Yes dear ally from a centruy ago ??

It can't be that easy! ... can it?`:o

It's not.
If you go further back.
No nazis without German defeat in WW1, no WW1 without colonial tensions, no colonial tensions without a unified Germany....
Considering how history can be connected we can blame WW2 on Fred Flintstone

Well, technically it was Imperial Japan, but at that point it wasn't a world war...in fact, you probably couldn't call it a world war until 1941, but the first shots of World War II were most likely during Japans conquests of China.

Actually, I guess if you really wanted to go there you could say that the first shots of World War II were fired in Sarajevo in 1914...

So it was all Serbias fault! :O:

I know this man and his book, and I could say you a lot of things about them. But this is not our subject for now.

Origins of WWII
 

I too have read some of Irvings stuff, and I find it interesting, to say the least. And he has quite a bit on the start of WWII (like, who fired the first shot?). The thing is, all his detractors do is call him names and fire off stink bombs at his private presentations. To date, as far as I know, no one will publically debate him. I find that little factoid even MORE interesting.

And on September 17th, 1939, 16 days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east.
The invasion and battle lasted for the following 20 days and ended on October 6th, 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by both Germany and the Soviet Union.

Then, England declared war to Germany. Because England did not "guarantee Poland's borders".
It only guaranteed Poland help in case of Germany violating Poland's borders.

Origins of WWII
 

Yes, but WHY did Germany invade Poland? That is the bone of contention, which should be in my opinion, the focus of this entire thread.

Lebensraum.
First to retake Ostpreusen they lost to Poland after WW1 and then expand to Russia to make room for the colonies were Germans will till fields and breed a master rase. At the expense of the slavs living there.

Hitler didn't want to go to war with France and England. He hoped the west would see him as a guardian against the USSR but miscalculated.

That is because as a historian he has no credibility left.

I would recommend to read through the transcripts from the Irving v. Lipstadt case: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/

I dont agree at all.

No nazis without Treaty of Versailles.

No WW1 without ... wait for my presentation !

As Hitler said : " If forty-six million Englishmen claim the right to rule over forty million square kilometers of the earth, it cannot be wrong for eighty-two million Germans to demand the right to live on 800,000 square kilometers ".

Origins of WWII
 

So why didn't Britain declare war ALSO on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Instead, she allied herself with the russians. Makes no logical sense to me whatsoever, that is, unless something else was going on that we don't know about. Perhaps this should be explored too.

Who started WW2?

As in person or persons and are we taking into account cause and effect from past History? How far back do you go to find the very first domino that knocked down the rest? Or is this just a general question without going back and just focus on 1939.

Hitler launched his invasion first, there was debate on the possibility of declaring war on Russia, around about the time that Russia and Finland went to war I believe, but it was decided that to fight both Russia and Germany would be suicidal.
Then when Hitler declared war on Russia it was simply a case of 'My enemies enemy is my friend', Britain had no real love for the Soviet Union, heck we drew up plans to declare war on them after WWII had finished but they were thrown out as being suicidal, but Russia had the resources to defeat Germany, Britain did not, and so by supporting Russia and keeping Russia in the war, it both tied up the bulk of German forces on the other side of Europe from Britain, thus stopping Hitler from thinking about reinventing Sealion, and it gave a better chance of Germany being defeated, or at the very least keeping the war going long enough for the UK to persuade the USA to get fully involved.

yes, saying the Nazis are responsible for WW2 is a bit like saying that the Americans were responsible for the American Revolution because they started the fighting. :D

The root causes of WW2 can easily be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles which was imposed by Britain and France on Germany, carving up German territory and imposing punitive reparation payments.

This had the twin effect of weakening the Weimar republic/German democracy from the start since they had agreed to the Treaty and weakening the German economy since vast amounts of wealth had to be transferred from Germany to Britain/France to pay them.

In addition, Germany was obliged to borrow large sums from the U.S. simply to pay the reparation payments to Britain/France. This had the additional effect that when the depression hit and U.S. loans stopped, the German economy collapsed. Germany was the european country hardest hit by the depression with 6 million unemployed.

All these factors allowed the Nazis to take power in Germany which led to WW2.

If the Versailles treaty had been more fair, more along the line of Wilson's 14 points and if the Weimar Republic had been supported, the Nazis do not come to power and WW2 does not happen.

...so yes, Britain and France are responsible for WW2...:ping:

p.s. - As I have stated previously, one of the best books to understand WW2 is "The Wages of Destruction" by Tooze. He goes into the pre-war economic forces in much more detail then I ever could. Highly recommended reading.

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Wages-Destr.../dp/0143113208

Indeed.

Correct :yep: How could there be a World War without the USA declaring war on Germany after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?

The debate now has centered on Germany or England anything else is after those two fired the first shots at each other and by the way when was that?

While I don't think that Nazi ideology would necessarily not have developed without the Treaty of Versailles, it would have been less likely for them to come into power.

Britain didn't ally itself with the Soviet Union at the time, it (and France) just failed to declare war on it. This was likely a pragmatic decision to avoid cementing a German-Soviet alliance or fighting a two-front war.

1939
23 août

Le pacte germano-soviétique

L'URSS et l'Allemagne signe à Moscou un pacte de non-agression valable pour 10 ans. Un protocole secret répartit leur zone d'influence en Europe de l'Est. Hitler, qui obtient ainsi la neutralité de l'URSS, déclarera la guerre à la Pologne le 1er septembre. Staline en profitera alors pour agresser la Finlande, annexer les pays baltes et envahir la Roumanie. Ce pacte sera rompu lorsque Hitler lancera une attaque contre l'URSS le 22 juin 1941.
Voir aussi : Dossier histoire de l' URSS - Hitler - Staline - Histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale

Source :- http://www.linternaute.com/histoire/...mondiale.shtml


Google Translate

1939
August 23

The Nazi-Soviet pact

The USSR and Germany signed in Moscow a valid non-aggression pact for 10 years. A secret protocol divides their area of influence in Eastern Europe. Hitler, who thus obtained the neutrality of the USSR declared war on Poland on September 1. Stalin then take the opportunity to attack Finland, annexing the Baltics and invade Romania. This pact will be broken when Hitler launch an attack against the USSR June 22, 1941.
See also: Folder history of the USSR - Hitler - Stalin - History of WWII

Origins of WWII
 

That's not an answer. No one has EVER to my knowlege offered to debate him. I think there is some prize money involved too.

When I have time I will read thru those transcripts. To be honest, I really don't put much faith in the court system. Having been involved for a number of years in the civil judgment system here in Washington State, I can tell you from personal experience that it is a cesspool. Corrupt judges who refuse to follow the law, take bribes, and generally make it extremely difficult for justice to prevail. The most laughable moment was when my judge had to stop the proceedings, leave the courtroom and go get enlightened by her clerk as to what a "Writ of Execution" was. That was when I started packing up my toys and eventually got out of the business.