I have placed this item in its own posting because it is an important issue and you are quite spectacularly wrong. Right, so the the Third Reich lasted two day after Hitler died, very possibly because Karl Dönitz could not put in place all the elements necessary for a surrender, in any shorter time. And that is your argument that the Third Reich had an existence independent of Hitler. Have you ever heard of the expression, making oneself look absolutely ridiculous?
It was an example. Anyway, do you think that the Third Reich would have ended if Hitler had been assassinated in 1941? I don’t, as I’m pretty sure another high Nazi would have replaced him, such as Himmler.
It was a part of the Nazi-Ideology, and as long as the Nazis remained in Power, it, too, would have continued to exist.
If so, you should be able to weblink to or cut and paste my comment?
It means, what are you trying to say?
So, do you accept the Third Reich’s claim of a Polish attack on Sender Gleiwitz was a complete and utter lie?
I was under the impression you were arguing that, because France and Britain did not know Hitler would go on to exterminate the Jews, a claim can not be made that Third Reich was engaged in an illegal War?
But they did not declare War on Germany they declared War on the Third Reich, which was an illegal entity.
Did I say members of the Heer committed this act? And you are being patently ridiculous, as how could the Heer all be in the one place at the one time and defend the Third Reich.
Half a mind sounds to me like a description of a mentally subnormal person, is that your position that the Jews that stayed on Germany were mentally subnormal?
So, I take it then, you are happy to present what are assumptions on your part, not as the assumptions they are but as the facts they are not?
Well I have had dealings with some very prestige persons and they seem to have understood exactly what I was writing, so why do you think my language has apparently, ( at least according to you ), become faulty and unclear?
By what right did you expand it, what is the logic for expanding it?
You have made a statement that I am assuming that every German was automatically enthusiastic about the Nazis and then just plonked on a question mark on to the end of it to apparently give it some vague aspect of a question to it.[/quote
You can use words to make an item a question.
So I take it then, say to a take a fictional possibility, a German woman had witnessed SA men beating a elderly Jew with iron bars, for no other reason than he was a Jew and she had seen a German policeman try to stop the beating of the Jew and she had reported, what the German policeman had done to the authorities for stoping the beating of the Jew and the policeman gets sent to a concentration camp, is she a completely innocent person?
How did Hitler become Chancellor of Germany?
Membership of the Nazi Party is a criminal offense in several jurisdictions. With that in mind, you would be well advised not to make the mistake attributing the promotion of Nazism to persons, where it is plainly ridiculous to do so.
In your personal opinion.
So, would it be your opinion then, that the Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, should have been tried as a War Criminal at Nuremberg, as a result of the British Empire bombing campaign against the Third Reich and if found guilty, sentenced to at least 10 years imprisonment?
NB I am not saying he should have been tried at Nuremberg, nor am I making any claim of wrong doing on his part, I am merely trying to clarify your position.
Well then if you thought that, you should have given a what if example, not the absolutely silly and pathetic example of the two day 1945 Third Reich? Would you like to discuss what happens if Hitler is assassinated in 1941, I will be happy to discuss it to see if your apparent contention that the Third Reich outlives Hitler, is actually a viable proposition.
And that I did. With my argumentation, I was trying to show you that you’re wrong.
So, do you accept the Third Reich’s claim of a Polish attack on Sender Gleiwitz was a complete and utter lie?
Yes, it was a complete lie, but I never said anything else. I referred to the declarations of war by France and Britain.
I was under the impression you were arguing that, because France and Britain did not know Hitler would go on to exterminate the Jews, a claim can not be made that Third Reich was engaged in an illegal War?
No, what I am arguing is that , because they did not know of the exterminations, the British and French could not declare war on Germany for them. The only thing they could declare war on them for was the Invasion of Poland. And until after the war, when the documents were shown during the Nuremberg Trials, it wasn’t even completely proven that Poland didn’t provoke Germany. Following that train of thought, the German soldier could not know they were fighting for the wrong side, and should therefore not be held responsible for fighting against the Allies.
But they did not declare War on Germany they declared War on the Third Reich, which was an illegal entity.
Wrong. It was declared an illegal entity after the War, in order to allow the Allies to persecute the Nazi Leadership. At the time, it was legal.
Did I say members of the Heer committed this act? And you are being patently ridiculous, as how could the Heer all be in the one place at the one time and defend the Third Reich.
You suggested everybody knowing it, which would mean they would have had to see it. Of course it is ridiculous, it was supposed to show you how wrong you are.
Half a mind sounds to me like a description of a mentally subnormal person, is that your position that the Jews that stayed on Germany were mentally subnormal?
No, because even healthy people sometimes do irrational things. The fact that huge numbers of German Jews left the country, though, speaks for the irrationality of staying. Those Jews that left the country but were caught in a different country that was invaded were extremely unlucky.
Well I have had dealings with some very prestige persons and they seem to have understood exactly what I was writing, so why do you think my language has apparently, ( at least according to you ), become [i]faulty and unclear?
Sure you did. :rolleyes:
By what right did you expand it, what is the logic for expanding it?
When I claimed that the Allied bombing raids killed German civilians, too, you responded by saying that the German housewives deserved it, so I felt the need to make it clear to you that not only housewives died in the Raids.
So I take it then, say to a take a fictional possibility, a German Woman had witnessed SA men beating a elderly Jew with iron bars for no other reason than he was a Jew and she had seen a German policeman try to stop the beating of the Jew and she had reported what the German policeman had done to the authorities for stoping the beating of the Jew and the policeman gets sent to a concentration camp, is she a completely innocent person?
Wait, you say she reported the Policeman for stopping the beating of the Jew? Well, even in that case she is still innocent. She reported him for something she considered illegal, for whatever reason. But neither did she partake in the beating, nor did she do anything to the policeman. She went to the appropriate authority and reported what she saw, without having any influence on what the authority did. Even nowadays, there would be absolutely no legal ground on which to charge her with anything, except possibly her not personally intervening, though this is debatable, as she would have risked her own life.
How did Hitler become Chancellor of Germany?
He was elected. But that doesn’t mean that everybody who voted for him agreed with what he did once he got into power, nor does it criminalize them. How often have you been disappointed with the Party you voted for, as they would do things you did not agree with?
Alternatively, if you actually lived in Communist China, then how would you feel if, once the Communist Regime is abolished, you and all your countrymen, were held responsible for any political murders, kidnaps and other crimes committed by the Communists? Would you really feel responsible?
Membership of the Nazi Party is a criminal offense in several jurisdictions, with that in mind you would be well advised not to make the mistake attributing promotion of Nazism to persons, where it is plainly ridiculous to do so.
Who is promoting Nazism?
So would it be your opinion then that the Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King should have been tried as a War Criminal at Nuremberg as a result of the British Empire bombing campaign against the Third Reich and if found guilty, sentenced to at least 10 years imprisonment?
If he had specifically ordered these bombings against civilians, then yes. But this was one of the spoils of the victors at Nuremberg. They could choose what they considered illegal, and they could choose who to persecute. Who was to challenge them? Why do you think the Trials have come under a lot of fire by, along others, several very established persons such as Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone, Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and A. L. Goodhart, Professor at Oxford.
Okay, then what is the Third Reich’s justification for attacking Poland?
Okay, right we have that sorted.
So, would be saying then, for example that Polish PZL P. 11 fighter was such a superior aircraft to the Me Bf-109, that Germany was worried that the Polish Airforce could devastate the Third Reich and the only way for the comparatively weak state the Third Reich was, ( as compared to the Polish Military super power ), to have an chance of success against Poland, was to launch a preemptive strike on Poland.
I did not claim that German soldiers who fought with honor and dignity in defense of their homeland in World War II, who had been told lies and who honestly believed such lies were criminals, merely they were fighting an illegal War, which is a separate matter to personal criminal responsibility.
Something can not be retrospectively made illegal. It is against basic legal principles. The Third Reich was an illegal entity, a state which has as a primary purpose genocide, is an illegal entity.
When and where did I suggest, everybody in Germany would know of that particular incident?
Well, if you are a man with a wife and daughters, have a home and just enough money for some food and some heat and some clothes in Germany and you are afraid of what Hitler might do to you but are afraid too, if you move to another country, because the Nazis will let you take nothing, that you will starve and your wife will go hungry too and what about your children how will you feed them and where will they live and how will you have money to buy fuel to stay warm, so you think this is an easy choice do you?
It is your choice whether you choose to believe it or not.
No I did not.
You have been very frank and honest on that and I thank you for your honesty.
But I thought you said previously, that Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, just what he was going to do and he did it and people should have known he was going to do it?
Mein Kampf, in English: My Struggle, is a book dictated by Adolf Hitler. It combines elements of autobiography with an exposition of Hitler’s political ideology. Volume 1 of Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and Volume 2 in 1926
On the morning of 30 January 1933, in Hindenburg’s office, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor during what some observers later described as a brief and simple ceremony. His first speech as Chancellor took place on February 10. The Nazis’ seizure of power subsequently became known as the Machtergreifung.
So Hitler comes to power in 1933 and Mein Kampf is published in 1926, and you apparently are saying that on the one hand that, people who voted for him did not know what he was going to do and on the other hand you are saying he said what was going to do because he had written down what he was going to do in Mein Kampf and people should have known he meant, what he wrote in Mein Kampf and intended to do it. Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf is a very very long book or Germans are very very slow readers?
There is one country called China. But there are two states, one of them being the People’s Republic of China and the other the Republic of China on Taiwan. Citizens and long stay residents of the Republic of China on Taiwan, are responsible with respect to the actions of the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan, they can have no political responsibility for what the Communist Party as the Government of the People’s Republic of China do. Your question is rather like asking a resident of Munich in Bavaria in the FRG in late 1970s, if they should be held responsible for the actions of the Government of the German Democratic Republic, it is somewhat bizarre.
Well it is certainly not me.
So, would it you position then that Canada during World War II only seemed morally better than the Third Reich, but in reality was no better than the Third Reich?
NB I am not arguing that WW2 Canada and the Third Reich were morally equivalent, I am merely seeking to establish your position on these matters.
A Personal Memoir By Michael Bruce
Michael Bruce, a non-Jewish Englishman, provided this eyewitness account :
…Hurriedly we went out into the street. It was crowded with people, all hurrying towards a nearby synagogue, shouting and gesticulating angrily.
We followed. As we reached the synagogue and halted, silent and angry, on the fringe of the mob, flames began to rise from one end of the building. It was the signal for a wild cheer. The crowd surged forward and greedy hands tore seats and woodwork from the building to feed the flames.
Behind us we heard more shouts. Turning, we saw a section of the mob start off along the road towards Israel’s store where, during the day, piles of granite cubes, ostensibly for repairing the roads, had been heaped. Youths, men and women, howling deliriously, hurled the blocks through the windows and at the closed doors. In a few minutes the doors gave way and the mob, shouting and fighting, surged inside to pillage and loot.
By now the streets were a chaos of screaming bloodthirsty people lusting for Jewish bodies. I saw Harrison of The News Chronicle, trying to protect an aged Jewess who had been dragged from her home by a gang. I pushed my way through to help him and, between us, we managed to heave her through the crowd to a side street and safety.
We turned back towards Israel’s, but now the crowd, eager for fresh conquests, was pouring down a side road towards the outskirts of the city. We hurried after them in time to see one of the foulest exhibitions of bestiality I have ever witnessed.
The object of the mob’s hate was a hospital for sick Jewish children, many of them cripples or consumptives. In minutes the windows had been smashed and the doors forced. When we arrived, the swine were driving the wee mites out over the broken glass, bare-footed and wearing nothing but their nightshirts. The nurses, doctors, and attendants were being kicked and beaten by the mob leaders, most of whom were women.
Officially? The (fake) attack of the Poles on the radio station. Really? Hunger for power and Hitler’s desire for German living space in the East.
So would be saying for example that Polish PZL 11 fighter was such a superior aircraft to the Me Bf 109 that Germany was worried that the Polish Airforce could devastate the Third Reich and the only way for the comparatively weak State of Third Reich ( as compared to the Polish Military super power ) to have an chance of success against Poland was to launch a preemptive strike on Poland.
No, the Nazi leadership knew full well that they really had nothing to fear from Poland. That didn’t stop them from telling their people that they did.
I did not claim that German soldiers who fought with honor and dignity in defense of their homeland in World War II who had been told lies and who honestly believed such lies were criminals
Great, so we have that issue sorted out, too.
illegal War
Here lies my problem. I do not see how the war against France, England and the US was illegal. I agree that the Invasion of Poland was an illegal, unprovoked attack. But by declaring war on Germany, the Western Allies allowed the German army to fight them, therefore making the war effort against them legal. Even though the Invasion was the cause for the Declarations of War, they were still separate, as the Allies were never really involved in Poland.
Something can not be retrospectively made illegal.
True, ex post facto laws were not accepted, and still aren’t. Still, this is exactly what happened at the Nuremberg Trials, which is one of the major arguments of its Critics.
Here’s the problem: Before Nuremberg, the principle of “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali” (latin for “No crime, no punishment without a previous penal law”) was accepted by pretty much all Allied nations. By this principle, the Allies would not have been able to charge the Nazi leadership for any crimes they had committed inside areas under their control, as the legal, elected governing body and legislature (the Nazis) had allowed it.
But obviously, the Allies couldn’t let the Nazis get away with Genocide and Mass murder, so they had to ignore this basic principle of law.
They pretty much created several laws, which, along other things, established crimes against the humanity as a clearly defined crimes, and charged the Nazis post facto with it. They also banned the “Tu Quoque” (You, too) Defense, which would have forced them to uphold the laws they applied against the Nazis against themselves (especially the Soviets), too, especially in relations to the Invasion of Poland, in which the USSR took part, the Invasion of Finland through the USSR and the bombing of civilians to break the enemy’s morale, which almost every warring nation had done.
It is against basic legal principles. The Third Reich was an illegal entity a State which has a primary purpose as genocide is an illegal entity.
The criminalization of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich was one of the post facto actions of the Nuremberg Trials, as I had stated a bit further up.
When and where did I suggest, everybody in Germany would know of that particular incident?
This is when I consider you as suggesting that.
Well if you are a Man with a wife and daughters have a home and just enough money for some food and some heat and some clothes in Germany and you are afraid of what Hitler might do to you but are afraid too if you move to another country because the Nazis will let you take nothing, that you will starve and your wife will go hungry too and what about your children how will you feed them and where will they live and how will you have money to buy fuel to stay warm, so you think this is an easy choice do you?
I never said it would be an easy choice, but I do definitely believe that it was the more reasonable choice, considering the circumstances.
No I did not.[suggest that the German housewives deserved to die by the Bombing Raids compared to the Allied ones(Schuultz)]
I can only refer to the quote I just pulled 2 paragraphs higher.
But I thought you said previously, that Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf, just what he was going to do and he did it and people should have known he was going to do it?
So Hitler comes to power in 1933 and Mein Kampf is published in 1926, and you say that on the one hand that people who voted for him did not know what he was going to do and on the other hand you are saying he said what was going to do because he had it written down what he was going to do in Mein Kampf and should people have known he meant what he wrote in Mein Kampf and intended to do it. Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf is a very very long book or Germans are very slow readers?
Here’s the thing: In 1933, not everybody had read the book, nor did everybody believe he would actually manage pull that through.
Now, before you go ahead and say ‘But Schuultz, then how should the Jews know?’, let me say this:
I don’t claim that they should have known in 1933, when he was elected. But they should have learned it in the 5 years following, before the War broke out and the serious murdering of Jews really began. Reichskristallnacht comes to mind, for example, which, even though it was too late to get rid of Hitler again, should have been a warning to every Jew, that worse is still to come.
Also, even though it wasn’t that popular beforehand, once the Nazis got to Power, they pretty much forced ‘Mein Kampf’ down the German’s throat, going even so far as to make it a crime not to have at least one copy in every household, and establishing the book as a ‘Must-Have’ present for Newlyweds.
The is one country called China. But there are two states one of them being the People’s Republic of China and the Republic China on Taiwan. Citizens and long stay residents of the Republic of China on Taiwan are responsible with respect to the action of the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan, they can have no political responsibility for what the Communist Party as the Government of People’s Republic of China do. Your question is rather like asking a resident of Munich in Bavaria in the FRG in late 1970s if they should be held responsible for the actions the Government of the German Democratic Republic, it is somewhat bizarre.
I’m sorry, I realized my mistake shortly after posting, too, and corrected it accordingly.
So would it you position then that Canada during World War II only seemed morally better than the Third Reich, but in reality was no better than the Third Reich?
No I would not. Nazi Germany waged a war of extermination in the East, committed one of the worst Genocides in history and was generally an oppressive dictatorial regime. There is no comparing the two as general nations. However, if you reduce the question to whether I think that the Canadian bombing raids aimed at German civilians were just as brutal and immoral as those of Germany on Allied civilians, then yes, I do think that. Never should the civil population be killed in order to deal damage to the enemy military.
(Keep in mind, though, that Canada didn’t have an Air Force involved in WW2, and the Canadian pilots flew for the RAF or USAF, but that has nothing to do with my point.)
On August 25th, two days after the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed. The treaty contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country. The United Kingdom, sensing a dangerous trend of German expansionism, sought to prevent German aggression by this show of solidarity. In a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offered assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany, though both the United Kingdom and Poland were bound not to enter agreements with any other third countries which were a threat to the other.[4]
Because of the pact’s signing, Hitler postponed his planned invasion of Poland from August 26 until September 1
You have provide me with the fake justification, which you are agreeing is a fake justification. And you are providing with a motivation. But you have not answered whether, the Third Reich had justification or not in attacking Poland?
Okay.
okay.
covered in specific posting
There is a lot of heavy weight legal stuff in that, so I would just have to say your comments are noted.
I am trying to reference that to?
Yes you did, you as much as said only an idiot would have stayed.
But what you were doing was taking a reference I made to German housewives who were gung ho for smashing cities in other countries to pieces and applied it globally to non-combatants in Germany, which you can not do, they have to be of similar attitude that is, gung ho for smashing cities in other countries to pieces.
And where were the Jews going to go to?
Comment noted
No problem.
Well for example the Canadian Prime Minister could have demanded that Canadian aircrew only fly fighter aircraft and not be involved in the bomber squadrons, so the fact that RCAF personnel served not in a separate organization but as Squadron Units within the RAF is somewhat besides the point.
NB I am not criticizing the RCAF, its personnel or the WW II Canadian Government, I am seeking to establish your position on certain matters.
I am not a Nazi because I use Gott Mit Uns, I use it as a mark of respect to Imperial Germany Army of WW 1 and nothing to do with its use by the Third Reich in World War 2
True, and I’m not arguing that the UK didn’t have a reason for declaring war, but here’s the thing:
Germany, like the other 63, signed the Kellog-Briand Pact in 1928, promising to refrain from using War as a political means, which includes War of Aggression.
However, while you’re completely right that Nazi Germany breached this contract with the Invasion of Poland, the Pact does not include any penalties for any breach of it.
So while Germany broke its word and breached the Pact, there was no international law back then according to which it could be held guilty, and according to which it could be penalized.
This was not introduced until Nuremberg, and it wasn’t officially declared illegal until the United Nations Charter in October 1945.
So while, as I said, the War was without a doubt Germany’s fault, back then, especially before Nuremberg, there was simply no international law to declare it illegal, unless you apply post facto law, as the Nuremberg Trials do.
I know this is a rather shaky argument, but you have to understand that even though I think the Allied were right in fighting Nazi Germany, the statement that the war was ‘illegal’ is, in itself, not correct.
The problem though for the Third Reich, is that the state has to derive its moral justification from somewhere, it can not justify it own existence through it own existence, it must have a moral basis and the Third Reich has no moral basis, unless one accepts the Fuhrerprinzip of Adolf Hitler, the racial superiority of the German Aryan and necessity to subjugate and exterminate inferior races. Whether the Third Reich complied with this or that international law is not worth diddly. It was without moral basis, hence it was an illegal entity. Since the Third Reich was an illegal entity, it was not able to fight a legal war, except in such a case where more harm would be done by not fighting than fighting.
If the idea that one is racially superior, and the commitment of Genocide and Slavery makes a nation illegal, then the US, the UK, France and Spain would all be illegal nations.
I can identify only three main differences between them and Nazi Germany:
The Third Reich was stopped by foreign powers and didn’t abolish the policies themselves like the nations listed above did.
The Third Reich conquered and exterminated at a higher rate, though over a shorter time that the others.
The Third Reich was the most recent one.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying this makes their actions morally or ethnically correct, but it does show that (with the exception of its downfall), it was by no way unique to Europe.
Fun Fact: Edward I. first forced Jews to wear a yellow Star of David, then prosecuted and banned all Jews from England. It wasn’t until 350 years later that Oliver Cromwell allowed them to slowly move back to England, of course only if they paid the crown a decent sum of money to support the Naval Cold War against Holland…
(I know those were different times, I just think it’s an amazing fact to think about)
Jews just never seemed to have a good time in Europe, no matter whether it’s the Spanish, English, French, Italians or Germans. Somebody always prosecuted them…
Funny enough, the Ottoman Empire was, by comparison, a lot more tolerant towards Jews than the Europeans were.
(Yay, the first on topic statement in a long time)
I accept your points.
While I do (be assured) condemn Bali, Barcelona, London, and 9-11,
I also believe that maybe the west has gone about solving the issues in an inefficient way.
I did not mean to in any way suggest that the acts of terrorism noted were in any way justified.
I was more expressing the hope that moderate Islam would “wake up” and police the extremist elements, citing Saladin as example of said successful actions in the past.
In truth, the realistic view to take is the one you express.
Go in, smack the responsible group down inside it’s own national borders, leave, and repeat as often as necessary. The only other viable alternative I can see is to bomb the responsible group’s nation flat, and to hell with worrying about civilian casualties. That though, would be very far from popular with the looney left and liberal elements of the western world.
A state is a construct, it most certainly can therefor be either legal or illegal. The word nation can refer to a people or a state. so I will therefor use the word state. Let us say that, during the Roman Empire, a Roman cargo passenger ship sailing off the coast of what is today Britain, is blown off course and ends up on the coast of South America. Amongst the passengers are a number of Jewish scientists and a rabbi. In the fifteenth century, Christopher Columbus sets sail for the indies. As he approaches the coast of America, he is met by three strange flying machines, a voice comes from one, which tells him in Spanish that he if he continues further, his ship will enter an exclusion zone declared by the Inca Hebrew State and will be met by deadly force if his ship do not halt. Columbus seeing the apparent power of these flying machines, ( we would know them as helicopter gunships ), halts his ships progress. After he is told, by the voice from the flying machine, that he should turn back but first he should drop anchor and his ships will be provisioned, so he he has sufficient commodities to make the return journey to the best of his ability. A ship appears, apparently to the eyes of Columbus this ship is for the purpose of carrying cargo but moves without sails and emits a smoke from a chimney for some reason. It is escorted by other smaller ships that travel at great speed and which have strange cannon which rotate. Columbus returns to Spain and tells what has happened but he is not believed and locked in a prison as a mad man. Some months after that, a very strange ship anchors outside outside a major Spanish port. The captain of the ship says that he has an Ambassador from the Inca Hebrew State on board and requests that representatives of their Majesty’s King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella open negotiations between their Majesty’s dominions and the Inca Hebrew State. An Ambassador arrives from their Majesty’s and he is presented with a number of requests and told that if their Majesty’s fail to comply with such requests, as for example that Jewish subjects in their majesty’s dominions should practice their religion without fear or discrimination and that their majesty’s should make reparations to their Jewish subjects, who have been unfairly harmed by the State or State sanctioned measured directed against Jews, well then if their majesty’s fail to comply, the Inca Hebrew State will declare their Majesty’s dominions to be under illegal rule and and their Majesty’s Kingdom to be an illegal entity and that Inca Hebrew State will place the subjects of their majesty’s under its protection and pursue war if necessary to achieve that end. The Ambassador leaves the ship and returns to the Royal Court, he speaks of the great power of this strange and foreign ship and tries to convince them of the power of these foreigners, as he is a admiral himself and was the chief Admiral of their Royal Armada and he knows this one ship can destroy every ship in the Royal Armada also the Ambassador has Columbus released from prison as it is obvious now he was not crazy and his tales of strange ships without sails along with his story about the flying machines is true and the Ambassador brings Columbus before his King and Queen, to tell of his experiences of such strange ships and flying machines on his voyage to the Indies. The King listens carefully what his Ambassador has to say and appears to be willing to seek to enter in to negotiations but then Queen Isabella asks what religions are these foreigners and Ambassador says your “Majesty, they are of some different religions but most of the leadership seems to be of the Jewish religion”. “And who is their most high leader” asks the Queen, “they call him the Caesar” replies the Ambassador, “he is chosen by all the people of their country and he may serve for four years and then if he is chosen again he may serve for another four years and then he can not serve more”. “And what religion is this Caesar the one who now is in office” asks the Queen and the Ambassador answers their “Caesar at present is a woman and she is a Jew”. The King says to the Queen “We must enter in to negotiations with these foreigners for their power is great”, the Queen responds by saying “If we recognize the Jews as having right to hold negotiations with us as equals, we and all Christians in our land will be placing our souls in jeopardy in the afterlife, what she we should do, is to have some Jewish Rabbis, we have in prison awaiting trial by the inquisition, killed and send their heads to the captain of this foreign ship and then they will know, we believe that Jesus Christ born of the Virgin Mary, God’s only begotten son who died on the cross and who rose from the dead is our shield and lance and we will prevail in War over them, should they seek to dispute our authority by the Grace of God”. The Rabbis are duly executed and their heads brought to the ship by the Ambassador of their Majesties, the captain of the ship receives the Ambassador with courtesy and the Ambassador gives him the heads of the executed rabbis and tell the captain of the rejection by their majesty’s of the offer to open negotiations with the Inca Hebrew State. The captain complements the Ambassador on the audacity of his rulers in having the Jewish Rabbis executed and having much faith that their God and their bravery will deliver them victory against foreigners such as himself with strange and seemingly powerful machines. The Ambassador replies that he fears that all their Majesty’s have achieved, “is to awaken a sleeping giant”. The captain tells the ambassador that, he may have safe passage to the shore and once he is safely ashore, their majesty’s dominions will have been declared an illegal entity and will be placed under attack.
By the way everything we have been discussing is relevant to The Islam Menace the fact that, you are apparently suggesting that it is not relevant, does not alter its relevancy, your apparent view that such matters are not relevant is merely your apparent view and an inaccurate one, if that is indeed your view. After I made the above statement, which I hold still stands. This exchange has been allocated its own thread, which is actually in my view a better situation than, had it been left within the thread it originated in, so complements to whoever moved this exchange to its own thread, it was a good call.
A state derives its status solely from international law, which prior to WWII was largely expressed in the Montevideo Convention of 1933.
That is, however, utterly irrelevant to Germany’s statehood under the Nazis as Germany was already unquestionably a state long before the Nazis took power. Its status as a state was not altered by that.
You are confusing the legitimacy of a government with the existence of a state, as you are confusing the Third Reich, which was a Nazi construction, with the state of Germany which existed independently of the Third Reich in international law. As, for example, did the British Empire exist independently of Britain.
As for there being a necessary moral basis for statehood, nowhere does this have any relevance in international law, which is the sole source for determining whether or not a state exists.
And I can give you a 4th one and that is that, the Third Reich put the development of the state as a moral entity, as a moral entity would be understood in a Liberal Judeo Christian tradition, in to reverse both globally and locally specifically with the context of the development of German society, in that the Third Reich was World class in its barbarity and very contrasting, to the often positive record of Germany before. For example, Jews in the Kaiser’s Germany had, if not an entirely satisfactory situation, at least many of the same rights and privileges as Christians.
Well yes it does, unless you want to argue the USSR was in Europe and even then, there are qualifications.
“Fun fact”…what is your intention behind the use of such phraseology?
What is Funny, sorry it must be the Prussian in me, that I lack your no doubt highly developed sense of humor, perhaps you are an Austrian?
