Berlin denies american veterans "Raisin Bombers" to throw candy and to land at Berlin Airport

Of course they did. Why else would they attack Poland?

 

That’ take awhile to list’m all

 

And where does that little piece of information come from?

 

No doubt from the mouthpieces of the ''alt-right''.

 

I saw post 55. And you're right, it you feel it is based on nothing.

Thats likely why my stance does not, change, with respect to how this whole thing sounds like some body(s) got tired of Germany celebrating its own defeat no doubt indeed.

 

I have no idea how someone could possibly come to this conclusion.This whole thing has nothing to do with not wanting to celebrate someone's defeat. The defeat would be and has been commemorated on May 8th/9th.
The only thing that was cancelled was the landing of said aircraft at Tempelhof Airport, that's all. Other planes landed at other airports (e.g. Wiesbaden, Erfurt), a commemoration took place at Tempelhof which was attended by 45,000 people, and several cities commemorated the airlift with their own events. In other words, almost all commemorations took place, except the landing at Tempelhof. But there probably was one civil servant somewhere in the local government who didn't want this whole thing to happen, thus he/she made up some regulations and laws that the organisers couldn't and didn't meet; no doubt indeed.

 

I disagree.

I think the country's leadership over recent years having a disgruntled attitude toward the USA, finds this event's failure as laudable. Yes especially in light of the Trump-Markel crisis that we see unfolding for months now.

I see this little ol' small town event being a, failure, is stealthily a big huge deal to Markel/Parliament which hath grown weary toward supporting the USA these days.

 

That's true, the redrawing of borders after WW1 was catastrophic and provoked the German will for revenge that led to WW2.

But that doesn't change the fact that Hitler remilitarized Germany as soon as he was elected, which violated the Versailles treaty (that alone was a valid reason to attack Germany as soon as the early 30's). Hitler was clearly preparing for a large scale war from the very beginning.

That also doesn't change the fact that Hitler started WW2 by declaring war on Poland, knowing full well of the alliance it had with France and Britain. Declaring war on a country is the exact same thing as declaring war on its allies, that's the exact way WW1 started in fact. So no, Hitler started the war by attacking Poland, and the reaction of France and Britain were a reaction to the war that was already started.

Also, Hitler openly advocates for war with France, and even the destruction of France in Mein Kampf (Chapter XV: The Right of Emergency Defense) :

As long as the eternal conflict between Germany and France is carried on only in
the form of a German defense against French aggression, it will never be decided,
but from year to year, from century to century, Germany will lose one position
after another. Follow the movements of the German language frontier beginning with
the twelfth century until today, and you will hardly be able to count on the success of an attitude
and a development which has done us so much damage up till now.
Only when this is fully understood in Germany, so that the vital will of the German nation is no
longer allowed to languish in purely passive defense, but is pulled together for a final active
reckoning with France and thrown into a last decisive struggle with the greatest ultimate aims on
the German side- only then will we be able to end the eternal and essentially so fruitless struggle
between ourselves and France; presupposing, of course, that Germany actually regards the
destruction of France as only a means which will afterward enable her finally to give our people
the expansion made possible elsewhere. Today we count eighty million Germans in Europe!
This foreign policy will be acknowledged as correct only if, after scarcely a hundred years, there
are two hundred and fifty million Germans on this continent, and not living penned in as factory
coolies for the rest of the world, but: as peasants and workers, who guarantee each other's
livelihood by their labor.

War for Lebensraum has always been a central part of Hitler's ideology, and this is the sole reason for WW2. If Hitler wanted to reclaim Dantzig peacefully he would not have called for the destruction of France in Mein Kampf, he would not have massively remilitarized Germany up to turning teenagers into soldiers in the Hitler Youths, and he would not have waged a war of aggression on France and Britain's ally, Poland.

 

The Treaty of Versailles was a monstrously stupid treaty. If any one thing caused WWII, then it was that treaty. Because placing all the blame on Germany for WWI was a perfect example of the victors rewriting history to their own benefit.

At the time of WWI and WWII, Britain was an empire with colonies all over the world. We're supposed to believe these guys were innocent victims? Give me a break. Churchill deliberately let millions of people die in colonial India simply because he hated Indians and considered them subhuman. The British empire was every bit as racist and expansionist and murderous as the Nazis. WWI and WWII were just continuations of Europe's endless internecine bloodletting and aristocratic power-struggles. Nobody was really innocent. The war and aggression was largely mutual. By getting bogged down in the technical and legal minutiae of the treaty, you're missing the bigger picture.

The "world" war did not begin until Britain and France declared war on Germany. That the British and French made their declaration in response to Germany's invasion of Poland does not really change that. Because while treaties and alliances should not be broken lightly, they are not divine agreements enforced by cosmic laws. The ONLY reason for treaties and alliances is the mutual benefit they create between the participants. The second a treaty or alliance ceases to be beneficial to either side, it loses its reason for existence. The idea that treaties and alliances must be adhered to regardless of their underlying practicality is not rational. Once the British and French realized that their guarantee to Poland was unenforceable and moot, they should have simply accepted reality and moved on with their day. Instead, they involved themselves in a massively destructive war they could not win and which caused their empires to collapse overnight. And for what? Some city in Poland which was lost to the Soviets anyway? What was it all for? What did it actually achieve besides massive death and destruction?

 

And yet you cannot even post one. Fancy that.

 

If they wanted a war with western Europe, then why didn't they just attack western Europe?

 

Of course you are. The only question is whether you're doing it intentionally or not.

All my posts are about liberty, whether I mention the term specifically or not.

I'm unclear why you think you're deserving of an answer simply because you asked for one first.

 

I am happy that I'm not in Russia. Unfortunately, "conservatives" like you are making America look like Russia more and more each day.

 

And again, by writing this you show that you don’t know what it is being in Russia.

 

WWII veterans can be honored without having to embarrass or shame Germans. It's time to end the 80 year smear campaign against Germany.

 

You and other "conservative" Americans are just crypto-fascists who support imperial executives and authoritarian big government, just like in mother Russia.

 

But not so fed up that you won't spend billions and billions of our tax dollars on defending foreign countries that can easily defend themselves.

 

Defeating Germany did nothing to enforce Polish sovereignty. Just ask the Soviets.

 

Why should I care what you think?

 

Do you think you just made some kind of devastating point? How embarrassing.

 

From reading the BBC and Guardian for years and observing the almost 1-to-1 correlation between their reporting and government propaganda. Granted, SOME work done by the BBC and Guardian is excellent and actually serves to challenge rather than reinforce government power. However, that work is rather the exception than the rule. Overwhelmingly, reporting done by the BBC and Guardian are highly favorable to intelligence "community" narratives.

 

Most journalists I read are from the left, try again.

 

That’s an interesting claim I’d like to hear more about but such a discussion doesn’t belong on this thread.
When such claims are made I often ask myself what Ayn Rand would think of today’s “conservative” Americans and usually come to the conclusion she’s rolling in her grave. And no, I’m not any kind of Randian Objectivist apart from her epistemology and that’s yet another thread.
Now where were we?

 

I really get sick of drawing attention to this but find myself having to do it again. The American obsession with left/right is so rigidly black and white with no shades of grey whatever you’ve only got to mention something like a publicly funded medical system and half of America has nightmares of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung bashing down their front door.

 

I agree that the "left/right" dichotomy is largely a false one. But sometimes you are forced to use the prevailing dialectic in which you are communicating. That poster tried to make it seem like I'm getting my information from neo-fascists when most of the journalists I frequently read are closer to democratic socialists - Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, Seymour Hersh (he's more of a classical liberal than a democratic socialist, but still). But instead of going into all that, I just said "the left".