>we couldn't accept any peace proposals from a warmonger because he couldn't be trusted to not conquer us all
>yes why, we'll immeditaley allow unlimited third world immigration and become minorities in our own countries, you'd have to be a crazed Nazi to think otherwise

>you see, THIS is what we fought for; THIS is freedom from fascism

LOL

>>17752825 (OP)
Arabo-black-asian mix girls must be very hot
The bodies of blacks, and the faces of arabs and asians

>colonize the world
>act surprised when you get colonized back
lmao

>>17752825 (OP)
Nonwhite migration to Britain technically began under Atlee not Churchill. Although Churchill was still at fault for not putting a stop to it in its infancy

>>17752825 (OP)
Winston Churchill wasn't even prime minister anymore when mass immigration began. In fact, the UK was 99% White for decades after he died.

>>17752825 (OP)
>we have to ally with Stalin to destroy those evil warmongering nazis!!
>no let’s not talk about how the Soviets are literal warmongers who conquered central asia only to starve the populace, ship the remaining few off to forced labor in steel mills and then run failed irrigation projects that dried up their closest natural bodies of water
>in any case, Hitler is evil for invading Poland and only incorporating the German speaking populace into the reich while leaving everyone else untouched
>also, let’s hand Poland over to Stalin after this whole mess
>I need a drink.. and a drink..

>>17752851
India became run by Indians under Churchill. So no, he is very much responsible for the present state of things.

>>17752851
I wouldn't say decades. Churchill left power in 1955, and died in 1965. Powell's river's of blood speech was in 1968.
Was the crisis Churchill's fault? No. But he didn't do much to help either

>>17752861
Officially India gained independence under Attlee

>>17752861
I can tell you're Indian because you fags never actually talk about British legislatures or political history. You always blabber about the guy who starved 6 gorilion Bengalis by depriving them of bobs and vagine instead. I wonder why.

>>17752880
Bloody botch batard i will rape your mother

>>17752830
Wow, they really are like Heroes from Greek Tragedy.

>ywnbaw

>>17752858

joke of a nation

>>17752847
What part of global trade empire do people keep forgetting about? All those ships were staffed by a fuckton of sailors from allover the empire.

When did Churchill let in 10000000 blacks and asians?

europe is rightful jewish clay. you have never opposed the jews since the first rothchild central bank

you will be mutted and gayed. your rootless children will be jewish slaves

>>17752825 (OP)
Mass immigration wasn't even a thing until the 1960s or even arguably Blair, when the fuck did Churchill let them in?

>>17753596
Poojeets think Churchill was king of England during the raj all the way up to the 50s or something.

>>17752973
Yeah, and they would go on shoreleave in Southampton, Liverpool, Glasgow or London for a few days, then get back on the boat and sail to somewhere else.

>>17753596
Britain was 94% white in the 1991 census.

>>17752858
>pretending that Churchill wasn't the only one saying that the Soviets are evil and that World War 3 should start immediately against them

>>17753559
The same timeline where Nazis DIDN'T ally with the soviets, apparently. >>17752858

>>17752858
You have zero problems with warmongering, deliberate starvation, mass deportation and forced labour.

>>17753733
The holocaust was fake you fucking retard

>>17754428
>>>/pol/

>>17752825 (OP)
>You shouldn't support your country because some day they might do something you don't like
>Dumb southerners fighting the British just to have the American government outlaw slavery
>Dumb Scots fighting the English just to have their country willingly form a union with England
>Dumb Spaniards fighting the French Bourbons just to let a Bourbon sit on their throne eventually
>Dumb French nobles fighting the Englisg just for their country to liberate peasants

>>17754446
It was litterally Scotland that pushed for the union dumb cunt.

>>17754438
>boogeyman

>>17754456
Britons showing off their 98 IQ

>>17752825 (OP)
post hand

>>17754456
Yes, that's the point
>Fight for independence
>Just for your descendents to push for the exact opposite of what you fought for
This isn't about the futility of resistance, it's about future generations opposing the very thing you fought for.

>>17754581
They were always independent. You reckon William Wallace was fighting for FREEEEEEEEEDOOOMMMMMM!!!!!

>>17754428
>>17754478
Okay bro it didn't happen, but I'm still not gonna rehabilitate Nazism. You're cool with that right?

>>17752825 (OP)
>Hitler le bad or something we can't allow him to conquer Europe!!
>proceeds to plunge europe into the worst conflict in human history just to hand it over to a lunatic commie dictator instead
What an absolute failure of a human being this retard was

>umm... Hitler was le good ahktually because... niggers
/his/ is so fucking plebian holy shit

>>17754617
>Ruled by men in London
Could have just surrendered to Edward I

>>17754734
By men they had sent to London, having decided that Parliament would remain in London.

>>17754626
>litterally tries to start world war 3 immediately to prevent eastern Europe being handed to the commies

What did he mean by this?

>>17752825 (OP)
>>17754626
>spends years sucking hitlers dick and pretending to be a warrior for the white race against joos and degeneracy
>married some easten europe gypsy prostitue with kids and shills for a political party with a proud homosexual in the top echelon
?

>>17754778
Parliament is entirely made up of Scottish men today?

>>17754782
>>litterally tries to start world war 3 immediately to prevent eastern Europe being handed to the commies
But he didn't. So even if what you said were true which it isn't, it still doesn't matter.

>>17753596
I think the idea was the fact that he allied himself with the Soviets rather than letting them get crushed, which over time led to the infiltration of the institutions of the free world by communist agents who spread subversive values during the Cold War and the eventual rise of neo-marxism today.

Also the fact that, after going bankrupt, he was funded and rehabilitated by bankers of a certain nationality, which gives the impression he was at their behest for his entire career. The Balfour Declaration was really a historical indicator that the entire British establishment had already been bought out by these special interests since long before Churchill's administration, actually.

>>17754858
your poltranny fantasies are not reality doe

>>17754831
>even if what you said were true

It is true. Reals before feels /pol/tranny. Go wipe your axe wound and read a book.

>>17754820
Scotland is represented in Parliament to the same proportion of Scottish constituencies, as well as having an entire Parliament of their own dealing only with Scottish matters.

>>17754889
They still have Englishmen setting and influencing their domestic policies through British parliament. It's exactly the se as if Robert Bruce just accepted Edward as king.

>>17754900
And Englishmen have Scotchmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen influencing their parliament, without even a parliament just for themselves like the others do.

>>17752830
lmao

what all nazis deserve

>>17754626
Map is not accurate

>>17752825 (OP)
Your cope gets lower and lower effort every time you post it.

>>17754869
>>17754884
>>17754952
ynbaw

>>17754428
Warmongering, deliberate starvation, mass deportation and forced labour did actually happen though.

>>17754626
>proceeds to plunge europe into the worst conflict in human history
That was Hitler's doing.

>>17755030
Yes it was Hitler that declared war on britkikes

>>17755047
>47▶
>>>17755030
Shouldnt have attacked a country that has an official military alliance then.

Why do you think Putin doesnt attack NATO members?

Hitlerfags are such dumbasses.

>>17752825 (OP)
It is in fact better to live with minorities than under fascism, yes.

>>17755143
poltroons will deny this lol

>>17755143
for the immigrants that is

>>17755143
There is nothing inherently racist about facism. They never harmed anyone solely because of their race or ethnicity.

>>17755128
>plan for war
>"poland is key to the situation"
>give poland a guarantee hoping it will lead to war
>poland also gets the impression from your speeches and private military discussions that you actually want the war
>poland provokes germany
>at the height of the crisis, officially sign the guarantee
>wtf it was Germany that started WW2 we had nothing to do with it

why are plutocrat apologists like this ?

>>17755179
Sure, they simply accused minorities as being a poison to their society and then harmed them. Totally different!

>>17755213
That's not what happened. Why do you lie?

>conference
>August 31
Source?

Why are you such a dishonest lying person?

>>17755217
>accused

>>17755224
>Source
ciano's diaries, diplomatic dispatches, bonnet's diaries, de monzie's diaries, ulrich von hassell diaries, etc. etc.

the only people who fail to mention all these "uncomfortable" facts are conformist shits like yourself

>>17755239
Post relevant parts. Also, diaries? We are talking here about an official proposition or not? Post the actual proposition from 31 August.

>>17752861
Ok Ramesh, but why do ou think you are a world power only after the british left? Because for all everyone knows you didn't even exist as a country, before bongs showed up you were just chinkified Africa right up to the negroid genetics with some vestigial traits of "white" conquerors.

>>17755253
sure, let me just login to various websites to get the exact screenshots for some random conformist shitstain on 4chan

no.

>official proposition
christ on a bike. How do you think Governments are run and world politics is conducted? By robots?

No, it's conducted by humans, so yes it was an official proposition of Mussolini and Ciano, it didn't need special approval by a parliament for it to be an official proposal of the Italian Government.

>>17755213
>How Germany started WW2
>By starting a war with their neighbours

>>17755281
did any of Bismarck's wars start WW1? no.

>>17755213
Just live the girl in the rocketeer and we are good to go chudie.

>>17755231
Question, what defines them as jews?

>>17755217
No, one was prosecuted on the basis of being a minority. Problem people were prosecuted. It’s pure coincidence jews and slavs are overrepresented in producing problem people.

>>17755128
Stalin got away with it.
>>17755160
>>17755143
You are free to live in Haiti where there are even less police.

>>17755275
I know about this proposition, it's not from August, but from September.
By the way, this is what happened.
>At 7.20 p.m. Count Ciano informed me that Lord Halifax accepted the Italian suggestion, but on condition that the German troops should withdraw to the frontiers of the Reich. Count Ciano told me that he did not think he was in a position to put forward such a request to Germany. This was likewise Signor Mussolini's opinion.

Peaceful Germany refused to withdraw. Peaceful Hitler was more interested about the nature of British and French notes (if it was an ultimatum or not) than of Italian proposals

It's all in the documents.

>This suggestion had not been at once rejected from the German side, but Herr Hitler had pointed out that, being faced with a French note and a British note which the Ambassadors of the two countries had handed him on the evening of the 1st, he wished to know if these notes were in the nature of an ultimatum or not. If so, he would definitely reject them. If the contrary was true, he would ask for some time to think them over until noon to-morrow. Herr Hitler further requested that the answer to his two questions should be sent him through Rome.
>Count Ciano then telephoned directly to Your Excellency, who, after stating that the note handed yesterday by the French Ambassador was not in the nature of an ultimatum, gave approval in principle, in so far as the time limit was concerned, subject to the views of the President of the Council.
>Count Ciano then telephoned to Lord Halifax, who himself also stated to him that the English note was not in the nature of an ultimatum and informed him that on the question of the time limit he (Lord Halifax) must consult his Government. He added that in his opinion to halt the troops on their positions would be insufficient; the occupied territories would have to be evacuated.

>>17755303
being jewish

>>17755333
Sorry but Hitler destroyed his credibility after violating the Münich agreement.

>>17755333
and this is one of the reasons why the likes of Hoggan thought Halifax was the arch-evil warmonger.

The French were eager to accept it but the British were too far down the pipe to save face, as Ulrich von Hassell said "the british could no longer save face, or even wanted to"

>>17755339
A definition can't contain itself.

>>17755333
>The German Government and the German people refuse to receive, accept, let alone to fulfill, demands in the nature of ultimata made by the British Government.

>The German Government, therefore, reject the attempts to force Germany, by means of a demand having the character of an ultimatum, to recall its forces which are lined up for the defence of the Reich, and thereby to accept the old unrest and the old injustice.
Peace according to Germany: we take whatever we want by force and then there can be peace because we are not yet ready for a European war.

>>17755361
that's a more admirable position to take than the British:
>encourage others to fight first because you know you are unprepared for war
it just went a bit wrong when Russia decided not do the fighting

>>17755350
A jew is a foreign, hostile and parasitic entity looking to undermine, infiltrate and subvert the host and use it to its own benefit to prioritize the wellbeing of their tribe. Would this be more accurate?

>>17755361
>Peace according to Germany: we take whatever we want by force and then there can be peace
That's not what they did also this is literally what Europeans have always done and never had a problem with.
Compare this to Britain overtly antagonizing Germany over Czechoslovakia (Britain threatened both Hitler and Benes if they had a meeting without Britain) and then encouraging Poland to stand against Germany and then abandoning Poland not only to Germany but to the USSR wherein Poland dwelt for three generations under The Russian Communists.
Even your strawman of Germany is preferable to what the British did on behalf of their jewish lobby.

>>17755384
Yes except that doesn't describe all people of the Jewish faith so it is wrong.

>>17755384
Does that make a person who was born Jewish serving in their country's miltiary against a foreing invasion not-Jewish?

>>17755398
>Yes except that doesn't describe all people of the Jewish faith
It does describe the vast majority, so its still an accurate general assessment even if a tiny minority of jews aren't like that

>>17755295
Bismarck did not attack an ally of an ally.

>>17755403
Those are exceptions not the norm

>>17755423
Doesn't answer my question though. Is Jewishness something you can choose?

>>17755410
>tiny minority
Can you specifically quantify how much of a minority/majority of the Jewish population actually fits this definition?

>>17755295
Bismark was not alive at the outbreak of WWI.

>>17755398
ALL jewish people protect the hostile foreign parasites so yes in a way it DOES describe them.
if nothing else it describes enough of them to establish a desire to see them not in your country.

>>17755420
>"""""""""""ally""""""""""

>>17755425
>Is Jewishness something you can choose?
When you make a general assessment you take into account the majority. Africans aren't white just because albino africans exist. Same thing here, the general assessment i made isn't incorrect because a minority of jews do not fit it.
>>17755430
>Can you specifically quantify
I already did

>>17755447
Can you prove it is only a minority?

>>17755436
Yep ally.
The alliance official came into effect on August 25th.
Hitler even called off the invasion on that day because he realised that Britain was now legally bound to declare war on Germany if they attack Poland.
But Ribbentrop kept feeding him the misinformation that Britain was just bluffing.

>>17755329
Stalin got away with it for many reasons.
It wasnt anticipated that Hitler had made a pact with the communists since dividing Poland was secret.
Should also be said that the treaty Britain signed with Poland specifically mentions Germany.
Also, if Britain and France declares war on USSR then the war will become bloody, by 1939 they thought they could still win against Germany relatively easy. They wanted a localized war in the French-German border.

Ultimately Stalin never actually got away with it because the west never forgot, and Britain wanted to continue the war in 1945 specifically to honor her committment to Poland, but USA said no. Then you have the entire cold war.

>>17755483
>Britain was just bluffing
they were. As Poland found out.

>>17755477
List some of the jews in Congress that don't support sending more aid to Israel. And that's not even counting the AIPAC bought goyim

>>17755490
Literally all Hitler had do to, was to not attack Poland.
It's you who is having a mental gymnastic over how ww2 broke out.

If Russia invaded Finland today, it would be ww3, because Finland just joined NATO.
There are no "if" or "but" in this. Idk why its so fucking hard for you guys to understand. They will honor their treaty and Russia gets smoked, even if it means the world goes down with it.

>>17755507
>All hitler had to do was to just wait until Poland attacked danzig
Yeah except Chamberlain gave a speech on 10 July stating that Britain would still go to war with Germany if that happened.

obviously Hitler, the strategic genius, wasn't going to wait until he was attacked.

>>17755507
>There are no "if"
there is. It would be WW3 ONLY if the USA went to war with Russia. That is a choice. No one forced Chamberlain to give the guarantee (well, perhaps the americans did actually), no one forced him to give speeches and messages of reassurances to Poland, and no one forced Poland to provoke war, despite strangely enough themselves recognizing that Britain was not truly egging for war. They had never mobilized their armies, made a show of force or anything, they had merely given words and pledges.

>Idk why its so fucking hard for you guys to understand.
why is it so hard for you to understand that EVERYONE HAS AND MAKES THEIR OWN CHOICES and declaring war on Russia/ Germany is a choice. You cannot UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE then say "t-they started it" YOU FUCKING STARTED IT YOU CUNT

>>17755507
Forget it, this kind person is basically a psychopath to whom honoring one's commitments and promises is a foreign concept. He cannot fathom that a treaty is a binding commitment. If you do not honor your treaties then nobody will ever trust you afterward. Trust means nothing to him because he is honorless and faithless.

>>17755528
Strange how everybody had a choice except Hitler, whose choice to go to war was apparently not his fault at all. You people are deranged.

>>17755540
because Germany never wanted war with Britain whilst Britain "wanted" or planned for war with Germany in March 1939, and shockingly enough, Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939.

Had it been the other way around, as the conformists like us all to pretend, then there wouldn't be an argument here.

>>17755528
>Yeah except Chamberlain gave a speech on 10 July stating that Britain would still go to war with Germany if that happened.
Link the speech then.
Because if this was true, it was radically change everything any historian knows about ww2.

>there is. It would be WW3 ONLY if the USA went to war with Russia.
If Russia invaded a NATO member, USA would most likely honor their treaty. Why would USA even bother with NATO otherwise since most of the European members dont even pay their share. Also, there were multiple close-calls during the Cold War especially in Berlin where USA kept reminding the Soviets that they would honor their treaty if Moscow attacks in Berlin.

>They had never mobilized their armies, made a show of force or anything, they had merely given words and pledges.
It was the Germans who cancelled the German-Polish non-aggression pact.

>why is it so hard for you to understand that EVERYONE HAS AND MAKES THEIR OWN CHOICES and declaring war on Russia/ Germany is a choice. You cannot UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE then say "t-they started it" YOU FUCKING STARTED IT YOU CUNT
You need meds. You're losing it.
If Russia attacks a NATO member, the others will honor the treaty, even if it means world war.
They're not just gonna let Russia have their way with them.
If its a world war, then it's because Russia took an action, knowing the consequences.
Russia doesnt do this, because they're not as retarded as the NSDAP.
Britain made it clear that they would honor their treaty if Germany attacked, and virtually begged Germany not to do it. Pic related.

It's really that simple.
You're seething over nothing.
All Hitler had to do was not attack Poland. It's not an overwhelming request.

>>17755553
The problem really goes far beyond Britain or British political leadership's choices. The real issue underlying this whole situation is that there were bankers funding the Nazi party, in order to further the zionist cause. That's why they had the Haavara Agreement.

The bottom line is that Germany by the interwar period was just as subverted as Britain already was. The difference is it wasn't primarily bolshevik influence plaguing it at the time, but zionist influence.

>>17755569
>link
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1939-07-10/debates/d4796f1c-6768-4604-83a6-d842d77b10bc/Danzig(BritishPosition)

>any historian
any *conformist* historian.

>Why would USA even bother with NATO otherwise
good question, its not like the current administration and many americans are asking this very question.

>You're seething over nothing.
the destruction of civilization isn't "nothing"

>>17755553
If he did not want a war with Britain, he should not have attacked Poland.
The British may very well have interpretated this as Hitler actually wanting a war with them.

Hitler said he was anti-communist too but then allied with the communists. Actions speaks louder than words and Hitler had a poor sense of diplomacy. Bismarck would have told him to sit down after Czechia, but naturally this was too complicated for the failed artist.

Ultimately I dont even fully blame Hitler. It was Ribbentrop who primarily lured Hitler with the false sense of security because Ribbentrop was a self-proclaimed "expert" on Britain. Hitler literally called off the invasion of Poland the same day that Britain and Poland signed the alliance because Hitler knew he might initiate a world war of he proceeds. Ribbentrop kept telling him its fine.

>>17755578
The Haavara was to get jews out of Europe.
Who were these bankers? What were their names? When did they meet with Hitler? Was it regularly? Where?

>>17755583
Bismarck would have told him to tell the brits to fuck off and invade Czechia. That is what Hitler regretted in 1945. And had Germany invaded Czechia then the catastrophe of 1939 would have been avoided by everyone involved. Beck would not be deluded into thinking Hitler was bluffing, neither would Bullitt, neither would the British. No one would have done what they did, believing Hitler was just a bluffer.

>>17755583
Why did Britain put themselves in a roadblock position where they essentially force themselves into conflict with Germany?

>>17755540
>everyone had a choice except Hitler
no one said this, however Hitler took many more offramps than everyone else and was the first to propose peace.
That is why Hitler is seen as a peacemaker more than a warmonger compared to say Churchill or Chamberlain or FDR or Stalin

>>17755595
And it is on this question that we all have to pretend that the United States and FDR don't exist

>>17755507
>>17755536
Britain selectively enforced treaties.
And no, NATO would not back other NATO countries its the US pulling everyone into an existing war.
The US is already hedging their bets saying Article 5 isnt binding and no one is technically speaking legally obligated to go to war on behalf of a NATO member state.

>>17755582
>https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1939-07-10/debates/d4796f1c-6768-4604-83a6-d842d77b10bc/Danzig(BritishPosition)

And where does it say that Britain is planning to invade Germany?

>>17755536
>guarantees Polish independance
>oh what's that?
>well ackshually we never guaranteed your country against the russians
>here, please sign this addendum to the treaty to say that you fully understood you were only meant to start the war against germany
>*smacks bludgeon over Raczynski's head*
>thank you

Yeah. Ask literally any Pole about Britain's "honor" and pledges.

>>17755606
>where

quote:

If the sequence of events should, in fact, be such as is contemplated on this hypothesis, hon. Members will realise, from what I have said earlier, that the issue could not be considered as a purely local matter involving the rights and liberties of the Danzigers, which incidentally are in no way threatened, but would at once raise graver issues affecting Polish national existence and independence. We have guaranteed to give our assistance to Poland in the case of a clear threat to her independence, which she considers it vital to resist with her national forces, and we are firmly resolved to carry out this undertaking.

Unsurprisingly he walks back on this bit on 24 August, stating that Danzig is merely a local issue. lol.

almost as if he had orders from above to provoke a war, but when the planned war goes sideways (molotov-ribbentrop pact) the British go back to some limpish state of "semi appeasement but not really"

>>17755595
The world doesnt revolve around Hitler.
This is ultimately the essence of your argument; that Hitler must get what he wants and everyone must do everything they can to make that happen. Anyone else with any kind of agency that doesnt stroke the hairs of Hitlers ambitions is unacceptable.

Never put a failed artist as your head of state.
Also dont put a wine seller as your foreign minister.

>>17755603
>Britain selectively enforced treaties.
You're the one to talk.
Germany breached Kellogg and Locarno treaty.
And then you're seething that Britain honored their treaty.

>And no, NATO would not back other NATO countries its the US pulling everyone into an existing war.
Presenting your autistic opinions as facts is never going to be consensus. Sorry.

>The US is already hedging their bets saying Article 5 isnt binding and no one is technically speaking legally obligated to go to war on behalf of a NATO member state.
And yet Russia doenst gamble ww3 on that vague doubt, which again proves that they are less feral than NS fags.

>>17755624
might not be "consensus" but it is factually correct

and that's the entire basis of your argument. Consensus, not fact.

>>17755614
That's not Britain saying they will invade Germany even if Germany backs down, you fucking monkey retard.
You literally made that shit up, so the point still stands; all Germany has to do is not invade Poland.

>>17755628
>invade Germany
I said "go to war with", try reading.
Not that it really makes a material difference.

>>17755627
>might not be "consensus" but it is factually correct
How can it be factually correct if 99.9% of everyone thinks it's illogical and irrational? The consensus is that NATO most likely will honor article 5 if attacked. There is not even any objective reason for doubt, since Article 5 has only been invoked once, and all members honored it. You are the one with zero frame of reference for your position.


>and that's the entire basis of your argument. Consensus, not fact.
Consensus are based on facts.
But I get it, you're smarter than everyone else.

>>17755637
>Consensus are based on facts.
No. Consensus is based on popular opinions, not fact.

Consensus: Germany started WW2
Fact: Britain declared war on Germany.

>you're smarter than everyone else.
The secret is thinking for yourself and not just believing everything you are told by "everyone".

>>17755637
Yeah ok so lets take it word by word. You said in >>17755528 that Britain would STILL go to war with Germany if Germany did not invade Poland, and that Hitler did not want to wait to be attacked.

Your source is Chamberlain saying they will come to Polands aid if her independence is threatened. That doesnt even remotely insinuates that Britain will still go to war with Germany if Germany does nothing.
You're such a fucking dog, and so is every other stormfag.
And yes stormfag is a term. Everytime you lie for an argument, you are a stormfag. I have no reason to respect you when you openly lie for an argument and trying to be subversive.

>>17755617
Evidently Britains world does revolve around Hitler because Hitler for some reason determined the entirety of their foreign policy.
It’s almost like there was a robust lobby in Britain and the US fixated on Hitler.
>Hitler must get what he wants
unironically why not when the ask was Danzig?
Stalin was appeased. FDR was appeased. Ben Gurion was appeased. Their asks were much greater than Hitler’s desire to restore a German city to Germany which Poland also wanted until Britain told them not to negotiate.
Why do you ignore the facts? Why the special pleading in the case of Hitler?

>>17755639
>Consensus is based on popular opinions, not fact.
Consensus among academics are based on facts.
And then consensus among academics is that NATO will honor their treaty.

You lose faggot. You can only spew this shit on 4chan but as soon as you try it anywhere else, people are just gonna point out what a dumb monkey you are, so why are you even trying?

In fact, they will probably call you a dumb monkey even on 4chan. What's the point having a debate with you?

>>17755642
>You said in >>17755528 (You) that Britain would STILL go to war with Germany if Germany did not invade Poland
did I ? I can't see it.
Reading comprehension: nil

>>17755645
>Consensus among academics are based on facts.
and who says what is "the consensus" ?
its a shitstick argument "le consensus says so", who is the consensus?

>You can only spew this shit on 4chan
because you don't get banned or downvoted to shit for having non-consensus views and knowledge.

>What's the point having a debate with you?
Its entertaining, thats literally the only point you fucking doofus. Indeed, what is the point ?

Literally no one has ever changed their mind on the internet. EVER.

>>17755644
>Evidently Britains world does revolve around Hitler because Hitler for some reason determined the entirety of their foreign policy.
Nope. Hitler is no different than Louis XIV or Napoleon or Wilhelm or Putin
You're the one circlejerking Hitler. Britains actions were completely aligned with what they've always done
>Da jews
Except you cannot logically prove that Britain was acting oddly illogical or irrational so the whole jew thing will by that merit be dismissed as your personal schizo tantrum.
>Stalin was appeased. FDR was appeased. Ben Gurion was appeased.
And Hitler was appeased. Stormfags alwasy pretend like the Danzig issue existed in a vaccuum and nothing before it happened.
Western powers were legally bound to invade Germany already in 1935.

>>17755652
>did I ? I can't see it.
You guys are such dumbasses its pathetic.
But at least we cleared out the idiotic argument that Britain would declare war on Germany anyway.
So the point still stands; all Hitler had to do was not invade Poland.

>>17755645
No, consensus is based on opinion. Consensus is literally opinion.
>academics
What do these have to do with NATO.
Why are you so angry?

Maybe you should play nice, Pidor. We are beyond the age of unconditional surrender. You won’t get a lucky peace deal anymore. You will either play nice or be destroyed.

>>17755652
>and who says what is "the consensus" ?
When virtually everyone comes to the same conclusion after decades of research and critical thinking.
Everyone but you.

>>17755658
k let me spell it out

Chamberlain said Britain would declare war on Germany if Poland invaded Danzig and Germany went to war with Poland.

You said "all hitler had to do was just not invade". Right, all Hitler had to do was just risk Poland invading Danzig and war with Britain anyway but under unfavourable circumstances

>>17755662
The "consensus" is that Germany started WW2 right? and that is because Germany lost WW2 so there aren't any government funded "research institutes" spewing a counter-narrative.

The "consensus" is still based on the literal kangaroo court from 1946.

>>17755661
Ok so you finally accept that the reason Russia doesnt invade a NATO member is because it will most likely trigger ww3.

>>17755665
> there aren't any government funded "research institutes" spewing a counter-narrative.
>The "consensus" is still based on the literal kangaroo court from 1946

I completely accept the logic and rationale that Germany had the main agency in the outbreak of the war, and I am not participating in any government funded research or submit my knowledge to any 1946 court.

It's simply the fact that you cannot argue your position in a convincing way. It just sounds like mental monkey gymnastic. Do better.

>>17755665
>Chamberlain said Britain would declare war on Germany if Poland invaded Danzig and Germany went to war with Poland.
Correct, but you left out an important part, which is if Germany actually invades Poland as a consequence, thus threatening Polish sovreignty.


>all Hitler had to do was just risk Poland invading Danzig and war with Britain anyway but under unfavourable circumstances
What exactly are those "unfavorable circumstances" that are so catastrophic to Germanys existence that Hitler MUST invade Poland in 1939 instead of simply taking a step back? Because that was the entire thesis of your argument, that Hitler simply cannot step back because Germany will be at war anyway.

>>17755682
>What exactly are those "unfavorable circumstances"
going to war with Poland in October or November. Thus being unable to launch blitzkrieg and getting stuck in the mud in Poland, whilst France and Britain declare war, and potentially do something in the west.

Hitler, as we know, or most don't actually, decided to call Britain's bluff and smash Poland in the good weather conditions of September. Instead of waiting until Danzig was attacked because some kids on the internet in future might blame him for starting the war which Britain declared upon him.

>>17755692
>going to war with Poland in October or November.¨
And why must he do it in November or October? Why must he go to war in 1939?

>whilst France and Britain declare war, and potentially do something in the west.
What Chamberlain said was that Britain will intervene if Germany attacks Poland. If Hitler does nothing aggressive until October or November or next year, it will by Chamberlains own words mean that Britain does nothing aggressive.

What Chamberlain spoke of, was that Danzig might cede itself to Germany, and that Poland would enforce the Versailles treaty stipulation as Danzig a free-city.
Chamberlain said Poland could do this, he never said they will or even might do it. Chamberlain merely said that Britain will honor her pact if Germany invades Poland in retaliation.

Honestly I think it would serve the German cause far better if Poland actually did do this, since public opinion in the west may even sway in Germanys favor, as it did during the French Ruhr occupation, for which France was internationally scorned and ostracized. It was because of the Ruhr occupation that Britain and USA decides to radically lower German debt in the Dawes plan

>>17755712
>Why must he go to war in 1939?
If Poland attacked Danzig then that is why. He would look a mong, as any leader would, if they did nothing after a foreign nation attacked one of their cities.

>Honestly I think it would serve the German cause far better if Poland actually did do this
As Hitler is famously known to have pointed out on 22 August, Chamberlain wasn't truly pursuing war either. So the Polish provocations in early August and hitherto as well as the pact with Russia, should allow Chamberlain to save face and not plunge Europe into war.

>>17755590
>When did they meet with Hitler? Was it regularly? Where?
How would I know, anon?
>Who were these bankers? What were their names?
Brüning mentioned Oskar Wassermann as one of these bankers. I haven't read the entire corpus of all his letters to see if there were others, but his word on this subject means a whole lot more than yours.

>>17755722
>If Poland attacked Danzig then that is why. He would look a mong, as any leader would, if they did nothing after a foreign nation attacked one of their cities.
Lol correction; Danzig wasnt one of "their" cities any more than Åland is one of Swedens islands.
Also, I can still see this as far better optics for Germany from a diplomatic perspective if the Germans would embrace a long-term dispute. Again, it would be a stark callback to the French occupation of the Ruhr if Poland actually tried to militarily enforce Danzig status.
Even the Poles realised they likely wouldnt be able to hold on to Danzig forever, hence why they built Gdynia.

>should allow Chamberlain to save face and not plunge Europe into war.
And I am in the opnion that Chamberlain did not want war either, the guarantee was an attempt to prevent war while simultaniously prevent German expnasionism, just as appeasement was. Appeasement wasnt effective so they tried something else.
The British may very well have thought that Germany would back down if Britain gave guarantees to Poland, that it wasnt supposed to "bait" Germany. Had Germany backed down, there was nothing but further diplomacy to go on from there, and Germany absolutely could have attempted more diplomacy, I can think of a great number of actions that could have been tried and tested. Everyone who isnt insane should see further attempts as preferable to war. The only time war ís justified is if there is urgency that limits window of diplomacy, but in the case of Danzig there was no urgnecy so great or threatening that it justified war specifically in 1939.

>>17755753
>Appeasement wasnt effective
it was.

see
>>17755601

>>17755753
Stop calling Germans trying to live in Germany "expansionism" its extremely dishonest.

>>17756079
France and Poland were never part of the Germansphere, dipshit

>>17755723
>how would I know
you made the claim (((they))) were backing Hitler, however we have names, times, and places when it comes to untermeyer and strakosh backing Churchill and meeting at the Savoy Hotel.
>his word on the subject means more than yours
what words? cite them.

>>17755669
No, the reason Russia doesnt invade is because Russia does not want war.
No one actually wants to go to war, they are pushed to it by ever more limited strategic options.
You have a childish view of war, that it is heckin bullies.

>>17756079
Czechs and Poles are not Germans.
Hitler took both.

>>17756079
Also, it is expansionism.
20% of Estonias population are Russian. If Russia invaded Russia to gobble these Russian speaking region, it would be expansionsim.
Same as if Sweden invaded Finland for the Swedish speaking parts. It's still expansionism

>>17755674
>rationale and logic
except there is none.
Court history openly suppresses heterodox perspectives.

The fact is, Hitler exhausted all peaceful and diplomatic avenues with Poland.
This idea that "WAR CAN NEVER BE LEGITIMIATE" this only comes from the people on top who know war would dethrone them.
Three (arguably 4) major powers competed for the leading role of the coming century, the power that won disqualified all competitors and outlawed the contest itself.
There is nothing moral about this view there is nothing legitimate about this view.

Hitler was left ONLY with war and an expedient one at that pushed over the edge by Poland mobilizing and invading Danzig.
just looking at Hitler's ethos of trying to win fast, we can tell his goals were not long term expansion, it was all about a quick and decisive strike to end the abysmal Danzig question.

>>17756158
The land those Czechs and Poles lived on belonged to Germans.
Also yes, Danzig is a German city.
Hitler didnt want Poland, he wanted the German land that belonged to Germans and was unjustly given to Poles.
Same for Czechoslovakia which was never EVER a country and fell into an apartheid state within a generation of being established.
>>17756163
Its not expansionism to give to Germany what is Germany's.
>Russia
>Finland
>Estonia
I dont know what this has to do with Germany these are different countries with different circumstances.
Expansionism would be conquest of new territories to assert a claim by force.
This is not what the Germans did, they only ever claimed that which they had already claimed in the past and was taken from them unjustly.

>>17756228
>belonged to Germans
on what basis?
>Danzig is a German city
again, based on what?
>unjustly given to Poles
why was it unjust?
>they had already claimed in the past
why do you consider these claims just, but someone else getting these lands later an injustice?

>>17754620
it doesnt need rehabilitated because it was never debilitated.
>>17755021
>warmongering
Germans didnt do this and we know this because they wanted and expected quick and decisive small scale "wars". They were averse to conquest.
>deliberate starvation
this literally never happened.
>mass deportation
This is something America does TODAY.
Theres nothing wrong with deporting problem people.
>forced labor
all labor is forced technically speaking and EVERY country had conscripted labor.

>>17756250
>on what basis
on the basis of titles held by German families, they owned the land.
>based on what
based on Titled ownership, it was built by Germans, owned by Germans, inhabited by Germans, and wanted to be apart of Germans.

It was unjust because the Poles didnt win their independence nor did they broker some kind of free transfer with Germany, they were given land by foreign powers as a punitive measure against the Germans.
German claims are just because they are TITLED claims.
Polish """"""claims"""""" are unjust because they were a punitive measure to punish the German state by punishing the German people, by stealing their titles from them, stealing their land ownership, their property.

>Nazoid genuinely repeating NSDAP propaganda talking points

>>17756276
what private property was stolen from German families in the interwar Poland? they were living on those lands just fine
>stealing their titles from them, stealing their land ownership, their property
then you must consider Germany annexing Czech and Polish majority lands and claiming their property as unjust too, right?
do you consider the partitions of Poland an injustice?

you maybe this would make sense if Germany also didn't initiate an all-out war of extermination against the Soviet Union, none of this makes sense if they "only wanted to have Danzig"

wow its almost like National Socialism explicitly states that the west and east slavic peoples are "Untermensch" and that the land they populate must now be German, forever.

the entire argument of Germany is innocent at this time is deliberately ignoring the elephant that is the basis of their ideology and their later actions.

even if Great Britain would sue for peace, the destruction of Nazi Germany was inevitable, considering that war with the USSR was always part of their plan, so I dont know whats with the focus on blaming them for starting WW2

>>17756085
>you made the claim (((they))) were backing Hitler
I think the most obvious proof of that is the Haavara agreement.

>however we have names, times, and places when it comes to untermeyer and strakosh backing Churchill and meeting at the Savoy Hotel.
I believe there are different factions. Obviously the communist or marxist wing was opposed to the zionist wing. That doesn't make them suddenly not part of the same hegelian dialectic.

I oppose both factions, and this guy (see >>17755578) literally stated what is already apparent just by looking at the Haavara agreement.

As to how we would have, could have, or should have best handled that situation, obviously it would have been best if both of these factions, and if the whole business of people hallucinating about the fact they think they're Jews had either dropped that farce, or barring that just offed themselves, in the interwar period. That would have saved a whole lot of innocent bloodshed in general that took place with WW2. But barring that ideal world, the defeat and complete discrediting of both groups historically is a less ideal, but still acceptable outcome. Looking at the world today with the fall of communism and what's going on with the world stage today, they have already begun to destroy themselves, probably more efficiently than any of us could have done. Of course, this is the inevitable fate of all false belief systems and ideologies. Just as the Mafia was fated to be destroyed during the Maxi Trial, so this chapter of zionist bolshevism, the common source of both of those ostensibly opposed ideologies, and of other factions of people who think they are Jews, will come to a close.

>what words? cite them.
I'm referring to the image linked above.

>>17756217
>The fact is, Hitler exhausted all peaceful and diplomatic avenues with Poland.
Nope he didnt.
There was no urgency to annex Danzig and there were multiple diplomatic options Hitler could have tried. I can list a great many of them.

>This idea that "WAR CAN NEVER BE LEGITIMIATE" this only comes from the people on top who know war would dethrone them.
Arguably yes, you have a point, but nevertheless.

>>17756228
>I dont know what this has to do with Germany these are different countries with different circumstances.
So you are rationally incapable of putting things into perspective?

>Expansionism would be conquest of new territories to assert a claim by force.
So exactly what the Germans did. They threatened invasion every time they claimed territory, and finally did invasion.

> the Germans only ever claimed that which they had already claimed in the past and was taken from them unjustly.
This wasnt even a criteria for your own self-described interpretation of expansionism (as if you have monopoly on what is expansionism, but lets pretend) in your previous sentence. Moron.

>Its not expansionism to give to Germany what is Germany's.
Ok so Sweden can just invade Finland over Åland and Ostrobothnia?
The correct answer is no they cant, because on that principle, the world would be in constant wars.

>The land those Czechs and Poles lived on belonged to Germans.
What about the land where Germans lived that belongs to Denmark and France and Poland?

>Hitler didnt want Poland, he wanted the German land that belonged to Germans and was unjustly given to Poles.
Nothing was unjust. This is what happens when you lose a war.
Give Schleswig-Holstein back to Denmark.
Also give back all former French land occupied by Germans west of the Rhine.

>Same for Czechoslovakia which was never EVER a country and fell into an apartheid state within a generation of being established.
The most abnormal state in Germany, which had only existed for roughly 50 years before being defeated in 1918.
Completely disembody the German state would objectively be a return to normality.

Gaytler lost

>>17756267
>it was never debilitated.

>>17756369
Poland should be disembodied. It's an economic drain on the EU

>>17756291
it's just one schizo making those threads for months. He claims to be a nazi but also loves Russia and is obsessed about Poland for some reason

>>17752825 (OP)
post hoc fallacy.

>>17756904
I'm the one obsessed with hating Poland. I also hate Russia