Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Good -vs- bad? Nah.
Posted by:
Dietzsch
()
Date: October 08, 2002 07:02AM
<HTML>Well, Robert,
There are quite a few more grounds for the instable situation in Europe and the outbreak of the war (that started quite a bit sooner than Japans attack, followed by the German declaration of war on the USA) than the rise of Adolf Hitler.
-the aftermath of the first world war springs to mind. Had the Allies not imposed impossible demands on the Germans, the unhappiness in Germany would likely not have reached levels that a demagogue like Hitler could have used/misused.
-the policy of 'peace in our time' by Britain and France (very inconsequent, if one looks at the after WW1 demands on Germany, that were not quite peace-inciting) left Hitler believing he could get away with anything. GB and France allowed Germany to peacefully take a part of Chechoslovakia (Munich conference), then went on to let Germany take the rest of that country without as much as a protest. Germany doubled its tanks and artillery resources by taking out this potentially dangerous opponent. (Freeing up troops for the occupation of Poland and defense against France in the process.)
-GB and France did nothing but snub the Soviet Union, virtually driving the forces of fascism/Nazism and Communism into eachothers arms, thus ensuring the fall of Poland. Yet, they hung the future of Europe on a 180 degree turn by declaring to aid Poland against invasion, coute que coute. As Hitler so far had met no resistance occupying the Rhineland, Chechoslovakia and Austria, along with parts of Poland (the Danzig corridor), it's no strange thing that he thought the invasion of Poland would again meet with token resistance from the Allies.
And I'm only scratching the surface here. I realize it is not to the liking of a lot of people anno 2002, who prefer to divide the world into 'good' and 'evil', but the situation was more complicated than 'Germany was evil'.
As for the 'casualties' (I hate this sort of cover-up talk. It was and is deaths/killings) I regard the useless (it made the Germans more stubborn, if anything) carpet-bombing of German cities by the RAF and partly the USAF a war crime. And please don't argue that 'the Germans started the attrocities'. 'He hit first' is an argument that we leave behind us after kindergarten, or? Unnecessary killings are just that: uncalled for. No civilised person would do such a thing, full stop.
And that is where I involve 'insanity taking over'. How can a military apparatus be brainwashed so, that it ruthlessly flattens entire cities for no other reason than to 'break morale'? Any of the people involved (Bomber Command, all the way down to the individual pilots) wouldn't have dreamt of doing such a thing, if asked before the war, I'm certain of that.</HTML>
There are quite a few more grounds for the instable situation in Europe and the outbreak of the war (that started quite a bit sooner than Japans attack, followed by the German declaration of war on the USA) than the rise of Adolf Hitler.
-the aftermath of the first world war springs to mind. Had the Allies not imposed impossible demands on the Germans, the unhappiness in Germany would likely not have reached levels that a demagogue like Hitler could have used/misused.
-the policy of 'peace in our time' by Britain and France (very inconsequent, if one looks at the after WW1 demands on Germany, that were not quite peace-inciting) left Hitler believing he could get away with anything. GB and France allowed Germany to peacefully take a part of Chechoslovakia (Munich conference), then went on to let Germany take the rest of that country without as much as a protest. Germany doubled its tanks and artillery resources by taking out this potentially dangerous opponent. (Freeing up troops for the occupation of Poland and defense against France in the process.)
-GB and France did nothing but snub the Soviet Union, virtually driving the forces of fascism/Nazism and Communism into eachothers arms, thus ensuring the fall of Poland. Yet, they hung the future of Europe on a 180 degree turn by declaring to aid Poland against invasion, coute que coute. As Hitler so far had met no resistance occupying the Rhineland, Chechoslovakia and Austria, along with parts of Poland (the Danzig corridor), it's no strange thing that he thought the invasion of Poland would again meet with token resistance from the Allies.
And I'm only scratching the surface here. I realize it is not to the liking of a lot of people anno 2002, who prefer to divide the world into 'good' and 'evil', but the situation was more complicated than 'Germany was evil'.
As for the 'casualties' (I hate this sort of cover-up talk. It was and is deaths/killings) I regard the useless (it made the Germans more stubborn, if anything) carpet-bombing of German cities by the RAF and partly the USAF a war crime. And please don't argue that 'the Germans started the attrocities'. 'He hit first' is an argument that we leave behind us after kindergarten, or? Unnecessary killings are just that: uncalled for. No civilised person would do such a thing, full stop.
And that is where I involve 'insanity taking over'. How can a military apparatus be brainwashed so, that it ruthlessly flattens entire cities for no other reason than to 'break morale'? Any of the people involved (Bomber Command, all the way down to the individual pilots) wouldn't have dreamt of doing such a thing, if asked before the war, I'm certain of that.</HTML>
