideas. It was seen as the only way that Britain could really strike back at Germany, and it was promoted unnecessarily by Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, although it was known at the time that it was having little effect on German war production and none at all on German civilian morale. The American 'oil plan' of reducing German oil production was far more effective. We should have been putting much more effort into Coastal Command, converting heavy bombers into very long range patrol aircraft like the VLR Liberator we had to beg from the Americans to defeat the U boats.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Grab
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 07:53 AM

The funny thing to me is that Baker thinks he's making a new point. He's clearly never watched "The World at War" (made in the early 80s IIRC) which spelled out in great detail how all sides suffered in the war. He's also plainly unaware that the morally dubious strategy of bombing German cities is why Bomber Command never received the public recognition of campaign medals, unlike every other aerial, naval and ground action.

He's also starting from a premise which is provably incorrect. The question "is this a morally justified war?" is asking whether the reasons for going to war were morally valid. But Baker starts from this question and then answers a completely different question: "were the methods used to fight this war morally justified?"

The answer to this second question is clearly "no" in the case of firebombing cities, because even though the military targets of factories and railways were destroyed there was also a dreadful toll of civilian casualties. But the answer to the first question is equally clearly "yes" - attempts at appeasement throughout the 30s had only led to further annexing of central Europe, despite German assurances each time that they wouldn't go any further, and it was clear then and now that without intervention the Germans would only stop when they controlled the whole of Europe.

This is a classic politician's trick - when asked one question, answer a different one. Most people dislike politicians who won't give a straight answer to a question. I see no reason to think otherwise about authors who do the same.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 01:45 AM

"I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time."

CarolC then offers up Prescot Bush ommitting to provide any more candidates

Now, "instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way", now that would include Sweden would it not PoppaGator (Iron ore, ball-bearings, etc, without which the German war machine would have ground to a halt) But it would be rather uneasonable wouldn't it after all Sweden was a neutral country that traded with sovereign governments throughout the war. Much like the USA did for 80% of the First World War (Made a fortune out of it) and very much like she did for the first three years of the war in Europe (1939 to 1941 inclusive). As far as Bush being instrumental in assisting the Nazi's - another "leftist" myth, half-truth and misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:01 PM

I seriously doubt that any of the members of ABBA were Nazi collaborators during WWII. I'm pretty sure none of them had been born yet.

Was someone among their parents a notable Scandinavian quisling?

Or is it just that you can't stand "Mama Mia"?

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

This I thought was tastily selective - so I offered an alternative:

Donuel - PM
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:23 PM

""Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time."


I agree 100 % .

biLL


+++++++++++++++++++++


YIKES !

Thats harsh. If we did that then the entire Bush family would never have ascended to such heights in America.

Alternatively:
+++++++++++++++++++++


YIKES !

Thats harsh. If we did that then ABBA would never have ascended to such heights in the entertainment world.

Just think of it we'd have been spared "Mamma Mia!"

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:23 PM

""Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time."


I agree 100 % .

biLL


+++++++++++++++++++++


YIKES !

Thats harsh. If we did that then the entire Bush family would never have ascended to such heights in America.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:40 PM

Considering Hess, Goebbels, Goering, and of course Hitler, there was a very definite WEIRDO component to the top Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:41 AM

I think it was Joseph Stalin who insisted upon "unconditional surrender" with no prospect of seperate peace treay negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 04:26 AM

I still don't know why the British would imprison Hess instead of negotiating with him ... Hess wanted to negotiate

Hess was clearly deranged*, and had no credibility as a negotiator. The terms apparently offered were laughable, and later, after America entered the war, the only acceptable terms were unconditional surrender, so there was nothing to negotiate. On the other hand, his arrest was a propaganda coup for Britain at a time when they were thin on the ground. His post- war detention was the result of power play between Russia and the west.

* Even more deranged than the rest of the Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

To expand on meself's mother's eloquent observation:

I believe that my American generation's war, in Vietnam, developed the way it did because of the previous generation's experience. Those folks, as adults, had only experienced warefare as a tremendous shared sacrifice, one that everyone agreed was unavoidable and for the greatest of good causes.

It was difficult, if not impossible, for members of the "greatest generation" to imagine that any military action proposed by their government could possible be wrong.

Now, there were exceptions. General-turned-President Eisenhower, for one, seemed to have a pretty good idea of the situation that was developing at the end of 1950s when he coined the term "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech. I'm sure that his unique position during WWII gave him an ultra-realistic perspective, and the ability to be more skeptical than most about the motivation of corporations in the armament business.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Gulliver
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 06:02 PM

LTS said: English philosopher Edmund Burke said...

Burke was Irish, born in Dublin; his parents came from County Cork.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 04:14 PM

Some reasons the British might not negotiated with Rudolph Hess:
*Hess flew into England unannounced.
*He was not in some neutral country, say Spain or Portugal to conduct such business.
*When he was captured he gave mixed signals about why he was there, and whom he wanted to see.
*While he was a Deputy Fuhrer, it was known he increasingly was becoming out of favor with A.H. Could this have been a ruse?
*If he was what he said he was, and they sent him back, he likely would have been killed by Hitler.
*If he was not there for what he said he was, they would send him back to continue planning & participation in the war against the allies.
*What he seemed to be offering was peace with Britain only, primarily so that Germany could send resources to the Eastern Front against the USSR. So the war would, in any case, continue.
*By imprisoning him, the allies might get valuable information from one so high in the German Wehrmacht.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:05 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Meself. I understand now, and I have to say it makes a deal of sense.

Don T.


And thanks also to you Bruce. I think a trip to the library.......Yep!

DT

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 01:42 PM

I still don't know why the British would imprison Hess instead of negotiating with him and then seeing whether or not it would do any good. Hess wanted to negotiate, so I don't see the value in imprisoning him. Isn't there some kind of code or law or something that you can't imprison someone who is in your territory trying to negotiate peace? The British could only speculate about whether or not such negotiations would bear fruit, but what would have been the harm in allowing Hess to return home and try to make it work? It makes no sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 10:38 PM

"I'm not sure how Vietnam fits into this scenario though"

Don - I'm not sure you got my point - my mother's point, actually - no doubt my wording was a little misleading. What I was trying to get across was the notion that lessons two generations take from history are quite different because of the differing nature of the conflicts that to some degree 'defined' those two generations. My parents came of age when warnings of the danger of Hitler's Germany were being ignored or dismissed, with the horror of WWII being the result. Therefore, when Bush & co. were warning of Saddam and his WMD, my parents' experience inclined them to listen and support a pre-emptive strike against him. For me, on the other hand, having grown up in the Vietnam War era, I was of a mind to be quite skeptical of what the US president had to say, and quite leery of the idea of the Americans charging into some other country with guns blazing. I foresaw them getting trapped in the same kind of horrible mess they got into in Vietnam. (I admit to eating some crow when the whole thing seemed to reach a successful conclusion in a couple of weeks - not that I minded. I wish I had been wrong in my predictions ... )

Of course, I'm talking in vast generalizations about millions of members of two generations ...

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:36 PM

Although I'm not sure it was for that particular book--before the pedants have at me.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:28 PM

The US was bankrolling the French war there and after the French left following their defat at Dien Bien Phu, the US started to put money into Ngo Dinh Diem. He wasn't really all that popular with the people of the south, but the billions he received (as part of the US promulgation of the Truman Doctrine (help the free peoples of the world) allowed him to build an army to fight the 'troops' of Ho Chi Minh--and they needed those troops, because when the US prevented free elections (they knew the Communists would win) then the war really started. Operation Phoenix (?) led to the entrenchment of American 'advisors'--CIA, military. The north was impossible to stop. The US then got morassed in a ground war because despite dropping more explosives on that tiny little country than was dropped by them in WWII, there was no way to prevent infiltration by NVA regulars or VC irregulars. So from the tunnels of Cu Chi to the HCM Trail, American kids went to help a people who really din't want that type of help. IMO, the capitalists did, but not the average guy on the street.

(I had intended to do a Masters on that war, but life intervened.) IMO, the best book about it all is Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History". Karnow received a Pulitzer for his work as a btw.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:04 PM

I think the operative word here is "small".

In 1939, Germany, a country, in area and population, much larger than England, was invading smaller, weaker, neighbouring states.

When we, backing the USA, decided to invade Iraq, we were the invaders of a smaller weaker state.

Inevitably the perspective changes, and the two are viewed as almost mirror images.

I'm not sure how Vietnam fits into this scenario though, since I understood that the USA were invited in by the South Vietnamese government, to help fight off invasion from the North, backed by Communist China.

Perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge could enlighten me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM

"The lessons of history aren't always simple, though. Talking with my mother about the Iraq invasion once - she pointed out that World War II had taught those of her generation to take warnings about the diabolical plans of evil dictators very seriously, while for my generation, the Vietnam War had taught us to be skeptical when the authorites say we need to invade small countries for the greater good ..."

THAT is worth a second reading.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM

The lessons of history aren't always simple, though. Talking with my mother about the Iraq invasion once - she pointed out that World War II had taught those of her generation to take warnings about the diabolical plans of evil dictators very seriously, while for my generation, the Vietnam War had taught us to be skeptical when the authorites say we need to invade small countries for the greater good ...

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:46 PM

History doesn't allow reruns, but we can try to learn from it, and that means taking care to look at all the consequences that flowed from previous decisions, not just the ones that make us feel good. Maybe if our decision-makers had done that they wouldn't have been able to fool themselves that the war on Iraq was going to be, on balance, worth the suffering it would cause.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:45 PM

Carol c said .... "Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time."


I agree 100 % .

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: GUEST,wld
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:43 PM

I'm not dehumanising the German people. Some of my best friends are German.....and my only commercially succesful record was in Germany.

However it would be silly to pretend that Hitler's forces weren't well motivated and dying to get at us back then in early 1940. Up to the Battle of Britain, they must have thought the conqust of England was going to be a bit of a pushover.

I suspect without FDR's help, we might well have been.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM

OK. My memory is good but the facts may have been wrong.
I was basing that on a reading years ago of "The Ultra Secret". But, I just found this:
See here.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

I'm sorry McG That wasn't my quote, Don.
................................

The thing is, we can speculate about alternative histories, but it is speculation. You can't put the outxcomes in a balance and weigh them against each other. All you can hope to know for sure is what actually did happen. In many circumstances all options are pretty disastrous, and all you can do is try to guess which look as if they may be less disastrous.

But we do need to recognise that the road that was followed led to some very terrible things. The Holocaust as it transpired was one of those.

History doesn't allow reruns, but we can try to learn from it, and that means taking care to look at all the consequences that flowed from previous decisions, not just the ones that make us feel good. Maybe if our decision-makers had done that they wouldn't have been able to fool themselves that the war on Iraq was going to be, on balance, worth the suffering it would cause.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:22 PM

From memory, I think Coventry was allowed to be bombed because England did not want Germany to know it had broken their codes.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:15 PM

Heine: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen."


As for the Baker book "Human Smoke" I find it remarkable that he thinks he's proving the war unnecessary and titling the book with the unique image of the product of that war that broke new ground in horror and inhumanity, thus justifying it in terms I have heard not only in the United States, not only in Great Britain, but also in Germany.

Three weekends ago a CBC writer's forum discussed the book, and I'm going to have a go at it. One must read disagreeable things sometimes.

As for the tedious "who bombed who" back and forth, with all the Anglos on this site and in this forum, can't believe you're leaving out the obvious:

14 November 1940: Coventry

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:38 PM

CC... "Those gents don't seem to have been quite as keen on the idea as Hess was."

Time to take my leave.

You all conjecture about the conflict(s)... that was and is and shall be... until we are all united... until the meek inherit the earth.

Good luck with that.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:21 PM

Hold that thought, okay? ;-) I'm havin' way too much fun today to spend much of it arguin' with y'all about things no one can change, but I'll probably get back to it later. Maybe tonight or tomorrow. Talk amongst yerselves in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:18 PM

""The average German soldier, sailor, and airman were in the exact same position as their counterparts in any other armed forces in that war. Their concerns were to do their duty as best they could, as any soldier does, to watch out for the lives of the other guys in their unit, and to stay alive for another 24 hours, and to somehow to get through the damned war in one piece.

Your dehumanizing of them is just as inhuman as the WWII Nazi propagandists' dehumanizing of other people was.""


I'm sorry McG, but I really feel that you would have trouble selling that idea to the very few Russian peasants who remained alive after operation "Barbarossa" passed through, and the number who didn't remain alive suggests that it was more than a few "diehard Nazis" who carried out THOSE CRIMES.

At that point in the war, your ordinary German soldiers were pretty much inured to the sight of atrocities being perpetrated, and many simply joined in without too much compunction.


""They had orders NOT to bomb London, and they did their very best to obey those orders as long as those orders stood.""

That is really immaterial, LH, and I suspect you know it. It's a Straw Man argument, for HOW were those who gave the order to retaliate supposed to know that it was an ERROR? It was an attack for all that they knew to the contrary.

If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, few of us would ask "Is it perhaps a drunken dog with laryngitis?".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: meself
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 04:44 PM

Negotiate for peace with their prisoner Rudolf Hess? I suppose they could have ... but I don't see how it could have saved any lives. They would still have to negotiate for peace with Hitler, Goerring, et al. Those gents don't seem to have been quite as keen on the idea as Hess was.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 04:32 PM

I'd be interested to know why they imprisoned Hess rather than negotiating for peace with him. I wonder how many lives would have been saved had they been willing to negotiate.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:40 PM

CC... "...had multinational corporatists not financed and enabled them in what they were doing."

Ahh, there it is. As I have said a few times before, the rich subjugate the poor.

That is what all wars are about. WWII included.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:35 PM

Rudolf Hess?

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:16 PM

Neither Hitler nor Saddam would have been a threat to anyone had multinational corporatists not financed and enabled them in what they were doing. And in my opinion, therein lies the bigger lesson.

If people who do that sort of thing were really held accountable (in an Internatinal Criminal Court), maybe there wouldn't be a need to resort to war at all, because people would know they couldn't do that sort of thing with impunity and wouldn't bother to try.

Personally, I think everyone who was instrumental in assisting the Nazis in any way should have been shot for treason, or at the very least, imprisoned for a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: WWII unjustified?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 03:04 PM

"Mussolini was a minor malefactor in comparison to Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese. He was an unsavory, brutal man in many ways, and an abuser of power, but he was not in that same class of being a major committer of war crimes."

Killing a third of the population of Libya didn't count, before he even got onto his major campaign against Ethiopia?