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].
.

[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

[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 the poor Germans

[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].
.

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

[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' (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 the poor Germans

And those poor Americans. All those wars. 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...

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.