Who started both World Wars?

[abaddon]

Germany started both.

End thread.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Germany started both.

End thread.

Who started both world wars? Only nazis don't know!

 

[Corsair 115]

Germany started both.

End thread.

If only it were that easy...

 

[CptColumbo]

Germany started both.

End thread.

While I believe, and the evidence supports that belief, Germany started the 2nd World War, IMO many more factors led to the first World War. Despite their admission in the treaty, I don't think Germany can be completly blamed for WWI.

 

[Hans]

While I believe, and the evidence supports that belief, Germany started the 2nd World War, IMO many more factors led to the first World War. Despite their admission in the treaty, I don't think Germany can be completly blamed for WWI.

True; Imperial Germany used the crises for its own needs then everyone contributed to a lesser degree to the war going out of control and hatred driven by the war itself extended it until exhaustion. The nations were trying to fight a 19th century war with 20th century technology while dousing it with heavy doses of Nationalism - with a result of disaster for all.

 

[Dave Rogers]

While I believe, and the evidence supports that belief, Germany started the 2nd World War, IMO many more factors led to the first World War. Despite their admission in the treaty, I don't think Germany can be completly blamed for WWI.

I tend to agree, hence the bar fight metaphor way back in the early days of the thread. There was pretty much a tacit agreement between Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Russia and Britain that they could all do with a jolly good war; it was Germany who threw the first punch.

Dave

 

[Wroclaw]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the war began as a localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary over the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Serbian nationalists? Russia backed Serbia and treaty obligations took care of the rest. The bar fight metaphor seems apt.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the war began as a localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary over the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Serbian nationalists? Russia backed Serbia and treaty obligations took care of the rest.

The main problem with that view is that it takes us as far as mobilisation of all the major armies, but with no actual fighting taking place. The spark in that powder-keg was that Germany's mobilisation plan involved a pre-emptive strike against France through Belgium.

Dave

 

[CptColumbo]

I always liked the scene in "Blackadder Goes Forth" when he tries to explain how the war started to Baldrick and George. They're not exactly the brightest bulbs in the knife drawer.

I'm at work and cannot scan youtube for the video.

 

[Tolls]

The main problem with that view is that it takes us as far as mobilisation of all the major armies, but with no actual fighting taking place. The spark in that powder-keg was that Germany's mobilisation plan involved a pre-emptive strike against France through Belgium.

Dave

Well, Austria started shelling Belgrade in late July, before there was any general mobilisation (even Austrian), so I would say fighting had started.

 

[Wroclaw]

Well, Austria started shelling Belgrade in late July, before there was any general mobilisation (even Austrian), so I would say fighting had started.

Both of which are good points. After the assassination of the Archduke, Vienna issued ten demands against Belgrade, nine of which were immediately accepted. The tenth, if I recall, would have ceded significant sovereignty to Vienna, albeit for a temporary period, and as (I don't think) Princip was a Serbian national (although a Serb), they resisted. So Vienna shelled Belgrade.

Who entered the war first: Germany or Russia? The answer to that would answer the question of outside aggression better.

 

[dudalb]

Germany started both.

End thread.

WW2, yeah, Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
WW1 is a lot more complex. I would put the main blame on Austria,though Germany did not help matters with "The Blank Check".

 

[9/11-investigator]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the war began as a localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary over the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Serbian nationalists? Russia backed Serbia and treaty obligations took care of the rest. The bar fight metaphor seems apt.

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the war began as a localized conflict between Germany and Poland over the German town of Danzig and a transit road between Germany and Prussia? Britain backed Poland (pushed into it by America as Chamberlain later confided to Kennedy over a game of golf) and treaty obligations took care of the rest.
The bar fight metaphor seems apt here as well. Oh well, not entirely. Unlike in WW1, in 1939, two very powerful new kids on the block with globalist designs had arrived on the scene and liked what they saw happening in Europe and both knew they could exploit the conflict between European states for their own gain. And in the end they prevailed and could carve up Europe between themselves. After a littlebit of testicle kicking in Nuremberg they could convince the world that the noble alllies had defeated a monster and thus could consolidate their gains.

As a reminder, here the Nuremberg testimony from the Swedish mediator Dahlerus, who was trusted both by Goering as well as Chamberlain. From the testimony it becomes clear that the negotiations were about Danzig and were serious, not a German diversion tactic as the alllies later claimed:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-19-46.asp

The Wikiliars still peddle the lie that Hitler had said: "Die Gegner haben nicht mit meiner großen Entschlußkraft gerechnet. Unsere Gegner sind kleine Würmchen. Ich sah sie in München. […] Nun ist Polen in der Lage, in der ich es haben wollte. […] Ich habe nur Angst, daß mir noch im letzten Moment irgendein Schweinehund einen Vermittlungsplan vorlegt."
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchner_Abkommen
("My only fear is that some as****** will come up with a peace plan").
He never said that, it was forgery invented by the alllies to blame the Germans for the war.

In the end the persecution of Germans living in Poland (as a result of the Versailles 'treaty') by the Poles were the real triggering event for the Germans to invade.

 

[dudalb]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the war began as a localized conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary over the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by Serbian nationalists? Russia backed Serbia and treaty obligations took care of the rest. The bar fight metaphor seems apt.

Pretty much.
The real problem was that Austria wanted to basically wipe Serbia off the map. Russia was actually willing to allow some punative action against Serbia, but would not stand for Serbia being destroyed or made into a Austrian puppet.
There were a lot of miscalculations..most of them on the part of the Central powers. Perhpas the most fatal...and one that Germany was to make again in 1939...was that Britian would not declare war in order to fulfill a treaty obligation to a small country. Hitler did not learn much from history.

 

[Wroclaw]

Isn't it a foregone conclusion that the war began as a localized conflict between Germany and Poland over the German town of Danzig and a transit road between Germany and Prussia?

No, and that's an allegation that's been made repeatedly over the last 72 years and has been proved false every single time.

Britain backed Poland (pushed into it by America as Chamberlain later confided to Kennedy over a game of golf) and treaty obligations took care of the rest.

Again, no. {Sigh.} Britain had been backing Poland since Munich. You know this. Why do you feign ignorance?

The bar fight metaphor seems apt here as well. Oh well, not entirely. Unlike in WW1, in 1939 2 very powerful new kids on the block with globalist designs, liked what they saw happening in Europe and both knew they could exploit the conflict between European states for their own gain. And in the end they prevailed and could carve up Europe between themselves. After a littlebit of testicle kicking in Nuremberg they could convince the world that the noble alllies had defeated a monster and thus could consolidate their gains.

It didn't take the Holocaust (which, of course, is your insinuation) that made people hate Germany by the end of the war. The bombing of their cities and the terrorizing of their citizens did that entirely on their own. You live near Rotterdam? Try going their some time and circulating your rot.

As a reminder, here the Nuremberg testimony from the Swedish mediator Dahlerus, who was trusted both by Goering as well as Chamberlain. From the testimony it becomes clear that the negotiations were about Danzig and were serious, not a German diversion tactic as the alllies later claimed:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-19-46.asp

Really? Who said this:

Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all: it is a question of expanding our living space in the East. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision: to attack Poland at the earliest opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of this isolation will be decisive. The isolation of Poland is a matter of skillful politics.

Hmmm?

The Wikiliars still peddle the lie that Hitler had said: "Die Gegner haben nicht mit meiner großen Entschlußkraft gerechnet. Unsere Gegner sind kleine Würmchen. Ich sah sie in München. […] Nun ist Polen in der Lage, in der ich es haben wollte. […] Ich habe nur Angst, daß mir noch im letzten Moment irgendein Schweinehund einen Vermittlungsplan vorlegt."
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchner_Abkommen
("My only fear is that some as****** will come up with a pieace plan").
He never said that, it was forgery invented by the alllies to blame the Germans for the war.

And you don't think he said that? Why not?

In the end the persecution of Germans living in Poland (as a result of the Versailles 'treaty') by the Poles were the real triggering event for the Germans to invade.

Next, you'll tell me the Gleiwitz incident was real, right?

 

[Wroclaw]

And what of this?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Dahlerus, will you tell me whether I understood your last answer to Dr. Stahmer correctly? Did you say "I then realized that it was on the 26th of September, that his" -- that is Goering's -- "aim had been to split Poland and Great Britain and to occupy Poland with the consent of Great Britain"? Is that right?

DAHLERUS: Yes, it is correct, but I should like to say it was the German Government, including Goering.

 

[Hans]

28 July AH declared war on Serbia
1 August Germany declared war on Russia
3 August German declared war on France
4 August England declared war on Germany for attacking Belgium

Italy declines to join the Central powers

 

[9/11-investigator]

And what of this?

What is your point? Dahlerus is refering to a point in time 26 days after the beginning of the war or more important 9 days after the invasion of Poland by the Soviets (your later ally, no declaration of war by Britain or France).

Dahlerus and the rest of the world understood what kind of game the Germans and Soviets were playing, since the secret annex of the Molotov-Ribbentrop accord (concocted only a week or so before the invasion) had not been published in the Times of London for practical reasons: it was secret.

Dahlerus is refering to plan B, after the negotiations had failed, against the wishes of Hitler. It had been Britain and America who had encouraged the Poles not to give in to German demands by handing out (baseless) promisses of support, that never materialized. Poland was gladly handed over to 'Uncle Joe' (Churchills description) Stalin.

That was easy.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Again, no. {Sigh.} Britain had been backing Poland since Munich. You know this. Why do you feign ignorance?

There is no contradiction between your statement and mine.

It didn't take the Holocaust (which, of course, is your insinuation) that made people hate Germany by the end of the war. The bombing of their cities and the terrorizing of their citizens did that entirely on their own. You live near Rotterdam? Try going their some time and circulating your rot.

The alllies threw 20 times as much on Germany as the other way around. The Germany never bombed America. Between Britain and Germany, Britain started bombing civilian targets a few hours after Churchill became PM. Rotterdam was a pawn in the European scale war, declared by Britain and France.
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html

Really? Who said this:

Hmmm?

Watch his video from Generalmajor Schulze-Rhonhof from 43:15 onwards. Forgeries were the rule in the NMT show trial:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=319478826869706304#docid=4269536375438116428
Among them the infamous 'Schweinhund' quote.

Next, you'll tell me the Gleiwitz incident was real, right?

Why don't wait for what I am going to say next?

 

[Wroclaw]

28 July AH declared war on Serbia
1 August Germany declared war on Russia
3 August German declared war on France
4 August England declared war on Germany for attacking Belgium

Italy declines to join the Central powers

But Russia had already mobilized when Germany declared war, hadn't it?