Serious question, how is it not hypocritical for Britain and France to call out Germany for invading Poland, when they had imvaded and occupied a third of the world?
I know Veeky Forums has a hate boner for Germany, but seriously, HOW is it not hypocritical?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
the anglo is a perfidious creature, morality is a foreign concept to him
In the greater scope of history, sure, Germany was just another player on the international stage trying their hand at empire after being denied it so many years. But, at the time they did invade Poland it was an extremely provocative act by a country that was supposed to be humbled after already causing one of the world's most destructive wars up to that point.
People took note of it post war notably
Britain and France invaded animal countries
Germany attacked fellow humans
Ah right, I forgot that only countries that have never invaded countries before are allowed or justified in calling out nations that invade their allies.
It is hypocritical.
But the holocaust has been made into the worst thing ever done in the history of mankind in the minds of the average person so they can get away with it.
It's the same with blacks and slavery in the us, it's just a power play. If you can generate guilt you can exploit it, even if the underlying truth of that guilt is false it is still powerful.
Politicians are unabashed hypocrites. It's literally a job requirement.
>be a poorfag
>gets rich by robbing banks
>later, see a poorfag trying to rob a bang
>beat the shit out of him for robbing a bank
what if it is? what are you gonna do, whiteb*i?
How is it not hypocritical for Germany to call out Britain and France for calling out Germany, when they had all invaded and occupied more than a third of the world?
>It's hypocritical to defend your allies
>Stormfag education
>Serious question, how is it not hypocritical for Britain and France to call out Germany for invading Poland, when they had imvaded and occupied a third of the world?
It is hypocritical. That's why their empires broke apart post-war.
Because they had a pact with Poland against invasion from Germany. Germany was a loose cannon in their eyes at that point.
Also land in europe is worth probably 10x that of land in Africa. Funny how the people who bring this up, usually, are the same people who would agree that European and European countries are worth more than the Africans.
The (((official))) history of WW2 is a retarded "Good vs Evil" cartoon for the consumption of the dumb goyim.
I guess it makes sense if you mainly care about white people. It's pretty funny how many modern white nationalists are neo-Nazis. The real Nazis wanted to upset the apple cart and were threatening the stability of the system by which white people dominated the world. They were buttmad because their nation had tried to grab too much of the pie too fast and had been put in its place by older powers. England and France were actually serving white interests and defending traditional European values like having strong civil institutions, love of liberty, and separation of powers at home (while exploiting others, seen as subhuman, overseas).
Why not just say Jewish history if you feel that the history we learn is distorted Jewish propaganda? You look more like a pathetic conspiracy theorist saying things like"(((()))" instead of having the balls to say what you really mean.
Poles are shit-tier subhumand lower than Indians
>History board
>Claiming theres no good vs evil in wars
preaching to the choir.
So what your saying is that westaboos and anti-Germans are the real stormfags
Colonial possesions were never considered "Core" parts of the mother country, German expansion into European territory differed to Britain and France's colonial expansion during the scramble for africa, because the colonies weren't used as extensions of actual territory or industrial strength, Africa had resources, europeans put nations under a rather opressive yoke for those resources, and didn't signifcantly industrialize the regions, meanwhile, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland were all industrialized nations, and by holding them Germany had a significant boost to its ability to wage a war on the continent, which he eventually caused by ignoring the chambeeerlain ulitamtum.
BS, colonies has massive slave labour and natural resources
Slave labour and resources a continent away, Britain, despite her collosal navy and colonial possessions still required injections of war material into the british isles by the Americans, it helped, but having colonial possesions didn't directly help Britain wage a war on the continent, whilst hitler had been waging wars on the continent, and continued to do so, and eventually brought himself directly into confrontation with the two large colonial powers.
How does that not change the fact they were massive hypocrites? Hitler also administered his conquered places as colonies with separate civil administrations.
>it's okay when we invade and occupy lands because it's really really far away!
No, but I certainly think that 1930s England and France were doing a better job of advancing the interests of white people than 1930s Germany was. Decolonialization would have happened one way or another. European culture does tend to move, albeit slowly toward greater respect for human rights - which is why, for example, England abolished slavery in the 1830s. For another thing, that old style of colonialism is not profitable nowadays - given the nature of modern economics, it's hard to even get people to want to move overseas and live in colonies to begin with.
But what the Nazis accomplished was to wreck large parts of the original white homeland and give control of the fate of Europe over to the two peripheral superpowers, the US and the USSR, for the next several decades, without in any way slowing the decline of white power in the world.
So you're basically admitting western powers were the real racists and that westaboos and antinazis that idolise the British and French empires are the real stormtards
and they needed those "animals" to help win the war.
Not really
In WW1 colonial troops were negligible and in WW2 France and Britain were irrelevant
It wasn't really based on morality it was more that Germany was trying to shift the balance of power and England and France were attempting to contain Germany
Partly yes, but that's not the whole picture. I also believe that the British and French ruled their empires more humanely than the Nazis would have ruled theirs.
But it's certainly true that it's silly to idolize the 19th-early 20th century British and French and ignore their colonialism. They were not as brutal in intent as the more sociopathic modern stormtards, but they were certainly successful at spreading white power and virtually all of their leaderships took it for granted that white civilization and/or genetics were superior to those of the other races. I'd call supporters of those empires moderate stormtards.
Cont. It's a bit hard to compare, though, since back then there wasn't really "white" nationalism. There was British nationalism, French nationalism, and so on. Whites were so powerful relative to the rest of the world that they didn't feel any need for a group nationalism that would encompass all the different white subgroups. Modern white nationalism is in large part a response to feeling that the white race is in danger. 19th/early 20th century whites had no reason to feel threatened by any other racial group. They had 1/4th of the world population, more than 1/2 of its economic might, and an enormous scientific/technical advantage.
You're a retard. French colonial troops were instrumental in WW1; and they still relied massively on their resources and economy derived from those colonial possessions.
If Britain didn't own India and Africa, it would have never even stood a chance economic or military-wise to be able to compete with Germany, they wouldn't have had the suez which basically allowed them to move around navies and trade with ease, and they wouldn't have had India which pretty much single gandedly proppedup the economy of their commercial empire.
No offence user, but I think you're kinda a retard who has no idea what he's talking about :/
>How does that not change the fact they were massive hypocrites?
SeePost war the colonies vouched for equal rights and say in their governments and/or independence later on which it grew louder as time passed. Since many people FOUGHT for their colonial masters they felt that they deserved to be treated as full on citizens because they shed blood for the metropole. Also the empire citizenry were becoming more aware and critical about the shit that went on overseas in the colonies and reflecting on that and the shit that went on in WW2. It just became hard to justify treating browns, yellow and blacks like lessers when they fought for you, shot for you and developed wartime bonds with the European citizenry as brother-in-arms.
I believe a notable number of soldiers sympathized with the rising choirs of the colony folk seeking full rights.
White nationalism and white identity is pretty much an American invention cause all European cultures melted together upon arrival and cause America is only like 50-60% white
The bengal famine alone killed 10mil, God knows how many were killed in the brutal way they put down uprisings in Africa over the years.
I'd say the western empires collectively killed more than the nazis.
>it's hard to even get people to want to move overseas and live in colonies to begin with.
Really? Once the place becomes "decent" and cleared out whether softly (natives pushed out to the peripherals of society, barred from locations, restricted movement, polticla and social oppression) or straight up cleanse a place people would come in.
>WW2 France and Britain were irrelevant
Really user?
>I also believe that the British and French ruled their empires more humanely than the Nazis would have ruled theirs.
Not at all. All the shit that Krauts did those two did in several places abroad (genocide being the exception).
>French colonial troops were instrumental in WW1
But they literally had even less of them than Brits did
Over 95% of France's troops during WW1 were whites
Because might makes right, moralfag
Depends on the climate. Australia? Yes. Most parts of Africa? No. Nowadays most people don't even want to live in small towns in their own country, much less move overseas to an untested colony.
>Most parts of Africa? No
People would live in cities which were basically new as hell, explicitly favored whites and most places barred out Blacks officially or indirectly as well as economic dominance. With free shit given out in many colonies as an incentive many whites moved abroad to the African colonies.
>already causing one of the world's most destructive wars up to that point.
You don't actually believe that, do you?
Im prety sure a German didn't shoot archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was also not German.
If you believe that the assassination itself was the sole or even main factor in the outbreak of the world war that followed you're an idiot.
Without German interference the crisis caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand would have fizzled out. Austria-Hungary didn't want, or was prepared for, war with Russia. Russia didn't want to go to war but they had been humiliated so many times in the previous years they had to make a stand somewhere. Germany took a localised and relatively minor situation and brewed it up into a war they thought they could win.
It is, but the good guys (US and USSR) had to align with a bunch of hypocrites to take down Nazi Germany. At least we broke their empires after the war.
Colonies are most of the time loosely controlled and the native elites remain in power. Alsace was more valuable for France than all Africa.
>mobilizing is a declaration of war
>t. Germanic
I don't think you realize how much of an impact that 5% has in an attrition meatgrinder war like WW1
>Russia HAD TO INTERVENE. SOMEONE WAS POINTING A GUN AT THEM, THEY HAD TO ATTACK OVER A MINOR LOCAL POLITICAL ISSUE.
You really made me think there.
>minor political issue
Britain offered protection to merchants, allied tribes and cities from native warlords, British imperialism was unique in that it was morally justified and had local support.
No, but they certain invaded and raped the shit out if Belgium, on the way to launching a surprise attack on France, with the knowledge that Britain would declare war to cone to the aid of both, thereby kicking a minor conflict into a world war.
>No, but they certain invaded and raped the shit out if Belgium
at least not more than during the Napoleontic wars. Germans didn't demolish our churches to sell their building materials.
t. Belgian
>local support
lmao
Foreign policy has little if anything to do with morality. Being "fair" and having an almost pre-historic context about rights and claims and so on is a certain way to get yourself into a mess.
Just try ruling 350 million Poo-in-Loos with just 500 civil servants and 50'000 soldiers without local support.
>supposed to be humbled
:^)
How is invading a European power "calling out" Britain and France?
Go ahead, I'll wait.
>No, but they certain invaded and raped the shit out if Belgium
allied propaganda. They did some questionable shit, but nowhere near the scale of what the eternal anglo wants you to believe
Oh, well that makes it all fine then.
no, but you're deluded if you think the British entered the war as champions of justice to save them poor belgians getting gassed by them demonic Germans
British weren't "the good guys" until roughly when they'd been booted out of France by Kraut Autists; they were an Imperial Power who had mistreated and massacred many, many people for the sake of clay and were absolute not champions of justice or whatever the fuck people like to pretend.
However an argument can definitely be made that since early WW2 to the current day they have been exactly that, with their only major cockup in moral terms being the retarded way that they handled the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and even then the Loyalists on NI are more to blame than the British themselves.
British are more like the villain of movie 1 who then in movie 2 team up with the protagonist to beat down the SUPER villain
>But what the Nazis accomplished was to wreck large parts of the original white homeland and give control of the fate of Europe over to the two peripheral superpowers, the US and the USSR, for the next several decades, without in any way slowing the decline of white power in the world.
Isn't this better for the world? Why should one ethnic group get to dominate over the other in a brief lapse of technological superiority?
Places China and India were more advanced than most of Europe for millennia but they would have never had the chance to ever contribute to the world again if they remained under European control. Overall imo I'd say the lase of European dominance was a detriment to mankind as a whole.
* lapse
* was a detriment to mankind as a whole similar to the Mongols
It's only wrong when it's an "inferior" race like Indians or Africans. Attack whitey and it's a crime against humanity.
>the rest of the world that they didn't feel any need for a group nationalism that would encompass all the different white subgroups. Modern white nationalism is in large part a response to feeling that the white race is in danger.
Really.... not the fact that 1/3rd of the world population was white?
Implying the British were the 'villains' of WWI is absurd. WWI is literally the one war we fought in where we dindu nuffin. All we did was honour a treaty we had signed with Belgium, protested its independence and that of France, with whom we had backed in the Moroccan crisis and signed the Entente Cordiale with - a public show of support prior to the war.
all you did was maintain the balance of power on a continent that is not even yours to begin with and as a result causing the death of millions and affecting the lives in a negative way of millions more after the war
and take some colonies of course
Is the argument really "Why didnt France and GB let Germany have its European lebensraum and hegemony?"
What interest did they have in staying idle in this conflict, after already abandonning one of their ally?
>Tee hee I'm not touching you
t. Russians and Frogs
You are acting as if France didn'try to assert a hegemony over Germany and over europe as a result. What interest does GB have in an European land war? Staying idle is more in their interest.
This is wrong. Poland, Czechoslovakia were both created at Versailles for two reasons. Wilson wanted self determination and Clemanceau wanted Germany weakened and surrounded by enemies.
Czhekoslovakia gained sudetendland which was German by ethnicity and had 60% of the Czheck economy in it. The representatives gained this chunk of land at Parks literally by arguing the state wouldn't be able to be economically viable without it. Clemenceau supported them because it removed an industrial area from Germany as well as a chunk of manpower.
Poland gained the corridor as well as Solesia for similar reasons. Which resulted in roughly 10% manpower reduction in German military strength and industrial output As well as making Poland and Czechoslovakia economically sustainable.
Austria was forbidden from joining Germany despite popular support for it within Austria.
The anchluss was merely self determination. The annexation of Sudetenland and parts of Poland even had supporters in British and French leadership.
The Czhec state collapsed with its economic inviability after Munich and Slovakia left so Hitler moved in to the vacuum violating his deal with Chamberlain and making Chamberlain look foolish and weak threatening his control over parliament and forcing him to take a hard line in the future. The French were internally not strongly against Hitters demands for Poland but were willing to let British make the decision .
The war wasn't really a deliberate attempt by Hegelian character states to stop Germany as much as the accidental result of 40 years of the political systems and personal ambition doing their work.
>The annexation of Sudetenland and parts of Poland even had supporters in British and French leadership.
sauce
what is the Munich agreement?
Mussolini didn't want war in1939 and made overtures to have a second Munich. The French wanted it but decided to leave their answer to match Chamberlain. You can look it up in Shirer I believe. But really guys like Petain didn't even want the alliance with Britian and the why die for danzig group was politically significant.
>WWI is literally the one war we fought in where we dindu nuffin
>Continued the blockade after the war ended
>Attempted to overthrow the legitimate government of Greece
>Invented the Zimmerman telegraph to draw in America
already dipping into conspiracy theory.
>LMAO IT'S WRONG JUST BECAUSE
Do you people even bother to learn the history of the "imperialist pig dogs" you complain about so much?
>Hey Germany, if you invade our ally Poland we will declare war
>invades Poland
>somehow Germany is the victim of British hypocrisy
Stormfags need to leave
Zimmerman admitted to sending the telegram publicly
>yfw Germany got Flim Flammed by the Zimzam
>love of (((liberty)))
>separation of powers
>traditional European values
Maybe on your little island, Nigel, but the rest of Europe realised the value of having a strong, centralised state that wasn't subject to the whims of peasants (excepting the ones that had been hijacked by radical leftists, of course).
>The Czhec state collapsed with its economic inviability after Munich and Slovakia left so Hitler moved in to the vacuum violating his deal with Chamberlain and making Chamberlain look foolish and weak threatening his control over parliament and forcing him to take a hard line in the future.
Germany invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia on March 15th 1939 after threatening to bomb Prague. Why do you lie?