Skip to comments.Who Started the Second World War?
Posted on 05/05/2005 2:13:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
Punitive conditions in the Treaty of Versailles were so harsh that some Germans literally starved. If a family had two cows, the Treaty called that one be taken from them as a form of come-uppance. Most of what the German people produced or earned was confiscated due to the Treaty. It debilitated the German economy to the point that there was little incentive to be productive. It also totally demoralized the German people. It wasn't a matter of being "mean to them." It was a matter of an ugly desire for vengeance on the part the Treaty writers. It backfired big-time, which is perhaps why the bible says to leave vengeance to God.
NOTHING like the Treaty of Versailles was ever inflicted on "the hijackers who flew those planes into the buildings." It's a poor analogy.
Please add this observation to the title question's responses.
The WW1 conditions of surrender are what caused WW2. Therefore, several versions of who started WW2 would exist; none would prevail.
Somebody named Archie Duke was shot by an ostrich.
The real reason, and a mistake not made after WW2.
Who started WWII? That would be the French at Versailles, enabled by the US and Britain who buckled and allowed France to drive postwar Germany into the ground, where it became ripe for Hitler.
"How about the Treaty of Versailles?"
The French and the Russians do seem to be the source of most of the 20th. Century's troubles, don't they? First Russia deploys its army to to attack Germany in 1914 (in those days you didn't do that for show) in defense of Serbian terrorists opposed to the rule of German ally Austria-Hungary. The Kaiser attacks France because they have a treaty to support the Russians in any war. America comes in (for reasons not in our national interest) and puts an end to it. At Versailles, the French demand the looting of German territory and "reparations" heavy enough to destroy its economy.
You know if, and this is a collosal IF, Hitler hadn't been a genocidal, racist maniac, his reaquisition of former German lands, and his war on the French and the Russians would have had my support. I have to admit, when reading accounts of the war between classy Germans like Manstein and Guderian and a loutish pig like Zhukov, I can't help but root for the Wermacht.
Unfortunately, Hitler was what he was. And what he was was just as bad as Stalin. But in terms of Roosevelt's foreign policy I have a question or two:
Why was it that the Japanese invasion of China neccesitated an economic blockade against them that precipitated their attack on us? I only ask because apart from our intervention on China's behalf, the Japanese wouldn't have given a damn about us. Sure, the Japanese murdered about a million Chinese. But Mao murdered over twenty million Chinese, and our Democrat administration wouldn't even support Chaing Kai-Shek against him in the civil war.
Further, when Stalin and Hitler simultaneously launched the war in Europe, why was Stalin not the bad guy? So everyone had to jump in and save Eastern Europe from German domination, just to hand it over to Soviet domination at the war's conclusion.
It does seem that we had a predeliction for fighting evil countries that couldn't have cared less about us, and then losing interest when even bloodier-handed communists, all of whom longed to END AMERICA at their earliest convenience, took home all the spoils. Great thinking FDR. Maybe it had something to do with so much of his administration (including V.P. Henry Wallace) being actual Soviet agents.....
There was a Pacific Theatre too, ya know.
What are you talking about? I guess the invasion of the Baltics and the partition of Poland don't count? How about Stalin's invasion of Finland in 1939? And all this while Stalin and Hitler were still allies. Rememeber they still were allies in 1941 too.
Who started the Second World War? I think it was that one guy....you know...cant remember his name....
One could argue that the Franco-Prussian War helped kick-off the First World War, which, in turn, led to the Second. The conflict accelerated German unification, and, under Prussian military influences, instilled a warmongering spirit into the German people which was only broken by their total defeat in 1945. French arrogance and ambitions did not help matters, either.
Actually more so, when the US decided to enter WWI and allowed Europe to abuse Germany afterward which allowed said person to gain the political power necessary to bring about WWII.
RE: Suvorov also convincingly demonstrates that Stalin was not developing defensive forces along the new Soviet border with Germany, but rather as building up a vast and powerful offensive military force.
A much overlooked source of corroboration of this claim are the memoirs of Hans Ulrich Rudel, a Luftwaffe officer who led some daring recon flights over the USSR at the outset of Barbarossa. The patterns of men, material and fortification that he observed, photographed and documented made it clear that Stalin had been preparing an offensive of unprceedented magnitude, completely dwarfing Barbarossa itself. Had Hitler not decided to stab Stalin in the back the USSR likely would have burst forth in parallel surges, one along the Danube and the other along the general Moscow - Berlin alignment. The plan would have been to use the Danube surge to cut the Nazi Empire in half - isolating Bavaria, Austria, Italy and the Balkans from the most of Germany. The northern surge, of course, would have seized Berlin. From there, with no other force to stop them, the Soviets would have faced the UK from across the Channel within days, meanwhile, other Red Army contingents would have repeated Hitler's victory jig in Paris and sipped espresso along the Riviera. The time frame for the Soviet attack was likely somewhere between mid 1941 and mid 1942.
Forgot about the Baltics! I always thought of them as Russian to being with. Thanks for the heads up.
It's Bush's fault.
I still laugh when I even THINK of that show.
The one about the Rat, and the one about the Psychiatrist, were equally good.
The League of Nations?
You could just as easily argue that the French started it in 1871 when they declared war on Prussia that led to the Franco-Prussian War. The devestating loss the French suffered after that war led directly to WW I which led directly to WW II.
Seriously, I agree with the guy who said it was a continuation of WWI.
I also agree with whoever commented about the allies declaring war because of the invasion of Poland but ignoring Russia's invasion of Poland only a few days later.
Churchill actually sort of mused over that point in one of the volumes of his "History of World War II".
Wallace didn't just have Soviet agents on his staff. You ought to read Treason by Ann Coulter. She takes these bastards apart, fact by fact.
I quote from page 42: 'Roosevelt's vice president Henry Wallace, 1940-1944... believed "America's main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire." He insisted that peace would be assured "if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe." When Stalin seized Czechoslovakia, Wallace sided with Stalin. When Stalin blockaded Berlin, Wallace opposed the U.S. airlift. After visiting a Soviet slave camp, Wallace enthusiastically described it as a "combination TVA and Hudson Bay Company."
Whether he had a card in his pocket or not, he was effectively a communist.
Yeah, but they'll blame Dubya.
"(Of course, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.)"
I think we know what the definition of is is. Maybe he doen't know what the definition of definition is.
The question is: Which Bush?
Yikes. That's worse than I thought.
Ding ding ding! You get an A on your final! The Treaty of Versailles set the stage for WWII.
" But I think the sanctions where the result of Jap aggression against U.S. ships in China."
Sorry, but the U.S. economic sanctions were about the "bigger picture". Namely, China. Japan bombed our navy in order to gain the time to consolidate their rule over the western pacific rim and then establish a credible defensive perimeter that we wouldn't want to mess with. Then they could negotiate terms. They were fools. But in my book, we picked two stupid fights in the 40s. And if you don't believe it, remember that we managed to get ourselves into TWO giant global wars that had nothing to do with each other within one week under FDR.
Don't laugh! There are some out there that believe the Bush family helped the 3rd Reich get ready for war - like these folks.
God, what an idiot. Thanks for that quote. He's off my "great presidents" list forever.
Ha! You think WWII finished it?!?!
I suspect FDR was more clever than naive.
I always thought FDR was better than many on the right have portrayed him, thinking that he simply didn't see through Stalin etc.
Within the last couple of years the evidence keeps piling up that he was a knowing Commie sypathizer
FDR needed Stalin's cooperation to implement his "Global New Deal."
What matters most is the question: Who finished it? We all know the answer to that question.
Why, Prescott Bush of course! See my post #87 link.
It all started with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
100% correct...WWII was nothing more than a continuation
Well he was apparently wrong about a whole bunch of things. But again he did apologize later on. He admitted it whereas many did not. And he did support Nixon for President in 1960. Apparently because he thought Nixon would be better for farmers. He had a significant background in agriculture and actually invented something in that sphere I believe.
Cultural Marxist Dictionary definitions....
Grievance: The cause of all heinous acts committed by either people of color or non-democratic societies.
Evil: A trait that is only inherent to Capitalists, caucasions, Christians and Jews.
Exactly, for Hitler crushing Western Europe, especially France was revenge for WW1.
Who started WWII?
Ask Louie Farrakhan, he'll tell you.....it was the white devils and the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS
As much as I despise Franklin Roosevelt and his policies, I have to give him credit for dumping Wallace in '44. FDR knew he was in poor health, and must have been mightily uncomfortable envisioning Wallace as the next president.
Roosevelt had the smarts to replace Wallace on the '44 ticket with Harry S Truman, a man who he (FDR) was only vaguely aware of, but a man who had proven his ability insofar as administrating policy and understanding the workings of government.
The selection of Truman is IMHO FDR's legacy. Truman was an honest no-nonsense democrat Senator who had been an artillery officer during WWI, and as such he harbored no illusions with regard to the USSR and its inclinations. He also understood the Japanese, their military discline, and their unwillingness to capitulate under any terms. That understanding was the source of his decision to use nuclear arms on Japan, a couragous act which goes unrecognized to this day by many misguided idiots.
The years immediately following WWII were critical in checking the aspirations of Stalin mentioned in this article. It was damned fortunate for the US that Harry Truman, and not Henry Wallace, sat in the Oval Office during the opening days of the Cold War.
I rank Truman as the second greatest president of the 20th century. First place goes to Theodore Roosevelt and third place goes to Ronald Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.