Revisionist views on the causes of the World Wars

From FasciPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
National Socialist Germany
revisionism
Adolf Hitler
Allied psychological warfare
Book burning/censorship
and National Socialist Germany
Claimed mass killings of Germans
by the WWII Allies
Claimed mass killings of non-Jews
by National Socialist Germany
Clean Wehrmacht
Degenerate art
Foreign military volunteers
and National Socialist Germany
Gestapo
Kristallnacht
Lebensborn
Lebensraum
Master race
Munich Putsch
National Socialism and occultism
National Socialist Germany
and forced labor
National Socialist Germany
and partisans/resistance movements
National Socialist Germany revisionism
National Socialist Germany's
nuclear weapons program
Nazi
Night of the Long Knives
Nuremberg trials
Pre-WWII anti-National
Socialist Germany boycott
Revisionist views on
the causes of the World Wars
Soviet offensive plans controversy
Subhumans
Superior orders
The Holohoax
The World Wars and mass starvation‎

Revisionist views on the causes of the World Wars refer to revisionist and other non-politically correct views on the causes of World War I and World War II. Such views sometimes argue for a number of similarities between the causes of both wars and how these cases are described in politically correct descriptions.

Politically correct views

The politically correct views are not monolithic and different authors may to some degree disagree with one another. These views include:

  • Germany being responsible for WWI, and also WWII (along with Japan).

After World War I, the guilt of Germany for starting the war was written into the Versailles Treaty and other treaties. The revisionist movement started almost immediately disagreeing with this indictment.[1][2][3] Some early revisionist views are now incorporated into mainstream views on WWI, but some authors still continue to honour the Treaty of Versailles blaming Germany[4]. The "Powder Keg" theory according to which the political situation in Europe at the time of WWI is viewed as being fundamentally unstable and WWI being inevitable after some "red line" being passed. This was said to be due to Imperialism, alliances, Pan-Slavism, mobilization time schedules, other war planning, and so on, combined with the German guilt theory by arguing that Germany and her allies were the main parties responsible for this "red line" being passed. On a deeper level, other politically correct theories are often used to explain this "Powder Keg" situation coming into existence in the first place, including nationalism and social Darwinism. Since the 1920s great scholarship and archive research has debunked many of these theories.

  • Regarding World War II, Germany and German allies were proved to be absolutely guilty at the Nuremberg show trials, and at other trials. They are still seen as the guilty parties in an almost religious sense, with the war in practice often being ludicrously seen as a battle between Good and Evil. (See Holohoaxianity.)

Less politically correct views

Revisionist and other not politically correct views (which again are not monolithic) are described in more detail in the articles linked to in the "External links" section. Revisionists views are briefly on topics such as:

General

  • The much greater resources of the Allied powers (in particular those of the Anglophile United States), meaning that the Allies would most likely win a World War, which in turn is argued to mean that there were strong incentives against Germany and its allies wanting a World War. On the other hand, various groups may have perceived it as beneficial for themselves to incite a war that Germany and her allies would most likely lose.
  • Allied promises or implied promises of military support in case of war (defensive or not) to minor countries (Serbia in WWI and Poland in WWII), which is argued to have caused elements in these countries to provoke wars with Germany or German allies, which the Allied powers were expected to ultimately win and with consequent large gains for Serbia and Poland in the peace treaties.
  • Allied expectations that Germany would quickly fold or the leadership be replaced in a coup soon after a war started, a view that before World War II was strengthened by contacts with the so-called German underground, which had grossly exaggerated its own importance.
  • German foreign policy before World War I, which is argued to have been mainly accommodating and defensive despite argued Allied aggression and provocations. German foreign policy before WWII is argued to be reasonable responses to the unfair Versailles Treaty and mistreatment of German minorities in neighboring countries or even outright attacks against Germany. See the Gleiwitz incident and Claimed mass killings of Germans by the WWII Allies.
  • "Forced to attack" arguments, such as Japan in WWII being forced to attack due to crippling United States economic sanctions; or Austria-Hungary in WWI being forced to attack in order to prevent a break-up of the country, in part due to Allied interactions with internal and external enemies of Austria-Hungary.
  • More generally and long-term, the unification of the divided Germany in 1871 and the thereafter rapidly increasing strength of Germany has been argued to have been perceived as a threat by the traditional great powers of Europe.
  • The difference between regional war (against Serbia only or Poland only) and a World War. Thus, it may be argued, for example, that Germany supported, or started, a limited war in 1939, but did not want and tried to avoid a World War.
  • The initial popularity of WWI among the general populations everywhere is argued to have been greatly overstated in politically correct sources, which state delirious throngs supporting the war. In particular, in the countryside that would furnish the bulk of conscripts, the war is argued to have been much less popular. In the USA entering the wars is argued to have been widely unpopular among the American general public.
  • Communism/socialism, leftist agitation and uprisings, and ideas of an inevitable, necessary, and violent communist (world) revolution as causes of the wars. World War I may be argued to have been as a diversion from increasing support for socialist/communist ideas and internal unrest caused by communist/socialist agitators and revolutionaries. World War II has been argued to have been a long-time plan of Stalin with the goal of conquering Europe (and ultimately the world) for Communism. Stalin has been argued to even have helped Hitler gain power in 1933, with the long-term goal of causing a devastating war between Germany and the Western allies, which would leave both sides greatly weakened and easy targets for a Soviet invasion. Viktor Suvorov was the first to state the latter theory, but it has received support from many other historians, including many Russian, despite being very politically incorrect in Russia. See also Soviet offensive plans controversy.
  • Arguments involving jewish and Zionist interests, such as in relation to the Balfour Declaration, the anti-jewish policies of many countries at the time of WWI (such as Imperial Germany and Czarist Russia); and the anti-jewish policies of Poland and National Socialist Germany.
  • Arguments involving jewish campaign contributions and possible partial jewish ancestry of prominent politicians as an explanation for pro-jewish positions and appointments.
  • An argued influential role of media and Hollywood.
  • An argued influential role of the armaments industry, other war profiteers, and the persons controlling governmental military resource allocation, and who may have been involved in various forms of manipulation and favoritism of certain groups.
  • An argued influential role of wealthy interests in the United States, which for reasons such as war loans to the European Allies had an interest in bringing the United States into both wars.
  • Argued false atrocity propaganda in order to bring the United States into the wars.
  • Argued Allied foreknowledge/enabling of attacks on the United States in order to bring the country into the wars.
  • Argued influential and war-mongering individuals who may be argued to have used various forms of deceit, in order to force their own and/or other countries into wars. Regarding Germany, such arguments are sometimes applied to various individuals who are argued to have acted contrary to the wishes of the Kaiser during the events leading to the war. Examples of such individuals on the subsequent Allies' side include Edward Grey, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, and Franklin Roosevelt. In some cases, such individuals are argued to have served or been allied with powerful special interest groups. For example, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of not only deliberately provoking the attack on Pearl Harbor, but to have provoked the war in Europe by secret incitement against Germany and secret promises of military support to Britain, France, and Poland before WWII started.

WWI

See Causes of World War I
  • Arguments involving the motivations of the major Allied powers before the outbreak of WWI, which may have contributed to support for a war, such as France wanting revenge for losing the Franco-Prussian War and to recover Alsace and Lorraine, and Russia wanting to restore its prestige after losing the Russo-Japanese War as well as their long-held principal foreign goal of conquering the Turkish Straits, and Britain seeing the upstart Germany as its main economic threat.
  • United States non-neutral partiality shown to Great Britain and her Allies throughout The Great War (not just after the USA's "last-minute" declaration of war on the Central Powers), demonstrated in innumerable letters and communications, including a long formal complaint by the Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephan Burián to USA Ambassador Penfield on 29th June 1915.[5]

WWII

See: Causes of World War II
  • The economic model and rapid economic growth of National Socialist Germany as a threat to the financial world order controlled by London and New York.
  • Argued conspiracies involving events such as the Kristallnacht and Hermann Rauschning's memoir, with argued motivations such as inciting public opinion in favor of a war against Germany.
  • Long-term Polish hostility towards Germany and persecutions of the German minority in Poland.
  • British agents have been argued to have conducted a sizable propaganda campaign and a number of intelligence actions in order to bring the United States into World War I[6], and in World War II British money being poured into congressional elections to defeat isolationist politicians, British agents spending money freely to ease the passage of the Lend-Lease Act, British agents planting pro-British articles in interventionist newspapers and magazines, and some national opinion polls being rigged to reflect a deeper and stronger pro-British sentiment than ever existed. British agents are furthermore argued to have set up Bill Donovan's "Office of Strategic Services" (later the CIA) and to have helped run it, and to have established or influenced a number of organizations pushing for American intervention.
  • Argued large-scale campaigning by the Roosevelt administration in order to discredit war opponents and incite public opinion against Germany and Japan, long before WWII started.
  • The Roosevelt administration, long before the German declaration of war, both openly and covertly engaged in large-scale hostile acts (such as by sending large-scale amounts of military material to Germany's enemies) and deliberate provocations with the intention of causing a German response (such as by shoot-on-sight orders and attacks on German submarines).
  • Shortly before Pearl Harbor, an American military plan for a war with Germany, "Rainbow 5", was leaked to a newspaper, possibly by the Roosevelt administration, which may have been important in convincing Hitler that a war was inevitable, but that it would take at least two years before the USA was ready to invade.
  • The German declaration of war on the United States on 11 December 1941 (soon after Pearl Harbor) is in politically-correct descriptions depicted as being unprovoked, as well as being a gigantic strategic mistake. However, the USA had declared war on Japan, Germany's ally, and it was therefore a formality that Germany would now be obliged to declare war on the USA, whether or not they really wanted to do so. In any case, not declaring war would have meant continued massive USA material support to Germany's enemies, without German submarines being able to attack American shipping. Furthermore, after Pearl Harbor, American war mobilization would occur regardless whether Germany declared war on the United States or not; the anti-war opposition had been greatly weakened, and Hitler may well have seen an American entry into the war as inevitable, especially after the USA had had time to complete its war mobilization. As such, not declaring war may have been seen as not preventing an open war against the United States, but instead only delaying it and with this delay favoring Germany's enemies. Hitler may also have thought that the declaration of war would increase the chance of Japan declaring war on the Soviet Union, which if quickly defeated would be in the interests of both Germany and Japan.
  • The Soviet Union is argued to have used influential Communist agents in both Japan (such as Richard Sorge) and the United States (such as Harry Dexter White) to start a war between the various countries, in order to prevent Japan attacking the Soviet Union and in order to incite a war between Germany and the United States.

See also

External links

WWI

Some opinions:

Woodrow Wilson

WWII

Situation for Germans in Poland

Stalin's plans

American non-neutrality before the German declaration of war

Pearl Harbor

British pro-war activities in the United States

Churchill

Rising Germany as a threat

jewish influence

Hollywood

Revisionist historiography

Forum threads

Article archives

References

  1. ↑ Count Max Montgelas, The Case for the Central Powers - an Impeachment of the Versailles Verdict, London, 1925.
  2. ↑ Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany, I Seek The Truth - A book on responsibility for the War, Faber, London, 1926.
  3. ↑ Fay, Sidney Bradshaw, The Origins of the World War, Macmillan, New York, 2 vols., 1928.
  4. ↑ Fischer, Fritz, Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegszielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918 (published in English as Germany's Aims in the First World War), Germany, 1961. Which book caused a furore.
  5. ↑ Official Documents Bearing Upon the European War, series xi, November 1915, Association for International Conciliation, no.96, New York, 1915.
  6. ↑ Peterson, Professor H.C., Propaganda for War, University of Oklahoma Press, 1939.
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Revisionist_views_on_the_causes_of_the_World_Wars&oldid=52302"