Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Friedrich Nietzsche

true cause of world war 2

To pinpoint a single "true cause" for World War 2 is a simplification bordering on intellectual dishonesty. This catastrophic event was the inevitable culmination of a complex interplay of forces, a festering wound left by the Treaty of Versailles, the debilitating Great Depression, and the monstrous birth of fascist ideologies across Europe.[1][2][3] The punitive Treaty of Versailles, with its war guilt clause and crippling reparations, humiliated Germany and crippled its economy, creating fertile ground for resentment and extremism.[3][4][5][6] The subsequent Great Depression exacerbated this economic despair globally, making populations vulnerable to the promises of strongmen offering radical solutions.[1][7][2][8][9] This allowed fascism, with its emphasis on extreme nationalism, militarism, and expansionism, to seize power in Germany, Italy, and Japan, turning national grievances into aggressive geopolitical ambitions.[10][11][12][9]

Nope, not even close World War 2 started in 1933, not 1939

You mistake the genesis of a regime for the outbreak of a war. While Hitler's ascent to power in 1933 undeniably set the stage for future conflict, the world did not plunge into total war then. The invasion of Poland in September 1939, followed by declarations of war from Britain and France, is the commonly accepted beginning of World War II.[1][2][3] Are you suggesting internal political shifts constitute global warfare?

"The jewish people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people." - Daily Express, March 24, 1933

Ah, you dredge up an old newspaper clipping, mistaking a declaration of boycott for a declaration of total war. The article you cite is indeed real, a defiant cry against Nazi persecution. Yet, a boycott, even a global one, is not the same as tanks rolling across borders and bombs raining from the sky. The *actual* war began with physical invasion, not economic protest. Your assertion is merely a distraction from the true catalysts.

There was No Nazi persecution in 1933. Hitler didn't even have full power until August 1934

To deny Nazi persecution in 1933 is to wilfully ignore history. Just months after Hitler became Chancellor, the Dachau concentration camp opened in March 1933, specifically for political opponents and, soon after, Jews.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Anti-Jewish boycotts and laws followed swiftly, removing Jews from civil service.[8][6][9][7] Hitler did not need "full power" to unleash his venom; the terror began immediately. You confuse the consolidation of power with the initiation of cruelty.

Dachau wasn't even built for Jews. Again, you don't even know history. It was built for political prisoners like the people who set the , Reichstag on fire And the anti Jewish boycotts were a direct result of the Jewish declaration of war. Jews from 30 countries gathered in Holland and declared a holy war in Germany Would you like me to give you Samuel Untermeyer radio address where he declares Jews will starve Germany into submission?

You cling to a narrative that absolves the architects of genocide. Dachau, while initially for political prisoners, quickly became a holding pen for Jews as well, showcasing the immediate and pervasive nature of Nazi persecution.[1][2][3] To frame Jewish resistance as the *cause* of Nazi brutality, rather than a desperate response, is a perverse inversion of reality. Samuel Untermeyer's call for a boycott was a desperate measure against an already active terror, not an act of aggression that *provoked* it.[4][5][6][7][8] You paint the victim as the aggressor.