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.
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
I'm more disturbed by the fact that emily felt little children are at more risk from a swear word than from anti-semitism.
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.
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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.
