Started with a lie

[Franconicus]

It is well known that truth is the first victim in any war. But some wars already start with a lie. One example is the German attack on Poland in 1939. The lie that the Polish had attacked a German broadcast station as a cause for the attack.

Do you know any other?

[AggonyDuck]

The Winter War started by the Soviet Union faking a Casus Belli with the Shelling of Mainila. Basically Russian Artillery shot at the village of Mainila and then claimed that finnish artillery had shot at the village causing personel losses. ~;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

[Geoffrey S]

Oh, could get very political...
Anyway, I'd be tempted to go for the third Punic war. Not certain if it's technically a lie, but Carthage was by no means the threat she was made out to be.

[Watchman]

A fair number, no doubt. Even dictators, god-kings and other absolutist autocrats seem to always have wanted some sort of formally acceptable casus belli to help their underlings justify things with, no matter how far-fetched or transparent. Naturally enough, what constitutes "formally acceptable" has tended to vary enormously over the times... but the trend is there. Even empires hellbent on conquering anything and everything they can possibly reach have had a curious tendency to go to some serious and as-such pointless trouble (say, issuing ludicrous demands through the diplomatic channels of the period and using the other side's refusal as an excuse), or been willing to wait specifically for a suitable incident before pouring over the border; the way the Mongols started their invasions into Khwarimzam, Hungary and Japan are probably good examples.

[Kralizec]

The fire of the Reichstag in 1934 (I think)

Hitler and his ilk had the people believe that it was done by a half blind communist, and used it as an excuse to change to the tyranical regime we all know the nazis for. IMO it was to convinient for the nazis not to have been their own doing, especially as all of Hitlers closes associates were at the scene minutes after the fire broke out.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
[Censored] claimed in the early [cersor]st century that [censored] had mass destruction weapons. The rest is [censored]. :bow:
.

[Csargo]

The fire of the Reichstag in 1934 (I think)

Hitler and his ilk had the people believe that it was done by a half blind communist, and used it as an excuse to change to the tyranical regime we all know the nazis for. IMO it was to convinient for the nazis not to have been their own doing, especially as all of Hitlers closes associates were at the scene minutes after the fire broke out.


My history teacher told me that Hitler and his Nazi leaders blamed the fire on a retarded Communist Jew that started the fire.
I think that only an idiot would believe that story.

[Kralizec]

I'm pretty sure it was a Dutch half blind communist, who supposedly set the Reichstag on fire to warn the people about Hitler...yeah right.

[Adrian II]

I'm pretty sure it was a Dutch half blind communist, who supposedly set the Reichstag on fire to warn the people about Hitler...yeah right.The year was 1933 and the perpetator was Dutch anarcho-communist Marinus van der Lubbe. He did indeed act on his own; he planned and executed the arson as a 'signal' to the German workers, whom he perceived as weakly organised and much too passive, to rise up and fight before it was too late. I have seen some of his letters in a Leyden archive (Leyden was his home town) and they prove beyond a doubt that he acted alone. This is confirmed by all serious research into the issue.

Both the Nazi's and the Communists tried to use the Reichstagsbrand to their advantage by blaming the other side. The Communist International issued a Rotbuch what contended the Nazi's started the fire themselves and used a mentally retarded Communist as a fall guy. The Nazi's published a Schwarzbuch that accused the Communists of starting it.

The first serious scholar to tackle the whole issue was a German, Fritz Tobias, who in Der Reichstagsbrand. Legende und Wirklichkeit (Rastatt, 1962) proved beyond all doubt that Van der Lubbe acted alone.

By the way, that fire did not start a war.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

WWI.

Serbia denied responsibilty for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, when they supplied and housed the assassins.

Result: 17 million dead. Good Job.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

WWII. France invades Germany, bringing France and Britain into the war, NOT the other way around, as most British and French historians I've read. They don't deny it, they just conveniently skip the fact France actually invaded GERMANY in a rather pathetic assault, then Germany turned the Panzers out of Poland and blasted the French.

[Adrian II]

WWII. France invades Germany, bringing France and Britain into the war, NOT the other way around, as most British and French historians I've read. They don't deny it, they just conveniently skip the fact France actually invaded GERMANY in a rather pathetic assault, then Germany turned the Panzers out of Poland and blasted the French.On 3 September 1939, both Britain and France declared war on Germany after Hitler refused to abort his invasion of Poland. France and Britain had guaranteed Polish borders in March 1939. No historian I've read glosses over the fact that these countries declared war on Germany. Whole books have been devoted to that one fateful day and the discussion going on in capitals and military headquarters.

[Strike For The South]

The spainish american war the U.S.S Maine

[Red Harvest]

The spainish american war the U.S.S Maine

Not really a lie. A lie requires intent to deceive. It wasn't really known what caused the explosion on the Maine at the time, but people believed it was the Spanish. Opportunists jumped on it, particularly the press. Not that some of them didn't do deceptive things, but at the time it was not known what caused the explosion.. The Spanish got the rap, even though it is most likely that it was a problem with the situation of the powder magazines, etc.

Similar happened with the Gulf of Tonkin from what I recall, although parts of this one might be better classified as a lie. Quite a bit of confusion, belief by the sensor operator that torpedoes were in the water, etc. There were several incidents involved.

[Strike For The South]

Not really a lie. A lie requires intent to deceive. It wasn't really known what caused the explosion on the Maine at the time, but people believed it was the Spanish. Opportunists jumped on it, particularly the press. Not that some of them didn't do deceptive things, but at the time it was not known what caused the explosion.. The Spanish got the rap, even though it is most likely that it was a problem with the situation of the powder magazines, etc.

Similar happened with the Gulf of Tonkin from what I recall, although parts of this one might be better classified as a lie. Quite a bit of confusion, belief by the sensor operator that torpedoes were in the water, etc. There were several incidents involved.

I see I bow to your wisdom :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Latest best theory on the U.S.S. Maine is a slow burning coal fire in the forward coal bunker. After slowly burning for hours undetected (an all-too-common problem of the era) the heat alone set off the powder bags in an adjacent magazine. Hearst did the rest.

France did indeed launch an assault on Germany as a way to belatedly "intervene" on behalf of Poland, but the event came to nothing. To argue that this was the trigger for the second world war, however, flies in the face of a good volume of historical documentation.

Seamus

[Meneldil]

WWII. France invades Germany, bringing France and Britain into the war, NOT the other way around, as most British and French historians I've read. They don't deny it, they just conveniently skip the fact France actually invaded GERMANY in a rather pathetic assault, then Germany turned the Panzers out of Poland and blasted the French.

Actually, the invasion was quite successful, and would probably have reached Berlin in a few weeks at most, but the French Etat Major (mainly composed of WWI generals whose war strategy was totally outdated) decided to retreat and to wait for the Germans.

Clemenceau was probably right when he said "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men."

[caesar44]

WWII. France invades Germany, bringing France and Britain into the war, NOT the other way around, as most British and French historians I've read. They don't deny it, they just conveniently skip the fact France actually invaded GERMANY in a rather pathetic assault, then Germany turned the Panzers out of Poland and blasted the French.


Oh :embarassed: the poor Germans :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry:

[Franconicus]

Back to the topic! I am not looking for lies in wars or lies without warsd or false reasons. I just wonder if there are more false 'accidents' that were taken as a cause to start a war.

What about the Vietnam war. Wasn't there a faked attack at a US ship that was taken as cause for the US government?

[Advo-san]

.
[Censored] claimed in the early [cersor]st century that [censored] had mass destruction weapons. The rest is [censored]. :bow:
.
:evilgrin: I haven't seen a post from Mouzafpherre for a long time...But it was worth the wait.... :bow:

[Kralizec]

The year was 1933 and the perpetator was Dutch anarcho-communist Marinus van der Lubbe. He did indeed act on his own; he planned and executed the arson as a 'signal' to the German workers, whom he perceived as weakly organised and much too passive, to rise up and fight before it was too late. I have seen some of his letters in a Leyden archive (Leyden was his home town) and they prove beyond a doubt that he acted alone. This is confirmed by all serious research into the issue.

Both the Nazi's and the Communists tried to use the Reichstagsbrand to their advantage by blaming the other side. The Communist International issued a Rotbuch what contended the Nazi's started the fire themselves and used a mentally retarded Communist as a fall guy. The Nazi's published a Schwarzbuch that accused the Communists of starting it.

The first serious scholar to tackle the whole issue was a German, Fritz Tobias, who in Der Reichstagsbrand. Legende und Wirklichkeit (Rastatt, 1962) proved beyond all doubt that Van der Lubbe acted alone.

By the way, that fire did not start a war.


Whoops...I knew it didn't cause a war, but wanted to post it anyway. But as you've pointed out, it's not even a lie either :-/


I might know another (real) one though. Hitler invaded Chzechoslovakia in 1938. The reason being that a German minority lived there called the Sudeten Deutschers, and Hitler claimed that they were opressed by the Chzech majority (wich is not true as far as I know)
Hitler stated his intentions of taking Sudetenland, but when he invaded he proceeded to take the rest of Chzechoslovakia as well.

[Red Harvest]

Latest best theory on the U.S.S. Maine is a slow burning coal fire in the forward coal bunker. After slowly burning for hours undetected (an all-too-common problem of the era) the heat alone set off the powder bags in an adjacent magazine. Hearst did the rest.


Yep, the magazines were not well situated. Coal fires like this are stil a problem for power plants, coal trains, and the like. It is rather easy for a fire to start in a mound of coal from spontaneous oxidation and heating from what I've gathered. Various things can cause a pile of coal to start heating from the inside, this can lead to a fire. I've not worked with coal much myself, but I am aware it can provide its own heat to ignite a fire.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yep, the magazines were not well situated. Coal fires like this are stil a problem for power plants, coal trains, and the like. It is rather easy for a fire to start in a mound of coal from spontaneous oxidation and heating from what I've gathered. Various things can cause a pile of coal to start heating from the inside, this can lead to a fire. I've not worked with coal much myself, but I am aware it can provide its own heat to ignite a fire.

Quite right, only a few environmental factors have to line up and then the coal ignites. Can even cause a fuel-air bomb effect if coal is stored in a warehouse and there's enough coal dust whirling about. Living near one of the largest coal-exporting ports, you become aware of this when you see huge hoses wetting down the coal heaps -- open air -- as they sit there waiting for the next collier.

Seamus

[Meneldil]

Well, I think the Japanese invaded China because there was a 'terrorist attack' (officially caused by Communists) on some railroad owned by a Japanese company. At least that's how it goes in 'Tintin and the Blue Lotus' ~D (though I think I read that in a History book).

Edit : Look like it was true. Search for the Mukden Incident

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh :embarassed: the poor Germans :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry:
And those poor Americans. All those wars. :embarassed: Caesar, he told us to list a lie, so live with it. Just because you're seemingly anti-German...

[Kraxis]

What about the Marco Polo Bridge Incident? I honestly don't know, so tell me. Was it a ruse from the Japanese?

About the Sudenten Germans, they were not directly opressed, but they were indeed a marginal population, they were pushed back in the line for jobs, couldn't get high official jobs and so on. Opression? No! Unjust treatment? Yes!
So Hitler did have something to back him up, he just blew it out of proportions and added the statement that Germans should be together. Bam, and you have a good argument when the opposing states are weakly led.

[caesar44]

Just because you're seemingly anti-German...


evil , me love Germans , me love them .
How one can be an anti 85,000,000 individuals ? What is an anti-German exactly ? Please explain .

[Papewaio]

Can even cause a fuel-air bomb effect if coal is stored in a warehouse and there's enough coal dust whirling about.

Custard factories have blown up from the same effect... powdered custard in the air igniting... ~:eek:

Epitaph: He died with custard on his face.

[Franconicus]

About the Sudenten Germans, they were not directly opressed, but they were indeed a marginal population, they were pushed back in the line for jobs, couldn't get high official jobs and so on. Opression? No! Unjust treatment? Yes!
So Hitler did have something to back him up, he just blew it out of proportions and added the statement that Germans should be together. Bam, and you have a good argument when the opposing states are weakly led.
Well Kraxis, I think it was not really a lie. In the Sudetenland the majority of the population was German (as far as I remember). So according to the right of self-determination they should have belonged to Germany. I think that the government became more and more distrustful against them when Germany's power raised again and Germany occupied Austria. Hitler installed and supported a local terror group that fought the government. Government reacted and opressed the German population more and more. So Hitler could use the problem he had created himself.

[Watchman]

Eh, the "one people one state" principle was seriously tried exactly once - after WW1. It turned out to suck beans and caused endless grief to everyone concerned, and would most likely have ended up in the dusty locker of other dubious Edwardian paraphenelia (like phrenology...) after WW2 had assorted separatists not kept it alive for fairly obvious reasons.

[Franconicus]

Sorry, I do not agree! After WW 1 there was no '1 people one state'. And that was part of the problem and helped Hitler in the beginning (Austria, CSR and even Poland). After the WW2 they made it better: many Germans had to leave the areas they lived before: Poland, CSR, Rumenia ... . And in the Saarland people could vote weather they wanted to be part of Germany or France.

[Kraxis]

Hey wait a moment... I wasn't saying that Hitler was right, merely that he wasn't exactly lying. Yes, he might have created the problem himself (though I do think they were marginalized even before Hitler came to power), but he didn't lie.

Credit should be given where credit is due, even if it is bad credit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Eh, the "one people one state" principle was seriously tried exactly once - after WW1. It turned out to suck beans and caused endless grief to everyone concerned, and would most likely have ended up in the dusty locker of other dubious Edwardian paraphenelia (like phrenology...) after WW2 had assorted separatists not kept it alive for fairly obvious reasons.

I disagree. The 1-p-1-s has almost never been employed in any systematic way. Take just the continent of Europe for example.

The Congress of Vienna affirmed the idea of a unified Belgium crafted from two peoples, the Flems and the Walloons as well as a Russia that included the Ukraine. The AHE itself was a motley collection at best, and they hosted the gathering.

Versailles, following the Great War (always loved that particular oxymoronic misnomeration ~;) ), carved up the AHE, Montenegro, and Serbia into several states: Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. While Hungary and Austria could make a fair claim as to being one "people" the rest of the area included: Croatians, Serbians, Bosnians, Montenegrans, Macedonians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Sudeten Germans (plus a few I've probably missed). This was done because all of the groups involved felt entitled to most of the Balkans since their group had, at some point in history, been in control of a large chunk of it. The area was hardly calm throughout the inter-war period.

Yalta and Potsdam divided up the spheres of influence, and Soviet domination squelched internicine rivalry for decades, but the dissolution of the USSR in 1989-1991 left the area free to decide things for themselves. As you know, Czechoslovakia has split, Yugoslavia has splintered, and many of the factions within the region promptly went to war to conquer the rest. Were NATO forces withdrawn, this would likely continue.

Separatist movements in the Basque region and in Ireland want to re-draw their corners of the map, Spain continues to have some level of strain between the Andalusian and Catalonian components of that country, and Italy has effectively separated itself into two separate entities with a shared foreign policy.

....And that's just Europe. If you want to go into the disconnect between the lines on the map and the tribal "people" boundaries in Africa, we could spend a few weeks just sorting out the contenders and their claims.

One-people-one-state has NEVER really been tried, save where geography has allowed for nearly complete homogenization (i.e. Japan -- and even there some might argue about Hokaido). Could the 1-p-1-s model actually work to defuse tensions and conflict if it were implemented? Not sure, but with humanity in control, I always err on the side of cynicism.

Seamus

[Red Harvest]

Custard factories have blown up from the same effect... powdered custard in the air igniting... ~:eek:

Epitaph: He died with custard on his face.

People don't appreciate the danger of dust explosions...there are all sorts of potential sources, like grain elevators. Blowers and ducts in much of the air conveying equipment have blow out panels.

[Idomeneas]

:evilgrin: I haven't seen a post from Mouzafpherre for a long time...But it was worth the wait.... :bow:

It sure did!! ~:cheers:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

evil , me love Germans , me love them .
How one can be an anti 85,000,000 individuals ? What is an anti-German exactly ? Please explain .
Very well Ceasar, maybe I was wrong. But I stated a fact, and that reaction was completly uncalled for.

[Meneldil]

Not really. You sure stated a fact, but added some really uncalled for comments such as 'NOT the other way around, as most British and French historians I've read' or 'France invades Germany, bringing France and Britain into the war'.

Now either, you intended to make some revisionism, or you don't really know what happened in 1939, but your vision of the events is far from what happened in reality.

[Rosacrux redux]

I disagree. The 1-p-1-s has almost never been employed in any systematic way. Take just the continent of Europe for example.

One-people-one-state has NEVER really been tried, save where geography has allowed for nearly complete homogenization (i.e. Japan -- and even there some might argue about Hokaido). Could the 1-p-1-s model actually work to defuse tensions and conflict if it were implemented? Not sure, but with humanity in control, I always err on the side of cynicism.

Seamus

I think you are wrong here. Because, following the wake of nationalism after the Enlightment (now that's an oxymoron...) the aim for every "people" that have found (or thought they have found... ~;) ) their "national identity" was excactly that: Ein land = ein volk.

Everybody took a shot at that - or was forced by external factors (see AHE) to follow that path. Sure it was usually implemented poorly, because it is a rather unnatural way to sort things out - nations are an artificial invention most of the times and in many occassions failed miserably. But you can't say it wasn't a goal- it was what everybody was aiming for.

Numerous attempts at ethnic cleansing (even large-scale genocide, as in Turkey 1914-17 and Germany during WW2), a huge number of separatist movements, and other similar incidents, declare in the most vocarious fashion that the effort to creat homogenous single-nation states was and in most occassions still is, the case.

The effort, not the outcome. That is quite different, as I said before. But it is a very, very, very tried "solution". Which has proven to be more of a problem than a solution, anyway...

[Del Arroyo]

"People-hood" is fluid, just as are geographical borders and the landscape of power. People can grow together and grow apart-- and even if you did get everyone split up into nice little homgenous communities, it wouldn't be long before they started dominating one another and mixing things back up.

The only important rule is that in order to have a viable state, the unifying factors must overpower the entropic factors (I think that's what entropy means). And it is true that democracy works much more efficiently if applied across a more-or-less homogenous population-- too much diversity can break it.

DA

[Papewaio]

Then why are most democracies more diverse then despotic regiemes?

[hoom]

Uhm, can anybody actually name a war that was not started based on a lie? (or at least a part truth)

[Kraxis]

Gulf War Episode I?

Sure there were lies, but they were made by cynical medias. I think it was plain that the Coalition wanted to throw out Iraq. And Iraq itself had 'just' made a landgrab and claimed it to be a province of Iraq. It was just a cynical move and less of a lie. Dictators don't always have to lie.

The Korean War was also pretty straightforward. The North wanted to 'liberate' the South and the UN didn't want that (because China and the SU were boycotting the Security Counsil).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think you are wrong here. Because, following the wake of nationalism after the Enlightment (now that's an oxymoron...) the aim for every "people" that have found (or thought they have found... ~;) ) their "national identity" was excactly that: Ein land = ein volk.

Everybody took a shot at that - or was forced by external factors (see AHE) to follow that path. Sure it was usually implemented poorly, because it is a rather unnatural way to sort things out - nations are an artificial invention most of the times and in many occassions failed miserably. But you can't say it wasn't a goal- it was what everybody was aiming for.

Numerous attempts at ethnic cleansing (even large-scale genocide, as in Turkey 1914-17 and Germany during WW2), a huge number of separatist movements, and other similar incidents, declare in the most vocarious fashion that the effort to creat homogenous single-nation states was and in most occassions still is, the case.

The effort, not the outcome. That is quite different, as I said before. But it is a very, very, very tried "solution". Which has proven to be more of a problem than a solution, anyway...


Good points. I never said it wasn't a goal for the participants, but you are correct in that I am taking a more structural read on events and not fully addressing the obvious efforts towards an ein reich-ein volk situation that so many of the participants attempted. Most of the combinations I referenced were the "compromise" solutions enacted in the face of these competing tensions. The theme you bring out is important, and vital to understanding how Europe ended up with those artificial conglomerates.

Seamus

[Kralizec]

The Korean War was also pretty straightforward. The North wanted to 'liberate' the South and the UN didn't want that (because China and the SU were boycotting the Security Counsil).

Actually, the Chinese seat was at the time represented by Taiwan / Fromosa, the last stronghold of the KMT. The SU did boycot the council though, making the Korean war possible.

[hoom]

Gulf War Episode I? Plenty of lies on both sides there.
Curiously I do believe that Saddams' claim that Kuwait was illegally drilling at an angle under Iraq was since proven to be actually very true.
The 'it used to be part of Iraq so it should be ours again' bit was not true/legitimate.

Stuff like the Iraqi soldiers tipping babies out of incubators as testified in US Congress (or wherever it was) & widely reported was lies.
Most of those 'Media' lies were fed to them by the US military/government.


The Korean War was also pretty straightforward. The North wanted to 'liberate' the South and the UN didn't want that (because China and the SU were boycotting the Security Counsil). Plenty of lies/half-truths right there.
The Liberation was (depending on your view-point) bogus.
The Soviet Union & China boycotted the UN & the UN intervened because the UN was being blatantly manipulated as a tool of US/Western foriegn policy as shown by since declassified documents.
Calling it a 'Police Action' instead of a war was a lie.

[caesar44]

Uhm, can anybody actually name a war that was not started based on a lie? (or at least a part truth)


1948' war between Israel and the Arab states - The Arabs said that they want to finish off with the Jews in Palestine and that was no lie !
(Please don't make it a Backroom discussion)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not really. You sure stated a fact, but added some really uncalled for comments such as 'NOT the other way around, as most British and French historians I've read' or 'France invades Germany, bringing France and Britain into the war'.

Now either, you intended to make some revisionism, or you don't really know what happened in 1939, but your vision of the events is far from what happened in reality.
Alright. Britain was already in the war. This book was written by a team of British military historians about the Panzer divisions. France did invade Germany first. Most historians belonging to the former allies simply leave that out of their books. :bow: My version of events was quite close to what happened in reality, aside from the change I listed above.

[Kraxis]

Plenty of lies on both sides there.
Curiously I do believe that Saddams' claim that Kuwait was illegally drilling at an angle under Iraq was since proven to be actually very true.
The 'it used to be part of Iraq so it should be ours again' bit was not true/legitimate.

Stuff like the Iraqi soldiers tipping babies out of incubators as testified in US Congress (or wherever it was) & widely reported was lies.
Most of those 'Media' lies were fed to them by the US military/government.

Plenty of lies/half-truths right there.
The Liberation was (depending on your view-point) bogus.
The Soviet Union & China boycotted the UN & the UN intervened because the UN was being blatantly manipulated as a tool of US/Western foriegn policy as shown by since declassified documents.
Calling it a 'Police Action' instead of a war was a lie.
Yes, but the reasons for the wars were not lies. In the Gulf War, I am pretty certain too that the Kuwaitis were drilling in the far side of the fence, but then again the border was rather fluid away from the highways. So Iraq had perhaps a reason. And Kuwait was indeed a province of Iraq when it had been a British protectorate, so it wasn't that far off as a claim. It was not reason enough in both cases for a complete annexation, but they weren't lies.

Also, the Congress had already decided to expell Iraq when the 'horror' stories came out. They were mere frosting on the cake. The real, offical, reason for the war was to expell an invader from a sovereign country. That was no lie, and the rest of us (rear: the world) pretty much accepted that. The bad-mouthing of Saddam and Iraq in general was just to make certain the public was entirely behind the Coalition. They were not the causes for the war.

Korea was artificially cut in half at the end of WWII. Neither part accepted that (and why should they?). To an extent the North Koreans were right that Korea should be united again, but their point of view of how that should be done didn't go well with the West. And honestly, South Korea was an oppressive and dictatorial coutry at the time. The living standards were quite a bit better in the industrial North (yes, it was better to be a North Korean at the time). So there is a certain degree of truth in the liberation, and there were also quite a few insurgents in South Korea (like in Vietnam later).
So for North Korea it was more a case of extending the rules a bit. While the West said that it would fight communism teeth and nails. That was no lie either. How the West went about and go the rest of the world in on it was like any other case of politics (lots of bargaining, bartering, offering stuff up, pressing and so on). But they didn't lie about the reason for the war.

[Reverend Joe]

It is well known that truth is the first victim in any war. But some wars already start with a lie. One example is the German attack on Poland in 1939. The lie that the Polish had attacked a German broadcast station as a cause for the attack.

Actually, this wasn't entirely made up- then again, it was. There was actually a staged attack on a German broadcast station, during which, I believe, several members of the station were wounded- but the attackers were actually Waffen-SS soldiers dressed in Polish uniform, so that it really looked like an attack. So, the lie was a little more intricate than just making up a story about an attack- but it was a lie nonetheless.

There's my one cent. (Not being an origional idea, I could hardly call it 2 cents... maybe one and a half.)