To save time:
1) It doesn't but so what? How much of the true repercussions of those events being interpreted with knowledge past the events? Again, the signs of the day were rampant anti-semitism and people quite easily and legitamitely chalked up such events to the usual jewish-christian animosity coupled with conflicting political ideology.
What about Ernst von Raths assination in Paris? Could that not have fanned the flames of anti-semitism especially considring that the bulk of the population likely got a very one-sided report about a jew murdering a junior diplomat in a foreign country?
The real question might be why didn't we go to war over these events if they were as truly phrophetic as you believe. Why did we wait until Germany violated pre-existing treaty conditions?
Do you agree that if Germany had somehow managed to not violate any condition allowing Britain to declare war and continued murdering jews and killing commies we would have went to war? (please try and answer given the historical realities rather then post WW2 knowledge.
2) It does in the case of the Lebensraum. Foch said it was only an armistace signed and not peace accords and he was right. The conditions set in the treaty of Versalle almost guarenteed the next war.
If we ignore the anti-semitism of the nazis and focus entirely on the policitical situation and the punitive restrictions placed on Germany post WW1 then we do indeed find the seeds of WW2 and a justification for it. Hitlers hatred of the jewish people is undefendable but the conditions that allowed that kind of hatred to take root were surely born from post WW1 german society.
3) I'm talking "contempary knowledge" of the time. If the true extent of anti-semitism in germany were known then why wasn't war declared on that basis rather then a political treaty break basis.
Like I said before. Anti-semitism was rampant at the time and while few agreed with the bulk of the heinous crimes comitted many did agree with the various jewish conspiracy synopisis of the time, some that are still around in modern renditions.
4) Although not a jewish example you should recall that "concentration camps" were used during the Boer war. Then there is the very boatload of jews returned to face the vert conditions you say were common knowledge.
Anti-Semitism doesn't mean hunting them down and killing them. You think I am being revisionist but I believe you are ascribing to much fore-knowledge to the people of the time and ignoring the very anti-semitism rife of the era that jews themselves point to. I can't match your specific knowledge and am very surprised you are debating the issue.
Again we are left with questions about why did the war not start until treaty violations happened? Why did contemporary politicians believe peace could be achieved despite forehand knowledge (as you say) of various nefarious anti-semetic acts?
Why did Hitler remain a christian and catholicic in good standing until well after the fact if knowledge of his anti-semitism was so widespread and understood? The truth is that the church had its own anti-semetic beliefs of the time, a fact upheld by jewish scholars.
5) For this I refer you to continued conflict between them for centuries. Again thsi harkens back to WW1, a war that you must admit was waged for little more then a military competition.
I didn't say that the allies waged a war of aggression at all. I said they didn't wage a war based on fighting the evil of nazi germany. In addition I hold that we may have been fighting a war of defense but that doesn't mean we didn't commit atrocities.
$1:
Argumentative fallacy – this has nothing do with characterizing Hitler as evil
Your argumentative fallacy is that just because Hitler was evil and his anti-semetic programs were evil means the war was waged against him on that basis.
It wasn't and you know it. His true evil and the extent of it wasn't knwon until after the fact.
$1:
Quote:
“While we certainly did not commit atrocities the level of the holocaust or the rape of Nanking we still engaged in actions that were at least comperable on some level.”
Now here comes the ahistorical revisionist play – how exactly did anything the Allies did compare to the Holocaust. Again, you show me the Allied equivalent to the Einsatzgruppen. If not, you’re wrong.
I answered that question before you asked it. OK then. Compare anything the muslims did to us with regards to Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?
Some argue that nuking a civilian city was a holocaust (and remember you aren't the defininy authority on holocaust). How about firebombing drseden to send a message to the Russians? Was that OK?
Others can argue what we did was just as bad and who are you to disagree? You are prejudiced like I am being a product of our society but why should, say muslims from Iran, not think our war actions were as criminal as our enemies?
Context becomes a vital factor does it not?
$1:
Contemporary milieu – their actions are fair games. Where do you think the UN’s resolutions on Human Rights and Genocide came from?
Did we learn anything from it? In addition who the hell said our rules were right and just to fight wars?
Would the Amish agree? No offence but you seem to be following a line of thinking that contemporary western ideology is correct by default and thats the thinking that has us in conflict with so many others (amoung religious conflict that is).
$1:
Oh. A favorite play from the revisionist playbook – Dresden. I’ll tell you what – you look up Dresden and you’ll find the error in your forced, erroneous attempt to draw a comparison. Please research these things first before posting as it might change your views.
Why don't you tell me. Then fall back on the argument that nuking jap cities saved morelives then it cost.
Don't you realize that you are making the same justification other make for their actions?
$1:
Oh, we’re justified in condemning naked acts of aggression and heinous acts of genocide. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to moral relativism
yes you do. Every argument you are making is moral relativism. It defines it. Why is our argument not and mine is?
You are well versed in arguing that what Canada did to the natives was not "genocide" against donnie. Why are you correct and he isn't? I know this is a while can of worms but why should our definition of genocide hold sway?
How about "what we did to them was as heinous and unjustified as what he nazis did to the jews?" How many think that and why are they wrong and you are right?
$1:
Our actions against Nazi Germany were morally justified. I’ve never seen anything even remotely persuasive to the contrary. If this kind of moral relativist revisionism continues, then you’ll start rationalizing their actions and that’s an ugly slope to get on.
The war was justified, as justified as war can be. Some actions were not justified and that is the central debate.
Was 9/11 justified? Was Afghanistan or Iraq justified?
Why should your opinion hold sway as to what is justified and what isn't? Why should anybodies?
(note: I won't have the time to respond to your response in any meaningful way tonight).
CKA Moderator 
