Why did he like communism so much?

What are you even trying to say? Britain and France made it clear that they would support Poland.

>go along breaking every single treaty you sign
>go along attacking countries left and right, stealing their shit and giving it to your backers
>attack a nation even though you knew it had a defensive alliance with two other nations
>whine and bitch when those nations don't break their treaty with their friend and declare war on you
Are you a fascist by any chance?

That the entities that 'plunged europe into war' did not include germany.

Germany's aggressive foreign policy and lack of respect for its own agreements was responsible for the war. Hitler KNEW that Poland was guaranteed by France and Britain and decided to attack anyway knowing fully well the consequences of such a course of action.

It was Germany's actions that plunged Europe into war, had Germany not invaded Poland there would have been no ww2 in Europe.

>I warned you not to buy that pair of socks.
>If you hadn't tried to buy that pair of socks, I wouldn't have tried to kill you.
>You forced me to try to kill you.
Sure thing...

if you're assaulting someone and a cop tells you to stop or he'll shoot you, but you don't so he shoots you was it his fault or yours?

>invading a country is like "buying socks" when poor widdle Hitwer does it
>but when DA EBIL ALLIED BULLIES do it it's MURDER
The absolute fucking state of stormfags, holy shit.

It's more like
>I warned you not to kill my friend
>you hadn't tried to kill my friend, I wouldn't have tried to kill you
>you forced me to try to kill you

>Invading other countries is just like socks
It's good to know the rule about high levels of discourse is being respected

Don't care. Your analogy is flawed.

The countries invaded by germany were treated as clay, therefore they are socks.
The only legitimate reason to war is to take clay or to kill political enemies.

These were not the goals of france or britain.

>The countries invaded by germany were treated as clay, therefore they are socks

There is a cost associated with obtaining them, and germany paid the cost and gained possession.

>okay I admit that Germany was power-hungry and that they saw the people they attacked as """clay"""
>and I admit that killing political enemies is a legitimate reason for war
>BUT HITLER WASN'T A POLITICAL ENEMY EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ATTACKING FRANCE/BRITAINS FRIENDS
>WAHHHH POLAND WAS JUST SOCKS HITLER DINDUNUFFIN

>The countries invaded by germany were treated as clay, therefore they are socks.
i can't even begin to imagine the level of mental retardation required to conjure up, type out, proofread, and still feel satisfied enough to hit submit such a response

>might makes right okay? forget everything I said before that's where the goalposts are now deal with it fag
>we're just gonna take your shit fagg, try n' stop us lol o wait u can't
>LOL WTF WHAT DO YOU MEAN ""WE'RE DEFENDING OUR ALLY"" THAT'S NOT A REAL REASON FOR WAR
>EVIL IMPERIALIST WARMONGERS STOPSTOPSTOP WE WANT PEACE PEACE PEAAAAACEE

>If I just assert that the goalposts have been shifted, then I don't have to address the argument actually being made
WEW

That's a bit like the ussr and prc being political enemies. It's absurd.
Fuck off.

The analogy is valid.

>wanting to take people's shit is a valid reason for war but defending your friends from having their shit taken is not

Odd how they didn't declare war on russia for buying the right sock, but got all upity over germany buying th left sock.
It's almost like their justifications don't match their actions.

Typical historically illiterate stormfag. Did you put even a single ounce of original thought into this or are you just repeating whatever horseshit /pol/ tells you to believe?

Rub some neurons together for once in your life and look at the situation with a critical eye. They barely had the resources to contain Germany and you ask "well why didn't they declare war on another major country as well"??? Well they had plans in place but absolutely no way to carry them out so all that declaring war on the Soviets would do was just cement the Russo-German alliance. It's a good thing they didn't because Hitler's backstabbing nature eventually undermined that alliance and led to Allied victory.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike

>T-they w-were gonna do something about it eventually
Or... they were warmongering and feared having a neighbor in the region several times more powerful then themselves.
They were warmongering to ensure that they could warmonger more effectively in the future.

If they were warmongering they would have kicked the shit out of Germany after the Rhineland, and they should have if only so insipid little wehraboos like yourself finally had a point

Also quit with the pathetic "sock" analogy you fucking idiot, nobody here is brainwashed enough to believe it except you.

>defending an ally from an aggressive totalitarian neighbor who has been warned many, many times is "warmongering"
>MUH CAW-MEES whataboutism
>France and Britain should have declared war on a country half a continent away which they had no means of effectively hurting in the middle of handling a far nearer and more militarized neighbor
>lol I'm just gonna ignore that they actually had anti-soviet plans in place and even began executing them because that hurts my narrative
Yup, no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Goebbels would be proud.

I see, so they declared war against a nation they were weaker than to 'protect their friend', but then didn't declare war on this other nation that they were weaker than because the right sock wasn't worth 'protecting'.
Come on now.

You're a fuckwit

Realpolitik

>>France and Britain should have declared war on a country half a continent away which they had no means of effectively hurting in the middle of handling a far nearer and more militarized neighbor
Fun fact, supply lines exist. Fun fact, germany was able to put supply lines into poland.
But that would have been too difficult for both Britain, the common wealth, and france...

Independent of whether or not their warmongering was legitimate or not, or even warmongering. You can not deny that they caused world war 2.
They were content to leave the right sock, but not the left.

>Fun fact, supply lines exist
This isn't HoI4 fuckhead, they can't just console in better infrastructure and more equipment for a campaign into the Soviet interior. Go and ask Germany how it went

Germany didn't have a global empire though.

>But that would have been too difficult for both Britain, the common wealth, and france.
Is this meant to be sarcastic or something? What the fuck is even your point? Yes, supply lines exist, what does that have to do with anything? You think that the Allies could have just "put supply lines into Poland" despite not sharing a border and being at war with the country in between? How would they have done it, through the U-Boat and Kriegsmarine infested North Sea, within artillery and aircraft range of Germany but OUT of Allied air cover? Or maybe they should have taken what already insufficient troops they had away from France and put them into a sneak attack of the Caucasus through Syria? Oh wait, they actually DID try that, they put bombers in Iraq and Syria in an attempt to deal with the "right sock" that you think they ignored.

You aren't addressing my point at all, in fact like the ideologically blinded moron you are you're actually helping me.

>You can not deny that they caused world war 2.
Yes, I can, because they did not start WWII. Germany started WWII, you cannot deny this.

>MUH SOCKS

How is that going to change the railway guage, improve the road network or prevent the Soviets moving their industry into the interior?

Also take into account that at the time Germany was seen as the clear and present danger in Europe. Defending Poland from Russia (which would be laughable given the reasons you just mentions) would have made it that much more difficult to ally with them against the Germans.

Don't forget the tremendous cost of having to move supplies even if you have a usable port to move them in as well as the ass load of submarines you're going to have hunting your supply ships.

>clay
>socks

I bet your 13, go back to HOI4

Moving industry to the Uralic interior might not be so helpful when your enemy is coming through Central Asia and the Caucus Mtns., able to navally dominate the Black and Baltic seas and can secure Vladivostok
I'm being disingenuous of course. The real and obvious reason that Britain and France attacked Germany and not the USSR was the power of the communist parties, and the left in general, in those countries, as well as the suppression of the fascists by the state.

>CPGB
>Powerful
>60,000 members at its peak and a grand total of 1 MP
Fucking pathetic

holy shit my sides

this thread is too good

So this is what god tier trolling is like. Thank you user, you are clearly the wise master.

>He actually believes that the soft power of the interwar left was contained solely to the communist parties.

Don't pretend that there wasn't a socialist milieu in interwar Britain and that this milieu had no power.
Bristling at the mention of Fabians will only emphasise how ideologically close you all are, for all the bickering.

>Fucking pathetic

Good thing you didn't look up the French party. Probably because you know that the communists led the drive towards a 'Popular Front' coalition with their 'enemies' the liberals and reformists.

Because the French Communists were actually popular, the CPGB had trouble winning against the fucking BUF and after 1920 Labor wanted nothing to do with them

>CPGB had trouble winning against the fucking BUF

That's how you know that the CPGB was a joke. They were having a hard time with that autistic fuck Mosley.

The argument I'm making is that Britain and France attacked Germany and not the Soviets because they had better lines of communication with the USSR via the Comintern aligned parties.
These were in contact with the wider socialist movement in Western Europe, which included many important figures and friends of important figures, often members of parliament for the Labour party or Socialist deputies, as well as those people who wrote, as opposed to the people who were written about.
All those other posts are not me.

>The real and obvious reason that Britain and France attacked Germany and not the USSR was the power of the communist parties, and the left in general, in those countries, as well as the suppression of the fascists by the state.
>Britain and France attacked Germany and not the Soviets because they had better lines of communication with the USSR via the Comintern aligned parties.

Yeah faggot, just ignore my post here about the strategic reasoning of the Allied high command and how what you're saying is utterly wrong in every way. Just fall back to your whataboutism like you always do when criticized and pretend that their decisions were orchestrated by the insignificant commies in those countries. "yeah it was totally possible and a good idea for them to attack the USSR even while the Germans were blitzing through Belgium"

You're pathetic and nobody here is falling for your shit, all you've done is make a fool of yourself and show you don't know what you're talking about. Stormniggery should be a bannable offense on Veeky Forums.

Except the communist parties that aligned with the USSR opposed declaring war on Germany too because of the MR pact, but who cares lol socks

Your doing gods work user. Keep triggering these normies.

>Your doing gods work
>your doing
/pol/ isn't sending their best

>Because the French Communists were actually popular

Popular with the chamber of deputies, I'll agree.
They had their supporters, but don't piss about pretending that their power was not derived primarily from the fact that socialists and 'radicals' were willing to work with them in parliament.

>the CPGB had trouble winning against the fucking BUF

I enjoy how desperate you are to attribute the BUF's lack of defeat to the inadequacy of the communists, its very pious of you.

>after 1920 Labor wanted nothing to do with them

Which means that never ever did any Labour figures speak to any communists, that every entryist was purged, that Labour started campaigning against socialism rather than maintaining that they were its real representatives against Bolshevik caesarism.

He didn't like communism

ITT retards

>this guy adopts Keynesian policies to make sure the agricultural industry doesn't fail
>HE MUST BE A SOCIALIST AHHHH

underrated post

The French communists had 800.000 official members, that's a huge fucking difference from a pathetic high of 60,000 in 1945 for the CPGB

>socks
>supply lines into Poland

Not my posts, already said this.
All you have talked about is the military and logistical considerations of a campaign into the USSR, as though declaring hostilities necessitates immediate action.
The USSR invaded an Allied nation and Britain and France did not declare war. They declared war on Germany. This was because Britain and France could not have relied upon the full support of the population without appeasing the communists and the milieu which propped them up.

*Except the party functionaries.

>that's a huge fucking difference from a pathetic high of 60,000 in 1945 for the CPGB

And nobody pretends that the PCF ever contained the entire French socialist left, not even the radical left, even though they traditionally held the lion's share of the latter category.
Or are you trying to argue that there were only 60,000 people in Britain who would have passively or actively resisted had the call been given to attack the USSR?

>adopts literal marxist central planning / economic policies
>why do you guys keep calling him a communist???
Really? Are you being serious right now?

I am socks user, and this user has articulated my point in a way that is far more competent.

/thread

...

>FDR has Congress set literal production quotas for wheat
>Ohio farmer grows wheat to use on own farm
>Federal government fines him for exceeding quota
>8 Supreme Court justices, appointed by FDR based on whether they would support him, said this was fine and that the federal government can regulate pretty much anything anywhere

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Germany being in the wrong doesn't make him less of a Communist sympathizer. He let the situation with the Soviets start down a terrible path when he should have been trying to isolate and stop them from the start. He tied the hands of future administrations and his actions led to countries falling to communism and millions dying.

>Britain and France could not have relied upon the full support of the population without appeasing the communists and the milieu which propped them up
You're really overestimating how much of a shit the non-comintern aligned parties gave about Stalin, what the Stalinists got up to in Spain was fresh in their minds

...

Some I assume are good newfags

He was a communist.

I can't believe I'd ever hear someone say something as retarded as stating that FDR was a communist.

But now I have.

>but it wasn't real communism
WEW

the New Deal never happened, but it SHOULD have

t. stalin

t. atheistic Jew

You either don't understand how t. works, or you don't know the history of jews and socialism/statism/communism.

or you're too dumb to get the joke I was making in the first place

>progressives are communists

Weren't they cute? They had no idea that they would one day become the saviours of Western civilisation.

he liked Hitler's policies more

That I am an atheist jew for implying that advocates of communism and communist advocates are communists?
Because that's what your statement meant.

Are you sure you understand how terveisin works?

>but it wasn't real communism
It wasn't any kind of Communism, he was a Liberal through and through.

Don't be so autistic as to pretend to not know the difference.

>Charles Coughlin was a communist
>Roosevelt was a communist
>communism is when the government does things

>thinking there is a difference

This isn't /pol/, your ideological gaslighting means absolutely nothing.

American education is indeed fucked up after all.

I know what the claimed differences are, it's jsut that from a practical/moral/philosophical/legal/logistical standpoint the differences don't matter.
Basically the only differences that are real are the spellings.

>it's jsut that from a practical/moral/philosophical/legal/logistical standpoint the differences don't matter.
Don't criticise what you can't understand. There are as many variations and historical examples of leftist politics as there are of the right, or of any variation. I don't go around claiming Thatcher and Franco were one and the same, so at least give yourself some basic intellectual credibility and accept that everything you stand against doesn't have to be bad for the same few basic reasons. Comparing FDR and Stalin is as daft as comparing Trump to Hitler and you know that.

>Comparing FDR and Stalin is as daft as comparing Trump to Hitler and you know that.
If you ignore that hitler was a statist/leftist, then the comparisons are fairly reasonable.
Meanwhile with fdr and stalin, you don't even need any qualifers.

>If you ignore that hitler was a statist/leftist, then the comparisons are fairly reasonable.
Where do they teach you this shit? Are you some retarded Yank teenager from a flyover state who listens to too much Alex Jones?

Are you trying to imply that trump/hitler are/were not nationalists?
What are you getting at?

How on earth was Hitler in any way 'leftist'? What I'm getting at is trying to establish how your determined idea that Hitler, FDR, and Stalin were in any way similar to each other at all. I mean there was kind of this big war that broke out because their ideologies were so conflicting. You should probably look it up.

Look mate stop using flyover as a general term for retards thanks

There is a special kind of retarded that only comes from middle America. I think they're the most stupid people in the civilised world.

>I mean there was kind of this big war that broke out because their ideologies were so conflicting.
The war was about clay.

You theory sorta breaks down when you consider monarchies have war with each other a couple hundred times.

>How on earth was Hitler in any way 'leftist'?
Socialism is inherently leftist.

>What I'm getting at is trying to establish how your determined idea that Hitler, FDR, and Stalin were in any way similar to each other at all.
FDR and Stalin are equivalent from an economic and domestic standpoint
FDR, Stalin, and Hitler are equivalent from an economic and statism/authority standpoint.

>You theory sorta breaks down when you consider monarchies have war with each other a couple hundred times.
Not in a post Monarchist world, and those were always about resources and ideology anyway.

Despite the name the National Socialist Party were not actually Socialists. It was just a name. They put Socialists and Marxists in death camps. Hitler despised Socialism and publically said so on multiple occasions. The essential combining point of all Marxist ideas is that history is a struggle between the workers and the bourgeois class who profit from their Labour. The Fascist movement didn't just disagree with this concept, but made the exact opposite point- that wealth, power, etc, had become if anything TOO open and unconcentrated. They wanted more power and wealth in the hands of less people, because they believed it is the only way humanity can progress. This is, in basic economic, philosophical, and historical terms, the complete opposite of basic Socialism.

FDR differed from the two because he was by all measures a capitalist- he believed in a powerful and benevolent state but essentially what he cared about most was opening up and expanding US industry. He used the state as a method to do this to great success. He didn't believe in Union rights because he cared about the role of the worker in history, or because he believed in some great power struggle- the guy was a snob from a rich New York family. He knew that the better the living and working conditions of the worker made more prosperity and productivity, and such more money.

Its not that 'NOT TRUE SOCIALISM', its just that neither are socialism by definition. Governments doing stuff isn't the factor by which you label things Marxist. Governments and states have existed for thousands of years before Marx was even born.

>Hitler despised Socialism and publically said so on multiple occasions.
Every speech on the mater from him that I've heard basically says "commies are misguided faggots, but we can learn lessons from them and do it right by apply their ideas on a national basis."
I am willing to accept that hitler did not hold this view personally, but I don't think it fair to say the nazi party did.

>because he was by all measures a capitalist
... Are we talking 1700's measures?

>He used the state as a method to do this to great success.
He got lucky with a war economy and his policies extended the depression.

>Governments doing stuff isn't the factor by which you label things Marxist.
agree to disagree. I hold that on a domestic basis, anything that is not for the sake of preventing another country from taking over is inherently marxist. But I also believe that the only legitimate role of government is preventing rule from other governments, and as such anything beyond that is an attempt to expand the state for the advancement of communism.

The Paul brothers come from Ohio, so you might be onto something.

>I hold that on a domestic basis, anything that is not for the sake of preventing another country from taking over is inherently marxist.
But you're just wrong. About everything. Honestly, where did you receive your education on history and economics? Because it just has nothing to do with Marx at all. It just doesn't. He was writing in the 1840s, Governments have been around forever.

He didn't 'get lucky with a war economy', he played it masterfully, these things don't happen by accident he didn't extend the depression either, thats nonsense, it just lasted longer than you think it ought to have, because somehow letting half the nation starve to death would have saved the nation?

There is no agree to disagree on this matter, because you're wrong. Is this really what they teach in schools? America is fucking doomed. No wonder you sugar addicted walking heart attacks elected such a fucking idiot into power, you all like him because he's as fucking stupid as you all are. We truly live in a post truth universe.