Jewish German citizens betrayed Germany during WW1. Germany had offered Britain a ceasefire. German Zionists, together with Walter Rothschild went to Britain and told them not to accept the ceasefire. They promised to get the US in the war on the side of the Allies. In exchange, they were given the Balfour Declaration which promised them a Jewish home state in the middle east on land which Britain had no right to at the time. Rothschild puppet Jack Morgan got Remington to ramp up production of arms and ammunition, and pressured Wilson who eventually got the US into the war. The Allies of course won, and the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany very harshly.

A culture of degeneracy pervaded in Germany in the years following the end of WW1 under the Weimar Republic. A very active gay and swinger scene emerged and spread. Pornography production was ramped up heavily. Magnus Hirschfeld began the early steps of the LGBT movement. He coined the term "homosexual." His clinic performed the world's first transgender surgery. You can guess who was responsible for all of this.

These conditions created an environment that led to the rise of Hitler. Hitler was a skilled demagogue, but he really didn't have to do much to get the people on his side. They had enough, between being betrayed in WW1, shouldering most of the blame and the punishment of WW1, and seeing their culture being driven into the sewers, they were ready to follow whoever promised to hold those responsible accountable.

The sad thing is, Hitler made a lot of mistakes and his ego cost Germany big time. If he had just deported all the Jews from Germany, and regained the lost German territories, the west likely wouldn't have done anything for a while. The Soviets complicated things. Stalin definitely had plans to invade Europe. However I don't think Hitler's preemptive strike was necessary. IMO if he had built up defenses and saved resources, it might have been enough to dissuade Stalin from invading Europe as Germany would have been a strong deterrent. It was likely a losing battle anyways, but IMO this way would have given Germany a better chance. Hitler's grudges and petty ego also cost them. There were quite a few people in lands captured from USSR who likely would have joined his forces to fight against the Soviets. Hitler viewed them as subhuman and wouldn't have this though.

On the US side of things, FDR was jonesing to get into the war. The US cut off some of Japan's pacific oil supply, a likely reason they decided to attack us. It's very possible that we baited them into attacking us so that we could have reason to enter the war. The population was already very unhappy that Wilson got us involved in the first world war. That attack united public opinion and gave FDR all he needed to go full speed ahead. The war did 2 things for FDR: it kick started the economy from the Great Depression and it pleased the people he was beholden to.

Good post, I'm not sure about Hitler not wanting other soldiers to join they did have about 500,000 - 1million foreign volunteers in the Waffen SS.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Germany was in a bad place under the Weimar Regime politically and economically, with Bolsheviks attacking from the East.

The lack of an international framework to resolve disputes that account for local power disparities. This is the key distinction between the League of Nations, which failed, and the UN, which succeeded. The UNSC allows for veto powers, which respect the relative power of major states and consolidates power into blocs, reducing the likelihood of opportunistic invasions.

In the volatile environment of rapid industrialization, the emergence of communism, the unstable international framework, and an every man for himself environment, nationalism and imperialism thrived and reached their most extreme consequences. It was a particularly volatile and dangerous time when there were basically no guard rails against violent conquest and where it often made rational sense to go to war over attempting peaceful negotiations. Social conditions were profoundly unstable. Remember that human rights essentially did not exist.

Every other take you read here is sophomoric. None of you understand geopolitics at all. You are not gentlemen of culture like me.

Quoting since everyone else ITT is dumb.

Facts.

thousands of of people from Eastern Europe fought for Hitler and were not mistreated. Hitler did not view them as "subhuman" he just recognized that they were different from Western Europeans.

Any notion of Hitler being able to peacefully rebuild Germany without getting attacked is a false one. The only way Hitler could have avoided war was if he literally became another shill politician like the rest of the western world and did the jews bidding. Anything less than that would have resulted in war with the west(the jews).

If you think Jews are going to standby and lose power in a country like Germany without a fight you got another thing coming....

The UN has been wildly successful in Gaza, good point. Imagine how bad things there would be without the UN.

Hey, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, the League of Nations "condemned" Italys actions.

I'm not saying there weren't some that he allowed to join. There were a sect from his eastern conquests though that hated USSR and wanted to join but he wouldn't have it though. I'll have to look it up later and report back.

realizing the Germans were the good guys is a real red pill. most people feel disgusted when this fact finally enters their heads, because its so taboo. we've been brainwashed by decades of academia and hollywood propaganda to believe the opposite.

There’s so many parallels between this and Ukraine. Could be right.

I think WW2 would not have happened if the Treaty of Versaille's conditions were not as harsh. If Germany could have been given "face" so to speak, there wouldn't have been any sympathy, interest, or tilt towards Totalitarianism.

I forgot, you were all for Nazi Germany in the past...... Claiming that the Poles deserved their treated for refusing to give up the Danzig Corridor.

This idea that the UN is successful, as there have been no World Wars under it's belt and attributing that to them being around - and not the fact that nuclear weapons are now a thing, it's a very odd stance for someone to take.

People take something bad, which I do think nuclear weapons as a whole are, and they can't say anything good about them. Sorry, but while I would prefer a world free from the possibility of mutual mass destruction, it's that very thing which has kept major powers from having more than proxy or cold wars.

Not the ****ing UN.

Good post, I'm not sure about Hitler not wanting other soldiers to join they did have about 500,000 - 1million foreign volunteers in the Waffen SS.

What the Poles did to misplaced Germans then is what the Ukies are doing to ethnic Russians today in the Donbas, you dumb fuk.

What part of that don’t you understand?

UN and the nukes go hand in hand. The UN is the international org that allows for nuclear security and cooperation, resulting in the power blocs I described. The UN has been successful so far in preventing another world war. Nuclear weapons themselves are not bad. The stalemate we have globally and the framework of the UN may be the glue keeping this planet from falling apart.

There is no either/or here. It isn't nukes vs UN. It's both. The nukes are the very lifeblood of the UN. I know many nationalists despise the UN for whatever reason, but that international framework is what allowed for the power blocs and alliances to form, securing a lasting peace. Without the UN and specifically the UNSC, there would be war and chaos between self serving regional powers. There would be no global order.

International law isn't particularly binding, but the institution of the UN, along with the weapons and military forces that back the security council's authority are why we have peace. Compare it to the mafia's Commission of 5 families in NYC, which appears to be loosely based on the UN. It was the same organic solution to local mob wars as the solution to global power struggles.

In a purely anarchic scenario of power hungry actors, these alliances and powerful bullies promote stability. It is the interest of many states to side with a bully, while others act as buffers.

I'm not saying there weren't some that he allowed to join. There were a sect from his eastern conquests though that hated USSR and wanted to join but he wouldn't have it though. I'll have to look it up later and report back.

So did Poland deserve to have 10% of its population wiped put? You ever read about Nazi Germany's long term plan for Poland?