Who Started the Second World War?

Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | November 1991 | Richard M. Ebeling

[wolficatZ]

 

Hey at least he got the Spitfire into production..

[Tailgunner Joe]

Hitler had already been extending into other countries whereas Uncle Joe had shown no such predilection till after the war.

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.

[isom35]

Who started the Second World War? I think it was that one guy....you know...cant remember his name....

[OldArmy94]

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.

[thebaron512]

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.

[usa1776]

The communist decision to use violence to seize power in Germany(post ww1), the German govts inability to stop the communist (since they had socialist values themselves), the nazi's willingness to use force against communist force to stop Communist "terrorism" in Germany, combined with the nazi's nationalist message, all worked together to give the Nazi's and Hitler appeal to the average German. And its understandable, given the choice of "internationalist" "terrorist" communist, or nationalist Germans that the Nazi's would be popular. They were both socialist economically so that wasn't a factor.

Lesson: Stay away from socialism, no matter how appealing the circumstances make it. There is always another, and better, answer. This minor oversight by European nations started WW2. And the same oversight by the Americans, will start WW3.

[GOP_1900AD]

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.

[Borges]

Forgot about the Baltics! I always thought of them as Russian to being with. Thanks for the heads up.

[Colonel_Flagg]

It's Bush's fault.

[Loud Mime]

I still laugh when I even THINK of that show.

The one about the Rat, and the one about the Psychiatrist, were equally good.

[eyespysomething]

Who Started the Second World War?

The League of Nations?

[ops33]

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.

[yarddog]

The Germans when the bombed Pearl Harbour.

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".

[Tailback]

Who started the Second World War? I think it was that one guy....you know...cant remember his name....

Franklin D. Roosevelt?

[Gorjus]

Japan's invasion of China in 1931 is as good a guess as any.

Yes, but so is the Franco-Prussian war, and the Treaty of Versailles, and the ideas raised in all the other comments. (Okay, maybe not the one about the cow and the lantern.)

Nations choose war if at least one of two conditions apply: They either think they can get away with it, or they think they have nothing to lose.

The defeat of the French in the Franco-Prussian War led the Germans to believe they could get away with war and warlike acts - a perception confirmed when they re-militarized the Rhineland (my own preferred event that 'started' WWII). Japan's invasion of China was another example of an agressor 'getting away with it.'

The German Army never felt they were defeated in WWI. They thought the political leaders lacked strength, brought on in part because the mutiny of the German Navy made them fear the military. So that 'defeat' never hurt their confidence in themselves.

Japan had similar confidence, thinking the self-indulgence of Americans made them weak. A fact - as mentioned - that they confirmed by their invasion of China.

It also takes some desperation when the correlation of forces is no negative, though. The Treaty of Versailles left Germany with nothing to lose, and the economic sanctions directed at the Japanese were the worst possible choice. (A lesson to remember.) It made us look militarily weak, while backing them into a corner where their only choices were attack or die (an economic death).

To return to the point of the original article, Stalin's agreement not to attack Germany was just one more 'we can get away with it factor.' So it was also a 'cause' of WWII.

[Burr5]

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.

[Temple Owl]

Yeah, but they'll blame Dubya.

[righttackle44]

"(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.

[theDentist]

A good observation. And for that, following your next visit I will not double-bill you. I will perform some unnecessary surgery, of course. But you'll only be charged the one time.

The question is: Which Bush?

[Wisconsin155]

" I only ask because apart from our intervention on China's behalf, the Japanese wouldn't have given a damn about us"

The Philippine islands would of been taken regardless of our actions. They were likely next. We were also very close to China at the time. Goes back to the boxer rebellion

But I think the sanctions where the result of Jap agresssion against the US navy in China. Pearl Harbor was not the first strike. The Japs sunk one or two ships, the names escape me, and America did nothing. Thus emboldening the Japs. Kinda of like the Pacific version of the reoccupation of the Rhineland. IMO