The Nazis in no way ‘started’ WW II. They started a regional conflict with Poland to regain territory that they had lost in WW I. The Brits and French had set up a trip wire, and treaty with Poland, that enabled them to start the world war by declaring war on Germany.
The lead up to WW I and WW II goes back 100 years. Here is the short version …
There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the repression of territorial and political expansion of other nations - a condition that must culminate in war, one war in the Empire is destroyed, a series of wars if it is victorious’.
from ‘Day of the Saxon’ by Homer Lea, 1912 - Lea was advocating that Britain be prepared for war.
To see the part the US played in creating the conditions for war read ‘FDR’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe’
Any halfway intelligent national leader would have realized one of the potential outcomes of an invasion of Poland would be British and French involvement. And indeed, German war planners made plans based on this eventuality.
Saying “Hitler never wanted war with the west” is meaningless. It’s like saying “Hitler wanted all his enemies to capitulate, surrender, or die immediately”. Sure, it’s true, but it’s unrealistic to be point of irrelevancy.
Yeah, in the sense that war with France and Britain interfered with his plans to conquer eastern Europe and kill everyone. He definitely would have liked to avoid that.
It’s only irrelevant because Hitler did not understand the west, he idolized it (read MK)! He did not expect to be attacked by Britain, which shows a complete lack of understanding of British history.
Disabuse yourself of the notion that I need you to tell me anything about history. I do not. Further, I already knew that people who admire Hitler can make excuses for anything. That’s related to my earlier point about self-deception and making their beliefs more palatable for credulous people.
Linking to a famous Holocaust-denying organization is not going to help your cause. The IHR is a pseudo-scientific organization that does not conduct serious historical research.
Hitler and the Nazis wanted to dominate Europe and kill all the Jews on the continent. They started a war and murdered millions. No serious historian denies these facts.
In no way does that mean he didn’t start the war. Ignorance of the consequences of your actions in no way absolves you of the responsibility for them.
Did Hitler want the West to declare war on him? No. Why would he? Why would anybody? But certainly he was advised by his military and political staffs that it was a realistic, if not likely, outcome of his invasion of Poland and certainly the Wehrmacht were making plans for that war.
If I rob a bank, do I want the police to come after me? No. Why would I? But I do understand that’s a realistic outcome to my actions. If Hitler didn’t realize that much, more fool he. It doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility of starting the war any less than my culpability in robbing a bank. After all, there are “historic” reasons I may have needed the money. But again, those reasons (casus belli or lack of money) are irrelevant to the responsibility for the actions.
He knows more than a bigoted organization like the IHR that denies the Holocaust. Do you deny the Holocaust happened- that about 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies?
We don’t disagree. My point is that he did not want war with Britain. That is just a fact. Your point is that he should have known that it would happen. I agree with that.
Debating web sites is dumb. Anything you read on any web site has to be evaluated on its merits, not the web site’s. There is no web site that publishes THE TRUTH and nothing but THE TRUTH. Maybe Marley should start one.
Again, so what? It’s an irrelevancy. He still started the war.
If I rob a bank, I’d love to get a free pass from the police. That’s just a fact. It’s also unrealistic to the point of irrelevancy.
If I ran a country and invaded Poland, I’d also love not to go to war with Britain or anybody else. I’d love for them to pat me on the back and say “Job well done, sir. Why don’t you invade Czechoslovakia next? And maybe Russia the week after?”
So what? It’s not going to happen. And I’m still the one who started the war.
Bringing up the fact that invaders rarely want other people to attack them is just a poorly constructed indirect apology for their behavior. It’s misdirection at best.
No, the war was inevitable because of Britain’s desire to rule the world. Re-read the Homer Lea quote above, to me it explains all the British / US wars from 1900 till now. I got the quote from the book ‘The Empire of The City’ by E.C. Knuth which discusses all wars from 1800 till it was written in 1945. This is the best book for THE TRUTH that I have found (subject of course to my very limited ability to evaluate THE TRUTH).
And, Britain declared war on Germany ostensibly for invading Poland. Russia also invaded Poland and massacred 1000s of the Polish military and elite and buried their bodies in the Katyn forest. Britain did not declare war on Russia, and after the war gave control of Poland to Russia, and at Nuremberg accused the Nazis of the Katyn massacre.
How about this - there is a 200 pound bully in the school yard, and he wants my lunch, and I know it. I eat my lunch and he attacks me. Did I start the fight by eating my own lunch. Hitler did not understand what a bully the Empire was.
That quote doesn’t say what you think it says. It doesn’t explain anything except perhaps one man’s opinion.
Yes, Britain (and the US) were not perfect and made mistakes. But Hitler and the Nazis started the war. Hitler and the Nazis tried to exterminate all the Jews in Europe. Do you deny that they killed millions of Jews in this attempt?
I’ll be back shortly with my revised view of Hitler.