Why is Churchill remembered as a great leader?

>>17855949 (OP)
Because stopping a government that is an existential threat to your country is more important than some colours on a map.

>>17855949 (OP)
Because he was the Lindsay Graham of his day, a fat blackmailed homosexual prepared to sacrifice everything in the service of Jews, he is the ultimate example for the goyim

>>17855957
Germany tried to make peace with Britain multiple times though.

>>17855949 (OP)
Because he reduced the number of Indians in the world and if you think that alone isn't reason enough to remember him fondly then you're probably Indian yourself. In fact, I already suspect that (You) are the one who makes daily Churchill seethe threads.

>>17855949 (OP)
>Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa
De-facto their own nation already
>Egypt
Cheap cotton and the Suez canal
>India
Too big to govern properly
>All those asian islands
Cheap coffee and spices
>African tribes
Cheap labor
>Ireland
Too rebellious and nationalistic

It wasn't really worth it in the end

>Didn't post the full version
My bad.

>Because he was the Lindsay Graham of his day, a fat blackmailed homosexual prepared to sacrifice everything in the service of Jews, he is the ultimate example for the goyim

>>17855963
He was an incompetent retard too. Gallipoli in WWI is a perfect example.

>>17855969
Gigacope

>>17855969
>De-facto their own nation already
Not really, there were still many strings attached to home rule and London wielded real political authority. Newfoundland for example had its autonomy dismantled during the 30's and was turned back into an ordinary British colony.

>>17856007
Not an argument.

>>17856012
Your argument is pure copium in written form.

>>17855968
>even jewish shills hate pajeets
My pakistani friend I believe your race is just universally disliked, I dont think it has anything to do with any kind of racial or political affiliation, people just do not like the Southern part of Middle Asia.

>>17855969
Not really, AA did a video on it "Who Sold the British Empire". It was very similar to what is being done to the US Empire today.
It IS lucrative and it IS possible to keep the show going, however it is a non-government maybe you call it supra-government entities and organizations and individuals working as 'fellow travelers' to enrich themselves at the expense of both the colonial holdings and the core population of the Empire - The English themselves.

It wasnt mismanaged, it just wasnt managed for the benefit of the English.

>>17855966
Hitler would backsted them as soon he thought it was possible to invade Britain, at that point he already have a history of violating treaties

>>17855949 (OP)
Because the majority of historians are either jews or paid by jews.

>>17855957
>Because stopping a government that is an existential threat to your country is more important than some colours on a map.
Why didn't Britain declare war on the Jews than?

>>17856041
>Hitler would backsted them
This is specialitive at best.
Given the track record of organized jewry it makes no sense to side with them over the Germans.

>>17856034
>y-you're jewish
Pathetic. Keep seething about the 6 gorilion bengalis, faggot. The good thing is it actually happened, unlike the lolocaust.

>>17855968
>Because he reduced the number of Indians in the world and if you think that alone isn't reason enough to remember him fondly then you're probably Indian yourself
He also DRAMATICALLY reduced the number of whites in the world and made Europe into a jewish debt slave hell hole, that is slowly dying out.

>>17855949 (OP)
>Why is Churchill remembered as a great leader?
There are two answers to this question. The first is usually some variety of he saved Jews/Poland/Slavs in general/Gypsies/etc. from being genocided by the Nazis. However this answer may be unconvincing if you're asking why he is a great leader from a purely British perspective.
The second answer is usually some vague claim that the British world-influence "lives on" through America and the new Western world-order, and in that sense British values like "democracy" were saved.
If neither of these answers are satisfying to you then the simple answer is that he wasn't a great leader

>>17855969
>> We lost control over half the world so that we might save a handful of inbred jews.
> This was a good decision because ruling the world wasn't worth the effort.
LOL!

>>17856045
He treated Munich agreement like a scrapbook paper.
He couldn't be trusted with another treaty.

He also invaded Poland despite British treaty with Poland.
He had complete disregard for British treaties.

Hitler said he was fierce anti-communist and his ambitions were strictly about a peoples right to self-determination (which is why he was practically given Austria and Sudetenland).
Then he makes a pact with the communists and takes non-German land.
He was constantly lying about his intentions to get the best deals.

Hitlers ambitions would never tolerate compromise. If someone had conflicting interests they would have to bend to German ambitions. He never tried to meet the British half-way.

Finally, Britain wasn't going to legitimize wars of conquests in Europe. It was detrimental to their national security never to do so.
Signing another treaty with Germany, thus legitimizing their actions, and having Britain back down to them just like they did when Germany took the Czech state, would have been fatal to Britain's foreign integrity. Chamberlain had already been scorned for the Munich agreement when Hitler decided to take more anyway.

The most absurd part of this debate is that Britain's decision to continue the war isn't owed to Churchill, it was a collective decision by a majority.

>>17856042
Become a historian then faggot.
It's only 5 years in the academy. Not that a NEET faggot like you ever touched university.

>>17856491
Invading Poland was a contrived excuse to go to war with Germany. They say they guaranteed Polands independence when they delcared war on Germany, but two weeks later when the Soviets invaded the other half of Poland, Britain didn't also declare war on them. And up to that point Stalin had killed orders of magnitude more people during the purges. Britain didn't give two shits about those people, but claimed to care about Germany killing far less people.

Britain was chomping g at the bit to declare war on Germany. If it wasn't for Poland they would have come up with some other excuse. The truth is Britains creditors were ideologically opposed to Germany and wanted them gone. They didn't care that doing so would gift half of Europe to the Soviets on a silver platter

>>17856615
Poles and Russians killing each other isn't really a big deal. Just like Russians and Ukrainians killing each other today. There's always some war happening over there and it's too much of a bother to care about it.
England was pretending to care about Poland with regard to Germany because Poland was a French ally so it was part of the French vs German war for hegemony over Europe. England was solidly in the French camp by this point due to their love for croissants I suppose

>>17856615
They didn't expect the ussr to also attack Poland. They expected Germany to. Even then they were only half-prepared for the effort.
They couldn't fight both at the same time. Declaring war on the Soviets would immediately bring them into the German fold.

They did however begin to tailor different ways to do so though. Operation Pike and the planned expedition in Northern Scandinavia were evidence of that. Britain also wanted to continue the war in 1945 to reverse the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact but she was too exhausted and USA said no. Britain also strongly argued for Operation Overlord to be directed into the Balkans, not France, specifically to roadblock the USSR from eastern Europe. Again, USA said no

In the end, the Soviets attacked Poland after Poland had been virtually defeated. It wasn't war, the Germans shared their spoils. And the Germans had enabled the situation

And yes, it should be said that Germany from a geopolitical perspective was a more immediate threat, because Germany bordered France and Britain (technically) while the Soviets did not

>Britains creditors were ideologically opposed to Germany and wanted them gone.
Is that why Britain worked hard to significantly reduce German war reparations in two consecutive deals, and even loaned Germany their bonds to do so and said absolutely nothing when Hitler voided those same bonds. Both instances which pissed off France.
Britain then proceeded to sign arms deals with Germany which allowed Germany to bypass versailles restrictions, as well as ending their occupation of the Rhineline half-decade before versailles stipulated, which again pissed off France, and then virtually abandoned the anti-German Stresa Front, which again pissed off France, and then were complacent in Germany annexing Austria which pissed off Italy (a member of Stresa), and were complacent in Germany annexing Sudetenland which pissed off USSR and France, both whom had given guarantees to Czechoslovakia.

The list goes on.

>>17856628
>Poles and Russians killing each other isn't really a big deal. Just like Russians and Ukrainians killing each other today.
Lol France and Britain today have both been extremely vocal about a NATO intervention in Ukraine ever since the start of the invasion, especially France. Nice attempt at memory hole, but a simple Google search will disprove your chud lies and bullshit because of the overwhelming amount of articles (for those with a short memory) that still exist.
If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons then it would absolutely be reason to suspect that NATO would have intervened.
In 1939 Germany did not have nuclear weapons.

>>17855966

>>17856655
Ok but how many English people actually know where Ukraine or Poland are on the map
Whether or not these Slavic countries fight each other is immaterial to the English lifestyle. That's why they had no reason to declare war on the USSR in 1939

>>17856668
>Ok but
I'm really not going to spend more time educating you on this topic, just so you can continue coming back with your "okay, but" responses, just because you're completely brainwashed by zoomer history bitchute stormfag videos that sold you nothing but half-truths and distortions.

Get educated on ww2 you fucking retard. Also fuck off back to /pol/

>>17856674
Hey, we're on the same team. I'm defending England's choice not to declare war on the USSR

>>17856682
Alright.
Let's answer your question then.

>how many English people actually know where Ukraine or Poland are on the map
Pretty much everyone.

Any more questions?

Regular reminder that Churchill was not prime minister at the start of the war.

>>17855969
Egypt wasn't even part of the British empire during ww2. It's like a certificate that the person is an uninformed retard whenever Egypt is included.

>>17855949 (OP)
>Why is Churchill remembered as a great leader?
He saved the Russian people from the Axis horde

>>17856690
Yeah what’s your data for this because from observation first hand no one in the UK knows where Ukraine is lmao.
>>17856674
>boogeyman
Go back bunkertroon
>brainwashed
You’re literally a retarded government narrative lmao.
>it’s zoomer history
>it’s bitchute
>it’s Ulfric Stormfront
Or maybe it’s people doing original research and you as you’ve never done original research are desperately looking for an explanation as to why heterodox narratives are currently BTFOing the current truth regime

>>17855949 (OP)
The British Empure was BAD and unecessary ethnonationalists should be glad their country no doesn't waste money on brown people overseas.

>>17856662
None of that is true. Germany wanted a peace conference on day 2 before they took a single polish city.
>>17856653
They couldn’t fight Germany alone yet they still went to war.
>they knew they’d win
Then why the begging and pleading for American aid?
Do you even know how much British gave away in 1940 alone?
They didn’t declare on the Soviets because the jewish lobby in Britain didn’t give a fuck about the Soviets. They hated the man who challenged jewish power.
>after Poland had been virtually defeated
UHHHH 2/3 of Poland were untouched.
Do you actually know anything about WWII?

>arms deals with Germany
Name them.
>reduce war reparations
Who? Not the Chamberlain or Churchill government
>Hitler violated them
Where?
>Britain wouldn’t enforce the retardation of Versailles
This is what is expected of them. This what the Americans said was politically and morally correct at the time.
You’re saying basic decency is a sign of British clemency. It’s not.
>>17856497
>you don’t like criminal gangs? Then join a criminal gang and convince them not to be criminals
Why are they like this?

>>17856491
What point of Munich did Hitler violate?
The borders of Czechoslovakia and Germany were never modified post Munich.
Munich was never actually broken.
>uh welll technically
No it was literally never broken.
>strictly self determination
He never said this.
>Hitler couldn’t be trusted
But they trusted him after Munich in the lead up to September 1939 LOL.
Why do you just say things?
You said they didn’t.
>lying
Such as?
>speeches
Speeches aren’t politically binding. Where did he lie on a treaty?
>never tolerate compromise
And yet he comprised with Italy and the USSR LOL.
>wasn’t going to legitimize wars of conquest
Except they did. They legitimized Poland’s wars of conquest. They still guaranteed Poland despite Poland’s invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Also where the fuck did Britain “we won’t legitimize conquest” they never said this.
You made this up, this wasn’t actually where apart of their thinking.

You are looking for diversions away from the obvious.
The jewish lobby which today like then pushes the democracies to war on behalf of jewish interests.
They literally said this, the jews literally said they are doing this.
jabotinsky, weizmann, goldman, untermeyer.
>collective decision by the majority
No such thing. Tony Blair holds no office yet is the most influential figure in British politics.

You are just making things up.

>>17856904
>>17856923
Tell us who Heinz Bock was and why Anne Frank murdered him?

>>17856904
>>17856923
Shouldn't you be in bed at this hour? It's late in California.

>>17856904
>>17856923
Peak /his/ right here.
Pack it up boys.
We've lost.

>>17856904
>Germany wanted a peace conference on day 2 before they took a single polish city.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?
You say it in every debate but never once provide any proof, despite that fact that if it was true then it would be a significant argument.

>they knew they’d win
Correct.
On paper France and Britain were overwhelmingly more powerful than Germany, given enough time to mobilize their respective empires.

>Then why the begging and pleading for American aid?
They didn't beg for American aid until after France had fallen.
Are you cognitively unable to understand the basic timeline of ww2? Or are you intentionally mixing up the timeline just to scrape for an argument?

>Name them.
The naval arms deal which allowed Germany to build a navy far beyond what versailles allowed.

>Who? Not the Chamberlain or Churchill government
The British conservative government.

>You’re saying basic decency is a sign of British clemency. It’s not.
It serves as fundamental proof that Britain was not 'anti-Germany' by taking significant steps to allow german recovery. It wasnt until Germany started to aggressively expand her military and territory that Britain began changing her attitude, hence why you're wrong.

>Why are they like this?
Why do you have such contempt for people who are more educated than you? Have you even been to uni? Oh wait, you're American, you probably can't afford it.

>>17855969
peak cope

>be britain
>lose a war to Irish rebels on your front fucking doorstep in the 1920s
>realise that you cannot force empire anymore
>instead, cut your losses and ditch everything you don't want
>get the bits you do want to be "dominions" and arbitrarily keep your monarch as their head of state
>"haha, stupid churchill"

paraslop gamers are such stupid faggots. the choice was not to keep the empire or lose it, it was keep a broadly friendly anglosphere political-economic bloc or lose absolutely all of it in 50 ireland-tier humiliations for the next several decades.

>>17856039
>AA did a video on it
who?

>>17855949 (OP)
because he won, that is all. he was actually a coward, a traitor, and a midwit.

>>17856699

>>17855949 (OP)
Because he gave Danzig to polacks o algo

>>17855968
>Because he reduced the number of Indians in the world
Current population of India is 1472010677.

>Munich was never actually broken.
>>uh welll technically
>No it was literally never broken.
The Munich Agreement was a rubber stamp of approval by Britain and France on the German annexation of the Sudetenland, detailing the when and how it was to be done.
The British government and the British public felt betrayed after the German occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia because Hitler had **publically promised** not to expand Germany after being given the Sudetenland. Those promises were the entire reason and the basis on which the Munich Agreement was made.
Speeches are not legally binding, but they are a very basic indicator of wheter or not you are trustworthy or reliable to be engaged with.
I can't believe this needs to be explained.

>>17857014
Go back to the first thread it’s mentioned it. I already posted the citation in that thread.
You call it a lie now but you didn’t call it a lie in the first threat where it was sourced.
But I am glad you see an objective fact as countering your narrative. This makes my job easier.
>correct
Nope.
France lost within 55 days.
Britain was totally isolated without American support.
>mobilize their respective empires
What does this even mean? Where was the French industry abroad?
It didn’t exist. France didn’t have the ability to mobilize an arms industry abroad. Neither did the UK.
Their military planners throughout till 1950 swore by a great fear of contested seas by submarine raiders.
>they didn’t beg at first
Lol
>naval arms deal
The anglo German naval treaty?
This was ended by the British threatening war on Germany when Hitler and Benes both told Britain they didn’t want them to oversee German Czech relations.
>beyond what Versailles allowed
Versailles was nullified by 1928 when Britain and France both violated article 8.
>British conservative government
This isn’t a monolithic consensus it’s an agreed upon consensus, it’s subject to change, it’s an outright lie to say the British government can’t change its stance when different figures become more prominent.
>proof Britain was not anti Germany
Normalizing with Germany is not proof against the charge of anti-German elements in the British state.
We see a robust and powerful anti German lobby operating both clandestinely and openly in Britain from 1932 onward.
Not only that if Britain wasn’t anti German, then why the antagonism in 1937? 1938? Why antagonize Germany over Sudete before Munich was even signed?
>more educated
If you were educated you wouldn’t make basic factual errors such as denying Hitler and Mussolini’s call for peace after Danzig was taken.
>uni
>anti American
You literally need a license to open your window while your daughters are being raped to death.

>>17857217
>the people felt betrayed
Who? What role did “the people” play in Munich LOL???
>promised not to expand
They didn’t expand. They annexed no parts of Bohemia and Moravia after Sudete. Furthermore why is this such a concern of countries that have no connection to Czechoslovakia or Germany?
This reeks of consensus manufacturing and astroturfing.
SOMETHING WE ARE WATCHING OCCUR IN REAL TIME TODAY
it is on (You) to prove this pattern is not a pattern.
>are a basic indicator
No. They aren’t.
>I can’t believe this needs to explained
Well evidently the British state still hasn’t gotten the memo because they gave speeches over Palestine that were quietly betrayed, they gave speeches over immigration policy during the 60s that were quietly betrayed.
They loudly and openly betray their political rhetoric today.
It’s almost like speeches are a political tool and you just made that shit up about speeches being some critical point of diplomacy because you are running out track.

It’s obvious. Britain was forced into war with Germany because of organized jewry.
We have the names, the mechanism of action, and we literally see the same tactics being used TODAY.

>>17857244
>They didn’t expand

Hitler never broke a single treaty that he signed. His agreement to not expand was merely a verbal agreement and not part of the Munich treaty. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact was broken by the Soviets who expanded further than they were legally permitted under the Pact

>>17857341
Really now.

>>17857341
>expanded further than they were legally permitted under the Pact
Which part under this pact?

Why does every alliedfag (angolems/mutts in particular)argument sound like hindsight cope. It’s like
They deep down realise they sacrificed millions of lives for nothibg because they got involved in a continental squabble in central Europe that didn’t affect them whatsoever so come up with persecution fantasies about how hutler would’ve broken a peace treaty that would have been in everyone’s interests.

>>17855949 (OP)
OP is faggot [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

WORKS CITED:

[1] Johnson, A. 2001. On the Faggotry of OP. London Press, London. 24.-26.
[2] Jackson, B. 2019. The Portrait of OP as a Young Faggot. NYC Press, New York. 65.
[3] Ibid, 78.-79.
[4] Ibid, 85.
[5] Jimson, C. 1921. A Hundred Years from Now There Will Be a Faggot OP. Canberra Press, Canberra. 87.
[6] Ibid, 97.
[7] Jackson, D. & Johnson, E. 2021. New Discoveries Regarding the Faggotry of the OP. In: The OP Homosexuality Studies Quarterly. 13: 54.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Jefferson, F. et al. 2020. The Life and Opinions of Faggot OP. Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh. 67.
[10] Ibid, 78.
[11] Ibid, 89.-90.
[12] Jewson, G. 2007. The Antisemitic Origins of OP's Faggotry. ADL Press, Tel Aviv. 60.
[13] Ibid, 78.
[14] Pajeet, H. I. J. 156. B. C. The Faggotry of OP as Foreseen by the Mahābhārata. New Delhi Press, New Delhi. 44.

All the allies had to do was accept the fact that a united Europe was eventually inevitably going to happen, let Germany keep the European mainland, and have a defense pact between Russia, USA and British Empire to guarantee no further expansion at the direct expense of any of these.
But no, instead the British had to try to keep Europe divided, because that's what they've been doing for centuries and couldn't possibly imagine anything different, so they became the useful idiots for the other two super powers and suicided their own empire.

>>17856662
No argument

>>17857408
Its on Wikipedia.
>In March 1940, the Soviet Union annexed parts of Karelia, Salla and Kuusamo following the Winter War against Finland. The Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertsa region) followed. Stalin's invasion of Bukovina in 1940 violated the pact, since it went beyond the Soviet sphere of influence that had been agreed with the Axis.[13]
>>17857411
They are spiritual boomers coming to grips with their collective death as an ethnic group.

>>17857272
>winning defensive wars is expansionism
absolute state of Angolem apologia

>>17855949 (OP)
Because people are told to remember him by their masters, it’s that simple.

>>17855957
That doesn’t make any sense. What “existential threat” was there to Britain? Language change?

>>17857341
>Hitler never broke a single treaty that he signed.
My nigga, u really need to read up on your history

>>17856699
If you look at their politics and economy, it was as much a part of the empire as Hyderabad. Ireland was not though.

>>17856699
It was occupied by British troops and defacto a conquered part of the Empire

>>17856497
I am pretty sure almost everybody here went to college. Why make these dumb claims? Just just serve to undermine your own character and faith in the argument

>>17856060
I don’t get why people pretend that the Germans could have EVER threatened the New World. They could never invade North America, let alone neighboring continents like Africa lol. Ergo they could have never destroyed democracy, even had they won. It all just sounds like British wanted to force some people who didn’t want democracy (Europeans) to have it.

>>17857072
Which is what the French did. They tried to violently suppress de-colonialism and it always failed (despite the fact that France had economically recovered beyond pre-ww2). They were idiots. The British were smart. They salvaged what they could diplomatically.

>>17857230
Honestly man, you and me have endlessly debated this back and forth.
But I will tell you this.
I would completely concede to you if you can prove to me that Germany made peace offers on the second day of the invasion which included withdrawing from Poland, as you claim.
Because if this is true, then it would significantly change my entire position on ww2.

So go on. Make the effort.

>>17857574
Europe is unified today and without any chimpout. It was done diplomatically.

Both the French and the Germans tried to unify Europe under their dominant position. After both of him had,failed thry eventually realized that they had to compromise to achieve it.
The EU today is essentially a French-German brainchild and largely dominated by French and German influence because they do the majority of funding and administration.

Wars in Europe has always been a big thing. Both Hitler and Putin pretending like it's not, is what made them completely miscalculate the response from everyone else to their respective invasion.
Had Russia not had nuclear weapons then NATO would almost certainly have intervened in Ukraine.

>>17855971
The crop is funnier

>>17857927
Europe's unification is still deep in the making. The "chimpout" is how every unification ever in the history of mankind has happened to this day, and would have made this one much faster and effective, too.
When Napoleon tried it things were much different, European powers were still world hegemons and there was no rising global power named USA. Even just getting Russia on their side might have been enough for Britain to slow down and contain Germany's expansionist ambitions without going into a full scale war but they were too incompetent to even do that.
The rest of your post is not /his/.

>>17856059
>um it's actually the Britishers fault that Germany began invading eveyone
Stormnigger word salad
>>17857191
Yeah and it would be 3x bigger if Churchill hadn't done the needful. Have you thanked the British today for teaching you to use toilet paper instead of your hand?

>>17856662
Enjoy having your country flooded with hordes of Pakistani grooming gangs

>>17859637
His country is Poland

>>17859637
It does not happen, this is a right wing racist lie to dehumanize us

>>17856942
Anon never seems to want to answer this, even though it would utterly vindicate him...

>>17857574
Germany didn’t want to unify Europe like Napoleon would have done, they wanted to unify the Germanic race and exterminate the Slavic race. A racial war against the eastern untermenschen. Maybe you’re too stupid to understand that or a Nazi yourself. Genocide is not comparable to just a German dominated or controlled Europe.

>>17859912
>Genocide is not comparable to just a German dominated or controlled Europe.
Please explain why, without making a moral argument.

>>17855966
What is the point of regurgitating this lie? Hitler wasn't known for keeping his word.

We had a good run, but all good things must come to an end.

>>17857907
Exactly. You can instantly spot an underage retard or a foreign LARPer by how they view the "end of the British Empire." If they honestly think that it was a case of
>le churchill gave it all away for jews!!!
then they are beyond retarded.

It was always going to be this or a forever war against increasingly successful insurgents since the British people at home had zero appetite for crushing white rebellions.

>>17860124
India's population increased under British rule and it continues to increase due to the white man's science and so called "green revolution".

>>17857907
WW2 signified the end of Europe's global hegemony first and foremost. It is not about economic recovery, it is about being able to project your power and after WW2 no single European country was able to do that convincingly. If there would have been no full scale WW2 it would've been a lot easier for Europe to retain its influence over the rest of the world, including over its colonies.
The argument that "it would have inevitably happened anyway" is pure cope.

>>17855966
>Peace
Unconditional surrender, yes.

>>17859637
Unironically preferable to Germans.

>>17860262
WW1 signified the end of Europe's global hegemony. It was inevitable after that, with WW2 at worst simply speeding it along. The rot was simply too deep and most of it would have collapsed before long at that point.

>>17860275
WW1 was the start I agree. But you can't brush off WW2 as just "speeding up the inevitable". It did enormous damage to Europe that could've been avoided. Considering it inevitable is just post-fact fatalism.

>>17860296
>ww1 was the start
No, it was the end. As in: it was largely the result of a series of political errors going back since the end of the thirty year war cascading into one huge disaster that they could not logistically or politically recover from. Any kind of hypothetical reversal after that point would have required a shift away from the nation based system that was established after the peace of Westphalia. The fact that was not even in the running largely shows that, realistically and practically, Europe was finished.

>It did enormous damage to Europe that could've been avoided.
It did damage that should have been avoided, to be sure. Mostly by invading in 1932 and hanging Hitler right there and then. That would not have saved Europe, but it would have largely allowed France and the UK to keep out the Americans and the Russians for a few more decades.

>>17860262
>>17860296
You’re wrong, the other guy is right. WWI killed the British Empire. India was on the cusp of complete independence before WWII, and would have been granted independence as per the agreement they got had it not been for WWII’s outbreak in 1939.

If anything, paradoxically WWII SLOWED Britain’s collapse.

>>17860267
That was actually not in any of Hitler’s peace offe-
>>17860273
Oh. It’s jewish.

>>17860325
>it was not actually in any of Hitler's peace offerings
Yes, it was.

>Jewish
Nope. Dutch. Read history books, anon.

>>17860305
>>17860323
>more fatalist cope
Boring. You can draw loose causes for any historical event, that does not make it inevitable.

>>17860323
The entire argument that WW2 instantly destroyed the British empire is retarded. In Asia most of it was the result of Japan, who would have struck no matter what. Africa lasted for literal decades afterwards

>>17860335
As I said, Europe might have hypothetically averted the end of their influence. But it would have required a fundamental revolution of how their society is organized. The British Empire was finished no matter what.

>>17860341
If that was the case it never would have began nor would the American Empire which had an identical Imperial Structure have been able to inherit/purchase/overtake it.
>these racist Whiteys were doomed to lose thats why you shouldnt be racist imperialist Whites
No they werent. Its that simple. no amount of shitlib/brown cope will change this.

>>17857634
>defensive wars
Okay.

>>17855949 (OP)
Why does Britain NEED to own undeveloped land inhabited by backwards brownpeople and waste money to civilize then?
Seriously, why.
You complain about immigrants but you desperately want to include them in your country anyway.

>>17860296
You're a retard.

After ww1 UK lost Ireland, and had to give nominal independence to Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, all 4 whom where by ww2 drifting away from the British sphere and Sterling zone. India had created its own national assembly and were practically demanding independence.
The British once tried to suppress a protest, which led to the Amritsar massacre, which caused outrage in Britain (because Britain wasn't a fascist state that enjoyed watching civilians being gunned down).
The evidence is overwhelming that de-colonialism was already set in motion.

It's YOU who need to logically argue how the British empire could have lasted a thousand years if they just had kissed Hitlers ring.
Stormfag /pol/chuds are unironically the most uneducated on history. They don't know anything outside of ww2 nor anything that doesn't touch Germany/Hitler, and all you've done is scraping anecdotal history facts from random propaganda videos.
Your knowledge is so short sighted, you believe that Hitler was the central gravitation of history that you're completely unable to comprehend any of the real causes for de-colonialism.

The truth is that not even the British people themselves wanted to preserve the empire. The empire was the child of thr British upper class bourgeoisie elite because of map painting prestige and power projection (unironically the only thing that matters to stormfags because they view history like a video game).
But to the average Britton, the empire was extremely expensive and morally bankrupt. They wanted public education and public Healthcare, and the whole argument of "savages being unable to govern themselves" could no longer be justified. The killing blow came when the Conservative party lost its political monopoly over the British government. Labour had no interest in preserving the empire, and it would have requires Britain to go full fascist mode to do so, which they wouldn't do, with or without Hitler.

>>17860305
>kill world leaders who oppose jewish power or else all goyim must die
???????????????????
>shift away from nation based system
America is doing fine with the nation based system.

The problem isnt the nation based system, the problem is jewish influence on world governments.
Conflict is inevitable, however you reach a natural harmony, but when you have foreign influence parasitizing your nation it leads to extremely violent bloody wars.
Theres also just the problem of British obstinance they are a very immature people due to their insularity compared to the rest of Europe, their diplomacy is always an angle for unilateral advantage never a mutually beneficial entreatying.

>>17860454
Good morning "??????????" Amerimutt.
Is it time for you to spam-quote every reply, and lecture us on Europe and Europeans?
You know it's Monday right? You should be at work.

>>17857112
Academic Agent. Check him out.

>>17860440
Your argument is that de-colonialism being set in motion could have only inevitably resulted in the worst possible case of Britain losing all political and military influence over its oversea territories. Unfortunately, it is based on speculation just as much as your thousand years parody argument.
The facts are that by going into full war against Germany they did exactly all they could to worsen and speed that process up, at the sole cost of keeping Germany down.
The logical argument is that had Britain not done that, they would have likely kept more of their global influence. Most likely not all of it, but also definitely more than zero.
Is it that hard to understand? I don't think so.

>>17860728
>at the sole gain* of keeping Germany down

>>17860728
>Is it that hard to understand? I don't think so.
Because you make zero effort in explaining how and why. You never rationalize your arguments.
Its all just a "Britain lost its empire cause of ww2, trust me bro". Again, there is not a single 'how' and 'why' that you put forward in the hypothetical scenario where Britain doesn't get involved in ww2 that explains how the empire lasts.

You really have nothing.

Meanwhile I presented multiple facts and examples that logically reasoned why ww2 ultimately was irrelevant to the eventual outcome of de-colonialism.
To do so requires an actual effort post based on knowledge that offers perspective, something you're completely incapable of.

I am going to assume your next post will also be filled with the same word-salad that ultimate just amounts to "trust me bro", with zero facts that can be objectively argued as to how the empire would have been maintained versus what we know happened.

>>17860791
What are you disagreeing with exactly? Are you asking me to educate you about how WW2 contributed to the fall of the British Empire? On what constitutes hard and soft imperial power?
You're just regurgitating the mainstream history copeout of "well it was going to happen anyway" as if it's some sort of invincible argument, as if that has any logical basis behind it other than a bunch of conjectures. Meanwhile you're asking me to provide an argument for why crashing your car into a wall will likely cause you more harm than not doing so.

>>17860829
>Are you asking me to educate you about how WW2 contributed to the fall of the British Empire?
I am asking for arguments on what would have changed and how. You know... specifics in a little bit more detail.

Are you even capable of writing a full word limit post like I did that actually rationalize the arguments of how and why.

Especially since this whole "Britain sold out her empire for ww2" is the number 1 nazi argument, I would expect it to be a little bit more detailed than your constantly "well it just would ok? I shouldn't have to explain it" responses.

>>17860893
>it’s the Nazi argument
There it is. You can’t argue in good faith at all because muh heckin Nazis are at stake.
If the Nazis are right, so what?
You don’t need to intellectually puppyguard whatever you’re protecting. I am going to assume you’re either polish or a shitlib.
If the Nazis are right, so what? Are you afraid people are going to come and kill you?
No one sits down to rationalize war and killing you retard. They do it when they can. America professes the most liberal values possible yet signs off on Gaza, Napalm bombing, and indiscriminate in effective bombing on mere whim.
“Values” have never protected anyone.

Anyway the British empire fell because short sighted people would rather make short term gains than preserve British power.
>https://youtu.be/FxActB2o-Tw?si=W9O1eDZHL11U_8QK

>>17860474
Are you giving to explain to us why history is magically inevitable and not driven by human action or material condition?

>>17860197
>>17857907
You are aware the French to this day control their colonial holdings yes?

You are sub 115 IQ if you believe flags and map colors are what define power.
But leftists are sub 115 IQ so it is to be expected.

>>17860791
It’s (You) who has nothing as you have made a blanket statement that due to WWI Britain was doomed to become a colony of the third world.
Yet we have so many examples to the contrary.
Germany a country defined today literally defined geographically and politically by its loss of both world wars is better off than Britain and has more foreign influence than Britain.
France, a country literally occupied and having had it colonies militarily ripped from it managed to either regain or rebuild their overseas influence to the point their entire nuclear program is reliant on uranium from their colonies where their national army is to this day stationed and currently as of summer 2025 is fighting in French uniforms under French flags against Russian and African troops trying to sabotage/capture these uranium extraction sites in “former” French holdings.

Britains behavior, particularly their corruption, in WWII saw them just give away every advantage they had.

It’s not a rule of history the colonizer becomes colonized.
At the very least Britain could have maintained what France did, and way more if they played well.

>>17861292
Unless I skipped a day of school, I'm pretty sure France doesn't occupy Northern Africa and Vietnam nowadays lol.

>>17861330
>flags and map colors are what define power
I think you skipped IQ day.
Where does France get their uranium from? Are they trading for it or is it colonial extraction?

>>17861361
So, softpower right? It's not like France direcly controls these mines and shit, and these countries could easily take them away. Britain arguably has stronger soft power, with the British commonwealth still in existance.

>>17861379
Sort of but not really. France has soldiers there and those countries literally tried to take the mines away last year and lost a war to the French armed forces. France launched a serious of air and ground campaigns against the security forces and militias in Niger who were backed by Russians with direct support from Wagner.
Russia is pressuring all French aligned countries through both hard and soft power.

England doesn’t play these games. In fact I think the last time the British deployed their troops in any non-NATO capacity was in the 80s.

>>17855949 (OP)
>makes Germoid and Angloid nazis seethe forever
Based Churchill

>>17855949 (OP)
i'd tell you but what's the point when you'll just make another stormfag bait thread when i do? no, i think i'll just reaffirm that you're mexican instead pedro

>>17855957
When did he attempt to dethrone the judaic-masonic elements within the British government?

>shitskins on /his/ think that sending whites to fight and die in colonial foreverwars, burning US goodwill by wasting US money on colonial foreverwars, and giving the Communists massive ammunition to rally against you ( and sending more white people to die in your autistic foreverwars overseas ) will save the white race

Why do shitskins here like to pretend that they're in it for the white race but would suggest something that would fuck it over in the long run?

>>17863142
Do shitlibs really think the British Empire had forever wars?

>>17863195
>ESL reading comprehension

Something something brown shitskin no comprende mi greentext o algo

>>17863195
Malaysia and Kenya started befote the British withdrew from Africa.
Rhodesia and South Africa were countries that continued colonial policies after the British withdrawl
And just look at what happened to Portugal.

>>17855949 (OP)
Dismantling Britain's bloated and generally unprofitable empire is certainly great, but Churchill can't really take credit for it.

>>17863195
Nah bro .You just don’t get it, even if the world war never happened Somalian landers would’ve totally collapsed the British empire.

>>17855949 (OP)
Releasing their subjects rather than stubbornly holding onto them was a good move thoughbeit?

>>17863215
>>17863222
But why is this better than what France has?

>>17863195
>shitlibs
This is how I know you're some shitskin from a third world country. Go to study and do something with your life faggot.

>>17863588
Shitskins don’t say “shitlib”.
Shitskins hate AltHype.

After WWII, British voters ousted him in favor of the Labour Party, which implemented the welfare state Churchill opposed.

>>17855963
i thought he owed huge depth to jews so they bailed him out of bankruptcy. In return he unconditionally surrenered to eternal jew.

>>17858378
thanks british for dragon size dildos that mentally ill trannies like you cant dilate wide enough without

>>17865029
replace "Jews" with "Americans" and your theory makes way more sense

>>17856674
nazis and zoomer historian living rent free in this tranny's head

>>17863585
>why is this better than what France has?

Fighting foreverwars in Algeria and Vietnam and wasting white lives as a result isn't the "win" you think it is nigger.

>>17855949 (OP)
>heh, we are the ubermenschen heckin' master race! bow before me untermenschen browns!
>NONONO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO KILL ME I'M THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO DO THAT

>>17860386
No, the British Empire fell because it was fundamentally flawed. Resource extraction-type colonialism is very much a capitalist, short-term gain thing. Eventually you're going to get tired of putting out so many native rebellions, eventually those native rebellions are going to get access to modern technology.

Settler colonialism is what works in the long-term and it's why America's Empire is successful (still) to this day. Its because it has a really, really, powerful metropole. A tiny ass island in Europe being able to put down the entire Indian subcontinent and keeping it up for centuries is just laughable. The fall really was inevitable. Now if the Brits actually started SETTLING India, that would've been different. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, these wouldn't have boosted the UK's power that much, but they were fundamentally Anglo, and integrating them into the UK would've been child's play, but Westminster didn't want to expand their elite circle and allow those not from Eton and Oxford to govern alongside them.

The Americans actually TRIED resource-type colonialism with the Iraq War, but it flopped much for the same reason. Now if the US wants to compete, it is going to have to expand in terms of territory and people. That's why Trump's floating around the idea of annexing Canada and Greenland.

tl;dr logically speaking, Hitler was kinda right about Lebensraum/Generalplan Ost being necessary.

>>17865056
take care of your wife halfbreed children, Sam, instead of larping as nazi on the internet for likes

>>17865658
Even settling overseas land is only temporary. They will be loyal for 100-200 years before they start forming their own identity and culture, and ultimately secede. We have countless examples of that.

Trump wants an economically powerful USA which is why he's taking Ukraine minerals at gunpoint and wants Greenland (for its massive abundance of resources and arctic route). All he needs to do is giving them as much autonomy as possible while still having it tied economically and development to USA.

Unfortunately for Trump, Denmark happens to have the highest living standards in the world, that far surpasses even the US, so Greenlanders has literally zero reasons to desire becoming US.

>>17859898
>It's not true, that's just a conspiracy <--- YOU ARE HERE
>It's true, but limited in scope
>It's true, but those talking about it are actually the bad guys
>It's true, and that's a good thing

>>17865836
No, Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn't have their own identity (which is why they also don't now) they were literally down for joining into Westminster and turning this into the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The UK itself refused this, because Eton/Oxford fags refused to share power with 'dirty colonials'. The elite in Britain have always been short-sighted as fuck. Same thing happened with the American Revolution. Americans WANTED to be British, but the UK Parliament refused to give them representation. Biggest mistake ever.

>>17865658
If that was the case it never would have risen in the first place.
>resource extraction
like what?
What was extracted? What was it turned into? How much infrastructure was built? You have this false conception of the British arriving, conquering a productive society, then parasitizing that society - this never happened.
The British arrived to find stagnant backward unproductive primitive proto-civilizations and then had to settle and build from the ground up the infrastructure to make their holdings productive.
>capitalist
Imperial expansion isnt really capitalist, capitalism emerges from within Imperial expansion but its not a driver of expansionism.
EVERY productive Anglo Country was the result of political, religious, or judicial (re)settlement, it was NOT economically driven.
>native rebellions
these were relatively rare and the British werent ruling the natives, the natives were passive observers to productive Anglo nation building. When the natives did fight on those rare occasions they were completely and totally smashed.
>India
an exception, North America, Africa, and Australia illustrative of Whites building everything.
>natives will get access to modern technology
and they never did and those primitive societies even with technology were completely incapable of challenging the British.

>>17865658
>the fall was inevitable
This is just pure conjecture.
>India
who cares about India? for every two pounds put into India it paid out one pound, it was a net sink. You can call India the jewel all you want but Britian's loss of its African, Oceanian, Asian, and not to mention its central role as the defacto lead of an informal "Round Table" was what ended British power and influence.
>Americans tried resource colonialism in Iraq
no? lol NO LOOOOOL
Americans toppled Iraq as apart of a list of countries israel wanted to take down, we KNOW this happened because it was outlined in Oded Yinon plan and it played out exactly as it was laid out in the Yinon plan.

We are talking past each other, the British empire's power didnt come from trying to civilize unproductive retards, it came from spreading British people everywhere and maintaining bases, influence, and martial force.
giving up their land rights across the world to the US took them from junior partner to satellite status.

>>17866319
>america never did nuffin da evil juice is the only reason why they ever invade anyone
poltrannies are mentally ill

>>17866147
It's not just UK retard.
Spanish and Portuguese colonies that were settled also eventually formed their own identity and culture and ultimately seceded.

I have countless of examples to support my argument.
Your argument is only backed by your autistic screeching and personal interpretations. Moron.
There are only a habsfulvof overseas micro-territories and islands that remained with their parent state to this day. Anything overseas with a larger political, social and economic body always drifted away from its parent state and formed its own nation.

>>17866332
>habsfulvof
Handful of*

>>17866300
Tea from India, comes to mind. There was no effort to build a substantial settler population in Africa and India. And there was no effort to keep Canada and Australia into the Empire, you are completely right, EXCEPT, that the UK was short-sighted and didn't take into account to actually fully realize something like integrating Canada and Australia into the UK.
>>17866319
No, they halfheartedly tried taking the oil, but Obama floundered on it. Cheney had in mind to turn Iraq into a resource extraction colony, turning the Middle East into the US's India, with the Saudis etc. Gulf monarchies as a sort of princely states.

What the US should've instead done, is the same that the UK should've done. Pressure Canada, Australia and so on into becoming states. This half-hearted influence control is not beneficial in the slightest, because those countries are being filled with Indian and Chinese interests as we speak and they're slowly but surely losing any and all ties to the Anglosphere.

The logical choice for the US, is the same that the UK should've done back in the 1920s. Integrate Canada, Australia and New Zealand directly.

>>17866332
You're purely and genuinely retarded, or high on neoliberalism. The Spanish colonies broke off because of Napoleon invading Spain, and even then they got a Spanish monarch in charge for awhile. There is also no such thing as a "Canadian" or "Australian" identity. It's literally all British or American.

>>17866324
before the rise of the jewish lobby in America they were extremely non-interventionist and focused almost entirely on their own country and their own hemisphere.
>NOOOOOO HECKIN WHITE PEOPLE
just admit youre ugly and thats why you hate White people. Whites are attractive, you get mogged by them, leftism is sexual politics for spiteful mutants.