On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II.

Bullshit.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9

[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.

NATURAL LAW nonsense

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Natural law. This expression, "natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical specula­tions of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered "according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a "state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and prompt­ings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. In ethics, it consists in practical univer­sal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.

Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165.

A. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

1. NATURAL RIGHTS

Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts. If the federal government exercises one of its delegated powers or the states exercise their reserved powers, some express or implied constitutional, statutory, or common law limitation must be found if the government action is to be successfully challenged.

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

Wikipedia

Natural justice

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly.

The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it.

Background

Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel the origins of natural justice.

Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, the use of the term today is not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers' visions of an "ideal pattern of society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th century. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly". Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side").

The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act fairly depend on the context. In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), the Supreme Court of Canada set out a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the content of the duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it, the statutory scheme under which the decision-maker operates, the importance of the decision to the person challenging it, the person's legitimate expectations, and the choice of procedure made by the decision-maker. Earlier, in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 (1990), the Supreme Court held that public authorities which make decisions of a legislative and general nature do not have a duty to act fairly, while those that carry out acts of a more administrative and specific nature do. Furthermore, preliminary decisions will generally not trigger the duty to act fairly, but decisions of a more final nature may have such an effect. In addition, whether a duty to act fairly applies depends on the relationship between the public authority and the individual. No duty exists where the relationship is one of master and servant, or where the individual holds office at the pleasure of the authority. On the other hand, a duty to act fairly exists where the individual cannot be removed from office except for cause. Finally, a right to procedural fairness only exists when an authority's decision is significant and has an important impact on the individual.

Justice Iredell, Calder v. Bull,, U.S.S.C, 3 Dall. 385, 398-99 (1798)

If, then, a government, composed of legislative, executive and judicial departments, were established, by a constitution which imposed no limits on the legislative power, the consequence would inevitably be, that whatever the legislative power chose to enact, would be lawfully enacted, and the judicial power could never interpose to pronounce it void. It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, that a legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that, under such a government any court of justice would possess a power to declare it so. Sir William Blackstone, having put the strong case of an act of parliament, which

- - - - - - - - -

[399]

authorize a man to try his own cause, explicitly adds, that even in that case, “there is no court that has power to defeat the intent of the legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as leave no doubt whether it was the intent of the legislature, or no.” 1 Bl. Com. 91.

In order, therefore, to guard against so great an evil, it has been the policy of all the American states, which have, individually, framed their state constitutions, since the revolution, and of the people of the United States, when they framed the federal constitution, to define with precision the objects of the legislative power, and to restrain its exercise within marked and settled boundaries. If any act of congress, or of the legislature of a state, violates those constitutional provisions, it is unquestionably void; though, I admit, that as the authority to declare it void is of a delicate and awful nature, the court will never resort to that authority, but in a clear and urgent case. If, on the other hand, the legislature of the Union, or the legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice. There are then but two lights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If the legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid. 2d. If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid. In the former case, they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust: but in the latter case, they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon, as judges, to determine the validity of a legislative act.

Bullshit.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9

[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.

You're not as smart as I made you out to be.

Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't.

Nor did any of them attack Germany, carry out cross-border raids, anything. They were simply invaded by the Germans, because the Nazis were criminal thugs who broke the peace.

That's why they were tried and hanged as criminals, breakers of the peace, when the war was over.

They broke the law when they invaded Poland. That gave France and Britain, and Russia and everybody else, the RIGHT to attack them.

The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him.

But none of that list of countries above declared war on Germany. The Germans overran them anyway, completely without a fig leaf of justification.

They were murderers, and criminals. And they paid for their crimes very dearly.

I'm surprised that you don't see that.

It is the nature of government,all governments,to seize all the power and all the money can seize in order to gain maximum power.

Governments are ran by ambitious people,so how could it be any other way?

Apparently, nolu and his pettifogging ilk cannot, --- or more likely, will not, because they have an anti-constitutional agenda.

Nah,he's just a idiot savat so anal all he has to do is sit around in his mother's home and copy and paste court findings to try to prove to himself that he has a life worth living.

Nolu,you really are important,and people really do like you because you are such a SMART boy!

Honest! Would I lie to you.

elgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't.

Nor did any of them attack Germany, carry out cross-border raids, anything. They were simply invaded by the Germans, because the Nazis were criminal thugs who broke the peace.

That's why they were tried and hanged as criminals, breakers of the peace, when the war was over.

Close,but no cigar. They were tried and hanged because they lost the war.

If they had won,everybody else would have been executed.

The invocation of Natural Law is a crock of shit.

And then you go on to post a crock of bullshit 'opinion', supposedly proving your point.

Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive.

We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law.

Bullshit.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9

[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.

You're not as smart as I made you out to be.

Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't.

I did not say Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, or Norway declared war on Germany.

Vicomte13 said: The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer ... France.

France did declare war on Germany.

The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him.

The question is not whether France's declaration of was was "just" or "unjust."

Germany had not attacked France and had not declared war against France. Ditto the United States.

France declared war on Germany on 3 Sep 1939.

So you mean that when France declared war on Germany, Germany was supposed to surrender to France?

If France declares war against Germany (or anyone else), the other party has the right to take them seriously and conquer them.

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

In 1939, Britain and France offered military support to Poland in the likely case of a German invasion. In the dawn of 1 September 1939, the German Invasion of Poland began. France and the United Kingdom declared war on 3 September, after an ultimatum for German forces to immediately withdraw their forces from Poland was met without reply. Following this, Australia (3 September), New Zealand (3 September), South Africa (6 September) and Canada (10 September), declared war on Germany. British and French commitments to Poland were met politically but they adopted a long-war strategy and mobilised for defensive land operations against Germany, while a trade blockade was imposed and the pre-war re-armament was accelerated, ready for an eventual invasion of Germany.

On 7 September, in accordance with their alliance with Poland, France began the Saar Offensive with an advance from the Maginot Line 5 km (3.1 mi) into the German-occupied Saar. France had mobilised 98 divisions (all but 28 of them reserve or fortress formations) and 2,500 tanks against a German force consisting of 43 divisions (32 of them reserves) and no tanks. The French advanced until they met the then thin and undermanned Siegfried Line. On 17 September, the French supreme commander, Maurice Gamelin gave the order to withdraw French troops to their starting positions; the last of them left Germany on 17 October. Following the Saar Offensive, a period of inaction called the Phoney War (the French Drôle de guerre, joke war or the German Sitzkrieg, sitting war) set in between the belligerents.

[...]

On 10 October 1939, Britain refused Hitler's offer of peace and on 12 October, France did the same.

[...]

So, France offered military assistance to Poland if they were attacked. Poland was attacked. Poland fell. France came from behind the Maginot Line and held a 10-day parade and retreated, not doing much good for Poland.

The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France was conducted in 1940.

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

Popular reaction in Germany

Hitler had expected a million Germans to die in conquering France; instead, his goal was accomplished in just six weeks with only 27,000 Germans killed, 18,400 missing, and 111,000 wounded, a little more than one third of the total German casualties in the Battle of Verdun during World War I. The unexpectedly swift victory resulted in a wave of euphoria among the German population and a strong upsurge in war-fever. Hitler's personal popularity reached its peak with the celebration of France's capitulation on 6 July 1940:

Germany sought to get to the Atlantic in order to attack Britain who had also declared war against Germany. It appears they chose the path of least resistance.

If France was prepared to fight a war, it should have not declared one.

Vicomte13 wrote, "The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France."

WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France???

The United States had not been attacked and was not at war. It was in a declared state of neutrality until after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Apparently, nolu and his pettifogging ilk cannot, --- or more likely, will not, because they have an anti-constitutional agenda.

---- he's just a idiot savat so anal all he has to do is sit around in his mother's home and copy and paste court findings to try to prove to himself that he has a life worth living.

That too. --- But I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical?

Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive.

Poor tpaine -- Only two functioning brain cells, one to inhale and the other to exhale.

Your perpetual invocation of Natural Law is a load of shit.

We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law.

The Declaration of Independence was never the adopted law of anyplace and any time. The adopted law was and is the Constitution, not your bullshit.

Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165.

A. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION

1. NATURAL RIGHTS

Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts. If the federal government exercises one of its delegated powers or the states exercise their reserved powers, some express or implied constitutional, statutory, or common law limitation must be found if the government action is to be successfully challenged.

- - - - - - - - - -

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

Wikipedia

Natural justice

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly.

The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it.

Background

Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel the origins of natural justice.

Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, the use of the term today is not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers' visions of an "ideal pattern of society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th century. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly". Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side").

If you want to invoke that shit, you need to move to another country.

That too. --- But I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical?

I disagree on one major point. I don't think he is opposed to Constitutional principles. I think he just likes to argue to "prove" "I really am smarter than all the other little boys,mamma,look!"

He is either a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer,and a lawyer is a person ready defend either side of any argument,regardless of right or wrong. Truth is irrelevant to lawyers. They just want to win. Which means a good lawyer is by definition completely amoral. They have no sense of right or wrong,so HOW could he actually be morally opposed to anything?

Close,but no cigar. They were tried and hanged because they lost the war.

If they had won,everybody else would have been executed.

They lost the war because they started the war. They were never strong enough to win it. They were criminals for starting it. And when the inevitable happened, they were hanged as the murderers they were.

Murderers and fools.

WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France???

The civilized world.

Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force.

And so then it was just a matter of time, for Britain to wait while Germany, cut off from international trade, slowly imploded as in World War I.

The Germans doubled down their madness and invaded Russia, which they did not have the right to do either.

And then they declared war on the USA, also, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

So, at war with every other major power on the planet except Japan, they sank under the weight of the combined forces of their enemies, who swamped them.

But when it was just 1 on 1 versus the British, the Germans lost in the air, they lost on the sea, and they lost in North Africa also, where they faced off on land.

Starting the war in the first place by invading another country was a criminal act. It was a criminal act that was bound to have war as a repercussion. The Germans were so delusive they actually thought they could win. So, they were criminal madmen. And they ended up swinging at the end of a rope, or against the wall in a firing squad.

And that was that.

I disagree on one major point. I don't think he is opposed to Constitutional principles.

Well, he's certainly put a lot of effort into trying to convince all of us that those principles can be infringed.

Which means a good lawyer is by definition completely amoral. They have no sense of right or wrong,so HOW could he actually be morally opposed to anything?

No one has to be 'moral' to agree to live under constitutional principles. --- All that is required, is that you use self interest, and do onto others as you would have done onto yourself.

We have (inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law.

Your perpetual invocation of Natural Law is a load of shit. ---- The Declaration of Independence was never the adopted law of anyplace and any time. The adopted law was and is the Constitution, not your bullshit.

I quoted the 14th amendment to the constitution - just above, you idiot.

Typically, poor little noo!u is so impatient to cut and paste, that he loses track of his own argument...

What an oaf.

Nor can it be said that Poland was innocent of territorial land grabbing. When the German areas in the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany, Poland was more than eager to a good chunk of what was left of Czechoslovakia. (Hungary got a piece of the hapless Czech Republic as well.) In addition, Polish irregulars had been at work throughout 1938-39 on a campaign of arson and looting throughout the corridor and along the border with Germany proper. Germany spent a good deal of 1939 trying to get an agreement over the eastern territories and Danzig with Britain, France and Poland without success. In the end Germany invaded Poland and our ally, Stalin, was more than happy to divide the spoils with the Reich.

The following countries then declared war:

Great Britain on Germany - September 3, 1939, 11 a.m.
France on Germany - September 3, 1939, 5 p.m.
India on Germany - September 3, 1939
Australia on Germany - September 3, 1939
New Zealand on Germany - September 3, 1939
Union of South Africa on Germany - September 6, 1939
Canada on Germany - September 10, 1939

Also take note of the fact the France invaded Germany on September 3, 1939. (And not the other way 'round.) The French army occupied the territory of the Saar for nine days before thinking the better of the operation and making a beeline for the French frontier.

Before the Germans moved on the low countries, almost seven months ensued, during which time Germany made no less than five peace proposals. This was the so called Phony War. So although France had invaded Germany and retreated, Britain and France had September 1939 to May 1940 to think about the deal.

I will stipulate that the Germans were thugs. However, there was a lot of thuggery afoot both in the east and in the west. Everyone wanted a piece of someone else's pie.

Some choice quotes:

"Germany is too strong. We must destroy her." - Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.

"In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results." - Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian

"The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets." - Winston Churchill. March, 1946.

"Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance." - Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics

"I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit." - Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.

On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament. 'Do you still have hope?'he asked. 'If you mean hope for war,' answered Halifax, 'then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow. 'God be thanked!' replied the representative of the British Labour Party. - Professor Michael Freund.

"In Britain, Lord Halifax was reported as being 'redeemed'. He ordered beer. We laughed and joked." - H. Roth. Are We Being Lied To?

"In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. ... When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: "'What of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevising.'" - - Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American

"I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning - and we had the force to carry out our plans - to obliterate a once mighty nation." - Admiral Daniel Leahy; U.S Ambassador

We have (inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law.

Another pantsload, easily revealed to be a load of shit.

As for your citation of the Constitution in support of your claim of an inalienable right to your property, "unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law," you should try reading the Constitution more, and bullshitting about it less.

Amendment V

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Hypothetically you own property which is situated in the way of where the government decides it is gooing to build an interstate highway, or some building or military base. Using eminent domain, the government takes your property, whether you like ir or not, and provides just compensation as determined by the government. And thus your absurdly claimed inalienable right to your property is shown to be nonexistent, and your property is taken without so much as an allegation of any criminal act on your part.

It is also clear that you may lose your liberty without committing a crime. One way is to get drafted into the military. Another is to be detained on reasonable suspicion. Or you can be held in jail while awaiting trial. There are plentiful examples; e.g. martial law, medical quarantine, etc. Your right to liberty is not inalienable; you are entitled to due process of law. A finding of criminality is a requirement only in your imagination.

I quoted the 14th amendment to the constitution - just above, you idiot.

The 14th Amendment contains no clause which incorporates your grotesque and laughable concept of natural law into the law of the land.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 14th Amendment neither creates, nor recognizes, any of your fictional natural law inalienable rights.

It extended the due process requirement to apply to the States, in addition to the Federal government. States can take your shit via eminent domain and provide just compensation; States can put you in a medical quarantine; hold you in confinement awaiting trial, just as the Federal government can.

Your diaper is drooping with 20 lbs of crap. Someone told you to it was full and to change, but you insist that the package said it was for 24 lbs and you still have a few pounds to go.

And your claim that you "quoted the 14th amendment to the constitution - just above, you idiot," — even that is bullshit.

#13. To: nolu chan, yall (#8)

Why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical?

The invocation of Natural Law is a crock of shit.

And then you go on to post a crock of bullshit 'opinion', supposedly proving your point.

Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive.

We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law.

tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   18:27:45 ET

You did not quote anything but your own tired bullshit which does not appear in the 14th Amendment (or 5th Amendment).

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —"

This same phrase was used in the 14th, to reiterate the great truth that had been lost in the arguments leadig to the war between the States.

Amendment XIV ---- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus, our constitutions 14th amendment is definitive.

We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts -- under our rule of constitutional law.

Why nolu chan insists that these basic rights are 'mythical' is best left to a mental health professional..

An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical?

The inalienable rights you speak of comes from God. You don't believe in God. Why would someone who doesn't believe in God say they have unalienable rights. Which were described by the founders in the Declaration as coming from God.

I will stipulate that the Germans were thugs. However, there was a lot of thuggery afoot both in the east and in the west. Everyone wanted a piece of someone else's pie

Not on the part of Holland. Or Belgium. Or Luxembourg. Or Denmark. Or Norway. Five wholly innocent countries, unaggressive, with no machinations against Germany, no sending troops in pockets on raids. Free, democratic people who wanted to be left alone.

The Germans came in and murdered them, because they could. They CHOSE to.

Which makes them criminals, just like the neighbor who chooses to invade your house and try to kill you. The other neighbors are all justified in coming to your aid, ganging up on the criminal, and beating the crap out of him. They don't have to WAIT until he comes to attack them individually.

Also take note of the fact the France invaded Germany on September 3, 1939. (And not the other way 'round.)

BECAUSE Germany invaded Poland. Those things are fundamentally linked.

A thug invades your neighbor's home. You rush in and attack the thug. YOU are not the aggressor. The thug is. Once a criminal breaches the peace, everybody else has the right to attack the criminal. Each successive attack on the criminal is not an assault - it is, rather, the bystanders intervention against the original crime.

Germany attempted negotiations to get something they wanted: the Danzig corridor. Germany failed in those negotiations. Therefore, Germany does not get the Danzig corridor. Case over.

Instead, the Germans turn into murderers and attack - they are now criminals, and everybody else has the right to intervene to defend the attacked, and to punish and bring back into line the criminal who - unable to get his way with words, resorts to violence.

The Germans had no right to resort to violence because they did not get their way in Danzig. They had the right to bitch and moan about it endlessly, and impose economic sanctions and diplomatic tit-for-tat.

By choosing, instead, to unleash an army to violently take what was not theirs because they wanted it, they became murderers and criminals, started a war they could not win, and got what they deserved in the end: bombed flat, millions dead, leaders hanged or shot, and the permanent loss of MORE territory.

There is no defense for the German invasion of Poland. They wanted Danzig. Too bad. It wasn't theirs. So they killed over it. And as a result, 4.3 million Germans were killed and they lost MORE territory - Konigsberg is now Russian Kaliningrad, Danzig is Gdansk, and the Germans who used to live in those places were utterly driven out - meaning that now the Germans not only still have no claim to either place, but ethnic Germans don't even live there peacefully as citizens of other countries.

The lesson of the Danzig corridor is that Danzig was not German. It HAD BEEN German, but the Germans lost it as punishment for starting a war. They started ANOTHER war over that, and lost worse.

If you start wars, you had better win.

Atheism is a faith-a blind faith that doesn't make sense of world & is not supported by observational science--it's a blind faith religion. --- GarySpFC

The inalienable rights you speak of comes from God. You don't believe in God. Why would someone who doesn't believe in God say they have unalienable rights. Which were described by the founders in the Declaration as coming from God. --- A K A Stone

I am not an athiest, and my agnosticism should not be a factor in my defense of our inalienable rights.

I have no problem that our unalienable rights were described by the founders in the Declaration as coming from God. --- Most believe the founders meant a Christian God, which again is fine with me. --- Believe what you want...

Atheism is a faith...

Absolutely,and one of the most dogmatic faiths that insists THEY have the One True Religion,and EVERYONE MUST agree with them.

I figured that out decades ago and started calling myself what I really am,agnostic. Organized religion by any name is just one more form of slavery.

The inalienable rights you speak of comes from God.

The word "God" is a creation of man,and there has been hundreds,maybe even thousands of "Gods" since mankind started forming together in tribes and the leaders started looking for a method of keeping the people under control.

I won't refight the World Wars with you, and I'll agree that there were a lot of things the Germans shouldn't have done. There are lots of things that shouldn't have been done either by Germany's neighbors. Some of these neighbors would have done the same things to Germany if they could have. With the passing of Pilsudski and his reasonable regime for example, Poland went on a tear and wiped out thousands of Galician Ukranian farmers because they were in the way of the Polish generals' ethnic program. I haven't read anywhere that Polish generals were hung for these atrocities. Those farmers were living peacefully and hurting no one else. Their hangmen were not punished.

Many who have conspired against the peace and commanded the hangmen themselves were not hung.

The Russians rubbed out the entire Polish officer corps, or as much of it as they could get their hands on, in the forests of Katyn, and they blamed it on the Germans. No Russian generals or commissars were hung for these executions or called to account for it in any way.

Speaking of commissars, it's difficult to know where to begin. I was educated unaware of the sheer scale of their work. I had no idea of the human cost until after I left high school and read Solzhenitsyn. It seems that the commissars and their puppet masters came away unscathed - except for those that fell afoul of their Georgian master. They were covered by a sort of "truth and reconciliation" that transpired after that rotten empire expired.

Napoleon wanted to be the Emperor of Europe and many thousands of innocents perished in his wars. He was exiled twice, but not hung though many certainly desired his death.

Americans prosecuted wars in SE Asia long after it was apparent that they were fighting losing campaigns. American generals didn't pull out until the nearby oceans were thoroughly mapped for petroleum. We left behind a mess. A decade of large scale homicide ensued. No generals or politicians were hung.

We've been on a tear too more recently, motivated ostensibly on the basis of an attack on the City of New York in 2001, and we've smashed to bits nations that had nothing to do with that assault. Now Saddam WAS hung. "Weapons of Mass Destruction." "Mission Accomplished." When you go balls out that way, you have to hang someone. And it wasn't on account of the Kuwaitis. It was because we had so little to show for the cost to us in blood and treasure. The effort required an orgasmic denouement. Saddam's trial was a foregone conclusion.

The conquest of continental America was also not accomplished without breaking a few eggs. The US Army along with other of our state institutions made war on native populations, very often without regard to age or sex, waging what we would regard today as criminal campaigns. No generals were hung.

I sit on land once occupied by the Karankawa people who were by stages rubbed out by the Mexicans, the Spanish and by migrants from Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. No one has ever been brought to trial for that genocide. I sit out back and drink my wine and sometimes think about those hunters of shellfish and deer in the woods and bayous around here. One of their descendants is still alive in these parts. I should like to meet him.

I have met many people whose ancestors have fought with mine. I have lived, worked and broken bread with Poles and Russians and French. I lived with two French guys for a time. We didn't think about or talk about wars. (Except perhaps my friend Jean whose grandfather's furniture factory outside Paris fell victim to American bombs. Gone to splinters. Never rebuilt. I fear he nursed a grudge.)

I have an uncle who was born and grew up on his family's farm in what was long ago German territory. That farm in time became part of a government communal entity and now now belongs to a Polish corporate farming enterprise. My uncle went there for a visit years ago after the fall of the Communist government. He was fed and feted. No one talked of war. He and his hosts talked about what farmers always talk about - the price of eggs and beef and pork. So much shit has gone down within living memory that folks have developed perspective.

And that's what I would hope for everyone. Perspective. That's a cast of mind sometimes lacking here where I live and for sure in certain enclaves where the headchoppers live. I believe that they will shortly be eliminated for the lack of it. But that is another story.

(Apologies to other posters for ranting off topic.)

The conquest of continental America was also not accomplished without breaking a few eggs. The US Army along with other of our state institutions made war on native populations, very often without regard to age or sex, waging what we would regard today as criminal campaigns. No generals were hung.

And that's what I would hope for everyone. Perspective. That's a cast of mind sometimes lacking here where I live and for sure in certain enclaves where the headchoppers live. I believe that they will shortly be eliminated for the lack of it. But that is another story.

(Apologies to other posters for ranting off topic.)

Apology accepted, as I too agree with most of what you posted...

Perspective is sadly lacking in the disputes about our constitution from guys like nolu. --- It's his way or no way. --- In reality, our constitution has little in it that can be disputed. Sure, it can be amended, but it cannot be amended in a way that takes away, --- or infringes on, our basic rights.

but it cannot be amended in a way that takes away, --- or infringes on, our basic rights

That is the big battle that is already well under way.

I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical?

If they hang your sorry ass until dead, you will have your inalienable right to life, but not in this world. Your inalienable right to life will be in the hereafter with your 72 virgins cloned from Yasser Arafat.

in the long run

all theory - fact - reality

is suspended - superseded !

If they hang your sorry ass until dead, you will have your inalienable right to life, but not in this world. Your inalienable right to life will be in the hereafter with your 72 virgins cloned from Yasser Arafat

Gotta love it when you blow your cool so much you forget to cut and paste your usual bullshit.

Thanks.

Our Declaration outlined some of the principles behind the founding of our Republic.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —"

This same phrase was used in the 14th, to reiterate the great truth that had been lost in the arguments leadig to the war between the States.

Amendment XIV ---- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus, our constitutions 14th amendment is definitive.

It is blatantly obvious that the 14th is derived from the 5th which I quoted at my #23, and not from the DoI. The DoI talks of a creator and inalienable rights. The Constitution talks of privileges and immunities of citizens, and that persons may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law or just compensation.

Amendment V

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The DoI was a call to arms to hold a revolution. It as never a constitution or law binding upon anyone.

The language of the 14th Amendment does not follow the DoI.

Had the DoI said free Blacks were citizens, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment would have been unncessary surplusage. They would have been citizens the whole time up to the 14th Amendment, which would have done nothing.

Your whole argument demonstrates cracked mind spouting bullshit.

TPAINE IDIOCIES

tpaine "COMMON SENSE"

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=104#C104

[nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=105#C105

[tpaine #105] Your being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7

In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49

The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=72#C72

I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right).

tpaine posted on 2016-06-16 22:47:22 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=74#C74

-- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-17 20:27:12 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68

nolu chan erroneously claims: --

When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.

- - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732

During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?

It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..

= = = = = = = = =

In tpaine world, the legislature and executive are free to ignore U.S. Supreme Court decisions they disagree with. The Court has the power to strike down a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

In other words, tpaine is detached from reality.

WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France???

The civilized world.

So, France declared war on Germany, and it was the duty of some amorphous "civilized world" to bail their ass out and fight their war for them.

Who in that "civilized world" could have prevented Germany from overrunning France? What power, short of the Marvel Comics superheroes could have accomplished this mission impossible?

Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force.

Whatever Germany did, they did not unlawfully attack France. France declared war on Germany. France made themselves a valid target of acts of war. The United States had no obligation to fight a war because France declared one against Germany.

You fantasize that Germany lacked the power to take out Britain and that they were defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force.

In truth, Germany ran the British off the continent and back to their island. The Germans did not surrender at Dunkirk. The British Army escaped across the water. The Germans lacked the attack or transport vessels to invade by sea.

The Germans were primarily stopped by the Russians, and defeated by the Russians and Americans. It was the Russians who inflicted the most casualties against the Germans.

The Royal Navy hardly defeated the Germans at sea. You seem to have mistaken them for the United States Navy. Germany did not exactly have a huge navy to start with.

The British did as well as they did only because of the massive assistance, and the full scale entry, of the United States.

Declaration of war. A public and formal proclamation by a nation, through its executive or legislative department, that a state of wr exists between itself and another nation, and forbidding all persons to aid or assist the enemy.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

B. Formalities and recognition

69. LOIAC relates to hostilities carried out between sovereign States, regard-less of any formal declaration of war.¹⁵⁵ Indeed, there does not even have to be recognition of a formal state of war. The reason is that war between sovereign States can exist either in the technical sense (commencing with a formal declaration of war by one State against its adversary) or in the material sense (namely, as a result of the comprehensive use of armed force in the relations between two States, irrespective of any formal declaration).¹⁵⁶

70. LOIAC is brought to bear upon the conduct of hostilities between sovereign States, even if these hostilities fall short of war, namely, constitute a mere incident.¹⁵⁷ Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions appropriately proclaims in its first paragraph:

[T]he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.¹⁵⁸

- - - - - - - - - -

¹⁵⁵ See C. Greenwood, 'Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law', Handbook 45, 49.

¹⁵⁶ On the distinction between war in the technical and in the material sense, see Dinstein, supra note 12, at 9-10.

¹⁵⁷ See ibid., 17.

¹⁵⁸ Geneva Convention (I), supra note 27, at 461; Geneva Convention (II), supra note 66, at 487; Geneva Convention (III), supra note 20, at 512; Geneva Convention (IV), supra note 66, at 580.

You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself.

You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself.

It was illegal for Germany to attack France after the French declared war on them.

Because the French declared war on them, along with the British, for committing the illegal act of murdering Poland.

The Germans breached the peace first. That gave everybody the right to pile on them. It did NOT give the Germans the right to defend themselves any more than a criminal has the right to defend himself against the cops.

The Germans became criminals when they invaded Poland.

That they were able to then go murder a bunch of other free countries including France, and bomb England flat before attacking the USSR and FINALLY getting plowed under by everybody was because the United States chose to pretend in the 1930s that what happened in the outside world was none of our affair, and also because the Soviets decided to let the West tear itself apart.

But the world came to get us eventually too, when the bad guys were a lot stronger and could kill a lot more of us. The Germans eventually went after Russia and 25 million died.

The LESSON that everybody learned from this - particularly the Americans and the Russians - was to not let anybody who breaks the peace in Europe get away with it at all. When they START to go rogue, you occupy them and crush it out.

Had the US stood by the Western democracies after Germany invaded Poland, or at least after they overran Denmark and Norway, Tens of millions of lives would have been saved.

That's why we have the United Nations today - to stop that sort of imperial evil from getting started again.

You're focusing on France to try to troll me, but France was just another one of the victims. The aggressors were the Germans. They started the war by invading Poland, once they did that, everybody had the right to attack them, and the duty to do so. Important and unimportant countries shirked their duty, with the net result that they all lost tens or hundreds of thousands or millions dead. You stop the criminals when they start. You don't let them get big and powerful.

Had James Buchanan moved on the South immediately, the Civil War would not have had to go on as long as it did, and Sherman would not have had to burn Georgia to the ground.

But he didn't. He let the rebels get on a head of steam, and then we had to kill a half-million of them to get it over with.

It's never good to let criminals get on a head of steam. You need to nip that sort of thing in the bud early.

France and Britain did the right thing, declaring on Germany. Russia and America did the wrong thing, staying out of it.

We paid dearly for that, the Russians even dearer.

It was illegal for Germany to attack France after the French declared war on them.

France declared war and waged war. The German response re France was entirely lawful.

The LESSON that everybody learned from this - particularly the Americans and the Russians - was to not let anybody who breaks the peace in Europe get away with it at all. When they START to go rogue, you occupy them and crush it out.

Crimea.

You're focusing on France to try to troll me,

I keep returning you to France because you made a ridiculous statement about France.

If you declare war against someone, and invade and attack them, expect them to shoot back.

And as I wrote at #44:

You seem to want to digress into the entirety of WW2 in your effort to not explain how it was somehow illegal for Germany to attact France after France declared war on Germany, or to identify WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle France was to be saved from itself.

Now you have digressed to the American Civil War. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle was France to be saved from itself? From the time of the invasion to surrender, it was only a couple of weeks longer than the Israeli Six-Day War.

The United States is not obligated to fight every war started by the royalty and effetes of Europe engaging in another chapter of Game of Thrones.

Nobody did that. The only people who stood up to fight were the French and the British.

The Americans pretended that it wasn't our fight. Of course it was our fight, we were just too myopic to see it then.

So miserable little Nazi Germany was able to get very strong and murderous and we lost a half- million of our own people putting a genie back in the bottle that could have been stopped for a few hundred casualties in 1939-1940.

France and Britain did not know they were going to be overwhelmed by the German criminals, but they were. Fortunately, Britain had a body of water.

At the end of the war, the Germans was rightly accused of being war criminals for having started the war, and they were tried, imprisoned or hanged for their crime.

Germany had no right to declare war on Poland. Everybody had a right and a duty to invade Germany once they did it. That we stayed out was due to our weakness and ineptitude. We ended up paying dearly for that and learned from the experience.

Now you have digressed to the American Civil War. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France, or by what miracle was France to be saved from itself? ---- nolu chants

Vic, - your discussion with nolu has become ridiculous, chiefly because he/she refuses to acknowledge what you have previously posted in reply. --- This is becoming nolu's signature way of debate, - ignore what an opponent posts and reply, usually with excessively lengthy posts that have little substance.

Whats become really weird is that nolu is apparently not only an anti- constitutional southern sympathizer, but also some sort of an anti-allied axis symp as well.

The North-going Zax and the South-going Zax.

France, Britain, Russia and America had the right, and the duty, to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. And the Belgians, Dutch and Danes should have been right there with them, permitting allied forces to sweep through.

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

Nobody did that. The only people who stood up to fight were the French and the British.

Spare me. The French retreated faster than the Germans could advance, and then surrendered. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943 saw the Jews in the ghetto stand up to the Germans about as long as the entire French army did.

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 to extract France from a war it declared but did not fight.

France not only declared war, it attacked the Germans and engaged in acts of 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 Americans pretended that it wasn't our fight. Of course it was our fight, we were just too myopic to see it then.

It ws not our fight until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

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

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.

He's just stubborn and can't let go. I'm stubborn and won't get go either.

It is just that I am willing to go that extra mile to cure you of your confusion. Your best so far is to claim that Russia should have declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Of course, Russia was part of their joint invasion of Poland. Russia kept their slice for a very long time.

It almost certainly would have prevented the German invasion and stopped the war from starting.

The French were for it, but the British were opposed to even considering it, so the Russians were rejected. They then turned to Ribbentrop and made the Nazi-Soviet Pact, to buy themselves time.

It's very odd to see you standing up for Nazi Germany. Are you a Nazi sympathizer or perhaps believe in Aryan supremacy?

I just see these crazy essays in defense of the indefensible and I wonder. Do you have Tourettes?

t is just that I am willing to go that extra mile to cure you of your confusion. Your best so far is to claim that Russia should have declared war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland. Of course, Russia was part of their joint invasion of Poland. Russia kept their slice for a very long time.

You failed to take into account the Soviet effort to negotiate with the West FIRST. Their FIRST instinct was to ally with the French against the German invasion of Poland. And they went to the West FIRST. But the British were so anti-Communist that they would not consider any sort of cooperation with Russia in 1939 (they changed their tune later), and the French did not dare go it alone without Britain, because the Germans were too big.

Russia only made a deal with Russia AFTER being spurned by the West. The territory they took in Poland served as a buffer to keep the Germans further away. Stalin's men could read Mein Kampf just like everybody else, and knew what Hitler intended.

You have forgotten that Russia offered the West, via France, a security guarantee of Poland against the Germans. The Russians were prepared to send their army into Poland right up to the German borders in order to prevent a German invasion. Of course that would have meant that the Polish government would have had to deal with a Russian army on their soil who were not (initially) invaders, but who could have become a problem soon enough.

As an act of charity, Russia offered to occupy Poland. And to think that when the Russians did invade come to rescue Poland, the ingrates shot at them. But then they let the Russians stay for about fifty years.

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.

[...]

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.

Of course that would have meant that the Polish government would have had to deal with a Russian army on their soil who were not (initially) invaders, but who could have become a problem soon enough.

The reality reflected by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty is given below.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-molotov-ribbentrop-pact-august-1939

On August 23, 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a non-agression pact, called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. Secret protocols of the treaty defined the territorial spheres of influence Germany and Russia would have after a successful invasion of Poland. According to the agreement, Russia would have control over Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, while Germany would gain control over Lithuania and Danzig. Poland would be partitioned into three major areas. The Warthland area, bordering Germany would be annexed outright to the German Reich, and all non-German inhabitants expelled to the east. More than 77,000 square miles of eastern Polish lands, with a population of over thirteen million would become Russian territory. The central area would become a German protectorate, named the General Gouvernement, governed by a German civil authority.

Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.

Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.

Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

Sources: Rescuers from the Holocaust; Internet Modern History Sourcebook

- - - - - - - - - -

Do you have Tourettes?

Do you have Alzheimers?

Vicomte13 #47: "France, Britain, Russia and America had the right, and the duty, to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland."

Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939.

You failed to take into account the Soviet effort to negotiate with the West FIRST.

You fail to take into account that your actual assertion can be repeated back to you as many times as necessary.

Vicomte13 #47: "France, Britain, Russia and America had the right, and the duty, to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland."

Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939.

That is after the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty.

That's the one that said:

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

ou fail to take into account that your actual assertion can be repeated back to you as many times as necessary.

Vicomte13 #47: "France, Britain, Russia and America had the right, and the duty, to declare war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland."

They did. And then to roll on right through Berlin.

Countries don't have the right to break the peace. If they do, everybody has the right to pile on them and beat them down.

Germany broke the peace, of the Germans' own volition. They thought they were strong enough to simply manhandle Europe. They were wrong and they paid for it.