quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Crbutker needs to go read about the attempts, eyes toward making peace with the Nazis.

It was only the will of men like President Roosevelt and Churchill that prevented it.
They were unwilling to compromise with the Nazis. Churchill went along with compromise with Japan. Would have Roosevelt? I don't know, but probably as he read the US voter very well at the time.

Even Moscow was ready to negotiate with the Nazis allowing Nazis survival.
Until Stalingrad and Kursk... when the writing was on the wall that the USSR was not going to lose.

The USSR and Stalin was looking at an existential crisis. They were in danger of losing everything. Say the same about the French... they did negotiate a peace with the Nazis.

""A document in the United States Army Intelligence files mentions a communication in mid-April from Moscow to the French Communists alerting them to be prepared for possible armistices talks. According to Swedish informants of the American Office of Strategic Services such talks took place shortly thereafter."
Vojtech, Stalin and the Prospects of a Separate Peace, at pg 1375.

"The Germans were supposedly ready to make peace in return for a satellite Ukraine and for economic concessions in other parts of the Soviet Union, whereas the Russians insisted upon the frontier of 1941." Vojtech, Stalin and the Prospects of a Separate Peace, at pg 1376.

This from the German perspective, Hitler perspective, makes sense. Hitler strategically always placed more emphasis on the resources of Ukraine. Hitler to smash Russia on the frontier, grab the resource rich areas in conquest, obtain recognition of that conquest for promise of peace, only to violate that promise later was very much the Hitler game plan played out before.
Exactly. Hitler was quite good at playing off the pacifist leanings of the west until they finally realized his end goal was not just the one concession... Kind of like the progressives in Congress. Make a compromise and immediately start working to gain the next part of their plan, despite the compromise they just made.

It would not be until May 1943, after these asserted negotiations, that Stalin would call for Nazis Germany’s unconditional surrender.
The Soviets, not the US or UK. Note that the west did not bargain with the Nazis at all, but they did bargain with Japan. That was my initial statement...

The Swedes, British, and U.S. sources all confirm that negotiations between Nazis Germany and USSR occurred around the 16th of June, 1943. Of course, this was denied by Nazis Germany and the USSR. It would make sense. The reason being Stalin was angered that U.S. and GB informed him a second European front was not possible until June 1944.
And truthfully the west did talk with the Nazis, just with no honest intent to give a separate peace. Why did Hess fly to Britain? Why did Himmler keep discussing things with western emissaries? Why did Goering walk into US lines expecting to be made the potentate for the west in Germany? While our high officers kept saying "unconditional surrender" obviously the lower levels kept enough talking up to let the inner circle think they could save themselves by making a deal.

Point is, the ideals of societies that valued compassion, social inclusion (especially compared to the opponent), debate, a society of law not whim, and the promise of equality of all men/persons against practitioners of racial conflict as the great mover of history snd government, against those/he who applied Nietzsche won.
A lot of your statements make me scratch my head. This is one of them. What was the whole civil rights era about if this statement that you just made was the factual state of affairs at the time of the end of WWII. Why did the British Empire fight as much as it did to maintain its empire post WWII?

The point is that we are carrying the compassion way past what was practiced then. Use the Jews... The Nazis were trying to get them out of Germany well before the war. While we took some in, it was generally only the ones who we saw were a benefit to us... The Nazis offered the British to allow the Jews to emigrate en masse to Palestine, and they were refused. It certainly was no secret at the time that the Jews were being persecuted in Germany... albeit they may not have known about the killing- which happened after the war started. Compassion?


and the promise of equality of all men/persons against practitioners of racial conflict as the great mover of history snd government

What the heck does this mean? its gibberish. We certainly haven't eliminated racial politics in this country, much less in the world, they are actually more prominent than ever before albeit mainly due to giving minorities more protection. We were nothing to brag of at the time by our current standards, see the Neisei (we were better than the Axis... we didn't believe in killing off the so called second class people, but make no mistake, they were felt of as second class by folks like FDR and Churchill). We put the Japanese americans in concentration camps just like the Nazis did subgroups of their own population.

To underestimate, to proclaim that great strength now made too weak is done at the peril of the aggressor.

My point is that not the idea of the rule of law and fairness is bad or weak. It is that spending a large portion of our national resources in the effort to affect internal change is not making the country materially stronger. Socialism, in giving a part of the wealth of the nation to those who do nothing for it other than exist is at times compassionate, but we do need to put an upper limit on it or we will not be able to defend ourselves. Weakening ourselves economically to meet some self guilt issue (welfare) is a reasonable thing as long as the country is not threatened with the price of it. How much is affordable is a debate, but now it seems that the cost is not a consideration, rather someone's idea of what is morally right is.



For those who live within the better works our gifts made better to say now they are a detriment are the real self-defeating revelations of our time.

Crbutker: there are more “war crime trials” than those recognized as the “ Nuremberg Trials.”

I said that. I could not find any tabulation of all the sub trials done regarding the Nazis. The IMTFE was tabulated. It was much smaller than the IMT (Germany) and the various subgroups.

The U.S. were also recognized as engaging I the most heavy hand of de-nazisficstion within any Western zone. Yes, we handed the process over the West Germany, in part, out of frustration that a whole country, culture carried the guilt.
Really? We were more willing to try and remove Nazis through some sort of court system, but reading from the era, the French were much more about revenge without the apparatus of the rule of law, and the Brits were not in a position to have the financial outlay. None of us were a shadow of what the Soviets did.

President Truman technically did not end hostilities w Germany until 1951.

The fact you desire to undermine my premise w imperfect humane application does not change the matter.
My initial point was that we did not treat the Japanese nearly as harshly as we did the Germans. While there was a combination of reasons for it, MacArthur was fundamentally given a free hand to deal with the Japanese and did so with a combination of dictatorial power and self aggrandizement and a strong dose of pragmatism. The German aspect was much more run by the US politicians and was as such a rather inconsistent mess. Note we spent a heck of a lot less money in occupying and rebuilding Japan than we did Germany.

The West and the liberal ideals of the West overcame the the hard skull and bones of a militaristic state. A state where the people were only of the state and by the state. One that sought the destruction of individuality for a false national purity and untied purpose. A state of violence and arms. Hitler thought the YS soft and weak by its liberalism. He found out.

Hitler from his writings and works thought the US weak because of our racial impurities. I would not call the Nazis a false national purity and united purpose. They were quite united, and you have admitted such. They were working on a purity in a manner that was inhumane and has been attempted by others since, so appaently the lesson has not been learned. A nation of singular purpose is very strong. We were singular of purpose at the time as well.

Are we now? I don't think so.

You can bemoan all you want that is not changed.

I always wondered how long the USSR would have looked had the Western Allies, mostly the

U.S., not been shipping it vital war material?

For crying out loud, you just stated it above. If we had not supported the Soviets they would have made a separate peace, and likely made it that we could not militarily defeat the Nazis.

As for shrines, I do not begrudge a culture its benevolent respects to the livings kin’s war dead. The Japanese post WAII have very much repented and become a very important global partner to the West.

Strange repentance. Tell that to the Koreans, Filipinos or Chinese.

I doubt Japanese folks have photos of Tojo in their children’s rooms. I doubt an entire generations of parents teach there children that Tojo led his country in a noble lost cause. Of you know different, tell us?

Its pretty self evident that the Japanese do think we were too harsh on them. That we used atomic weapons on them, and never should have. They remain a very racially pure nation and go to great lengths to maintain that, how does that fit in your whole racism crusade?

quote:

Its pretty self evident that the Japanese do think we were too harsh on them. That we used atomic weapons on them, and never should have. They remain a very racially pure nation and go to great lengths to maintain that, how does that fit in your whole racism crusade?

quote:

They allow all residents to vote--making them less ethnocentric and nationalistic than Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Imho, legal US residents who aren't citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. They pay taxes and have the same interests as citizens. The use the roads and send kids to school and most abide by our laws.

I'm not talking about temporary visitors, but long-term legal residents.

I don't think they should be allowed to vote in national elections, since they may not share citizens' interests in such things as national security.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

They allow all residents to vote--making them less ethnocentric and nationalistic than Americans.

Is that right?

If it is then America should follow suit and allow all aliens, illegal or otherwise, access to the ballot box and vote.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Imho, legal US residents who aren't citizens should be allowed to vote in local elections. They pay taxes and have the same interests as citizens. The use the roads and send kids to school and most abide by our laws.

I'm not talking about temporary visitors, but long-term legal residents.

I don't think they should be allowed to vote in national elections, since they may not share citizens' interests in such things as national security.

quote:

Originally posted by fulvio:

quote:

Imagine the most popular person to be next president is a draft dodging coward!

How many thousands of others did exactly the same; those who had friends in high places or whose influential parents made sure that their kids were given an office at home instead of going to the front lines?