Why do normies ignore the fact that Britain (and France but who cares) is responsible for WW2?

Why do normies ignore the fact that Britain (and France but who cares) is responsible for WW2?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Implying WWII wasn't started with Japanese invasion of China.

Relax, everyone knows Neville was a mistake.

*WW2 in the European theater

they are responsible in the sense that they signed the Munich agreement instead of putting the perfidious germs into submission when they had the chance.

REMINDER THAT

>Poland offered to cede the entire corridor to Danzig
>Hitler IGNORED every warning not to invade Poland
>Danzig was a FREE CITY. NOT A PART OF POLAND

They are responsible because they were meddling in the affairs of other countries hundreds of miles away.

What if Germany declared war on Britain every time it was invading a state that was part of it's vast imperial empire?

They were defending the rights of the poles, who may I remind you, Hitler had plans to genocide and repopulate the area with Germans.

>What if Germany declared war on Britain every time it was invading a state that was part of it's vast imperial empire?
Then queen would laugh her arse off

>They were defending the rights of the poles

Yeah Britain has a great history of moral highground and caring about the sovereign rights of other people. It's not like it had enslaved millions of people through its vast empire.

>Hitler had plans to genocide and repopulate the area with Germans

You are exaggerating but even if this was 100% true Britain has no business meddling with the affairs of Central European states.

>What if Germany declared war on Britain every time it was invading a state that was part of it's vast imperial empire?

Germany would lose every time, LOL

The notion that a nation-state isn't entirely justified in intervening to protect its interests is laughable.

wew lad

>You are exaggerating but even if this was 100% true Britain has no business meddling with the affairs of Central European states.
Neither did Reich had right to invade Poland.

Not an argument

Then stop the hypocrisy that Britain was serving a higher moral goal to defend Poland and the rights of people to self determination from annihilation because it's laughable. Britain set up the stage of war and confrontation and in 1939 it got what it wanted all along.

Why did Britain care if the German-Czech border shifted a few kilometers?

>Why did Britain care if the German-Czech border shifted a few kilometers?
Because it's Czech land that Germany has no right to steal.

k keep me posted

>>Poland offered to cede the entire corridor to Danzig
source needed for purpose of arguing against stormweenies pls

This may surprise you, but the continued existence of neutral buffer states has been an interest in international politics since the Congress of Vienna.

Something Bismarck understood and the Germans didn't seem to understand when they invaded neutral Belgium for the sole purpose of having an easier time getting into France in 1914 and a concept you don't seem to understand now.

This picture includes the colonies of the vast empires of Europe as seperate and sovereign countries, so it's wrong.

It even includes countries that declared war on us, like Japan.


If Hitler wasn't chronically autistic he would have negotiated over the Polish borders, as Versailles enabled him to.

>Why did Britain care if the German-Czech border shifted a few kilometers?
You are not the sharpest mind, are you?

>If Czechoslovak German border shifted a few kilometres, the whole Czechoslovakia falls
>If Czechoslovakia falls Germany gains a shitton of weapons and industry and only thing threatening her eastern flank would be Poland, which is not a threat at all
>If Germany gains shitton of weapons, manpower and confidence, it might invade France
>When France falls rest of Europe follows
>Then all between the Germany and Britain would be the painfully thin corridor

Germany knew well that war with Britain and France would declare war on them if Germany invaded Poland.

>Why did Britain care if the German-Czech border shifted a few kilometers?
>what is the balance of power

I'm sure letting the most aggressive peoples in Europe become the dominant power in Europe, just 20 years after they started a world war, would have helped the cause of world peace.

Czechoslovakia produced the best tanks in central Europe in 1938, certainly better than the Panzer I and IIs that still formed the bulk of the heer. The Germans relied on the Skoda-made Panzer 35t and 38t to bolster the few Panzer III and IVs they had early war.

The question we need to ask ourselves here: are the rights and lives of Poles actually important enough to start a major European war over?

Nice fantasy real life is not a video game. Hitler didn't want to take over the world that's a ridiculous meme. Germany wanted to rectify what it percieved as the injustices of the Versailles treaty. Germany was a central European superpower it had a hegemonical position in that part of the world. It sucks that states back then didn't respect the sovereignity of other people but this is how the world worked.

>Poland was a buffer state between Germany and Britain

Wtf and I haven't even mentioned the Soviet invasion of Poland 2 weeks later don't get me started on that...

>get warned not to do something
>does it anyway
>warned again not to do something
>does it again anyway
>warned yet again and told there will be severe consequences
>does it yet again
>inevitable consequences happen
>MUH REICH WAS A GUD BOI HE DINDU NUFFIN

Nazi Lives Matter?

I am starting to think that the eternal anglo memes were right all along...

The hypocrisy and the double standards are mind blowing and apparent to anyone who can think outside the emotional appeals and the propaganda

Poland was a French (and indirectly British) ally who could potentially divert German forces from the western front should war occur.

Of course, French intelligence believed in nonexistent spook divisions and failed to actually press that advantage in the Saar offensive, but that's not the fault of the people who made said alliance.

>Nice fantasy real life is not a video game.

>Literally happened
>fantasy

>Hitler didn't want to take over the world that's a ridiculous meme.
>Blobs over half of Europe, subjugating what's not worthy of being lebensraum

>Germany wanted to rectify what it percieved as the injustices of the Versailles treaty.
>By conquering France and Eastern Europe

And the answer is yes.
If Germany took Poland without resistance then her only de jure claims lied with France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands. World War 2 was inevitable from the moment Hitler annexed Bohemia

Yes, fucking Poland, Norway, Belgium Czechoslovakia, Russia, Yugoslavia, Greece and Luxembourg. were really behind the Treaty. The people of these sovereign countries deserved to get massacred for this (somehow).

Czechoslovakia also had a large German population and Germany sought to unite all German people under a single state.

Using your "logic" NATO would be perfectly justified to start a nuclear war with Russia over the annexation of Crimea

Germany repsected the neutrality of countries to some extent. In the meantime the allies were one step from invading Norway made plans to invade neutral Sweden invaded Iceland etc.

The sudetes had a large German population. Hitler was given this in the Munich Conference, and then annexed the rest of Bohemia (with no large German minority) simply because he thought he could get away with it.


>Using your "logic" NATO would be perfectly justified to start a nuclear war with Russia over the annexation of Crimea

Of course not. Now, if Russia took the Baltics, Central Asia, all of Ukraine and Poland back then NATO would be justified in attacking Russia.

We were incredibly lenient with Germany (as Brits don't have a bloodlust like the Teutons) but they just kept going.

>Germany tears up its agreement not to invade Poland and does it anyway
>Britain declares war on Germany to honour its agreement to defend another country from German aggression for the 2nd time in 30 years.
>Britain is the untrustworthy one in this situation

>And the answer is yes.
You think Hitler would have bothered with France and Britain if they didn't start trouble?

And as a signatory of Versailles, the British had the right to enforce the treaty on signatory Germany if it so chooses to abrogate said treaty by force instead of negotiations.

>implying that only one particular country was responsible for WW2

Poland didn't start trouble, neither did Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union so yes, they would have.

Maybe not Britain but Hitler certainly had an axe to grind with France, even if he admitted the French.

You know, the part of the Versailles treaty that had France (re)take German clay?

Germany never attacked someone out of random. There always was a military purpose behind the invasions.

Perfidious albion. Britain is not the policeman of the world. It doesn't have a moral highground. It created the largest empire in human history using war famine and genocide.

>The Mongols never attacked someone out of random. There always was a military purpose behind the invasions.

Jesus user, are you sure you are on the right board?

>Czechoslovakia also had a large German population and Germany sought to unite all German people under a single state.
Then German goal was against international law, British interest and good morals (since small amount of people lightly oppresed is lesser evil than ;arge amount of people heavily opressed)

>Using your "logic" NATO would be perfectly justified to start a nuclear war with Russia over the annexation of Crimea
Thats a terrible comparism, since 1)on the Crimea Russians vastly outnumber the rest 2) Putin did not deported non-Russians from it 3) was not Ukraine in NATO

This.

It's funny how these Europeons get all mad when a stronger, "whiter" nation comes and treats them just like they've been treating people of colour throughout the centuries past.

>Nice fantasy real life is not a video game. Hitler didn't want to take over the world that's a ridiculous meme.
Nevertheless, the Nazi administration had lied before and threatened the balance of power in Europe. They did not have the benefit of hindsight and like you said life is not a computer game, they should not wait their turn to 1v1 like antagonists in fighting game singleplayer.

Britain and France had been desperately avoiding war, France having thrown Czechoslovakia under the bus for peace, but would have felt they had no choice but to defend their ally Poland.

Not also declaring against the USSR would have been a hard choice but a pragmatic one, not doing so would at least give the Allies a better chance of achieving their goals. Even as spent as they were Churchill ordered the Joint Planning Staff to consider a drive against the USSR to ensure a fair deal for Poland at the cessation of hostilities in Europe but it was deemed almost impossible with the huge weight of Soviet troops in Europe.

Your point being?

That's my point the common defence pact was Britain intentionally setting the stage for WW2

It means Britain is ultimatelly responsible for WW2

That the Germans were as aggressive as the Mongols and were going to keep on conquering until they were stopped (and that's where glorious Britain, France and Russia came in)

By the end of WWI:

>Austria-Hungary got its Empire completely dismantled
>Russia lost massive amounts of land in the west, precisely where its agriculture flourished the most
>Ottoman Empire ceased to exist, Turks lost control over the middle east
>Bulgaria lost access to the Aegean sea

>Germany retained the core of its Empire, industry and military
>they didn't even pay 1/8th of the debt

the Versailles treaty was too soft. Germany should have been dismembered into 3 or so independent states (each centered around Munich, Berlin and Hanover) and WWII would have never happened.

>glorious Britain, France and Russia
Only Russia was a real contender here. France was humiliated and Britain spent most of the war hiding on their Island. Not to mention that you're forgetting America here, the real winner of WW2.

>it's not germany's fault it can't stop invading countries when britain better aligns itself with close ally france's interests

>they intentionally set it up knowing Germany would ignore their agreement and invade Poland no matter what treaties they signed

Still not seeing how that makes Britain the untrustworthy ones.

>implying Russia didn't spend just as long hiding behind their empty steppes.

>was against international law

Then let the League of Nations take care of this. British war mongering and setting traps to trigger WW2 was a terrible idea

>good morals

Em British Empire...

>Thats a terrible comparism

Not really during the Crimea operation countless pundits in Europe and across the Atlantic made this exact same comparison.

Who would have defended Europe from the threat of Communism? The laughable armies of Britain and France?

are you for real? The soviets were defeated by Poland in 1921. If it wasn't for the Nazis and western funding of their military the communists would never get that far.

Germany was a hegemonical power in central Europe they could do whatever it wanted. I don't like it but this is how the world worked in the 1930s.

As I said above what if Germany declared war on Britain every time there were some minor border changes in colonial Africa?

>Then let the League of Nations take care of this

Lol, good one.

>in colonial Africa

>The soviets were defeated by Poland in 1921.
This was before the Soviets were able to fully manifest their industrial capacity.

>Then let the League of Nations take care of this. British war mongering and setting traps to trigger WW2 was a terrible idea
wew, so when I take a knife, attack someone and someone will come to his defense; the defender is the violent one? Thats some heavy Deutshe morals you got there lad

>Em British Empire...
irrelevant, not to mention British empire could barely compare with the barbarity of Nazis

>Not really during the Crimea operation countless pundits in Europe and across the Atlantic made this exact same comparison
That was just propaganda you silly, countless pundits across the Atlantic can not be taken seriously if they demanded nuclear retaliation against the conquest of Crimea.

>Germany was a hegemonical power in central Europe they could do whatever it wanted.
If the only rule then is might makes right then there is no problem with events as they unfolded.

Yes, Germany destroying the liberal democracies of Europe really helped defend against communism (incidentally, the communists never, during the entire history of the Soviet Union, waged a war on Europe, unlike the Nazis)

>Defensive allianes to stop German warmongering is considered warmongering
wew
>Em British Empire...
Literally did nothing morally wrong. The Germans in their pathetic Namibia killed more people than we did across our entire reach (no, natural disasters like famine and disease don't count). Also, it's always funny to see a stormfag try to take the moral highground.


>colonial africa is equivalent to central europe

>British empire could barely compare with the barbarity of Nazis
Lindybeige, pls.

ITT

>the communists never, during the entire history of the Soviet Union, waged a war on Europe
They militarily occupied half of Europe.

>a World War
>but only in Europe
Surprisingly good post.

wew, you learned the memes good boy

>this thread

youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY

>incidentally, the communists never, during the entire history of the Soviet Union, waged a war on Europe

Uprising of 1953 in East Germany
Prague Spring
Hungarian Revolution of 1956

>Literally did nothing morally wrong.
Come to South Africa and have a talk with the Boers there to hear their opinion on the matter.

>The Germans in their pathetic Namibia killed more people than we did across our entire reach
Isn't Namibia one of the few African countries that isn't complete shit?

>Germany repsected the neutrality of countries to some extent.
What?

> In the meantime the allies were one step from invading Norway made plans to invade neutral Sweden invaded Iceland etc.
So basically what you're saying is
>Germany violently invades/annexes all these neutral countries who just wanted to be left alone
>Allies made plans to invade several countries and are therefore worse
???

ITT people who went to prison for years I order to support Nazi Germany?

>They militarily occupied half of Europe.
....after the nazis killed tens of millions of their people and their country was nearly destroyed.

Was it right? Probably not but they had reason to want a buffer zone after ww2

Keeping control in countries already under their control isn't the same as deliberately drawing France and Britain and America into a world war

Boers did more wrong than us so I don't care what they have to say

>Isn't Namibia one of the few African countries that isn't complete shit?
Yep, because it was incorporated into South Africa for decades. It certainly wasn't due to the helping hands of the Germans en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

>....after the nazis killed tens of millions of their people and their country was nearly destroyed.
Which somehow gave them the right to occupy half of Europe - countries who had millions of their people killed in the war as well?

>Was it right? Probably not but they had reason to want a buffer zone after ww2
Under the same premise you can justify literally any kind of Nazi occupation.

>Under the same premise you can justify literally any kind of Nazi occupation.
No, you can't because the Nazis were the ones who started the war of aggression. Also, the Russians didn't plan to replace the native population of these countries with Russians. They didn't have a Generalplan Ost

>It certainly wasn't due to the helping hands of the Germans en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide
Getting rid of troublemakers improves a country. How do you know it's not BECAUSE of the genocide that the country is better off today?

>Britain and France declare war on Germany in support of their ally Poland whom the Germans invaded
>Britain and France are the aggressors
Naziboo logic?

>No, you can't because the Nazis were the ones who started the war of aggression.
How do you explain Russia attacking Poland then? Not to mention that they somehow ended up in charge of these countries, didn't they?

>Also, the Russians didn't plan to replace the native population of these countries with Russians. They didn't have a Generalplan Ost
And yet they ended up killing even more than the Nazis ever did.

>How do you explain Russia attacking Poland then?

A war of aggression, but they didn't do the same to the rest of Europe like Germany

>And yet they ended up killing even more than the Nazis ever did.
They killed their own people by famine. If you are really trying to suggest they killed more people in their occupied countries than Germany did you are historically illiterate

Remind me how spread was communism before the Second German Chimpout?
And after it?

We did it Patrick! We saved the world from communism!!

>but they didn't do the same to the rest of Europe like Germany
Because Germany stood against them, leading us back to .

There is no evidence at all that Russia had serious plans to invade europe
>inbefore muh Icebreaker
That book has been discredited

What tells you that Communism wouldn't have spread without German intervention? I maintain that it would have spread even worse, because without the German army to stand in the way of Communism it would have taken all of Europe.

>There is no evidence at all that Russia had serious plans to invade europe
They would have with absolute certainty taken over Eastern Europe, and with no Germany in their way there's no reason for them to stop there.

>autist nazis start invading europe
>"OMG WHY DID YOU DECLARE WAR ON US REEEEE"
Fuck off already, Germany started both WW, and got BTFO in both. You should be happy "Germany" hasn't been partitioned or turned into a nuclear wasteland.

>They would have with absolute certainty taken over Eastern Europe, and with no Germany in their way there's no reason for them to stop there.
[citation needed]

Also, Germany's autism led to the soviets occuping half of Europe. Some saviors the germans are

Why would they not take over Eastern Europe? And what would keep them from stopping there? They had no calms attacking Poland and Russia has always been a colonial Empire. The geo-strategic conditions don't change just because Communists are in charge. The Balkans, the Black Sea, all that remains interesting.

And yet Germany is the most important nation in Europe again. Was it only a matter of time?

WWI
>Germany declares war on Russia because they were mobilizing
>No it's Russia's fault for even daring to mobilize, they were provoking them
>Germany declares war on France in spite of the French withdrawing all troops six miles from the German border because they won't hand over two of their cities to show they didn't want to fight
>No it's France fault, they clearly wanted war
>Germany declares war on Belgium, which wasn't even involved in the first place and just happened to be the easiest way into France because France trusted the neutrality of its neighbor
>No it's okay what is national sovereignty, it's everyone's fault, everyone wanted to go to war

WWII
>Britain and France declare war on Germany because Germany has already mobilized and declared war on Poland
>wtf perfidious albion strikes again, Britain and France caused World War 2

Germans, everyone.

>Why would they not take over Eastern Europe?
Because they knew that Italy, France, Britain, Japan and America would ally agains them if they did.

Also, you unironically use this argument yet believe we were wrong to go to war with Germany over their aggressive expansion.

Amazing

>No it's Russia's fault for even daring to mobilize, they were provoking them
It's true though, isn't it?

If you mobilise your army after threatening your neighbour with war you shouldn't be surprised that when he asks you to stop and you don't answer he declares war on you.

>If you mobilise your army after threatening your neighbour with war
Germany skipped the threaten part and went straight to going to war with Poland. If Russia is at fault in World War I than Germany sure is at fault in World War II.

>Italy, France, Britain, Japan and America would ally agains them if they did.
And what are these supposed to do? America is far away. Britain, France and Italy are a joke. Japan has Imperial ambitions elsewhere.

Who said Germany isn't? I'm not the one arguing this. People who argue that Germany is not at fault for the outbreak of WW2 are trolls who are arguing for the purpose of arguing. They're not actually serious.

You seem to be vastly over-estimating the strength of Russia

They were weak when WW2 broke out, but their industrial potential and manpower was massive. And without a strong Germany in the centre of Europe I see nobody to keep them from taking over.

What's the 22nd?

And If ww2 didn't break out then British India would have industrialised faster and Britain would have more industrial power and mapower