I’m more libertarian than you are, I’ve been aware of Austrian/Salamanca School longer than many in this forum.
But I’m no idiot, and I don’t eat War Propaganda lies.
What is disgusting is the naive attitude of many. What did the Pentagon said? That’s the true! Look I’m an ethical superior man, unlike those “deniers”. I repeat the State/Press word by word! I defend what’s cool this days, end the FED, less bureaucracy. But I don’t have the guts to research painful subjects.
Well, the fact that chemical warfare on any scale has ever been carried out, besides WW1 of course (and if one does not count Sadam’s genocide or the Tokyo subway nuts), remains. How can one know how effective would they have been? Mustard gas, of WW1 fame, was a very scrambled attempt to change something on the front, and must not be relied on as some benchmark for chemical warfare, any more that the effectiveness of air forces in that war should have guided future air warfare. By WW2 chemical agent where much more advanced I suspect.
As tangible proof of what the US military really things of chemical warfare as an effective war mean, one can take the insistence of the US on paying itself to dismantle chemical warfare agents in Eastern Europe right after the collapse of communism. In my own country, we have enough artillery ordinance to shell a small country out of existence, yet only now is NATO asking for it to be dismantled, while the work on chemical agents began almost in 1991.
And finally, the problem. The way I see it, is that the RAF did not even try to gas some German village. If the attack would have showed the ineffectiveness of chemical warfare, that would have been one thing. But that chemical agent where not even used? I find it very, very suspicious. Perhaps WW2 was less of an all-out war, and more of ‘diplomacy through other means than one likes to acknowledge.
“It worries me when anti-semites/holocaust deniers show up on this forum. It makes the LvMi look bad.”
Anyone who gets involved in name calling looks bad. If you disagree with someone, hit him upside the head with facts…
if you don’t have facts to refute someone, I guess you could hit em upside the head with name calling…but that doesn’t look good. It just makes you look silly and desperate.
So you definitely advocate feeding the troll?
To add to this post -
Germany had no means to retaliate against a British gas attack. As has been said several times in this thread, the Luftwaffe was vastly inferior to British/American air and was restricted to tactical operations on the continent after the Battle of Britain (1940). This alone gives credence to the notion that Hitler avoided using gas purely out of fear. The idea that Germany could have somehow gassed/invaded the British home islands during WW2 is sheer nonsense - read any historical analysis of operation Sealion. The Germans simply did not have the air power or the naval transportation capacities to execute any such plan.
Furthermore, Churchill was a hero and a saint, and any Germans who survived the 2nd WW should thank their lucky star that he was merciful towards a people that handed supreme power to a violent and insane megalomaniac. Having lived through WW1, I have no doubt that he thought the Germans were an irremediably warlike and aggressive people. I would have made the same mistake.
The troll is an uninformed clown who, as is evident from his statements concerning WW2 events, has very little actual knowledge of the war. I posit that his only contact with historical data has been via reading books written by Nazi apologists, which he reads in order to convince himself that he is doing “difficult research” and out of an inflated sense of moral superiority. I don’t even believe anti-semitism plays much of a role in it; the troll is probably a little man desperately grasping at ways to make himself seem superior, in some way, to his surroundings.
Name-calling does not necessarily make one “silly and desperate”. But Nazi apologism certainly does.
Hm, like when he firebombed Dresden? Or when he refused to outlaw civil bombardment? If Hitler avoided using gas out of fear of retaliation, and not out of personal preference, Churchill didn’t gas either due to some other consideration, cretainly not due to his sainthood.
So, Nico, you just tell everybody;
-In a two-sides conflict, you only read one view.
-Because reading the other is “evil apologism”
-And the other side (you don’t read or want to understand) “gave power to a violent and insane megalomaniac”
-But the other side did not declare war, did not start bombing cities, did not order gas attacks and did offer and seek peace dozens of times through the war.
-Also according to you, the Warmongers… started a war… without bombers! Without means of attacking it’s enemies! Are you sure they started the war? Why start a war without bombers? And why did the “peaceful” isolated-island Britain had so many bombers? Were they preparing to declare War on the first excuse?
-“the Germans were an irremediably warlike and aggressive people”. Of course, we see German Imperialism everywhere, German speaking America, German speaking Islands in the Pacific, they were a truly imperialistic warmonger culture, unlike the British/Americans!
-"he reads in order to convince himself that he is doing “difficult research”
For once, I’ve been to and read the two important languages for the War, German and Russian. (The Soviets fought alone 85% of the Wehrmacht, US “courageous draftees” had to be saved from being pushed back to the sea by begging Stalin to launch suicide massive attacks to relief them)
“moral superiority.”
Like burning alive one million German women, kids, civilians and refugees?
Like starving the surrendered army?
Like breaking all Geneva protocols and betraying White Russians to Stalin?
Like still daring to say America reach the Moon when they were a backward second rate nation with WW1 technology?
Their only “succeed” was managing to pilot thousands of German scientists, patents and technologies to the US and keep it quiet.
Like hiring Gestapo officials to design the CIA and still claim "they fought for freedom, and won, when the “enemy” was invited to the country and given above the law badges?
I have no problem reading the American side, I’ve been at it long years… have you ever do the same?
Is your “moral superiority” in the way of acknowledging you fought the wrong enemy and all the reasons you have to be proud are erroneous?
Because Hitler was a painter and vegentarian
Epic!
“But the other side did not declare war…”
You’re right of course. The invasion of Poland, preceded by the aggressive conquest of Czechoslovakia and the illegal annexation of Austria following a coup, is irrelevant. As good peace-loving libertarians, we should have avoided conflict with an empire dedicated to the notion that “…the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.” (The Doctrine of Fascism, B. Mussolini)
We should obviously seek peace with these people, and not suspect that they desire to enslave us at the first sign of weakness. We should do like the French collaborators, who explicitly - in accordance with the precepts above - signed over their freedom and their humanity to the all-encompassing State. The France of today is in no way exemplary of classical liberal values, but it is a damn sight better than it would have been if German lapdogs like Laval, Henriot and Darnand had built it.
“And why did the “peaceful” isolated-island Britain had so many bombers?”
Who knows? Maybe because they shared a continent with a militaristic psychopath who could snap at any moment?
“I have no problem reading the American side, I’ve been at it long years…”
Try again.
“…you fought the wrong enemy and all the reasons you have to be proud are erroneous?”
Your confusion is never-ending. Fascists and communists are the very same. National pride is a foolish sentiment and has nothing to do with this argument. For what it’s worth, any relatives I have that fought in WW2 fought for the losing side.
The fact that Stalin was also a murderous bastard does not validate your perspective. Neither does the fact that, when faced with total war with a rabidly expansionistic empire, the Allies did not always behave like perfect gentlemen. No amount of fault on the Allied side can make Hitler “the good guy”. Criticize Allied behavior all you want, but never be presumptuous enough to claim that Germany was in the right.
“The invasion of Poland”
Every time that comes, British should cry immediately of shame, they betray them.
Poland was arrogant because it believe British ships would fly to their defense.
But the British rushed to ally themselves with Stalin, who invaded half of Poland!
How can you have any respect for such a country of whores, pirates, liars and fraudsters?
If you want to talk about “evil expansionism”… why don’t you get a map? Start America, half of it, go to Hawaii, Philippines, Australia, India, and start getting the millions of natives killed by the “not-expansionist, not-empire GREAT Britain”.
Why defend the Empire of that Whore, the Queen? Where are the descendents of the American Revolutionists?
Oh, you believe the British way of life was “threatened”, the only threat was to the Monopolist controlling Britain at that time through it’s media, banking and government infiltration. Not to the people. Or didn’t Britain detained thousands without trial? Didn’t America?
Who profited from the War? Have you ever read about that? Who make a killing with British bonds? Who bought Churchill mansions and paid his luxurious way of life? The same who offered to manipulate US into War if he agreed to give Palestine to Israel?
It seems the parking spot for wisdom is already occupied with war-propaganda and “official lies”…
I have no attachments, or preferred nation or nationality, I’m free to go with the facts.
You can not hide the fact the Imperialistic Empire was Britain, and that British diplomats scare the hell out of Americans by their honest opinion they would prefer a War than accepting competition. There you have, your “laissez faire” idols, your good guys. Free Market when we win, War when we don’t. I summarize the gift of Britain to the World. Oh, and propaganda to hide that fact. Propaganda, like… the 6 million crucified in WW1. You read right, the newspapers printed stories with “The Crucifixion of Jews must stop” in WW1, saying 6 millions had died! The same lie, again and again and you all believe it like sheep, sorry, free-trade sheep. “Free trade when we win, War when we loose”. And when we win the war..we blame them of everything!
Copying text of Fascists points only one thing, they were more honest, they didn’t lie to get into office, they were not traitors “I’ll keep you out of the War”.
If I had to have a State, I prefer one direct, honest, no illusions or democracy.
Britain was never threatened, for Good sake, Hitler offered to send his troops to protect British colonies if necessary, he lost because he love the British too much, he believed they could stand up against their control by Jewish Families (those who brought US into War in exchange of Israel)
Well its settled then.
He accused me of “troll”, I only state that fact as defense, not important for me.
Could you got back to the thread and add something adult of value (unlike funny youtube videos like the gentleman from above) ?
The Japanese had used it in China in the late 30’s. Everyone was unimpressed with the results, it was lethal but not compatible to mobile warfare where you may find yourself occupying the enemy position minutes later. Rommel and other German generals saw themselves as cavalry not infantry. The chemical weapons did not fit the style of these new Teutonic knights.
The French army had a huge arsenal of chemical weapons, including grenades, they were quickly out flanked and overrun because they had not adopted modern mobile warfare technologies and were still dependant on railways and fixed fortifications.
Churchill considered it. As you would expect he was the kind of man to thoroughly consider and prepare for everything. He made some mistakes in desperation. A general commanding a libertarian militia would probably have acted in the same way.
Not counting the Japanese the Italians made the first use of fire bombs against civilians in North Africa. People often see the war as Britain against Germany but the axis was seen as the enemy. The actions of one deemed the actions of all.
There are claims that the Germans used chemical weapons against Russian Partisans working behind the front-lines and against free French partisans. Germans were hung for it after the war.
One real question is why Stalin with his genocidal ruthlessness never resorted to chemical warfare. The theory is that he could never get enough gas masks together for all his own troops let alone the civilian population so his generals out right refused to consider the option. The Russian winter was far more effective weapon than any chemical anyway and snow and mud came free in winter and spring.
Stalin ruined the chemical factories of Russia by killing all the engineers.
They could have used gas to clean out the Russian cities.
They could have used gas to clean out the Russian cities.
In that cold? It would just glue itself to the buildings and ground.