The Privatization of War

[Londoner]

It sure as hell wasn't about any 'crime against humanity'. Churchill and co knew about the concentration camps and massacres long before they claimed they did.

There was no Churchill & co. Churchill does not come into office until the war is already underway. There are concentration camps at that time for political prisoners, but not extermination camps, and as such they were not unique to Germany.

And throwing Poland under the bus to suffer under another evil dictator, one who had been murdering millions of his own people for years, was really showing 'compassion' wasn't it?

I do not know what is meant by that. Poland was invaded by Germany and Russia. Britain had a choice of an alliance with either Russia or Poland; if they had allied with Russia, then Poland would have allied with Germany. At the time, given the poor performance of the Russian army, a alliance with Poland seemed a better bet.

It was about control and how anyone could dare to have the audacity to 'take ownership' of a country without first asking GB.

You have an exaggerated notion of British power. Britain in the 1930s was not remotely strong enough to dictate what was going to happen in Europe. Britain was reluctant to go to war at all, for the very good reason that they calculated they were not going to win.

So I agree that Britain certainly didn't go to war because it wanted to redress crimes against humanity, but nor was it some cynical power play. It was because Britain was caught between a rock and a hard place.

As an aside, it was the crippling penalties that Germany was forced to pay after WW1 (another bullshit war which was about feuding European royal familes squabbling over power and control, kept going interminably by money-hungry arms manufacturers so eventually no one knew what the fuck it was about) that destroyed its economy and brought about WW11.

Again, I think you take the cynicism too far. Before WW1 there was a big shift in the relative powers of the European states. We can wish that the statesmen could have been more far-sighted, that they could have guessed that this wouldn't be just another local war and made greater efforts, but on the whole they acted because they thought they had to.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The fact that Churchill came to power after the war had started makes no difference to my comment.
Something isn't 'cynicism' if it happens to be true.

[Londoner]

The fact that Churchill came to power after the war had started makes no difference to my comment.
Something isn't 'cynicism' if it happens to be true.

If factual errors make no difference, what makes it true?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The fact that Churchill came to power after the war had started makes no difference to my comment.
Something isn't 'cynicism' if it happens to be true.

If factual errors make no difference, what makes it true?

Because I didn't say anything about Churchill being in power at the start of the war. Duh!

[Londoner]

Because I didn't say anything about Churchill being in power at the start of the war. Duh!

The exchange went:

So taking out Hitler was to take his country's resources, not because of his crime against humanity?

It sure as hell wasn't about any 'crime against humanity'. Churchill and co knew about the concentration camps and massacres long before they claimed they did.

(a) Churchill was not responsible for the decision to 'take out' Hitler.

(b) War started before the Final Solution; there were 'concentration camps' but these were not the same as the later extermination/death camps.

(c) Churchill certainly knew of the pre-war persecution of the Jews, as did everyone. There were plenty of refugees! Churchill didn't pretend he hadn't noticed - he attempted to speak to Hitler personally on the subject back in 1932, which is before Kristallnacht, before Hitler became Chancellor.

(d) When the first mass killings by the Einsatzgruppen started (1941) Churchill broadcast on the BBC: 'Whole districts are being exterminated. Scores of thousands – literally scores of thousands – of executions in cold blood are being perpetrated by the German police-troops upon the Russian patriots who defend their native soil. Since the Mongol invasions of Europe in the sixteenth century, there has never been methodical, merciless butchery on such a scale, or approaching such a scale.'

(e) The 'Final Solution' proper starts in 1942 with the building of the death camps. In the same year the allies issued a statement that condemned the 'extermination' and warned Germans that they would be held responsible for it.

So, at what date was it that Churchill was supposed to have known about the massacres but kept quiet about it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Were you there?

[thedoc]

It sure as hell wasn't about any 'crime against humanity'. Churchill and co knew about the concentration camps and massacres long before they claimed they did.

There was no Churchill & co. Churchill does not come into office until the war is already underway. There are concentration camps at that time for political prisoners, but not extermination camps, and as such they were not unique to Germany.

What does Churchill coming to office have anything to do when he knew about the concentration camps? just because he had no official political power is meaningless.

[Londoner]

Were you there?

You can get books etc.

[Londoner]

What does Churchill coming to office have anything to do when he knew about the concentration camps? just because he had no official political power is meaningless.

Oh dear. Two issues; first was to do with how and why the UK entered WW2. I'm pointing out that the references to 'Churchill and co' in that context are mistaken because Churchill was not in the government then.

Second issue: 'Churchill and co knew about the concentration camps and massacres long before they claimed they did.' The rest of my post addressed that claim, giving dates, pointing out that Churchill responded promptly and publicly to each successive stage of Nazi persecutions.

Sometimes these boards can be hard work.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Were you there?

You can get books etc.

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Ever heard of Jan Karski?

''During an interview with Hannah Rosen in 1995, Karski said about the failure to rescue most of the Jews from mass murder:

'' It was easy for the Nazis to kill Jews, because they did it. The Allies considered it impossible and too costly to rescue the Jews, because they didn't do it. The Jews were abandoned by all governments, church hierarchies and societies, but thousands of Jews survived because thousands of individuals in Poland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland helped to save Jews. Now, every government and church says, "We tried to help the Jews", because they are ashamed, they want to keep their reputations. They didn't help, because six million Jews perished, but those in the government, in the churches they survived. No one did enough.''

Karski met with Polish politicians in exile including the Prime Minister, as well as members of political parties such as the Socialist Party, National Party, Labor Party, People's Party, Jewish Bund and Poalei Zion. He also spoke to the British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, giving a detailed statement on what he had seen in Warsaw and Bełżec. In 1943 in London he met journalist Arthur Koestler, author of Darkness at Noon. He then traveled to the United States, and on 28 July 1943 Karski personally met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Oval Office, telling him about the situation in Poland and becoming the first eyewitness to tell him about the Jewish Holocaust.[10] During their meeting, Roosevelt asked about the condition of horses in Poland.[11] Roosevelt did not ask one question about the Jews.[12] Karski went on to meet with many other government and civic leaders in the United States, including Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Cordell Hull, William Joseph Donovan, and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Frankfurter, skeptical of Karski's report, said later "I did not say that he was lying, I said that I could not believe him. There is a difference."[13] Karski presented his report to media, bishops of various denominations (including Cardinal Samuel Stritch), members of the Hollywood film industry and artists, but without much result. ''

[Londoner]

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Ever heard of Jan Karski?....

And nothing in that extract you quote either supports your original claim or refutes anything in my response.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Ever heard of Jan Karski?....

And nothing in that extract you quote either supports your original claim or refutes anything in my response.

I disagree.

[Walker]

Nothing you wrote refutes anything I said. Ever heard of Jan Karski?....

And nothing in that extract you quote either supports your original claim or refutes anything in my response.

I disagree.

Rwanda is a stark example of no profit, no involvement.

Btw: what ever happened to all those donations rounded up by the Clinton Foundation in the name of helping Haiti after the earthquakes?

[Arising_uk]

So taking out Hitler was to take his country's resources, not because of his crime against humanity?

It wasn't really about that either, it was a war of Empire.

[artisticsolution]

So taking out Hitler was to take his country's resources, not because of his crime against humanity?

It wasn't really about that either, it was a war of Empire.

Obviously, I don't understand 'war'.