Who really started ww2?
I blame Britain desu, senpai
Hitler plans for Danzig were pretty top tier
>>17108
The poles for actively discriminating against their German populace.
The french after the Treaty of Versailles
>What really started ww2?
WW1
>>17108
Germany declared war on Poland, whose independence was guaranteed by Britain and France, who then declared war on Germany.
The Soviets also declared war on Poland at the same time but apparently it never mattered.
>>17108
The English, they had been pitting other nations against each other to maintain their power. In India they didn't invade, they just pitted rulers against rulers, they gave power to the Muslims over the Hindus, etc.
Same as in Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi7M_P2ldsQ
Germans, they started ww1 and caused France to write up the Treaty of Versailles in order to fix their nation. That treaty led to Hitler who triggered WW2
Japs caused it to be a world war but forcing the US to embargo them, who forced the japs to bomb them
>>17135
everyone east of Paris was discriminating their minorities at the time
>>17229
By that logic the Big bang started ww2
>>17108
>Who really started ww2?
the juden, they tried to turn germany communist and constantly attacked germanic culture through the meida they controlled.
>>17108
The French for creating the Treaty of Versailles. Just gave ammunition for the Nazis
>>17108
I know this is controversial, but I think it was the Nazis in Germany and the militarists in Japan.
>>17304
Blaming the French for Versailles doesn't lead anywhere productive. You could equally blame them for the Treaty of Versailles not being harsh enough as it obviously didn't deal with Germany and the balance of power in Europe properly.
>>17108
Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
what the fuck is racism?
>>17363
cheeky
>>17108
Italy when it invaded Abyssinia.
>>17399
can they remove the word racist which I do not recognize and simply say that attacking someones race is banned?
>>17293
What answer did you want? Hitler started it by invading poland? Invading poland because germany clay was taken away as part of the treaty of versailles? There are a thousand different aspects that people can claim led to WW2, but it all boils down to WW1.
>>17399
its basically the white version of "dindu nuffin". historical oppression of a peoples due to skin color etc.
>>17271
Germany did not start WW1. They joined the war on Austria's side.
>>17108
Gavrilo Princip
>>17139
Underrated truth
>>17438
It all boils down to a women having to many children
>>17108
The jewish people. According to my research.
>>17377
The main problem is that it was harsh with no follow-through which made the great depression hit Germany far more severely than it could have otherwise.
What France and the UK needed to do, and didn't, was something more akin to the Marshall Plan. They could've stepped in during the Commie rebellion in Germany and helped them out with imports and basic stabilization of their economy.
Instead they just said 'dude we're mad lmao' and watched for the next 20 years and acted surprised when things got out of hand.
>>17399
What exactly is this racism you speak of here?
All posts are racist
>It was the Germans
>It was the French
>It was the Jews
Point out one answer that is different from the others and explain how it is racist and the others are not.
>>17271
Germany did not start ww1
>>17568
I'm talking of the announcement in the start, the word racist has no meaning, it is a political term like saying no "counter revolutionists here" or no "europhilliacs" no "reactionaries".
>>17508
>>17568
historical oppression
britain, and america to a lesser extent, for not properly enforcing the treaty of versailles. they should've stepped in right after germany began expanding.
>>17271
Hold up.
Wasn't the casus belli of WWI the death of Franz Ferdinand leading to Austria striking back at the Kingdom of Serbia? Triggering Russia's and German intervention leading to a domino effect?
>>17608
>What is the blank cheque to Austria-Hungary
Have any of you Germanboos even passed a high school history class?
>>17512
>blaming the French and the Treaty of Versailles for WW2 is an underrated truth
In what universe is that an underrated truth?
See >>17377
I'm by no means trying to defend the Treaty itself, but the French (and British) imposed a tonne of stuff to try to prevent Germany from becoming a central power in Europe again and maintain their own supremacy (all pretty fair considering they just won a Great War against them). As >>17540 says, they then let it all be for nothing as Germany massively destabilised, had multiple attempted revolutions and ended up with (by the outbreak) an already established totalitarian dictatorship heavily based on revanchism and regaining its power in Europe. The war was declared because the leaders of the Allies simply stopped their policy of appeasement and letting Germany regain its status as a great power, but that's not the cause and nor is the over-used and under-analysed "lel the French wanted too much."
>>17650
Racism is going against European interests, race mixing is racist.
>>17636
While I agree that racist and racism aren't real I was replying to your original post that insinuates someone either made this thread about racism or someone made a reply stating that there was racism present here.
>>17690
>European interests
Such a thing does not exist
The Slavs
Poland antagonized Germany and Russia convinced Germany to attack
>>17761
Black interests don't exist, time to ban naacp.
>>17761
yes and I suppose we're all one race or some stupid shit too
>>17650
Revilement never existed without cause nor has the Jews always been oppressed. Toward the 18th century they were prosperous and present everywhere in Europe, the presence of Rothschild family itself presents an argument against the historical oppression of the Jews.
>>17108
Hitler managed to get a bunch of shit basically for free with his foreign policy, the memeland invasion was the biggest miscalculation of the era though.
Unlike Austria and checkemslovenians (who were pretty much all Teutons anyways), Poland actually had international treaties, that even a kek like chamberlain could not ignore.
The best thing he could have done to ensure the survival of Germany would have been to simply... wait. Sooner or later, Stalin is going to be wanting to invade Europe. Now one country alone against the soviet masses is still a bleak prospect, but its better than being one country alone against a bunch of western countries too.
By getting the casus belli for yourself, there's even a chance angleland and germoney wouldve teamed up to defend europe (FDR probably wouldn't help though, because he was determined to fight wars *for* communism).
All you had to do to be on the right side of history was give it a little time Adolf.
>>17890
Invading Poland wasn't a big deal, it was invading the USSR.
>>17923
Fuck someone needs to dismantle the EU then.
>>17923
There is a European interest for the preservation of the continent and preventing it from turning into pakistan part two
>>17923
Europeans share interests as that has been shown throughout history, as seen in the repelling of Muslim invaders and Islam, the preservation of culture and language, and the preservation of faith.
>>17890
Unlike Austria and checkemslovenians (who were pretty much all Teutons anyways), Poland actually had international treaties, that even a kek like chamberlain could not ignore.
Czechoslovakia had an alliance with the French (and therefore British) that was promptly ignored and forgotten about during the Munich Conference, though.
Poland (the Danzig issue) was essentially just the Allied leaders going 'nah we've had it with this, Adolf, you're not getting anything else'. Up until that point the Allies ruined their relationship with most of Europe and their integrity by appeasing Germany carte blanche.
>>18035
European nations such as France allied with the Ottomons and they both fought the Habsburg empire. The British and French Empires intervened in wars to protect the Ottomons from Russia because it was in their interests.
Your view of history is simple minded.
>>17971
Shit was over as soon as britbongers declared war and dragged america in with them. A better war policy might have prolonged things ten more years, maybe even twenty, but a land based power prevailing over a sea based power in the long run is a strategic impossibility. The best thing that could happen at that point would be trying to get a white peace somehow.
>>18092
This. Europe has always been too small a space for too many centralised powers. Constant European competition drove the continent to be the most influential upon the planet.
Reptilians.
>>18092
The Ottomans live on a land that was quite simply but accurately stolen. Their capital, the greatest mosque, all of it was built by Byzantines. I know that the leaders in growing Europe were selfish and small minded, but those times are over. Greater threats exist now outside their borders, threats that at those times did not exist, or when they did exist, such as the Umayyad invasions.
What if those leaders had not been selfish and had seen the greater picture, the ties they shared with their European brethren? They didn't foresee the consequences of their actions which we now live with.
>>18369
You are ignoring the point of history. The point is to see things as they were. The fact is that any idea of unity was non-existent. European states were very much at each other's throats and to some extent they still are except now it is not so brutal in how they show it.
>>17676
>Russia mobilized before Germany
>what are the willy nicky telegrams
>What is the last minute recall of Moltke by Wilhelm?
I can cherry pick too.
>>18437
Fuck those telegrams are such a depressing read. I'd still recommend it, though.
>>17890
But then the economy crashes. Hitler needed the war to keep his economy going.
The Bolshevik revolution.
It was a group of Jews from Russia.
>>17667
that's like blaming someone's parents for something they did
>>18576
so it really was the jews
>>18414
That will all change quite soon thanks to globalism and those millions of foreigners invading.
>>18691
No it's not.
Even if it was, upbringing and the values that parents instil in their children are so important to developing a person that you actually could make that argument to some extent. Still, though, you're wrong.
>>17293
I think anon means that the end of WWI and treaty of Versailles directly led to the establishment of the NSDAP as a political entity and the rise of Hitler.
>>18181
>Shit was over as soon as britbongers declared war and dragged america in with them.
nice palindrome get.
Wasn't America lend/leasing to the british and the germans in the early outset of the war. The US joined the war in europe because hitler, in a show of solidarity with his Japanese Allies, declared war on us after pearl harbor.
>>19022
That and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
It didn't help that all the Communist leadership in the uprising was Jewish, nor did it help that there was a repeat in 1923.
>>19192
>tfw we lend-leased to literally everyone except France, Funland and Japan
>>19221
It's honestly amazing how this never gets mentioned ever. Even if you're not /pol/, the antics of German and international Jews through out WW1 and the 1920s make Hitler's dislike of them pretty reasonable.
>>19022
Germany losing the First World War and terms of peace were necessary conditions to create an unstable and hostile Europe (ie, led to WW2), but they didn't cause it.
It was caused by German interests conflicting with British and French interests (or, rather, the status quo/balance of power in Europe).
>>17108
The more interesting topic is how WWI started.
>>19290
It does, something that like you said is never taught in public schools. I myself learned it offhandedly while researching WW2 history when I became interested in it.
>>17108
Germany and Japan, obviously. Britain and France also to a lesser degree for their complete apathy at the rise of Germany.
>>19342
Germany didn't have any 'interests' beyond getting its shit together until the mid 1930s. My autistic dream would be that France/the UK would've been good lads in the peace and helped Germany out a bit, not too much obviously, but just illustrate that WW1 was over and that so long as the Krauts didn't sperg out, everything would be chill.
Then it would've been more likely that (assuming the assumptions made about Stalin were accurate,) WW2 would've been France/UK/Germany/Italy vs. the USSR
>>18531
What telegrams?
>>17520
There's something to this
>>19380
That was the slavic terrorist that assassinated the Archduke
>>19476
>>19290
Also no one ever mentions how massive portions of Poland then were once Prussia, and that the Germans were right in being indignant about reclaiming those lands.
World War 2 history, at least that is taught in the US, really demonizes the Germans without realizing there were many rational motives there.
>>19476
Same. I did a muh undergrad thesis about how the policies of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the NSDAP and stumbled on it just researching the conditions in Germany in the months following the armistice.
>tfw glossed over the Jewish influence during the actual presentation because one of the committee was a hardcore lefty half-Jew
>>19560
That was the match that set the fire, but I'm talking about the quagmire of international alliances, colonialism, brinkmanship, and the fact that the world was changing under everyone's from the old one to the modern.
It's a causal clusterfuck.
>>19579
>massive portions of Poland then were once Prussia
Finland was once Russian land, yet somehow I doubt you support the Soviets in the Winter War. Not to mention they didn't just annex German Empire territories, they annex the entire country and proceeded to kill off 20% of the population.
You are absolutely nuts.
>>19579
They lost the war, the Allies had every right in dismantling their nation to the extent that it would not allow them to try again. They failed in this (obviously), but saying 'Germany had "right" to want revenge/regain territory' by war is absurd.
>>19554
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/willynicky.htm
>>19513
Not true, the Nazi regime was obsessed with revanchism and gaining national control over Germans outside of its borders. The Germans succeeded in dismantling a sovereign nation allied with France and the UK to this end, and demanded that territory of Poland and Danzig be put under German control.
It was foreign policy and it was an attempt to change the balance of power in Europe that was (re)established following WW1. It is the same reason as one of the key causes of the previous world war as well.
>>19635
The more I try to assemble a definitive 'blame ranking' for WW1, the more I realize I can't.
Do you blame the British for doing their best to cuk the German Empire out of allies, influence, and colonial holdings? Do you blame the Russians for mobilizing their entire army over a shithole in the Balkans when no-one even wanted to fight them? Do you blame the Japs for wrecking the shit out of the Russian navy and thus starting a naval arms race that led to both Britain and Germany flipping a shit? Do you blame Wilhelm for being a cuk-king and making every sperglord decision possible? Do you blame the Serbs? Do you blame Austria for being incompetent and excessive as fuck? Do you blame Schlieffen/Moltke jr. for making the militarily expedient, but politically disatrous decision to invade through the lowlands?
It's a clusterfuck
>>19856
>Not true, the Nazi regime was obsessed with revanchism and gaining national control over Germans outside of its borders
Which is why I said they didn't have interests abroad until the Nazis solidified their government in the mid 30s
>>19760
>>19856
Whoa there cowboys, there is a difference between "lands ruled by" and lands that were ethnically a group.
Danzig and the surrounding area and other areas of Poland were ETHNICALLY PRUSSIAN and therefore German. The Russians RULED over Finland despite it being ethnically Finnish.
>the Allies had every right
So might makes right? Then the Germans had every right to dismantle Poland when they successfully invaded.
>In 1871, approximately 2.4 million Poles lived in Prussia, constituting the largest minority.[12] Other minorities were Jews, Danes, Frisians, Kashubians (72,500 in 1905), Masurians (248,000 in 1905), Lithuanians (101,500 in 1905), Walloons, Czechs, Kursenieki, and Sorbs.[12]
>>20079
To further illustrate my point in 1871 the population of Prussia (in blue) was 24,689,000, only 2.4 million of which were Poles.
Germany lost all of this ETHNIC AND HISTORICAL GERMAN land to the Poles.
>>19856
God. Those telegrams are horrifying
>>19929
The blame lies on everyone who took part, there was no good or bad side.
It was Britain + France and allies (the status quo in Europe, their hegemonic control over the rest of the continent and world) versus upstarts who wanted to change this and instead become their own powers with spheres of influence. It was really little to do with minor disputes and events once there was a cause and justification for war. Each power could have made peace or prevented the war if ot was actually in their national interest (it wasn't) - it's exactly why the US didn't join until obliged to.
By 1914 there was virtually no (valuable) terra incognita left, so the rise of one power/sphere of inflience inevitably meant the demise of another. The First World War was nothing more than a geopolitical conflict that had unprecedented levels of capability for violence.
In fact, arguably the Second World War was much less a geopolitical war than the First, since most of the outbreak was predominantly regarding only Europe.
>>20079
>So might makes right?
Basically yes, the only other attempt at an arbitrator in such matters (League of Nations) failed miserably.
Germany lost WW1 therefore the Allies were able to and justified to force Germany to accept a peace with terms that they would be unable to challenge the balance of power again and start war. If they'd won, they would be justified in doing the same to the Allies.
Arguing about anything different is utterly redundant.
>>19995
Right, but the early years of the 30s was the Nazi Party focused domestically on solidifying its power and eventually regime. What does that have to do with the outbreak of WW2 other than that the same party's foreign policy then basically caused it?
>>18548
And who boycotted the german economy?
>hand-rubbing intensifies
>>19513
Roosevelt always wanted Germany to fight Russia and/or England so that he could enter the war in the ending stage and reap the benefits.
Documents retrieved from Varsavia's archives show how Roosevelt's (jewish) advisor, William C. Bullitt, did his best for years to provoke Germany into a war.
>>19995
Sorry, I just realised I've not been reading your posts properly and arguing a bit pointlessy. The national foreign interests didn't properly manifest until mid-ish 30s (though they were, of course, Nazi interests previously), the only real factor for this was that previously they had an unstable country and poor popular basis to begin pursuing them up until they achieved stability.
