You could argue they started the war by rejecting Mussolini's demands.

>See, it's all your fault for your entire shop burning down because you didn't pay me protection
Peak italian mentality.

>>17749817 (OP)
I fucking hate modern Italy. First, they betray the Triple Alliance for literally no gain in WWI, then in WWII they finally choose the right side, just to be a bunch of fat brown meds who drag the Germanic war effort down with their inferiority. Hitler never should've trusted the medjew and instead have invaded and subjugated the disdained peninsula in 1940.

>>17749817 (OP)
This board has taught me that virtually every war is the fault of the defender for being "beligerent" and not accepting negotiations.

Of course this thread will be archieved quickly, because the /pol/ flies are only attracted to any thread revolving Poland.

>>17749817 (OP)
No actually Germany was the aggressor because they should have be the first ones to invade Greece and then hand it over to Italy so that Italy could govern it

>>17749817 (OP)
Well your question is good but your reasoning is bad. Greece could be said to have culpability in starting the war due to non-neutral activity, such as allowing RN ships to freely use Greek ports and territorial waters to ambush the Italians en route to the Dodacanese.

>>17749987
This is actually an interesting point because you never hear this when the topic is being discussed. It's always that Italy attacked Greece because muh Roman Empire restoration. It actually gives it some vital credibility and just another brick that proves that Axis decisionmaking was based on the pragmatic situation rather than ideological blindness.

>>17749987
>>17750070
Would an Italian Greece have really helped them against the British?
Besides, that's Soviet tier reasoning, like what happened with Finland.
>we think you are too close to our enemy
>therefore we will take actions that will guarentee you fully going to the enemy camp

>>17749987
>culpability in starting the war
I think Italy has that for actually starting the war.

>>17749817 (OP)
>>17749952
>still buck broken by the Danzig threads

>>17749878
Kek

>>17750198
>Be Finland
>Act like an insane chimpanzee in the 20's
>Soviets demand personal space
>Howl over the Soviets beating your ass to this day

>>17749987
I love it when "neutral" countries clearly side with one belligerent. The Swiss were actually neutral and shot down both German and British aircraft that entered their airspace.

>>17751028
>Why does Greece side with the people who will gurantee their independence and autonomy and not the guys who want to turn them into a puppet? Defending yourself makes you an agressor

Why the fuck would Greece have any reason to side with the axis at all?

>>17751040
>Side with the allies
>Get invaded by the axis
Lmao cry me a river bitch.

>>17749817 (OP)
>Invade tiny country with an overwhelmingly superior force in both quality and quantity
>Failed to make gains and have their own lands occupied by said tiny country
>Had to beg Germany for help
Modern Italians are so pathetically bad at war it's actually hilarious

>>17751028
>>17751069
If "siding" with anltjer country is a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 beong a formal and full-fledged military and economic alliance like NATO and the EU, and 5 being an informal alliance like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then Greece would have been a 2 at best.

>>17749817 (OP)
Painfully albanian thread

>>17751069
This is why you lost retard. Invading everyone all at once is a retarded strategy.

>>17749878
fpbp

>>17751600
How do Albanians see ww2 given that they were in the Axis?

>>17750198
Finland is not a good analogy. Who was the USSR at war with when it sent its demands to Finland? Nobody. There wasn’t a larger thing happening there.

>>17751298
Greece was Allowing belligerent parties to establish ambush channels and logistics depots in their territory, and that is not a 2 on your scale. That’s like a 7

>>17751069
>side with the Axis
>get your men slaughtered by the thousands and your women raped by the millions
The weak must fear the strong.

>>17751040
Greece was heavily screwed over by Britain in WWI. Britain violated its neutrality, fostered the breakdown of its government, and led the country into a doomed war against Turkey and humanitarian crises. Germany and the Axis hadn’t even had the opporitunity to one-up that “ally” yet. The reality is that Greece would have been better served by guarding its neutrality better and saying NO to Royal Navy fuckery.

>>17754947
Most east bloc countries were taught to rewrite their collaborationism into “I was heckin forced but we were all secret partisans”. So to answer your question: denial

>>17750203
More than one country can have culpability in starting a war. It’s not all black and white

>>17754992
Not in this case though.
Italy could have NOT started the war, but they did anyways.

>>17750070
I sincerely doubt Greece's relations with Britain is what sparked the war.
Italy already had ambitions in Greece and WWII just gave them an excuse.

>>17755017
You doubt that allowing Britain to launch ambushes and strikes from Greek territorial waters might have contributed to hostilities? That’s not very reasonable

>>17755008
You could say this about Britain in 1939 as well. It’s meaningless. There are lines you can’t cross in neutrality, especially when there’s more history and nuance behind it.

>>17755291
Britain didn't start the war though.
Hitler did.

>>17755291
Britain didn't invade Poland in 1939 so this post is meaningless

>>17755285
Allowing Britian to launch ambushes and strikes from Greek terriotrial waters was an act of self defence against Italy, which was intending to turn Greece into a client state.

>>17749952
If I died for Danzig I would indeed say it is not worth it.

>>17755311
Britain literally started WWII by bringing a third of the planet into Poland’s invasion of the City of Danzig.

>>17755353
>Poland’s invasion of the City of Danzig.
When did this happen?

>>17754992
>More than one country can have culpability in starting a war.
Lmao literally trying to offload the blame to the victim.

>>17755377
in 1939 when they invaded Danzig.

>>17749878
lol kek. italians are thugs.

>>17755479
Could you point me to some sources describing this incident? I can't find anything about a Polish invasion of Danzig online.

>>17755500
said "invasion" was poles stationing a few extra troops near the city, he considers it an invasion as a way to justify hitler invading them

>>17749817 (OP)
ITT: People discover that it latin fags got away with murder in ww2 and deserved to have r*me, m*lan, v*nice and fl*rence burned down to ashes just like Dresden was

>>17755630
Slobodan burning innocent people alive won’t unsell your ancestors on the Venetian slav(e) market.

>>17755634
t. shqiptar

>>17755630
Why did you emit Naples?

>>17754947
the ones with collaberator families call the commies traitors who worked with yugoslav partisans. the ones with partisan families call the ones who worked with germans for traitors who worked with germans and chentiks.

>>17755500
Zaloga, Steven; Madej, Victor (1985). The Polish Campaign, 1939.
>>17755506
it was an violation of Danzig's sovereignty carried out by Polish soldiers.
This is by definition an invasion.
>to justify
Hitler was justified without this, this is just what caused Hitler to pull the trigger WHEN he did.

>>17755671
What did your grandmother go for? three bricks and a clipped florin?

>>17756248
That is retarded tho. Germans did not even know that it was happening as Poles did it in secret.
And never used it as justification of their invasion of Poland.
It also do not make much sense as Germans invaded on whole polish border not only kicked Poles from Danzig.

>>17756280
We dont know what the Germans knew exactly but its unlikely they wouldnt know what was going on in Danzig.
The Danzig militias isolated the Polish garrison and the Polish troops at the post office immediately which makes me think if the Locals knew then the people they were working with also knew.

>>17755751
Naples, Bari, Genoa, Palermo them too

>>17756286
>>17756248

The Poles sent the men to Westerplatte, which was the only place that Versailles stipulated was under Polish military authority.
The Versailles treaty stipulated that Poland could maintain a 88 men garrison, the Poles increased it to 200 men during the Danzig crisis when invasion was imminent.
The Germans were aware of this.

Personally, while this is true, I feel that this is a non-argument. An increase of 120 men doesnt constitute an "invasion" and calling it an invasion is such blatant propaganda, and is severely disporportionate to full-scale invasion.
It also ignores that the Germans had been arming Danzig.
But more importantly; Hitler himself had declared the Versailles treaty null and void, and had remilitarized far beyond Versaillles stipulation, so the argument becomes absurd that Poland must still restrict itself to Versailles, since the 88-man garrison limit was motivated by the force Germany had been allowed.

If you want to use the whole "Poland invaded first" argument, go ahead, but I think 99% of everyone is going to see right through this and it's just going to end up damaging your narrative more.

>>17757295
The Poles had also moved troops into the Post Office and broke out heavy weapons.
We dont know to what extent the Germans knew, we know it is very likely they knew what Danzig knew, and Danzig likely did not know to what extent.

If you see a country mobilize, then observe an indeterminate number of men, in violation of a treaty, moving into defensive positions and moving heavy weapons in, what are you going to think?
Its not a given Germany didnt catch Poland at the thin end of moving 20,000 soldiers into Danzig.
>narrative
there isnt a narrative, these are just the facts.

>>17749952
Polack hand

>>17755017
>real threat are romaboo opportunist
Austria-Hungary was rightfully planned ahead in 1911.

>>17757591
>The post office
You're really scraping the barrel here.

>We dont know to what extent the Germans knew
Does it even matter?
Im prepared to argue that the Germans knew that Poland reinforced Westerplatte with 100 men. If they didnt know then this entire argument becomes moot.

>If you see a country mobilize
Poland did not mobilize until the last few days in August, by then Hitler had already long since made the decision to invade Poland. Poland was even forced to suspend her mobilization because Britain pressured her to do so.
Britain allowed Poland to enter full mobilization 48 hours before the invaison on September 1.

Germany however, had been mobilized since 1938.

>then observe an indeterminate number of men
It was 100 men. You find more at a supermarket.

> in violation of a treaty,
A treaty Germany themselves had declared null and void and violated. Why should Poland restrain itself to the Versailles treaty armed force limitations when Germany wont?
Also, a slight disporportion to add 100 men in comparison to German rearmament.

>moving into defensive positions
Shouldnt this be counter-productive to your argument to label them a defensive position?

>there isnt a narrative, these are just the facts.
It's a narrative. Youve endlessly been saying that Poland "invaded" Danzig, thus triggering the war. You're actively attempting to create a narrative.

>>17749817 (OP)
This has to be like top 10 embaro moments in history right?

>>17754986
Greece tried to say no to the Br*t*sh in ww1 but then the Brits basically nearly caused a civil war and took down the government

fuck is timmy gon do?

>>17751069
kek this
greeks deserve it for trusting the perfidious anglo

>>17754989
>>17757768
It was the French who did this. British involvement was about 50 guys who just happened to be in Piraeus at the time.

greece started the vast majority of wars theyve been involved with since 1821. they started shit with albania north macedonia bulgaria and turkey and cried victim each time. the greco turkish war is particularly embarrassing, they lost a war they were overwhelmingly favoured in and were so spiteful in defeat they burned down the greek villages they claimed to protect on their way out. also killed all the livestock for some reason

>>17757653
poland was not sovereign over Danzig though, they shouldn't have been allowed to move any troops in

>>17758506
There were many political issues with the M.Asia campaign of 1920 unfortunately. Mostly that it was primarily willed by French and Anglos who wanted someone else to continue carving up the Ottomans for them just so they can steal the oils of Mosul

>>17750070
The very reason Metaxas (an ultra-conservative proto-fascist himself) sought to strengthen ties wiht Britain was Italian belligerence anon.
It's basically the Finland-USSR situation but on a sunny beach.

>>17751069
Are you an actual natural born mouthbreathing retard or did your mom simply beat you as a child?

>>17754986
It literally wasn't though. You pulled this out of your gaping dago anus.
Plus, it STILL doesn't give Shitaly an excuse to invade. They weren't a great power entitled to zone of influence or anything of the sort.

>>17758506
>t.

>>17758908
He is right that we fought aggressive wars, but they were Godly ordained. As long as slavs and turks remain in our lands, it's not over.

Anon can instantly prove Greece was at fault by naming the ports hosting British ships and which Italian ships were ambushed by them and where.

>>17758908
the hagia sophia is a mosque and istanbul is a turkish city and there is nothing you can ever do about it

>>17758919
>As long as slavs and turks remain in our lands
dont do a dna test

>>17759076
>the hagia sophia is a mosque and istanbul is a turkish city and there is nothing you can ever do about it

>>17759112
There's more Turks living in Istanbul alone than there are Greeks in the entire world. It's over. I'm sorry, it just is, all this "Make Constantinople Greek Again" stuff is just embarrassing.

>>17759112
the last thing a greek sees before hes kicked into the aegean sea

>>17759112
Was Constantinople ever Greek as we know it today though. In ancient times, it was Thracian, then Roman. The city itself was built by the Romans. The Ottomans later conquered it from the Eastern Romans. Modern Greece, as a nation, was established in the 1820s.

>>17759118
>>17759144
>>17759174
Holy roachie meltie. Guess that hit a nerve. Mavi vatan status?

>>17759287
>Istanbul population: 15,700,000
>Greece population: 10,400,000
>Greek diaspora worldwide: 5,000,000 or so

I'm sorry. It's just not going to happen. I wish it would but it isn't. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>17759174
Founded by Greek settler as Byzantium

>>17759287
It was a valid observation, and I'm as far from being Turkish as possible.

>>17759297
The ancient Greeks founded many settlements along the all the Mediterranean and Black sea coasts.

>>17749817 (OP)
This is really dumb but you know what.... good on you for bucking the trend and not posting another "le Churchill didn't attack the USSR after Poland????" thread. Good job.

>>17759287
megali idea status?

>>17749817 (OP)
quite frankly interacting with posters on /his/ has made me more anti-nazi than any pro-allied propaganda has

>>17757653
The decision to invade Poland wasn’t made until the evening before the invasion. They could have called it off like they did before.
It isn’t a narrative. It’s the facts.
Defensive positions are always taken by invading forces to secure their position.

>>17751298
Sounds like the greeks deserved a 2 out of 10 ass whooping.

>>17752172
I am on the "stupid bitches getting their shit kicked in" side, so I am still dining on the spoils of WW2.

>>17758930
Note how this has gone unanswered?

>>17755017
This is why I support Pakistani migration to the UK.

>>17758908
Turks are based because they put Greeks, Armenians and Arabs in their place.

>Turks are based because they put Greeks, Armenians and Arabs in their place.

>>17760545
>>17758930
The point of this thread is obviously to show how ridiculous stormfaggots are when they mald about Danzig. No one denies that Italy similarly started the war against Greece

>>17760640
Why did you post a video of a Greek man?