Neo-nazi tripe.

... Neo-nazi

... after
birth

tripe.

Well, I'll quote Kipling too, then, but from a French (which is to say better) perspective:

ENGLAND ON THE ANVIL (The Norman Conquest - 1066)

"England's on the anvil - hear the hammers ring - Clanging from the Severn to the Tyne! Never been a blacksmith like our Norman King - England's being hammered, hammered, hammered into line!

England's on the anvil! Heavy are the blows! (But the work will be a marvel when it's done.) Little bits of Kingdoms cannot stand against their foes. England's being hammered, hammered, hammered into one.

There shall be one people - it shall serve one Lord (Neither Priest nor Baron shall escape!) It shall have one speech and law, soul and strength and sword. England's being hammered, hammered, hammered into shape!"

And more Kipling - again from the French (which is to say conqueror's) perspective:

NORMAN AND SAXON (A.D. 1100)(Kipling)

"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for my share When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is. But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:--

"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow--with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, 'This ain't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.

...

"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs. Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their own wrongs. Let them know that you know what they are saying; let them feel that you know what to say. Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.

...

"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts. Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests. Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.' Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"

The Saxons probably hated us Normans for awhile, but soon enough they adopted our laws and systems and government, and half our language to boot. They got over it.

Of course, we didn't ruin England, we improved it, by making it something. The Huns...well they just bombed everything and burnt it down, and sank ships full of women and children, so yeah, you can hate them.

The Saxon hate for the Celt didn't come to anything but sorrow in the end, for all.

So Saxon hate has a history, but it's never come to anything successful for the Saxons without foreign allies (or rulers).

Emma Lazarus

Schumer named his daughter Emma Lazarus Schumer. Or so he was blubbering into some TV cameras he was chasing at high speed recently.

America, we were founded to be unique. We should NEVER have gotten into WW I or II, and left the Continent to fend for themselves. Churchill was a horrible person, the biggest crime of that war was the stripping of German land. What the attacks on London were by the Germans were, mosquito bites. Dresden, a war crime that should have brought the wrath of a sane world down on Churchill. Just like the sinking of the Lusitania, maneuvered to happen by the leader of the Admiralty in Britain, Winston Churchill. I will never understand why Americans worship him as a man/god. Hell, he didn't even make his own speeches.

You're out of your mind.

The Germans declared war ON US in World War II, three days after the Japanese attacked us.

We declared war on Japan, and Nazi Germany declared war on us.

They were sinking our ships at sea and killing our people. The ocean does not belong to Nazi Germany. If we, a free and sovereign people, want to trade with England, we will trade with England. If that gets in the way of YOUR war, then get the fuck out of our way anyway and put up with it, because we are stronger than you, and if you sink OUR ships in pursuit of YOUR war, we will come over and kill you.

Stripping land from Germany was the right thing to do. Those lands did not belong to Germany. Schleswig-Holstein was Danish. Czech and Austria were not German.

Konigsberg? Their eastern capital? They invaded Russia twice, and the Soviets WON. The Soviets had the right to dismember Germany and take whatever they wanted.

The Nazis were mass-murdering sons of bitches who got everything they deserved.

Germany invaded France, and Holland, and Belgium, and Luxembourg, and Denmark, and Norway. Peaceful, democratic Western countries. They invaded and killed and slaughtered their way in. Of course the Germans, therefore, deserved to be slaughtered themselves. They started it. They were too weak to win.

So, what did the Germans really do? They were arrogant idiots. Not strong enough to win, they went and burnt down their neighborhood, provoking the wrath of all of their neighbors. Then they went and declared war on America, an immense power. Complete insanity.

So they got smeared all over the ground like bloody roadkill. They got what they deserved for invading Holland and France, Luxembourg and Belgium, Denmark and Norway and Poland. The Germans had no more right to have a single soldier in ANY of those countries then an illegal alien has the right to be in the US. And at least the illegals don't come in with tanks.

Churchill is not relevant. Who cares about him? What the Germans did, they did because they were evil pricks. They invaded nine democratic Republics and committed mass murder in them, or tried to, in order to enforce a claim to power they had no right - not even the faintest claim to right - to have.

They invade, and they killed, and in the end they got crushed and killed. Good.

Dresden was a response to the rocket attacks on London. By that point in the war, it was perfectly clear to any sane person that Germany had lost. What the Germans SHOULD have been doing was negotiating a surrender, a peace, as quickly as possible, to stop the destruction and bloodshed.

Instead, they continued their tear of murder. They developed rockets and fired them into a heavily populated city.

So the Western powers - it was not just Churchill who supported Dresden but FDR who ordered it, had had enough of it. You will no longer murder our people with impunity. We will now show you that we are the greater power, and we can murder your people with impunity too, as many as we damned please, as often as we like.

Here is an example: Dresden dies.

It was an APPROPRIATE response to the murder of our people.

Germans were evil. They launched a war that killed 140 million people. And having clearly lost, they were guilty in defense, for continuing to defend themselves and prolonging the war, killing more and more. They were guilty, having lost, for shooting rockets into a civilian city.

It's a good thing they collapsed in May 1945. Had they stuck around until August, the most appropriate place for the first atomic bomb use would have been Berlin.

Some of your facts are correct, but you are wrong. We never should have gotten into WW I.

World War I is a closer question. World War II is not.

The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. They had no right to attack and kill millions.

Neo-nazi tripe.

You remind me of a Nazi Weiner er I mean Willie.

You like killing the weak and indefensible.

Like Hitler liberals for abortion who don't repent will burn in hell.

I have a theory that liberals and satanists will be like logs that never go out keeping the good people warm in heaven.

Look it up.

Irrespective of historical disputation and uncounted generations of European quarrels however, the mass of folks are awakening to the idea that it's time for an end to raking over the coals of strife between Slav and Teuton and Celt.

Watch. Listen.

France’s Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen; The Anglo-Saxons are Awake!

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. They had no right to attack and kill millions.

[randge #11] In WWII France invaded Germany before Germany invaded France.

France, and well as Britain, declared war against Germany on 3 Sept 1939. Germany had every right to attack a nation that had declared war against them and to accept their surrender.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/3/newsid_3493000/3493279.stm

1939: Britain and France declare war on Germany

Britain and France are at war with Germany following the invasion of Poland two days ago.

At 1115 BST the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, announced the British deadline for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland had expired.

He said the British ambassador to Berlin had handed a final note to the German government this morning saying unless it announced plans to withdraw from Poland by 1100, a state of war would exist between the two countries.

Mr Chamberlain continued: "I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and consequently this country is at war with Germany."

Similarly the French issued an ultimatum, which was presented in Berlin at 1230, saying France would be at war unless a 1700 deadline for the troops' withdrawal was adhered to.

Germany had no right in invade Czechoslovakia. They had no right to invade Poland. Once they did, everybody had the right to leap to the Poles' aid. It's a pity we didn't.

France and Britain did.

Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands did not declare war on Germany. Neither did Denmark or Norway. And yet Germany invaded all of those free nations - seven of them. France and Britain declared war because Germany invaded Poland, but none of those other seven countries declared war.

Nor did Yugoslavia or Greece. The Fascists and the Nazis invaded all of them. They were criminals of the first order, and they got everything they deserved.

Where do we get off worrying over the actions of Germany? This world is mad, and the mass murderers are not the criminals but the governments.

Because we want to. We have the right to be world conquerors too, if we choose.

Germany set the world on fire in two world wars seeking world domination over the then-existing world-dominant powers England and France. The Germans succeeded in breaking the English and the French financially, and ruined Russia.

Rather than let the Germans step into the role of the Germans, we chose to stand up, crush the Germans, and become world hegemon ourselves.

And why not? The economic benefits of world domination have made us Americans much wealthier and given us a much higher standard of living than we would have ever had merely through trade and peaceful development on our own.

Conquering Europe and Japan were good for us.

Where we erred was in deciding to fight the Communists for dominance over backwater Asian and African jungles and the rabies-infested Muslims over Middle Eastern sandpits, and in letting ourselves be harnessed up as the deep pockets for Jewish nationalist dreams in Israel.

Germans were violent and aggressive, much moreso than the French and British co-hegemons they took down. Had we permitted Germany to win the prize, we would have been dealing with a country that would have readily built up its forces to take us out as well, eventually.

They overextended themselves, as did the Japanese, and we picked that moment to step in for an easy win at the game of World Hegemon.

We played the game exceptionally well up until 1945.

We started falling down when we became obsessed over Russia, not that the Soviets were nice guys. Where we really screwed the pooch was in letting ourselves be dragged into endless wars over jungles.

But really, what screwed us wasn't our manhandling the Germans and taking over the world, or our propensity to bomb Yusfzahies in the backwaters of Heebie-Jeebiestan. It was our loss of the social unity that had been wrought by Depression and War, and our decision to allow the bottom half of our countrymen to sink into the economic mire for the benefit of wealth accumulation by the top. That is what killed us.

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. They had no right to attack and kill millions.

[nolu chan #12] France, and well as Britain, declared war against Germany on 3 Sept 1939. Germany had every right to attack a nation that had declared war against them and to accept their surrender.

[Vicomte13 #13] So, you're going to stand up for Nazi Germany.

No, I am going to stand against the French lament that the German's picked on them after France declared war against Germany.

The unprepared surrender monkeys probably should not have declared war against Germany unless they were capable and willing to fight a war.

When France declared war on Germany, it initiated a state where acts of war committed upon France by Germany were legal.

How one deals with bullies is a fascinating topic.

Of course, if we're speaking of World War II, I think that the USA played the game like a Stradivarius. We came out of that game as world hegemon. Pat's right - we went in a republic and came out an empire.

That's good for us.

But what we did to try to keep it was not so good for us.

With Trump, we have the chance for a new world order that is not based on the US maintaining an Empire, but rather, the US turning back inward to develop its own people.

That does not mean we can just abandon the world. It means dealing with the major issues through a combination of diplomacy and strength.

Diplomacy with Russia is the key to peace in Europe AND victory over the jihadists in the Middle East, AND keeping China rational.

We're not going to roll the Chinese off those islands they've taken, but we can dissuade them from building any more.

Once we get immigration and border control in hand, we can improve relations with Mexico.

I think it's going to go alright.

When France declared war on Germany, it initiated a state where acts of war committed upon France by Germany were legal.

Germany's invasion of Poland was illegal. Flat out illegal. France declared war on Germany as a result of Germany's invasion of an ally.

If Russia invades NATO Poland, and the US declares war on Russia, you would claim that the Russians had the legal right to also attack the United States.

Nope. The Russians broke the peace in my example, which makes the Russians guilty of the war that the allied Americans have to fight with them to save Poland.

France and Britain were declared allies of free Poland. Germany attacked Poland, and thereby caused war with France and Britain.

Even if you don't "let the French" (or the British) off the hook because they "declared war on Germany", you still have the problem of the German attack on Poland that started the war, followed by the German invasions of Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway - all free democratic nations. There is no legal right to overrun other nations to "get at" your enemy.

The Germans decided they were going to rebalance the power of Europe and the world by force. Nope. Fail. No reason to let them. No reason to give them any quarter. No reason to defend what they did.

No, I am going to stand against the French lament that the German's picked on them

The French have never made that lament. The French lament is that the Germans went hard over to evil and were warmongers who had to be stopped, and that France alone did not have the strength to stop it.

France wasn't whimpering about being "picked on". The French always knew that the Germans were barbarians who would have to be fought - or intimidated - which is why the French were in favor of accepting the USSR's offer of protection for Poland, to halt German invasion. The British were not willing to allow the Soviets to make such an advance, and refused, causing the USSR to make its pact with Hitler to divide Poland. Then the French and British faced the full on German furor. They lost and were driven from the field.

We shouldn't let the Poles off the hook. After WWI a lot of promises were made to minorities in the newly formed Polish republic. Ukranians, Germans, Jews, Sorbs, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians were all accorded ethnic rights, but all were subject to repression when the bill came due.

The government policy of polonization was quite as ruthlessly carried out as was nazification in Germany. Ethnic groups that wanted benefits they's been promised like schooling in their native languages faced beatings, jail, expropriation and worse. There was extrajudicial homicide. On the eve of the war there were many many border incidents and a number cross border raids by Polish militia. In Czechslovakia the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the Sudentenland was a not a pretty chapter either. And there was Danzig.

Hitler, whatever you think of him, was under immense pressure from forces that he of course helped loose. He moved against Poland unaware of the secret assurances that had been given days before by London. The trap was sprung. Bad Krauts.

But before you jump on the bad Krauts, how about the 30 or 40 million of their own that the bolshies rubbed out? I say this not as a tu quoque argument, but as a reminder that Germans were acutely conscious of what was going on in Russia. Acutely conscious of it because the same disease was infecting Germany with German states declaring Soviet (Räte) Republics. There would have been no Hitler without this chaos.

We've got our own shit too in this country post WWII. But I don't wanna get flamed.

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. They had no right to attack and kill millions.

[Vicomte13 #19] Germany's invasion of Poland was illegal. Flat out illegal. France declared war on Germany as a result of Germany's invasion of an ally.

When the surrender monkeys declared was on Germany, they invited Germany to make war upon them. That's what happens when you declare war against somebody. Military action by both parties becomes lawful under international law.

The French lament is that the Germans went hard over to evil and were warmongers who had to be stopped, and that France alone did not have the strength to stop it.

The French declared war against Germany. You commented that Germany should not have been permitted to conquer France. The French surrendered before anybody could have done anything about it. If they were not prepared to wage war, they should not have declared war. That made it perfectly legal, under international law, for Germany to come on in and conquer France. So, on a couple of slow weeks, Germany went ahead and did it.

Trolling, I see.

Still making ridiculous claims that cannot be supported, everybody sees.

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France.

France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful.

By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful.

Germany declared war on Poland, breaking the peace. The Germans had no lawful right to break the peace.

They lost millions of lives for their pretension, and had their country permanently dismembered, losing bit chunks of it to Poland and Russia before it was all over.

They were firebombed at Dresden and Hamburg, and had their other cities burnt flat, and were reduced to a shattered people with no fight left in them.

And then their leaders were tried under law and hanged for their war crimes - specifically for STARTING the war. The German leaders were tried, by law, and hanged, as criminals, because they had no right to start the war in the first place. That made them murderers BY LAW.

They had no right to invade France, or Poland, or any other country. They had no right to start war. They did, and they died for it. And they deserved everything they got.

[Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France.

Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Neither did Holland, or Denmark or Norway, or Luxembourg. But Germany invaded them all anyway. Without any right. They were war criminals, and their leaders were hanged as the criminals they were when they war was over.

Also, they were placed under permanent Allied occupation, and their country was dismembered (after being bombed flat, with millions dead) to be absolutely certain that the "Master Race" never thought of itself that way again.

A defeated, disgraced, criminal people were allowed to re-enter the family of nations as a free, peace-loving society, with a lesson strongly learned. The land they lost is lost forever. And they have no right NOW to wage war to get it back, nor did they have any legal right in 1939 to attack Poland, or to attack Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg.

Pure criminals, thugs, aggressive murderers, and, might I add, morons. The Germans were morons to believe they were the superior race that could actually take on and defeat all of the major world powers.

But they tried - making them criminals. That's why the leaders were hanged after the war: for the crime of starting the war.

There is no right to start an aggressive war. Do it and lose, and you get hanged as the mass murderer you are. Just like the Germans did - including, importantly, German military men. They "just followed orders" to commit crimes.

Not good enough. Murderers. Hang 'em high as the criminal cowards they were.

We've got a political war on NOW.. Fighting over old villainies is going to piss us off to no purpose.

So I'm going to drop it.

1939 was 78 years ago. The War is over. The Cold War after the war is over. Probably nobody reading this was in the war. A couple may have been alive, but as children.

Born in '36, I remember the 2nd WW a lot, and then served a couple of years in Germany during the cold war.

Fighting over old villainies is going to piss us off to no purpose.

Our wars against militant communism and militant Islamism will probably never end. Fighting them have purpose.

ur wars against militant communism and militant Islamism will probably never end. Fighting them have purpose.

I agree. Add to that the war against the militant hard right, the "Fascists" or "Nazis", and you have the trifecta. You have to fight the bullies on the left, on the right and in the clouds. All of them are thugs, and you have to fight all of them.

France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful.

France not only declared war, it made war on Germany.

The Russians got overrun in their turn, and we got attacked eventually. Millions died because of their earlier inaction.

Everybody should have come to the aid of Poland. They didn't, and so millions more died all around than needed to.

WE were supposed to come to France's aid. So was Russia. And all were really coming to the aid of Poland, and punishing Germany for being the criminals who broke the peace.

That's what the UN is designed to do, and what the League of Nations was hoped to do.

But instead people dithered. Then died in large numbers. Lesson learned. Now we are much more proactive.

Lots of electrons killed in the latest failed effort.

France not only declared war, it attacked the Germans and engaged in war. The German response against France was entirely lawful.

The United States was not required to rush to the aid of the misbehaving European children playing Game of Thrones.

France surrendered with military efficiency. If the French did not intend to fight a war, they should not have declared one.

The USA was attacked and Japan declared war on the USA, December 7, 1941 (December 8th Japanese time).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_declaration_of_war_on_the_United_States_and_the_British_Empire

IMPERIAL RESCRIPT

By the grace of Heaven, Emperor of Japan Emperor Showa, seated on the throne occupied by the same dynasty from time immemorial, enjoin upon ye, Our loyal and brave subjects:

We hereby declare War on the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of Our Army and Navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war. Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of Our war aims.

To ensure the stability of East Asia and to contribute to world peace is the far-sighted policy which was formulated by Our Great Illustrious Imperial Grandsire [Emperor Meiji] and Our Great Imperial Sire succeeding Him [Emperor Taisho], and which We lay constantly to heart. To cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations, has always been the guiding principle of Our Empire's foreign policy. It has been truly unavoidable and far from Our wishes that Our Empire has been brought to cross swords with America and Britain. More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of Our Empire, and recklessly courting trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled Our Empire to take up arms. Although there has been reestablished the National Government of China, with which Japan had effected neighborly intercourse and cooperation, the regime which has survived in Chungking, relying upon American and British protection, still continues its fratricidal opposition. Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambition to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, giving support to the Chungking regime, have aggravated the disturbances in East Asia. Moreover these two Powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of Our Empire to challenge Us. They have obstructed by every means Our peaceful commerce and finally resorted to a direct severance of economic relations, menacing gravely the existence of Our Empire. Patiently have We waited and long have We endured, in the hope that Our government might retrieve the situation in peace. But Our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement; and in the meantime they have intensified the economic and political pressure to compel thereby Our Empire to submission. This trend of affairs, would, if left unchecked, not only nullify Our Empire's efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of Our nation. The situation being such as it is, Our Empire, for its existence and self-defense has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.

The hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors guarding Us from above, We rely upon the loyalty and courage of Our subjects in Our confident expectation that the task bequeathed by Our forefathers will be carried forward and that the sources of evil will be speedily eradicated and an enduring peace immutably established in East Asia, preserving thereby the glory of Our Empire.

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hand and caused the Grand Seal of the Empire to be affixed at the Imperial Palace, Tokyo, this seventh day of the 12th month of the 15th year of Showa, corresponding to the 2,602nd year from the accession to the throne of Emperor Jimmu.

(Released by the Board of Information, December 8, 1941. Japan Times & Advertiser)

The USA responded accordingly and declared war on Japan.

Joint Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

- Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

The US was attacked by Japan, not Germany. The US declared the war on December 8, 1941 against Japan (not Germany) as a direct result of the Japanese attack.

Following the Japanese attack, Germany declared war against the U.S. on December 11, 1941.

On December 11, 1941, American Chargé d'Affaires Leland B. Morris, the highest ranking American diplomat in Germany, was summoned to Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop's office where Ribbentrop read Morris the formal declaration.[16] The text was:

MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP.

In response to the German declaration of war of December 11, 1941, the U.S. declared war on Germany on that same date.

Seventy-Seventh Congress of the United States of America; At the First Session Begun and held at the City of Washington, on Friday, the third day of January, 1941.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Government of Germany and the Government and the People of the United States and Making Provisions To Prosecute The Same

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

(Signed) Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives

(Signed) H. A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate

Approved December 11, 1941 3:05 PM E.S.T.

(Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt

- - - - - - - - - -

And all were really coming to the aid of Poland, and punishing Germany for being the criminals who broke the peace.

The U.S. was not coming to the aid of Poland or France. It responded to a Japanese attack and declaration of war with a declaration of war against Japan, and only Japan.

When Germany declared war against the U.S. on the 11th of December, the U.S. declared war against Germany and Italy.

That this redounded to the benefit of occupied Poland and occupied France was incidental to the overwhelmingly obvious object of the U.S. declarations of war against Japan, and later Germany and Italy.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-invade-poland

Despite their declaration of war against Germany, Britain and France did little militarily to aid Poland. Britain bombed German warships on September 4, but Chamberlain resisted bombing Germany itself. Though Germans kept only 23 divisions in the west during their campaign in Poland, France did not launch a full-scale attack even though it had mobilized over four times that number. There were modest assaults by France on its border with Germany but these actions ceased with the defeat of Poland. During the subsequent seven months, some observers accused Britain and France of waging a “phony war,” because, with the exception of a few dramatic British-German clashes at sea, no major military action was taken.

The British and French promised to come to the aid of Poland if it were attacked. They did not. And yet, you insist the U.S. had some duty to go fight a war for France.

WE were supposed to come to France's aid. So was Russia.

Has it occurred to you that the Russians (Soviet Union) would have been fighting themselves? The Germans and the Russians staged a joint campaign and divided up Poland between them. Now, why didn't the French declare war against the Soviet Union?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland

The Invasion of Poland, also known as the September Campaign, or the 1939 Defensive War in Poland (Polish: Kampania wrzesniowa or Wojna obronna 1939 roku), and alternatively the Poland Campaign (German: Polenfeldzug) or Fall Weiss in Germany (Case White), was a joint invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the Free City of Danzig, the Soviet Union, and a small Slovak contingent, that marked the beginning of World War II in Europe. The German invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, while the Soviet invasion commenced on 17 September following the Molotov-Togo agreement that terminated the Russian and Japanese hostilities in the east on 16 September. The campaign ended on 6 October with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland under the terms of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland

The Soviet invasion of Poland

The Soviet invasion of Poland was a Soviet military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939. On that morning, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. The invasion and battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on 6 October 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union. The joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland was secretly agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on 23 August 1939.

[...]

Soviet forces occupied eastern Poland until the summer of 1941, when they were driven out by the invading German army in the course of Operation Barbarossa. The area was under Nazi occupation until the Red Army reconquered it again in the summer of 1944. An agreement at the Yalta Conference permitted the Soviet Union to annex almost all of their Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact portion of the Second Polish Republic, "compensating" the People's Republic of Poland with the southern half of East Prussia and territories east of the Oder–Neisse line. The Soviet Union enclosed most of the annexed territories into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic.

After the end of World War II in Europe, the USSR signed a brand new border agreement with the Polish communists on 16 August 1945. This agreement recognized the status quo as the new official border between the two countries with the exception of the region around Bialystok and a minor part of Galicia east of the San river around Przemysl, which were returned to Poland later on.

Carter-Ford Oct. 6, 1976 Debate - "No Soviet Domination"

Published on Sep 26, 2012

In this clip from the Oct. 6, 1976 debate between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, Ford botches a rehearsed line from his briefing book and declares, "There is no no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." At the time, all countries in Eastern Europe had Communist governments and were under the Soviet sphere of influence.

But instead people dithered.

The Russians (Soviet Union) did not really dither. They took an active role in the invasion of Poland, along with Germany.

If the war was fought to free Poland, it was a poor job. Thirty years later, the Soviet Union still dominated Poland. Gerald Ford's flub went a long way to ending his election aspirations.

Hitler did not start an invasion of Poland because he was evil and woke one morning with an evil hangover.

http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII3_HitlerInvadesPoland.htm

Eight Reasons Hitler Invaded Poland

1. To give Germans lebensraum in Eastern Europe

He had promised this in Mein Kampf (1924) and it was one of the three CENTRAL AIMS of Hitler foreign policy.

2. Because he thought Chamberlain would not dare stop him

Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler, remember, at Bad Godesberg during the Sudeten crisis, but had then backed down at Munich. Hitler despised Chamberlain, and did not believe that he would dare to go to war. So he felt able to pursue his aims in Poland despite Chamberlain's promise in March 1939 to support Poland.

3. To defend the Germans in Poland

The reason Hitler gave was that the Poles were persecuting those Germans who lived in Poland. (There was some truth in this.)

4. To overturn the Treaty of Versailles

This was a second CENTRAL AIM of Hitler's foreign policy. The Polish Corridor and Posen had been given to Poland in 1919, and Danzig had been declared a free city administered by the League of Nations. Hitler first asked Poland to consider the position of Danzig in October 1938, immediately after Munich, and in March 1939, Hitler demanded that he be given Danzig (this was the pattern he had followed with Austria and the Sudetenland). Did you know that in March 1939 also, Germany seized the Lithuanian port of Memel (at the northern end of East Prussia)? When Hitler demanded Danzig in March 1939, Brauchitsch, the Commander in Chief of the German Army noted that he intended ultimately to 'knock Poland down completely', and that eventually Hitler wanted Germany's pre-WWI boundary restoring.

5. To oppose Communism/conquer Russia

I know Poland wasn't communist, but Russia was where Hitler was eventually headed (Mein Kampf, 1924) and Poland was just another step east. When he demanded Danzig in 1939, Hitler's proposal included a joint anti-Soviet alliance against Russia. This was the third CENTRAL AIM of Hitler foreign policy.

6. To teach Chamberlain a lesson

Chamberlain's guarantee of Poland on 31 March 1939 infuriated Hitler - 'I'll cook them a stew they'll choke on' - was his reaction. From then on he was determined to destroy Poland. So you could say he wanted to attack Poland to teach Chamberlain a lesson.

7. To prevent an anti-German alliance

Having thought about it, he realised also that the world was beginning to gang up on him, so the next day, 1 April, his CONSIDERED reaction was this: 'if they expect Germany to sit patiently by while they create satellite States and set them against Germany, then they are mistaken'. This is fair enough, actually, because that is exactly what Chamberlain was trying to do. And Poland was preparing to resist Hitler, and had started mobilising its army - Hitler stated that this broke Poland's non-aggression pact with Germany [see note below]. On April 3 Hitler issued a directive to his armies - entitled 'Case White' - stating that he wished to 'destroy Polish military strength and create in the East a situation which satisfies the requirements of national defence'. In this document, he set the date for 'Case White' - 'any time from 1 September 1939 onward.' - and told the Werhmacht to draw up a timetable.

8. The Nazi-Soviet Pact

After April 1939, both Roosevelt and Stalin began to express concerns about Hitler's aims on Poland. Hitler merely mocked Roosevelt, but he was worried about Stalin. Only Stalin - and the Russian army - could have stopped Hitler taking over Poland at this point. But the failure of the Anglo-Soviet negotiations and the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 not only freed up Hitler to attack Poland, it included a secret agreement to divide Poland up between them. In the end, Hitler invaded Poland because he had agreed to do so with Stalin.

Are you a Nazi sympathizer? One of those Aryan nation white racist kind of guys?

A man can hate the nazis and still clearly see that elites residing in the Anglosphere cherished the goal of entangling the West in a war with both Japan and Germany. They succeeded inn crushing Hitler whose movement was greatly aided by the twin financial centers of that alliance in the City and in Wall Street. Unfortunately for the British and the French, the war also crushed their worldwide empires while it greatly expanded the American imperium.

In some ways, their thuggery was the equal of the Germans, but it sometimes seems to me that their hypocrisy was the worse.

In some ways, their thuggery was the equal of the Germans, but it sometimes seems to me that their hypocrisy was the worse.

I don't recall British or French death camps in the 20th Century, or the 19th for that matter.

I don't recall the British or the French killing millions of civilians over political differences.

I do recall them both fighting hard and dirty against armed foes, and generally prevailing.

Of course the result of World War II was very nearly ideal for the USA: we became THE world empire for all practical purposes. That could have been very good for us, and it was for a while.

Unfortunately, we let our elites start thinking of themselves as being above their less well-heeled and less well-educated countrymen, to start to think in terms of maximizing profit and prestige on a world-wide scale without remembering to be sure that everybody on the home team had enough.

That resulted in the US Empire making the top fantastically wealthy and powerful, but leaving the bottom half of the country falling further and further behind.

And that divided us, and continues to.

Unfortunately, we let our elites start thinking of themselves as being above their less well-heeled and less well-educated countrymen,

Certain decisively powerful sectors of our elites have always been cheesy bastards. They wanted a war and they got it. When it was over our intelligence services, where these factions were well represented, threw those very nazi enemies ratlines to refuge in the Americas.

I personally disbelieve the story of the bunker suicide. I think that Borman, a crafty and particularly malevolent martinet with virtually the entirety of Germany's financial resources worldwide in his hands managed a deal for cash, intelligence and technology. It was a shameful dear. Hitler should have shot himself. As it was, Hitler lived out the rest of his life in Patagonia. He left his erstwhile servants and rivals like Himmler and Goering to their fates. Millions of Germans were also left to their fates by Hitler, and millions died under the occupation.

The British could have saved everybody a lot of trouble if they had told the Polish government and the Polish generals, "Look, the Germans have offered to secure the Corridor and Gydinia for Poland in return for Danzig and a highway. Take it and call your militias off the border. Quit burning German farms." But the Poles were on a tear. Here is the text of another Polish-Catholic war song which was sung in 1848 at the Pan-Slavic Congress in Prague:

"Brothers, take up your scythes! Let us hurry to war!
Poland's oppression is over, we shall tarry no more.
Gather hordes about yourselves. Our enemy, the German, shall fall!
Loot and rob and burn! Let the enemies die a painful death.
He that hangs the German dogs will gain God's reward.
I, the provost, promise you shall attain Heaven for it.
Every sin will be forgiven, even well-planned murder,
If it promotes Polish freedom everywhere.
But curses on the evil one who dares speak well of Germany to us.
Poland shall and must survive. The Pope and God have promised it.
Russia and Prussia must fall. Hail the Polish banner!
So rejoice ye all: Polzka zyje, great and small!"9

Not only did these "Christian" priests excel in rhetoric aimed at cultivating deadly hate against Germans during the pre-1939 years, they also prayed in their churches, "O wielk wojn ludów prosimy Cie, Panie! (We pray to you for the great War of Peoples, oh Lord!)"10

You have lost the forest for the trees.

Are you a Nazi sympathizer? One of those Aryan nation white racist kind of guys?

I see the forest. You think a couple of selectively chosen trees are the forest.

Nope, not a Nazi sympathizer.

Nope, not Aryan nation.

Nobody in Europe seemingly need be a Nazi or Aryan to reject the French bullshit you are pushing.

Every argument you make about another people, be it German or American southerners is based on your being the arbiter of all morality, and the "other" as being an immoral people who were evil, and therefore deserved to be killed and slaughtered as a punishment from your god for their sinful ways.

I have news for you. The American confederates were not evil. The German people were not evil.

The only lesson France taught anyone in WW2 was how to surrender quickly.

In your imaginary world history, the Russians had a duty to attack themselves while Russia was invading Poland.

France and Britain promised to come to the aid of Poland if Poland was attacked. They emboldened Poland and left them hanging. History records their response as the "phoney war." The Russian invasion and subjugation of much of Poland was no problem. You say all fought for Poland. Yet Poland was left under Russian domination for decades.

As randge points out at #35, the plan was to entangle America in WW2 as it had become entangled in WW1. The result of their plan was partial success. America became entangled in another Euro mess. And the British and French were extinguished as empires. And Germany is, once again, the dominant power in Europe. The EU is a shining example of Euro-dysfunction.

At #36, you comment to randge, "I don't recall the British or the French killing millions of civilians over political differences.

There you go again, reinventing history.

Try hard and you may recall Napolean, or "Let them eat cake." By the way, it does not mean the French people were evil and deserved to be slaughtered.

As for the British, you may recall that, for a few centuries, they engaged in a rather brisk trade with the colonies in the Americas. Slave trade. In the Middle East, the big oil companies carved the place up and established borders. The Iranian government was overthrown in 1953 by the CIA with British assistance. And then there was the British domination of India for about 3½ centuries. And really, let's not forget what the British did to the Irish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

As a condition for restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, in 1954 the U.S. required removal of the AIOC's monopoly; five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état—Operation Ajax. The Shah declared this to be a "victory" for Iranians, with the massive influx of money from this agreement resolving the economic collapse from the last three years, and allowing him to carry out his planned modernization projects.

As part of that, the CIA organized anti-Communist guerrillas to fight the Tudeh Party if they seized power in the chaos of Operation Ajax. Released National Security Archive documents showed that Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had agreed with Qashqai tribal leaders, in south Iran, to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and spies could operate.

Operation Ajax's formal leader was senior CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., while career agent Donald Wilber was the operational leader, planner, and executor of the deposition of Mosaddegh. The coup d'état depended on the impotent Shah's dismissing the popular and powerful Prime Minister and replacing him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, with help from Colonel Abbas Farzanegan—a man agreed upon by the British and Americans after determining his anti-Soviet politics.

The CIA sent Major General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. to persuade the exiled Shah to return to rule Iran. Schwarzkopf trained the security forces that would become known as SAVAK to secure the shah's hold on power.

http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/eme/18/FC123

British Rule in India (c.1600-1947)

[...]

World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) further catalyzed India’s push for independence, since Britain had to rely heavily on Indian recruits to fill its ranks. In return, Britain promised more political concessions, thus weakening its hold on India, encouraging more demand by Indians, and so on.

In 1920, a new leader, Mohandas Gandhi emerged as the voice of the Indian National Congress. Educated in both traditional Indian culture and British schools, Gandhi developed very effective non-violent tactics of resistance while protesting British policies. The British, not wanting to risk the bad publicity a violent reaction could generate, had to give in to Gandhi time after time. Therefore, at the end of World War II, Britain promised independence for India.

Unfortunately, this revived the issue of whether there would be one large Hindu-dominated state or a separate Muslim state in the North, leading to violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims broke out. Finally, in 1947 Britain the region between Hindu India in the South and Muslim Pakistan in the Northwest that also controlled a separate territory, Bangla Desh, in the Northeast. Despite heroic efforts to keep the peace by Gandhi (who was killed by one of his Hindu followers in 1947), tensions between Hindus and Muslims have continued to the present day and still threaten the peace and stability of South Asia.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/what-europeans-think-each-other

What Europeans Thin of Each Other

The French are famous for their arrogance. Perhaps they are just misunderstood by other Europeans.

Whew! What an eccentric performance.

At #36, you comment to randge, "I don't recall the British or the French killing millions of civilians over political differences.

There you go again, reinventing history.

Try hard and you may recall Napolean, or "Let them eat cake."

"Let them eat cake" is not a real historical event. It's a fantasy of propaganda.

Napoleon (not Napolean) is a real historical figure. He didn't kill millions of civilians over political differences. Napoleon's Empire didn't have death camps. Lots of soldiers got killed in 20 years of wars, some of which were declared against France, some of which were declared by France. Revolutions are messy things, but they are the only way that people are able to get their freedom from tyrants. Nobody gives away power without a fight.

I have news for you. The American confederates were not evil.

Yes they were. Slavers, black as hell, who made war on their country because they didn't like an election result. They got what they deserved.

The British could have saved everybody a lot of trouble if they had told the Polish government and the Polish generals, "Look, the Germans have offered to secure the Corridor and Gydinia for Poland in return for Danzig and a highway. Take it and call your militias off the border. Quit burning German farms."

Perhaps.

Then again, there was no reason to give the Germans what they wanted. They lost Danzig as part of the punishment for World War I. It wasn't theirs anymore. It was Poland's. Still is Poland's.

There was no particular reason to simply reverse the punishment of World War I because the Germans were bellicose and threatening war. You don't pull out of a city and let the mob have it because the mob threatens violence if you don't.

Yes, the Germans stole a march on everybody and became a military menace. Nobody knew in 1939 that the blitzkrieg was going to roll over France so easily.

There was no reason to just let the Germans have what they wanted - to tell Poland, as the Czechs had already been told, that they had to just give up a piece of their country because the Germans wanted it and were thugs.

The Mexicans want their land in the Southwestern US back too, and the Chinese want Taiwan back, and the North Koreans want South Korea. Shall we just give it to them, then?

I think not.

No, the proper answer is to say: It is not your land. You may not have it. If you start a war to get it, we will beat you.

Germany did invade, starting the war. And in the end Germany was beaten and lost everything, had her cities burnt flat and 4.3 million of her people killed, over Danzig, which is today Gdansk.

So, the German nation committed suicide over Polish Gdansk, and in the process they lost Konigsberg forever also, ensuring that there was no NEED for a Polish corridor anymore, as Germany no longer has any lands in the East.

The lesson that some would draw out of World War II is that it would have been best to appease the bully a little more.

The lesson I draw from World War II is the better lesson: if you have designs on other people's land, better give them up and stop trying to get them, because in the end what the world has decided (and the world DID decide after World War I what Germany would lose), and the world is stronger than you. So if you breach the peace in a tantrum to get what you demand, in the end you will be lose, and your people will be slaughtered, and then MORE land will be taken from you, and you will be beaten down so far and so hard that you will never be able to get up again as a great military power.

You are already a defeated nation because you were stupid enough to breach the peace the last time. You did not get the message and are trying that business of threat and bluster again. It didn't pay off the first time, and it's not going to pay off this time either. So accept that you have permanently lost land because of your first error, and do not double it down with more violence, because the first time the world was fairly lenient, but if you make us fight you again, over a settled point, we will settle it by cutting your testicles off and leaving you PERMANENTLY crippled and never able to get up again to disturb the peace.

In short: learn to accept that you will not get what you want by war.

THAT is the lesson of World War I and World War II for the Germans and the Austrians. They'll never be a threat to anybody again. In fact, they look like they are headed towards dying out as a race and being taken over in their own land by Turks and other Muslim immigrants.

That's not so great either. But remember: the Germans did all of this to themselves, by thinking that they were going to reorganize Europe by force, and then, when they got beaten the first time, not learning the lesson and trying it AGAIN.

No, the Poles and British and French should not have backed down in the face of German threats. Danzig was Poland's, not Germany's. The Germans were belligerent and chose Hitler. SO they had the snot kicked out of them again and will never again be a threat to anybody.

That's the better lesson to learn from World War II.

There's no reason to try to figure out a way for the Germans to escape World War II unslaughtered. There was only one way to do that: not start it in the first place. Germany started World War II for no reason. The Poles were not threatening Germany in any serious way, and the Germans were not entitled to get Danzig back - it was not theirs.

I'd like to point out that while I have relatives in a couple of western European countries, I have only one country and that is this one. I hold no candle for anyone's wrongs. In my education, I was content to accept all the conventional historical explanations for the wars were started and waged. A lot of reading in subsequent years has led me to modify my outlook to some extent.

My grandfather was in the Imperial German Army in WWI. He was a Social Democrat who fell afoul of the nazi's in their time. He evaded arrest by the skin of his teeth for public speeches he made after the proclamation of the Enabling Act. He was made mayor of his town by the U.S. Army and worked for an army major in the process of denazification. I have his walking stick with a little metal souvenir tag of the Somme monument nailed to it. He went to France years ago to visit that somber graveyard. He sat on a bench overlooking the graves. An old poilu sat down next to him. My grandpa had picked up some some French in his time there one hundred years ago. My grandfather said only, "La guerre est une malade." To which the other old soldier assented with a nod. They spent an hour there looking over the grave stones.

One hundred years. What have we learned?

There will never, ever again be a war between France and Germany or France and England, or England and Germany, as long as France, England and Germany are populated by the French, the English and the Germans.

There is a poem by Kipling, "France", that he wrote in 1913, that applies to all three nations now, not just France and England, but France, England and Germany. You should Google it and read it.

France and Germany are the closest of allies now. Both were destroyed by war after war after war. Both learned. It will never happen again, not ever.

So ultimately something DID come out of it.

You CAN teach a Sneech.

What shall Blood and Iron loose that we cannot bind? - Rudyard Kipling "France"

Yes, ultimately something DID come out of it. Half of all Polish students in general programs are learning German, and nearly one third of German students are learning French as their chosen second language. Virtually everyone learns English. In some ways Europe is knitting together as never before. It does concern me to see Britain and France striking out in a more populist, libertarian direction, while the elites in Germany are determined to keep the nation aligned with the globalist course charted out in Brussels.

What has me kind of spellbound in all this WWII history are the sparks that set it off and the decisions made at key crisis points that allowed things to slide down the spillway toward catastrophe. WWI was set into motion by events in ethnic enclaves in the Balkans. The flash points of WWII were ethnic exclaves in Austria, the Sudetenland and and Danzig. Today Russia has two exclaves over which it claims sovereignty: Kaliningrad and Crimea. In addition, there are the twin exclaves of Donetsk and Lughansk that want to return to Russian sovereignty. Ukraine and its overtly nazi Svoboda regiments of course oppose their desires and is aided by the strange bedfellows of the US, Poland and Germany. In the old days, they used to convey nitroglycerin to the job site in special crates with spring loaded shock absorbers. They've learned a few thing about explosives since those days. I don't know if we've learned to prevent serious strategic explosions like those that are clearly in the offing.

Oh, by the way, China claims nearly the whole of the South China Sea, which is disputed by all of its neighbors except Taiwan. North Korea is acting ever more belligerently, and of course we're in the mix. And there you have it. Pots bubbling in the East and in the West. Is it 1929 or 1933? Or are we even closer than that to "push comes to shove?"

Europe is headed towards Sharia 2060, because of demographic change that shows no sign of abating.

The next chapter will be very ugly.

Europe is up against a wall.

The next chapter will be very ugly.

Marine Le Pen isn't THAT ugly!

Marine Le Pen isn't THAT ugly!

If that's the next chapter, bring it on man!

I don't think the French want to surrender their country.