I disagree I assume at this point even Doppleganger accepts that the British/French governments knew it would have been a huge mistake to force Germany and Russia into an active alliance which is what declaring war on both of them would have done.
It would therefore be illogical for them to be sending 30000 troops to aid Finland knowing that it would bring them into direct confrontation with Russia if they did not believe that peace with Germany was still possible or at least the status quo could be maintained.
Now as for Hitlers designs on Europe well I would suggest that this quote from a speech on January 30 1940 quite clearly spell out his aims.
"For 300 years England pursued the aim of preventing a real consolidation of Europe, just as France sought for centuries to prevent a consolidation of Germany"
So I believe the situation at the end on January 1940 (four months after war had been declared) is that you have Britain and France still believing some sort of non-military outcome was attainable with Germany and that Russia was greater threat meanwhile you have Hitler making speeches about the "consolidation" of Europe.
You don't understand:
(1) that Germany and Russia already had a special relationship in 1939...they both divided E. Europe into spheres.
(2) that Hitler sent peace proposals to Britain/France and then just Britain during this period. They were turned down by the British government. Incidentally, the Germans even proposed vacating Poland.
(3) that the issue of Finland is less important than that of Poland...at least in discussing WWII origins.
(4) that none of this has anything to do with explaining why Britain declared war on Germany --Why? Because they wanted to stop a German-Soviet alliance? What is your point?
Here are two more things:
(1) Your point on the "consolidation" of Europe is so poorly written that I cannot understand you.
(2) Tell me how many people Hitler killed between January 1933 and September 1939. Then tell me how many people Stalin killed between 1923 and 1939. Then tell me how many people the British government killed between 1919 and 1939. The answer, provided you do a fair search, will shock you.
I am actually going to work on the last question because it interests me. It is going to take me a while and I am busy tomorrow...so it will take a while.
There is a reason for my question. You have stated that the British attacked Germany because Germany was "bad". I hypothesize that the Russian murder statistics will be in the range of millions, the British in the tens of thousands, as will the German statistic. If this proves true, your moral argument falls to pieces. The British policy of aggression, I predict, will become more and more dependent on assumptions of future German action. I also predict the following scale: (civilian murders)
Civilian Murders attributed to Governments for Interwar Period.
1. Russia
2. Japan
3. Italy
4. United States
5. Britain
6. Germany
6. France
If so, I will have found another interesting way of analysing WWII origins.
Hey Doppleganger, how does this approach sound to you? Do you want to give it a shot?
a) Russia and Japan are easy.
b) Italy is based on Abyssinia, internal actions, etc.
c) US is based on lynching (Black & Native) and military actions. (might fall to fifth)
d) Britain is based on Naval Blockade of Germany, Iraq plus other colonial actions. (Britain will probably rise to number 2)
e) Germany is easy.
f) France is hard...suspect colonial activities.
[I suspect that the peanut gallery will continue to use the 30 million number for Germany, so re-read the question until you understand it. Then go ahead and post the 30 million number.]
I know that you guys don't want any of my sources or even ideas. If that is the case, just ignore all of my posts from now on. Just act like I am not here. Respond to the posts of others...just not mine. I can easily live with that.