Who started WW2

One might think you are unaware of the contents of the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928 against aggressive wars.

Let's see. Germany is vanquished after 5 years of total war, no holocaust but 30 millions deads in Europe because Hitler wanted to establish the dominance of a race of lords on the continent.

You bet I'm still going to blame him and hang him real fast, holocaust or not.

England established a world empire and killed or enslaved many of these 'inferior barbarians' in Africa, in Asia, on the North American continent and elsewhere.
It seems the crimes of the British Empire are long forgotten.

The US, (***) forgat what it said and promissed after world war two..that from now on there will be peace, that it will work "for humanity" and building a better world, that the criminals of yesterday would be hanged and an 'international' tribunal be created to punish the unjust.. and all that boring talk with great words the americans like to make ...'Justice, mankind, peace, Humanity, Equality, Liberty... it's all bull that only dumb people or big crowds would buy. The real reasons are money, power and controll.
It went on to build it's own empire and forgot all that cheap talk and promisses it made after World War II.
(By luck i'm sitting next to a woman from Eritrea as i'm typing this, and she tells me that during 1980, 20 Million peoples starved to death in Ethiopia, and the country paid 3.5 Billion Dollars to the United States to buy Weapons.
3.5 Million Dollars would have fead the country for 10 years.!!!)

In theory all men are created equal (according to the bullshit that US presidents like to include in their speeches)
In reality the US finances wars and rebels, and does not give a damn about *** that die because of the war or poverty that it's foreign policy has created.

That's why my Theory about who started World War 2, and who is responsible for it is more appropriate then all the rest.
You finance both sides, you spread the hate even further, you divide the peoples/, tribes, countries you want to conquer into two groups and you made them fight one another. Divide et Impera.

You give them all the weapons and tools they need to help them terminate eachother, and thus you lengthen the war.
When they are both exhausted and finishes you step in and conquer them both.

It's not for nothing that they say: "When two are fighting, the third, the smart one stays to one side and loughs at them both".
If this is true, we are in big trouble.

This post has been edited by Der Maresal on January 28, 2005 05:35 pm

Der Maresal, this is not the tone we want on this forum. You are asked to stop the aggressive tone and avoid national insults.

I'm only talking with the same tone, like that used by some of the decision makers in America. That same arrogant tone can be found in the article I just posted here.

I don't care what quotes do you find elsewhere, you have been warned.

If Briand-Kellog was so important, then why didn't the world rise up against Japan in 1937 (the Marco Polo incident) or Italy in 1935? Oh, yes, diplomatic tensions, trade threats and not a single significant action... I say the Allies are guilty for not taking action, for not acting according to their own angagements. They let things happen.... And they shouldn't get blamed for that? Ha!

Well, don't forget, there were many who wanted "peace in our time" so desparately they avoided reality. And the U.S.body politic was mostly isolationist then, too.
Probably nobody wanted to believe, even if they could imagine the enormity of what was about to happen.

Well, don't forget, there were many who wanted "peace in our time" so desparately they avoided reality. And the U.S.body politic was mostly isolationist then, too.
Probably nobody wanted to believe, even if they could imagine the enormity of what was about to happen.

here u are referring to ww2, right?

for a minute there i thought u were having a premonition about IRAK

Well, don't forget, there were many who wanted "peace in our time" so desparately they avoided reality. And the U.S.body politic was mostly isolationist then, too.
Probably nobody wanted to believe, even if they could imagine the enormity of what was about to happen.

here u are referring to ww2, right?

for a minute there i thought u were having a premonition about IRAK

Yes, o.k. right; Chamberlain's famous words, I'm sure u know....But imo, the WIERDEST thing about Iraq, is that BushII came into first term as essentaially a neo-isolationist himself! He campaigned loudly against the kind of "nation building" he thought Clinton was trying and bungling (Somalia, Bosnia, e.g.)
His sycophants claim that 9/11 changed all that. I'm not so sure. I think the neocons surrounding him were just waiting for something to allow them to unleash the dogs of war. (sorry if offtopic this last).

oh my ggod!!!!!!!! of topic!!!!!



This post has been edited by Indrid on January 31, 2005 09:23 am

So you're telling me that the brave people had 3.5 Million Dollars and they had a basic choice :

1. buy food - agricultural tools /systems
2. buy weapons and die from hunger

They choose to buy weapons to kill each other and somehow the guilt fall on the US ?

Do you think if the US had refused to sell weapons they would have realized the error of their way and turned into good fathers and mothers ?

Or would they have asked the Chinese, the Russians or the French ?

Oh never mind...

Stick to WW2 people and leave Bush out of this thread.

Uh ?

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on January 31, 2005 06:36 pm

This reply would be relevant if somebody had suggested that one should have gone to war over the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Nobody suggested that.

The point of that pact is that wars of aggression are illegitimate, not that if country A attacks country B any other country is forced to attack country A.

The original poster basically claimed that the German government should have been tried for crimes against humanity, but not for crimes against peace. Since Germany was a signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, it is perfectly legitimate to put the German government under trial. That's it. The counts of the IMT concerning crimes against peace are well-founded, legitimate and fair, and those who were convicted of them got what they deserved.

I'm always very impressed of how quick you are to blame France and Great Britain, instead of the country that actually invaded wherever that suited it.

This is ridiculous.

First thing, Hitler did not accomplish the objective of bringing "lost Germans" back in the fold without bloodshed, as you claim, presumably out of gross misinformation. The first step of that reclaiming was the Anschluß, and within the first 48 hours, hundreds of anti-Nazi Austrians (and Germans who had sought sanctuary in Austria) were murdered, and thousands rounded up and brought to camps where they'd die.
The second step was the Sudetenland, and again it was not bloodless. This is the one you talk about in your post.
In other words, you seem unaware of the fact that there were German minorities in Poland. If you knew that, you wouldn't claim that Hitler brought home his "lost Germans" bloodlessly. Hitler shed a lot of blood for the German minority in Poland.
And it needn't end there. For your information, there were german minorities in Italy, and in France. Oh, sure, Hitler said he wasn't interested in those. However, this is the same man that after the Sudetenland claimed he had no more territorial demands. Indeed he did annex Alsace-Lorraine in 1940, after way more bloodshed, and North-eastern Italy in 1943, after way more bloodhsed. So don't peddle this bizarre idea of yours.

Second thing, it's preposterous, or a show of bad faith, to claim that the responsibility of the enlargement of the war rests with France and Great Britain.
France and Great Britain were Poland's allies.
They had made very clear they would defend Poland.
Once Germany attacked, they didn't outright declare war. They issued an ultimatum. Unlike Hitler's ultimatums, this was for real; if Germany had withdrawn its forces, france and Great Britain would not have been forced into a state of war with Germany.
Germany choose to ignore the guarantees, the alliance, the statements and the ultimatum, and carried on with making war on France and Great Britain's ally.
So the responsibility for the state of war between Germany on the one side, and France and Great Britain on the other, falls squarely on Germany's shoulders. Nazi sympathizers dislike that, but that's the way it went.