Who started WW2

Poland under the Soviet sphere of influence and under Nazi occupation is incomparable. Crimes of the Nazis during 1939-45 in Poland and on Polish territory are unparalleled.

Britain and France went to war to respect the treaty signed with Poland and to put an end to the Germany's continuous aggressions in Europe. Germany went to war violating all the previous treaties.

Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September, when the Poland was practically defeated by Germany.

I wouldn't say Hitler was capable of making "reasonable deals".

National insults are not tolerated here.

The parts that were cut were only several senteces describing gruesome scenes of death and mutilation. They weren't cut to favour the image of one camp or another (since both sides were responsible in different passages), or for other obscure reason. I don't know why do you find them the most interesting parts. The fact that we have an interest in military history does not mean we have also interest in morbid scenes.

Exactly! This is why I demanded to use these adjectives together with their concerning characteristic, and not only to apply them to a nation and, therefor, to everything related to that nation.

Are you sure the defence treaty with Poland was exclusively against Germany? I don;t know, but for the sake of the thread's topic it would be useful to check it out somewhere.

Gen. Dénes

Until a member from Poland can offer us better informations, this is what I have found on Wikipedia:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal


Another interesting link:
1939 France's Response to Germany's Invasion of Poland

Hahaha, Wikipedia ..what a "reliable" source of information!



In my opinion World War 2 had already begun in Spain. Countries were sending volunteers to fight in that war. The two sides were already polarized.
All of the countries that were on the allies side fought in Spain on the Communist side. That includes volunteers from Britian, Canada, USA and most certainly French communists

French generals travelled to Moscow in 1939 to establish relations and sign pacts.
The french have always been pro-communists ever since that damn french revolution screwed them up (no offence intended), but one can see here what ww2 was about.
Romanians fought on the "other side" (the evil fasicist side )..in Spain.
It's interesting that this evil Fascist side was actually defending the chistian religion, while the Spanish communists and their allies were literally shooting the machine guns in the face of Jesus Christ's statue. This is no exageration - this is as Mota the legionary who died in spain put it in his own words.

Let's not forget that screwed up french revolution...with it's anti- religion campaign and the burning of holy relics, priests and cardinals.

I think if you would ask which side the Romanian peoples [who are very religious and nationalistic in nature] would want to pick if forced to choose between one, it would not have been on the 'allie's' side.

This is the best I could find on the net about the France and Great Britain agreements with Poland, in regard to the question of Denes. If you have other information you can post it here, without too much mockery.

As you said, there were volunteers, not official involvement of those countries, and this includes Romania too. From Romania, there were volunteers for both sides, it is wrong to say that "Romanians fought on the other side" since Romania remained neutral in the conflict.

Let's stick on the topic.

Could you please elaborate? Countries? Which countries?
The only country that created (without any attempts to disguise the thing) a volunteer corps, officially speaking, was Italy, the C.T.V., which included the famous Italian air corps in Spain, the Aviazione Legionaria, almost as important as the Condor Legion to Franco's victory. Even the Germans were cautious, in order to do things in a more or less covert way, at least at the beggining of the conflict. As things progressed, the Germans got involved and the non-intervention became a masquerade. Of course, the Russians did the same. They were also involved, but they avoided an open recognition of the fact. Later, it became obvious too. Portugal was involved also, on the rebels side. But Salazar also cared about doing things in a discreet way.

This is a rather twisted argument. To speak about nations involved is quite an exageration and it reflects a distorted view of the Spanish Civil War. One can speak about individuals, or groups of them, not about countries.
I recommend you the seminal work by Cesar Vidal on the history of the International Brigades (besides from being an unbiased, extremely well researched academic work, it also dismystifies the role played by the International Brigades and explain how the surviving veterans became themselves an instrument of Communist repression during the Cold War in some Eastern uropean countries):

"Las Brigadas Internacionales", Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1995; ISBN: 84-239-9740-5

The only countries that helped the Spanish III Republic were few. Besides from the Soviet Union, only Mexico helped. Some weapons were supplied from France, namely a handful of fighters and bombers, but stop counting. The United States remained strictly neutral during the Spanish Civil War and the some high ranked members of the British Government were somewhat sypathetic towards the Nationalist cause.
All the U.K. subjects (from Great Britain, or, for that matter, from any other place in the Commonwealth...) that fought in Spain have done so integrated in the International Brigades, which were controlled by the Komintern, not by the British government...
The same applies to the sizeable numbers of U.S. and Canadian volunteers...

You have quite a simplified notion of what happened in Spain. You should try to read some recent Spanish books. There are plenty of them, with in-deep analysis of even the most minute details of the conflict. But you can also get some good works in English, like Hugh Thomas's classic on the S.C.W. ("The Spanish Civil War"), which should be easily available, from a wide range of publishers and in many different languages.

I am not French, but you should be more careful in what concerns the vertigo generated by stereotypes... To state that the French have always been pro-communists since 1789 seems a bit far-fetched to me... and it reflects also a limited knowledge of French history, not only in what pertains to the XIX century but also in what has to do with the early half of the XXth.
So, then please explain why the French landed in Russia after the overthrown of the Czar... They have done that to smash the Bolsheviks and to help the White armies, together with U.S. and British troops, just to mention the most important countries (Japan did intervene too). Eventually, things didn't worked up as expected, but that's another story, as the saying goes...

The shooting of religious images wasn't at all the worst type of atrocity committed by irregular Republican forces, mostly Anarchist militias. The later were not exactly allied with the Communists loyal to Moscow, since both hated each other. As a matter of fact, it was above all a "marriage by interest" and one that lasted little. In 1937, Barcelona witnessed bitter street fighting between Anarchists and P.O.U.M. militias, on one hand, and Stalinists on the other, who had, to their credit, the only disciplined forces available to the government: they also reintroduced discipline and punishments in the Army. Did you ever heard about Paracuellos de Jarama? Well, that is much worse than any shooting at sanctuaries or religious images...

As for the Nationalists, the side who "was actually defending the Christian religion" (if you are an Orthodox Christian, you should hear what the Spanish Catholic priests used to say about Eastern Christianity on the whole, back on those times and in the years some relatives of mine attended school...), they killed innocent civilians at a rate that horrified both their Italian and Portuguese allies, and even the Germans themselves.
Jaime Neves, a journalist from a big Lisbon newspaper, witnessed the incredible killing orgy that ocurred at Badajoz (he was there to cover the "liberation of the town" - needless to say, he was a bona fide journalist to the eyes of his own government, in the sense that it was fully checked by the P.V.D.E. - the Portuguese secret police - and his loyalty was beyond any doubts...). Instead of a serene victory, he saw instead scenes of a unthinkable barbarism that haunted him for the rest of his life. He managed to write about it, but then he was censored, of course. He was only able to return to Extremadura and to Badajoz decades after the events, when he gave an interview to Granada Television, around 1980, if my memory serves me well.

This post has been edited by Ruy Aballe on January 19, 2005 08:44 pm

Looks interesting...thanx. I'll look for it

This is the best I could find on the net about the France and Great Britain agreements with Poland, in regard to the question of Denes. If you have other information you can post it here, without too much mockery.

There is the actual text, available on line. See below. A few more considerations, first.

1. Great Britain and France did not declare war on Germany. What they did was issuing an ultimatum. If by September 2, 1939, Germany had withdrawn its attacking forces back within its borders, nothing more would have happened (well, Poland's choices remained open, but that's another thing). Germany had a chance not to be at war with Great Britain and France, and chose to ignore that chance. Therefore, the responsibility for the state of war between Germany on one side, France and Great Britain on the other, falls squarely on Germany's shoulders. Revisionists and Nazi apologists dislike that, but that's how things went.

2. France acted upon a treaty of mutual defense with Poland. Great Britain acted on a commitment traditionally defined as its "guarantees" (March, 1939). Initially it was a one-way commitment, i.e., if somebody had attacked Great Britain, Poland had no obligation to come to help. Nevertheless, it was an international agreement, it was binding, and it was very well known to everybody.
On August 15, 1939, however, a full-fledged two-way defense treaty was framed between Poland and Great Britain. It became effective on August 25. It shows that any talk of "inferior" countries is totally unwarranted, just like any attempt to downplay the meaning of the previous "guarantees".

3. The treaty did not apply to the Soviet attack. That's not because it explicitly referred only to a German attack, or because it explicitly excluded a Soviet attack.
The issue is that the text was carefully worded. The British did not want to become involved, in case Poland would choose to just play dead. It may not seem likely, but it had happened with Czechoslovakia not long before. At the time, a plausible scenario was a limited German intervention, aimed at Danzig only. What if the Poles had chosen not to actually oppose that in the field, but screamed for British help?
So the text actually says:
"
ARTICLE I.
Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.
ARTICLE 2.
(1) The provisions of Article I will also apply in the event of any action by a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or indirectly, the independence of one of the Contracting Parties, and was of such a nature that the Party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.
(2) Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of action by that Power which threatened the independence or neutrality of another European State in such a way as to constitute a clear menace to the security of that Contracting Party, the provisions of Article I will apply, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the other European State concerned.
"
Note the requirement, for Poland, to consider it vital to resist the enemy action with its armed forces. At the time of the Soviet intervention, the Polish government issued orders not to resist the Soviets. Later on, some Polish units actually fought the Soviets, but that happened locally, under their own initiative and responsibility; the Polish government never ordered resistance.
Therefore, the British found it possible, as well as expedient, to avoid a state of war with the USSR.

Note how a close reading of clause (2), Article 2, shows the concern for a limited action revolving around Danzig. Just in case someone (the Germans) claimed that the special statute of Danzig made it a separate European state, to which a mutual-defense British-Polish alliance would not apply, there you have clause (2).

The full text of the treaty is available on-line, by The Avalon Project of the Yale Law School. Its full title is
Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland.-London, August 25, 1939.

This post has been edited by Curioso on January 19, 2005 09:30 am

Curioso, thanks for information !

Well, you try to drown the fish but you can't.

You take full reponsibility for what you say. Assume it. Wether you try to fend off the resulting backlash comments with some rent against PC talk is of no interest to me.

If this is what I meant, I stick with it. If this is racism, sue me! What are you, some kind of communist? Please, you are obviously in the wrong thread... this one is called "who started WW2?" not "hunt the pseodo-nazis"...

this thread is about who really started world war two, and who really was responsible for the war.

Here's my firm belief:
It's not one side nor the other that is responsible. Both sides were used buy a 3rd party....(they were both manipulated into fighting eachother) - propaganda was made, both sides were stired up against one another, and unlished on eachother. Both sides were financed with lots money and all the weapons they needed, and from this point on, both sides fought and terminated eachother to exhaustion.
In the end both were totally finished and exhausted, and an outside power came out as the definate winner and conquered them both. Sounds far fetched?
This is what happened! -

(Hitler knew about some of this, (but he was used too, he fell for it too) ..he always said that a small band of internationalists, powerfull intelectuals and bankers had started world war I).
I always loughed how 'Communists' and 'Capitalists' (deadly enemies in theory) became allies.
It's all beginning to make sense. If i'm wrong there will not be another world war, (pray that i'm wrong) but I think there will be a last one and then these fanatics who instigate wars and finance them will get what they've been waiting for all along.. a world government.

This post has been edited by Der Maresal on January 19, 2005 07:54 pm

Attached Image

I think i agree with you.But you can tell us some info more detaliated about this?About WW 2.About our days i dont think you have.I read too about ocult maneuvre behind to world wars,and i am courious .

With such beliefs you need no stinking real world facts

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on January 19, 2005 08:49 pm