First if you think Italy was a successful ally, then I must read the history books you're reading. Not to say that they didn't have an impressive army and navy, but they didn't use them...

I mean what was it, 300,000 troops taken by around 30,000 to 50K british troops in Ethiopia. And then Italy almost lost North Africa until the Germans came to save them. Or when in Greece they were pushed back when they tried to invade but were saved when Hitler came in.

Not only that but Italians were generally under-equipped to handle any of the allied powers (except maybe USSR in the beginning).

And the navy, which was an awesome fleet in many circumstances basically did not engage in large battles with the british in fear (quite a rational fear) that they would be destroyed. But combined with Germany's navy it would have easily out-matched Britain.

Overall, I don't think Italy was that successful as an ally. It did cause a major problem for the allies, but respectively, it was no Japan.

As for the USSR and Germany, I think that's a fanciful notion, however, they might have put aside their differences to remain at least neutral and possibly even fight the same people (as in the case of Poland). But I think Hitler's ambitions got in the way and the concept of Lebensraum pushed Hitler to invade Russia.

__________________
Signature:

I didn't say Italy was successful. I said they were somewhat successful. They did serve as preliminary meat-shield... But yes, they did tend to bite off way more than they could chew.

__________________
"It is a hard matter, my fellow citizens, to argue with the belly, since it has no ears." - Marcus Porcius Cato

“I am an extreme moderate... I believe anyone not in favor of moderation should be castrated." - Benjamin Franklin, HBO's "John Adams"

Oh gotcha, now that I look back I realized my trouble reading got the best of me.

__________________
Signature:

France and Britain had a treaty with Poland but they didnt have one with Finland.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

The Molotrov-Ribbentrop Pact secretly stipulated that the Soviet Union would occupy and take over part of Poland... Why didn't the Allies declare on the Soviet Union when they participated in the "partition" that Poland underwent?

__________________
"It is a hard matter, my fellow citizens, to argue with the belly, since it has no ears." - Marcus Porcius Cato

“I am an extreme moderate... I believe anyone not in favor of moderation should be castrated." - Benjamin Franklin, HBO's "John Adams"

you've focused on one theater of the war---the european one. Japan, China, USSR = Asia theater.
why did Britain and France declare war? What was the legal reasoning?
context is everything...

Britain had guaranteed the security of Czechoslovakia and it seemed war must break out at this point when the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to Munich, and, in an act of appeasement, signed papers acceding to the invasion.

It should be remembered that the rapidly rearming Germany had militarily stolen a march on Britain, which was completely unprepared for war at this time. Chamberlain's act of appeasement, which has been widely criticised since as a cowardly submission, was explained by Chamberlain as an effort to buy time in which to rearm. Germany finally became engaged in full-scale war on September 1, 1939 as a consequence of the invasion of Poland, with whom both Britain and France had pledged guarantees.

so where is your hypocrisy?
sense? your opinions are not sufficient substitute for objectivity or facts.

sense? I often find when people are arguing over 'sense' they have very little common sense.

as in: "why did that man kill his family?" "it makes no sense."

hello?

^The hypocrisy is that if Great Britain were going to attack Germany for a reason, they should have attacked the Soviets for that reason as well.

__________________
We may rise and fall, but in the end we'll meet our fate together.

methinks you mean 'principle' where you write 'reason'

reason does not have to be consistent. reasoning can be arbitrary and nonsensible. principles can stand yet the actions they demand can be viewed within the context of circumstances and the moment.

I may say I will punch any man in the mouth who insults my mother to my face. If I follow through against one man who does so and who is unarmed, yet decide not to follow through on another man who is armed, am I being a hypocrite? is circumstance enough to alter things?

seeing things as black and white and denying the gray is to set the world up without the nuances that make it multidimensional. your logic is as flawed as most. if you live your life this way you will become a very angry, lonely and bitter individual. it is a set up for failure---for seeing the world as a dangerous and messed up place.