Did the British start the WWII?

In other words, you don't think the appeasement policy existed?

Given the history of Germany's actions leading up to the war, starting as far back as 1933 with the start of the persecution of the Jews and the withdrawal from the League of Nations, I find your perspective on this hard to reconcile with historical fact. I believe such facts show pretty conclusively that Germany was moving toward war long before it happened, and there was little anyone could do to stop it - about the only thing that could have been done was to have the war sooner, before Germany became so strong.

Britain may have hoped to avoid joining the war (or opening a new front on the west) by appeasing Germany about pushing east, but that wasn't going to stop the war either way - contrary to the implication in the initial quote in this thread. That quote says, essentially, that WWII started when Britian declared war - but the war was, most certainly, already underway before Britain entered it.

Quotes about how diplomats personally liked the Nazi diplomats are not equivalent to saying that they actively encouraged Germany's expansion and that view you are expressing is not the prevaling historical view.

So after the war, what happened to Germany in terms of restrictions placed on them? was there another treaty signed like at Versaille? Are those restrictions and laws (if any) still in effect to this day?

"It has been asserted that dropping of the atomic bombs was not so much the last military act of the Second World War as the first act of the Cold War. Although Japan was targeted, the weapons were aimed straight to the red heart of the USSR. For more than 70 years, the determining element of US foreign policy, virtually its sine qua non, has been "the communist factor". World War II and a battlefield alliance with the Soviet Union did not bring about an ideological change in the anti-communists who owned and ran America. It merely provided a partial breather in a struggle that had begun with the US invasion of Russia in 1918. It is hardly surprising then, that 25 years later, as the Soviets were sustaining the highest casualties of any nation in World War II, the US systematically kept them in the dark about the A-bomb project, while sharing information with the British.

According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, Secretary of State Byrnes had said that the bomb's biggest benefit was not its effect on Japan but its power to "make Russia more manageable in Europe".

The Brits started WWII. . . . This is the most ludicrous crackpottery ever to appear on these forums.

hitler was one of roosevelt's allies

After World War II began (and over the objections of Sir Stewart Menzies, wartime head of British intelligence) now-Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent Stephenson to the United States on June 21, 1940 to covertly open and run the British Security Coordination (BSC) in New York City, over a year prior to the US entering the war.

The BSC office, headquartered in room 3603 in Rockefeller Center, became an umbrella organization that by the end of the war represented the British intelligence agencies MI5, MI6 (SIS or Secret Intelligence Service), SOE (Special Operations Executive) and PWE (Political Warfare Executive) throughout North America, South America and the Caribbean.

Stephenson's initial directives for BSC were 1) to investigate enemy activities, 2) institute security measures against the threat of sabotage to British property, and 3) organize American public opinion in favor of aid to Britain. Later this was expanded to included "the assurance of American participation in secret activities throughout the world in the closest possible collaboration with the British."

Stephenson's official title was British Passport Control Officer. His unofficial mission was to create a secret British intelligence network throughout the western hemisphere, and to operate covertly and very broadly on behalf of the British government and the Allies in aid of winning the war. He also became Churchill's personal representative to US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Stephenson was soon a very close advisor to FDR, and suggested to Roosevelt that he put Stephenson's good friend William J. 'Wild Bill' Donovan in charge of all US intelligence services. Donovan founded the US wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS) which eventually became the Central Intelligence Agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...n#World_War_II

I guess one can say that WWII did not start until Britain entered the fray (or that it did not start before the U.S. joined the fight), and be right in a definitional sense. In that sense, saying that "Britain started WWII for selfish reasons" is equivalent to saying "Britain started to fight against Germany for selfish reasons." Which was probably the point that Art meant to make originally.

when world war 2 actually started is a matter of perspective. From the British point of view it started when they declared war on Germany in Sept 1939 whereas the Ethiopians no doubt believe it started when Italy invaded them a few years earlier in 1935. It could equally be argued that WW2 began as early as the end of WW1 with the seeds of discontent sown by the Versailles Treaty or as late as 1941 when Japan and the USA became involved. For practical purposes it seems fair to say that it started when the first super power of the time - Britain, became involved in which case it is also fair to say it began with Britain's declaration of war.

(snip)This distrust of Britain was further vindicated after the war when Britain engineered a crisis in the ME as an excuse to seize the Suez canal (sound familiar? ). American threats of economic sanctions forced Britain to beat an embarassing retreat.

Could you place this in a "global" context, please? Malay(si)an "Emergency," British and French interests and history in Suez, a U. S. foreign policy of beating NATO allies about their heads and shoulders with threats of withholding Marshall Policy funds if they didn't comply with FDR's wishes from the grave that they divest themselves of colonial holdings, Nasser's interests in "nationalizing" Suez and denying its use by the Israelis, and Ike's and Nikita's juggling skills at that point in the Cold War?

Legitimate national interests vs. NATO and Cold War obligations vs. solo guardianship of the Truman Doctrine in SE Asia (thankless) vs. unknown level of post-war recovery and dependency upon U. S. vs. awareness of the strategic importance of Suez? Not an "engineered" crisis.

In the months that followed Egypt's nationalisation of the canal, with the support of the company that operated the canal, Compagnie universelle du canal maritime de Suez, a secret meeting between Israel, France and Britain took place at Sèvres, outside Paris. Details only emerged years later, as records of the meeting were suppressed and destroyed. All parties agreed that Israel should invade and that Britain and France would subsequently intervene, instruct the Israeli and Egyptian armies to withdraw their forces to a distance of ten miles (16 km) from either side of the canal, and then place an Anglo-French intervention force in the Canal Zone around Port Said. It was to be called "Operation Musketeer".

On October 29, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula and made rapid progress towards the Canal Zone. As per the agreement, Britain and France offered to reoccupy the area and separate the warring armies. Nasser (whose nationalisation of the company had been greeted with joy by the Egyptian public) refused the offer, which gave the European powers a pretext for a joint invasion to regain control of the canal and topple the Nasser regime