Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West Russia provided Western financiers and Industrialists with a region to exploit for its resources , cheap labour and investment . In 1917 revolution this lucrative market was lost . In between the wars the German industrial/financial complex , decided to take a gamble and invade Russia , this gamble they hoped would turn their fortunes around . Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan . The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest . Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize . The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly , Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans . June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Now the American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , they saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe . Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America , America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance . US airpower turned Germany to dust while the armies of Germany were cannibalized in Russia at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe while America secured the Affluent West .

Punctuation, laddie. Did they teach you nothing in school, Or is this the result of a small dose of goey?
Some sort of question or point at the end would also be useful.

Lots of fantasy in that essay.

And to think I wasted all that time and money on books about WWII :p

Greed brought about the war. Not allowing Germany or Japan to sell their goods to forigen nations caused those nations to take drastic actions to let them sell their wares overseas as they wanted.

One night Hitler's father said to his wife "Honey it is time to make a child" That's how everything started :D

WW 2 happened because of WW 1 and the Versailles agreement. The other reason for WW2 was democracy. The Germans tried democracy after they were defeated in the WW1 but the first years of democracy brought only high unemployment, inflation and unhappiness. Germans thought that democracy was the key problem and looked for a king again. A king who can rule them again.. And that King was Hitler. :rolleyes:

I feel a conspiracy theory in the making...

Some sort of question or point at the end would also be useful.
The Question was "Why did WWII happen ? " and my thread was an explanation of my question .

Lots of fantasy in that essay.
Such as ? .... please elaborate .

Greed brought about the war. Not allowing Germany or Japan to sell their goods to forigen nations caused those nations to take drastic actions to let them sell their wares overseas as they wanted.
You are getting it all wars are fought over commercial markets hence my post .

One night Hitler's father said to his wife "Honey it is time to make a child" That's how everything started :D

WW 2 happened because of WW 1 and the Versailles agreement. The other reason for WW2 was democracy. The Germans tried democracy after they were defeated in the WW1 but the first years of democracy brought only high unemployment, inflation and unhappiness. Germans thought that democracy was the key problem and looked for a king again. A king who can rule them again.. And that King was Hitler. :rolleyes:
A war fought for Democracy ! Yeah and santa Claus comes around once a year :rolleyes:

A war fought for Democracy ! Yeah and santa Claus comes around once a year

I think you misunderstand. Hitler, who started WW2, was put in power by a people who felt that democracy was not working.

No I think you mis-understand Hitler never was voted into power by the German people in any election he was installed by Hindenburg . The Nazi party never had more than 27% of the vote in Germany . The ruling class installed Hitler to forestall an inevitable socialist govt which would odf nationalized their interests .

It's true that Hitler was not elected Chancellor by the people. He did have more than 27% of the vote though.

March 13, 1932 election results:
Hindenburg: 49.6%
Hitler: 30.1%
Thaelmann: 13.2%
Duesterberg: 6.8%

Since Hindenburg didn't have the absolute majority required, another election was held 1 month later.

April 10, 1932
Hindenburg: 53%
Hitler: 38%
Thaelmann: 10.2%
(Duesterberg dropped out and gave the nationalist vote to Hitler.)

But, that's nitpicking. Hitler was eventually placed into power by Hindenburg.

One can also look at the Reichstag elections. In the last free election held during Hitler's life, on March 5, 1933. The results were:

National Socialist: 43.9%
Social Democratic: 18.3%
Communist: 12.3%
Center: 11.7%
Nationalist: 8.0%
Bavarian People's: 2.7%
Other parties: 3.8%

The National Socialist and the Nationalist parties both wanted a totalitarian system. The Nazis wanted Hitler as the Leader, the Nationalists wanted a return to the Hohenzollern monarchy. Totalled they come up to 51.9% of the vote. But, again that's nitpicking.

I guess where the people really spoke up about what they wanted as a government was when the enabling act was passed on March 23, 1933. Before this vote, Hitler of course had whipped the country into a communist terror with the reichstag fire and arrested the communist reichstag members. That's 81 votes that wouldn't count. He also arrested a few Social Democrats. Both of which were illegal. But the vote came out 441 for, 84 (all social democrats) against. The people had spoken (except for the commies). Fascism was in. Hitler used guile and trickery to get this vote, but that's all fair game in a democracy.

It is interesting to note that Hindenburg expected Hitler to reinstate the monarchy after his death. Hitler decided that was not the way he wanted to go. I'd be willing to bet, that if an election were held to reinstate the monarchy at the time, the overwhelming majority of Germans would have voted to reinstate. They had been raised on stories of the glorious old days. It was their bread and butter. (or schnitzel and saurkraut) It took the utter defeat at the end of the war to cure them of this.

Lots of fantasy in that essay.
”
Such as ? .... please elaborate .

Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West Russia provided Western financiers and Industrialists with a region to exploit for its resources , cheap labour and investment . In 1917 revolution this lucrative market was lost .

Western financiers did not own czarist Russia. Czarist Russia was pretty much closed off to the West. Most financiers in the West in the late 19th century/early 20th century were investing large amounts of money in the rapidly expanding western United States, or in colonies.

In between the wars the German industrial/financial complex , decided to take a gamble and invade Russia , this gamble they hoped would turn their fortunes around . Their plan was one of turning Russia into a colony for the personal benefit for exploitation of its industrial/financial complex . In 1933 the German industrial/financier complex installed the Nazis in power and put in place a rearmament plan . The German plan was this use Poland as a springboard for the invasion of Russia , Sept 1 Poland was invaded . However the Anglo/Franco industrial/financier complex had their own plan they also wanted Russia , their gamble was to allow Germany to invade Poland , but they would sit behind the Maginot line , letting the Germans be lulled into a false sense of security by believing that England and France were just going to sit their and not risk another WWI trench bloodfest .

Then why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland, and Britain rush an expeditionary force to France? If the idea was just to 'sit behind the Maginot Line', why declare war and force Germany to react to it?

Then Germany would invade Russia and at an opportune time when these 2 nations were almost exhausted England and France would jump in taking the prize . The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly ,

There was no Anglo/French plan for Germany to 'see through'. Britain and France declared war on Germany following its invasion of Poland, as they warned Germany they would, almost 2 years before the Germans invaded Russia. Warning Germany you will declare war hardly sounds like a plan to just sit back and let Germany and Russia beat each other up, especially since those two nations hadn't even come to blows yet. Your argument makes no sense.

Germany did not invade Britain because it gave Germany an excuse to Russia as to why they placing troops in Romania to forestall any British invasion of the Balkans . June 22 1941 Russia was attacked . Now the American industrial/financier complex jumped in seeing that her two main rivals England and France was finished , they saw an opportunity to gain control of Western Europe .

So then, why didn't the American industrial/financier complex gain control of Europe?

Dec 11 1941 Germany declared war on America , America instituted the lend lease on England , bankrupting this country and turning itself into a colony of American finance

Lend lease was in place several months before 11 December 1941, and it neither bankrupted Britain, nor did it turn it into a colony of American financiers. Lend Lease was more like a giveaway program. Initially the US gave 50 WW1 destroyers to Britain in exchange for bases, later the program gave war materials to Britain, Russia, China, and a few others, with Britain getting about 60%. Lend Lease totals were around $50 billion, of which about 20% wqas ever paid back. If Britain was bankrupted it was from fighting a 6 year war, not from Lend Lease.

US airpower turned Germany to dust while the armies of Germany were cannibalized in Russia at Yalta America allowed Russia Eastern Europe while America secured the Affluent West .

And? Are you saying the industrial/financial complex in America dictated this?

Western financiers did not own czarist Russia. Czarist Russia was pretty much closed off to the West. Most financiers in the West in the late 19th century/early 20th century were investing large amounts of money in the rapidly expanding western United States, or in colonies.

There were very large amounts of western investment in Russia prior to 1914. The French had the most vested in Russia at the time, as did Germany. The Americans were sucking up much of the European investment, but that doesn't nullify the amount of money the West lost in Russia. The Soviets rejected to pay the massive loans that were taken out, and billions of dollars worth of investments in Russia were gone, I believe that France had about $2 billion invested in Russia at the time. (Billions today mean possibly hundreds of billions in today's money?). Russia was the China of her day essentially...and to lose that was quite a blow to the world economy.

There were very large amounts of western investment in Russia prior to 1914. The French had the most vested in Russia at the time, as did Germany.

That's true. The French had virtually all of the Western investments in Russia. US investors were mainly investing in its own West, and in Latin America and after the turn of the turn of the century, in Asia. The bulk of Britain's money was in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The French loaned money to the czar for his miliatry and the railroads. But even so, I remember reading an article in the last couple of years where APFER, the French stockholders association had recently sued the Russian government trying to recover the money it said was owed it when the Bolsheviks forfeited on the debt in 1917. The figure was roughly $3 billion. Even if that's not an inflated figure, the amount we're talking about are hardly enough to make the claim that...

Pre revolution Russia was literally owned by the affluent West

Certainly the czar was using France to help modernize, but the West did not own czarist Russia.

The French had virtually all of the Western investments in Russia.

I wouldn't characterize it to that level, but the French did have a lot. I have some stats which are almost impossible to find on the net:

FDI in Russia in 1914:

France: $2.4b
Germany: $400m
UK: $550m

Russia had $500m invested overseas, Russia's industrialization was financed with Western capital, and thus the West essentially did own Russian industry. Russian GDP in 1913 was $232b compared to $237b of Germany concurrently. Russia was the world's third largest economy behind the US and Germany the UK being fourth. The loss of that much capital to the capitalist economy obviously was going to make many people angry, but I don't think to the point of war. Then we forget the loans given to Russia during the war which were not repaid.

West did not own czarist Russia.

In which sense? That's the question...

The Germans saw through this plan and invaded France unexpectedly.
It wasnt particularly unexpected, after all they did sign a pact with russia over poland so they werent going to break that until france was out of the way.

Western financiers did not own czarist Russia. Czarist Russia was pretty much closed off to the West. Most financiers in the West in the late 19th century/early 20th century were investing large amounts of money in the rapidly expanding western United States, or in colonies.
Yes they did the Nobel Family of Sweden owned the caucusus oil industry , German and British industrial interests controlled the Ukrainian coal/iron fields . French finance literally kept Czarist Russia afloat in other words it was a goldmine for the affluent Western European interests .
Then why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland, and Britain rush an expeditionary force to France? If the idea was just to 'sit behind the Maginot Line', why declare war and force Germany to react to it?
Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ? Why was no aid sent to Poland ? Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ? They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why . So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in .
There was no Anglo/French plan for Germany to 'see through'. Britain and France declared war on Germany following its invasion of Poland, as they warned Germany they would, almost 2 years before the Germans invaded Russia. Warning Germany you will declare war hardly sounds like a plan to just sit back and let Germany and Russia beat each other up, especially since those two nations hadn't even come to blows yet. Your argument makes no sense.
If the British and French which were at that time the worlds 2 eminent military/industrial powers said nothing it would of came off as strange . Why did they allow Germany to install such a militant govt ? Why was Germany allowed to Re-arm ? Why didnt they attack Germany when they entered the Saar region ? When Germany invaded Austria ? Invaded Czechoslovakia ? Get real this is carte blanche .
So then, why didn't the American industrial/financier complex gain control of Europe?
They did the US by denying under the Yalta agreement affluent industrialized Western Europe its traditional backyard of investment Eastern Europe then West Europe became reliant on the US market . Have you noticed since 1989 with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc that now Western Europe has the Eastern part back it is now eclipsing America as the premier world economic power .
Lend lease was in place several months before 11 December 1941, and it neither bankrupted Britain, nor did it turn it into a colony of American financiers. Lend Lease was more like a giveaway program. Initially the US gave 50 WW1 destroyers to Britain in exchange for bases, later the program gave war materials to Britain, Russia, China, and a few others, with Britain getting about 60%. Lend Lease totals were around $50 billion, of which about 20% wqas ever paid back. If Britain was bankrupted it was from fighting a 6 year war, not from Lend Lease.
Lend lease only became available only when Britain had no other way of paying for US goods as all her dollar , gold reserves and other assets were sold to the US at a considerable loss . So in order to pay for lend lease Britain had to borrow from the US to pay for it Britain ended the war owing the US $21,358 million .
And? Are you saying the industrial/financial complex in America dictated this?
Thats my theory I have put forward and I think it stands up to scrutiny .

One can also look at the Reichstag elections. In the last free election held during Hitler's life, on March 5, 1933. The results were:

National Socialist: 43.9%
Social Democratic: 18.3%
Communist: 12.3%
Center: 11.7%
Nationalist: 8.0%
Bavarian People's: 2.7%
Other parties: 3.8%


That 43.9% included parties allied with the nazis but you are right still the nazis could of been prevented from taking power . You have too ask yourself why hand power to the Nazis ? or more imporatntly which segment in socirty benefited the most from a Nazi govt ? The industrial/financier segment of course .

WWII happened because Germany, Japan, and Italy were pissed with the post-Versailles world order. Russia was also pissed, but given the immense casualities they suffered in the First World War, as well as the brutal, incoherent Civil War, were less willing to seek redress through conflict.

@StarOfEight
No WWII was a good old fashioned classic scenario of capitalist/imperialist nations setting one another up , bickering over consumer markets and strategic outflanking of one another . That is what all wars are fought over pure and simple The control of MARKETS !

If you're saying that Germany was the capitalist/imperialist nation in question then you're absolutely right. WW2 was caused by Germany invading Poland. The nations which you are trying to disparage bent over backwards trying to avoid war. They let Germany have the Ruhr, Austria, and Czechoslavakia. Hitler thought they would let him have Poland as well. Error of judgement on his part.

Hitler's original plans for war was supposed to begin around 1945. By this time, Germany's navy would be up to par and the course of the war might have been different.

Yes they did the Nobel Family of Sweden owned the caucusus oil industry ,

True, the Nobel brothers were heavily involved at Baku, and it was rumored Rockefeller bought in, but still the czar maintained ownership of 90% of the land around Baku.

French finance literally kept Czarist Russia afloat in other words it was a goldmine for the affluent Western European interests .

Numbers have already been shown above of the amounts. Westerners had vested interests in czarist Russia, but hardly owned it.

Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ?

For one, Britain was in no position to attack Germany. For that matter, the French army was overrated as far as what it was geared to do. Since 1932 the French army had been governed by a succession of 19 different governments. Since 1925 its role had been geared to national defense, unsuited to "adventures and conquest." It was not designed to go on the offensive on a massive scale. Almost half of France's infantry divisions were in North Africa on the Mareth Line. There were actually more divisons along the Alpine line, guarding the border with Italy and Spain, than there were along the Maginot Line. France lagged far behind Germany in armored divisons and light mechanized divisions. And the Luftwaffe was superior to Allied air power.

Why was no aid sent to Poland ?

No time. Poland fell quicker than either Britain or Germany could mobilize. Remember, right up until Hitler invaded ambassadors were meeting in Rome at the 5 power conference and Hitler was giving assurances that he was trying to diplomatically solve the issues with Poland.

Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ?

It was as much as they could put together at the time.

They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why .

Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west.

So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in .

Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast. And certainly neither the Poles of the French calculated the deal made between Stalin and Hitler to divvy up Poland. The Red Army invading Poland from the east was a stab in the back to Poland and ended any realistic shot of the Allies aiding the Poles. But the French didn't completely sit back.

The French did initiate Operation 'Saar' and assaulted the Siegfried Line, but again, the French army, at least on the homefront, was not geared to offensive action, and was repelled along the line. The Saar region, between the Rhine and Moselle, was tough to invade. It was prepped after the defeat of Napoleon to make future French assaults difficult, and the Germans held all the advantages. French artillery, much of which was still WW1-issue rounds, proved ineffective on the line.

If the British and French which were at that time the worlds 2 eminent military/industrial powers said nothing it would of came off as strange . Why did they allow Germany to install such a militant govt ? Why was Germany allowed to Re-arm ?[quote]

In part because France and Russia sign the Franco-Soviet pact in 1935, after Hitler declared that would void the Locarno treaty. Also because much of Germany's rearming and training had been conducted secretly in Russia. Stalin was playing both sides.

[quote]Why didnt they attack Germany when they entered the Saar region ?

Do you mean the Rhineland in 1936? Obviously the somewhat pacific governments in Britain and France turned their heads. However, under the terms of the Locarno treaty the Allies were supposed to evacuate the region by 1930 if the Germans promised not to militarize it. In 1933 Hitler promised as much. Following the Franco-Soviet pact when the Germans declared the Locarno treaty voided they marched into the Rhineland. Should France have opposed it? In hindsight, yes. But France, like everyone else, had bigger problems going on at the time to worry about the Rhineland.

When Germany invaded Austria ? Invaded Czechoslovakia ? Get real this is carte blanche .

Well, Austria was not invaded. Htiler merely threatened to invade if the Austrian Nazi party was not legalized and given a major role in the government. The Allies could do little about politics in Austria. As far as Czechoslovakia, Hitler claimed that the almost 3 million ethnic Germans in the Sudentenland diaspora wanted to be reunified with Germany. Propaganda played a role here. Those in the Sudentenland were portrayed as oppressed, and a pro-German political party in the region pressed for unification with Germany. Hitler convinced the Allies that once he united Germans with Germany he was through. In hindsight we see their mistakes.

They did the US by denying under the Yalta agreement affluent industrialized Western Europe its traditional backyard of investment Eastern Europe then West Europe became reliant on the US market . Have you noticed since 1989 with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc that now Western Europe has the Eastern part back it is now eclipsing America as the premier world economic power .

The only alternative was to not institute the Marshall Plan and allow Europe to remain in chaos and anarchy, which would have given Moscow an excuse to intevene on behalf of the communist movements in each of those western European states. The West had just defeated one totalitarian state in Europe. It was not going to just hand Europe over to a different one after fighting a war.

Lend lease only became available only when Britain had no other way of paying for US goods as all her dollar , gold reserves and other assets were sold to the US at a considerable loss . So in order to pay for lend lease Britain had to borrow from the US to pay for it Britain ended the war owing the US $21,358 million .

As I said above, the US gave away about $50 billion in military arms. Britain received the bulk of that aid, about 60%, or roughly $30 billion. That $21,358 million you quote is pittance compared to what they received. As I stated earlier, only about 20% of that $50 billion was ever paid back to the US, so Lend Lease was not designed for US financiers to feed off of the Allies. It was literally a government giveaway program.

Thats my theory I have put forward and I think it stands up to scrutiny .

I would not go so far as to deny that economics play a role in driving foreign policy, often a major role, but the theory as you put forward, that every move the Allies made in the lead up to the war was dictated by an industrial/financial complex is pure speculation, and most of your claims are easily disputed.

@StarOfEight
No WWII was a good old fashioned classic scenario of capitalist/imperialist nations setting one another up , bickering over consumer markets and strategic outflanking of one another . That is what all wars are fought over pure and simple The control of MARKETS !

That's right. Capitalism is the source of all the world's misery. Certainly, there was no war before the Industrial or Agricultural Revolutions. Certainly, Communist states are a paradise on earth. Certainly, badly paraphrased Lenin is an adequate argument.

True, the Nobel brothers were heavily involved at Baku, and it was rumored Rockefeller bought in, but still the czar maintained ownership of 90% of the land around Baku.Numbers have already been shown above of the amounts. Westerners had vested interests in czarist Russia, but hardly owned it.
No the Nobels controlled the Russian oil industry ! Russian economic life was totally dominated by the affluent west obviously the land was owned by the Russians but not its economy .
For one, Britain was in no position to attack Germany. For that matter, the French army was overrated as far as what it was geared to do. Since 1932 the French army had been governed by a succession of 19 different governments. Since 1925 its role had been geared to national defense, unsuited to "adventures and conquest." It was not designed to go on the offensive on a massive scale. Almost half of France's infantry divisions were in North Africa on the Mareth Line. There were actually more divisons along the Alpine line, guarding the border with Italy and Spain, than there were along the Maginot Line. France lagged far behind Germany in armored divisons and light mechanized divisions. And the Luftwaffe was superior to Allied air power.
Agreed Spyke my theory on the Anglo/Franco gamble was that they counted on Germany not risking an invasion in the West .
No time. Poland fell quicker than either Britain or Germany could mobilize. Remember, right up until Hitler invaded ambassadors were meeting in Rome at the 5 power conference and Hitler was giving assurances that he was trying to diplomatically solve the issues with Poland.
They had plenty of time they knew Germany was going to invade months before Britain/France had been warning Germany not to invade since the start of 1939 .
Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west.
Generals follow orders they do not implement policy again this inaction you pointed out is a telling sign that the Anglo/franco ruling establishment were not going too impede Germanys military progress in Poland . As Poland was needed by Germany for a springboard to invade Russia .
Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast. And certainly neither the Poles of the French calculated the deal made between Stalin and Hitler to divvy up Poland. The Red Army invading Poland from the east was a stab in the back to Poland and ended any realistic shot of the Allies aiding the Poles. But the French didn't completely sit back.
Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict . The Nazi/Soviet deal was ' buy time ' for both Russia and Germany . The Russians knew the attack was coming and Germany needed space to deal with france and Britain . Dont forget Russia approached Britain and France to work out a plan to deal with Germany in the early 30's , France and Britain wouldnt deal with Russia . So in 1934 Russia began prepaing for war that early ! Moving factories behind the Urals , rearming etc . Read Khruschevs memoirs Khruschev remembers he gives a good account about pre barbarossa .
The only alternative was to not institute the Marshall Plan and allow Europe to remain in chaos and anarchy, which would have given Moscow an excuse to intevene on behalf of the communist movements in each of those western European states. The West had just defeated one totalitarian state in Europe. It was not going to just hand Europe over to a different one after fighting a war.
The West had the A-Bomb Russia didnt and the West had the Strategic Airpower Russia didnt ! They could of driven the Soviet army back to the Urals ....Why didnt they ? Go figure .
As I said above, the US gave away about $50 billion in military arms. Britain received the bulk of that aid, about 60%, or roughly $30 billion. That $21,358 million you quote is pittance compared to what they received. As I stated earlier, only about 20% of that $50 billion was ever paid back to the US, so Lend Lease was not designed for US financiers to feed off of the Allies. It was literally a government giveaway program.
$21,358 million is the sum Britain owed after the war a huge sum then and considering Britain before the war was a creditor nation with huge monetary/imperial assets/gold reserves etc . That was some looting by the US !
I would not go so far as to deny that economics play a role in driving foreign policy, often a major role, but the theory as you put forward, that every move the Allies made in the lead up to the war was dictated by an industrial/financial complex is pure speculation, and most of your claims are easily disputed.
Far from it if nations really went to war over freedom Israel would of been targeted long ago . Why did Spain conquer South America ? Gold and rubber ! Why did Britain and France aquire vast empires ? For commercial gain ! What was the opium wars fought over ? Britain controlling a lucrative market ! What did Britain and Holland fight 3 wars over ? control over the lucrative Spice Island trade ! As for my claims being easily disputed all you have done is try and justify why Britain and France dawdled , I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !

That's right. Capitalism is the source of all the world's misery. Certainly, there was no war before the Industrial or Agricultural Revolutions. Certainly, Communist states are a paradise on earth. Certainly, badly paraphrased Lenin is an adequate argument.
2000 years before the Industrial Revolution Rome accrued through conquest a vast empire based on trade and finance sought lays waste your lame argument .

No the Nobels controlled the Russian oil industry ! Russian economic life was totally dominated by the affluent west obviously the land was owned by the Russians but not its economy .

Then show me some evidence of it. Europeans invested heavily in the American West in the 2nd half of the 19th century, so much that the Congress attempted to pass laws that anyone who invested had to be, or become, a US citizen, so would you say the European industrial/financier complex controlled the US?

Agreed Spyke my theory on the Anglo/Franco gamble was that they counted on Germany not risking an invasion in the West .

You're correct. Until Poland was invaded most Frenchmen and Brits likely believed, or at least wanted to believe, that Hitler was doing no more than reuniting all German territories and people lost after WW1, but the invasion of Poland certainly changed that.

They had plenty of time they knew Germany was going to invade months before Britain/France had been warning Germany not to invade since the start of 1939 .

They didn't know anything for certain, and they had been in negotiations with Germany with Hitler giving full assurances that he wanted to solve the issues with Poland diplomatically. Going to full mobilization early was an extreme risk. It had also been French and Russian mobilization in 1914 that caused Germany to mobilize and strike first. But Hitler and Stalin signing the Pact of Steel was a blow to the Allies. Had Stalin backed the Allies, as many thought he would, events might have gone differently. Before the Pact, it was assumed by the Brits and French that the Soviets would react to a German invasion of Poland, since it was on Russia's doorstep. But with the pact between the two, the Allies had no reason to assume that Germany was invading Poland as a stepping stone to Russia, since they were divvying the state up between them. Or if he was, it would be sometime in the future.

Generals follow orders they do not implement policy again this inaction you pointed out is a telling sign that the Anglo/franco ruling establishment were not going too impede Germanys military progress in Poland . As Poland was needed by Germany for a springboard to invade Russia .

Obviously the French would prefer Germany, if it became aggressive, to turn East rather than West. But the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin changed that thinking. Now the Allies had to consider Hitler turning West, particularly if they declared war on Germany once the invasion of Poland started. And Hitler considered Britain Germany's main enemy. They had to understand that aiding Poland would invite and attack on the West.

Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict .

Come on mate that is naieve Britain had been rearming since 1936 France had 2 million men under arms they built the maginot line for petes sake those 2 nations were fully prepared for conflict .

The French army was vastly over-rated in 1939. Read de Gaulle's accounts of his frustrations during the 30s. German armor and air power, two important aspects of land war, were far superior to the French. Not to mention that the Wermacht was designed for offensive warfare and the french army was not. And the French army still had not improved the mobilization process from WW1 levels. And in 1939 they had no concept of the speed of the blitzkrieg and how quickly Poland would fall.

The Nazi/Soviet deal was ' buy time ' for both Russia and Germany . The Russians knew the attack was coming and Germany needed space to deal with france and Britain . Dont forget Russia approached Britain and France to work out a plan to deal with Germany in the early 30's , France and Britain wouldnt deal with Russia . So in 1934 Russia began prepaing for war that early ! Moving factories behind the Urals , rearming etc . Read Khruschevs memoirs Khruschev remembers he gives a good account about pre barbarossa .

That's true, and nobody thought it would come before 1945 at the earliest, including most of the German High Command. But I'm still trying to figure out how all this is being dictated by the Western industrial/financier complex.

The West had the A-Bomb Russia didnt and the West had the Strategic Airpower Russia didnt ! They could of driven the Soviet army back to the Urals ....Why didnt they ? Go figure .

Russian airpower was not a throwaway. Russian factories produced a massive air army during the war, and some quality planes. They used their air power similar to the Germans, blitzkrieg style, with air power working with armored assaults, as opposed to the saturation bombing adopted by the Americans and British. Advantage probably to the Americans, but they certainly would have not had undisputed control of the skies.

The US didn't have a warehouse full of A-bombs at its disposal. The only two already built were both used in Japan, and US documents showing conversations between Truman and others showed it could have been anywhere between 'several weeks' and '6 months' before the next one could be ready. And Stalin's spies kept him informed of the US' atomic program. Meanwhile the Red Army had almost 250 divisions in Europe, while the US had 77, many of which were newly arrived with no little to no combat experience. Even if the US could have driven the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, the costs in American lives in doing so would have been staggering, and after the defeats of Japand and Germany, Americans wanted the soldiers home.

Far from it if nations really went to war over freedom Israel would of been targeted long ago . Why did Spain conquer South America ? Gold and rubber ! Why did Britain and France aquire vast empires ? For commercial gain ! What was the opium wars fought over ? Britain controlling a lucrative market ! What did Britain and Holland fight 3 wars over ? control over the lucrative Spice Island trade !

I've never disputed that nations don't fight over economic competition. Nations rarely go to war if it doesn't suit their interests, and generally we're talking about economic interests. But my dispute with you in this thread is your assumption that every move the West made during WW2 was a claculated move controlled by the industrial/financier complex. Sometimes they are against war. Those who controlled the sugar industry in the US in 1898, which was lucrative, were against the US going to war with Spain over Cuba because of the risk of upsetting the sugar market.

As for my claims being easily disputed all you have done is try and justify why Britain and France dawdled , I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !

If you're going to present it as fact then show some proof of it. All you've done is make the claim it is so.

I say they deliberately dawdled afterall what was Poland to them !

And I say they didn't. But if Poland meant little why did France maintain its 1921 treaty with Poland, and why did Chamberlain in early 1939 give Poland assurances of military assistance if Germany invaded? What would Britain have to gain by risking war with Germany by declaring it would aid Poland? If what you claim were true, Britain could simply have sat back and not make any guarantees to Poland.

What's funny about the invasion of Poland is that if the League of Nations had had any balls, they could have finished Germany right there. Hitler had only a token force guarding the western border. Practically all the German troops were engaged with Poland. If France and England had cared to, they could have marched all the way to Berlin.

The same goes for the Rhineland, Hitler sent in a minimal force* and the French turned tail and ran. If Hitler had been denied his first plum, it might have stopped him from being so bold. (*According to Jodl's testimony at Nuremberg, only three battalions crossed the Rhine, and only one division was employed in the occupation of the entire territory. Allied intelligence estimates were higher at three divisions. Hitler commented later, "The fact was, I had only four brigades.")

This just goes to show the general attitude of the times. Europe (except for Germany and Italy) was still war-weary from WWI. Peace at any cost was the order of the day. Even at the end, Chamberlain thought he could still forge peace from a dismal situation. He thought he would be hailed as a hero for his actions. I think history has given him a different flavor.

Then show me some evidence of it.
France subsidized the pre-World War I industrialization of Czarist Russia (and the pre-World War I luxury of the court and expansion of the military) by making investments in Russian government and railroad bonds http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Gold8.html
There are two stories of Russian Oil. The story of stocks and bonds and paper control, which goes on in Paris and London with occasional episodes at San Remo, Genoa and The Hague; and the story of workers and engineers in Baku, who never saw a stock or a bond. They are stories of two different worlds, and to each of them the other world is unreal and unknown. The repeated, bitter demand from America and England for the recognition of "private property" in Russia has much to do with Russian Oil. Private property is quite secure to-day in Russia; and even regarding the foreign property damaged in the past, Russia offered at Genoa to discuss compensation for all foreigners who had actually lost money by her revolution. The foreign diplomats refused this basis of settlement; they demanded, not "compensation for losses," but complete return of properties.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1925/first_time/ch05.htm
The only catch was that Russian dependence on French capital led the czarist government to heed advice from Paris — for example, about how many rail lines to build from Moscow to the Prussian borderhttp://www.wehaitians.com/the%20true%20cost%20of%20hegemony%20huge%20debt.ht ml
If you're going to present it as fact then show some proof of it. All you've done is make the claim it is so.
I stated clearly Russias lack of strategic airpower and nuclear weapons even Stalin said Russia couldnt beat America yet you still argue the point . Russia was almost annihilated in an apocalyptic attack Russia was in no shape to fight on . All you have to do is read Khruschev remembers vol 1 all of what I said is reaffirmed there . Russia was devasted economically ! Fact ? I put together a plausible scenario all you seem to be doing is offering up excuses for allied inaction.
And I say they didn't. But if Poland meant little why did France maintain its 1921 treaty with Poland, and why did Chamberlain in early 1939 give Poland assurances of military assistance if Germany invaded? What would Britain have to gain by risking war with Germany by declaring it would aid Poland? If what you claim were true, Britain could simply have sat back and not make any guarantees to Poland.
Precisely France and England had a vested interest in keeping their main economic rival Germany bottled up thats what led to WWI . But that was 1921 Poland had tried unsuccessfully to invade Russia . Germany and Russia have always vied for control of Poland that nation is a buffer between those two . All the belligerent promises to Poland in 1939 was window dressing , why didnt France and Britain go in with Stalin and stop Hitler dead in 1938 ? Again read Khruschev remembers a whole chapter devoted to that episode .
Why did britain and France aid Nazi allie Finland against the Soviet attack ? Believe me Russia knew as far back as 1933 with the advent of belligerent Nazism that the plutocratic rulers of Germany were going to take another crack at them .

Britain and France were the main continental powers they always saw Germany as the threat these 2 nations were just going through the motions . It would of looked suspicious if these 2 nations did nothing . Why didnt France and Britain invade Germany straight away as well they could of ? Why was no aid sent to Poland ? Why was the Anglo/Franco military expedition too Norway halfhearted ? They really believed Germany wouldnt risk an assault on the formidable Maginot line and risk a WWI bloodfest thats why . So they said well we will sit back give the Germans the impression we wont do anything , let them invade russia and at some opportune time we will jump in .

I ah, disagree.

England and France did help the Poles, and they declared war because of the poles... They had broken one alliance with cezes, and they weren't about to do it again...

I do agree that they thought that the Germans wouldn't assult France, but it was pretty obvious that it was going to... If the Maginot line had been exteneded, it wouldn't have done much anyway... It wasn't heavy enough, and long ranged bombers would've ripped it apart. The "lighting war" is very different from Trench warfare, and a Maginot wouldn't have done anything...

And France had a pitiful offensive military, no way to grab Germany, much less Russia. And the visigoths are allies of the Germans, no, France invading Germany is no no way.

And England invading Germany is even farther fetched... They had barely came out of the depression and Germany was the strongest country on the mainland militarily...

Brian,

You have to take into consideration the change in warfare that the Nazi's brought to the world. The blitzkrieg. Air support. The other powers were still stuck in the past. The Maginot Line was engineered to stop assaults from WWI era battle strategies. Remember the sadly comical image of the Poles sending out their cavalry against the Panzers? WWII reshaped the way battles were waged. And they were obviously good tactics, we still use them today. More or less.

There was no way for England or France to come to the defense of Poland, other than an outright invasion of Germany (which I mentioned above, most likely would have succeeded easily. Hindsight 20/20). The strategy used to balance Europe in those days, was England and France on one side, Russia on the other. When Stalin signed the nonaggression pact, that sealed Poland's doom.

It is true that Stalin woke to the German threat before the west, and that he signed the nonaggression pact after failing to alert the west. And there is no way of determining true inner motivations of the leaders at the time. But I think that they truly thought it would never come to war. Hitler seemed a reasonable fellow. A little kooky sometimes, but mostly harmless. Was it the French that did the sieg heil in the olympics? :p

In fact, Hitler hung his hopes on the west's disgust of communism. He figured that they would be happy to let him swallow eastern europe and attack Russia. He would probably be right, if there weren't all the little countries in the way. (which is why they were put there to begin with, isn't it?)

France had strong treaties with Poland. It's my understanding that Chamberlain actually was ready to let Germany have Poland. With the admonition of "Ok, Hitler, just one more..." again. But France refused, they had finally woken up. They declared war, then England had to back her up. Chamberlain was made a fool in this last round of diplomacy, by the way. If it were his plan to let Germany do it's thing, why would his humiliation be part of it?

It is true that Stalin woke to the German threat before the west, and that he signed the nonaggression pact after failing to alert the west. And there is no way of determining true inner motivations of the leaders at the time. But I think that they truly thought it would never come to war. Hitler seemed a reasonable fellow. A little kooky sometimes, but mostly harmless. Was it the French that did the sieg heil in the olympics?

I diagree. Stalin knew that Hitler would invade, he was mobolizing and preparing. The pact with Hitler helped him instead of harming him. He invaded the north eastern countries as well, that meant that he would have more access to his valuable resources, he would'nt have done it without that pact with Hitler. Also to note: Mien Kamph. Destruction and slavery of the slavic people anyone? Stalin wasn't about to ignore Hitler...

When Germany did attack Russia, it took days to convince Stalin that it wasn't a mistake. He couldn't believe it. He, in fact, retreated to his estate and waited for the hard-liners to come over and finish him off once he realized that he had made such a costly mistake. He would have done it in their place. The russian army was annihalated that first year. (at least what forces they had in the west, I'm a bit hazy here, the majority of their forces might have been in the east to deal with Japan or dealing with internal matters) If it hadn't been for Hitler cleaning up Greece after Mussolini's debacle, Russia would have fallen that first year (most likely). A month's delay found German troops within sight of Moscow when the rains began. It took time for Russia to rebuild (or move) the army. The russian defense after this was mostly (shit, what's the word? the civilian insurgency).

And about Mein Kampf, I doubt if Stalin ever read it. And if he did, he probably put much of it down as propaganda, Stalin used these techniques himself. Also, although it is clear that the Nazi's were anti-communist, they are National Socialists. It's possible that Stalin thought, much like the rest of the world, that Hitler would come around. Hitler could be quite charming when he needed to be.

Even so, it is certain that Stalin was preparing, but not fast enough. It takes time to do all these things. It's hard to create an army in a few short years unless absolutely needed, like invasion or something.

As I said before, hindsight is 20/20. All these people had other things on their minds than Germany. Hitler did amazing things lifting Germany from depression to war-readiness in such a short time. (His navy was deficient though. That's an area that can't be hurried easily.) People just weren't able to see everything clearly. The desire for peace clouded their vision.

You have to take into consideration the change in warfare that the Nazi's brought to the world. The blitzkrieg. Air support. The other powers were still stuck in the past
Thats beside the point how each side estimated each other is immaterial . Britain and France thought they were onto a safe bet they took a gamble and lost .
There was no way for England or France to come to the defense of Poland, other than an outright invasion of Germany
Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive opeartions against Germany remember France and England had been in an arming themselves since 1936 . Both countries had 10 aircraft carriers and very large airforces .
France had strong treaties with Poland. It's my understanding that Chamberlain actually was ready to let Germany have Poland. With the admonition of "Ok, Hitler, just one more..." again. But France refused, they had finally woken up. They declared war, then England had to back her up. Chamberlain was made a fool in this last round of diplomacy, by the way. If it were his plan to let Germany do it's thing, why would his humiliation be part of it?
That proves to you there alone with Chamberlain that some other parallaell govt was pulling the strings . Namely the Bristish Financial/Industrial complex .
When Germany did attack Russia, it took days to convince Stalin that it wasn't a mistake. He couldn't believe it. He, in fact, retreated to his estate and waited for the hard-liners to come over and finish him off once he realized that he had made such a costly mistake
That doesnt stack up if Russia had been preparing for a German invasion since 1934 why would Stalin be taken by surprise . I have raed that in many books about Stalins behaviour yet not one source can be verified . In the West we have been given an "official history " of WWII nice and tidy . The official story goes madman on the loose wants to conquer the world and destroy democracy and we in the free west stopped him . That to me is far to simplistic I believe my version is a lot more sensible concerning the nations involved in that conflict all had belligerent imperial histories .

Thats beside the point how each side estimated each other is immaterial...
I don't see how Germany reshaped war is at all irrelevant to the discussion. It's central to the motivations of all the parties. The west was lax in it's surety that Germany would not be able to penetrate the Maginot Line. This new war made the Maginot line irrelevant. The west was sure that it would take more time for Germany to take Poland. The new type of war got it done fast. The west was basing it's strategy on outdated methods.

Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive opeartions against Germany...
I've already explained this. They could have and would have had they known Hitler had his armies massed to attack Poland, virtually abandoning the defense of his land from the west. Look at it this way, it was a poker game and Hitler outbluffed them all. The west couldn't believe that Germany was undefended. And it wouldn't have been if the generals had maintained control of the army, but Hitler had pretty much taken it away from them by this time. His decision was reckless, but it paid off. Remember that the military establishment in Europe was like a club. There were standard tactics that could be expected for them to follow. Hitler wasn't in the club. He used his own tactics. He was a bug in the ear of military protocol.

And you can blame the west for Hitler getting such a tight grip of the army, as well. When he first began his power, the military could take him out anytime they wished. He was somewhat subordinate. Their field was war, and he had to follow their lead. But, after the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslavakia the generals had advised against some of these. In some cases almost outright rebellion. Hitler prevailed and each time his authority was greater afterwards. By the time of Poland, no one stood in his way.

That proves to you there alone with Chamberlain that some other parallaell govt was pulling the strings...
Ok, if you say so. To me it proves nothing of the sort.

...In the West we have been given an "official history " of WWII nice and tidy...
Of course, we can only know that which is taught in history books. It's impossible to verify any history for sure. History is written by the winners. This is an old saying. Nothing new there.

But the reality is that we have history (as false as it may be) or we have the choice not to believe history. If you throw out official history what can you do? Make up a new one? You'd be creating history based on what you think it should have been like. That's the way the old-timers did it. Passing on tales and hearsay and pure imagination as history. At least the history we have now is based on evidence. Governments leave paper trails. Big paper trails. If you find evidence to the contrary, then you're set. Until then, you're just theorizing.

No I have made sensible observations with my thread I have studied that part of history . If you take into consideration the behaviour of the Britain and France towards Germany in the 1930s you see an almost bending over backwards to appease Germany . They allowed Germany to rearm they even proscribed loans to Germany American industry opened plants in Germany . Take my advice you study carefully the co-operation of that period between those countries .Look at it this way, it was a poker game and Hitler outbluffed them all Exactly he out bluffed Britain and France and they were overrun . Now just look at America after France was crushed and Britain left high and dry did you notice how belligerent America became towards Germany ? Remember America only months before was reaffirming its neutrality . America saw her 2 principal rivals disappear and saw her chance and moved in its as simple as that .Until then, you're just theorizing. I never claimed elsewise but there again you cannot talk you have not provided any stable argument to the contrary just tired old standard excerpts from dusty old biased history books .

2000 years before the Industrial Revolution Rome accrued through conquest a vast empire based on trade and finance sought lays waste your lame argument .

I was satirizing your argument. If you'll pay attention to your posts throughout this thread, you've laid the blame for WWII at the feet of capitalism/imperialism and finance/industry. Meanwhile, you brush off the imperialism of the Communists, claiming they were allowed to take that land. They weren't allowed. They simply took. After the fact, the West acquiesced.

And to repeat, paraphrased Lenin is not particularly convincing.

Fat western democracies (Britain mostly, and i am British) let all the fascist dictatorships get away with too much, and didnt stamp out nazism and fascism when they had the chance. You know Britain refused to arm the Spanish republic in the civil war on the grounds that "they didnt want to aggravate Hitler" - look at the sudetenland, rhineland etc. its a disgrace to liberal democracy.

world war 2 SUPPOSDELY happened becasure of Hitlers evilness and his plans to get rid of the Jews. well big news, no one gives a fuck about jews. Hitler had been doing deep persecturion of jews for over five year and no one did anything becasue they supposdely "didnt know".

no one cares about Jews, its only when Hitler became a threat to Europe when anyone did anythig.

world war 2 SUPPOSDELY happened becasure of Hitlers evilness and his plans to get rid of the Jews. well big news, no one gives a fuck about jews. Hitler had been doing deep persecturion of jews for over five year and no one did anything becasue they supposdely "didnt know".

no one cares about Jews, its only when Hitler became a threat to Europe when anyone did anythig.

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.

BECAUSE of attitudes like i've just read in the last posts....--ie., the TONE, attitude, eg., "them JEWS".....etc etc. that's all it takes. the moment you separate yourseles from others and use them as scapegoat is reason not only WW1 and WW2 happens but why all conflicts happen.
but will we ever learn?

it's no point you saying that the Jewish PEOPLE act same. yeah, we all seem to wanna belong to a group etc....such as 'i am english, american, french, african, etc etc. but its when that belief takes you over and you get lost in the role of THat being your essence. it aint. your essence is as human being. so seeing through all the tribalry is first step to not starting wars or fighting in them

Although you know in the Warsaw ghetto, Jewish police executed Jews, and rich Jews lived in comparative luxury whilst the Working Class ones literally starved to death. People can be very cruel to each other, wether theyre Jews or Poles or Nazis or whatever.

And it has been theorised, that had the Spanish Republic won the Civil War there wouldve been a second world war against Russia and not Germany.

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.


i'm sorry but i do not like the language used in this text i qoute 'fuck' there may be little children looking at this :mad: :mad: :mad:

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.


i'm sorry but i do not like the language used in this text i qoute 'fuck' there may be little children looking at this :mad:

Nobody cares about anybody. Why Jews should be an exception from thise rule?

In 1931-34, 7 millions of Ukrainians were deliverately starved to death by soviet regime, "death squads" were lead mostly by jewish commisars. There was depression in the West during this time, West needed jobs and trade, so nobody gave a fuck about those 7 million starved souls. Trade with uncle Joe was more valuable at the time. Add there 3 millions killed in WWI/revolution/civil war, 8 millions killed during WWII, several millions sent to Siberia to perish, 1 million starved to death after WWII. Consider that total population of Ukraine was around 40 millions circa 1914 and do the math.

I am sick and tired of jews pedling their real and imaginary sufferings for hard cash. YOU ARE NOT ALONE, CHILL OUT. IT'S HISTORY. GET OVER it and do not let anything like that happen again. Look what kind of apartheid, theocratic state you've created in Israel then whine.


i'm sorry but i do not like the language used in this text i qoute 'fuck' there may be little children looking at this

Ummm.... you made three posts in your entire history and they are all the same. Do something about this.

and in doing so you said fuck 3 times when you are complaining about it once! =)

I'm more disturbed by the fact that emily felt little children are at more risk from a swear word than from anti-semitism.

i dont think it was really antisemitic

Swear words are silly. Back to the original topic:

In my opinion WWII begins in about 1870 with the Franco Prussian war and other events. Between 1870 and 1940 the world was changing. Linguistically based Nationalism and revolutionary idealism were in the process of replacing royalty and religious bureaucracy as the forces around which nation states were organized. The other organizing force, capitalism was becoming increasingly transnational and corporate. England and France had been dominating the world but rising upstarts Prussia/Germany, Russia, the United States, Italy and Japan were trying to become the new great powers. Once great or semi-great powers the Ottoman empire, Austria, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and China were fading in power. War establishes the global pecking order.

WWI was a strictly imperialist war in which there were no good guys despite the West's claim that being democracies gave them the moral high ground. The end of WWI was unfair to the German people but fairness had never been expected in the era that predated neo-democratic idealistic propaganda. WWII was almost inevitable given the way WWI ended. Machiavelli said something along the lines of "you must either make a friend of your enemy or you must utterly destroy your enemy, but do not leave your enemy around to fight you again". England and France ignored this rule with their cruel but lax treatment of Germany.




WWII was not about Jews (and the American Civil War was not about slavery) but Jews were on a percapita basis the people most severely impacted by the war.

The Holocaust was Six million terrorist murders in a century during which there were perhaps fifty million terrorist killings. Israel's ethnic cleansing and terrorist killings of Palestinians has been insignificant when compared to Terrorist killings and ethnic cleansing in the Congo and many other places.

Neoconservatives talk about Iraq being the beginning of WWIII as if having WWIII would be a good thing. Neoconservatives would be much much weaker if they did not have their alliance with Zionism. Neoconservatism is stupid and evil and a disaster for the human species; but it is wrong to blame Jews for that.

In my opinion WWII begins in about 1870 with the Franco Prussian war and other events. Between 1870 and 1940 the world was changing.

I can't say if those dates are correct but I think it brings up the larger point. We tend to point at an individual event and say, "this is the cause!" but thats almost never true. It's usually just the last straw, most conflicts have decades or centuries of build-up.

If you really want to know why WW2 (or any major war) happened you should be prepared to spend a few weeks in a library.

The causes of World War I were the isms, alliance systems, and growing tensions between revolutionaries. The isms are Nationalism/Patriotism which is radical loyalty, Imperialism refers to the actions used by one nation to use political or economic control over smaller weaker nations and this became a problem in Europe because of competition in the next ism, Colonialism and Expansionism are the ideas that colonies are used as a source of money through trade and expanding a country’s borders and economy, and finally Militarism which is the action a country takes to increase their military might. The very roots of World War I began when the Napoleon fell. Napoleon had brought Europe together as one and once again they break apart. Then these countries started their own alliances such as the Triple Entente, which included Great Britain, France, and Russia, and also the Quadruple Alliance, which consisted of Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The European theater became so close to war that with a single push would topple those very fragile seams that held the peace.

The thought that World War I could have been avoided has to be cast away because then history would have to be rewritten for that to happen. First thing you would have to accomplish would be the prevention of Alexander the Great’s death and his continued lineage a success to maintain a known world order. Also to complement that you would have to make his armies be really powerful and vast to suppress revolutions. If not, then you would have to prevent the barbarians from attacking the Roman Empire. Then you would have to get better leadership and all the political backstabbing. Also, you would have to give the good ol’ pep talk and boost the economy. Not only that, but somehow supplement the governing of the already large empire. If not, then you segregate the regions of Europe into particular races such as the Gauls and the Anglo-Saxons. Then you would have to stop all the rivalries and hatred among the races. You could expand Charlemagne’s empire and unite Europe. Since Catholics and Protestants hated each other you would have to unite these people too. Also, as a later point in time, you would have to stop all colonization. If WWI were to be prevented towards a more modern point in time then either Louis XIII would have to conquer and protect all of Europe or let Napoleon take over Europe and Eastern Russia. If after Napoleon’s time you were trying to find the point at which war could have been deterred then a suggestion to you would be to stop the alliances and create a European world order. If you are like one of those night before workers than try taking out all those crazy nationalists and stop the European countries from practicing Imperialism and Militarism.

As you can see, World War I was to be expected even as far back as the Macedonian and Roman Empires. The fate of Europe and its respective colonies were doomed to a full-scale world war since about 300 B.C.E. Even the Second World War was an exact repeat of WWI but just with newer and more improved toys to use against enemies and crazy fanatical leaders.

Here's when I say History is doomed to repeat itself till someone smart is incharge :mad:

The economic power games got out of hand and the military power game kicked in:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm

Many pepople argue that WWII started before 1939. They say the invasion of China was the start of WWII and some other invasion that I don't remember.
But didn't it start maily because England and France had the appeasement with Germany.

Surely you mean because Britain and France ended appeasement of Germany?

i think he means because france & engalnd were appeasing germany, hitler thought he could do whatever, and they'd not care, because of the appeasement policy.

Q: If the British and French which were at that time the worlds 2 eminent military/industrial powers said nothing it would of came off as strange . Why did they allow Germany to install such a militant govt ? Why was Germany allowed to Re-arm ? Why didnt they attack Germany when they entered the Saar region ? When Germany invaded Austria ? Invaded Czechoslovakia ? Get real this is carte blanche .

A: These two nations were not some sort of monolithic entity. Kissinger covers the topic of the Anglo-French distrust and rivalry after the First World War, which certainly precluded any Franco-Russian partion of Germany.

To answer the question specifically, Germany was not prevented from doing any of the things you mention because of the pervasive antipathy between Moscow on one hand and London and Paris on the other.

Q: If you're saying that Germany was the capitalist/imperialist nation in question then you're absolutely right. WW2 was caused by Germany invading Poland. The nations which you are trying to disparage bent over backwards trying to avoid war. They let Germany have the Ruhr, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. Hitler thought they would let him have Poland as well. Error of judgment on his part.

A: I don't think the problem was that simple. The theoretical potential that was realized in the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 existed long before that date. In addition, the policy of "appeasement" wasn't quite as one-sided as history has subsequently suggested - there was a strong element of military strategy embedded in this Czeckered catch-phrase.

Q: Really? In the early days of the assault on Poland there had been talk in the French high command of trying to get the Balkan states to create a new front under French leadership. Both Weygand and Gamelin thought that while it would be nice to have Germany occupied on several fronts, they thought it a bad idea because, as Gamelin himself said, soon the Germans would be assaulting the Western Front, which indicates most of the top military leadership realized that the Germans would turn west.

A: It is not correct to suppose that the Maginot Line was some sort of futile speedbump. The French most certainly expected the Germans to come - and their plan was to march their very best divisions into Belgium and meet them head-on. As for the Maginot Line, it was expected to withstand direct frontal assault with any amount of aerial and artillery support unaided (which it did). The fortress line was used as an impermeable anchor on the French right.

For a primer on the viability of fortresses in this area, I'd suggest the American assault on the Siegfried Line in the fall of 1944. In that case, the attackers had far more firepower, and the defenders were few, poorly trained and equipped, and their positions weren't as sophisticated as the Maginot Line. None the less, it was one bloody, slow slog.

Q: Neither the French or the British were able to mobilize in the 3 weeks time that Germany overran its half of Poland. France had a war plan to attack the Germans in the event of an invasion, but the French didn't believe Hitler's prediction that Poland could be conquered that fast.

A: True, the French didn't believe that Poland would go down so quickly. However, this thread has yet to record a vital fact - both the British and the French appear to have DELIBERATELY exaggerated to Polish officials the strength and speed of the allied offensive to help her. The Poles were not expecting some half-hearted minor operation; they thought that the French would undertake a major offensive. This impression wasn't fantasy or wishful thinking, it was based upon military conversations with the west.

For what purpose would Paris and London mislead Warsaw save to increase the chances that Poland would fight?

Q: You're correct. Until Poland was invaded most Frenchmen and Brits likely believed, or at least wanted to believe, that Hitler was doing no more than reuniting all German territories and people lost after WW1, but the invasion of Poland certainly changed that

A: You mean to say that the occupation of Prague in March 1939 changed matters - the war with Poland was over territory that Germany lost as a consequence of Versailles.

Q: Both Britain and france could of began immediate offensive operations against Germany remember France and England had been in an arming themselves since 1936 . Both countries had 10 aircraft carriers and very large airforces .

A: For an idea of what the Allies were capable of, see Gamelin's advance into Belgium in 1940. I'd hazard a guess that France could, if desired, have organized a 30-40 division attack supported by 1000-1500 tanks by day 14 of the war. This would have pummeled Hitler's defenses and taken the left bank of the Rhine, and threatened the Ruhr.


Q: No I have made sensible observations with my thread I have studied that part of history . If you take into consideration the behavior of the Britain and France towards Germany in the 1930s you see an almost bending over backwards to appease Germany . They allowed Germany to rearm they even proscribed loans to Germany American industry opened plants in Germany . Take my advice you study carefully the co-operation of that period between those countries .

A: These calculations didn't exist in a vacuum. Russia was also rearming at a truly terrifying pace.

Q: The thought that World War I could have been avoided has to be cast away because then history would have to be rewritten for that to happen. First thing you would have to accomplish would be the prevention of Alexander the Great’s death and his continued lineage a success to maintain a known world order....

A: Two of the most important events in the leadup to the war were the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 and the defeat of Russia in Asia in 1905. Neither was dependent upon Alexander.

Q: i think he means because france & engalnd were appeasing germany, hitler thought he could do whatever, and they'd not care, because of the appeasement policy.

A: The purpose of Chamberlain's policy appears to me to have been in support of the elemental strategy necessary to defeat Nazi Germany - blockade. The panzers and the Luftwaffe required gas. Period. Without it, Germany loses the war.

Take a ruler, draw a line between Germany and Hitler's gas supply (Ploesti in Rumania). Notice how it runs right through Czechoslovakia? That's your appeasement policy, right there. Because the French wouldn't fight and the Russians wouldn't be trusted, Chamberlain brokered a deal that handed Germany a strip of Czech territory, but kept the Czech army and industrial might in the hands of Prague.

If Germany was shown some mercy during the aftermath of WWI, Hitler and Nazis wouldn't have had an cause to rally people....... it was the feeling of sorrow, loss, unjust and carving of Germany and its lands that made people sympathetic with Nazi propaganda, which, ultimately, pushed things towards war.

Unfortunately, Men are not learning from mistakes......

The same is happening nowadays in the Arab and Islamic world, the feeling of "everybody wants to kill muslims and destroy their land and religion" is rallying young muslims for the aid of people like Bin-Laden..........

After all, evil begets evil, you can't expect to kill people, occupy their lands, dominate their politics by pupit-rulers, and undermine their cultural heritage (the handling of the Holy Quran in Guantanamo being the latest) and think you can get away with it!!

In the end, Justice will prevail.
Salam.

Then again look at Isreal and how the Arabs took it over for thousands of years. Then there's Arabs that become terrorists and blow people and places up (like 9-11 the world trade center) and that doesn't sit well with others either. To think that terrorism hits those outside Arabic countries when manyArabic countries themselves are run by dictators is amazing to me. Women in Arabic countries are worthless and are not allowed to vote or hold a job. Women are treated like dirt and Arabs will kill a woman who has been raped which makes no sense. Arabs should try to realize they live in the 20th century and try and become part of it instead of trying to take the world backwards in time to the days when only the clerics have power by force and corruption.

If germany had WON WW1, WW2 would not have happened. Hitler and the holocaust, etc. would not have happened.
Also, a common misconception is that the Kaiser and the Germans wanted all of Europe in WW1. This is total BS. If anything, all the Kaiser wanted was overseas territory, and some part of Lithuania. If anything.
The world would've been a much more peaceful place in the Centrals had won WW1.
And, also, the great depression wouldn't have hit Germany so hard, because all of europe would be tied into a germany-austria centered Economic Union (kinda like the early E.U), and economic problems would've been somewhat muffled.

If gangis khan took over Eurasia and kept control of it then ww1 and ww2 would have not happened...

Yes...
Or, consequently, if the Romans had won Teutobergerwald, they could've taken over Germania, and none of the crap would've happened.
Semper Romanorum. :D

If Homo sapiens, were exterminated by, the Neanderthals; then modern history would not exist.

Unga-bunga?

:D

All is propaganda. Profit is usually the root of all intentions.

All is propaganda. Profit is usually the root of all intentions.


As I stated.

my history prof told me not to ask such questions. my faborite question used to be" what if paul didnt get converted on the road to tarsus. i dont want to open religious discussion!
ursula

Here's an interesting idea. What if the future Edward VII had died of the flu instead of Prince Albert? Then Prince Albert could have stayed alive for who knows how long--he was only comparitively young when he died--and he would have had a major influence on English foreign policy during the remainder of the 19th Century. Possibly Britain would have helped the Prussians against France in the war of 1870, instead of staying out on the sidelines as they did (although the Prussian leadership did ask for England's help against their traditional enemy, France, and were rebuffed, much to their chagrin). Also, without Edward VII becoming king in 1901, would the subsequent raproachment with France have taken place? If not, woulf Britain have taken part in World War I, or would it have been a purely European continental war, with no input from the British (unless, ironically, they had fought alongaside Germany against their traditional enemies, the French. In that case, would World War II have even happened?

what if the big bang never happened and the earth was not formed...

Then we would not be here discussing this.

If not, woulf Britain have taken part in World War I, or would it have been a purely European continental war, with no input from the British (unless, ironically, they had fought alongaside Germany against their traditional enemies, the French. In that case, would World War II have even happened?
Nothing would of stopped Britain from entering that war , Britain had to , it was an imperial war of survival . WWl was an Anglo-Franco attempt to stop German Economic ascendancy over Europe . France used the German declaration of war against Russia to enter war against Germany . Britain used the invasion of Belgium as pretext to enter war against Germany .

And Germany only declared war on Russia because Russia declared war on Austria, because Austria declared war on Serbia, because the Serbian Government were responisible for the assassination of Francis Ferdinand.
And the whole mess could have been avoided if Russia had stayed in the Three-Emperor-Alliance instead of allying with Serbia.

I think the Russian Tzar would care less if he new what would become after he took that decision..... only if he knew that this would be used by the Bolshevics to overthrow him, no doubt!!

Originally posted by Ursula

"what if paul didnt get converted on the road to tarsus. i dont want to open religious discussion!"

I doubt that paul did convert to christianity, historically speaking, the Church changed alot from what it was after Christ and what it became after the alleged conversion of Saul.

I think the Russian Tzar would care less if he new what would become after he took that decision..... only if he knew that this would be used by the Bolshevics to overthrow him, no doubt!!
Or, even better, if gavrilo princip was never fucking born, the great powers would still be around, and the world would be a much better place, i.e not US-dominated.

Nothing would of stopped Britain from entering that war , Britain had to , it was an imperial war of survival . WWl was an Anglo-Franco attempt to stop German Economic ascendancy over Europe . France used the German declaration of war against Russia to enter war against Germany . Britain used the invasion of Belgium as pretext to enter war against Germany .

All true, to an extent. But the other poster was wondering whether or not a different king may have influenced British policy in a different direction. And judging from events during the reign of Victoria, the answer can be supposed in the affirmative. Fisher, for instance, should probably have quickly found himself commanding a fleet of rubber duckies in a bathtub half way up the Yangtze River had he persisted with his silly "Copenhagen" comments while Vicky was on the throne!

And Germany only declared war on Russia because Russia declared war on Austria, because Austria declared war on Serbia, because the Serbian Government were responsible for the assassination of Francis Ferdinand.


Russia did not declare war on Austria-Hungary. Rather, the converse was true (August 6th, 1914, 5 days after the Germans declared war on Russia). The Austrians did not declare war on Serbia because it was felt they were responsible for the events of June 28th, 1914. Rather, the Austrians accused the Serbian Government of complicity in the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne.

And there's a difference between complicity and responsibility in this situation?
It's serbia's fault. Let's put it at that.

It's an interesting speculation to go back in time to the coffee-house where Gavrilo Princip waited, and bring him forward 80 years to 1994, just to show him the ultimate consequences of his actions. He may then have decided that pulling the trigger on the couple was not worth the trouble it would cause. None of the people involved in the plot realised that their actions were likely to start a World War. I think (if I remember rightly) that ironically, every one of the assasination-group survived the war-- I saw a photo of them all sitting together in the 1920's.

On the other hand, if G. P. hadn't done the deed, someone else would have, no doubt.

It's an interesting speculation to go back in time to the coffee-house where Gavrilo Princip waited
This assasination reeked of premeditation on behalf of the German intelligence service . The fact that some 2 hours earlier a bomb was thrown at his car failing to kill the Archduke they still carried on with the tour . Gavrilo Princip missed an earlier opportunity to assasinate the target and retired to a cafe . Incredibly they actually drive to the cafe where Gavrilo Princip was sitting , and supposedly seeing his opportunity he shot the Archduke ! He was driven deliberately to his assasin .

And there's a difference between complicity and responsibility in this situation?
It's serbia's fault. Let's put it at that.

There is an important difference. If Berchtold had made an accusation of responsibility against Pasic's government, he would have been wrong. But by sticking to the charge of complicity, they ensured that their declaration of war was on solid legal ground.

I heard it was because someone called Archie Duke shot an ostrich.

Oh wait. That was world war one.

This assasination reeked of premeditation on behalf of the German intelligence service . The fact that some 2 hours earlier a bomb was thrown at his car failing to kill the Archduke they still carried on with the tour . Gavrilo Princip missed an earlier opportunity to assasinate the target and retired to a cafe . Incredibly they actually drive to the cafe where Gavrilo Princip was sitting , and supposedly seeing his opportunity he shot the Archduke ! He was driven deliberately to his assasin .
Austrian intel service, actually.
But, I'm just nitpicking here, so...

If gangis khan took over Eurasia and kept control of it then ww1 and ww2 would have not happened...Were you hinting, ever so subtly, that we should get back to discussing the cause(s) of WWII? I think that would be a really good idea; it's an interesting topic

Actually River, I was hinting for them to get off the topic of "what if" the big bang thing was me having to go to extreme measures.

Eh. I'll take a stab at it.

What the poster appears to be actually asking is what, if anything contributed to the outbreak of the war, over and beyond the ambitions of Adolf Hitler? In that spirit I'll answer, but with the provision that, "Hitler caused World War Two" is an absolute truth. How do we know for certain that this is the case? Because Germany started the war by attacking a natural German ally - Poland. Chamberlain can be charged with many stupidities in these matters, but exploiting this unbelievable mistake on Hitler's part was not one of them.

If, for a moment, as fancy, remove the lunatic dictator from Berlin in October 1938 and substitute a more palatable character (let's say a Gandi) as the German leader, the question remains; could the newfangled goodie-goodie Germany then have avoided World War Two? If the answer is "yes" then Hitler is hung because it's irrefutable that he started things. But if the answer is instead "no", then the question of ultimate causation is shown not to have been dependent upon Hitler's rantic actions; Hitler can be condemned for bringing things to a head more quickly than otherwise, but cannot be guilty of causing that which was inevitable.

I'd ask the question as follows: Given Germany's utter lack of allies, and therefore lack of security in Central Europe, what's the "reasonable" formula that assured Germany would not be attacked by a reconstituted Triple Entente, or Dual Alliance?

If the above cannot be answered for "Gandi's" Germany in a fashion we'd find acceptable in meeting some minimum standards for our own security, then the origins of the war may center on the fact that Europe was bereft of a security platform for its strongest state.

. . . but with the provision that, "Hitler caused World War Two" is an absolute truth. How do we know for certain that this is the case? Because Germany started the war by attacking a natural German ally - Poland.
It is a very dangerous thing to claim an absolute truth in History. Why claim that the war started at this point (the invasion of Poland)? Presumably, you make this claim because France and Britain declared war at this time. But the invasion of Poland was a joint invasion by Germany and the Soviet Union. So why claim that Hitler rather than Stalin started the war? Simply because German troops crossed the frontier first in what was clearly a pre-planned joint attack?

Perhaps France and England started WWII by declaring war? Can we be sure that a European war was inevitable at this stage (if they had not done so)? And if so, can we be sure it would become a World War?

Unless you can substantiate the claim that German troops crossing the Polish border led inevitably to a World War, can you hold Hitler responsible for that war? Remember, Hitler did not want a World War. He desperately did not want a war against the British Empire.

Unless you can substantiate the claim that German troops crossing the Polish border led inevitably to a World War, can you hold Hitler responsible for that war? Remember, Hitler did not want a World War. He desperately did not want a war against the British Empire.

As a rule of thumb in past conflicts, the powers which initiates military action is usually considered the aggressor, unless it can be shown that their actions were taken under duress (i.e., Israel, 1967) or a reasonable response to another form of aggression (i.e., Austria-Hungary, 1914). In the parlors of Europe, for centuries before Hitler ever came to power, it had been understood quite clearly that invasions (and most particularly, annexations) were automatically a casus beli for any power that chose to intervene. This is why the Great Powers went to Great Pains to consult and negotiate with one another; to avoid the odium of upsetting the applecart. Whether Hitler “didn’t want” a war with England doesn’t matter.

In 1939 it is well nigh irrefutable that Germany, not Poland instigated the crisis beginning in January. I think your point of contributory Soviet instigation has merit, but it is also true they were reacting to Hitler’s lead. Unless it can be shown that Germany’s hand was forced by some overarching European instability that made a showdown inevitable, then Hitler gets tagged with the blame. It is true that Germany was framed, victimized and humiliated in the First World War by three aggressor powers (Great Britain, France, Russia), but this does not translate into a “free hand” in Europe for a violent and racist regime decades later.

I could have expressed myself better. When I asked "can you hold Hitler responsible", I was meaning in terms of historic CAUSATION. (The word "responsible" tends to imply "morally responsible" which is not what I was concerned with.)

See, what I am saying glenn239 is that I do not believe that a WORLD war necessarily had to follow from the partition of Poland. Hitler and Stalin may both have thought that there would ultimately be conflict between their two countries, but did either suppose at that time that there would be a WORLD war? Roosevelt after all was promising resolutely that the US would not get involved in a European war.

In 1939 it is well nigh irrefutable that Germany, not Poland instigated the crisis beginning in January. I think your point of contributory Soviet instigation has merit, but it is also true they were reacting to Hitler’s lead.Well, were they? The partition of Poland was undoubtedly agreed between the two powers ahead of the concocted incident that preceded German invasion. No one, I think, any longer supposes that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland was a "reaction" to the German invasion of Western Poland. The line of demarkation was agreed between Molotov and Ribbentrop in a secret annex to the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Well, were they? The partition of Poland was undoubtedly agreed between the two powers ahead of the concocted incident that preceded German invasion. No one, I think, any longer supposes that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland was a "reaction" to the German invasion of Western Poland. The line of demarkation was agreed between Molotov and Ribbentrop in a secret annex to the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
All the Nazi-Soviet pact was a German attempt at buying time in attempt to appease Russia whilst they dealt with their Anglo-Franco adversaries in the West . The Russian's took advantage of the Pact too put as much space between them and their future attacker turned on them . The Russian attack on Finland was a Russian attempt to protect Leningrad from direct attack .

You might equally well say (as Kruschev did in his memoirs) that it was an attempt by the Soviets to buy time while rearming. It suited both sides at the time; that's why it happened. Just as Hitler wished to unite Germanic territories and to dominate the old Hapsburg lands, so the Soviet leaders wished to recapture the lands ruled by Imperial Russia. Both sides feared that a peaceful division into spheres of influence would not be accomplished. Much danger of war lay within that fear itself. It is perverse to think that an agreed partition of Poland that was accomplished without conflict between Nazis and Soviets was the cause of a World War.

The Russian's took advantage of the Pact too put as much space between them and their future attacker turned on them .

This is a common interpretation, but it's also widely accepted as a theory that the Soviet Union exploited the confrontation between Germany and the west to further its own expansionist agenda. For example, the Soviet Union did not need to sign a Nazi-Soviet Pact to partition Poland in order to have secured a territorial buffer in the event of a war. But by doing so, they made war a certainty, whereas if they had abstained from cooperation, then Hitler may have backed down in August 1939.

It is perverse to think that an agreed partition of Poland that was accomplished without conflict between Nazis and Soviets was the cause of a World War.

Being labelled the aggressor has incurred odium for precisely this reason. As Hitler was perfectly aware in 1939, attacking Poland would cause a period of violent instability in Europe, in which any series of consequences (some quite severe) could come to pass. He did it anyways. That a partition did not necessarily have to lead to a world war is true, but a matter extraneous to the issue of Hitler's guilt in taking action which would virtually ensure this eventuality came to pass.

at least you all do not engage in german bashing!
ursula

As Hitler was perfectly aware in 1939, attacking Poland would cause a period of violent instability in Europe . . .
But it didn't. It led to the "phoney war" -- though there was significant naval warfare during this period. Operations in Norway were effectively an offshoot of the naval conflict. It was the German invasion of France that led to brief but significant land battles on the European continent. But these did not make a world war inevitable.

More than anything else, it was the victory of the War Party (Churchill and supporters) over the Peace Party (British Establishment) that ensured a World War. (This is not to dismiss the likelihood of a Nazi-Soviet European war.) Of course, if you think that it was worth a world war to be rid of Hitler, you do not blame Churchill and Roosevelt for engineering it.

Or, there again, were Churchill and Roosevelt merely pawns of International Jewry?

But it didn't. It led to the "phoney war" -- though there was significant naval warfare during this period. Operations in Norway were effectively an offshoot of the naval conflict. It was the German invasion of France that led to brief but significant land battles on the European continent. But these did not make a world war inevitable.

More than anything else, it was the victory of the War Party (Churchill and supporters) over the Peace Party (British Establishment) that ensured a World War. (This is not to dismiss the likelihood of a Nazi-Soviet European war.) Of course, if you think that it was worth a world war to be rid of Hitler, you do not blame Churchill and Roosevelt for engineering it.

Can you provide information that shows either Chamberlain or the French had opened discussions with Hitler on ending the war before Churchill came to power in May 1940?

After the declaration of war, British contact with the Germans was necessarily discrete and "deniable". Some of it may have been technically illegal and treasonable, even though it was pursued with patriotic motives. In the aftermath of Allied victory, and the depiction of Hitler as an inhuman monster, those who had been in favour of peace were inclined to keep their secrets. Moreover, Hitler's "double-crossing" of Chamberlain had made "appeasement" a bad word.

However, a large part of the British Establishment was against the war with Germany. Many harboured great hostility towards Churchill. A fierce battle, largely hidden from the public, was fought out between (on the one hand) those who saw no advantage in continuing the conflict, who wished to conclude an as-far-as-possible-honourable peace, who saw economic ruin in the cost of a long war, and who viewed the Soviet Union as the greater enemy -- and (on the other hand) Churchill and his allies, controlling the secret service, the weapons of propaganda, and fomenting anti-German sentiment.

One of the key events of this story, of course, is the extraordinary peace mission of Rudolf Hess. We do not know what secret contacts led up to Hess's mission. We do not know whose support he enjoyed within the British Establishment. Many of the records are to be kept secret for a hundred years. Hess was not a fool or a madman. The battle between the War Party and the Peace Party was delicately balanced, and its outcome was uncertain.

Had the appeasers been successful, Britain might have avoided a long war, retained its Empire for a longer period, escaped the near-bankruptcy caused by Lend-Lease -- the United States might have remained neutral, and a second World War need not have happened.

For much more detail:
Double Standards, Picknett et al. Time-Warner, 2002
Friendly Fire, Picknett et al. Mainstream Publishing, 2004

This is interesting, but what does it have to do with Hitler's decision to trigger a war, and the responsibility that came with it?

The thread addresses the question: Why did WWII happen?
It did not happen as a result of the partition of Poland.
It did not happen as a result of the invasion of France.
One may argue that it happened because Britain under Churchill chose the path of war rather than peace, and sought to make the conflict global by involving the US.
One may argue that it was caused by the Japanese.
But it happened DESPITE Hitler's efforts to avoid a World War by making peace with Britain and attempting to keep the US neutral.
In no ordinary sense can Hitler be said to have CAUSED a WORLD war.

Let me stress that I am not concerned with moral responsibility here. I am addressing the path of historic causation.

There is a distinction being made between a "world" conflagration, and, presumably, a "local" war in which Germany emerged victorious in July 1940?

Germany initiated the war by invading the sovereign nation of Poland. Historic precedent indicates that this action alone could reasonably be expected to cause sufficient instability in the international scene to trigger a global conflict. A speeder may run a red light in hopes that they will not broadside another vehicle, but the chance that this may not occur does not absolve the guilty party of the consequences of their reckless behavior!

Further, I'm uncertain as to how "drawing in the USA" was selected as the decisive incident in the escalation process? The Americans did not enter the war until December 1941, almost 6 months after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union (which by the definition I think you're using, triggered the "world" war). And as you will recall, it was Germany that declared war upon the United States, and not vice versa.

Germany declared war on the United States in order to support the Japanese, but he need not have done so--I would argue that if he had not, the US would possibly not have sent troops to Europe, at least not until they had concentrated their main efforts into defeating the Japanese in the Pacific. I which case the war may have lasted into the 1950's.

There is a distinction being made between a "world" conflagration, and, presumably, a "local" war in which Germany emerged victorious in July 1940?
Obviously.

Germany initiated the war by invading the sovereign nation of Poland. Historic precedent indicates that this action alone could reasonably be expected to cause sufficient instability in the international scene to trigger a global conflict.
This is simply untrue. One nation invading another does not regularly cause a World War -- or there would have been rather a lot of them!

Further, I'm uncertain as to how "drawing in the USA" was selected as the decisive incident in the escalation process?
I am assuming a World War includes both hemispheres.

The Americans did not enter the war until December 1941, almost 6 months after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union (which by the definition I think you're using, triggered the "world" war).
It would have suited most of the world much better if the Nazis and Soviets had slugged it out without the rest of the world becoming involved. It was what the Peace Party in Britain hoped would happen. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union did not cause a world war.

Germany declared war on the United States in order to support the Japanese, but he need not have done so . . .
This is of course a perfectly valid point -- or at least it is true that it WAS the Germans who declared war.

The US had been fighting an escalating "war by proxy" against the Germans through their support for Britain -- even occupying Iceland so that the British forces who had invaded that country could be redeployed elsewhere. Remember that the US was supplying arms and materiel to Britain even before the outbreak of war, and in defiance of a neutral position escalated the supply after the outbreak of hostilities. US support did not begin with the famous "Lend-Lease" -- that merely enabled the supply to continue after Britain's