World War II

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Are you blind to my initial post? The Brits started the war by violating the Hague Conventions, knowing full well, that a declaration of war, or an ultimatum that would lead to a state of war, they issued it nonetheless.

What was simply Hitler reclaiming German lands, was actually provoked by the British, and HOW may I ask did the Brits help Poland? They promised, yet they did not deliver.

The same British who declared war on Germany for attacking Poland, didn't seem to think the same for the Soviet Union, who did the same thing from the east, thus there is a certain double standard in the atmosphere that pervades. Put the blame where it ought to be, with the British.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with the post. Alright, the british started the war, by declaring an ultimatum, but what started the armed conflict, which I think anileve was referring to, was the invasion of Poland.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants Ok, but that has nothing to do with the post. Alright, the british started the war, by declaring an ultimatum, but what started the armed conflict, which I think anileve was referring to, was the invasion of Poland.

That "armed conflict" you are referring to, was only a local war at the time, it was in no way a "world war". And even after its eruption it was a "european war". It is only in hindsight that we are able to give names such as these.

The ultimate blame lies in the western powers, for this war, since blaming Hitler is silly to begin with, because it was the Western powers that ultimately allowed such a figure to rise, by creating for him an atmosphere by the Treaty of Versailles, and Hitler was funded into existence by none other than Wall Street bankers, yes most of them of the "Jewish" persuasion. I find it funny that upon all the Allied bombings of Germany, many factories were destroyed, but those American corporations sucha s I.G. Farben, were unscathed.

That is of course, if you want to get down to the base of it, however my post is simply about the Hague Conventions, which clearly state, and are in effect right now as we speak for that matter, that a declaration of war and an ultimatum that would lead to war are considered the same thing. So by these rules, Britain started the "European war".

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That "armed conflict" you are referring to, was only a local war at the time, it was in no way a "world war". And even after its eruption it was a "european war". It is only in hindsight that we are able to give names such as these.

The ultimate blame lies in the western powers, for this war, since blaming Hitler is silly to begin with, because it was the Western powers that ultimately allowed such a figure to rise, by creating for him an atmosphere by the Treaty of Versailles, and Hitler was funded into existence by none other than Wall Street bankers, yes most of them of the "Jewish" persuasion. I find it funny that upon all the Allied bombings of Germany, many factories were destroyed, but those American corporations sucha s I.G. Farben, were unscathed.

That is of course, if you want to get down to the base of it, however my post is simply about the Hague Conventions, which clearly state, and are in effect right now as we speak for that matter, that a declaration of war and an ultimatum that would lead to war are considered the same thing. So by these rules, Britain started the "European war".

Agreed. Especially on the point of the Treaty of Versailles. How such a treaty could possibly lead to peace is beyond me.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You don't know that the Danzig/Corridor were all former East Prussian lands dont you and many 'Germans' spoke 'German' yes, and in Hitlers eyes he was merely reclaiming lands lost from World War I.

You see Patlajoke, before you can be in a discussion, you must at least have some knowledge, thus youre puny one liners have given nothing to these forums, just like your puny avatar, thus symbolizing a puny eggplant.

Yes and the Polish loved that whole situation. And Chechoslovakia too. Why these people bothered having their own languages is simply a mystery to you isn't it? And all the Poles killed in conentration camps were also really Germans. Go run your hampster wheel.....

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants Ok, but that has nothing to do with the post. Alright, the british started the war, by declaring an ultimatum, but what started the armed conflict, which I think anileve was referring to, was the invasion of Poland.

The "armed conflict" is a misnomer since technically "armed conflicts" never end, and have always been so since there never has been a state of peace. Only to the "degree" can we measure things, since only in hindsight we are able to size events up into 'events' and give then names and time frames.

Do you know that there are historians who do not believe int hat method? One can argue that World War I and II were really one great big war.

In fact the "Roman Empire" never really ended since there was a constant rebirth of this "Empire" in Europe up until the last Holy Roman Empire with periods of hiatus.

I am merely talking about the technical/legal aspect of the war, the theoretical "what ifs" don't interest me.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse
That is of course, if you want to get down to the base of it, however my post is simply about the Hague Conventions, which

BTW if you merely want to speak of Hague Conventions, then you should have entitled the thread as Hague Conventions and not World War II.

Guys can we do this without insults? There is no need for a battlefield for superior opinions, I like this thread. There are many misconceptions about WWII, some are under the impression that it was initiated by the invasion of Hitler. Although the war officially broke out in 1939 I am more interested in the boiling events leading up to the explosive point. It was actually a lot more complicated, most of the world was already pulsating with serious tension. The British, the French, Czechoslovakia, Spanish civil War, Japan in China and Manchuria; Italy in Ethiopia and Albania. Actually the complexity of WWII is fascinating, but people seem to only remember Hitler. Care to elaborate guys? For example many are unaware of Francisco Franco who left his footprints in some minds and scars in others.

Interestingly enough both of the WW, eroded due to the various conflicts and deeply rooted animosity of various political issues and conflicts of interests. Frankly I fear that there is WWIII coming up, since the tension world wide is growing, percisely with the US.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by anileve BTW if you merely want to speak of Hague Conventions, then you should have entitled the thread as Hague Conventions and not World War II.

Guys can we do this without insults? There is no need for a battlefield for superior opinions, I like this thread. There are many misconceptions about WWII, some are under the impression that it was initiated by the invasion of Hitler. Although the war officially broke out in 1939 I am more interested in the boiling events leading up to the explosive point. It was actually a lot more complicated, most of the world was already pulsating with serious tension. The British, the French, Czechoslovakia, Spanish civil War, Japan in China and Manchuria; Italy in Ethiopia and Albania. Actually the complexity of WWII is fascinating, but people seem to only remember Hitler. Care to elaborate guys? For example many are unaware of Francisco Franco who left his footprints in some minds and scars in others.

Interestingly enough both of the WW, eroded due to the various conflicts and deeply rooted animosity of various political issues and conflicts of interests. Frankly I fear that there is WWIII coming up, since the tension world wide is growing, percisely with the US.

That's not my point.

WWII broke out ont he invasion of Poland, but WHY? That is my point. There is a reason behind it, and rules that were set up, and violated, and according to these same rules, it was the British that initiated it. When has the world NOT been pulsated by serious tension? That is my point, you cannot confine history to rigid frame of events and say "THATS" when it happened, but if we must, then I have taken it upon myself to show that it was the British that initiated what was merely a local war, and when have their not been local wars?

"World War III" started a long time ago.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That's not my point.

WWII broke out ont he invasion of Poland, but WHY? That is my point. There is a reason behind it, and rules that were set up, and violated, and according to these same rules, it was the British that initiated it. When has the world NOT been pulsated by serious tension? That is my point, you cannot confine history to rigid frame of events and say "THATS" when it happened, but if we must, then I have taken it upon myself to show that it was the British that initiated what was merely a local war, and when have their not been local wars?

"World War III" started a long time ago.

That is a given. But you are still resisting the question I am posing here. I merely asked if you can expand on the various events that led to War, not a specific factor that ignited the flame. Rather than being so pertinacious on the British involvement, perhaps you can discuss the Spanish war which was certainly a constituent element in the big picture. I am simply stating that the central point was not only Britain, as some may think. If you don't wish to expand on the topic and keep insisting on the same concept why would you be even compelled to start a whole thread?

[Anonymouse]

Like I said for the thousandth time. If you want to restrict events to a single time frame, be my guest One can go on endless as to this or that cause of what "started" World War II.

Many argue it started when the Treat of Versailles was sealed. Of course why do we tend stuff different events into a big frame? The Spanish War was a local war in itself, as well as the the Poland conflict, and even today there are conflicts going on, one can very well argue we have always been in a "state of world war", since the term is so elastic, one can never end in putting conflicts into one time frame and calling it "World War I,II,III".

Churchill was as much a warmonger as Roosevelt, but only in the aftermath during the showtrials known as Nuremberg was "justice" delivered as to who really started the war.

What did the conflict in Spain have anything to do with the British pledge to help Poland if attacked by Hitler, yet at the same time refusing to declare war on the Soviet Union for essentially the same thing? Can you answer that? If you really want to focus on "causation" focus on that question. If it was the British intent to ONLY help Poland if the Nazis attacked, and not the Soviets, then obviously the British that wanted war with the Nazis from the onset. Either way you answer that question, it doesn't bode well for the traditionalists that defend the British. A certain favorite of Churchill with a quote "Facts are better than dreams" is missing from this thread to add his charm.

[Anonymouse]

Can we move this to the Intellectual Lounge? I am vindicating this thread!