Have you ever opened a history book?

World War I was basically a "Family Feud". And at the end of the war, most of the nations were left a political shambles. Germany's government was destroyed, Russia was undergoing a revolution, and the Ottoman Empire collapsed. New nations like Lativa and Lithuania were created.

Italy was an Allied power, but felt slighted because it was given none of the colonial territory of the loosers. You shortly afterwards had a global depression, followed by an internal revolution and the rise of the Fasicst Party. One of their main promises was that Italy would get "it's fair share" of colonies that they did not get after WWI.

Historians give the interwar years many names. The European Civil war is a common one, along with the Second Thrity Years War. Most nations that entered WWII were no longer in existance for WWII. What we were fighting was their remains, who were mostly trying to "get back" at those that won the first World War.

Once the various republics collapsed in Germany, it formed a Government that promised to correct the wrongs done to it in WWI. Italy was under a Government that promised the same thing. Japan was in a similar situation that Italy was, having gotten nothing for their limited intervention in WWI. They also were going after a global empire.

This set the stage for WWII. In which other then a few minor changes, was a repeat of WWI.

About the only differences in the sides in the wars were Japan and Italy. Austria-Hungary no longer existed, and Italy refused to participate with the Triple Alliance. Instead they bit off parts of Austria-Hungary (which almost caused war between Italy and Nazi Germany years later).

Just one? open and close?

Set the stage for POSSIBLE war, correct.

Ah, but the changes were not minor! The world had changed completely into essentially two-polar world: as off 1922 all the European powers and America had one common enemy – the Soviet Union that by its very existence threatened the base principles of the rest of the existing countries. That is why Britain, France and US were actively helping Hitler to power and to build up his military might which, as Europe and US were hoping, he will use explicitly against the USSR (and if Czechoslovakia and Poland had to be destroyed in a process, it was a sacrifice the major powers were willing to make); and it didn’t matter who would win, after USSR/Germany war both would be off the world scene...

The same was true before WWI. Russia entered the war with the idea of gaining colonial territories, something that had been denied her before then. It was only the collapse of Russia that prevented that.

What you say other then that basically makes no sense. And if you think about it, it is obvious.

On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland. On 17 September 1939, the USSR invaded Poland. On 2 November 1939, the USSR invaded Finland.

But notice, the UK and France did not declare war against the Soviet Union, they declared it against Germany. And even when the US was Neutral, they sent huge amounts of aid to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was not much of an economic enemy. Their exports were minimal at best, and were of a much poorer quality then that put out by the USSR. The world was useing Ford and GM, Vauxhall and Bentley, Chrysler and Rolls-Royce, even BMW and Volkswagon in Germany. There was simply no international demand for the ZIL, UAZ, GAZ, or Moskvitch. The world used Ford, Boeing, Curtiss-Wright, and Arrow. Even Fokker and Heinkel in Germany were major aircraft exporters. Nobody was buying Irkut or Tupolev aircraft.

And I would love to see support for your claim about supporting Germany. President Roosevelt was a strong supporter of the Soviet Union, and hated Fascism. Both Germany and the USSR did similar things before and during WWII, with little or no punishment. They were not even held liable for war crimes, and the facts of the Katyn Forest were well known.

Wars are always about unlawful gains.

That's what I am talking about!
The USSR was not much of an ECONOMIC enemy, it was much more dangerous enemy, -- it was a living threat to the very existence of CAPITALISM -- a system on which all other world powers stood, including Nazi Germany! It was an enemy that was inspiring internal threat to the system of power in each of the existing countries!

WW2 was a completely different to WW1 sort of war, it was a war on distraction of a common political enemy. It failed because Hitler decided to combine it with the war for world domination and attacked Western powers; but the Cold War which was an extension of WW2 accomplished what WW2 did not achieve: the USSR collapsed.

1. How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian
The Rise of American Fascism
Henry Ford Supplied Hitler!

2. As did the US, Britain and France.

3. The FACTS of Katyn Forest were conveniently LOST by POLISH Institute of National Remembrance as soon as Russia handed the documents over!

As you are probably aware, there were two investigations into Katyn.

In 1943 an investigation was carried out by DR.GOEBBELS using Poles under German occupation and British POWs.

It was POLISH RED CROSS that first examined the victims in Katyn in 1944. Their conclusion: the victims were shot from German weapons; their hands were tied with the cord made in Germany.

But with the original documented results of the Polish investigation lost by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, the only investigation to flaunt around is the one conducted by DR.GOEBBELS, and that's the one the West is now happily reciting.

First of all that you always are uncivilized look at your language that you have used in your post, it is shame on you and your society that they grown you like this.

coming to your post fu*k afghanistan you can not really fu*k afghanistan because he byself is the GRAVE YARD OF SUPER EMPIRES

today also even the majority of peoples like the talibans for their resistance against the oppressors. the question is you guys are coward, every now and then ur govt lied at you and you guys start guessing it correct. your armies are killing here and you guys didnt strike against your policies??/ as you guys did in the war in vietnam.

see this vedio you will know by your own congressman.

YouTube - Ron Paul: What if the People Wake Up?YouTube - Ron Paul: What if the People Wake Up?

__________________
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Just because some politicians don't want to call something what it is does not change what it is.

If one is engaging in warfare, then one is at war. What one calls it doesn't change that.

I voted for all of them; they were all justifiable in one form or aother, though technically we're not at war with Afghanistan, we're providing security for an unstable government in an unstable region. This is not to say I'm happy with many of the decisions made in these conflicts, or the results, but yes, they all have issues that would have turned even more negative for the U.S. if we had stayed out altogether. Why that is should be obvious to anybody who can read a map, but apparently nobody has to learn geography any more; not knowing squat makes it so much easier to form silly opinions and ideological fantasy memes, like how great isolationism is.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

*yawn*

That article is commentary, and old news. Prescott Bush was the member of the Board of Directors of a bank. They did business with companies and governments of all nations in that era. Every bank in the world did business with Germany before war broke out. The same they did business with Japan until the embargo was declaired.

Henry Ford owned a company. One that was founded and based in a nation that until the end of 1941 was neutral in the war. As a neutral power, you are obligated to provide materials to both sides. Otherwise, the other party can justify a declaration of war.

And neither Prescott Bush nor Henry Ford were politicians. They were parts of corporations. And I am sure that every other corporation of the era, from GM and Crysler to American Express and Merril-Lynch did business with them also.

So I give a big "So what".

Prescott Bush was one of 7 directors. And the bank was a Dutch bank. Gee, a Dutch bank doing business with Germany! Shame! That is as outlandish as a French bank doing business with England.


As did everybody until the outbreak of war. The general "enlightened" belief of that era was that open borders, apeasement, and trade would prevent another war from breaking out. If you give a bully what he wanted, he would become nice.

Wrong answer. It did not work. But everybody tried appeasement. It was a failure. But for some reason, people still thinks it will work.

Ohhh, the "Facts". SO what are the "Facts"? That it did not happen?

I feel there should be a special place in hell for those that deny events like Katyn Forrest, Armena, Darfur, and the Holocaust. People that deny mass slaughter in my belief have given up any pretense at being "human beings".

Funny thing. This is the first time I saw this poll but my name is already down as having voted. Anyway, I would have voted for all of them. They were all justified.

You ever fought in any of these 'conflicts' picaro?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

I'm absolutely shocked at the little amount of votes for Vietnam.

Vietnam was 100% justified.

The spread of totalitarianism and communism in Asia at that time and the means to do it was just EVIL, like HITLER type evil.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

I supported the Vietnam War, for the same reason I support the Korean War, and the First Gulf War.

South Vietnam was an independent nation, and an Ally of the US. It was invaded by a foreign nation, and we were assisting them in trying to hold their independence.

If North Vietnam was really peacefull and wanted peace, why did they continue to invade and kill people in South Vietnam? They could have ended that conflict at any time, but they did not. And when they finally agreed to a peace treaty, they violated it less then 2 years later.

I have to say that I respect your come-back here even while I disagree with it. I respect the fact you are proud of your homeland. I see that and I agree with that. I see you fighting for respect and I agree with that.

I will say your tactics however lacking in prevarications are no better though. Yes he was aggressive and used bad language. You on the other hand used a similarly evil tactic when you insulted our entire society based on one man's language. He adopted an aggressive stance you countered it with an "oh pity me" PASSIVE aggressive position.

Let me counter you with a similar passive aggression, see how it feels.... Do you REALLY believe AFGHANISTAN beat the soviet union in a WAR?????

Let's be for real here, either/or the soviet union or USA COULD wipe afghanistan off the face of the earth in minutes. You guys COULD be a crater on earth where life once existed.

Your resistance of USSR was not done on your own there mr/mrs patriot.

Completely paranoid Russian nationalist nonsense.