ITT: baddies that got away

>start a war
>get your shit slapped
>wtf all of our infrastructure is destroyed and nobody likes us anymore fucking war criminal allies gibs me dats *smacks lips*

all germans should be executed

Churchill had a hard-on for Muslims and hate boner for Hindus.Even his own family thought he might convert to Islam.

>telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11314580/Sir-Winston-Churchill-s-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html

All communists.
Although folks like Trotsky did get what they deserved, although by their own kin.

Start shit get hit Hans, united Germany was a mistake for everyone

>For forty-three years of my conscious life I have remained a revolutionist; for forty-two of them I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again I would of course try to avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist. My faith in the communist future of mankind is not less ardent, indeed it is firmer today, than it was in the days of my youth. Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.

L. Trotsky

27 February 1940
Coyoacan.

>dude commies are evil lmao

t. Jean-Luc Pierre Martin

>butthurt brits immediately and viciously attacking germans and germany
You guys are gonna cause the next world war at this rate, keep it up.
Eitherway, he's still a war criminal, he killed people needlessly.

...

Why is the "Germany started WWI" meme getting stronger? I thought it would eventually die off, but it's gotten to the point nobody even contests it anymore

Do you guys read?

They invaded Belgium with their military in order to attack France, what do you prefer to label this as?

Did Germany force Russia to meddle in Austro-serbian affairs? Did France come to Russia's aid because "omg I love them

>wasn't reelected

Lolwut

>Did Germany force Russia to meddle in Austro-serbian affairs?
Germany pushed Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia because they thought it was the perfect time for a war, before Russia manages to industrialize which was bound to happen soon.

this motherfucker right here

>Germans

You can hate Churchill for his treatment of Bengali Indians, or his useless sacrifice of ANZACs at Gallipolli.

He did nothing wrong concerning Germans though.

Having to make a hard value judgment on who gets food that gets people killed as a result =/= herding Pajeets into a gas chamber and laughing while they die

As someone already pointed out, nobody pushed Germany to enter what could have been a conflict between two superpowers.

They got involved by pushing A-H to invade Serbia, and dragged France and the UK with them.

Point still stands. No one was innocent in that war. There were interests for all parties involved. Europe had been mobilizing for that kind of war for decades. To put the blame solely on Germany is to be very naive.

>no one was innocent

No one is equally at blame either, and Germany was miles more responsible than the UK, France, and even Russia were.

You can't fucking read?

He fucked up the empire and blundered through WWI and WWII fucking wasted. He would have made a great imperial journalist but was a shitty statesman. He like most people in the 20th century have only been lionised because that century was so devoid of real heroes

he didn't got away?

>No one is equally at blame either

Yes, they are. What's with that passive-aggresive thinking? "if I just pretend to react to them I can't be in the wrong since I didn't start anything!" lol

Do you think Germany wanted to sabotage Russia just for the laughs or because of conflicting interests, and had Russia the chance they would do the same? Are you going to deny the French interests in seeking revenge plus reclaiming territory, and Britain's interests in containing Germany's growth which had already been threatening their overseas hegemony?

No one in that war acted out of "duty" to their offended allies. They all believed it would be quick and painless and that there was more to gain than to lose in that war, only to be proven terribly wrong. And, when they did, they needed someone to blame. Woe to the vanquished.

To say that Germany is more responsible in WW2, where the allies except maybe the USA were still scarred by WW1 and didn't want to do it again, is fair, but in WW1? That's nuts. It was the logical conclusion to the imperialist development up until then. There was no other possible outcome, and I'm not a fatalist.

He most likely died natural death.

He did some questionable shit but he most certainly wasn't a 'baddie'

>"if I just pretend to react to them I can't be in the wrong since I didn't start anything!"
Is the same thinking for WW2. Only much worse.

>everybody is equally at blame for WW1

That's the historical misconception there is, desu, along with "Versailles was too harsh".

Kike shill detected.

>only much worse
Then it's not the same thing, is it?

WW2 was an actual reaction. Remember european governments actually liked Hitler when he hadn't yet shown his belligerent face. They had no interest in attacking Germany, and were dragged into war because the Nazis wouldn't stop before total hegemony. Unlike in WW1, there was no imperialist or nationalist background to justify the Third Reich's stance - no other European nation except maybe the USSR wanted a war, they simply could not afford it.

By the time Hitler invaded Poland, the Treaty of Versailles was pretty much irrelevant as he had already disregarded most of it and the allies didn't utter a word, so no saying that they forced his hand. Of course the Treaty was very unfair, but that only confirms the previous interests of the Entente.

Also, remember that even after Germany invaded Poland the Allies didn't do much about it, the infamous Sitzkrieg. Shit only got serious after Paris fell and they knew the Germans weren't kidding.

tl;dr They only wanted to destroy the Nazi government after it showed itself to be impossible to coexist in peace, in contrast with WW1 where they did NOT want to coexist in peace as every nation wanted to be "the best"

>n. Remember european governments actually liked Hitler
Fake. They didn't

Well bombing German civilians and killing and destroying more in one night than Germany ever did to Britain but I guess it's ok to kill millions if it pleases your Jewish overlords.

Whether or not it was justified, Versailles and French treatment of Germany after the great war was begging for a retaliation. The best approach to a defeated enemy is to offer them a hand up, not spit in their face and step on their balls.

Better to turn an enemy into a steadfast ally, if you respectfully destroy them in combat and show them mercy, most nations would accept it and mostly move on, only someone as petty and arrogant as Jews would then plot to inflict further suffering upon their new ally.

Sow the seeds, reap the whirlwind.

When did this Nazi Lives Matter shit spring up? "So what if he came at them with a knife? they didnt have to him him, they could have shot the knife out of his hands! He dindu nuffin!" "So what if they attacked first, the Allies didnt need to destroy their capacity to wage war, they were good boys who just wanted mo' clay for dat lebensraum!" its the exact same bullshit.

Reagan.

Churchill could have accepted a truce, saved millions of lives and kept the British empire intact, entry into the war was a deliberate attempt to kill off much of the European population, kike.

>implying any of those things were possible
>"kike"
Are you 12?

...

(OP) #
The recent liberal obsession with demonising Hitler is very annoying.

My first history lesson at uni, Hitler came up, immediately this liberal whiny cunt started saying how he hates Hitler because he was an anti-semite

Like fuck if you're going to start judging everyone by those standards why the fuck are you doing history

>implying Hitler and Churchill are even remotely similar
3/10 made me reply

they have more in common than you think Nigel

Explain how they're not.

Churchill was a mentally ill racist racial-supremacist warmonger who genocided 11 million Indians. How is Hitler worse for killing 6 million Jews? Is a Jewish life worth more than an Indian life?

Go fuck your self.

Sorry for the unrelated question, but would you happen to be a Marxist or Communist of some variety?

he's worse than either. he's a liberal. note the smug, assured self-diagnosis of dead figures because he read wikipedia guys and is cultured and """wise beyond his years'""

No, I'm a Radical Centrist, also a National Catholicist, like Franco

>strawmanning and ad hominems

Shouting "liberal!!" at everyone is not an argument, you intellectual dunce

Tangently related.
Is they're any truth to those nasty rumors about Ike?

or, Hitler could of not annexed multiple countries before invading both Poland and France you fucking mental hemeroid.

>hurr durr Hitler dindu nuffin

He's a Wehraboo.

>Churchill could have accepted a truce

Because Germany would have totally not violated that in a few years when they were in a better position to crush Great Britain?

Versailles, the non-aggression pact with the USSR, splitting Poland, the annexation of Czechoslovakia, probably more, yep, ol' pussy stach will totally not break this treaty when he can, yup, yup.

Does it have something to do with the visual and feeling center of the brain being numbed by constant contact with alcohol or are you just born stupid

>Implying he wasn't the only good guy in the Second world war.

>he killed people needlessly

pretty sure Churchill never killed anyone lad.

That's what the armed forces were for.

He was just a henchman for the real villain, the british empire.

Implying.
The british didn't even ration their food and when Canada wanted to relieve the indians with 10 000 tons of what they got shut down by Churchill. It was apparently 'poor economics'. Churchill was an ass.

...

>because he was a racist
racism against Europeans isn't normally a concern of liberals mate

favorite nephew of uncle joe

Its not a liberal obsession. Its just a historically justified to say that this guy was pretty much a failure and most anyone would have done a better job. A good amount of time has passed, so people can analyze the goings on in the world at that time, what different countries were doing, and the evidence available to them. Churchill was more lucky than anything else.