We received a newsletter which told about an observance of ANZAC Day.

We can mourn the deaths of those who died at Gallipoli, but I question the way ANZAC Day is observed.

From the newsletter: “The ANZAC spirit has remained strong through subsequent wars and peacekeeping missions. Today its spirit is still evident among the brave men and women who volunteer to maintain our way of life.”

My view is that Gallipoli and many of the other actions of the Australian military had very little to do with maintaining our way of life. Gallipoli served the purposes of the British Empire and was a military cockup where a lot of men needlessly died and needlessly killed other men. I would to see an examination of WW1 and other wars Australia has been in with the following questions:

1. What led up to the war?
2. Should we have been in the war?
3. What good did it serve?
4. What are we doing to prevent other wars?
5. What could we be doing to prevent other wars?

We can hold dawn services and march in parades, but I think asking the above questions would be in Australia's interest.

In my opinion the way ANZAC Day is presently observed promotes acceptance of future wars. It implies: Can we do what they did? I think the above questions should be asked, and it’s better if we don’t do as they did.

With respect, this is regularly done to death.

It is about commemoration, see here,
https://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac-day/

However, talking about 'building and maintaining our way of life' I would like to see some acknowledgement of the role of the Early Settlers.

Of course the black armband Leftists would not want to commemorate the courage, suffering, hard toil and comradeship of the Early Settlers and those who walk in their footsteps, either.

I agree with Onthebeach. This 'soul searching' nonsense always goes on just prior to, and just after, every damn Anzac Day. Why now, David F?. Who sends pamphlets out at this time of the year? Once a year is enough for repetitive picking over the bones of something that happened 100 years ago.

Dear David F.,

I also received a leaflet prior to Anzac Day this year
from The Hon. Minister of Defence, Kevin Andrews.
I've saved it for my grand-children.

I've stated previously on another discussion -
that -

Anzac Day, as the leaflet states is a day that goes
beyond the anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli.
It is the day on which we remember Australians who
served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peace-keeping
operations.

It continues to have relevance with its human qualities of
courage, mateship, and sacrifice. It gives meaning and
relevance for our sense of national identity.

It doesn't glorify war. But is a commemoration of courage,
mateship and sacrifice.

In the 60's I was an anti-war protester and I had no sympathy for anyone 'dumb enough to join the army and get themselves killed'.

When I moved to New Zealand in the 1980's I visited the Auckland War Memorial Museum which is really a general history museum that includes a floor dedicated to New Zealanders who died in wars NZ participated. The day I was there a group of school children had left notes around the military displays thanking the soldiers for "our freedom", "for giving their life so we can have a good life", and other similar sentiments.

The experience touched me in a way I never felt. That same year I attended my first ANZAC service. It was a cold rainy morning and as I listened to the speeches, shivering in the cold, I realised my suffering was nothing compared to what the men who gave their lives endured.

ANZAC Day opened my eyes and my heart; I've developed a true sense of appreciation for soldiers even though I am still essentially anti-war.

In my initial post I advocated continuing the dawn services and parades. I suggested 5 questions in addition.

I have a great sympathy for the suffering of soldiers. I have served in the army during WW2. I also have a great sympathy for the suffering of civilians. In the current conflicts possibly over 90% of the casualties are civilians.

In WW2 Germany, Italy and Japan were our enemies. At this time they are our allies. One generation's enemies is another generation's allies.

I am not a pacifist. Some wars seem unavoidable.

I would just like to see some effort going on to prevent future wars. I think the Iraq War could have been avoided, and ISIS is a product of that war. If Australia is not attacked I would like to see debate and discussion before the Prime Minister sends troops into action.

Can't we put more effort in examining the past and making conflict less likely in the future?

Dear David F.,

I have written on the subject of the prospects for
peace many times on this forum. I hope that I shall
be forgiven if I repeat myself here - its something I do
tend to do on this forum mainly because many of my
feelings on certain issues have not changed.

Global preparations for "defense" consumes an immense
and growing proportion of human financial, material, and
personal resources, in a world that is already overburdened
with social and economic problems.

All over the world, many scientists and engineers devote their
skills to planning new and efficient ways for humans to
kill each other; many workers labour to manufacture instruments
of death; and countless soldiers train for combat -
and some of them actually go to war and get killed.

From a moral and even an economic point of view, this vast
investment of human ingenuity and energy seems a tragic waste.

Ultimately, the prospects for peace depends on the
collective action of ordinary people. If a modern society
goes to war, it is not just because the leaders have opted for
war, but because the people have implicitly or explicitly done
so also - or at least they have not opted for peace.

If more and more weapons of destruction are built - including
nuclear ones, and if more sophisticated means of delivering them
are devised, and if more nations get control of these vile
devices then we surely risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then perhaps we
can divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
overpopulation, and the devastation of our natural environment.

We may hope and trust that our ultimate choice will be
to enhance the life on our planet and not destroy it.

Hi David,

"I am not a pacifist. Some wars seem unavoidable." I am a pacifists and I believe all wars have there genesis in events which take place long before hostilities break out and therefore are avoidable. Wars appear to be a continence with the failures and mistakes that lead to one war, then compounding themselves, which creates the human conditions for the next war, so on and so on. If there had not been a WWI then there would not have been WWII, the failed outcomes of WWII led to both the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

otb,

"Of course the black armband Leftists would not want to commemorate the courage, suffering, hard toil and comradeship of the Early Settlers and those who walk in their footsteps, either."

In that case, it gives me the greatest pleasure to tell you that our Mr13 (who we're bringing up to be a good Leftie) is absolutely passionate about historical research, So much so that he's joined our local historical society.

He's lucked out and is being mentored by an emeritus professor, working on memorial boards to be presented in 2017 in conjunction with the WA museum. So he's learning all about the "courage, suffering, hard toil and comradeship" of many people from our town/city and the peripheral impacts the war engendered. Far removed from the folly of its causes.

Human stories - and not just overviews.

So my son tells me of men like the fellow who was shot in both eyes and blinded, who came back from war, married, had five children - and was a successful carpenter - I've seen a steel ruler of his with braille on it!

Anyway, not bad for a leftie's son, eh?

If Julius Caesar hadn't invaded Britain and so on and on and on....

Hi Poirot,

Do you notice how those from the extreme right like to put themselves up as more Australian that people such as ourselves.

<< the courage, suffering, hard toil and comradeship of the Early Settlers and those who walk in their footsteps, either.>>

I assume by inference we the so called lefties lack those noble qualities of the "early settlers" whilst the radical saber rattler himself has inherited such nobility, and feels fully justified in jumping on the coat tails of those that have gone before, and hitching a free ride.

Good that your son has joined the local historical society, he will enjoy it no end and learn a lot at the same time.
I just purchased a book 'The History of World War I In Photographs' by R Hamilton with photos from the 'Daily Mail' very interesting.

@Poirot, Tuesday, 30 June 2015 9:30:15 PM

Great news. Very pleasing to hear and thank you for the extra details.

Dear Paul1405,

The genesis of wars can be as you say in events that take place long before hostilities break out. How does that make wars avoidable?

Do we have the foresight to look at an event and tell if it will lead to war? Even if we have the foresight do we have the power to change the events?

One cause of war is too many people fighting for too few resources. The first sentence of paragraph 50 of the Pope's recent encyclical is, "Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate."

It is a distortion as one can see a reduction of the birth rate as desirable and also be concerned with the problems of the poor. I think one of the problems is the high birth rate. No species can increase indefinitely, and our species is no exception.

The expression of the above attitude is one of the many events leading to future wars. There doesn't seem to be much we can do about it.

Hi David,

Let me say, to avoid war, it takes a monumental amount of goodwill, foresight and understanding, but not withstanding those herculean qualities I believe it is still possible to avoid war. Through understand of others and their problems, recognition of their legitimate grievances, mutual respect for others as equals is also necessary.
I support the concept of the United Nations as a world body for good, and a forum where all nations and peoples should be able to seek justice without resorting to war.

On the issue of world population, I agree unlimited exponential growth is undesirable and cannot be sustained, despite what the pope might have to say on the subject, keep in mind this is coming from a man whose predecessors thought the world was flat.

Dear Paul1405,

Possibly some of your ancestors thought the world was flat. That is no reflection on you.

Actually most educated people have known the world is round for a long tome. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the world to an accuracy of 99% about 2,300 years ago. It is a furphy that most people thought the world was flat at the time of Columbus.

Possibly, we could avoid war by mutual respect and the other elements you mentioned. I doubt that we will ever live in a world where all the divisions of humanity have mutual respect for each other. It certainly doesn't exist now.

Dear Poirot,

Congratulations on your son's achievements.

There's a lot to be said for home schooling.

You must be very proud.

otb, Foxy,

Thanks guys : )

(There's a lot to said for youngsters having the freedom and opportunity to pursue their passions)

It's easier for oldies to pursue their passions. Don't have to run very fast.

Poirot, "There's a lot to said for youngsters having the freedom and opportunity to pursue their passions"

The saying is that when the student is ready, the teacher appears.

However that is only the tip of the very large iceberg below, where the parent or carer has worked hard and long and through all sorts of difficulties to raise the resilient youth. Some find every rationalisation for not bothering, even demanding that the State or 'someone else' should carry the burden instead.

By way of example, when I did more with student sports, did the father thing with Scouts and so on, it was always apparent that there were many more children who wanted to take part, but their parents couldn't be bothered, even where the other reliable parents of their child's friends offered transport.

Dear Poirot,

I fully agree with you about youngsters being able to
pursue their passion.

Certainly a teacher can make a difference - but it should
be clear that effective teachers are facilitators who
make their impact by understanding the needs of the learner.

A teacher can light the way and ease the way - in other words,
facilitate learning - but the learner has to walk the path.

And I know that your son through you is doing precisely that.

david f,
You poor misguided soul.
Perhaps you live under a rock or somewhere that hides you from reality.
ANZAC Day does not celebrate war.
ANZAC Day celebrates the men who served in war.
I spent time in a couple of conflicts in Africa, SE Asia and the Pacific.
Were you one of those great Australians who jeered and spat on us when we came home from Vietnam?
I take great offense at any individual sniping around the edges of the men who served.
I am bloody sure you would never lay your arse on the line but would be quite happy to see others do it for you.
It's called cowardice leading to traitorism and it's a path that you tread well Sir.

David F.,

WW1 seems to have been an Oil War. The Middle East was mostly under Turkish suzerainty, countries like Iraq (Mesopotamia)simply did not exist separately, it was mostly Turkish Territory.

'War for a Lie'
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/71058315?searchTerm=the%20troubles%252

Bertrand Russell was a member of the Coefficients Dinner Club, when Grey announced the setting up of an Entente Cordiale with Russia and France. Russell resigned from the club because he thought they were Engineering a War against Teutonic Civilisation (Germany).

Google Bertrand Russell's Autobiography. Look for page 267, see the paragraph starting with 'Dear Bertie.'
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9UlpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=bertrand+russell+%22dear+bertie%22+grey&source=bl&ots=7D3ZPb4T5w&sig=bUaG8a8BshZ_0Ep1m5lyQocRhyc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yyVVdLNI8n28QXbqIKIDw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bertrand%20russell%20%22dear%20bertie%22%20grey&f=false

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48007696?searchTerm=more%20secret%20histcry&searchLimits=l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||l-title=25|||l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/109985435?searchTerm=oil%20supremacy%20british%20coup&searchLimits

A quote from David F

"I have a great sympathy for the suffering of soldiers. I have served in the army during WW2. I also have a great sympathy for the suffering of civilians. In the current conflicts possibly over 90% of the casualties are civilians."

As for this from chrisgaff1000;

"Were you one of those great Australians who jeered and spat on us when we came home from Vietnam?
I take great offense at any individual sniping around the edges of the men who served.
I am bloody sure you would never lay your arse on the line but would be quite happy to see others do it for you.
It's called cowardice leading to traitorism and it's a path that you tread well Sir."

If you went to Vietnam to fight in what history has declared a proxy war, so be it. I for one do not believe I owe you or any person who fights in wars anything, but I agree with what David F said. I have a great sympathy for the suffering of soldiers and civilians forced into war

You are both a sick and sorry self centered pair not worthy
to breath the free air you wouldn't fight for. I put you on
the same social level as Man Haron Monis and his ilk.
End of story.

David, I agree with your sentiments - the 'Glorious ANZAC Hertiage' is really a lot of bull . . . The Poms sing "Land of hope and glory . . . mother of the free . . ." but history shows that they and most European nations + USA have done an excellent job in fighting off the inhabitants of those nations that they 'took over' in their National Interests. After all "WE" know best what they need - Us to rule them! The good ol' US of A cites its Christian heritage when it suits including 'In God We Trust' on the $20 bill - but get real - it's all about trusting in $$$ to buy favour, and utilising 'firepower'as we decide in the national interests. Recently we had the debacle of the so-called civilised world leaders turning a convenient 'blind eye' to the applauded entry of West Papua into the collective Solomon Island, etc group however hard the colonist Indonesians tried to bluster it was not correct but it apparently is more correct that the West Papuans continue to suffer rape, murder, colonial rule, dispossession of their nation's mineral wealth, etc for the greater good of Indonesia! The silence of the ANZACS in threatening to go to war to defend them is not on the agenda by ANYONE even though the UN-sanctioned 'vote' by 1200 Papuans with a loaded gun on the table to encourage them to vote 'correctly' was really a travesty of justice . . . . Jesus weeps . . . Land of Hope and Glory Bull - Australians fought against Turks who were defending their country!

The following link explains the ANZAC tradition:

http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac-tradition/

Dear Foxy,

I don't believe the ultimate objective of the Gallipoli campaign was to capture Istanbul as the website states. I thought the ultimate objective was to secure the Dardanelles for Allied shipping and thereby send supplies to the Russian forces and keep Russia in the war. if Russia had been kept in the war possibly Lenin and the Bolsheviks would not have been able to take power, and Russia might have evolved to be a constitutional monarchy like England. The capture of Istanbul in itself would have had limited strategic value.

The campaign, though poorly conceived and executed, could have made an enormous difference if Russia could have been kept in the war. The Germans, for their part, sent Lenin in a sealed train through Germany into Russia to bring down the czarist government.

Dear David F.,

Perhaps you need to read the link again.

It is from The Australian War Museum in Canberra
and the link does tell us that in 1915 Australian
and New Zealand soldiers formed part of the
expedition that set out to capture the Gallipoli peninsula in
order to open the Dardanelles to the allied navies.

David F,

The Ultimate aim of WW1 was the forceful break up of the Ottoman Empire and the control of its oil reserves. In 1913 Britain controlled only 2-3% of the world's oil reserves. But, by 1919 immediately after the conclusion of the war, British business interests controlled something like 75% of the global oil reserves. Thus the crux of the Gallipoli campaign to open the straits to allow British Battle ships through so they could bombard Constantinople into eventually signing a treaty to surrender their oil and possessions in the middle east.

http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australian_outlook/oil-the-underlying-reason-for-gallipoli/

Dear Foxy and Sense,

I am wrong. I hadn't realised that at that time the powers-that-be were aware of the importance that oil was going to assume or that they knew where the large fields were.

david f,

Surely you knew that the leading nations of the world, at that time, were well aware that without oil their cavalry units could not function?

The importance of oil for keeping their primary motive power, the horse, going cannot be stressed to much.

Horses far outnumbered other motive power throughout WWI and were used extensively in WWII, in fact General Otto Skorzeny dismounted a Bavarian Cavalry unit to fight as infantry in the last ditch defence of Berlin.

"Oil for Horses" was a well known British Parliamentary rallying cry in 1918.

Mise,

The British War machine didn't require 70% of the Worlds Oil reserves to run their trucks and ships. The large Oil Reserves within the failing Ottoman empire was the subject of the war in the first place. Besides, the Americans supplied most of the oil required by the allies during the war.

Reading the following newspaper articles may enlighten you:

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/71058315?searchTerm=the%20troubles%252

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/48007696?searchTerm=more%20secret%20histcry&searchLimits=l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||l-title=25|||l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/109985435?searchTerm=oil%20supremacy%20british%20coup&searchLimits

Dear Is Mise,

The horse was important not only for transport but for food. My father was in the Russian army that invaded Prussia at the beginning of WW1. Horse was cooked in a big pot, and the soldiers shared it. The Russian army had poor communication, but the German farmers had been alerted to the possibility of a Russian invasion. They phoned the German army when they saw the Russians pass by their houses. My father said that all of a sudden they were hit by German artillery as the Germans knew just where they were. He was crouching in a shell hole when he saw another Russian soldier with a big smile on his face. my father asked what he was smiling about. The soldier said he just finished off the commanding officer. That was a rough, tough army with many soldiers feeling that their officers were the enemy.

War in itself is an event, neither good nor evil. However, intruding armed into a country that is not attacking any other country is the capital crime of aggression. No matter who commits it.

Fighting in defence of a country, especially one’s own, against aggression is honourable. Launching aggression or taking part in it is dishonourable. The Allied fighters in both world wars deserve commemoration for ever for their sacrifice not because they were brave but because of what they were sacrificing themselves for – freedom from aggression. This is something conveniently forgotten by many in the “Lest we forget” brigade in the annual Anzac Day ballyhoo. Yes they were invading Turkey, but the Turks were engaged in a criminal world war of aggression. The honour of those wonderful soldiers was not tarnished by the careerist motives of the brasshats who ordered them “over the top”.

All sorts of excuses are made for the German aggression in 1914 [1] and 1939[2], that launched two world wars, but the bottom line is they attacked countries not themselves committing aggression and that was a despicable crime not only by the ringleaders but also by all those who took part. “It voss orders” was rightly rejected by the postwar Nuremberg tribunal. The validity of this rejection is timeless.

Germany was a criminal nation in 1914, and was able to be again in 1939-45 because the victors at Versailles failed to cripple it. Pursuing aggression at any level of service, from high command to grunt, is worthy only of contempt.

[1] The nature of the German aggression against Belgium that launched WW1 is amply described at http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/civilian-atrocities-german-1914

[2] The nature of the German aggression against Poland that launched WW2 is amply described by Richard C. Lukas in “Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation 1939-1944” (Kindle Edition).

Dear Emperor Julian,

You speak about German aggression.

Stalin admired Hitler, and initially, the two worked
hand in hand. Just prior to World War II, Stalin forced his
beleaguered people to strip the natural resources of
Soviet occupied territories in preparation for war against
the Western democracies and to provide Hitler's Germany
with raw materials for the Nazi war machine.

"Russia was to supply a third of Germany's total needs of oil,
large quantities of iron-ore, cotton, phosphates, chromium,
manganese, rubber supplies from the Far East and a million
tons of food grain." (Eric Koch, Stalin's Pact With Hitler).

In the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of 1939, Stalin and Hitler went
further, agreeing to a secret pact to divide Eastern Europe and
allow the advances of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army for the
purpose of dividing the hapless Balts, Poles, and others,
which led to the World War.

History is clear that in 1939, Stalin and Hitler were allies.
They were both, by then, accomplished killers, even though
Stalin led the score in victims tortured, starved, and massacred.
Each created panic and chaos throughout Europe. Each produced
millions of refugees and homeless. Each was expanding and
building concentration camps in which millions of innocent
victims would perish. Both despised and mistrusted democracies.
Both were set on their conquests. The two dictators used
the same methods to deal with their domestic opposition - terror.

While half of these criminals, the Nazis, have been pursued
all over the world for their crimes, the other half the
communist criminals, were allowed to go free - and even sit
as judges at Nuremberg. They were, in effect, given tacit
permission to continue the operation of their concentration
camps, to expand their draconian systems to include psychiatric
wards, thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to
a science. The fact that this process persisted was vividly
disclosed by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his book -
"The Gulag Archipelago."

Re Foxy:
Wars are launched by aggression. Aggression is armed invasion of a country not engaged in aggression.. The rest of the propaganda from apologists is a welter of mealy-mouthed excuses, including the "whataboutism" of pointing to crimes (other than aggression) committed by others.

That the German aggression in Poland was part of a plan for conquest of the rest of Europe (for starters) not in any way involving Russian participation is borne out, not by the pitiful excuses made by Hitler in his Reichstag speech on 01.09.39 [1] but by the later-revealed earlier meeting of top Krauts in Berlin on 23.05.39[2] setting out their criminal intention to seek world conquest. Mein Kampf is full of assumptions that the master-race had the natural right to invade other countries for Lebensraum.

As for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Russian explanation (or excuse, depending on what the rest of the facts were) was that they made persistent efforts to secure a collective security pact with the democracies and were fobbed off (Chamberlain not Churchill led Britain, and France was ruled by scum like Petain who turned out to be traitors). In desperation (according to the Russian story) the Russians made a pact to stave off the Krauts while feverishly preparing to defend itself. Stalin was a scoundrel but he did make one good suggestion, towards the end of the war, that all Nazi soldiers be executed [3]. Roosevelt didn't say yea or nay, but Churchill recoiled in horror at loyal murderers being actually punished).

The Nuremberg tribunal's remit was to punish (1)aggression, (2) the Holocaust and (3) other deadly breaches of accepted international law. It couldn't and didn't go beyond that. Nobody had any power to make the Russians close the gulags but Germany, having committed aggression and been brought to heel, was forced to accept trial of those guilty of it and of genocide.

It’s History 101 and has survived all revisionist apologetics from those soft on Nazi criminals.

[1] http://www.germanvictims.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1939_09_01-HitlerPoland_returning-fireAE.pdf
[2] http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Batch_2_pdfs/Vol_IV_8_04.pdf
[3] http://listverse.com/2012/08/24/15-nazis-that-should-have-been-executed/

EmperorJulian,

It looks as though the Boer War and World War One were both resource wars.
As they say follow the money. For instance, in the Boer War, one must ask the question who actually got the gold, or where did it end up? Similarly, if World War One was over oil, who had control over the resoruce once the hostilities ended?

Redline Agreement:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?303603-1/book-discussion-british-petroleum-redline-agreement

As for Belgium, it wasn't completely neutral as the following records show secret meetings between Belgian and British Military Attache's, years before 1914.

http://digital.slv.vic.gov.au/view/action/singleViewer.do?dvs=1436254100412~365&locale=en_US&metadata_object_ratio=10&show_metadata=true&VIEWER_URL=/view/action/singleViewer.do?&preferred_usage_type=VIEW_MAIN&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=10&frameId=1&usePid1=true&usePid2=true

Dear Emperor Julian,

World War II produced tens of millions of victims.
Some were combatants, some civilian casualties of the
war. Others were victims of genocide planned by the
warring powers.

Both the Nazis and the Communists had committed unheard
of cruelties. Concentration camps - on both sides of
the front - operated at a high pitch prior to and during
the war years. While the USSR policy of mass murder preceded
that of Nazi Germany, most notably with the artificial
Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33, the wholesale destruction of
the Russian peasantry, and later of the peasantry and
intelligentsia in the occupied territories as well, the
Nazis soon matched Soviet terror with their wholesale
slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, and others, in equal numbers,
if not proportions of their populations.

As stated in "The New KGB,":

"There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
holocaust. But it is equally important to be aware of the
accomplishments of the Soviet secret police, which brought
death to at least four times as many Russians, Poles, Jews,
Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Japanese,
Koreans, Chinese, Gypsies, and Romanians
as Hitler did in his eleven years as
a leader of the '1,000-year Reich."

Speaking as a lawyer American - David E. Springer had this
to say:

"...The measure of our society over history is our fidelity
to our principles of law and justice.
We must remind our government and our
people to remain faithful to those principles or otherwise our
society, like so many in the past, will be swept on the
ash heap of history.

Re Sense

Aggression is THE primary war crime deserving execution of the perpetrators whether the country being attacked is neutral or not, provided it is not itself engaged in aggression, and no matter what commercial or defence arrangements, open or secret, are in place.

Speculation about money trails etc. are just that: speculation. Aggression is a crime against peace carried out in plain sight, as it was against Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939 and more recently against Iran then Kuwait and a decade later Iraq. The attack on Afghanistan was a grey area – its government was openly harbouring forces which it is claimed had committed aggression against America. The Boer War was a clash between rival foreigners on African land and didn’t include aggression as such. Australians shouldn’t have bought into it, and the motive of the Australian soldiers seemed to be mainly lust for adventure which was not specially honourable.

By the time the Redline agreement was signed WW1 and the Boer War were already done and dusted.

Re Foxy
Many years ago, working for a Perth newspaper, I was covering a preliminary trial of a bloke called Steele who was up for armed robbery. During a pause the defendant suddenly flourished a bag of daggy sandwiches and demanded “Look what they fed me this morning”. His crime was committed against a bank, not against those who fed him in the cells. That day I mentally coined a new word: “Whataboutism”. This permeates Foxy's plea on behalf of the Krauts who plunged the world into war by attacking Poland. The world came together to smash the perpetrators of this monumental crime – one which we should never forget and which our own government was part of committing in the 2003 invasion of Iraq (not as a jackal but as a yapping cur at the jackal’s heels).

The Bolsheviks did dreadful things to the population under their control and at one stage, in desperation after their pleas for collective security were repulsed by the pro-Nazi compradors controlling the civilised countries, briefly staved the enemy off with an empty non-aggression treaty. All this gets presented by postwar apologists listing bad things about the Stalinists (along with their wise move in the non-aggression treaty) in the hope that this will in some way excuse the criminals who launched the war in 1939 in a bid for world domination and plunder. The apologists’ objective – to exculpate the criminals and their postwar imitators with whataboutism.

Whataboutism flows from similar keyboards to exculpate the religion that divides the world into 750 million superior male believers, 750 million inferior female believers and 5500 million infidel dogs (us) fit only to be made to submit or be butchered. What about the Christians? And the Papists? And the US colonialists? And the slave trade? And the Wahutus? And William the Thief of Normandy? Etc etc.

Dear Emperor Julian,

I am in no way an apologist for the Nazi regime.
And suggesting that I am is false labelling and
no way to argue.
My stating historical facts does not equate to
being an apologist.

An understanding of the roles played by Lenin, Stalin,
Hitler, Molotov, Ribbentrop, Rudenko, and other authors of
the greatest genocide in history is essential to the
comprehension of the issues being discussed.

History is clear that Stalin and Hitler in a secret pact to
divide Eastern Europe and allow the advances of the Wehrmacht and
the Red Army for the purpose of dividing the hapless Balts, Poles,
and others, is what led to the World War. History is clear that
Stalin and Hitler were allies against the free people of
Europe.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you Sir.
All I can politely suggest is that you need to do your
research on this subject. The following items may help:

1) Eric, Koch, "Stalin's pact with Hitler."

2) William R. Corson and Robert T. Crowley, "The New KGB."

4) Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact),
(Aug. 23, `939): Secret Additional Protocol, (Aug. 23, 1939);
Secret Additional Protocol. (Sept.28, 1939).
"Documents on German Foreign Policy," No.228,229,159 (1939).

5) Robert Conquest, "The Harvest of Sorrow."

And there's much more material available at your local,
state, and national libraries on this subject.

I shall not be responding to you any further.