Who Started World War II?

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Near the beginning of all this, you said :
"OK, no problem ! As I told you in PM, I'm honestly searching the truth, and I'm open to the debate."

Yes, and for now, you have not convinced me. You know, I really would like to be convinced, because this war was so horrible that it would be terrifying that she has been declared for bad reasons.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If England and France had not declared war, do you really think Hitler would have set Poland free ? Things he himself said indicate the opposite. They've been quoted, and you dismissed them.

Then, it was a localized conflict, and both sides would have to talk together to find a solution. But Poland refused that. She said that if Hitler still wanted to talk about Danzig, it would be WAR between them. So, as Hitler wanted to cure this flagrant injustice of Versailles, he had no more the choice.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I pointed out that the Mussolini peace plan was presented after Germany invaded Poland. This makes the claim that Britain and France ignored the offer to be dishonest at best. They had a treaty with Poland, and they honored it. Invading another country and then offering peace is backwards.

Treaties between France and Poland were null and void in September 1939, as I've clearly demonstrated. France didn't have to help Poland. Moreover, it was pure madness.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Documented talks between him and his generals has shown that the invasion was planned weeks before the actual event.

Yes, of course, that's logical. As head of the State, Hitler had to prepare all eventualities. That doesn't mean that he wanted to invade Poland. He was just ready to do it if Poland didn't want to know anything about peaceful proposals.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

just as he got none when he forced Czechoslovakia into submission.

Submission ?? Hitler has just allowed various peoples that were composing this artificial state to obtain their independence. Then, he sent his army in Bohemia and Moravia to maintain order.

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Catfish

all boils down to when those "offers of peace" from Italy or whoever came, and it was pretty useless to propose that after there were troops already in Poland.

Why ? Hitler was ready to stop the invasion and go for an international conference. France was ready too. But Britain added another unacceptable condition to avoid it. She wanted war.

Originally Posted by Catfish

Hitler wanted to go for Russia right from the beginning, and just because of that he wanted no peace with Russia.

No, he broke the non-agression pact for very good reasons, and I will tell you why if you let me the time.

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

it would be terrifying that she has been declared for bad reasons.

@ all : I would like to ask you something. Do you consider the fact that Germany was not a democracy, is sufficient to destroy the country and kill the population ?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

@ all : I would like to ask you something. Do you consider the fact that Germany was not a democracy, is sufficient to destroy the country and kill the population ?

@ Fahnenbohn. The fact that Germany at this time was a repressive police state whose policies of racial superiority anti-Semitism and anti Communisim combined with a desire to expand its territory almost certainly brought about the start of WW2. That is a indisputable fact. You can spin it any way you want. You can tell us that Hitler was a nice guy and only wanted peace. You can tell us that the earth is flat and aliens abducted your cat. Nobody is buying. The reason you are doing this is because of where your sympathies lay. We know what you are.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

@ all : I would like to ask you something. Do you consider the fact that Germany was not a democracy, is sufficient to destroy the country and kill the population ?

Do you consider the fact that Danzig was not (very technically) incorporated into Germany sufficient to destroy Poland and kill its population?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

Then, it was a localized conflict, and both sides would have to talk together to find a solution. But Poland refused that. She said that if Hitler still wanted to talk about Danzig, it would be WAR between them.

Where exactly does it say that?

So, as Hitler wanted to cure this flagrant injustice of Versailles, he had no more the choice.

As I keep saying, there is always a choice. Hitler chose to attack Poland.

Treaties between France and Poland were null and void in September 1939, as I've clearly demonstrated.

Only in your own mind. You haven't convinced anyone else.

France didn't have to help Poland. Moreover, it was pure madness.

But it wasn't madness for Hitler to attack Poland? Despite all your claims, he didn't have to either.

Yes, of course, that's logical. As head of the State, Hitler had to prepare all eventualities. That doesn't mean that he wanted to invade Poland. He was just ready to do it if Poland didn't want to know anything about peaceful proposals.

I note you didn't say he was ready to fight if attacked. You still say he was ready to fight if they didn't accept his proposals. He still attacked first. Nothing has changed.

Submission ?? Hitler has just allowed various peoples that were composing this artificial state to obtain their independence. Then, he sent his army in Bohemia and Moravia to maintain order.

Maintain order by annexing the entire country. That's an interesting way of obtaining "peace". "Everything will be peaceful as long as everybody does what I say."

You're right. Hitler didn't want war. He just wanted to take over country after country without opposition. As soon as somebody finally stood up to him, "It's their fault, not mine."

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Hitlers own words prove that he started the war and it definitively answers the premise of this thread. Must we continue with this?

Please bear with me matey, the threads lifespan will end as close to 18:14 GMT as I am able so community members still have ample time to respond.

Never let it be said SubSim refuse people the right to have their say (within the parameters of the forum rules of course).

I should imagine this thread will be referred to many a time in the future as an example of such fairness.

[Fahnenbohn]

Originally Posted by u crank

The fact that Germany at this time was a repressive police state whose policies of racial superiority anti-Semitism and anti Communisim combined with a desire to expand its territory almost certainly brought about the start of WW2.

- repressive police ? yes, against communists
- racial superiority ? not at all : racial purity, without hate for other races
- anti-semitism ? of course, they had several reasons
- expand territory ? no, only get the german territories they lost with Versailles treaty, and their ancient colonies, that's all.

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Do you consider the fact that Danzig was not (very technically) incorporated into Germany sufficient to destroy Poland and kill its population?

Oppressed and massacred German minorities in Poland, Germany cut in two parts, Poland refusing negotiations = sufficient to invade Poland to get what they historically and ethnically had the right to have.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where exactly does it say that?

Le 26 mars 1939, l'ambassadeur polonais à Berlin avait clairement répondu à Ribbentrop : "Toute poursuite de ces projets allemands, notamment en ce qui concernait le retour de Dantzig au Reich, signifierait la guerre avec la Pologne."

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Maintain order by annexing the entire country. That's an interesting way of obtaining "peace".

That's wrong, Boheme-Moravia has not been annexed.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

Le 26 mars 1939, l'ambassadeur polonais à Berlin avait clairement répondu à Ribbentrop : "Toute poursuite de ces projets allemands, notamment en ce qui concernait le retour de Dantzig au Reich, signifierait la guerre avec la Pologne."

That's a statement without support. What is the source?

That's wrong, Boheme-Moravia has not been annexed.

So they took the whole country except for one province? How is that better?

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So they took the whole country except for one province? How is that better?

and on top of that it was left as an autonomous Nazi-administered province which the German government considered part of the Greater German Reich.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

- repressive police ? yes, against communists

How was the police action against communists any different than the police action against the Nazis?

- racial superiority ? not at all : racial purity, without hate for other races

Keeping the races seperate? Isn't that Apartheid?

- anti-semitism ? of course, they had several reasons

Are you honestly trying to justify anti-semitism?

- expand territory ? no, only get the german territories they lost with Versailles treaty, and their ancient colonies, that's all.

If Hitler was such a great guy, why did he want to reclaim the old colonies, and not give them back to the people who lived there before Europeans? If he took them back, it would be exactly like how the Treaty of Versailles took land away from Germany - actually, they wouldn't even try to justify it, because no white people would be disadvantaged, so it would be worse than Versailles.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I should imagine this thread will be referred to many a time in the future as an example of such fairness.

Thread that was closed down even though people were still discussing the topic and which was not against the rules will be referred in future as an example of fairness?

Sure.

[Catfish]

^
Quoting myself from some posts ago:

... For what it's worth, if he wants to present evidence or unpublished material, why not, go on. Why a time limit? Translating those texts sure takes time. And, does anyone have to be afraid of its contents?...

I'd say i agree, with Dowly.

[August]

Originally Posted by Fahnenbohn

- repressive police ? yes, against communists

And Jews and Gypsies and Homosexuals and the handicapped and Catholics and a host of other groups.

Here's a question for you. Why do you defend these nazi animals? Why would anyone in their right mind sympathize with this gang of criminals?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Thread that was closed down even though people were still discussing the topic and which was not against the rules will be referred in future as an example of fairness?

Sure.

Not quite, more a matter of a moderator persuading the forum owner that people are entitled to their say provided they stay within the bounds of the forum rules whilst demonstrating as much fairness as possible to everyone that contributes.

A thread that does not become the reason for longstanding members to receive warnings and infraction and does not fizzle out into a black is white and white is black argument or an ending where nothing is actually proven.

Not forgetting the fact said thread was locked previously but reopened on the advice of said moderator.

I do appreciate moderation is often a double-edged sword but there's not much I'll ever be able to do about that.