First it has been well known for quite sometime that Nazi expansionism ideology owed much to racism and a particular view of American expansion. Also the notion that Eastern Europe was to be Germany's "India". You do realize that the American West and Eastern Europe were quite different from each other. Context means a lot. and your little comment about "if it ...", is amusing. By conquering Poland and instituting his racist policies in Poland Hitler was making it happen. (Check the ration amounts given to various groups in Poland by the Germans in 1939, the genocidal implications are obvious.)
So what that has to do with anything in this thread is beyond me.
And you have been told over and over again, complete with evidence that - "I just think that declaring war to Germany (as the UK and France did, illegally in the case of France, because without a proper vote by both chambers of parliament) wasn't the good answer to this threat.", is totally bogus. And the argument comes from a Holocaust denier who are by definition assumed to be liars until proven otherwise.
You do realize that doing nothing at all in the face of a German invasion of Poland would have discredited the government's of both France and Britain and would have convinced virtually anyone in Europe that British and French promises to help if attacked were meaningless. Also almost certainly the reaction of the countries populations to such behavior would have been, (Especially in Britain), wholly negative to such crap. Chamberlain did in fact try to find a way to get out of declaring war on Germany but his cabinet had had enough of the crap of appeasement and basically forced him to do so.
Once again Hitler could have avoided this by not invading Poland by not being a dick by annexing what was left of Bohemia and Moravia which infuriated both the French and British public along with the Political class in both countries and made them determined to stop him.
A good answer to the threat earlier would have France sending troops into the Rhineland when Hitler sent in troops in 1936. A good response would have been holding fast in 1938, rather than have Munich. (There might have been a coup against Hitler. Thus saving us a lot of bother.)
Both France and Britain had made promises, very serious promises, to Poland. Failure to honour those promises would signal to Europe, very clearly, that neither France not Britain took seriously the security of "small" states in Europe. Hitler has abundant evidence indicates was planning for European hegemony and felt that sooner or later there would be a showdown with Britain and France. He knew damn well, but didn't care very much that invading Poland ran the very high risk of war with France and Britain. He did it anyway and his behavior both during and after ensured that the war would continue. (The liquidation of the Polish state, the attempt to destroy the Poles has a national group, except has serfs in a Racial state.)
What led to more violence was Hitler's unprovoked behavior, lying, deception and cruelty. Before Sept. 1, 1939 both Britain and France had behaved with reckless forbearance; well they had reached their limits.
Oh and just in case your wondering. Why did Hitler invade neutral, Belgium, Holland and luxembourg in 1940? He certainly didn't have to. But he did anyway. And thus Hitler is responsible for any war damage etc., there.
