Presuming you have at least considered What is World War II, let me discuss who started WWII in the larger sense of precipitating events. Now were I to seriously take on the project of "what really caused WWII" I could profitably spend the next five to ten years of my life and then produce one more book to add to the 300 self feet of book on the subject.

But in all of those hundreds of works and in a common thread of German politics before Hilter got involved in politics there is one clear thread, the Treaty of Versailles. The form of it and the manner in which it was imposed upon Germany negates its legal and moral worth. It does not have the merit to deserve the title Treaty.

A treaty is an agreement among equals and without duress, just as in any contract. When it was imposed upon Germany, Germany was not an equal. Britain continued its naval blockade of Germany for the stated purpose of forcing Germany to sign it. Therefore, in law, fact and morality, it was not a treaty and Germany was not bound by it.

It was an offer Germany could not refuse. Either its signature would be on the paper or more millions would fill its morgues. A half million died before Germany signed. Please take the time to separate any differences between your opinion and mind from the facts. Any form of duress negates any contract. There was duress. And a treaty is less binding than a contract as it can not be enforced. It is at most a gentleman's agreement.

If we can proceed from the most common point of view, that the seeds of WWII were sown at Versailles then we can see that any political leader would have exactly the same objective as Hitler, to overturn it as its imposition had no standing in any tradition of law by virtue of duress.

Thus in honesty we are only talking Hitler's methods as opposed to other methods. And in this regard we must remember that the 1930s, despite pious statements, was an era where diplomacy was a means of avoiding war immediately. And despite pious words that is still the way war is today. Failure then and failure now still results in war, [insert links to Gulf War.]

Also we need to look impartially at events at the time. The Brits lied about the war with the same facility as Germany. Britain had a wartime Ministry of Information that declassified official records show without doubt it was fabricating atrocity stories about Germany. And every story identified as a fabrication was introduced as fact at Nuremberg.

The first principle is that any person leading Germany would be working to reverse every provision of Versailles as the entire treaty was imposed by criminal means, duress, causing a half million deaths, murder to force a signature.

The next to note is that Hitler accomplished almost the complete reversal of Versailles without a drop of blood being shed. This is not an accomplishment to be ignored. Rather it is to be acknowledged as an accomplishment to be put in the balance of exactly one success our world calls a failure.

In this light we look at the Berlin Pact / annexation of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland.

The first thing to note is that what is always called the invasion of Czechslovakia never occurred. We go back to before Versailles and we find the Czech Republic but not Slovakia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that was broken up by Versailles. The two were forcably joined as Czechoslovakia by Versailles. They were retained that way by Russia after the war but when finally freed, they peacefully separated and remain separate today.

Now let me backtrack to the time of interest. What is near always portrayed as poor Chamberlain being betrayed by evil Hitler is nothing of the kind. There is a meeting in Berlin of Britain, France, Italy and Germany. If Chamberlain had not liked the deal, France and Italy would have outvoted Chamberlain so no change.

The Sudeten was ceded and Germany occupied it. Five months later Germany had annexed the Czech Repulic, restoring it as part of a new Austro-Hungarian Empire. Slovakia had declared its independence. Now how did all this happen?

It seems that after the ceding of the Sudeten, Poland decided to invade Czechoslovakia. It took the combined forces of Rumania, Hungary and Germany to throw out Poland.

I admit I have told the story forwards, backwards and around. But no matter how you look at it, it all adds up to something entirely different from "I gave in on Sudeten, he took the entire country." That foolish short story told ignores an invasion, a counter invasion, a Declaration of Independence and two other nations involved. In addition five intervening months. In addition, Poland's invasion precipitated the changes to the Munich Agreement not Germany.

Look into it for yourself. I have given you enough information here to question what you were taught or told that if you can verify even one point, you know something markedly different happened from what you were lead to believe.

So let us go on to the invasion of Poland. That entire incident was based upon a demand that Poland give back to Germany land that was taken by Poland under Versailles. Render unto Germany the things that are Germany's. And to go back in Germany's interests and history, starting in 1919, every leader of Germany had sought similar goals to Hilter. Hitler was the first to scale them back to an absolute minimum -- and still be rejected.

After long negotiating positions of full return of german territory to pre-Versailles boundaries (Poland NEVER had a claim on any of the territories it took at Versailles in any form) Hitler reduced his position to only duty free, toll free, tax free access to Danzig (one autobahn, one rail line and the emphasis was the free acess, and free meant in cost also. In return he offered to withdraw all other territorial claims to the lands taken by Poland at Versailles. Were there an opposition party at the time it would have attacked him for reneging on his promise to reverse Versailles and offered a less peaceful platform to the voters.

As it had for the previous 20 years, Poland refused. But this time it declined to even sit down to discuss the offer. Rather than even discuss, it increased its border incursions in the Czech Republic and Germany. This is entirely separate from any claims regarding an attack at Gleiwitz. That is not in any official German statement I can find.

What I can find in the official german material are the unquestioned border incursions. I can find the polish blockade of Danzig. I can find Poland violating its agreements for the treatment of its german ethnic minority in german territory it annexed at Versailles.

There they were on the eve of war. Poland in an expansionist mood and otherwise behaving repugnant to the order of civilized nations. And already three nations had been required to join to kick it out of Czechoslovakia.

Rather than Poland making the first concession in twenty years, instead seeing a weak Hitler constantly scaling back his negotiating position, it acts as though it can get away with anything. In return both Russia and Germany dismember the trouble-making country.

But then why would Britain and France form a Tripatite Alliance with Poland? Never heard of the Tripartate Powers in that war before this did you. It comes right from what Chamberlin called it in Parliament. Before it was the Allies or the United Nations, it was the Tripartite Powers.

Was it to save Poland from invaders? No, else they would have honored their treaty with Poland and declared war on Russia.

Was it to preserve peace? No, else Britain would not have recognized Italy's conquest of Ethiopia.

I can go through a dozen of things it was not. But the one thing the Tripartite Alliance did do was serve as a pretext and a means to attack and control Germany.

Before you think that is a good idea, go back to the main page and read about the nations that fought against Germany.