3 ms·

WW2 is a strong counterargument to this stance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal https://www.vox.

WW2 is a strong counterargument to this stance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6084029/hitlers-invasion-of-poland-explained https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6084029/hitlers-invasion-of-pol... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_foreign_policy_of_the_Chamberlain_ministry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_foreign_policy_of_the... or more to the point: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/History/polandbetrayal.htm http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/History/pol... Note that the "Western Betrayal" has 2 very, very, very strong points in causing the war: 1) it factored heavily in Hitler's decision making to start the war, according to him, himself 2) it was correct decision making: the allies did not respond as they had promised, enabling further offensives with the well known consequences

lukev 8y ago
For the record, I do think WW2 was worth fighting. It's about as clear-cut case of national self defense as you'll find in the history books. Even people who are normally quite pacifist don't really dispute this in the general case. But we're talking about extrajudicial termination of classified targets, in civilian settings, against whom war has not been formally declared. Some of them are US citizens or citizens of our allies. This is indefensible.
- candiodari 8y ago
  I very much doubt you would have found much support anywhere in 1939. Not in France, Britain, Belgium, Netherlands and certainly not in the US. Not even after annexing the Sudetenland, not even after the Polish invasion.