Thread 17918655

The reason England causes so much seething is because it is in the deciding position whether the German-Magyar-Italian alliance or the Franco-Judeo-Slavic alliance dominates the European continent.
In the 19th century, a wiser England favored a policy of neutrality to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. This began to change after Victoria's death as her successor Edward VII was staunchly a supporter of the latter alliance due to his personal dislike of the Kaiser.
England doesn't have to worry about the prospect of becoming a French-Jewish vassal state or being annihilated by the Russians. BUT they did have a reason to resent a strong Germany on the continent. So in the twentieth century they followed a purely cynical moral code and were willing to condemn Central Europe to its fate.
However we should keep in mind they were merely the deciding vote and not the primary transgressor

>>17918655 (OP)
It's probably conquering and raping half the world and looting the other half

>>17918673
I don't care what England does to the third world. What matters is their policy in Europe

>>17918674
True, glad that shithole (Europe) is going to shit

>>17918655 (OP)
>German-Magyar-Italian alliance
>Franco-Judeo-Slavic alliance
What are their policies pertaining to the problem of Tartar yoke?

>>17918655 (OP)
>Franco-Judeo-Slavic alliance
Britain was way more philosemetic during that period than either France or Russia.

>>17918708
France's entire upper class has been Jews and freemasons since their revolution
Russia's upper class was German but their country was filled with Jews who quickly took power once the Germans were extinguished
England has always been led by Anglo-Saxons albeit with Jewish-American financial backers. In order to liberate England from Jewry a wedge must be placed between England and America

>>17918655 (OP)
>In the 19th century, a wiser England favored a policy of neutrality to prevent either side from becoming too powerful.
Literally bullshit because England spent the first quarter of the 19th century fighting France tooth-and-nail to prevent a French continental hegemony.
She then spent the middle part of the 19th century committing to a catastrophic war in Russia to prevent a Russian dominance in Eastern Europe if she controlled the Bosphorus.
Later part of the 19th century was marked by the splendid isolation policy but it did not last long until Russia began expanding into Iran which led to an arms race in Central Asia (The great game), and Germany began to rapidly outgrow everyone in coal and iron production and naval armament while contesting her colonial claims.

>her successor Edward VII was staunchly a supporter of the latter alliance due to his personal dislike of the Kaiser.
Literally bullshit because Englands foreign policy isnt dictated based on one mans personal opinion, especially not the monarchy, and it was pretty obvious as to why England began shifting her position towards France against Germany: Germany was already percieved as far more beligierent to Britains position than France was, and had far better economic and military capability to conquer the contnent. France had been crushed mere 50 years earlier and Russia was the first to be defeated by a non-European/western nation which was previously thought of being unthinkable.

>England doesn't have to worry about the prospect of becoming a French-Jewish vassal state or being annihilated by the Russians.
Ah yes, the classic "everyone who doesnt do genocidial policies against the jews like Hitler must be jewish puppets".
Also they absolutely had worried about Russia. The Great Game and the Crimea War, and the entire cold war, is a testimony of that.
England however was very good at diplomacy (unlike some other state), and had a quite excellent way of tiptoeing between rivals and allies

>>17918846
I said England doesn't have to worry about being a French-Jewish puppet. Hence why they were unreasonably empathetic toward France

>>17918850
>Hence why they were unreasonably empathetic toward France

You do realise that from 1701-1815 was nothing but a massive 100 year of non-stop fighting against France?
The Spanish succession war
The Austrian succession war
The Seven years war
The Revolutionary war
The Napoleonic war

All of these were essentially a world war, and they are the reason Britain became the next hegemony by defeating France, as France had been the hegemony since the defeat of the Habsburg in the mid-17th century religious conflicts in central Europe and the Lowlands.

As Horatio Nelson put it "You must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king: and…you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil".

>>17918869
Yes of course. It would be great if this trend had continued. Unfortunately by the twentieth century, there is no doubt that England was backing France's ambitions over the European continent

>>17918884
>It would be great if this trend had continued.
Why exacty is this necessary?

>Unfortunately
?

>by the twentieth century, there is no doubt that England was backing France's ambitions over the European continent
They werent backing French ambitions you moron.
They were backing British ambitions.
Do you have low IQ?
Is it so hard for you to comprehend what it is that I've been pointing out so far?
They dont care if its Germany or France or Russia. They care about preventing the top dog becoming stronger. And they will jump from one alliance to another to prevent that from happening.
They beated France hard for 100 years and then realised that France had been beated maybe too hard because the Germans were able to steamroll France at record speed and relatively low casualites in 1870s. In the lead-up to ww1 the Germans pride themselves that would overwhelm France with ease. Aside from their tactical superiority, the Germans also produced more coal and iron than France and far more ships.
France also complied to British imperial interests after the Fashoda incident, whereas Germany were constesting them in Southern Africa.

This still doesnt mean they were fighting for "French ambitions".
During the Versailles negotiations, they snubbed French demands which was to permanently occupy/annex everything west of the Rhine. The French demanded security compensation to sign the treaty, so Britain pledged a military alliance with France which Britain then in 1921 voided because Britain was making yet another U-turn in her foreign policy by aiding German recovery. This was also done by lowering and paying off the German debt, and ending the occupation of the Rhineland ahead of Versailles stipulation. They also abandoned the anti-German Stresa Front.
Britain also vehemently opposed the Morgenthau plan which would have left a power void in central Europe and thus forcing Britain to overcommit as a power-balance as compensation.

>>17918963
>They allowed France to occupy the Rhineland but only for ten years!!
Ok cool, they're still siding with French imperial ambitions. During those ten years of occupation France became the clear hegemon of Europe

>>17918963
If helping France was all 4D chess to benefit England; then why does France still hold great influence over Europe, plus a giant empire in Africa, while England has neither and is instead a vassal state of the Americans?

>>17918985
>Ok cool
Shoot yourself.

>they're still siding with French imperial ambitions.
I just gave you multiple examples of how they favored German recovery and abandoned any alliance with France after ww1.
They didnt take side with France until after German began rapidly outspending in military and territorial expansion on the continent.

>France became the clear hegemon of Europe
I dont think hegemony means what you think it means retard.
France didnt dare making a move on Germany unless they were backed by Britain. It's the core reason why Hitler got away with the re-militarization of Rhineland.
Something stormfags have a hard time to comprehend because they think Hitler only achieved it because he was Aryan and a great leader, and not because of allied inaction allowed it.
The French also wanted to confront Germany over Sudetenland but again, they wouldnt move unless Britain backed them, and Britain wanted to sign a treaty with Germany, not war.

>>17919082
The fact the French failed to maintain their hegemony in the '30s, doesn't mean they were not the hegemon in the '20s. You're engaging in a non-sequitur.
If anything the fact French power unraveled so quickly was evidence of how unpopular they were. Maybe England shouldn't have tied itself to a sinking ship?

>>17918655 (OP)
Anglos are morbidly addicted to croissants. They will always shill for France

>>17918655 (OP)
What many fail to realize, is that economically and politically, the United Kingdom remains individually as powerful as the US, China, and EU bloc (except for France).

In fact, given its links to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it would not be inaccurate to say, that Britain is in fact a civilizational state rather than a nation, similar to the likes of the US, China and India, and is a distinct entity from the rest of Western and European civilization. The history of Britain can be traced back more than 3000 years to its foundation by Brutus of Troy.

Essentially, nothing has changed from the situation 100 years ago, except that the UK is now no longer the most powerful country in the world, but one of severally equally powerful super states, France and the UK are still independent and significant poles in global affairs and should be regarded to be at least as powerful as the US and more powerful than China, Russia and Japan.

What I am saying is not the delusions of radical Brexiteers, but plain fact

>>17918655 (OP)
>Edward VII was staunchly a supporter of the latter alliance due to his personal dislike of the Kaiser.
Big mistake blunder in history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgIpen4cIvY

>>17918679
Good morning, saar

>>17918655 (OP)
>Franco-Judeo
What a random connection to make

>>17918723
>France's entire upper class has been Jews and freemasons since their revolution
So after France had lost its chance at European hegemony? England was the great disruptor since the Italian Wars.

>>17918655 (OP)
>>17918723
>>17918850
>>17919113

>>17918655 (OP)
The Crimean Alliance should’ve been permanent. Austria should’ve won the Austro-Prussian War

>>17918655 (OP)
>Magyar
>19th century
Do you mean Hungarian, retard? Magyars were a nomadic people literally 1000 years earlier.

Bait or brown teenager?

>>17921187
hungarian = hungarian citizen
magyar = ethnic hungarian
No need to thank me.

>>17918674 Then don't whine to us about how the cumskin goblins are dying out, bc noone cares

>>17918655 (OP)
Gott is strafing England.

Hitler must be laughing his ass off in heaven.

>>17918674
>I only care about the UK fucking up Europe
its a start

>>17918655 (OP)
So Edward was a resentful fag who backstabbed and tried to murder not just one, but TWO of his cousins? Not for any gain, but just sheerly out of spite?

King Edward damned millions of whites to gory deaths, gave the jew power over mankind, and ultimately laid the groundwork for replacing entire nations which his brothers ruled with nonwhite foreigners. Even his own people.

Was King Edward history’s biggest supervillain?

>>17918723
Extremely intriguing and Interesting take, but how would that even be possible to divide the two? England has become a defacto American colony. England even imported American age of consent hysteria lmao.

Or do you mean that the only hope was to drive a wedge BEFORE the world wars? If so I think you are right. BTW, Otto von Bismark actually nooticed this himself and commented on it:
>the most significant development of the 19th century is that North America… speaks English.

>>17918846
England should have given China to Germany, while requiring that other powers mitigate the potential German doninance over the China coasts. For example, why didn’t Britain give Taiwan to Italy? Russia should have gotten Korea. They should have all made a pact that Japan got to be independent but reliant on Britain, and that no other country would trade with it.

It was obvious that Britain was acting under jewish orders. Why deliberately kneecap your own Civ’s expansion?

>>17919729
You’re ethnically jewish because you think that mentioning jewish political groups has anything to do with the Nazis. The reason for this is that, being jewish yourself, you want to dominate us and force us to do your orders. Which you can’t if we’re openly talkin about you.

>>17919729
YWNBAW

>>17919689
Good morning, sir. How can I help you? I can do anything for you but save the UK & EU (shitoles)

>>17922352
>>17922384
>>17922329