Looking back, was guaranteeing Poland against Germany the biggest blunder in world history...

Looking back, was guaranteeing Poland against Germany the biggest blunder in world history, or just the biggest blunder in British history?

>Nazi Germany expanding in Europe using unsustainable levels of spending and a retarded fascist system
>Safe from any invasion on the island
>Decide not to get involved between Germany, Poland, and Russia
>Poland divided up between two unsustainable retarded systems
>Germany collapses within a decade
>Britain keeps it's entire empire, has freedom to do whatever it wants with weakened Europe, which was the goal of it's European foreign policy since forever

Instead:

>Guarantee Poland
>Go to war with nothing to gain
>Get rekt, depend on Americans for money, aid
>Grueling war, get lucky that some nips made a hilariously unwise play in the pacific and Germany makes another hilariously unwise play by declaring war on the USA in response
>End up so beaten and in debt and just demoralized that the empire falls apart
>Germany is the European superpower today anyway

What if Hitler managed to defeat Soviet Union? Then he would control all of Europe and Britain would be fucked

>Germany collapses within a decade
You don't know that, and neither did they

Letting Germany get what it wants WAS the official British policy ever since Hitler got to power. At some point after Czechoslovakia was destroyed in 1939 they simply realized that Hitler will stop at nothing and that ignoring him would do more harm than good.

You also fail to understand what was the official British policy towards the continent for more than 200 years. Never, under any circumstances allow another power's hegemony over Europe. WW2 was the last practice of such policy.

What if the US didn't get involved in the war and the Soviets defeated Germany without them? The Soviets would control all of Europe and Britain would be fucked.

I dont think Brits thought thar russians could takle whole europe. Remember, they had no idea that France would lose so quickly.

Britain was on the decline anyway, liberal ideas had died and the government was nationalising many industries. We lost our splendid isolation long before ww2

What if Churchill used Alistair Crowley to summon Lucifer? It's just as likely as your scenario

We should have just let Stalin and Hitler bleed eachother to death and then march into Berlin and Moscow

>a retarded fascist system
>two unsustainable retarded systems
Please explain how authoritarian state capitalism with a military hierarchy is unsustainable.
It seems like you do not know what you are talking about.

>Nazi Germany expanding in Europe using unsustainable levels of spending and a retarded fascist system
>It's a lolbertarians economics episode
M8 the Nazis privatized industry and did limited Keynesian programs. Their economic programs from German economists like Hjalmar Schacht did not lead to a war economy in design.

That is a total falsity.

It was actually a pretty reasonable step in terms of deterrence from London's perspective. They guaranteed the independence of Poland not it's territorial integrity, giving Germany a clear indication of where the red line had been drawn while remaining rather open for a reasonable appeasement with the Danzig problem and minor border adjjstments. And London had reason to be both confident in their positionsin Europe - they saw themselves to have reached the point of being aufficiently defensible against GER in terms of the arms race by mid 1939 and the FR-UK-PL axis promised to be rather unpleasant to take on at the same time - while also being keenly aware of how thinly their resources were spread elsewhere, most notably the Far East.


tl,dr a reasonable move at a time when they felt they had the stronger hand

>splendid isolation
what are you talking about m80, invading and colonizing a quarter of the worlds landmass and a fifth or its population is not splendid isolation, its imperium. furthermore briton has never been isolationist, it has always sought to maintain a balance of power in europe so that no other power could emerge from europe to threaten the empire.

>implying keynesian economics are good
get mcnuked

um no, they spent a fucking ridiculous amount on rearmament and got into a hilarious amount of debt that they were never going to pay off. they straight up lied both about the state of their finances and unemployment and the economy in general. the whole thing was pretty much headed for collapse and a second depression but they started the war before it could happen.

Just remember that Child Sex Slavery does not violate the NAP.

Schacht was kicked out in 1938 when Hitler started going full war-economy.

No the biggest blunder was not protecting chezkoslovakia.
But there were a lot of huge blunders, such as not actually helping Poland, telling Poland not to mobilize, sending troops to Norway instead of invading Germany.

Hind sight sure is 20/20

Although, by Hitler's logic, they would be obligated to war with the Soviets as well, since how else would Polish independence be guaranteed? It was just so crazy it just might work. Of course the Brits never really cared about Poland, so the gambit was declined.

>hitler privatized

Actually they did the opposite and federalized vast segments of industry, in what was essentially a state capitalism.

>slavery
>holding people against their will by force
>doesn't violate the NAP

Explain.

Well we know now with perfect hindsight that Hitler was privately prepared to back down over the Rhineland. Appeasement wasn't necessary at all, but made sense for domestic issues in France and Britain (don't know why the french get a free pass on the guaranteeing BS either, someone explain that to me).

Think about it this way - if you can't trust Nazi Germany to respect agreements, why make peace with them? If they are just manipulating the goodwill of international agreements to militarize further, why let them?

Staying in the war post fall of France meant the tried and true naval blockade (it worked for napoleon), and the power projection Britain had worldwide and in the Mediterranean was throttling to Germany, even if we judge nowadays that it accomplished nothing but hasten the empires fall.

I think it all comes down to two things - British interests in the continent (specifically keeping enemies weak in the channel and north sea for obvious reasons) and post war (us and soviet) propaganda - ''Oh the Brits abandoned you poles, never mind the fact we invaded you together with Hitler and did some really shitty stuff like the Warsaw Rising.'' ''FDR and the hawks wanted the empire out of the way, but not for Germany to win and take all. Down with redcoat imperialist scum (but be sure to build American bases around the world post war).''

Britain was a going power regardless, I don't so much believe in the Thucydides trap stuff but the USSR and/or the USA was eventually going to demand she give up her imperial role.
Europe wouldn't have been in a permanently weakened state had the British not intervened.

The Germans would have coagulated or the USSR would have drawn it's border far further to the west than that line drawn when connecting Stettin and Trieste.

And that sure worked out for them

It worked very well for centuries.

Unfortunately the world has gone to pot since the end of empire. Rule the liberals and fuck the whites!

>End up so beaten and in debt and just demoralized that the empire falls aparteducation
>stormfag

Meanwhile, in reality:
>Empire still intact after the war
>Only destroyed a generation later
>Done voluntarily by a bunch of retarded communists
>Still have millions of people living in its overseas territories until 1997

...

Children lack the mental capacity to understand and sign contracts, therefore they have no rights as free individuals and are property. You can do whatever I want to your property, especially sell it.
Read Rothbard.

>biggest blunder in British history
Irish war of Independence was pretty spectacularly dumb.

>Minor guerrilla uprising in one of your colonies
>Put mental patients and criminals in uniform
>Send them to execute civilians of that country as reprisals for guerrilla killings
>Literally turn the entire country against you as you slaughter the children and neighbors of impartial and neutral people
Honestly the entire strategy of the British in that war was so braindead I wonder if they wanted Ireland to win and gain independence, but wanted an excuse to kill some innocent Irish civilians one last time.

>Honestly the entire strategy of the British in that war was so braindead I wonder if they wanted Ireland to win and gain independence, but wanted an excuse to kill some innocent Irish civilians one last time.

british policy in ireland/Northern-Ireland in the 19th-20th century was like this it seemed

like the whole Bloody Sunday thing, (or numerous similar incidents), it's like the British did everything they could possibly do to alienate people.

even the US national guard isn't this bad, (at most they shot some college students or butt-stroked/pistolwhipped/poked-with-sheathed-bayonet) people.

>What if Hitler managed to defeat Soviet Union
Impossible

>t.brainlets

>Looking back, was guaranteeing Poland against Germany the biggest blunder in world history, or just the biggest blunder in British history?

No
But Brits sure were clever to use Belgium as an excuse as retards a century later still seem to beloeve it was the reason why they fought that war

>if

Nigga Britain was completely bankrupt after the war, their entire gold reserves had been given away to the US in exchange for aid. They gave up the empire because they knew they could never defend it.

Countries don't get "dragged" into war due to diplomatic guarantees, little child user. You can always, you know, break your promise. Britain guaranteed Poland because it wanted to go to war.

They absolutely do. If the brits had made that agreement and then welched on it, it would have been a massive sign of weakness on the world stage.

Not him, but you know the colonies operated on seperate budgets and only started recieving financial aid from Britain after the war, right?

Excellent argument there, friendo. You sure proved us wrong.

I've got a different question.
What if USA and Uk just said Stalin to go fuck himself and let him fight Hitler alone. Let's say from 1943 onwards when it was obvious that he's going to defeat Stalin.
He'd say "give me half of Europe" and they would say "no"
He'd say "open the second front" and they would say "sure but in Yugoslavia"

Or slightly less dramatic variant. About the so-called western betrayal I keep hearing that Roosevelt and Churchill had no choice but to give Stalin what he asks because he was fighting the hardest. But what if they weren't giving him what he wants? Let's ignore for a moment that FDR was fascinated with Stalin and had an actual Soviet spy as his advisor. It's not like Stalin would simply make peace with Hitler.

>What is the Mau Mau rebellion
>What is the Malayan emergency

Go read a book retard

>Go to war with nothing to gain

They didn't go to war, they just declared it and sat on their asses for years before doing anything meaningful