User blog comment:Alexmason68/The Past/@comment-25285565-20160530041708/@comment-1916935-20160530201800

"World War I started because Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip a nationalist from Yugoslavia on June 28, 1914 at Sarajevo."
 * On the most simplistic level, yes. The assassination of the Archduke was actually more like the straw that broke the camel's back, since the Balkans had been increasingly unstable for some time and the relations between England/France and Germany had also been falling apart recently too. Not to mention all of the racial/ethnic reasons for the alliances and what not. A lot of these issues could also be traced back into the imperialistic boom (especially for countries who started claiming colonies late in the game, like Germany) in the late 1800's that also resulted in a rise in nationalism. Not that this really has much to do with what you're saying, I just find it interesting.

"Now indeed at first he was just trying to take back land Germany had lost after the first world war...he evetually went overboard with the invasion of Soviet Russia, and other European nations."
 * This actually is only partially true. He was trying to take back land that had historically belonged to Germanic people, and the invasion of the Soviet Union was part of a larger (racially driven) plan to expand the territory for the German people to live in, while also being able to keep a high standard of living for the German people during the war (the land was needed to grow food and acquire resources and the like, since there wasn't enough room in Germany to do so). The invasion of Denmark and the Scandinavian countries was also an attempt to open up a sea passage so that trading with countries not in Europe could continue during a war against England and the nation wouldn't starve like it did in WWI. It was an actually tactical move, not just a generic "take over the world" decision.

"Also the vast majority of Wehrmacht soldiers were Nazi's, and as you all know the Nazi's were morally corrupt."
 * Do you have a source for this, because it makes no sense. Besides the fact I don't know a single historian who would agree with that statement, it's also flat out idiotic. The US president is currently a Democrat, but the majority of troops (at least as far as I'm aware) are not Democrats themselves. Hell, most US troops are actually not too fond of the government and the way it's run, yet they still serve. And that's with an all volunteer force, not a conscription based one.

And no, the vast majority of Germans didn't belong to the Nazi party; it was the largest political party in Germany at the time, but it didn't have the support of the vast majority of the population. A brief search says they only had around 7% of the popular support at their peak. You have to remember that there were more than 2 parties in Germany at the time, you didn't need to have the support of over half the population to win the majority.

"...but most didn't have a problem with joining the military, they were so corrupt the would be willing to die for their ideals."
 * Just so you know, people don't join the military because they strongly believe in the government's policies; this is true with modern America and even more true with a military force that conscripted basically every able bodied man to go fight (especially true towards the end of the war, where if you could shoot, you'd be drafted into the Germany army).