Was Holocaust part of WWII?

[Rising_Sun]

@Adrian_Wainer

“Fun fact”…what is your intention behind the use of such phraseology?

Not being able to see into Schuultz’s deeply disturbed mind ;), I am inclined to suspect, and I don’t want to be held to this because it is just my inference rather than a logical certainty, that he was introducing a fun fact.

However, after giving this issue deep consideration, it is possible that he was really referring to a funf act.

If so, I think that it is deplorable to engage in funf acts and, come the revolution, anyone engaging in funf acts will be hanged from the lampposts.

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

110% nonsense!

A state derives its status solely from international law, which prior to WWII was largely expressed in the Montevideo Convention of 1933.

A state derives its legitimacy from its moral worth. You claim to the contrary and I assert you are wrong.

@Rising Sun

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.

Are you talking about the Wiemar Republic? Germany under the Wiemar Republic was a legitimate State. After Wiemar Germany had ceased to exist, the former German State known as the Wiemar Republic, had become a pirate territory.

@Rising Sun

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.

Germany existed an ideological, cultural and ethnic construct during the Third Reich period, it does not have legal basis it is not a state as such in the sense I am using it during the period of the existence of the Third Reich. The territory which is to be called Germany can exist under the Third Reich but there can be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich. Germany was a State during the Wiemar period and re-emerges as a state once again the shape of the post WW II, Federal Republic of Germany.

@Rising Sun

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.

I did not say that lacking a moral basis makes a state non-existent merely that it make it illegal.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

Not being able to see into Schuultz’s deeply disturbed mind ;), I am inclined to suspect, and I don’t want to be held to this because it is just my inference rather than a logical certainty, that he was introducing a fun fact.

However, after giving this issue deep consideration, it is possible that he was really referring to a funf act.

If so, I think that it is deplorable to engage in funf acts and, come the revolution, anyone engaging in funf acts will be hanged from the lampposts.

That is quite as clear to me, as mud.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[navyson]

@Adrian_Wainer

Germany existed an ideological, cultural and ethnic construct during the Third Reich period, it does not have legal basis it is not a state as such in the sense I am using it during the period of the existence of the Third Reich. The territory which is to be called Germany can exist under the Third Reich but there can be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich. Germany was a State during the Wiemar period and re-emerges as a state once again the shape of the post WW II, Federal Republic of Germany.

I’m getting lost, why could there be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich, in your opinion?

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

I said basking in your gratitude, not your attitude.

Well association with me, in any shape or form may be a poisoned chalice, so my assertion still holds good.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian_Wainer]

@navyson

I’m getting lost, why could there be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich, in your opinion?

Because the Third Reich whilst it did incorporate Germanic aspects of was not in my opinion authentically Germanic and therefor can not claim the title of Germany.

http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3xr7xUlLlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJjfkAzLPfM

Note the swastika carried by Jewish First World War German fighter pilot’s Berthold Guthman’s aircraft. This is a European, Asian and Jewish symbol of good fortune not the expession of evil the Nazis tried to turn it in to.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[navyson]

@Adrian_Wainer

Because the Third Reich whilst it did incorporate Germanic aspects of was not in my opinion authentically Germanic and therefor can not claim the title of Germany.

http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/

Although interesting, (thanks for posting) I couldn’t find anything in the site related to Germany not being a state during the Third Reich. Could you give me a synopsis of that reasoning again? I guess I missed it somewhere.

[Rising_Sun]

@Adrian_Wainer

A state derives its legitimacy from its moral worth. You claim to the contrary and I assert you are wrong.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.

@Adrian_Wainer

Are you talking about the Wiemar Republic? Germany under the Wiemar Republic was a legitimate State. After Wiemar Germany had ceased to exist, the former German State known as the Wiemar Republic, had become a pirate territory.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.

@Adrian_Wainer

Germany existed an ideological, cultural and ethnic construct during the Third Reich period, it does not have legal basis it is not a state as such in the sense I am using it during the period of the existence of the Third Reich. The territory which is to be called Germany can exist under the Third Reich but there can be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich. Germany was a State during the Wiemar period and re-emerges as a state once again the shape of the post WW II, Federal Republic of Germany.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.

@Adrian_Wainer

I did not say that lacking a moral basis makes a state non-existent merely that it make it illegal.

Point us to principles and or decisions in international law which support your assertion.

Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in these terms:

This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that, unless we hear from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

Do you find it just a touch odd that Britain would have had an ambassador in an illegal state; had its ambassador hand the German Government of the allegedly illegal state of Germany a note of intention of war? And that the British Prime Minister was so deluded that he thought his country was at war with a state called Germany, which according to you didn’t exist because it was illegal and therefore was not an entity with which Britain could be at war?

What other countries had embassies in Germany as WWII approached?

Which particular worm hole in reality do you rely upon to slip out of the fact that pre-war Germany under Hitler was recognised by all the major nations who would be engaged in conflict with it during WWII as a state run by Hitler and his Nazi crew?

[Rising_Sun]

@navyson

I’m getting lost, why could there be no state called Germany during the period of the Third Reich, in your opinion?

You’re getting lost?

The rest of us are totally bamboozled.

[Rising_Sun]

@Adrian_Wainer

Because the Third Reich whilst it did incorporate Germanic aspects of was not in my opinion authentically Germanic and therefor can not claim the title of Germany.

Given that Germany didn’t exist until 1871, exactly what aspects of its creation were the authentically Germanic elements which entitled it to statehood?

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany in these terms:

Do you find it just a touch odd that Britain would have had an ambassador in an illegal state; had its ambassador hand the German Government of the allegedly illegal state of Germany a note of intention of war? And that the British Prime Minister was so deluded that he thought his country was at war with a state called Germany, which according to you didn’t exist because it was illegal and therefore was not an entity with which Britain could be at war?

Most Politicians are not moral philosophers, they should at least be competent trades persons in the practice of realpolitik, Neville Chamberlain managed to be something of a moral philosopher in his declaration of War and did quite well in the practice of appeasement as regards realpolitik.

What I am talking about, is what should be aspired to. If Britain had reached higher towards these aspirations, the Spitfire Mk 18 would have been in service in 1938 and Winston Churchill would have been Prime Minister and Neville Chamberlain Foreign Secretary and Neville Chamberlain would have flown to Munich and told Herr Hitler that HM Government viewed with favor a desire of the Sudetenland Germans to have autonomy within Czechoslovakia, whilst matters such as border controls, defense and policing should remain in the authority of the central government in Prague and if the Fuhrer did not like that and tried to enforce a military decision by sending troops in to the Sudetenland, he should know the British Royal Air Force squadrons now currently deployed to Czechoslovakia will engage the Wehrmacht forces from the get go of any such hostile against the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia.

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/other-fighter-planes/supermarine-spitfire-mk-xviii.htm

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

Given that Germany didn’t exist until 1871, exactly what aspects of its creation were the authentically Germanic elements which entitled it to statehood?

Was it putting people in to concentration camps and gassing them on its territory?

Best and Warm regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

Do you find it just a touch odd that Britain would have had an ambassador in an illegal state; had its ambassador hand the German Government of the allegedly illegal state of Germany a note of intention of war? And that the British Prime Minister was so deluded that he thought his country was at war with a state called Germany, which according to you didn’t exist because it was illegal and therefore was not an entity with which Britain could be at war?

It appears to me that you are making an argument that a State can not exist and be illegal at the same time, whereas I argue I it can and should be described an illegal State. If Neville Chamberlain had publicly declared The Third Reich to be an illegal State as he was morally entitled to do, that would have upped the stakes in the War with Germany, whereas at the time of declaration of War against Germany, Chamberlain may have been hoping to have say confined the conflict to say Poland and to have limited the War aims to restoring Polish Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of the Czech Republic and seeing a new Government in power in power in Germany perhaps still Nazi but not of the mentalist variety of Nazi as Adolf Hitler represented and Germany’s military once again restricted by treaty as to its size and type of equipments it operated.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Schuultz]

@Adrian_Wainer

Was it putting people in to concentration camps and gassing them on its territory?

Those were the crimes of a government. They do not criminalize the state, though, only the people who ordered it.

@Adrian_Wainer

Most Politicians are not moral philosophers

Wait, are you trying to talk philosophy with us or actual facts?

If you talk philosophy, we can stop right here, as in that case your point of view - as irrational as it is in a factual sense - can obviously not be changed.

@Adrian_Wainer

If Neville Chamberlain had publicly declared The Third Reich to be an illegal State as he was morally entitled to do

But who or what would have given him any right to do so? Morals are something very fluid and individual to every culture. What is absolutely immoral for the one culture can be perfectly moral for the other.

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Schuultz

Those were the crimes of a government. They do not criminalize the state, though, only the people who ordered it.

They criminalize the state if such measures are in accordance with the rules and statutes of the State.

@Schuultz

Wait, are you trying to talk philosophy with us or actual facts?

If you talk philosophy, we can stop right here, as in that case your point of view - as irrational as it is in a factual sense - can obviously not be changed.

What is the difference between philosophy and fact?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Schuultz]

@Adrian_Wainer

What is the difference between philosophy and fact?

:shock:

Ok, nevermind. Until now, I actually thought you were actually up for a somewhat serious discussion about the legality of Nazi Germany, but that’s obviously not the case.

Cheers.

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Schuultz

But who or what would have given him any right to do so? Morals are something very fluid and individual to every culture. What is absolutely immoral for the one culture can be perfectly moral for the other.

He could have done so, by his powers granted to him by the Monarch and if that was insufficient, he could have sought such powers from Parliament and have been granted such powers by Parliament.

@Schuultz

Morals are something very fluid and individual to every culture. What is absolutely immoral for the one culture can be perfectly moral for the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

So you can make a moral case in favor of Kristallnacht?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Schuultz]

@Adrian_Wainer

He could have done so, by his powers granted to him by the Monarch and if that was insufficient, he could have sought such powers from Parliament and have been granted such powers by Parliament.

So he would have had the right on his Government’s behalf. But this doesn’t give him any international right. Why do you think all these international laws were introduced after WW2? So that there is an international right.

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Schuultz

:shock:

Ok, nevermind. Until now, I actually thought you were actually up for a somewhat serious discussion about the legality of Nazi Germany, but that’s obviously not the case.

Cheers.

In other words I take it you do not have effective argument to offer to counter my position and have decided therefor to pretend I do not have a valid position, is that indeed your position?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Schuultz

So he would have had the right on his Government’s behalf. But this doesn’t give him any international right.

Yes it does if in 1940 he has the Spitfire XVIII in service, the Avro Lancaster in Service and the Gloster Meteor Jet fighter starting to come off the assembly lines.

@Schuultz

Why do you think all these international laws were introduced after WW2? So that there is an international right.

So what happened to South Vietnam then?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer