[QatzelOk]

World War Two was started by the Allies because they knew they had a huge military and political advantage, and they were afraid of Germany and Japan becoming too powerful. Britain, the US didn't want any competition, and they made an allilance with Russia - who they hated - just to ensure their hegemony over the earth.

Every war that Israel has won has been started by Israel. Israel's intelligence and military apparatus are light-years ahead of their poor, Arab neighbors. Israelis know they can start a war and make it appear to have been caused by the other country. This allows Israel the luxury of shopping for more land, and then feigning (or provoking) aggression from the place they wish to control.

Why would the weaker side start a war? Answer: they wouldn't. The stronger partner is far more likely to have started it. And since geopolitical games are extremely sophisticated and money-making, it's pretty safe to say that wars are always started by a stronger nation that is looking to bolster its competitive advantages even more.

And all the lies about the bad guys require really good media producers. Notice how the winners also have the best media.

[NYYS]

First of all, your entire premise is wrong. All wars are not started by the winners. I'd wager the majority are, because, like you said, a nation that suspects it will lose isn't going to start a war.

Second, you fall into the typical liberal mindset that the better nation is bad because it's better and therefore will only start a war for no good reason. You need to identify a victim so that you can immediately support them. There are plenty of valid reasons to start a war with a less powerful country, you just cannot see them because in your mind the loser is always the good guy. Shockingly, you have created a loser lifestyle for yourself.

However, I see that you have cleverly dropped a line in about the media, so anyone who disagrees with you can instantly become an example of how the media makes the loser nation look bad. Which makes me wonder why I even bothered to reply, since we all know the Jewish media is controlling me.

[NoRapture]

World War Two was started by the Allies because they knew they had a huge military and political advantage, and they were afraid of Germany and Japan becoming too powerful.

Um, didn't Germany invade Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia before any allied forces declared war?

[QatzelOk]

There are plenty of valid reasons to start a war with a less powerful country

Especially if your media tells you they're "evil" and committing "atrocities," right?
And then your government can bomb those evil, atrocious countries with your permission. And when it's all over, you can feel good knowing that all those people your country killed died because they were evil. Whew. Otherwise you could feel pretty terrible for letting your government kill millions of people who are no more evil than you are.

Your elites might even look at these wars as a two-way win for them. First, they get more stuff by appropriating other nation's wealth/loyalty/land. Secondly, you - the killer/worker bee - become more submissive to the military state the elite construct to make this war successful for themselves.

Um, didn't Germany invade Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia before any allied forces declared war?

Yes, but Britain and France and the US were always invading places, and this was supposed to be good for history/democracy/economics/peace. Yet the German invasions (and colonization) was described as "evil" by commercial media in the more powerful invading countries.

[NYYS]

However, I see that you have cleverly dropped a line in about the media, so anyone who disagrees with you can instantly become an example of how the media makes the loser nation look bad. Which makes me wonder why I even bothered to reply, since we all know the Jewish media is controlling me.

Especially if your media tells you they're "evil" and committing "atrocities," right?

Yes, but Britain and France and the US were always invading places, and this was supposed to be good for history/democracy/economics/peace. Yet the German invasions (and colonization) was described as "evil" by commercial media in the more powerful invading countries.

Which isn't your argument at all:

World War Two was started by the Allies because they knew they had a huge military and political advantage, and they were afraid of Germany and Japan becoming too powerful. Britain, the US didn't want any competition, and they made an allilance with Russia - who they hated - just to ensure their hegemony over the earth.

So actually the Allies didn't start the war, they just had taken part in wars in the past and therefore, by extension (help me through this one)... they attacked Germany?

I suppose the Jews really attacked Germany first by having the cold military cunning and foresight to go and live there.

[Dave]

I happen to agree with Qatz's interpretation of World War 2.

He just happens to present it in the most unconvincing matter possible.

Germany is growing too powerful. We must smash her.

[QatzelOk]

Thanks for that unexpected assist, Dave.

So actually the Allies didn't start the war, they just had taken part in wars in the past and therefore, by extension (help me through this one)... they attacked Germany?

The Allies started the war. Germany had been acting like a normal European nation, but this wasn't acceptable to the elites of France and England... or to the arms dealers of America. So they instigated war with Germany (and Japan) in order to get the excuse they needed to destroy these countries with much superior weaponry. The Allies kept a low profile at the beginning of hostilities in order to let Germany destroy Russia as well.

Both world wars were started by the winners. Germany and Japan were too civilized, and war is too expensive and serious, to have started these conflicts. The infrastructure of both emerging superpowers was destroyed by the Allies in order to avoid competition. The rest of the "history" is just propaganda.

[Dave]

For all the doubters, the factual record of events is that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Citing that Germany attacked Poland is not relevant, as as a German-Polish war did not necessarily have to lead to a world war.

[QatzelOk]

Citing that Germany attacked Poland is not relevant, as as a German-Polish war did not necessarily have to lead to a world war.

Also, we don't know about what Poland was doing before Germany attacked. Perhaps the Polish elite had been funding terrorism inside Germany. We'd never know about this. Our post-war propaganda would censor this information and call it "Nazi propaganda" as if to erase any possible stimulus for German aggression other than "evil."

[Grognonours]

Perhaps the Polish elite had been funding terrorism inside Germany. We'd never know about this. Our post-war propaganda would censor this information and call it "Nazi propaganda" as if to erase any possible stimulus for German aggression other than "evil."

Right. That must be why Hitler was preaching about once again unifying Germany back to the borders it previously had. That must be all propaganda.

[sploop!]

That must be all propaganda.

You could try explaining why you think not...

Interesting debate!

[canadiancapitalist]

Yes Qatz, violence is primarily a tool of the strong against the weak. I agree.

[Doomhammer]

World War Two was started by the Allies because they knew they had a huge military and political advantage, and they were afraid of Germany and Japan becoming too powerful.

They were responsible for German revisionism and their appeasement policies certainly encouraged bad behavior. Germany declared war on Poland but the Allies declared war on Germany. The Allies did have alliance obligations for Poland and as Dave pointed there were fears about Germany becoming too powerful.

I guess Qatz has stumbled on power transition theory (I think it was Organski's idea) whereby dominant powers will declare war on (often revisionist) powers who are attempting to challenge their dominant position in international affairs.

I would disagree about the "victors" part though. Britain and France did declare war but France 'didn't' actually 'win' the war. Another example, World War I. Germany was in desperate need to start a war against Russia because it was growing stronger every day. Germany is most responsible for the chain of events that led to Russia to declare war. And it was certainly Germany who violated Belgian sovereignty. Though it must be said that Germany could have still won if its Allies were a bit more competent.

Why would the weaker side start a war? Answer: they wouldn't. The stronger partner is far more likely to have started it.

Some argue that power balance among two hostile states will tend to lead to peace because any war would be indecisive.

[Potemkin]

Also, we don't know about what Poland was doing before Germany attacked. Perhaps the Polish elite had been funding terrorism inside Germany. We'd never know about this. Our post-war propaganda would censor this information and call it "Nazi propaganda" as if to erase any possible stimulus for German aggression other than "evil."

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised. Poland in the period between the World Wars was an aggressive expansionist dictatorship with a track record of invading its weaker neighbours. When Hitler invented that story of Polish soldiers making an incursion into Germany and killing some border guards as the pretext for his own invasion of Poland, it was actually a reasonably plausible scenario at the time. We see Poland now as a 'victim nation' because of the horrors unleashed upon it by the Nazis, but that's not how it was widely perceived in 1939. However, having said that, Qatz is just being his usual postmodernist gadfly and contorting himself into provocative political postures, like the narcissistic drama queen he is.

[Erebus]

For all the doubters, the factual record of events is that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Citing that Germany attacked Poland is not relevant, as as a German-Polish war did not necessarily have to lead to a world war.

Though it did.

[guzzipat]

There is a lot of pretty silly claims being made here.
How many of the people saying that France and Britain started the war against Germany have at some time or another criticised Chamberlain for appeasement at Munich? You can't have it both ways.

The facts are simple. Hitler broke ever treaty he signed with the Allies. First the invasion of Austria, then the Suddatenland. He persuaded the Allies that all he wanted was to incorperate ethnic Germans back into the Reich. This was his second "positively last demand". That was a lie what he wanted was to strip Czechoslovakia of its defences. Within months he invaded and destroyed Czehcoslovakia.
Then he made his third "positively last demand" over the status of Danzig. France already had a mutual defence pact with Poland, Britain gave Poland garantees voluntarily.
The contention that France and Britain didn't need to fight over Poland is strategic nonsense, by the time Hitler attacked Poland it was abundantly clear he was prepared to atttack anyone to incease German territory. It was also clear strategically that his next traget must be France or the Soviet Union. The Non agression pact with the Soviet Union and the Joint carving up of Poland, although not making it impossible that they would be the target, would have heavily slanted it in France's direction.
Or is someone labouring under the ridiculous delusion that Hitler would have been content with half of Poland and become a peaceful man?

France at least had little choice, it would have been the height of folly to ignore the attack on Poland and sit waiting their turn for another suprise attack after another "positively last demand" about Alsace and Lorraine.
Britain could have remained neutral, but for centuries they had allied with anyone against anyother country seeking European domination. Declaring war on Germany was consistant with long established foreign policy. It is also a fact that Britian didn't just declare war, it issued an ultimatum, that if Germany didn't cease it's attack on Poland and agree to withdraw "A state of war would exist". They gave Hitler the choice and he chose war.

[Annatar]

the invasion of Austria

What invasion of Austria? Austrian borderguards opened the border to German troops voluntarily and they marched in without a single shot being fired.

[Godstud]

World War Two was started by the Allies because they knew they had a huge military and political advantage

France and Britain had a defensive pact with Poland. This forced France and Britain to declare war on Germany, which they did on September 3, 1939.

Allies had neither a huge advantage in military nor political power. Chamberlain had been appeasing(check that definition out) Germany because Britain and most countries were in no position to stand up to Germany. Germany had a huge military advantage and the US was staying OUT of the European war.

Virtually every war has been started by the winners

Even the title of your post is ridiculous since you really have no evidence to support this and only quote incorrect WW2 data and if anything contradicts your statement.

Spain invading England?
England's invasion of France?
Napolean invading Europe?
US invading Canada in 1812?
Japans invasion of China in 1937.
What of the 1935 invasion of Ethiopia by Italy?
Iraq invading Kuwait? Americans must have started THAT!
Pearl Harbour Who declared war on each other first is irrelevant. US declared war on Japan, AFTER Pearl Harbour. Just because it was informal it doesn't count?

Britain, the US didn't want any competition, and they made an allilance with Russia - who they hated - just to ensure their hegemony over the earth.

It sounds like you are making suppositions that are in contradiction to actual historic events. Just because you think it's so does not make it so.

[QatzelOk]

you really have no evidence to support this and only quote incorrect WW2 data and if anything contradicts your statement.

The "evidence" is written by the victors, isn't it. There is no "data" from World War Two. Only stories that were written by the victors and "victims."

The facts are simple. Hitler broke ever treaty he signed with the Allies.

The injuns broke every treaty they made with the peaceful American settlers. The Palestinians broke every treaty they made with the peaceful Israeli settlers. "Treaty breaking" is a great way to convince a population that the "other side" (who is always weaker) can't be trusted. "We must bomb them now!" Or scalp them now. Whatever the future victor decides is the best way to trounce the weaker opponent.

Qatz is just being his usual postmodernist gadfly and contorting himself into provocative political postures, like the narcissistic drama queen he is.

Well, I started this thread, and I intend to win it.

[Doomhammer]

Chamberlain had been appeasing(check that definition out) Germany because Britain and most countries were in no position to stand up to Germany.

Not really. In fact, Germany wasn't ready for a major power war. The Allies weren't ready either but Germany's West was very vulnerable and something could have been done.

Germany had a huge military advantage and the US was staying OUT of the European war.

Britain had began arming itself in 1938 and France had a decent army. The Allies also outnumbered Germany in terms of divisions (a very small superiority) and tanks (France alone had many more tanks... better ones too). Germany had good planning on its side.