Started with a lie

**Geoffrey S** · 09-13-2005, 16:24

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** · 09-13-2005, 16:45

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** · 09-13-2005, 17:47

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.

**Csargo** · 09-13-2005, 22:12

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

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** · 09-13-2005, 22:16

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** · 09-13-2005, 23:19

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

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** · 09-13-2005, 23:26

WWI.

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

Result: 17 million dead. Good Job.

**Kralizec** · 09-14-2005, 12:59

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.