NationStates Jolt Archive

I used to think so but if it really was- why wasn't war declared in 1933 instead of until it directly effected Britain? Why didn't America join until it got attacked?

Why didn't America join until it got attacked?

The United States didn't get involved until it was attacked because the US being attacked was the only way the people would drop the idea of isolationism. When the Japanese attacked us, we realized the oceans didn't protect us.

why wasn't war declared in 1933 instead of until it directly effected Britain

People wanted to try to avoid war.

They couldn't. Until 1938 the British general staff were saying that they'd be annihilated in a war. A German bombing campaign was expected to cause two million casualties inside a month... Also, appeasement. Britain thought that if they gave Hitler what he wanted (a greater Germany), he wouldn't want more. After all, asking for all German-speaking people to be united isn't too unreasonable, is it? After Czechoslovakia, they realised it wasn't gonna be like that, so they took a stand the next time he tried it. Finally, better Hitler than Stalin. Standing up to Hitler woulda meant getting Stalin onside, and no-one particularly liked him after the show trials.
As for America, the people didn't want to get involved. But they were helping out with the Lend-Lease stuff from 1939 on. Roosevelt was in favour of helping out, but the public weren't til after Pearl Harbour.
I think that's it... It better be, cos if I've forgotten, I'm screwed (Leaving Certificate History exam in about three weeks...)

I used to think so but if it really was- why wasn't war declared in 1933 instead of until it directly effected Britain? Why didn't America join until it got attacked?

Learn some history. Seriously. The PM of Britain at the time wished to avoid a war at all costs, to the extent that they allowed Hitler to reclaim the Sudtenland and also expand into Austria. However, invading Poland pushed it too far. That is why war was then declared

Learn some history.

I second that.

Yes, there was a signifigant appeasement ideal in Parmliament in britain. The only people who really were scared of germany in 1936 was France, who had seen firsthand the disasterous consequenses of war.

Learn some history.
Learn to read. What if...

Learn to read. What if...

Dude, shut up. You learn to read, the exact phrasing is, and I quote:

why wasn't war declared in 1933 instead of until it directly effected Britain

The key word is WHY. not WHAT IF, but WHY. Learn to read before lecturing others, jackass

rammsteinburg and snake eaters,

i think its a bit rude to aggressively tell the starter of the thread to 'learn some history'. it also seems a bit embarassing for you, as the starter is asking, or wanting to learn. they didnt make any statements that are wildly inaccurate, they just asked a question, and for you to parade your superiority about by patronising the starter is a bit much.

thankyou.

luke from taverham high.

I'm not trying to patronize, I'm making a valid point. I can accept that the starter is willing to learn, and I actually gave the lesson in that post. So please, back off.

rammsteinburg and snake eaters,

i think its a bit rude to aggressively tell the starter of the thread to 'learn some history'

If they want to know stuff like this, isn't telling them to 'learn some history' a helpful bit of advice?

The key word is WHY. not WHAT IF, but WHY. Learn to read before lecturing others, jackass And you were unable to catch the question? He was asking why wasn't the war declared 1933. i think he was aware of the history, making that question, don't you?

parade your superiority.

You only assume that I agreed with that statement to show superiority.

Ehhh, I'm going to keep out of this crap.

There are many reasons why war didn't start sooner.

1) Many people thought that the new Germany could be a bulwark against communist expansion. There were even some who talked of an alliance with Germany against the USSR.

2) Condemning and blaming Jews was a common political practice throughout Europe up to that point. Hitler was just another person who came along and started condemning Jews. It was nothing all out of the ordinary, until the rest of the world learned of the Holocaust.

3) Chamberlain, the PM of Britain, was looking upon the First World War which was caused partly because nobody was willing ot give anything. As well, he felt sort of guilty to the way the Germans were mistreated at Versailles which made him slightly sympathetic to German claims, a few of which were valid. He thought Hitler was a rational person, who, once given what he wanted, would be satisfied. That and Britain wasn't fully prepared for war.

4) France was dishonorable and cowardly. They forsook their oath to defend Czechoslovakia from Germany at Munich.

5) There was no rational self interest for any of the allies to fight Germany early on.

6) The US had already dragged Europe out of one war and many Americans didn't want to have American blood spilled for another pointless European war.

7) The USSR was willing but only if France fought as well. They knew that they couldn't win on their own, but were afraid of Germany. When France refused to fight at Munich, Stalin was worried and decided on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany in a vain attempt to keep from being invaded by Germany.

Yes, there was a signifigant appeasement ideal in Parmliament in britain. The only people who really were scared of germany in 1936 was France, who had seen firsthand the disasterous consequenses of war.
Stalin was also pretty scared of them. He tried to get all the other nations to join against him (Collective Security). But no-one would, cos they were all more scared of him...
Snake Eaters and Rammsteinburg, the guy asked a question. No need to be patronising and rude about it... There are nicer ways of saying things than "Learn some history. Seriously." Ones that don't have an unsaid "Idiot" on the end...

snake eaters:

im not disagreeing with your argument, it was just the way you started your original post that i had a problem with.

rammsteinburg:

not in the agressive way snake eaters implied, and you seconded. maybe you meant it as a helpful bit of advice, i hope you did.

And you were unable to catch the question? He was asking why wasn't the war declared 1933. i think he was aware of the history, making that question, don't you?

But you're missing the point yourself. Ok, DHomme asked the question,'Why...'. Alright, he did not ask,"What if... war had been declared in 1933 as opposed to 1939?". It is all in context. Now, had he asked that second question, the answer would have been simple; Britain would have been annihilated. With little to no standing army, she couldn't have defended herself against the German onslaught once they had finished with France, which as shown in 1939 did not take that long, six weeks in all. However, he asked why it was not declared in 1933, and again, the answer is simple, yet different.

Chamberlain was a user of appeasement, thus he wished to avoid conflict at all costs, leading him to allow Hitler to defy the Treaty of Versailles by any number of ways, most significantley allowing the military to rebuild and the re-occupation of the Sudtenland (sp?). His wish to avoid conflict merely starved it off for a time, and when Poland finally came around, he realised his error, and declared war upon Nazi Germany

snake eaters:

im not disagreeing with your argument, it was just the way you started your original post that i had a problem with.

rammsteinburg:

not in the agressive way snake eaters implied, and you seconded. maybe you meant it as a helpful bit of advice, i hope you did.

Thanks for clearing that up. I am actually sorry for doing that

You only assume that I agreed with that statement to show superiority.

Ehhh, I'm going to keep out of this crap.

you are right, this is not applicable to you as you only seconded snake eaters opening statement. i am sorry.

probably a wise idea i think. i need bed.

rammsteinburg:

not in the agressive way snake eaters implied, and you seconded. maybe you meant it as a helpful bit of advice, i hope you did.

I never intended it to be the way you interpret it. I see 'learn some history' as an acceptable statement and nothing more than advice.

But you're missing the point yourself. Ok, DHomme asked the question,'Why...'. Alright, he did not ask,"What if... war had been declared in 1933 as opposed to 1939?". It is all in context. Now, had he asked that second question, the answer would have been simple; Britain would have been annihilated. With little to no standing army, she couldn't have defended herself against the German onslaught once they had finished with France, which as shown in 1939 did not take that long, six weeks in all. However, he asked why it was not declared in 1933, and again, the answer is simple, yet different.

Chamberlain was a user of appeasement, thus he wished to avoid conflict at all costs, leading him to allow Hitler to defy the Treaty of Versailles by any number of ways, most significantley allowing the military to rebuild and the re-occupation of the Sudtenland (sp?). His wish to avoid conflict merely starved it off for a time, and when Poland finally came around, he realised his error, and declared war upon Nazi Germany
Agreed. And this all shows DHommes lack of knowledge of history... how?

Thanks for clearing that up. I am actually sorry for doing that

thankyou, im sorry for bringing it up.

now i shall let you get back to the topic.

Agreed. And this all shows DHommes lack of knowledge of history... how?

It doesn't. What I'm doing here is showing you the fundemental differences between 'Why...' and 'What if...'. Seperate answers, for seperate questions.

thankyou, im sorry for bringing it up.

now i shall let you get back to the topic.
It's alright, I'm sending him a TG aplogising

No what I'm saying is can WWII really be called a "war against nazism" as so many people claim.

Yes, I know about appeasement but I think it's funny that we chose not to appease soviet demands but were fine with hitler taking whatever the fuck he liked

I suppose 'analyze history' would've been a more appropriate statement.

I never intended it to be the way you interpret it. I see 'learn some history' as an acceptable statement and nothing more than advice.

ah good, sorry to pick you up on it.

i feel horribly righteous for some reason...

No what I'm saying is can WWII really be called a "war against nazism" as so many people claim.

I definitely don't think it is right to call it a "war against nazism." There was MUCH more to WWII than that.

OK... actually, that's difficult. It depends on each persons views. Personally, I don't think it started as a war against Nazism, but as propaganda increased, it used that to inspire hatred, thus giving us the view of 'War on Nazism' that we have today

It doesn't. What I'm doing here is showing you the fundemental differences between 'Why...' and 'What if...'. Seperate answers, for seperate questions.
Ok. I assume you see what was wrong in your post "Learn some history" :D
Carry on. As a teacher of history, I much enjoy your posts.

Ok. I assume you see what was wrong in your post "Learn some history" :D
Carry on. As a teacher of history, I much enjoy your posts.

That was my own mistake.

One problem with labeling World War II as a war against Nazism is the fact that the Japanese, who weren't Nazis, were part of the Axis powers, too.

The United States didn't get involved until it was attacked because the US being attacked was the only way the people would drop the idea of isolationism. When the Japanese attacked us, we realized the oceans didn't protect us.
You didnt learn that from the Alamo, war of independance, 1812, etc.???



People wanted to try to avoid war.
The hell you didnt. You could be right about the people but the government wanted it from the start and you know that England/Britain/U.K. ... or what ever you want to call it allways love a good war.

Just telling it as it is.

One problem with labeling World War II as a war against Nazism is the fact that the Japanese, who weren't Nazis, were part of the Axis powers, too.

Generally, they seem to split it into two wars: the war in Europe, and the war in the Pacific. I think the better question would be: Why was the war in Europe seen as a war against Nazism. simple answer, because that it essentially was.

No what I'm saying is can WWII really be called a "war against nazism" as so many people claim.


Google search; "war against Nazism".

886 results, hardly 'as so many people claim'.

You didnt learn that from the Alamo, war of independance, 1812, etc.???




The hell you didnt. You could be right about the people but the government wanted it from the start and you know that England/Britain/U.K. ... or what ever you want to call it allways love a good war.

Just telling it as it is.
Now you are the one spouting off stupid things. Appeasement was designed to not intiate conflict! Therefore, you are talking out your arse. *cough* Iraq*end cough*

The hell you didnt. You could be right about the people but the government wanted it from the start and you know that England/Britain/U.K. ... or what ever you want to call it allways love a good war.

Just telling it as it is.

Well, I wasn't talking about the governments. I was talking about the people in general. And can you prove the government wanted it? If they did, what would have been the point of appeasement?

I used to think so but if it really was- why wasn't war declared in 1933 instead of until it directly effected Britain? Why didn't America join until it got attacked?
so dhomme, given the credit for knowing history by the posters above me, do you REALLY not know why war wasnt declared in '33?

in '33 who knew that the nazis were so evil? there were many prominent americans (charles lindhberg comes to mind) and brits (the duke of windsor?) who liked the nazis. they didnt know how it would end up.

just like there were many americans and europeans who were attracted to soviet communism in the early 30s. the depression was so awful that many people couldnt see a way out that didnt involve a total change. they didnt know how much the soviet system sucked until much later.

you know that there was a big pacifist/isolationist movement in the US in the 30s dont you? the general public wanted nothing to do with a european/asian war. it took the bombing of pearl harbor to get us to change our minds. (even though we had already started preparing for war well before then)

yeah once we were IN we were dedicated to eliminating fascism. but i expect that if the axis powers had been any other kind of political system that had done what they had done, we would have gone in.

That was my own mistake.
That was ok. I just skim through this site occasionally, and see so much history bastardized, I was keen on seeing what people would make of this thread. A fan of contrafactual history as i am. :)

No what I'm saying is can WWII really be called a "war against nazism" as so many people claim.

Yes, I know about appeasement but I think it's funny that we chose not to appease soviet demands but were fine with hitler taking whatever the fuck he liked
it was a war against nazism because that was the party in charge of germany at that time eh?

what appeasement did we do of the soviets in the 30s?

That was ok. I just skim through this site occasionally, and see so much history bastardized, I was keen on seeing what people would make of this thread. A fan of contrafactual history as i am. :)

That would be expected if you are a teacher of the subject. I'm just spouting off what I know at this point

it was a war against nazism because that was the party in charge of germany at that time eh?

what appeasement did we do of the soviets in the 30s?

In answer to these: If it had been another party, would it have been 'War against <Insert name here>'

None at all. Are you really gonna mess with the Red Army in the 20'2 and 30's?

You didnt learn that from the Alamo, war of independance, 1812, etc.???


I didn't? I wasn't alive back then.

Now you are the one spouting off stupid things. Appeasement was designed to not intiate conflict! Therefore, you are talking out your arse. *cough* Iraq*end cough*
Just kidding...We can all argue the wwII from all corners and it will only leave more questions. allied powers won and axis not. People died on all sides, in my mind they were all heros no matter what the uniform. They fought for what they thought to be true weather or not we agree with their actions who are you and we all to judge them?

I didn't? I wasn't alive back then.
You might learn something from your past history...other nations can, have and will again attack you on your own soil.

Just kidding...We can all argue the wwII from all corners and it will only leave more questions. allied powers won and axis not. People died on all sides, in my mind they were all heros no matter what the uniform. They fought for what they thought to be true weather or not we agree with their actions who are you and we all to judge them?

You trying to call the prison guards of Auschwitz heros? Because they died, and they wore a uniform. I suggest you rethink this, before you really insult someone

You might learn something from your past history...other nations can, have and will again attack you on your own soil.

What makes you think I don't? I learn from my nation's past. I can't speak for other people, especially those who were alive in the WWII period, a period which I was not alive during.

In answer to these: If it had been another party, would it have been 'War against <Insert name here>'

None at all. Are you really gonna mess with the Red Army in the 20'2 and 30's?
given that another party probably wouldnt have started ww2 and that if the nazis had stayed at home or in the 'german homelands' the rest of the world would have let it go, id say YES. if the "christian democrat" party of germany had invaded the rest of europe (but left the jewish population alone) we would have had a "war against christian democracy"

if the "christian democrat" party of germany had invaded the rest of europe (but left the jewish population alone) we would have had a "war against christian democracy"
Hehe, I can't see that being quite so catchy...

I used to think so but if it really was- why wasn't war declared in 1933 instead of until it directly effected Britain? Why didn't America join until it got attacked?

Basic answer, in little words?

Money.

After the Great Depression, the US and the UK were both suffering.

Germany, on the other hand, pretty much pulled itself out of the Depression on an economic War economy.

Germany started expanding their borders some, but, like their encroachment into Chechoslovakia, they 'seemed' to have legitimate interest - recaliming lost 'German' territory. Maybe others didn't like it, but the German 'story' was acceptably non-expansionist, and the other powers were largely focused on avoiding war.

The US was still largely into a policy of breached Isolationism when they got involved in the war, which gave them a chance to re-tool before they had to get involved in a War in the Pacific - which was the REAL threat. In fact, personally, I'd say the government engineered Pearl Harbour as a route into war, once they were 'recovered' enough... due to the number of high-up orders to deliberately supress information to troops at Pearl Harbour, etc.

The UK was still digging it's way out if Depression when it joined the war, when it became obvious that Hitler intended to just keep on expanding, and that the 'Peace of Paper" Hitler had signed, had no intrinsic value.

In fact, still, the only reason the UK got involved when they did, was that they were treaty-bound to Poland, and thus, were drawn into the conflict.

Was it a war against Facism? No. Once Mussolini changed sides, the Allies accepted a Fascist regime as a tenuous ally. And, Japan wasn't a Fascist regime.

It was more a war against an aggressive military expansionist... the politics of the parties was all but irrelevent.

well you have to look at everything. Up untill 1939 Hitler was sucking the british PM's dick, and when churchill was elected at the beginning of the war, thats why hitler invaded france, cos he was so upsett he didnt have a homosexual lover. You might say, what about the italian fascist dictator, well they just did it up the arse, no oral. SO, then america came into it. Hitler got with the American Presiedent, and america attacked when hitler, annoyed with the crippled american duds, went to the jap's for his "maintenance" so america declared war :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

well you have to look at everything. Up untill 1939 Hitler was sucking the british PM's dick, and when churchill was elected at the beginning of the war, thats why hitler invaded france, cos he was so upsett he didnt have a homosexual lover. You might say, what about the italian fascist dictator, well they just did it up the arse, no oral. SO, then america came into it. Hitler got with the American Presiedent, and america attacked when hitler, annoyed with the crippled american duds, went to the jap's for his "maintenance" so america declared war :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ok... so either you are gay (no problem) or you're homophobic

. In any case, Chamberlain (suppposedly the being sucked) was still PM up to and including Dunkirk. I hate it when people like you come into a thread where people are actually making sense.

I think a major reason, that no-one's really mentioned yet, is that in 1933 WWI was still very fresh in everyone's mind. It was the most horrific (to that date) conflict in human history, where millions had died for ulitimately very little. Britain & France (in particular) had suffered enormously & really didn't want to go through that again. It's very easy to say that they were dishonourable & weak by not backing up the Czechs, but if the choice is between avoiding war or racking up millions of dead again, I can see why they chose the former.

Just a couple of points:
1. In 1933, Germany had nothing in the line of an army either. They were still restricted by Versailles - 100,000 troops, no tanks, no submarines, etc.
2. Chamberlain and the majority of the British government didn't want war, up until 1938 anyways. Churchil was the only one who did. Roosevelt was in favour of war from 1939 on (at least), but the American people weren't.

Just a coupe of points:
1. In 1933, Germany had nothing in the line of an army either. They were still restricted by Versailles - 100,000 troops, no tanks, no submarines, etc.
2. Chamberlain and the majority of the British government didn't want war, up until 1938 anyways. Churchil was the only one who did. Roosevelt was in favour of war from 1939 on (at least), but the American people weren't.

Hitler wanted to rebuild though, that was the major threat to European peace at the time. The French were dead against it, but Chamberlain let him get away with flaunting the treaty. So saying they were restricted is a misnomer. Hell, that treaty has more to do with WWII than anything else, and the reason is simple. Can you figure it out *points at person who answers this*

so, NO it wasnt a war against fascism per se. its just that the aggressors were fascists. (it wasnt even a war to stop the holocaust, we didnt know how bad it was and we didnt care much about the reports we got on it.)

after all we let franco keep spain until he died.

You trying to call the prison guards of Auschwitz heros? Because they died, and they wore a uniform. I suggest you rethink this, before you really insult someone
Are you telling me that my nations soldiers that fought in WWII are not heros? I speak my mind and if someone is to fragile to take it thats no fault of mine.
My great granfather was an officer in the German infantry and fought the Russians, later on in life when I was born (in America) we lived next door to a veteran of WWII (82 airborn), a man who had two purple hearts and they two, my grand father and him, became great friends.
It's not the uniform but the person.
Even if a man was orderd to guard Auschwitz it does not make him a bad man nor does his uniform, it's their personal actions not what you are orderd to do but what you do on your own that makes the man and heros.

You see I do not see a differance between a German soldier that murders jews, a Russian soldier that rapes women, british or american soldiers that execute pow's. it all occured and that is war at its worsed.
Heros on all sides no doubt. Men on all sides did some amazing things for their country.

Hitler wanted to rebuild though, that was the major threat to European peace at the time. The French were dead against it, but Chamberlain let him get away with flaunting the treaty. So saying they were restricted is a misnomer. Hell, that treaty has more to do with WWII than anything else, and the reason is simple. Can you figure it out *points at person who answers this*

Funny Fact: Mussolini was actually one of the most strongly against German rearmament.
Up until 1935, the Germans were restricted. They only had 100,000 men in the army. After that, true, they built up a hugely powerful army, but the topic is talking about 1933. Hitler only sent two battalions into the Ruhr in 1935, and they were to pull out immediately if any troops appeared. So Hitler obviously wasn't ready for a war in 1933 either.
What does Versailles have to do with WWII? Well, obviously, it caused the bloody thing! The War Guilt Clause, the reparations, the land that was taken away - these things all led to Hitler being able to claim Versailles was unjust (which, in all honesty, it was). And so, he had justification for the war.

Funny Fact: Mussolini was actually one of the most strongly against German rearmament.
Up until 1935, the Germans were restricted. They only had 100,000 men in the army. After that, true, they built up a hugely powerful army, but the topic is talking about 1933. Hitler only sent two battalions into the Ruhr in 1935, and they were to pull out immediately if any troops appeared. So Hitler obviously wasn't ready for a war in 1933 either.
What does Versailles have to do with WWII? Well, obviously, it caused the bloody thing! The War Guilt Clause, the reparations, the land that was taken away - these things all led to Hitler being able to claim Versailles was unjust (which, in all honesty, it was). And so, he had justification for the war.
and you think someone like hitler NEEDED justification??? the woes that everyone suffered in the depression of the 30s would be enough.

Funny Fact: Mussolini was actually one of the most strongly against German rearmament.
Up until 1935, the Germans were restricted. They only had 100,000 men in the army. After that, true, they built up a hugely powerful army, but the topic is talking about 1933. Hitler only sent two battalions into the Ruhr in 1935, and they were to pull out immediately if any troops appeared. So Hitler obviously wasn't ready for a war in 1933 either.
What does Versailles have to do with WWII? Well, obviously, it caused the bloody thing! The War Guilt Clause, the reparations, the land that was taken away - these things all led to Hitler being able to claim Versailles was unjust (which, in all honesty, it was). And so, he had justification for the war.

Heres a fun fact for you; Hitler was Austrian, a nation that was, although affected by the Treaty, was not punished as much as Germany. Why did he care so much?

Are you telling me that my nations soldiers that fought in WWII are not heros? I speak my mind and if someone is to fragile to take it thats no fault of mine.
My great granfather was an officer in the German infantry and fought the Russians, later on in life when I was born (in America) we lived next door to a veteran of WWII (82 airborn), a man who had two purple hearts and they two, my grand father and him, became great friends.
It's not the uniform but the person.
Even if a man was orderd to guard Auschwitz it does not make him a bad man nor does his uniform, it's their personal actions not what you are orderd to do but what you do on your own that makes the man and heros.

You see I do not see a differance between a German soldier that murders jews, a Russian soldier that rapes women, british or american soldiers that execute pow's. it all occured and that is war at its worsed.
Heros on all sides no doubt. Men on all sides did some amazing things for their country.

Alright, allow me to elaborate. You made a grand, sweeping statement, claiming all men fighting in WWII are heros. I take offence to that, simply because you also contridicted yourself later on in the above post. Allow me to draw your attention to the second paragraph, which is now in bold. You are now trying to claim that, if you are right that all war veterens are heroes, that Russian rapists, Japanese sadists, American and British soliders who exectured POW's for no true reason, are HEROS!? What are you doing!?

Your great-grandfather is a man to be respected, as is the Purple Heart winner. They MUST be respected, simply because they did something I doubt very much my generation (I'm a teenager btw) could do. But, if it came out that your great-grandfather raped any number of women... or killed Jews without orders... or anything like that... would you still see him a hero? I'm not saying he did any of things, for it was a small minority in each army, but think about it. I wouldn't be able to look at him the same again

Alright, allow me to elaborate. You made a grand, sweeping statement, claiming all men fighting in WWII are heros. I take offence to that, simply because you also contridicted yourself later on in the above post. Allow me to draw your attention to the second paragraph, which is now in bold. You are now trying to claim that, if you are right that all war veterens are heroes, that Russian rapists, Japanese sadists, American and British soliders who exectured POW's for no true reason, are HEROS!? What are you doing!?

Your great-grandfather is a man to be respected, as is the Purple Heart winner. They MUST be respected, simply because they did something I doubt very much my generation (I'm a teenager btw) could do. But, if it came out that your great-grandfather raped any number of women... or killed Jews without orders... or anything like that... would you still see him a hero? I'm not saying he did any of things, for it was a small minority in each army, but think about it. I wouldn't be able to look at him the same again

When English is not ones native language sometimes things get missunderstood.
Heros are the men and women that did not do those crimes and make no mistake about it the murders of jews, rape of women, murders of pow's etc were all crimes and the people that committed them are not heros.
The heros are the soldiers that fought and died for what ever reason they had...country, family, honor etc. no matter what the side.

sorry for the missunderstanding and have a great weekend.

When English is not ones native language sometimes things get missunderstood.
Heros are the men and women that did not do those crimes and make no mistake about it the murders of jews, rape of women, murders of pow's etc were all crimes and the people that committed them are not heros.
The heros are the soldiers that fought and died for what ever reason they had...country, family, honor etc. no matter what the side.

sorry for the missunderstanding and have a great weekend.

Same to you

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Was it a war against Facism? No. Once Mussolini changed sides, the Allies accepted a Fascist regime as a tenuous ally. And, Japan wasn't a Fascist regime.QUOTE]

Uh first of all, Mussolini did NOT join the Allies.
The Italian people kicked him out and exiled him.
Unfortunately the Nazis saved him and put him
in power of a puppet Italian government
in the northern section of Italy. Later on
he got caught again and this time got hung up
and shot and had his b@lls stuffed in his mouth.
The people of Italy as well as the new successor
sided with the Allies. NOT Mussolini.
The Germans however stayed and kept fighting!
We did not accept a facist ally to help. They were free!
I hope this clears up your confusion.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Was it a war against Facism? No. Once Mussolini changed sides, the Allies accepted a Fascist regime as a tenuous ally. And, Japan wasn't a Fascist regime.QUOTE]

Uh first of all, Mussolini did NOT join the Allies.
The Italian people kicked him out and exiled him.
Unfortunately the Nazis saved him and put him
in power of a puppet Italian government
in the northern section of Italy. Later on
he got caught again and this time got hung up
and shot and had his b@lls stuffed in his mouth.
The people of Italy as well as the new successor
sided with the Allies. NOT Mussolini.
The Germans however stayed and kept fighting!
We did not accept a facist ally to help. They were free!

I hope this clears up your confusion.

I'm not entirely sure which confusion you mean... there may have been an interval where Mussolini was not in power - but that is irrelevent to what I said.

The fact is, Mussolini reinstated a Fascist government on September 23rd, 1943 - the Allies did not oppose him.

Then, on October 13th of 1943, Italy declared war on Germany... which is as I said - the Allies accepted a 'changed sides' Fascist government as an Ally against Germany.... and Mussolini didn't get his come-uppance until April 28th 1945.

and you think someone like hitler NEEDED justification??? the woes that everyone suffered in the depression of the 30s would be enough.
Maybe he didn't, but people needed a reason to vote for him. He promised to upset the whole Versailles doohickey, and make Germany great... How did I forget the Depression? In times like that, people will vote for someone who promises a way out, which is what Hitler offered.

Heres a fun fact for you; Hitler was Austrian, a nation that was, although affected by the Treaty, was not punished as much as Germany. Why did he care so much?
Another Funny Fact: Hitler was originally sent by German military intelligence to spy on the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (as the Nazis were originally known). Within a year, he was their leader.


I'm not entirely sure which confusion you mean... there may have been an interval where Mussolini was not in power - but that is irrelevent to what I said.

The fact is, Mussolini reinstated a Fascist government on September 23rd, 1943 - the Allies did not oppose him.

Then, on October 13th of 1943, Italy declared war on Germany... which is as I said - the Allies accepted a 'changed sides' Fascist government as an Ally against Germany.... and Mussolini didn't get his come-uppance until April 28th 1945.
Actually, he was right. No Fascist government ever fought for the Allies. You however, are also right. Mussolini did reinstate a Fascist government. However, it was a puppet government of the Germans, established in Northern Italy (I think it may have been nicknamed the Republic of the Po Valley, but that is just a hazy thing from my memory). The Italian government which declared war on was a different one... The following comes from Wikipedia, as I didn't know the details. The monarchy of Italy did not declare war until 1945 (probably April).


In May 1943 the Anglo-Americans completely defeated the Italians and the Germans in North Africa, and in July they landed in Sicily. King Victor Emmanuel III reacted by arresting Mussolini and appointing the army chief of staff, Marshal Badoglio, as Prime Minister.

The new government officially continued the war against the Allies, but started secret negotiations with them. Hitler did not trust Badoglio, and moved a large German force into Italy, on the pretext of fighting the Allied invasion. On September 8, 1943 the Badoglio government announced an armistice with the Allies, but did not declare war on Germany, leaving the army without instructions. Badoglio and the royal family fled to the Allied-controlled regions. In the ensuing confusion, most of the Italian army scattered (with some notable exceptions around Rome and in places such as the Greek island of Cefalonia), and the Germans quickly occupied all of central and northern Italy (the south was already controlled by the Allies). The Germans also liberated Mussolini, who then formed the fascist Italian Social Republic, in the German-controlled areas.