Who should be blamed the most?

whoops thought this was WW2.

Nope, the Brits have the most blame for that one but not this.

Yeah, the Brits were totally to blame for honouring their defensive treaty with Poland that Hitler already knew about.

>Russia turning a regional conflict in to a world war
>Germany declares war on you
>You haven't declared war on anyone
>Get blamed anyway

The Russians were the least prepared for war and they knew it, they were trying to scare Austria in to backing down, chances are they would have backed down like a bitch if the Habsburgs told them to fuck off too.

Just ignore I mentioned it not trying to derail here.

The Brits are to blame because they entered into a defensive pact knowing full well that they couldn't save Poland. The Brits cared very little for the actual wellbeing of Poland, all they wanted was an excuse to go to war and an excuse to go to war they got. They used the Poles.

You're an idiot. Why would they want an excuse to go to war (against a country that was militarily the most powerful in Europe) when their economy was still shit because of the last war against Germany? Is it so hard to believe that the Brits just didn't want Germany to get even more dominant? Not everything the Brits did was some insidious plot to quench their thirst for violence.

They did the same thing in WW1 by that logic. The truth is that before France fell like it did it wasn't an unrealistic idea for the to save Poland.

Germany for giving a blank check for AH

You literally answered your own question.
>Why would they want an excuse to go to war

>the Brits just didn't want Germany to get even more dominant

The Brits were looking for an excuse to go to war with Germany because the revitalized German economy directly challenged them. They were looking for an excuse to go to war with Germany to destroy it's economy once again and they found that excuse in Poland.

Churchill himself said, and I quote; "This isn't a war against Hitler or National Socialism, this is a war against the economic might of Germany."

If the Brits wanted an excuse for war in 1939, why did they continue to try diplomacy for 3 days after the start of the German invasion? Why did they give the Germans an ultimatum at the end of those 3 days, thus giving the Germans one last chance to avoid war, rather than just declaring war immediately?

And a source for that supposed Churchill quote, please?

Why is it Veeky Forums policy to do anti-nazi legwork?

Not him, I did some googling, I think he is talking about this quote:

>"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." --Winston Churchill

Apparently its also bullshit that hasn't got a source, the credited source has no such quote according to others.

There is no Veeky Forums policy, it's just that a Google search for that quote turns up nothing from what I can tell. So I'm asking the guy to back up his claim.

Sorry I was stating a fact.

Italy, as they were the only one without a valid excuse except muh gibs.

Also the only one without blame because they were the only honest ones, doing it just for the gibs

To play the saint. To say "well, we tried diplomacy" to give their cause for war more justification. It's been done all throughout history, it's nothing new.

Something that's interesting, however, is that Hitler sent peace offers to Britain 3 times early in the war and each time they rejected him. When Hitler had the BEF cornered at Dunkirk instead of wiping them out and ending the war he instead tried to sue for peace because, and I quote again: "The blood of every Englishmen is too valuable to shed. Our two peoples belong together racially and traditionally." (Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Churchill's Deception" p.217). Hitler offered to return ALL conquered land yet Britain refused because they wanted war.

Churchill quote comes from His Career in War and Peace, taken from a speech he gave Parlaiment.

>did a quick google search, nothing came up so it's false
Get back to your homework, adults are talking.

>Germany

Why don't you just come out with it and say "I think Hitler and the Nazis were great"? Or, at least, go start a new thread to discuss who's to blame for WW2. That way we can spare ourselves the usual 100+ comments rehashing the same debates, trying to get closed-minded cultists who have no interest in learning to change their minds, etc.

>Russia mobilizes
>Germany asks them to stop and warns them
>Russia doesn't stop
>Germany declares war
Wow, how could the Russians have seen this coming?

Why was British military spending so low in comparison to Germany's if they were looking for a war? Even in 1938 it was 7.4% of Britain's GDP, compared to 18.9% for Germany.

You are the closed-minded cultists tho.

At this point you're just being petty. Britain clearly wanted a war, all the evidence is there to prove it but you're desperately trying to find a reason to cling onto the belief that you hold so near and dear. If you're just going to be petty and stay blind to the overwhelming truth, this debate is over.

P.S. Just because their military spending was lower doesn't mean they didn't want/weren't preparing for war.

If you don't want to read our conversation, don't read it. No one has even posted about WW1 in a while, our debate is the only thing keeping this thread afloat.

So, let's at least get this out in the open. Do you think that Hitler and the Nazis were great?

Is that a prerequisite to being a bad person in your fantasy land? Sounds pretty closed-minded to me.

I don't know who you think you're talking to but I'm probably not him. I don't see how bringing this up is petty.
>Just because their military spending was lower doesn't mean they didn't want/weren't preparing for war
No, but it's a pretty good metric of how seriously they took the idea, and obviously Germany was more interested in it.

>I argue your point, therefore I am a fascist

Answer the question.

>Honor your treaty with Belgium after the war already escalated
Damn the UK is behind this
>Dont honor your treaty with Poland
Fucking traitors

Honestly you can blame AH and Russia for starting the war and Germany for turning it into a world war. France also dindu nuffin

It has no bearing on what anyone is talking about. Nice way to try and gas light instead of admitting someone is right.

The German economic revival was built around, more or less, the rejuvenation of the military. An increase of military spending was needed in order for the economic revival of Germany to happen. Germany was also surrounded by nations whom they saw as aggressors against them, whether or not they were is a debate for another time but it's important to mention. Because of the military-centric economic revival and being surrounded by enemies it makes sense that Germany spent more on the military. Britain, on the other hand, did not have an economy that revolved around the military nor did they feel that they were surrounded by enemies. Mind you, as well, a drastic increase in military spending during peace time would not sit well with the civilian populace and would cause unrest. Britain had to go to war before they could increase military spending.

It does have bearing. If you think that the Nazis were great, there is probably no point in discussing history with you, since 95%+ of people who have that opinion have no true interest in history and only engage in history discussions in order to shill their existing opinion.

Rogue actors in Germany, Austria, and Russia.

Derailing argument because you're incapable of forming a real response to his point, sad!

So you admit to just being a closed-minded loser with a ebil nahztee boogeyman living in your head.

Thanks for bringing some decent discussion,user. Probably wasted on them tho.

If you think that Britain wanted to go to war with Germany in 1939, you have to explain what changed between March and September that caused Britain to go from not wanting to go to war on the pretext of Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia to wanting to go to war on the pretext of Germany's invasion of Poland.
Given that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed in August, you'd think that Britain would be less willing to go to war in September than it would have been in March.

>Thanks for bringing some decent discussion,user. Probably wasted on them tho.
No doubt in my mind it's wasted, Veeky Forums is full of pseudo-marxists who believe everything CNN spits down their throat. Still, worth a shot.

Stormtard confirmed. Anyone who spends a decent amount of time on Veeky Forums knows that this is mainly a liberal board. There are more stormtards here than there are Marxists.

Prussia was called a military with a state. So obviously they spend a great amout of their BIP on it. This has always been the case even during the 40 years of peace inside Europe.

Fine, whatever. Let's have the stormtard debate again. Answer this: then.

Not sure if the cnn part is accurate but they sure are in a very ignorant mindset.

>The German economic revival was built around, more or less, the rejuvenation of the military. An increase of military spending was needed in order for the economic revival of Germany to happen.
Why was it necessary? I don't want to get into counterfactuals but there were other ways of going about the recovery besides taking out massive loans, restructuring the economy to be lopsided towards military and producer goods, and raising military spending to unprecedented levels. It may have made the recovery faster, but by no means was stable or long term.

>Ur a kid
Okay, I was trying to not be autistic in an attempt to save you some face and give you the chance to leave the discussion easily.

>"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." --Winston Churchill

Its a real quote, its just not something Churchill said. You can find it first here:
>Aufbruch und Sturz des 3. Reiches: auch du warst dabei, page 316

A book published in the 50s or 60s where it is attributed to an unidentified member of the German resistance by a former Nazi and not Churchill.

>he called Veeky Forums users marxists so he must be a stormfag by default
You're an absolute fucking riot kid.

>stormtards
ah the smell of closed-minded losers where you don't even have to do anything but mention da ebil nahtzee to ruffle some feathers.

Well, confirmed is going too far, but the chance that someone who complains about Veeky Forums being Marxist (which is an absurd claim to make given that Veeky Forums is predominantly liberal) is a stormtard is quite high.

This thread got derailed about as rapidly as one could have predicted.

>Why was it necessary?
It's just the path they chose. Perhaps it's because Hitler wanted to make himself appear to be a great economist and went the short and easy route rather than the long and hard route but that's just speculation.

>Okay, I was trying to not be autistic in an attempt to save you some face and give you the chance to leave the discussion easily.
The only one who looks like a fool is you and you're the only one who can't see it. Ignorance is bliss.

>Comfy thread about WW1
>Ruined by WW2 shitters

Can you lot fuck off? Go make another thread to discuss alt-history or some shit, don't drag your crap in to other peoples threads.

>liberal
>attacking and holding views that revolve around said ideology I don't like
Not sure if you know what that word means.

>Britain lost an considerable amount of influence after WW1 even though they won
>Germany agressively annexes Region after Region and invades a country the UK swore to protect
>The UK reluctantly declares war, even though its obvious to them that their influence will be fading even more
Dude the UK is behind this LMAO

I haven't been on Veeky Forums for a long time and the last time I got on it was swamped with threads such as "why was communism so awesome?". Forgive me for believing things hadn't changed.

Well, the path he chose made him seem like a dangerous threat to Europe, so I can't really sympathize much there. There's significant trade-offs for these kinds of things, and for Hitler it was alarming everyone around him with a substantial military buildup.

Britain guaranteed the independence of Poland yet didn't declare war on the Soviet Union. Really makes you wonder if the deal with Poland was just to settle a grudge with Germany rather than actually defending Poland.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike

I don't know much about the causes of WWI, but if wikipedia's page about the July Crisis is accurate, it seems that Germany's military professionals and some of their statesmen should receive a good portion of blame. It seems that they actually wanted a war with Russia and possibly France because they were worried about Russia's growth and they thought that the situation for a war was more favorable than it probably would ever be again. So they supported a policy of backing Austria-Hungary to the hilt in its own strategy of presenting Serbia with an unacceptable ultimatum.

We get the occasional tankie/"Stalin wuz great" sort of thread here, sure, but I've never seen the board swamped with such threads. Usually people who make such threads get BTFO here. And there are more stormtard threads made here than there are tankie threads made here.

I won't deny that breaking the treaty and building up the military wasn't justification enough to go to war with Germany, but something that people often forget is that Hitler wasn't the only aggressive player in eastern Europe. In 1933 (or 34) both Hungary and Poland invaded Czechoslovakia and annexed lands. The Soviets invaded Poland in '39 yet didn't get war declared upon them by the Brits.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike
Bombing is not the same as full-out war user.

Well obviously their government isnt run by idealistic morons. Theres no way the western powers would win a war against the UdSSR and Nazi Germany, so they picked the more dangerous and agressive adversary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

I see none of the stormtards have answered this: yet.

>Bombing is not the same as full-out war user.
so Britain wasn't at war with Germany until 1942

Germany was in no way more aggressive than the USSR. At the most, they were equally as aggressive.

Fun attempt at mental gymnastics but no. Britain declared war on Germany but did not declare war on the USSR.

Germany had broken several prior agreements and done things that they were told not to do beforehand. The USSR at the time was much less aggressive. Imagine two children, one is constantly causing trouble for his neighbors and the other sits quietly purging the nicest pens and starving. When they both hit your kid you're going to be more angry at the consistent trouble maker despite that fact they have both done wrong.

They're called GBP or Good Boy Points.

I would ask if you ever feel bad about being a cretin but I am sure morals aren't very common here.

Bombing is not the same as full-out war user.
there for Britain and Germany weren't at war until the invasion of France, and Germany started it

Because it's illogical and defeats itself.

Again, mental gymnastics. You can try and try all day but it doesn't work, try another tactic.

Maybe you should try answering my points in the linked comment?

You are hardly a sentient person worth responding to tho.

>sits quietly purging the nicest pens and starving
In no way does that fairly portray the USSR's foreign policy. From the time Lenin took power he set his eyes on the West. Communist infiltrators flooded out of Russia into the West and caused many bloody revolutions, the primate being the Bavarian Revolution. Couple that with the failed invasion of Poland in the 20's and you can see that Russia wasn't just sitting there quiet.

Respond to the ideas, then.

Sure both were agressive. But Germany was actively breaking treatys while the UdSSR was politically isolated anyways. How would you even invade the UdSSR when Germany is between you and would use the war as a chance to expand their territory even further? No sane government who has interest in self-preservation would declare war on Russia

Maybe not, but looking through the eyes of Britain at the time in cold realpolitik, they could really only focus on one continental power at a time and Germany was the most potent with the greatest potential to wage war.
This has gotten very off topic but this is how I see it: Germany gambled on being able to exert influence on the continent through force of arms/intimidation without Britain intervening. Britain saw Germany as the biggest threat among the other opportunistic states of the region, called their bluff, and declared war within their boundaries after a period of hesitation. There's no good or bad really, but there's a side who thought they do what they wanted without consequences.

I'd argue that Britain and France were also probably loath to sit back and watch Germany undo the results of WWI, which had killed millions of British and French, in a few short years.

The Germans.

The only thing the Soviets got right, was finally cleansing Europe of the German pestilence that had plagued Europe for hundreds of years.

I'll agree to disagree but I'll fully agree this thread has gotten very off-topic. I'm hopping out now but thanks for the discussion mate.

The newest British princess is 45 years old, divorced, and half black. Yes Europe would have been better off had they won.

>murdering millions of people is better than having a few darkskins in Europe

You don't like black people what are you some kind of nazis? Give me 3 paragraphs as to why the nazis were the epitome of evil or you are a nazi!

England wanted war by throwing a guarantee they could not keep.
they wanted war to save face because they were the dominate power.
I would have done the same thing if I was in Chamberlain's shoes.

A few? France is 10% Muslim, Sweden is expected to be 20-30% Muslim within a few decades, etc.

Imagine what Europe will look like in 50 years.

>Their foreign policy was a list of failures
>They're clearly as big a threat as Germany which was on a winning streak

If there were no nazis there would be hardly any black people in Europe. It is BECAUSE the Nazis exist and did the German reductio ad absurdum (Europe is a superior civilization which has the right to try to civilize others > Germany is a superior civilization and by right of being a superior civilization the subhuman races must be murdered and destroyed to make room for German settlers) that the Germans are so fond of that white supremacist and european nationalist ideology is so discredited. It is also because of the casualties the Germans inflicted on Europe that immigration into Europe from africa and the middle east could happen. If there were no nazis, Europe would be much more socially conservative and 99% white. Stormtards have nobody to blame but themselves for destroying Europe.

People who think it's weird that Britain and France didn't declare war on the USSR in 1939 forget that the USSR/Russia had not been one of Britain and France's enemies in the WWI period, other than the relatively minor Western involvement in the Russian civil war. The Germans, on the other hand had been the chief WWI enemy of Britain and France. The memory of the horrors of WWI were fresh in 1939, and it makes sense that Britain and France would not have wanted to sit back and let Germany undo the strategic situation that it had taken so much British and French blood to create in the first place.

Believe me, it would look much worse if the Nazis had won.

This is the correct answer