>Germany started WW2 because they invaded Poland
but Russia also invaded?

>Hitler proved to be untrustworthy which is why they decided to give a guarantee to Poland, naively hoping it would deter Hitler from his long stated and well known goals
So why did Stalin trust him?

>Roosevelt was both strong on the dictators but also an isolationist
or perhaps he was a warmonger who got told to fuck off by Congress in July 1939, by which point he had already done the damage in forcing Britain to guarantee Poland.

>WW1 was complicated
>WW2 was clearly distinction between good and evil
But in WW1 Germany literally invaded mobilized against Russia and invaded France, whereas in WW2 they only mobilized against Poland?

>Hitler was so evil he wanted a second world war
So why did he cancel the invasion on August 26th? In fact why didn't he invade Poland at any point before August?

>Hitler laid out his plans in Mein Kampf...
... which was to to ally with Poland and wage war against Commie Russia. Not ally with Commie Russia to wage war against Poland and Britain.

Is there literally a single point where the Anglo-American version of WW2 makes any logical sense?

>>17838566 (OP)
WW2 was started because Hitler would not bow down and accept a Rothschild central bank like the rest of europe and the USA

https://rumble.com/v3jj4nw-documentary-all-wars-are-bankers-wars.html

>>17838566 (OP)
>but Russia also invaded?
Admittedly in the US the fact that the Soviets invaded Poland at the same time is little known
>So why did Stalin trust him?
Because Stalin was a fucking moron
>or perhaps he was a warmonger who got told to fuck off by Congress in July 1939
This is nonsense that you believe, Roosevelt did not influence Churchill's thinking here in the slightest
>WW1 was complicated
Yes, to people who don't know anything about that conflict
>WW2 was clearly distinction between good and evil
Again, yes, to people who dont know anything about that conflict
Some estimates put deaths in the Soviet Gulags between the early 30s and the early 50s around 4.5 million, almost equaling the number killed by the Nazis in their camps, but in a much shorter time frame
Most Americans dont even know the so called "Gulag Archipelago" existed
>So why did he cancel the invasion on August 26th?
Hitler was a gambler, pop historians have wildly overrated how much of the Nazis initial moves were planned out, its much easier to portray Hitler as the actual Devil come to Earth to kill and maim for no reason than the complex political tactician he actually was, Hitler proved to be a terrible field General, the second coming of Bonaparte he was not, but at politics he was masterful
>Why did Hitler cancel invasion of England
Because that would have been retarded
>Hitler laid out his plans in Mein Kampf...
Again, this is another misunderstanding, common in America that you have pointed out, the idea the events of WWII were laid out in his book is nonsense, he didnt foresee the big showdown with the Russians happening until 1942-1943 but again, a massively underreported aspect of his character was his propensity to gamble and with the invasion of Poland and then the USSR he felt he had the hot hand and he thought that he could win

>>17838632
could stalin have read hitler's intentions by having hitler believe he trusted him causing an overextension and invasion of poland?

>>17838668
>causing an overextension and invasion of poland?
>overextension
Look at a map of Yorup in 1938
Stalin did not "trick" Hitler into invading Poland
Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to, the fact that the Soviets wanted to go in with him was, in his opinion, a diplomatic coup
Back to the map, no one, not even the Nazis themselves knew the true capabilities of the Wehrmacht in 1939, but I don't think any reasonable person would think that the German war machine would be "overextended" by marching on and taking Lodz, Warsaw, Lublin etc

>>17838566 (OP)
Your last 3 points are just you being butthurt over post-war propaganda that most normies still buy into because the media and casual 6th grade teachers keeps spinning on it.
Ww2 was a geopolitical struggle just like ww1, and Hitler briefly canceled the invasion because the Anglo-Polish alliance became official on the 25th.
This is basic-tier history. If you're upset that normies don't get it then maybe you should go on reddit to argue instead. Why should we?

As for the other points.
Stalin never trusted Hitler. He just did not expect an attack in 1941 when Germany was still at war.
Russia got away with Poland because Britain and France did not want to fight both at the same time. By 1945 the war had ravaged the world, USA were the dominant allied power, and USA did not join the war over Poland.
USA was isolationist but Roosevelt wanted intervention. Call him warmongering if you want. But the Stinson doctrine outlined by Roosevelt's cabinet was to oppose aggressor nations. If that translated into warmongering to you then that's on you.

I like how Naziboos contrive every excuse for Hitler invading his neighbors, but if anyone else attacks Germany, it's "warmongering." Apparently, only Germany has the right to declare war in its own interests. On its face, it looks like pure contrarian trolling, but I've talked to cretins like OP too much not to know he sincerely believes his own hypocritical nonsense. What causes this? How do you get recruited into the Hitler cult?

I'm not a fan of what the Allies did with their victory, or the consequences for Europe, but that is a long, long way off from deciding to be a counter-factual worshiper of a failed state and its demagogue leader who committed suicide.

>>17838632
>This is nonsense that you believe, Roosevelt did not influence Churchill's thinking here in the slightest
Churchill wasn't PM

but 16,17,18,20,22,24,25,27,30 March... very much shows that Roosevelt did have influence on British Foreign Policy and the catastrophic guarantee to Poland.

>>17838699
>Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to
is like saying "Chamberlain declared war on Germany because he wanted to". There were reasons which of course, do not get reported on by "historians" and pop history - because they utterly destroy any "germany stated ww2" myth.

>>17838705
>that most normies still buy into
yeah that's why it's annoying

>warmongering: the act of encouraging another to go to war
That is pretty much what Roosevelt did in all his speeches from at least 1937, and his reason for trying to destroy neutrality laws from 1938.

>>17838727
>youre biased in favor of the nazis
>youre cretins and hypocrites
Wow, you sure have the fair and balanced view
>failed state
It was the strongest economy in Europe proper.
>demagogue
this doesnt mean what you think it means
>suicide
as opposed to being tortured to death lol

>every excuse
no, there are clear and present reasons for why Hitler invaded Poland.
There are ZERO reasons for Why Britain and France invaded Germany.
>its warmongering
Yes, if a country has no discernible reason for declaring war, we can only assume its warmongering/subterfuge/retardation
If we rule out warmongering and retardation, its subterfuge, people at the time said it was subterfuge.
We are watching it happen TODAY.
we know the jewish lobby ran the British government like it does TODAY like it did the American government then and NOW.

You are asking us to deny what we are seeing take place in real time.
Why?

We judge a tree by its fruits and its the same people, the same tired excuses, the same pro-jewish at the expense of the natives outcome.

Why is this quacking, waddling, ducklike creature somehow not a duck?

>>17838727
>why do people defend Hitler
Most of them know that it's an irrational position, but they do it because they hate the world today, so they're prepared to abandon logic and reason for the sake of giving Hitler "the win". Bottom line is that they are too ideologically invested from the start and thus fundamentally biased.

There are others who had the same normie-tier understanding of ww2 but then stumbled on certain bitchute zoomer videos that reveals uncomfortable facts which has been swept under the rug by the post-war narrative (British occupation of Iceland, polish aggression on czechoslovakia etc), and because of these revelations they readily swallowed every single bit of propaganda that was presented to them.
Instead of accepting the fact that ww2 was a complex and grey conflict of colliding interests with moral ambiguity (as opposed to the normie version of a good-vs-evil crusade) these stormfags instead did a full 180-spin into the opposite direction, but still on the same coin

>>17838566 (OP)
>>17838589
>>17838734
>>17838735

>>17838753
>be told Hitler was evil for starting ww2 for 80 years
>find out the allies planned and started ww2 first
>acskhually it was complicated and grey
of course.

>>17838734
>yeah that's why it's annoying
Ok and again, why the fuck are you bothering us with it?
You don't like normies. Wonderful. I'll make a note.

>That is pretty much what Roosevelt did in all his speeches from at least 1937, and his reason for trying to destroy neutrality laws from 1938.
Except few people will ever agree with you that he was a warmongering because his entire shtick was to oppose aggressor nations (Stinson doctrine). If you want to translate this into warmongering then be prepared for pushback. It's like saying the UN is a warmongering organization because it stipulates thar wars of annexation is illegal, and the UN was essentially Roosevelt's idea.

>>17838762
>if we let germans conquer and genocide everyone then there will be no war
poltrannies are mentally ill

>>17838770
because anyone with a brain can see its total geopolitical bullshit for a country the size of America to be accusing smaller countries of being "aggressors" and then attacking them.

Its having your cake and eating it. Power politics but righteous.

>>17838771
>conquer and genocide everyone

>>17838566 (OP)
He didn't say he wanted an alliance with Poland in Mein Kampf. In fact Poland is barely mentioned because in Hitler's eyes they were a meme territory that was effectively a part of Russia

>>17838782
arabs and paki slaughtering and raping you is the peak historical justice, it literally makes me cry with joy seeing you replaced in real time, good radiance!

>>17838734
>Churchill wasn't PM
I sincerely apologize for knowing more about UK history than you do
At this point Churchill was in the ascendant, by this point in 1939 he was considered, by some, to be shadow PM, that was just shorthand
>is like saying "Chamberlain declared war on Germany because he wanted to".
Wow you seem smart

>>17838566 (OP)
>>17838791
In Mein Kampf he advocates a German-Italian-British alliance against the Slavic states, particularly Russia, because he believes Slavs want to destroy Western civilization (which is true). He also believes war with France is inevitable because the French are useful idiots for the Americans and New York-Paris finance

>>17838795
Polack thinks riddance is spelt radiance?
Perhaps you should stick to Polack websites instead of trying to write in English

>>17838808
i can't wait till they start hacking you apart with knives and machetes on the street
>1 child per woman (irreversible at this point)
>mass migration
>all-time high abortion
good bye! cao! adios! i will be laughing in front of my tv screen as your children get sliced apart

>>17838762
Your assumption is still bullshit because you tunnelvision on a single perspective.

Poland rejected German demands already in january 1939, Hitler began planning for war in february-march. The British guarantee did not come until the last day of March, and it was specifically a reaction to the Wehrmacht entering Prague, ergo not a calculated effort but reactionary.

It also ignores the fact that Britain gave guarantees to multiple states, not just Poland. When Italy invaded and annexed Albania in the following month, britain gave military assurances to Greece as well. Again, it was reactionary to prevent further expansion by a very clearly defined new political block on the continent.

The most absurd part of your text is that it assumes a guarantee to Poland suddenly compels Germany to attack. The text for some reason dismiss the idea (without even arguing why) the the guarantee was simply to deter Germany and Italy from making further aggressive moves.
Because I can think of multiple arguments that would argue for my case. For example Britain demanded that Poland did not mobilize, as to not give Germany any reason to attack. Poland dud not commence a general mobilization until less than 24 hours of the invasion.

We also know from the Germans themselves that they specifically invaded Poland with the false understanding that Britain wouldn't intervene because she was too pacifist to do so, not because the Germans were "baited" into attacking Poland. They simply believed they could get away with it because they had gotten away every other time in the previous years.

So yes, ww2 was a geopolitical struggle where both sides made moves that motivated their interests. To blindly say that the NSDAP dindu nuffin actually hurts your cause more than it helps because it's such an absolutely hopelessly retarded hill to die on even if your life depended on it.

>>17838775
What exactly is your argument here?
That 'Germany too deserves a place in the sun'?

>>17838816
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm Finnish
I've heard Polish women are popular among some tribes who originate South of the equator. I hope these unfortunate rumours are untrue

>>17838804
Nope Churchill was at that point just another backbenched mp who was still loathed for his history of fuckups.

>>17838816
>We want to murder your children
>Uh also we're your fellow Europeans, plz give us gibs Germany and France!!

>>17838831
I'm happy for everyone who enjoys life, and since w*ite vermin will soon be extinct then who cares anyway?

>>17838823
>Poland rejected German demands already in january 1939
most negotiations don't just end with the first rejection, neither did these.

>Hitler began planning for war in february-march.
no evidence

> it was specifically a reaction to the Wehrmacht entering Prague
Why was it given on 31 and not 16 March?
Why was the British reaction to the occupation of Prague from 15-17 March the absolute opposite of the policy they pursued from 18 march onwards?

>It also ignores the fact that Britain gave guarantees to multiple states
weeks later. It also ignores the Soviet alliance negotiations.

>without even arguing why
it argues in the 200 previous pages tbf.

>For example Britain demanded that Poland did not mobilize
In August, several months later. It is almost as if people can change their minds, not merely within months but even hours.

>not because the Germans were "baited"
see Polish ultimatum to danzig of august 5

>To blindly say that the NSDAP dindu nuffin a
when did i say that?

>>17838837
i'm glad that our Jewish overlords increased the quality of life in Europe so much but what does this have to do with the topic?

>>17838830
the argument is that America and britain caused ww2
has russia started ww3 for invading ukraine?
did america start ww3 for invading iraq?

>>17838848
they should have caused ww2 in 1933 to crush the satanic nazi vermin then but they weren't good enough to do that
damn you lazy anglos

>>17838854
Their willingness to forgive is the Anglos fatal flaw

>>17838834
He became First Lord of the Admiralty in September
You useless retard

>>17838854
>damn you lazy anglos

>>17838857
After he was proven right about Hitler. The focus of the debate isn't what happens after the war breaks out, it's what happens before it.
Neither Speer or Dönitz had any direct influence on Hitler before they came into office.
And Churchill was just another mp in 1938-early/mid 1939

>>17838857
First lord of the admiralty hardly has enough influence to be considered the "shadow PM", maybe that argument can be made when be became the more senior position of secretary of defense, but that wasn't until 1940
Also yeah, September 3rd, after the war had started, after the British ultimatum had been issued.

>>17838856
It still kinda baffles me that it took Kristallnacht to happen to them to fully realise that they are dealing with a bunch of criminals who intend to throw the world into a violent anarchy and not just an ordinary power-seeking country like France or the USSR that can be talked with

>>17838881
>power seeking
power defending isn't much better though, is it?

>>17838881
Ruzzia can't be talked with

>>17838842
>most negotiations don't just end with the first rejection, neither did these.
Tell that to Hitler who insisted on invading as soon as he was told no.
Negotiations can last several decades. There was nothing that compelled Germany to conclude the affairs specifically on September 1939, no urgency, except for completely made up bulkshit lies about 6 gorrillion ethnic Germans being supposed genocided in Poland.

>Why was it given on 31 and not 16 March?
Because foreign policy don't flip on a switch. A two week time frame should still be considered extremely reactionary.
Why are you so bitter over it? You're literally just looking for excuses.

>In August, several months later. It is almost as if people can change their minds, not merely within months but even hours.
Do you even have an argument here?
It's still a strong indication that Britain desired deterrence over war. I can name more arguments but we'll start with this one for now.

>it argues in the 200 previous pages tbf
Ok then write those arguments then you moron, because its pretty fucking important if youre going to go balls deep with the "Brirain started ww2" narrative.
Go on.

>>17838864
the father of Berlin's post-war children

>>17838872
>And Churchill was just another mp in 1938-early/mid 1939
Lmao so specific
Little brother youre just making shit up

>>17838907
I find stormfag obsession on Churchill far more amusing. They treat him like he's some sort of larger than life demigod.

>>17838782
>only pro Nazi argument left is to just hate Poland
Kek

>>17838916
I think he also once said that Churchill caused WW1 too, his influence is truly limitless
I guess the next neo-nazi conspiracy theory will be that he is still alive and controls the world government

>>17838899
>It's still a strong indication that Britain desired deterrence over war.
This is after Russia rejected the alliance and signed with Germany, isn't it?
That is why the guarantee suddenly became "deterrence" more than war.

>Go on.
Britain declared war on Germany after giving Poland a guarantee in order to prevent a German-Polish agreement, which would have blocked Russia in a war against Germany.

It's patently obvious. This is why Germany signed an agreement with Russia, they didn't just do it out of nowhere, one day, for no reason at all.

>>17838940
idk if he caused it but he was instrumental in America's involvement in it

>>17838960
>This is after Russia rejected the alliance and signed with Germany, isn't it?
>That is why the guarantee suddenly became "deterrence" more than war.
No it doesn't "prove" that Britain were conspiring war from the start. They were not interested on an alliance with the Russians until war seemed imminent.
You're not going to argue that every alliance is a conspiracy for war. Britain and France were determined to declare war on Germany even without the USSR because 'on paper' Germany was hopelessly outmatched by them in 1939 (and 1940).

There is so much more that weights against your narrative. The British virtually abandoned the Stresa Front which was a fundamentally anti-german alliance, and signed an arms agreement with Germany that practically allowed her to circumnavigate the versailles restrictions, and Britain also withdrew their Rhinrlans occupation several years ahead of what was stipulated in Versailles, much to France anger.

And if Britain wanted to "bait" Germany into war, then why did Henderson urge Hitler and Ribbentrop at every occasion not to invade Poland because Britain WILL honor her treaty.

>Britain declared war on Germany after giving Poland a guarantee in order to prevent a German-Polish agreement, which would have blocked Russia in a war against Germany.
Germany blocked that herself when she voided the polish-German non-aggression pact. Also, again, Beck refused German negotiations to join the anti-comintern pact already in January 1939, long before the guarantee was given, and again, the guarantee was given as reactionary to germany taking Prague and Memel.
You also ignore the fact that Britain gave guarantees to Netherlands and Romania as well. Again, because Britain was in a state of panic over the rapid expansion of Italy and Germany (even Japan in Manchuria but that wasn't an imminent danger like the prospect of Germany capturing Dutch airfields or Romanian oil).

>>17838995
Saying you don't know whether or not Churchill started ww1 is barely any less retarded

>>17838960
Also, the most annoying aspect of this whole "Germany was baited into war" is the fact that it presents Hitler like some lame duck that gets shoved around, and that Hitler has no agency or responsibility himself in any decisions taken or their outcome, its always everyone else's fault because Hitler was just riding along. You unironically make him appear as a rather weak man in all this.
There is more evidence that Hitler were making moves to enable his war with Poland, than Britain making moves to enable a war with Germany.

>>17838848
>Ukraine
Nobody was guaranteeing the independence of Ukraine since nobody (except the US) thought someone would start a European war over a blatant land grab. Notice other than volunteers no foreign nation has sent conscripts to fight (except Russia asking Laos and N. Korea)
>Iraq
Literally the entire world was against Iraq you retard not just the USA.

>>17838995
>he was instrumental in America's involvement in it
The cope is endless
>>17839013
This poster is absolutely right
Whenever people like this get backed into a corner in an argument, they just point to one of the actors, Russia, the Americans, the Brits etc. and just completely remove all agency from that actor
This is a perfect example, portraying the Americans as some 2 dimensional stick figure that had 0 agency in their entry into the 1914-1918 conflict is useful because it makes another contention that, when viewed in the light of all the facts is complete and utter nonsense, kind of make sense
Yes anon, if you don't know anything about the history of the United States, their participation in WWI was completely the result of not only one country, but one man in one country
If you, on the other hand, know anything about the run up to WWI, you would know that this is hogwash
Never talk again

>>17839004
>There is so much more that weights against your narrative. The British virtually abandoned the Stresa Front which was a fundamentally anti-german alliance, and signed an arms agreement with Germany that practically allowed her to circumnavigate the versailles restrictions, and Britain also withdrew their Rhinrlans occupation several years ahead of what was stipulated in Versailles, much to France anger.

What if my narrative was "Americac threatened Britain into going to war with Germany in March 1939" ?

It all makes sense. Everything.

>>17839079
So now the new bogeyman isnt le Brits, but le Yankees. Meanwhile, France caused ww1 to escalate and WAS the bloodthirsty continental power than wanted revanche against the Germans. How did the frogs do it?

>>17838900
Slavs usually kill women after raping them

>>17838566 (OP)
The lie surrounding WWII can last for a generation or two and only in heavily controlled areas. If you travel at all, especially to places off the beaten path assuming you are a westerner, you will find that our myths surrounding this conflict are entirely absent. Almost everyone but the contemporary western mouth pieces despise the Jews, because they know exactly what the Jews have done to them and others. Many more even idolize Hitler, and who could blame them? If we are being honest with ourselves he was a great man who fought the devil, moreover they would not know to hate him for the war because they were remote from it beyond allied strategic positioning which was disadvantageous to them. From 1944 onwards many Slavic/Arab movements (both right and left) have been deeply rooted in national socialist ideology, doubly so because of the conclusion of the war and the resultant suffering of their people under Soviet/Jewish hegemony. Western commentators and historians ignore this, it is uncomfortable for them, and more particularly for their Jewish masters. The hate is not for collectivization in isolation, nor is it for central planning, they blame it on the unifying will of Judeo-Bolshevism. Goebbels could not have dreamed for a more galvanized base, yet he is dead that base remains, the question really is how much longer the Jews have?

>>17838795
>>17838920
>illiterate anti-Whites
One could be forgiven for thinking these are people from india or mexico or tunisia
no!
They are from Poland LOOOOOOOOOOOL

>>17838566 (OP)
Hitler was a animal and had to be killed. His very presence in charge of a human state was inherently aggressive and ensured World War 2 had to happen. Making him responsible by every possible measure.

Nothing much to it, really.

>>17838735
NTA, but:
Nazis were subhumans.
Failed state relying on looting Czechs.
He was a subhuman.
He should have been tortured to death. World would be a better place if he was.

They invaded Britain and France because Hitler dying made the world a objectively good place.

Hitler existing and being in charge of a country was warmongering.

Hitler was not a native by any possible measure. He was a subversive traitor whose death was natural and righteous. If he was tortured to death, the world would be a objectively better place.

>>17841160
*Britain and France invaded

>>17838566 (OP)
>REEEEEE WHY DIDNT THEY JUST IMMEDIATELY GIVE BASED HITLER EVERYTHING HE ASKED FOR REEEEEEE thread number 227,683

If they had invaded in 1934, killed Hitler, executed every Nazi, and massacred 20% of the German population by evicting them from Polish land: The world would be a objectively better place.

The mistake of the allies was thinking they needed a excuse.

>>17838804
Name these people who considered Churchill to be the shadow PM in 1939.

>>17841179
You argue that the solution to a genocide was a counter and pre-emptive genocide? I don't really think that makes much logical sense.

>>17842612
>Pre emptive genocide
Killing vermin is not a genocide. The act of taking a Aryan life holds no more emotional or moral weight than taking the life of a rat.

>Inb4 You dehumanize them!
If Germans wanted to be treated as humans, don't claim you are not human by calling yourself Aryan.

>>17841189
Aaaaaand tumbleweed. Of course.

>>17841189
Everyone in Germany lmao

>>17840847
based PoleGODS, seethe harder Juan

>>17838566 (OP)
don't really know, but stalin and hitler made some top tier apartments. unparalleled architecture