Declares war on Germany for invading Poland

>Declares war on Germany for invading Poland
>does nothing when the Soviet Union does the same thing
>after the war abandons Poland to the Soviets
What was Churchills problem?

>Churchill declared war on Germany

Delete this thread for your own sake OP.

Catastrophe of a thread, OP.

...

You've spectacularly shown how little you know about history.

He was a warmonger

See

Churchill wanted to take on the Soviets next. First he couldn't get Truman on board then he lost the election to Labour.
His intelligence service was forbidden from sharing info with the Communists, they had to go behind his back to give them all the info they did on the Kursk campaign.

>replying to obvious bait

The ABSOLUTE STATE of Veeky Forums

Please visit /pol/, roughly 90% of Hitler boos there don't know that Churchill wasn't PM in 1939.

>Churchill was a warmonger for telling everyone that Hitler wouldn't be satisfied with his territorial gains and was going to keep attacking countries until he was stopped.

>Churchill was a warmonger for telling everyone that Hitler wouldn't be satisfied with his territorial gains and was going to keep attacking countries until he was stopped.
Correct

Explain.

Churchill's only goal was to limit the power of continental Europe through war... sadly for him the biggest loser of WW2 turned out to be the UK

Churchill could have have stopped the war in its tracks in 1940 by signing a peace but he insisted on unconditional surrender and dragged the US into the war.

By doing this he is responsible for the collapse of the British empire and the deaths of millions that followed from both decolonization and continuing the war, including the holocaust (which was only carried out because of the war).

Churchill isn't admirable, he sold his nation right the fuck out because he personally enjoyed great power politics.

There wasn't a sensible politician on earth who would negotiate with Hitler in 1940. He'd broken almost every single treaty he'd signed, and was planning to break some more.

Churchill wasn't in power until 1940 you brainlet

And yes, he was consistently trying to get the UK to throw itself at Germany all throughout the 30s.

>he didn't end the war immediately after taking office several months after the war had already started
>this means he was a warmonger

I don't think you know what 'warmonger means...

Exactly, so how the fuck is Churchill a warmonger when he had no power to fears war on everyone and was 100% correct about Hitler?

He was offered status quo anti bellum for Great Britain & France

He didn't act in his own country's interests, he sacrificed it so that he could play general

And that was how many agreements Hitler had promised to abide by at that point?

What Hitler offers, and what Hitler says he will do, was almost always the reverse of what ended up happening.

Explain how surrendering to Germany was in Britain's interests?

Who gives a damn about Poland?

Munich, which he did.

Hitler laid out everything in Mein Kampf

A White peace isn't a surrender.

>Munich, which he did.
are you fucking high?

Krauts do. In fact they're obsessed since their shitty existence about Polacks.

Germany.

>lets place geo-political strategy and the safety and sovereignty of our nation on some book he wrote in prison.
Ever heard of the phrase actions speak louder than words? To Britain, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium and France's violent conquering was more important than Mein fucking Kampf.

It was just another stepping stone to Russia.

The Munich Agreement was as follows:
>Germany annexes the Sudetenland
>An international commission will determine the further partition of Czechoslovakia

Both of these happened and were facilitated by Hitler.

The first two were entirely legal and in accordance with what Britain negotiated.

Poland was a regional dispute over territory that both states claimed that Britain had no primary interest in intervening in (on great power politics bullshit).

The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and France were in the context of a war.

Flanking through the Netherlands and Belgium was required to defeat France, same as Belgium in WWI.

Denmark and Norway were because the British were going to stop Swedish iron imports to Germany from a Norwegian port. The British had already committed to occupying Norway (by force) to cut off Germany from this iron.

You seem to not know much about WWII.

They were actually good friends. The British have always respected the Russian Empire.

...

>We needed to invade and occupy Belgium because the last time we started a war in Europe we invaded and occupied and raped the shit out of Belgium

Yeah they needed to invade and occupy Belgium in order to win against France, are you paying attention yet soyim?

If invading and raping the shit out if neutral countries is your sole war strategy, it's somewhat difficult to cast yourself as the good guys.

Britain was about to do it to Norway.

>implying Churchill was Prime Minister when the war broke out
>implying Churchill was Prime Minister when Poland became communist
You're either a retard or a master baiter.

>they did it after we did so it was ok for us to do it

Britain made the exact same calculations. Their concern over the sovereignty of neutral countries is a fabrication and is war propaganda.

>planning to do a thing is just as bad as doing a thing

K.

No its worse because you failed.

This how the /pol/tard actually thinks.

I'm not the one uncritically accepting war propaganda as fact

What international commission allowed Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia?
Name it.
Also, why the fuck would Germany get a share of ethnic Czech lands?

>entirely legal
Wrong, Britain negotiated to accept a German sudetenland, Hitler then broke the treaty by occupying the rest of Czechslovakia, which was not what the allies agreed to.
>both states had no interest
Britain literally said they would defend Poland if they were invaded.

The Vienna award

>after the war abandons Poland to the Soviets
Why do people so often think that Soviets turned Eastern European countries into their communist puppets the second they kicked the nazis out, and that the western allies just cynically abandoned them to their fate?
Soviet "liberation" wasn't a meme initially, they really did restore/create democratic in formerly nazi-held territories. The communist dictatorships came to power in the late 1940s (through rigged elections and coups by local commies, not direct Soviet intervention), but for the first couple of years commies were pretending to be good boys.

What are you actually talking about? Hundreds of thousands of people died. Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, French, plenty of Germans - how the hell can you even say that?

If you're both thinking about doing the same thing but get beaten to the punch, clearly its worse for you.

>Churchill declared war on Germany
already off to a fucking retarded start /pol/ lol

And yet you seem to be under the impression that the British would have treated the Norwegians the same the Germans did...

Under similar circumstances of course they would have

Are you saying that Britain planned on invading France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia? Or are you saying that, in opposition to the Nazis, they were prepared to prevent the Norwegian Merchant Fleet from falling into the wrong hands. And indeed ended up sending an ill-fated expeditionary force in defense of that same country, to the effect that they gained the unequivocal support of the Norwegian navy, who immediately disobeyed Quisling's orders and sailed for British ports.
Listen, fuckwit - one is worse than the other.

The British invented concentration camps and used them against the Boers less than 50 years ago, what makes you think this Empire is some kind of moral institution?

And you're basing that on what exactly?

...

Vienna Award(s) had nothing to do with occupation of Czechoslovakia.
Why are you lying?

>he thinks British and German concentration camps had the same purpose

unflatteringfacetwistedinconfusion.png

So when Britain does it they're just being neighborly but when Germany does it "GERMANY BAD, NO GERMANY"

This is symptomatic of suffering from cognitive dissonance. You're uncritically accepting British war propaganda as fact.

>nothing personal krauts
>oh wait
>IT IS
>you think this Empire is some kind of moral institution?
The fact it did what it had to for it's own people, unlike every fucking western "country" today which is using soft power and replacement to destroy them

>Vienna Award(s) had nothing to do with occupation of Czechoslovakia.

You know that the Boer war was literally a genocidal conquest for control of diamond mines, right?

You're a retard. I stated nothing but fact. The Norwegians supported the British against the Nazis, when they invaded. This is unequivocal fact.

The Norwegians didn't know that the British were planning to invade them if they said no.

Let's compare the one example of the Allies invading a neutral power. How many Icelandic soldiers did the British kill during their invasion. How many civilians? How did the invaders treat the natives?

Iceland didn't have a garrison brainlet

...

Again, where's the lie

>didn't have a garrison
>300 reservist soldiers

>untrained.
So they were civilians.

>Call 300 people soldiers
>That makes them soldiers

>literally
The last desperate yelp of a losing debater.

That’s really irrelevant considering they did support them
So can we happily say that Germany is the worst boi for doing the exact same thing and following up on it in WW1/2?

No, they actually said that. It was a guarantee of independence, contingent on a declaration of war upon infringement.

Its not irrelevant, the claim is that Churchill and the British Empire was this noble or benevolent actor when its totally false and based on war propaganda.

By who? All we're saying in this thread is that German actions were by an order of magnitude worse, to the point that they're barely even comparable - one hypothetical occupation, and the mass invasion and subjugation of much of Europe.

The actions of both parties - including the extreme ones by the Germans were in the context of total war. Churchill being unreasonable is what made the war turn into a bloodbath.

The original Trumpian fascist

I would say that the Germans declaring war on the Soviet Union and the USA guaranteed a bloodbath. I don't see how you can argue that Churchill was responsible for either of those. The war in 1940 was bloodless compared to what was to come. No need for totalen krieg if you don't start the damn war in the first place.

Churchill brought the US into the war in exchange for the British Empire. Hitler preemptively invaded the Soviets in order to establish a continental fortress which would have prevented the US (who was already supporting the Allies) from being able to invade and reverse the gains he already made.

>reservist doesn't mean soldier

The absolute state.

Except that's a perfectly valid use of the word you fuckwit.

US was not brought into the war by Churchill. The British Empire was brought down later, with the IMF and the end of the Imperial trading bloc. It's well accepted (even in Mein Kampf, you'll be glad to know) that the USSR was invaded for Lebensraum and for resources, and maybe even a genocidal hatred of slavs.

The US participated in military occupations and military support of the UK before formally entering the war.

Churchill assenting to the destruction of the British Empire makes it clear that that was the price he paid for US intervention.

Why are you trying to frame war strategy in moral terms, brainlet? They needed to go through Belgium because France had spent a great deal of time and money fortifying their border with Germany. You don’t fucking fight wars to be seen as nice, you fight them to win, and turning the French flank by going through Belgium was key to this. Stop confusing milquetoast play-fair nonsense with warfare.

That's all well and good, but you can't take those kinds of drastic actions and then turn around and expect people to jump to the negotiating table with you. Hitler secured a swift and decisive victory over France, but burned his diplomatic bridges.

>Britain literally said they would defend Poland if they were invaded.
...and what did Perfidious Albion do to back up that bluster? Nothing.

>They were actually good friends. The British have always respected the Russian Empire.
When Stalin invaded Finland, (((Churchill))) seriously proposed to assist the Finns.

Think about that.

...

What did he mean by this?

>one example of of the Allies invading a neutral power.
What is Finland? what is Iraq? What is Persia? Allies invaded multiple neutral countries.

This is the stupidest nazi-apologist, goalpoast-moving doublethink I've ever seen. If you're a troll, legitimately good job!