So unsurprisingly, you’re wholly ignorant of the IAEA’s findings on Iran.
Yes, and there were entangling alliances at play in WWII as well. It’s a common phrase in this field. I was referring to things like this.
Along with this, and this offering from a Swiss diplomat, appearing on the website of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Yeah, that and the sinking of the Reuben James. It was still undeclared, and far from full-scale.
I used an essay by Yale’s Bruce M. Russett, called “Stalemate and the Case Against U.S. Entry into the War.” It appears in a book called Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume II. I used it in a history class in graduate school. In the preface to this essay, the editors sum it up: “…Hitler lacked the capability to achieve victory in Europe and posed no direct military threat to the United States. By late 1941 Britain’s survival had already been assured by FDR’s policy of providing assistance by all measures short of war, and Germany’s imprudent invasion of the Soviet Union was doomed to end in a stalemate. As for Asia, Japan’s conquest of China had reached a standstill by 1941, and until Washington slapped down a sweeping embargo on raw materials, including petroleum, Japan had been determined to avoid war with the United States.”
Exactly. They were running out of oil, and did something very rash as a result.
His speculation is at odds with the facts. Japan’s hierarchy included two factions who both wanted imperial expansion, differing only in which direction to go–North (through Siberia) or South (through Indochina, Malaysia, and Indonesia). When Zukhov bloodied their noses at Khalkhyn Gol, the Northern advocates lost face and the decision was made to turn south. While the oil and steel embargoes irritated the Japanese, there is no way that they were going to expand south from China leaving an unprotected flank exposed to U.S. intervention from the Philippines. War with the U.S. was inevitable, from that point. The oil embargo was implemented at the end of July, 1941, (although some less stringent efforts preceded it), but the planning for the attack on Pearl Harbor began in February, 1940.
No, it’s not a common phrase in the field when discussing WWII, it’s used specifically to refer to the two alliance systems in play that caused WWI to break out. Instead of Austria-Hungary vs. Serbia, alliance commitments blew it up to Austria-Hungary, Germany and the Ottoman Empire vs. France, Russia, Great Britain and Serbia. There was no entangling alliance system in the guarantee to Poland. There was a guarantee from the British that they would go to Poland’s aid should Germany attack it. That’s it, no grand entangling alliances.
Page 5 is unavailable online.
How very nice, they only turned away 3,000 Jews to be sent to the furnace, not 24,000. I’m still waiting for one iota of evidence of your claim that “Public opinion, especially in Switzerland, was very anti-Nazi.” Your cites don’t do this.
You said the US was uninvolved and would have remained so if not for Pearl Harbor. Now that you know the right answer you were aware of it all along again I see.
No, you misused an essay by Bruce M. Russett. Nowhere in those passages can one come to the conclusion that you did of “The Axis reached their high tide in 1941 anyway, and were running out of steam by the end of the year.” Know why one can’t come to that conclusion either from Russetts essay or anywhere else? Because it’s patently untrue.
Wow. Yet again now that you’ve been told the correct answer you knew it all along.
That was you, earlier in the thread. That bombing was an Irgun operation. Only part of the hotel was in use by military/governmental forces, assuming it was OK for Zionists to start killing Brits in the first place. Also, hadn’t their been a lot of hoax warnings, so the British didn’t know what to do. Warnings can go wrong. Do you absolve the Real IRA of guilt in the Omagh bombing? It’s true that they didn’t intend to kill so many civilians, but they still built and deployed an enormous bomb, and when their warning call was misunderstood, their bomb ended up killing a lot of people.
Yeah, just moments ago I referred to the extremely hierarchical decision-making process of Imperial Japan. I just pulled out my copy of Non-Western Anarchisms, an excellent zine by Jason Adams. I picked it up at the NYC Anarchist Bookfair, and it has some good information about the Japanese anarchist movement, whose members “used their relative degree of privilege to spread anarchism throughout the region” and oppose their own homeland’s imperialism. Their movement (among others) was repressed by the reactionary Japanese regime, and you know the rest.
I’m routinely impressed and humbled by my German comrades, in recent history and further back.
Here are some of my German comrades in action against neo-Nazis.
Of course it wasn’t independent, but there was a region referred to as Palestine, and it already had people living there, some of them Jewish, when the Zionists started showing up. What do you think about Israeli historian Uri Ben-Eliezer? Here he is, starting on about page 150, being very candid about David Ben-Gurion’s own candor about how much of the land his comrades were going to take, by any means necessary.
I meant that the US should not be arming people, because someone might use those weapons. I don’t know what else to tell you.
I mentioned my field of study because somebody asked if I was a twelve-year old who had recently read some messed-up books. It wasn’t an appeal to authority, as I wouldn’t have mentioned it otherwise. Incidentally, I was around that age when I read this book, which gave me my first inkling of the violent campaigns against the British.
Technically yes, though it’s a stretch. In any case, the agreement was not acceptable to the Palestinians. I’m not saying it was necessarily a deliberate setup, like Rambouillet appears to have been, but it wasn’t going to work. Shlomo Ben-Ami said that he would have rejected the proposal as well, had he been in the Palestinians’ position.
No, not at all. There’s a lot more where that came from.
Yes, and that attack was sure to bring the U.S. into the war. War wasn’t inevitable, and support for non-intervention in the U.S. collapsed immediately after the attack. There’s no guarantee that the U.S. would have entered the war in response to Japanese moves against British territories. The Japanese did want to be prepared for anything, and both sides had been developing contingency plans against one another for decades.
My point stands: The Allies came together, mostly because the Axis attacked them personally.
It’s actually from Thomas Jefferson, and it’s relevant in any such case.
It works for me. I just tested it.
The second one does, quite explicitly, and the Wiesenthal Center stands by it.
The US was playing a strongly pro-Allies role, but was not a direct member of the Allies. “Everything short of war,” and all that.
That’s what it says!
That’s what I wrote, except the first time I wrote “steam” instead of “oil.” It’s a colloquialism, meant to refer to energy, and I know you know that.
I find your argument to be based on fiction, willful and/or willfully unretracted errors, and distortions. As others seem to be pointing out your silliness, I’ll probably drop this lovely exchange and let others beat your posts with a clue-by-four. I may pop in every now and again to cite a few more of your errors, but this is getting stale.
Case in point.
Let’s review the actual thread, eh?
First, you claimed, in regards to the bombing of the King David Hotel, that [
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16423595&postcount=157)
I responded that [
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16423702&postcount=161)
Then you claimed [
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16426585&postcount=214)
The facts, of course, quite clearly show that I corrected you on a factual error, on one single example you used, and you have used that to try to paint me as an Irgun supporter.
And yes, you were wrong on the facts. The King David Hotel was a command and control center for the British in the region, with both the military and political staff conducting their military and administrative functions in the hotel. That makes it a valid target of war. Your question of whether or not there should have been a war does not change the fact that targeting the military and C&C facilities of your enemy is specifically allowed under the international laws of war. That a warning was called in which would have given those in the hotel time to evacuate also goes to show that your claim of “terrorism” was fictional.
And you have turned that correction of your error into an attack on my character, rather than retracting your claims. Your argument is not worth responding to, but I may kick it around some if it amuses me in the future.
Ciao.
See how it feels to have your character assailed? The bombing was an Irgun operation, and you said it was a legitimate action. That indicates support to me. Hezbollah, the IRA, Hamas, and plenty of others have been known to attack military targets. In this case, it was in large part a civilian target. Is it not terrorism because part of the hotel was used by the British forces, and because there was a warning, a la Omagh? I do, in fact, think this calls your character into question. You’re blaming the victims.
I’m not sure what is more hysterically funny.
That someone who has a Master’s degree and international relations and wrote his master’s thesis on Israel’s relationship with the US was completely ignorant of the fact that Nasser was a supporter of the Nazis or that someone who earlier endorsed the PFLP, who pioneered tge hijackings of airliners and who’s members practically masturbating in joy while slaughtering Jewish children accuses another poster of endorsing the Irgun, who for all their faults, weren’t remotely as ruthless.
Incidentally, writing a Master’s thesis on the relationship between the the US and Isrsep without knowing Nasser was a Nazi supporter is like writing a Master’s thesis on the Civil War and then admitting you didn’t know that Lincoln was a lawyer before becoming president.
War was inevitable. You were trying to claim that
yet that “standstill” left them plenty of opportunity to take Indochina from Vichy France and to proceed onward toward the Dutch colonies. However, as noted, Japan would never have left the Philippines on their flank, so once the Southern Operation was chosen, war with the U.S. was inevitable. Japan was going after Dutch oil and began preparing for war against the U.S. 17 months prior to the U.S. oil embargo.
You began this by claiming that
However, the Japanese decision to move South occurred after their defeats at Khalkhyn Gol in 1939, not in 1941. You have overstated your case and the facts do not support your conclusion.
It is probably true that without a Peral Harbor level event, the U.S. would have stayed out of th war, but a Pearl Harbor level event, (even if it was only an assault on the Philippines), was inevitable.
And that, of course, shows why your argument isn’t worth the electrons that you’ve used to write it. Pointing out that there’s a difference between terrorism and military actions which are allowed under the international laws of war? That’s not endorsement. You claim not to understand that.
This does not inspire confidence in your ability to craft an argument that explains anything deeper than “What I Did On My Summer Vacation”.
Don’t feel too bad. You could make a much stronger case that he supports the PFLP than you support the Irgun.
[QUOTE]
OurLordPeace
The Palestinian movement is a movement of national liberation. I do not support the two-state solution, for reasons I have discussed. It would be better than the status quo since Al-Nakba (the catastrophe, when they were violently ethnically cleansed from their lands), but I still find it objectionable for the reasons I discussed. I agree with the one-state solution (and secularism, and leftist stance) of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.[/QUOTE]
And the PFLP was vastly more ruthless than Irgun ever dreamed of being.
No shit, did you just Google who first used the phrase? And no, it’s entirely irrelevant to WWII. I don’t know how many ways I can say it, there were no entangling alliances at play in the outbreak of WWII. Germany had no allies, and Poland had a guarantee of its security from the British and French. Find me the entangling alliances in that.
The first page available online is page 68, chapter 8. Perhaps you could just tell those in the home audience what page 5 says?
No it doesn’t. It’s a defense against charges from “A report [that] picks a few deplorable but unrepresentative aspects of wartime activity to impugn an entire nation.” According to Thomas G. Borer, in a letter to the editor to the LA Times, a report by Alan Schom for the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles painted a distorted view of Switzerland in WWII. You really ought to read your own cites. The Wiesenthal Center doesn’t stand by Borer’s letter to the editor to the LA Times, they are simply reprinting it. He wrote it in response to a report by Schom for the Wiesenthal Center.
Again, this completely contradicts your original statement. You know,
Now you are saying that you were aware of direct US involvement in the war the whole time. Just to let you know, the US wasn’t “doing substantial business with the Allies, on clearly sympathetic terms”, it was giving weapons to the British under Lend-Lease. Payment was deferred until the war had been won. I’m sure you’ll tell us that you were aware of this the whole time as well, but for some reason chose to ignore it when crafting your initial statement.
Ah.. no, it doesn’t. It says Britain’s survival was assured by 1941, and that Germany’s invasion of the USSR was doomed to end in stalemate. It seems you’ve forgotten your original statement yet again:
That is not what Russett says. It is not something that it can reasonably be interpreted to mean.
You’ve got to be kidding. You meant to say oil instead of steam in the statement of yours I just quoted? You said steam to mean energy but forgot what century it was and said steam instead of oil? It’s clear what you meant in your original incorrect statement. The Axis wasn’t running out of oil in 1941, Japan was. And as tomndebb noted, planning for the attack at Pearl Harbor dates back to 1940, before the US oil embargo.
The difference was, the British and French guarantees to Poland were made specifically to deter Hitler. It wasn’t a matter of “We had a long standing alliance with Poland and now Germany invaded, so be have to go to war.” It was “Germany’s been asserting claims against its neighbors, and it looks like Poland is next. We have to be ready to fight it if it continues its aggressive foreign policy.”
The Polish alliance was specifically anti-German, unlike the pre World War I alliances.
I’m actually kind of amused. It’s a bit like someone claiming that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was terrorism, someone else pointing out that it was a valid military target, and the first guy responding “Ah hah! I knew you supported the Nazis!”
Of course it’s pretty clear, what with OLP’s ‘bwahahaha, now you know what character assassination is like, eh?’ schtick, that he/she is yet again trying to change the subject and would still much rather not identify just how it is that the “Zionists” who ‘unduly influence’ the American media and who “look like” Americans just happen to be “Zionists” and not, say, anti-Israel Brits. Just one of those coincidences.
We don’t torture their children…just more hysteria. They torture their own children and women but we have to blame the only democracy in the area. Without the jews to blame who could we scapegoat ?
Israel is not “the only democracy in the area”.
You mean like Egypt?