Now that the dust has settled, we should use the wisdom of hindsight to analyze this period of the early 20th century and see who was victorious and who was not.

Main Victors:
>America
The most obvious winner. Became the global power and gained an unprecedented level of international authority, all with very little cost for themselves
>Russia/USSR
Lost a ridiculous amount of people but ended the period as the secondary world power, dominating half of Europe and exporting Bolshevism to much of the world.
>Poland
Went from a small part of the Russian Empire to gaining independence, and then resettling Danzig and most of Eastern Germany with Poles.
>Israel/Zionist movement
Probably only successful because of this period. Jews gained global sympathy and, more importantly, the support of the Soviet Union in establishing an independent state

Main Losers:
>Germany
The most obvious loser. Lost of a third of their territory, being ethnically cleansed entirely from the East. Most cities were turned to rubble and they were partitioned for half a century
>Japan
Also an obvious loser. Lost their empire and their nation was destroyed
>Britain
Technically won both wars but bankrupted itself in the process. Also lost their empire and became a disgraced American vassal
>France
Switched sides twice in the Second World War, permanently damaging their credibility. Now treated mostly as a joke
>Italy
Underperformed in both wars and lost whatever respect they had at the start of the twentieth century
>China
Lost way too many people for very little direct benefit

>>17756100 (OP)
Westoids lost LOL

>>17756100 (OP)
>France
>loser
Dude, Charles de Gaulle prevented France from getting vassal'd like Japan. He also managed to gaslight the world into thinking the Resistance was real. Cut to a short while later and France has its own nuclear weaponry independent of the USA / USSR. While the French will never experience the strength they had centuries ago, they're a decent power these days.

>>17756468
True, unlike the British they did maintain a pseudo-empire in Africa, but I'm not sure if this is to their benefit

>>17756100 (OP)
>The most obvious loser. Lost of a third of their territory, being ethnically cleansed entirely from the East. Most cities were turned to rubble and they were partitioned for half a century
Germany is still partitioned lmao

>>17756468
they still lost compared to where they were before. interwar they were the dominant land power in Western Europe if not all of Europe (excluding the burgeoning ussr) and had time to cultivate and exploit their colonies.

>>17756100 (OP)
>ussr
question is: if hitler does not start the war or only in the west for whatever reason, would the ussr have been even stronger down the road? they lost a lot of people, but also gained a lot of territory and Stalin had absolute power, but was the war effort a catalyst that left the ussr stronger than a peaceful decade would have?

>>17756100 (OP)
>USSR
>as the secondary world power
premier. the red army was unmatched in 1945.

>>17757075
Unmatched - in Europe - in 1945, yes. Local superiority in the European theatre doesn't imply they were the premier world power however. Had Stalin exploited his success and immediately driven through to Spain, taking mainland Europe into the Communist sphere, they certainly would have ended up #1 though.

>>17757227
They were also no. 1 in Asia though.

>>17757017
WW2 marked the end of French culture as the dominant force on the arts and social scene in Euro-American circles. Britain had always played second fiddle (although preeminent in Anglo-American circles) but every European country made its young men learn French, desire French haute cuisine, and ape the artistic talents of that country. With the end of the war, interwar France's cultural dominance that had persisted for centuries ended and was replaced by American dominance.

>>17757233
By 1945, the Soviet presence in Asia was quite flimsy and the majority of their forces were stationed in Europe for obvious reasons. Even five years later, they deferred on direct intervention in the Korean War and left it to the Chinese despite UN bombings on bases near Vladivostok

I would say USA was the sole winner of ww2.
USSR (or Russia) never recovered from ww2, there was a population collapse which led to a massive famine immediately after ww2. 27 millions lost is a bigger number than most anons can comprehend for a state to lose.
The USSR lagged behind the US duringthe entire cold war, and frankly the cold war was very one-sided. The USSR struggled with its economic recovery and simply couldnt keep up with the US. Eventually the facade collapsed in the 1990s and the USSR finally admitted defeat.

Now it could be argued that the "real winner" of ww2 has not yet been decided, since we still havent seen the endgame of Maos victory over Japan and the KMT.

>>17756100 (OP)
I feel as if your analysis of certain countries after the war is very surface-level.
>Japan
Hard to call Japan a loser. Yeah, they lost the war and their entire militaristic regime was dismantled, but in turn they got American colonialism in the 50s, which is probably the best thing that happened to that country since the Meiji Restoration. They could've been conquered by the Soviets, in which they would have REALLY been losers.
>Britain
The Brits were already losing their empire by this point.
>France
>muh credibility
Uh, no. No one cares about that.
>China
Disagree with your assessment. The future of China was unclear after WW2, but the fact that they fended off Japanese invasion for more than a decade despite being the underdog is an incredible win for the Chinese people. They lost many people due to the Japanese invasion, but they lost many people before due to the fall of the Qing and warlord era, and they would continue to lose many more people with the continuing Civil War and eventual establishment of the communist regime. Also, they lost millions of people, but now there are billions of them.
Anyways, the REAL biggest losers were the Eastern European states who unfortunately happened to be between the Germoids and the Russhits, because their existence would simply be relegated to political jockeying between the East and Western blocs.

>>17757240
>The forces totaled 89 divisions with 1.5 million men, 3,704 tanks, 1,852 self propelled guns, 85,819 vehicles and 3,721 aircraft.

>>17757267
>Hard to call Japan a loser

>>17757280
Okay, they got nuked, so what? 15 years later they would go on to become one of the strongest economies in the planet. Ever heard the Taoist saying "accept disgrace with humility"? When they got nuked, they didn't bitch about it. They accepted it as a consequence of the war they started, accepted their defeat with humility, and rebuilt the country far better than it was under the military regime.

>>17757287
They bounced back higher than before, but first and foremost they lost the war. also all military and foreign policy ambitions. completely dependant on US protection and loss of their Korean and Chinese territories.

>>17756100 (OP)
>Winers of ww2
China obviously.
From nearly getting annihilated, to being saved by the us and eventually becoming a second world power.
Honestly the US fucked up in the long run,should have partitioned China or something.

>>17757287

>15 years later
Ok, in which case Gaul actually won the Gallic war because 1800 years later France BTFO of Italy

>they didn't bitch about it
They've never stopped bitching about it for 80 years

>>17757287
This isnt even relevant to the argument tho.
Because while Japan till bounced back for a time as an economic power, they still objectively lost the war, which means they did not have in post-1945 what they once had and could have had. Korea and Taiwan were an intergrated part of Japan pre-ww2, and Japan lost them, imagine a Japan today that had kept them.
They also lost all their gains for which they fought for; manchuria, east indies, pacific, China, the Russian islands.

Losing a war doesnt mean that your country must inevitably fade into nothingness, economic recovery is absolutely possible but this isnt a consequence of the war. Japan objectively lost because they could have been so much more by simply keeping what they had before the war itself broke out.

Do you understand this position?

>>17757304
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_China

The US knew they fucked up already in the 1940s, losing China will forever be their greatest blunder.

>>17756100 (OP)
It's funny how britbongs threw everything they had away out of spite for Germany and simply to prevent them from having an empire. A bunch of cartoonishly evil retards that deserve everything that happened to them

>>17757326
This implies that France and Britain should have been aware of the outcome in 1945 already in 1939.
It's probably the most dumbest yet prevailing argument on 4chan, and for some reason it exists only here.

>>17757343
Britain's power and influence was already declining by that point. It doesn't take a genius to realize it wasn't a good decision to declare war on a guy who saw them as potential allies instead.

>>17757297
>>17757310
>first and foremost they lost the war
Yes, but the OP said in hindsight. In the immediate aftermath they very clearly losers, and losing much of their sovereignty to the Americans is a good point, but the objective living standards of the Japanese and their cultural soft power has increased ever since WW2, far more than they could've achieved with the militaristic regime. They lost the war, sure, but they won the game of the 20th century overall. The USSR won the war, became a superpower and still fell 50 years later. How did Russia win more with Japan?

>>17756100 (OP)
Eh honestly while it's correct to say that the US won ww2, it feels like a very short term victory.
The only reason it didn't collapse sooner is because of the USSR ironically.

>>17757356
Maybe it would have declined even sooner if they did nothing and allowed a continental hegemony to strongarm them.

What Hitler said is irrelevant because Hitler also said he was anti-communist, and that his ambitions were strictly limited to peoples right to self-determination. Yet he allied the communists and the took Czech and Polish land.
The point is that no country is going to tailor its foreign policy based on what one man says, especially if he does the opposite whenever the opportunity calls for it. Actions speaks louder than words and Hitler said fancy words but in practice did nothing to try to meet Britain half-way in any of his ambitions. They would either accept or there would be war.

USA is in decline right now but would most likely intervene if China invaded Taiwan today or Russia invaded Finland, thus we would have ww3. It's highly unlikely the US would stand down on the argument that "we are in decline anyway".

>>17757011
so is Poland LOL

>>17757227
The Soviet Union had less than 15m men under under 25 at the time, they couldnt afford another conflict.

>>17757267
The British Empire not lasting forever does not mean Britain wasnt catastrophically incompetent in managing its decline.
The UK today still hasnt paid off its WWII debts.

>>17757400
Nearly every war in history is a miscalculation.

>>17757385
He allied with the commies out of necessity not love. But anyways nothing Hitler ever did indicated he had any desire to start a war with Britain, unlike with the USSR

>>17757395
Britain wasn't in any better of a situation and war-devastated Europe would have folded like a damp rag. America was certainly doing fine, but would have been driven into the sea based on their forces actually in-situ and have little hope of another D Day following the destruction of so many armoured expeditionary companies.

>>17757385
>What Hitler said is irrelevant
is it?
>anti Communist
he was
>allied with the communists
nope. He never had any formal alliance with the communists, an alliance is a formal term for a mutual assistance obligation or a defensive guarantee, Hitler never had this.
>his ambitions were strictly limited to people's right to self determination
he never said this
>Czech
The Czechs self determined they would become apart of the Reich, this is consistent with your fantasy version of Hitler.
>Polish land
They never took Polish land. They wanted peace after taking Danzig which was an independent City State that wanted to join Germany.
>actions speak louder than words
and all of Hitler's actions show he never wanted war or to bring Slavs into Germany.
>meet Britain halfway
opposite, Hitler entertaining Britain's nonsensical stipulations such as threatening to invade Germany if Germany doesnt allow Britian to determine Germany's foreign policy, this is more than halfway.
>The US would intervene in Taiwan or Finland
No we wouldnt you retarded baby.
>its unlikely the US would stand down
We stood down in Korea and Vietnam.

There is no reason to believe American leadership would destroy the world in behalf of a few million asiatics.

You are forced to say they would because of how utterly retarded and absurd it was for Britain to throw away any management of their empire, their national sovereignty, political sovereignty, and their hard and soft power over Danzig, furthermore you are forced to do this because when we look at WHY the British did this, it was never over Poland, they allowed Poland to get run over by the USSR.

They declared war on Germany because a robust jewish lobby wanted them to.
America will go to war with Iran before Ukraine or China because a jewish lobby wants them to.

>>17757405
is it?

>>17757362
well, on a long enough timescale everyone dies and heat death kills the universe

>>17757407
Apart from be told by Britain that if he invades Poland, it would result in war between Germany and Britain and then he invaded Poland?

>>17757419
Who was Heinz Bock ???????faggot?

>>17756100 (OP)

>>17757416
The US army with its reserve potential was significantly larger than the Red Army and the US air fleet was waaaaay stronger.
The Red Army would fold, immediately.
They barely won with Lend Lease and if that is cut off + endless bombing of Soviet troop positions, there isnt a way they can defeat even a small American army let alone the mobilization of all American forces in Western Europe.

The Soviets are Slavs, Slavs are retards.
>they are le serious proles doing adulty serious things for the red utopia kamrade urah xddd!!!
This is a myth only deranged shitlibs hold.
The Soviet Union was an incompetent shithole that posed no threat to anyone they couldnt overwhelm with 10:1 numbers.

>>17757421
A lot of modern conflicts can be traced back to british untrustworthiness so he had a lot of precedent to believe that bongs wouldn't keep their word

>>17757075
If it was really unmatched, soviets would have taken Paris in the name of World Revolution

>>17757426
not him but you are deranged

>>17757267
>They could've been conquered by the Soviets,
How so? Soviets had a relatively week fleet.

>>17757407
You dont seem to understand the point I am making. Hitler only had words but his actions did nothing to reflect any self-restrain for mutual interets. He was never going to compromise his ambitions. Why should Britain tailor its foreign policy and trust her sovreignty to his words?
All Britain saw was someone who said he was anti-communist, then proceeds to make a pact with the communists. Someone who said he only sought Sudetenland, then proceeds to take all of Czechia.
China can say that they wish for an alliance with USA but it wont change US response if China invades Taiwan, because it's not realistic to surrender your own interests based on what one man says in public.
What if Britain does trust Hitler and gives him the Euroasiatic empire, but then sometime later, Britain and Germany has a fall-out over something, some hypothetical dispute of interets, and Germany will not compromise. What then? Britain is now in a vulnerable position, far more than in 1939 when it was believed France and Britain could defeat Germany rather easily (without hindsight of the Ardenne offensive).

Again, this is probably the most dumbest yet most prevailing argument on the outbreak of the war, and it exists only on 4chan. For some reaosn.

>>17757343
Mackinder knew it 1904.

>>17757420
>is it?
Yes it is.
How do you think the Spanish hegemony collapsed from all the wars in the late 16th century and mid-17th century.
How do you think the French hegemony collapsed in the mid-17th century and entire 18th century.
And Britain, and Germany, and USA, and USSR.
The overwhelming majority of their wars were miscalculations on the outcome, but it still never detered them.

>>17757419
Not gonan get dragged into one of your bullshit tirades that you have in every single thread that even remotely touches ww2.

We've been through every argument a thousand times.

>>17757430
Berlin was already the proof of superiority.

>>17757443
>Why should Britain tailor its foreign policy and trust her sovreignty to his words?
The alternative wasn't any better. War with Germany would have destroyed their empire regardlessly like it did

>>17757454
>The alternative wasn't any better. War with Germany would have destroyed their empire regardlessly like it did
Except there is no reason to believe that because Germany was anticipated to be an easy fight in 1939, and even the Germans themselves were aware of it. It was a fundemental reason why Hitler did not want western intervention.

>>17757449
Most of Prussia's wars went well.
US too until Vietnam.
Most empires were cobbled together by successful wars.
Sure, many wars were net negatives and many were started and lost, so a clear miscalculation, but I don't think those are the overwhelming majority.
If there is scholarship where wars were counted and classified you may be right, but I don't think that exists and just by gut feeling I think your claim is too broad.

>>17756287

>>17757433
>the guy who just flat out made up someone called Heinz Bock and claimed Anne Frank murdered him, who posts in exactly the same mass reply style every single WW2 thread is fine
>the guy who wants to known who Heinz Bock was is deranged

Ok.

>>17757459
>Except there is no reason to believe that because Germany was anticipated to be an easy fight in 1939,
Yes and after seeing how it wasn't the easy fight that they thought it would be they could have asked for peace as Hitler made it known he had no actual intent to go to war with them and asked for peace multiple times

>>17757429
>he says, after Hitler and Germany had repeatedly failed to keep their word

Remind us, who was utterly baffled that Britain was willing to go to war over a scrap of paper?

>>17757270
Why didn't they keep Manchuria anyway?

>>17757468
>Most empires were cobbled together by successful wars.
Most states that rise to hegemony first experience a string of successful wars, and then a series of catastrophic wars.
Sweden, Spain, France, even Germany.

>Sure, many wars were net negatives and many were started and lost, so a clear miscalculation, but I don't think those are the overwhelming majority.
A war can still be a miscalculation, even if you won it. It did not go according to plan and ended up being far more costly than anticipated. The Germans were absolutely victims of this hubris, not just the British.
As were the Swedes, the Spanish, the French, the Russians.

>>17757474
He was utterly baffled because Britain was willing to throw away their hegemony for a slavic shithole full of peasants living in mudhuts when they could have just betrayed and backstabbed them like they had done with pretty much everyone who ever trusted them

>>17757477
they didn't have enough admin points to core it.

>>17757473
I am far more inclined to debate whether Britain should have sued for peace in 1940, rather than their decision to confront Germany in 1939.
Because it's very easy to argue for Britains position in 1939
It's more problematic to argue their rationale in 1940, because like you said, by then it was clear that the war would be long and costly, yet Britain chose to continue.

>>17757482
>scrap of paper
>slaving shithole
The fuckjnh state.

>>17757486
*slavic

Britain had no reason to go to war with Germany, poland is literally not their problem.
They were retarded and paid the price by losing their own empire.

>>17757491
Germany is their problem tho, since Germany technically borders both France and Britain, and caused millions of casualties in the last war. It made sense to deny the Germans from eating up smaller states to blobb into an even greater continental version of the 1914 Germany, with zero regards for treaties or guarantees.
Also it wasnt just Germany, Italy was expanding as well, and they were German allies. Italy annexing Albania caused as much alarm as Germany annexing Memel. Why let Italy also continue?

Winners:
>da joos
Pretty obvious. Got a country, an impenetrable shield against criticism, and enormous political influence.
>China
From collapsing shithole to superpower. It was a rough and costly road to get there. But with how poorly everyone else fared, coming out ahead like that makes you a winner.
>Poland
It's not like they came out super great. But when you're starting from nothing, it doesn't take much to count as a win.

Neutral:
>Japan
They lost their empire, became an American vassal, and are one of the two countries that gets guilt tripped about the war. But in exchange they had probably the best economic outcome of the war and arguably have more influence than they would have through their empire.
>the US
We were already an economic powerhouse without equal and hegemon of the western hemisphere. The promotion to world superpower wasn't that much of a step up and the responsibilities that came with it ended up making the whole thing not worth it.
>Soviet Union
Their jump up to superpower was way more substantial. But the costs were enormous and ultimately ended up destroying them. But in the meantime they gained global influence they never could have had without the war, so it's kind of a wash.
>France
Taking Germany down a peg ensured that they would remain one of the premier powers in Europe. But Europe as a whole lost so much influence that they basically broke even. Their colonial empire was also not affected as much as others.
>Italy
They weren't all that to begin with and they're doing fine now. And no one really cares about their involvement like they do with Germany and Japan.

Losers:
>Germany
Worse off in basically every way with no silver linings whatsoever. And they had a lot to lose too.
>the UK
Suffered enormous economic damage they never recovered from, accelerated the loss of their empire, and got absolutely nothing out of it.

>>17757443
>Hitler only had words
He had treaties and honored them.
>his actions did nothing to reflect self restraint
Except they did, he could have invaded Czechoslovakia, he didnt.
He could have invaded Poland in 1938 and early 1939, he didnt.
He could have invaded Memelland, like the Lithuanians did, he didnt.
>said he only sought Sudete then took Bohemia
but he didnt take Bohemia.
The Poles said they only wanted Poland for Poles, then they literally invade Zaolzie with force, Britain still guarantees Poland.
Why the double standards?
Germany didnt even take Bohemia, the Czechs asked the Germans to become apart of the Reich.
>US response
We already said we wouldnt defend Taiwan.
>what if
what if?
You are signing off on millions of lives on a what if?
Youre a fucking retard running damage control for the jews.
We have motivation, means, mechanism, outcome, and predictive power.
You have poorly informed "what if"s.
>Eurasiatic empire
the Germans didnt want this, look at their actions, they wanted swift and decisive conclusions to conflicts, they never wanted some march of conquest where they have to tard wrangle every slav between the Oder and the Amur.
>your own interests
what interests?
>Britain is in a vulnerable position
Britain doesnt have a country right now because they went against Hitler on behalf of organized jewry.
It does not get more exposed than that.
>dumbest prevailing argument
The dumbest prevailing argument is your explanation as to why Britian never even heard Hitler out.
If Hitler was stupid enough to "trick" Britain into being allowed back on the continent in a peace settlement, why wouldnt Britain just accept this, resume fighting immediately if Hitler breaks his word, or resume fighting later on when Hitler foolishly allows British troops back on the continent?

You say Britain wanted a strong position yet they did literally everything to weaken their position, judge a tree by its fruits.

>>17757450
You are proven wrong every single time.
You claimed Germany annexed Czechoslovakia, you were wrong, there was no annexation now you backpedal to "well its not technically annexation but its in all but name"
You said Britain had no jewish lobby, then we identify multiple influential figures active in British politics, then you backpedal "well not EVERY MP was jewish".
You claimed Germany's peace offers were Hitler gets all of Europe and Britain gets nothing, then we find the Sweden offer and the call for a Danzig conference and you backpedal to "Hitler couldnt be trusted, Force could not be legitimized".
While overtly ignoring the Poles using force on Czechoslovakia, the Lithuanians using force on France to take Memel, and the USSR using force on Poland which you erroneously blame Hitler for as if The USSR land claims magically vanished (Poland took land from Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine by conquest).
You say that Hitler couldnt be trusted because he violated Munich, we find he never violated Munich. Then you backpedal to "he violated the spirit of Munich" whatever the fuck that means by Hitler and Hacha coming to a mutually beneficial agreement.
Then you accuse a major country engaging in Real politik and not charity as if thats some mark against them.

Everyone sees what youre doing and how you're ceding ground.
You have not moved the ball a single inch in your favor, you have only ceded ground on everything youve posted about.

>>17757540
You and me already had these debates a thousand times so why are you even trying?
You arguments are just the same old that has been discussed a million times.
Why should we engage in another tirade that's going to last for hours on the exact same arguments we both know and learn absolutely nothing from it? Im kinda sick of it.

You really need to find something else to do than lurking in every single ww2-related thread trying to bait these shitty spamm-quoting one-liner debates that always drags on for 300 pages.

>>17757507
>we have to declare war on our immediate neighbor because JUST BECAUSE OK

>eating up smaller states
name 5 times Hitler did this before they declared war on him.
>even greater
Hitler's ambitions were still smaller than 1914 Germany tho.
>zero regard for treaties or guarantees
except Hitler never violated a treaty and the guarantees were solely guarantees against Germany which everyone at the time considered a betrayal of the trust implicit in a guarantee.
>italy
what about them?
>italy occupying Albania caused alarm
why?
>Germany annexing memel
why didnt Lithuania's invasion of Memel cause alarm?
>why let Italy also continue
because Britain no longer exists lol??

Judge a tree by its fruits.
Britain was absolutely in the wrong, they behaved in a way completely antithetical to European and Anglo Saxon honor, and we know why, because they were beholden to a jewish lobby.

>>17756287
Hardly, the Soviets never recovered from WW2 like America did cause they never went into "peace" not to mention the demographic catastrophe that still haunts modern Russia that it caused.

>>17757535
>It's not like they came out super great. But when you're starting from nothing, it doesn't take much to count as a win.
This was true for WWI, in WWII Poland lost more than Germany.

>>17757567
Maybe you should stop lying and making up unfalsifiable speculative scenarios to justify why Britain NEEDED to get raped by stinky browns instead of allowing mr anti semite to reign for 20 years then die of Bavarian festivity syndrome.

>>17757560
>You claimed Germany annexed Czechoslovakia,
Uhu, and you always claim that Czechia was just business as usual, while ignoring that Germany had complete control over it by closing the parlament, setting up a German office over the Czechs, absorbed their currency, nationalized their industry, confiscared their armament.
Not to mention, Hitler declared Czechia a protectorate, which is just another word for colony, since major parts of the British empire were also labeled protectorates.

>You said Britain had no jewish lobby, then we identify multiple influential figures active in British politics
Nope. The ones you idenitifed were not in British politics
John Anderson was not jewish. Attlee was not Jewish, Greenwood was not jewish, Halifax was not jewish, Keynes was not jewish, Beaverbrook was not jewish.

You found 3 men of jews background among 3000 Anglo-saxon politicians and now parade them as if these jews influenced British decisionmaker, or that these men, just because they had jewish background, did not identify with British interests.

>then we find the Sweden offer and the call for a Danzig conference
Literally what? Is this one of your new talking-points? Did you already abandon the retarded propaganda "Poland invaded Danzig"?

>You say that Hitler couldnt be trusted because he violated Munich, we find he never violated Munich.
And I ask you, why did Britain and France sign Munich to begin with?
Yeah, because Hitler said he only wanted Sudetenland.
So it was a breach of trust, meaning they will never trust Hitler again.

>Hitler and Hacha coming to a mutually beneficial agreement
And you cant reasonable justify why anyone would willingly sign off their country in a few hours, nor can you ever explain what caused the urgency, you just go on about zaolzie which happened previous year, and Hungary, which wasnt pressuring Czechia but Slovakia

Could go on but 2000-word limit. Again, pointless debate, and we had them 500 times. Why waste more hours?

>>17757575
Good point. I think I was just treating them as though they were doomed because they were sandwiched between the Germans and Soviets. But if there's no war, then that's not necessarily an issue. So yeah, definitely a loser.

>>17757593
in modern politics politicians on stage are really not that important, especially in plutocratic shitholes like the UK did become by then. any fool can get himself elected if he finds influential supporters. also they are not sovereign to decide their policies to say the least.

>>17757393
What do you mean?

>>17757442
Americans loaned them landing crafts and some ships for the planned invasion of Japan.

>>17757326
The British are not evil, if you are a Natsoc then try to develop a more coherent understanding of race.

What was Hitler's longterm plan for France had the Nazis won?

>>17759152
Probably just continue the Vichy puppet state for most of the country but also annex the 'Aryan' parts into Germany they judged could be Germanized

>>17757725
They don't have the kresy anymore

>>17756287
Cope. The war ended with the Soviets destroyed, millions dead, and drowning in debt to the USA which was basically untouched by the war. America had to just forgive the USSR for around half of the debt they owed from lend lease.

Also, the Soviet Union and their communist empire collapsed in on itself and literally all of their vassal states joined the American aligned NATO lol

I'm not an expert on the subject but I think Germany lost one of the world wars

>>17757593
>you always claim
I dont
>ignoring Germany had complete control
It wasnt complete control.
>parlament
parlaments are not necessary for governance.
>absorbed their currency
This helped them.
>nationalized their industry
It was founded and grown by Germans (Austrians).
>Confiscated their armament
integrated
>another word for colony
Ok, tell us how many German colonists set up in Prague, a thousand, a million, ten million? How big was this colony?
>were not in British politics
Weizmann was heavily involved in British politics, why do you deny this when Loyd George and Churchill both attested to his influence and acumen?
>not jewish
?????? One does not need to be jewish to be a friend to the jewish people.
>influenced British decision-making
Tony Blair runs the UK, he holds no official office.
The UK hasnt been a "real" country in a long time.
The last time you challenged me on this you got hammered for saying Blair has no influence on British politics.
Do it again, I dare you.

Theres no new talking point.
When Danzig was secured and the Polish invasion thrown out, Mussolini and Hitler both expressed a desire for a conference to resolve peace.
This was before the British even declared war, this was Hitler offering ceasefire, withdrawal, and above all peace.
Britian would not even hear them out, instead delivering an ultimatum and then declaring war the same day.
>Why did Britain and France sign Munich
To torpedo Germany sovereignty.
>Hitler said
Did he say it in a treaty?
Who cares what Hitler said? If its not in a legally binding document, it doesnt matter.
He also NEVER said "I only want Sudete".
He said his only ask of the Czechs OF THE CZECHS was a referendum in Sudete and the freedom of these Germans to join Germany.
Britain wouldnt even allow this, instead threatening Benes and Hitler and demanding to oversee Munich.
Do Czechs oversee Czech diplomacy or does England?
Do Germans oversee German diplomacy or does England?
What right does England have?

>>17757593
>it was a breach of trust
Trust in what?
>they will never trust Hitler again
and then they trusted Hitler again over the August negotiations with Poland LOL.
Find a new narrative, they DID trust Hitler again, so now what? Whats the new play?
We KNOW they didnt "lose trust" or whatever the fuck you claim because they trusted Hitler with an ultimatum September 2.
Also this is an unfalsifiable stance where you just assert there was some breach of trust because Hitler didnt violate Munich but the mutual diplomacy that occurred after Munich was disliked by the British ostensibly.
So not only does your retarded unfalsifiable unproven claim not make sense, its also just outright WRONG.
>you cant reasonably justify
I dont have to.
We know what Hacha did.
>sign off their country
He left for Berlin on the advice of Britain within 24 hours of his country being invaded and half of it seceding.
>what caused the urgency
THE INVASION THAT HAPPENED THE DAY HACHA LEFT FOR BERLIN
>which wasnt pressuring
HUNGARY INVADED WITH AN ARMY HOURS BEFORE HACHA LEFT FOR BERLIN (on the advice of Britain btw).

>>17759152
Alsace Lorraine and France has a special trade deal with Germany allowing the free movement of labor.
>>17759384
Its not even a tankie, tankies are coming around (the intelligent ones).
Doctors plot, refuseniks, Trotsky-NeoCon reformation, economic dependence on the United States.
For the entirety of the history of the USSR, they were net importers of food from the United States.
an uncomfortable redpill our bolshevikov 'friends' are grappling with at the moment.