Thread 17940808

Seems like a good deal. What's the catch?

The catch is that the person in your OP pic shot himself and ruined Europe permanently.

>>17940808 (OP)
The catch is that giving up your fortifications to your aggressive neighbour isnt a recipe for peace

>>17940833
>>17940854
Actually the catch is that you diplomatically outmaneuver your neighbors, Britmutts and Slavs begin screeching like apes who traded their last banana away for a shiny paperclip, and now you have World War part 2 because the monkeys of Europe went apeshit and chimped out, like they did in 1795 like they did in 1850, like they did in 1914, like theyre doing right now from 2022 to present.

Slavs? cant have it, should have exterminated them all.

>>17940871
You don't have to worry about Slavs anymore. The Germanic race will be more beatiful by ~2050 with all the Turkish and Negro gentlemen.

>>17940808 (OP)
The catch is that he doesn't stop at the Sudetenland, he annexes the entire country and then invades his other neighbors

>>17940889
>anti nazis are anti Whites
imagine my surprise.

>>17941063
But Slavs are White too? Ohh, wait, they somehow aren't. Right. Sorry. Enjoy your browns. :^)

>>17940833
How can a single man ruin an entire continent? Did he move at super speed?

>>17941063
Nazis killed more white people than any brownoid could ever dream of.

BUT DID HITLER SIGN ANY DOCUMENT CONFIRMING HE WOULDN'T GO PAST THAT?
NO??
THEN GET FUCKED PROMISES HAVE NO MEANING UNLESS THEY ARE WRITTEN ONTO PAPER.
ALSO HITLER PROMISED TO PROTECT THE BRITISH EMPIRE WHY DIDN'T YOU LISTEN.

>>17941089
>>17941212
>slavs dindu nuffin dey good boys you have to let them keeel you
lol

>>17940808 (OP)
the catch is.....

>>17941212
not hitlers fault that white people enjoyed dying for jews like ben cohen and henry morgenthau

>>17940935
because both germany and slovakia grew tired of the border clash nonsense............dumb goyim arent told this because it might provoke independent thought

>>17941239
the disagreement comes from two things.
Chamberlain claimed Hitler said Sudete was the last time he would reach out to Germans outside of Germany.
No one can corroborate this.
And, Hitler said Sudete was the last in a line of claims.
The British believed this meant there would be no other claims.
The Germans meant this: no new claims would arise, for example, Germany wouldnt say Alsace Lorraine belongs to Germany next year.
However the Germans did not mean that they were rescinding their claims on Danzig and Memel and East Prussia.
The British believed they were rescinding those claims, or at least thats what the British said.

In any case, you judge a tree by its fruits, British victory lead to White genocide at the hands of organized jewry.

>>17940871
who was screaming for world war 2 all through the 30s?

>>17940871
The English weren't historically an ally of the Poles or Russians. These are France's allies
England became absorbed into the Franco-Judeo-Slavic conspiracy much to their own detriment as well as Germany's

>>17941283
>Chamberlain claimed Hitler said Sudete was the last time he would reach out to Germans outside of Germany.
>No one can corroborate this.
Hitler said as much in a public speech.

>>17940808 (OP)
>What's the catch?
Shitler was an autistic retard who kept invading

>>17941283
>British victory
All nations suffered sacrafices in order to stop the criminal nazi regime from destroying Europe, not only british

>>17941328
yea they had to stop hitler so stalin could conquer europe

>>17941328
lol this is why they bankrupted their own world empire

>>17941270
Hitler could have not started the war though?

>>17941323
every "invasion" was self defense.........you learn things like this when you study it for 3 decades

>>17941344
Stalin had neither the will nor strenght to conquer the Europe, he just jumped the occasion once Hitler sold the eastern Europe to him in exchange for helping with Poland and with the food supplies and then invaded him in a suicidal war

>>17941353
he didnt......what he did in regards to poland is no different than what the idf is doing in gaza and the media tells me they are the good guys so..............................

>>17941363
hitler had 2 choices starting in nov 1940 invade russia or sit and watch russia gobble up both hungary and romania taking away cheap oil and putting the soviet bloc on austrias borders........ you like most who spout off know nothing aide from allied war propaganda youve never taken the effort to actually think for yourself and study the matter

>>17941373
hitler invades poland......good god start giving england and france weapons war war war,..............israel attacks iran yemen lebanon syria...........israel has the right to defend itself

I see the ???????? anon has been replaced by a ........ anon

>>17941373
hitler unlike israel couldnt use the US airforce to bomb his enemies

>>17941385
eat your bris chops

>>17941367
>>17941382
>comparing Germany to Israel
So you admit Nazi Germany was a rogue state controlled by a warmongering racial cult that couldn't not be reasoned with and needed to be brought to heel by force?

>>17941389
*could not be reasoned with

>>17941389
im admitting its hilarious watching the AIPAC cum guzzlers and npcs cheer on the idf for something hitler was so evil for..in case you had any doubts youre ruled by jews

>>17941389
16 peace offers to england =couldnt be reasoned with

>>17941389
if he was like israel his army wouldnt have suffered any losses

>>17941400
>16 peace offers to england
>every single one of them left Germany in a position to freely pursue their goals, which would have left England in a worse position than had they not accepted them.
And do you really think Hitler would just let Britain be after having been at war with him? Especially since he believed Britain as run by Jews.

>>17941318
what speech?
>>17941328
A Nazi Europe is a White Europe and a White Europe is preferable to what we have now.

>>17941396
I don't see how you people are any different.

>>17941412
>Hitler would invade England just because
????????
Hitler's peace offers included withdrawing all German soldiers back into Germany and restoring the Polish state, how does this leave Britain weakened?
What if Britain accepted this then just fortified France afterword?

>>17941415
>German men went abroad and killed millions of "subhumans," only to import millions of other "subhumans" to do the work in Germany that the German men would have been doing themselves - had they not been abroad killing "subhumans." The net effect, setting aside the mass killing abroad, was that Germany became more of a Slavic land than it had ever been in history.

>>17941412
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3231410/Winston-spendaholic-teetered-brink-bankruptcy-saved-secret-backhanders-new-book-Chuchill-s-finances-reveals-spent-40-000-year-casinos-54-000-booze.html WITHOUT JEWS WINNIE IS CALLING A CARDBOARD BOX HIS NEW ESTATE THATS WHY ENGLAND BANKRUPTED ITS OWN EMPIRE

>>17941419
Glad to have you back ????????? anon.

>>17941417
heres 1 difference.. i dont have an ethnostate paid for by amerigoys

>>17941434
he is just showing that he thinks for himself very hard with all those '?'

>>17941412
OWNED LIKE A KIPPAH

>>17941419
Any scenario that leaves Germany free to conquer the Soviet Union is a scenario where Hitler will use the resources of the conquered territories to finish of Britain (who the Nazis believed was ruled by Jews and subverting Europe or something).

the common denominator of hitlers enemies is they were all in financial bondage to jews

>>17941435
Go live in some appalachian trailer park and now you would

>>17941448
>set the Rothschilds he captured go free

>>17941447
to say churchill wasnt owned by jews is denying reality

>>17941455
prove that (You) are not owned by a jew

>>17941450
id rather kill alot of jews in a race war

>>17941457
id say my ss tattoo proves that

>>17940854
what if your aggressive neighbor takes even more land now because you refused the offer?
when was the last time russia and finland had a war since pic rel happened?

>>17941455
The post you are replying to doesn't deny that.

>>17941463
Bad example because the Soviets always demanded more of their neighbors that succumbed to their initial demands.
>see: The Baltic states

>>17941419
>Hitler would invade England just because
Hitler would invade England because he believed England was run by International Jewish Finance like the United States and the Soviet Union.

>>17941476
>your example destroying my argument is bad because i cant refute it so ill just ignore it
>look at this other thing instead

>>17941484
What happened to Czechoslovakia is what would have happened to Finland had they taken the Russians' offer.

>>17941494
>imagine this magical scenario that didn't happen
>ok not pretend its real
>that is my argument
i prefer reality to your imaginary arguments

>>17941498
You mean the reality where Germany took over the rest of Czechoslovakia after they had given up their best fortified border regions?

>>17940854
The Sudetenland would have been full of German fifth-columnists.

>>17941503
but you said thats whats gonna happen to finland in your imagination if they lose their fortified border regions
they lost them and soviets didnt take over finland

>>17941483
hitler wasnt some video game character he had limited manpower and resources he couldnt just invade everywhere and he admired the british empire didnt want it ruined in fact he said it was pure irony churchill running into the arms of roosevelt who wanted to liquidate the empire

>>17941526
>couldnt just invade everywhere
Ehich is wjy he wouod have liked to invade the Soviet Union first.
>admired the british empire
He believed it was run by Jews.
They even made a study of it, proving England had no native power bloc remaining.

>>17941514
The Nazi apologist playing defence for the Soviets.
Love to see it.

>>17941526
youre arguing with midwits that have no grasp on reality
their idea of world history is shaped by cartoonish depictions of people that lost wars and the winning side
bad guy = take over world

>>17941535
>buzzword buzzword character attack
>0 arguments
dont you have a sports ball game to watch or something instead of larping as some history buff on an anonymous image board?

>>17941355
How was invading Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland “self defence?”

>>17941532
because it was run by jews without bernard baruch and henry strakosch winnie would have been begging for coins on the streets of london he kept a pointless war going so he could live a life of luxury paid for by jews and roosevelts advisor list is like reading a bar mitzvah guest list. see when i was in 8th grade i had just 1 question why would a country follow a madman who just wanted to invade everybody but when you actually look into it you findout fast why youre not supposed to dig into it because what you find is hitlers enemies all had 1 thing in common financial bondage to jews

>>17941540
>bad guy = take over world
You believe this about Jews though.

>>17941540
yea ive picked up on that

>>17941565
doesnt take much effort to realize both fdr and winnie were owned like walking menorahs

>>17941426
Explain this post to me like I am not a terminally online obsessive second worlder.
>>17941434
>>17941439
I never left.
>>17941447
>Any scenario that leaves Germany free to conquer the Soviet Union is a scenario where Hitler will use the resources of the conquered territories to finish of Britain
nope. Hitler was an Anglophile and didnt really have a problem with jews existing as long as they were kept the fuck away from White people.

None of Hitler's motivations suggest a conqueror.

>>17941557
austria wanted to be part of germany The sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia was German soil And Poland Hitler asked for danzig, they told him to get fucked He asked if he could connect the Autobahn Hwy. to Poland. Again he was told to get fucked But the final straw was When the City Council And the police force all voted to be part of Germany and the Polish army Attempted to cut the city off from German contact Dumb goyim aren't told this fact And as far as the rest of Czechoslovakia, another thing Stupid Goyim aren't told is that Both Germany and Slovakia Grew tired of the border nonsense Provoked by Poland on the recommendation by England and France Oh, it goes. Step further if you like Why did he invade Belgium and Holland? Both were neutral But we're letting the RAF use their airspace Even after his secretary sent on 127 letters of a complaint to both countries How about Norway? You see pre war Germany was getting 77% of its iron ore from a port in Norway called Narvik It was quite close to the border of Sweden and was owned by a Swedish company But it was in Norway, and as soon as the war started, Hitler said that it was going to have to write up a plan To invade Norway at, his generals Said you're crazy At any point the British or French could launch an offensive in the West and our best troops be up north Hitler's response was this. You'll be driving tricycles into battle if the British get a hold of that port because we'll have no iron or to build anything. That's why norway Was invaded In fact, they only beat the British there by 10 hours, set up a a beachhead and stop the British from getting their beachhead Like I said, you learn things like this when you actually look into stuff and study it for three decades. And stop buying allied war propaganda

None of Hitler's motivations suggest a conqueror. i concur it wasnt hitler crying for a new world war thru the decade of the 1930s

>>17941585
>Hitler was an Anglophile
Hitler believed England was ruled by Jews who were subverting Europe.

>>17940808 (OP)
well, England could have had peace but they chose to declare war

>>17941636
Couldn't Hitler just as easily not started the war in the first place?

>>17941415
Who the fuck cares about white "people", they are not even going to be a thing in next 100 years, it's a history board

>>17941483
>Hitler would invade England because he believed England was run by International Jewish Finance like the United States and the Soviet Union.
Why?
Hitler didnt want to invade these places and had to be forced into conflict with them.
Hitler had believed right up to 1940 the British werent really his enemy.
He dragged his feet constantly with England.
The US Hitler admired for their pioneering spirit and sense of racial hygiene, he didnt think the US was a model for Germany but he wasnt against America or anything.

>>17941724
Gaytler admired both UK and USA and wanted to do to Jews and Slavs what they were doing to Africans and Indians (but 50x more evil)

>>17940808 (OP)
he will ask for poland next

>>17941757
uhh source?????

>>17941602
>austria wanted to be part of germany
Austria was ruled by the Fatherland Front prior to German annexation who were strongly opposed to unification with Germany. There’s nothing that indicates that Austrians wanted to join Germany (and no, Nazi propaganda isn’t proof)
>The sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia was German soil
No it was Czechoslovakian soil. If the Germans living there didn’t like it they could’ve leaved. Also you’re conveniently ignoring that Hitler took over all of Czechoslovakia, not just the Sudetenland
>And Poland Hitler asked for danzig, they told him to get fucked He asked if he could connect the Autobahn Hwy. to Poland. Again he was told to get fucked But the final straw was When the City Council And the police force all voted to be part of Germany and the Polish army Attempted to cut the city off from German
Lmao no. Shitler wanted Danzig (a Polish city), Poland, having seen how Germany violated the Munich agreement, rightfully said no and formed an alliance with Britain/France. Germany then proceeded to chimp out and invade Poland along with the Russians, believing the British and French wouldn’t honour their alliance with Poland
>wall of text
Yeah I’m not reading all that slop, go back to /pol/ you brown third worlder
>>>/pol/

>>17941615
this doesnt change the fact he stated many times England was objectively good for the world.

>>17941639
He didnt start the war, England did.
I dont see how England couldnt just choose not to participate in a German-Polish dispute.
>>17941670
>>17941743
hop on your tractor and get out of here Pidor.
>>17941785
The Austrian fascists opposed unification against the will of the Austrian people.
The Austrians held multiple referendums and wanted to join Germany but were forbidden by the Entente.
>nazi propaganda
is Versailles Nazi propaganda the Austrians had their national stipulations placed by the same counsel at the same location because they wanted to join Germany.
>Czechoslovakian soil
There is no such thing as "czechoslovakian"
Its not an ethnicity, a nation, or a country.
It was a political construction fashioned into a yoke around Germany and Austria, meant to take Germanic speakers out of Germanic countries and Germanic industry out of Germanic countries.
>Hitler took over
nope.
Hacha invited Hitler in.
Slovakia was an independent state
Bohemia was an independent state.
>NOOOOO THEY WERE SATELITTED
Ignoring your retarded PDX reasoning those were still independent countries in the same way Canada is independent of the United States.
They were not annexed.
>shitler
totally not biased right?
>Danzig
>Polish
Danzig was a German Free City, it wasnt apart of the Polish state, it was owned by Germans, built by Germans, and was a German speaking country from 1919 to 1939.
>violated Munich
which point of Munich was violated? Name the point.
>Britain and France wouldnt honor their alliance
They didnt, its called 'The Western Betrayal'.
Poland's government died in exile in the 70s.
>pol
You are a second worlder who idolizes liberalism and leftism.
you shouldnt even have a computer, your people couldnt build them, you dont deserve them.

>>17941801
Justifying invasion and genocide by saying that other nations "don't exist" won't make you look like a good guy yknow, it was one of the reasons why germans had to be kicked from eastern europe in 1945

>>17941463
>what if your aggressive neighbor takes even more land now because you refused the offer
Hitler annexed the entirety of Czechia. There was nothing more to take. At least Finland stayed independent.

>>17941270
>if you defend yourself against aggressive prussiapes, the jews win
/pol/trannies are hopeless

>>17941801
>I dont see how England couldnt just choose not to participate in a German-Polish dispute.
Germany couldn't stay out of a Austrian-Russian dispute in 1914.
Prussia couldn't stay out of a Franch-British dispute in 1815.
Prussia was also a founding member of Vienna congress which was all about states of Europe being involved in each others affairs, especially war.

>Hacha invited Hitler in.
This is by far your weakest point and you should accept that fact. No one will ever believe you. Literally everyone will see the absurdity in this whenever March 15 is debated. No man has ever signed his country away in just a few hours of being presented with the documents, unless they are held at gunpoint. Any rational man would have needed time to consult with their parlament and government for such a detrimental decision, and your only argument for urgency is something that happened several months ago or what was happening to Slovakia, which was a seperate nation at that point. You also fail to adress the fact that Hitler gave the order for wehrmacht to enter Czechia before Hacha arrived hence why Hacha was pressed to sign the documents to avoid German soldiers being fired upon. Yes this happened, and you've yet to fail addressing this.
Only Hitler claims Hacha signed the papers om good will, and trusting Hitler at face value is the same as trusting Stalin or Mao or Churchill at face value.

>which point of Munich was violated? Name the point.
The entire treaty. The purpose it was signed on. Hitler said he only wanted Sudetenland.
Again, this is also one of your weakest arguments because any rational person will see through this. A treaty does not need to include 5000 different points of what Hitler may or not may not do in every X amount of factors and scenarios, that aren't even relevant to the purpose of the treaty which was to give Germany Sudetenland because that's what Hitler demanded.
He said he only wanted Sudetenland and then took more.

>>17941116
Idk bro, probably would have been a lot better if Hitler didn't ruin the idea of racial hygiene, nationalism and shunned conservative values.
You can thank Hitler for pretty much everything you have today, including Israel. Stormfaggots cant grasp this concept however, that actions = consequences.
You worship a faggot who caused the deaths of millions of Germans, caused half the continent to fall under communism, and caused socialist marxist agenda to prevail in the political debate in the west. Who can say what would have happened without Hitler, but at least all of this you're seeing now would have been met with much more fierce resistance.
Ofc Stormfaggots will deny this because they are faggots, hence the name. They will vehemently and unconditionally proclaim that Hitler did nothing wrong so the very idea to add nuance and critcize is complete blasphemy. He simply must win the war or at least get everything he ever wanted and anyone who didnt enable it is at fault.

I have this view on other issues as well btw. Not just ww2.
It would have been better if the southern states simply didnt import millions of Africans to USA instead of trying to win the civil war. Again actions = consequences

i think i found something important but i don’t really know what to do with it. going to share in hopes it gets shared, corrected, or at least properly understood. i’m almost positive ai is already creeping into history documentaries with the intention of re-writing history. evidence here: https://youtu(dot)be/j47skwsc-eY?si=eYbH807IvUYPwFB4&t=2512

the scene shows nazi ss men showering together and rubbing each other like little gay schoolboys. that can’t possibly be true. in fact, the last 5 minutes or so seem completely falsified but in a subtle way—from the shower scene with the odd narration to the story about bad grades and still getting into the ss

>>17942178
I remember writing this a long time ago. Funny seeing an anon virtually copy paste my post. Nothing wrong with it, it just puts a slight grin on my face.

>>17941860
>le good
>le bad
meaningless drivel.
There is no good and bad in geopolitics
>>17942148
>Germany couldnt stay out
Germany had a formal alliance with Austria and Austria was right on Germany's border, it would be strategically foolish for them to allow France and Russia to overthrow a German ally.
Furthermore Russia was intervening in an Austrian-Serbian domestic affair which is far more out of line.
>Prussia couldnt stay out
Prussia was throwing off the yoke of France and had already been involved heavily in the coalition wars, the "French-British" dispute in 1815 was a continuation of the coalition conflict.
>Concert of Europe
That was actually the opposite it was about STAYING OUT of each others spheres of influence.
>Hacha
no, Hacha is the most inconvenient point for you which is why you must discredit it because ultimately there isnt enough information to make 100% conclusive statements about Hacha and Hitler's meeting however based on the sources we have it heavily favors my position, this is why your entire case against this point is dispersion and incredulity, never an actual argument of the facts.
>no one will ever believe you
believe what?
>signed his country away
Hacha didnt sign his country away.
and many governments did become satellites willingly, the gunboat diplomacy wikipage has a laundry list of men whom "signed their country away".
But Hacha didnt sign his country away, he sought German protection because half of his country seceded, was invaded, and a portion of it was under Polish occupation, his ostensible acquaintances in London had completely abandoned him and it was either Hitler or Stalin. Also you ignore this, the Czechs debated going to Stalin to seek a guarantee.
Why did Hacha even meet with Hitler in the first place?
>any rational man
Hacha didnt have time, the Hungarians invaded THAT DAY.
>what was happening in Slovakia
SLOVAKIA WAS NOT A COUNTRY IN 1939!

>>17942358
>he sought German protection
From...Germans?

>>17942148
This seems to be a recurring problem.

Slovakia was not a country in 1939.
Hacha did not recognize Slovakia as a country, the Czechoslovak state was disintegrating, on the verge of a full civil war while the Hungarians were invading.
>how does this affect Hacha
HACHA IS THE PRESIDENT OF "Slovakia".
That is how it affects him.
What you erroneously call "Slovakia" is a sub-region of Czechoslovakia which is under the jurisdiction of Hacha.
>Hitler gave the order
nope.
This has already been addressed.
no such order was given.
German soldiers were given orders to mirror Polish movements in lower Silesia near the Polish/Czech border as Poles were moving around in Ciesyn. There is not a single Wehrmacht movement order instructing soldiers to cross the Czechoslovak border until March 15.
The claim German troops were already given the order comes from 1 (one) source - Synder's Encyclopedia of the Third Reich.
Nearly the same page it makes the basic factual error of claiming Hitler sought out Hacha when we KNOW from the correspondence between Newton and Hacha, Hacha went to Hitler of his own accord on the advice of Basil Newton.
There are also no such movement orders from the Germany army archive.
Has this issue been addressed?
>Stalin or Mao
they are both more trustworthy than Churchill unironically.
Judge a tree by its fruits.
>the entire treaty
What does this mean? Which point?
>the purpose it was signed on
what does that mean?
>Hitler said
Hitler asked for Sudete, he got Sudete, there was no violation.
>any rational person will see through this
see what? Read the Munich agreement, it is 8 points.
>https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/nazi-germany-1933-1945/the-munich-agreement-september-29-1938.pdf
Which point was violated?
>a treaty does not need
Yes it does and this is why treaties like that of Versailles are painfully long reads and the LoN yearbook is similarly longer than most actual books.
>took more
what does that mean?
Nothing more was annexed.

>>17942178
>>17942225
>it was Hitler who ruined these things not the jewish mafia which actually ruins your life if you even mention them

>>17942361
>From Germans
From Hungarians and Slovaks, and to a lesser extent Poles and Germans.
If Hacha is feeling threatened by the Germans, well they are the only country that isnt: A, actively at war with him or B, actively occupying his country. Germans are the one diplomatic option for Hacha.

The entire case against Hacha's legitimacy is that its just unbelievable.
Well, unbelievable is not an argument as our holocaust truther friends tell us.
so lets apply that reasoning here.
>>17942148
Oh right, Hermann Muller signed away his country in an afternoon at Versailles.

>>17942358
>Germany had a formal alliance with Austria and Austria was right on Germany's border, it would be strategically foolish for them to allow France and Russia to overthrow a German ally.
I love how you write this without seeing the obvious parallels to Britain and France concern of Germany deleting Poland. Yes Germany does technically border Britain and France.

>French-British" dispute in 1815 was a continuation of the coalition conflict.
Nope. Napoleon immediately declared that he wanted peace after he became the leader of France again in 1815. The Prussians responded by declaring war.
Thrir previous war with France had also been Prussia being the ones declaring war despite the fact that France had no designs on Prussia. They simply inserted themselves into the French-British-Ausrian war.

Or maybe it's because war can sometimes have more sophisticated reasons other than "it only concerns you if it involves you directly", which is the narrative you're trying to paint with Germany invading Poland.

>That was actually the opposite it was about STAYING OUT of each others spheres of influence
Lmao it was about everyone consulting each others and having each others approval for every action taken, specifically to avoid friction in interest that might lead to war. It was essentially a proto-UN.
You don't understand this because you're an American and you're a fascist.
Europeans wanted to stop wars in Europe.

The guy proposing the deal is an evil maniac

>>17942358
>this is why your entire case against this point is dispersion and incredulity, never an actual argument of the facts.
Except literally no one backs you om your position about Hacha. Literally no one. Not a single historian or writer. Not Irving and not Hoggan. Zoomer Historian admits that Hitler gave the order to invade before Hacha arrived, and most nazi videos like Greatest Story Never Told and Europa Last Battle completely ignores this chapter because it undermine their narrative.

You are alone claiming that it's perfectly natural for a state leader to sign away his country within hours out of good will. It has never happened in history. Any Czech person would also spit on you for even suggesting that the German rule was benevolent. Of course you wouldn't know this because you've never been to Czechia and spoken to the Czechs. Amerifag.

>gunboat diplomacy wikipage has a laundry list of men whom "signed their country away".
Yeah, at gunpoint. Which is how most protectorates were formed. See that map of the British Empire? Half of it are protectorates, just as Hitler labeled Czechia. To deny this fact is to deny that Britain had an empire "uh no those areas were perfectly independent".

>But Hacha didnt sign his country away, he sought German protection
Protection from what? Are you going to talk about zalozie which happened many months ago and Hungarian pressure om Slovakia, an independent state?
None of this warrants a decision of that magnitude to be signed within hours. What stopped Hacha from returning to Prague to consult the decision or analyze the documents? Was Prague under siege?

>SLOVAKIA WAS NOT A COUNTRY IN 1939!
From wikipedia: the Slovak state declared independence on March 14, before Hitler took Czechia.
You lose

Hitler took Czechia, turned it into a German rule at gunpoint, just so he could reap the reward of conquering her industry and armament and gold. It had neither a German population nor taken in Versailles treaty

>>17942373
>Hacha did not recognize Slovakia as a country
>What you erroneously call "Slovakia" is a sub-region of Czechoslovakia which is under the jurisdiction of Hacha
Bro Serbia does not recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia, I don't think the Serb president gives two shits about Kosovo dealings being his responsibility

>no such order was given
Wrong. The order for wehrmacht to enter Czechia was given.
Also the Germans placed a curfew on Prague when they entered because they knew there would be protests.
The oh so benevolent Germans then closed the parlament and universities

>when we KNOW
You actually don't know anything because you're not a historian and you don't do any research or publications. You merely read what others have written, which isn't research, and you heavily cherrypick singular anecdotes and then structure an entire narrative on it while ignoring the greater picture. This is why your ilk never publish this shit because it would make it subjected to academic debate which it would never survive, so you're confined to shitposting on anime board and thinking it's going to change the narrative among those who research this shit for a living. You're just a NEET

>they are both more trustworthy than Churchill unironically.
>Judge a tree by its fruits.
Hence why no one is going to believe you because your only witness of Hacha signing off his country that very same night for good will, is Hitler, and 99.9% of every person isn't going to trust everything Hitler (nor any other leader) says at face value

>what does that mean?
It means that you're retarded because you can't figure it out

>Hitler asked for Sudete, he got Sudete, there was no violation.
That was the violation because he took more than just Sudetenland

>Yes it does and this is why treaties like that of Versailles are painfully long reads and the LoN yearbook is similarly longer than most actual books
LMAO
Does it say anywhere in Versailles that France cannot occupy the Ruhr?

>>17942386
>Oh right, Hermann Muller signed away his country in an afternoon at Versailles.
LMAO you shot yourself in the foot now because this is a poor example.
The Germans reviewed the treaty in early May and ratified it in July, this was also after they have had a lengthy discussion and a parlament vote on it.
And it was presented at gunpoint because the Germans knew that the allies would invade if the treaty wasn't signed, and that the German military had long since collapsed and couldn't resist invasion.

This is a stark contrast to Czechia where Hacha had to sign a treaty of a far greater magnitude than versailles for his country, in just a few hours after being presented with the documents for the first time, without being able to consult with his nation on any decision, which is absurd, especially since there wasn't anything that actually stopped him from doing so if we're going to pretend that he wasn't threatened.

>>17942375
>it was Hitler who ruined this and not my make-believe jew closet monsters.
Yes.

>>17942514
>the ADL is make believe
>world jewish Congress is make believe
Can you substantiate these claims?
Who is punishing people for advocating ideas Hitler advocated for such as racial hygiene or public health?

>>17942983
German who were fed up with Hitler ideas ruining their nation.

>>17942498
Nope.
The Germans were forced to sign it with no changes made, under duress, at gunpoint, after the war had a declared armistice.
>magnitude
Bohemia and Moravia still existed. The Czech government still existed. Czechoslovaks weren’t taken out of their countries.
>without being able to consult
Except he did.

Your incredulity is not an argument.
Iceland is another example of a country being “signed away in a day” because of untenable circumstances.

>>17942394
Where do Britain and Germany share a land border?
where do Poland and France share a land border?
This is completely different to Russia going from the situation in 1914.
There are "obvious parallels".
>Napoleon immediately declared he wanted peace and Prussia responded with war
Prussia responded with continued participation in the coalition formed against the French Emperor.
This also has nothing at all to do with 1900s politics and only shows (You) are arguing against Germany itself because you have an ethnic grudge against Germans, not actually against anything in particular the Nazis did, well-poisoning.
>France had no designs on Prussia
except for the previous decade where they invaded Germany.
>simply inserted themselves into an alliance they were already apart of for a decade.
1. They didnt.
2. this is irrelevant to WWII.
If Germany was in the wrong in 1815 ok, so what? I could completely concede to this counterfactual and it wouldnt effect my case at all.
>war can have more sophisticated reasons
except it didnt in 1939.
>the narrative you're trying to paint
There is no narrative painting on my end.
EVERY historian points out WWII was the least geo-strategically sound war and they ALL uniformly rely on the madman/villain case for war - "It had to happen because we cant just let literally Hitler exist".
This is not a case for the strategic acumen of Western Europe but a case against Hitler for reasons totally unrelated to geo-strategy.
>le bad man cant exist because uh just because
ok well we see what world-police looks like and its been an utter failure and political realists were correct about everything.
You have no argument.
>it was about consulting each other
Yes, to avoid direct intervention in each other's spheres of influence.
>it was a proto-UN
and?
>Europeans wanted to stop wars in Europe
but not at the cost of ESCALATING wars in Europe.
Like today, they wont stop Russia because they have their heads on their shoulders.

>>17942394
>American
That is why I know more than you.
>Fascist
You just assume this because you're a second worlder who's first contact with humans was in 1993. To you everything and everyone who isnt a Reagan-liberal is a 'fascist' trying to send you back to the horrors of circa 1990 LOL.
>>17942416
>no one backs your position
What is the argument here? This isnt a popularity contest. I am correct regardless of what others think.
The facts about Hacha are clear, his country was invaded, he was abandoned by Britain, advised to got to Berlin, he went to Berlin and asked for protection, the Germans obliged.

You can argue they exploited his precious circumstances, but this isnt an invasion, an occupation, nor is it a violation of Munich nor some horrific moment of awe where Britain just had to draw a line in the sand.
Czechoslovakia fell into Hitler's lap and Britain got mad because their ploy to keep this inconvenient rump state as a yoke around Germany had failed.
>Greatest story never told/Europa
these are 70% inaccuracies and lies
Theyre interesting but 12 hours is too long for so many inaccuracies.

Do actual research and stop referencing actual propaganda.
>undermines their narrative
or maybe they, like you, literally did not know what happened because its extremely niche.
>you are alone
so what?
Someone was alone in every breakthrough. There was at one point a first man, alone, in heliocentrism.
>that its perfectly natural
no one said this.
>never happened in history
true because not even Hacha did this.
His country wasnt annexed by Germany. It remained an independent state like Canada is an independent state.
>German rule was benevolent
again things no one said.
I dont think American rule is benevolent, but is it hell on earth? no. It could be much worse, so too with Germany.
Czechs were far better off under German (home) rule than American or Soviet rule.
fewer people died, less atheism, and pornography wasnt the largest sector of female employment.

>>17942416
>Czechs would be mad
well theyve been fed lies, it would be weird if they werent mad as their entire curricula is a set of lies about their recent history.
I have been there btw and I dated a Czech girl.
>half of it are protectorates
When did the British point their guns at Canada?
I thought the commonwealth voted to stand by Britain in war of their own free will? Are the protectorates free or not?
>those areas were perfectly independent
I think they were mostly independent but subject to the geopolitical realities of their time.
Its funny that for someone who opens their posts with "there can be sophisticated reasons for..." is unable to grasp the concept of spheres of influence.
Smaller countries will never meet your criteria of independence, sorry.
>protection from what
Hungarians, Slovaks, Poles, Germans, and Soviets.
Germany was the least hostile of the aforementioned.
>an independent state
CZECHOSLOVAKIA DID NOT RECOGNIZE SLOVAKIA AS INDEPENDENT STATE
This is like saying "The Confederacy was independent and sovereign! Lincoln was a conqueror!!"
>none of this warrants a decision of that magnitude
magnitude? Hacha was acknowledging his people as within the German sphere of influence, the day to day in former Czechoslovakia didnt change, except for no more wars pr hostile occupation civil or foreign.
>what stopped Hacha
Hungarians and Slovaks in open conflict with Hacha.
>analyze
analyze what? it three clerical pages affirming Hacha and friends under German protection.
>Slovak state declared independence
Well so did the Confederacy, so did South Sudan, so did Western Sahara, so did Deseret. These arent independent states just because they claim to be, that is simply called revolt/secession.
Hacha did not recognize Slovakia as independent.
>took Czechia
except he didnt
>gunpoint
except there were no guns
>her industry
German industry actually.
It was Germans who founded and built those companies with German capitol.
>Gold
LOL
THAT WAS AUSTRIAS

>>17942416
Czechoslovakia, Bohemia and Moravia specifically were taken OUT of Austria because that is where Austria's gold and industry was.
This was done specifically at Versailles (the place not the treaty) to ensure Austria would be a failed state with a fiat currency.
That was Austrian gold. That was Austrian industry. To an extent it was also German industry as Germany was the largest investor in Austrian arms industries from 1890 onward.

Have you ever wondered why Czechoslovakia had companies that made fucking Naval guns despite being a LANDLOCKED COUNTRY????
Your entire grasp of Central Europe begins and ends with the HOI4 timeline.
>>17942470
>Serbia
Serbia got into a war over Kosovo lel.
>the order was given
and you can provide a source for this yes?
I cant find one.
please post the movement order, should be in the German military archives.
>closed the anti German departments
good.
>only historians can read primary sources
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
>read what others
Primary sources are direct sources, ask any history department.
>never public
"my ilk" never publishes anything because there is heavy censorship surrounding the Hitler regime.
Also "we" do.
Its called American Pravda and its never wrong.
>no one believes you
dont care, still right.
>he took more than just Sudete
Where did he annex more than Sudete?
>Ruhr and Versailles
relevance?
what does this have to do with Versailles and the LoN yearbook being extremely long and pretentious (by necessity)?

>>17942988
>Germans are going around the US censoring people
really? where?
also
stealth redpill
>NATO Germany[tm]Edition is going around censoring people for being nationalist
Well their mission statement is the protection of israel so what do we expect from a pro-israel NATO state? suppression of Europeans is par for the course when it comes to jewish support.

>>17942358
>There is no good and bad in geopolitics
So buttfucking germans was neither good nor bad and your unreadable schizo text walls are for nothing

>>17942990
>The Germans were forced to sign it
The point you made was that the germans had to sign it in an afternoon, when in fact they were given 2 months to debate and to vote on it, which hurts your argument on Hacha because that's exactly what Hacha should have been able to do as well. This is why it's bullshit and hacha had to sign it that very night of being presented the documents. Imagine if the German delegation were forced to sign versaillee the very day it was shown to them.
It also hurts your argument to point out that versailles was signed at gunpoint and then compare it to Hacha, whom you claim didn't sign it at gunpoint.

>Bohemia and Moravia still existed.
Ok so if what was the problem with the French Ruhr occupation? The Ruhr still existed right? What a fucking dumb point by a nazi like you.
The Czech protectorate was ruled by a German administration who overruled and Czech parlament and dictated Czech media and education, gestapo and wehrmacht could operate freely, the Czech industry was nationalized into Germany. The list goes on.

Except he did.
Please tell me when he was able to return to Prague with the documents to review it with his parlament, cabinet and legal experts, something which the Germans were allowed to do with versailles.
Pro tip: you can't.

>>17943005
>Where do Britain and Germany share a land border?
Why do they have to border by land? Why are you making up bullshit rules?
Sweden and Germany technically border each others as well and it was a reason Sweden intervene in the 30 years war, they couldn't let catholic habsurg gain control at their borders.

>where do Poland and France share a land border?
I can tell you where Germany and France share a border. So Germany expanding is their business.

>This is completely different to Russia going from the situation in 1914.
Literally isn't and it's becoming increasingly difficult fir you to excuse the obvious parallels to Germany involving themselves in a purely Austrian-Russian dispute, turning it into a world war.

>This also has nothing at all to do with 1900s politics
Yea it does, because Prussia involving itself against an expansionist France is a direct parallel to Britain and France involving themselves against an expanding Germany.

>(You) are arguing against Germany itself because you have an ethnic grudge against Germans
I would literally defended Prussias decision to oppose France for the same reason, so how am I anti-German? We don't really have napoleonic threads like we have Hitler threads but if we did then I would probably be accused of being anti-French.
It's you who is personally invested in the particular event of 1939 while seemingly not caring about the rest of European history when similar circumstances existed.
I show continuity in my position, you don't.

>except for the previous decade where they invaded Germany.
What?
Germany didn't even exist back then. States of the HRE were politically aligned with every other state. Hanover was aligned with Britain, Saxony was aligned with Poland, Bavaria was aligned with Austria. Pommeria was aligned with Sweden.
Yet Prussia involved themselves in a war between Britain-France-Austria.

>>17943005
>1. They didnt.
They did. Explain how they didn't.

>2. this is irrelevant to WWII.
It is relevant because it shows that Britain and France involving themselves in an invasion of Poland wasn't something extraordinary.

>If Germany was in the wrong in 1815 ok, so what?
Except Germany (Prussia but w.e) wasn't wrong in 1815. Stop being anti-german.

>except it didnt in 1939.
I understand that you hold the particular event of 1939 in a near religious regard, but this is a history board, which means we look at history for references because that's how you gain perspective on what is normal and what isn't.

>There is no narrative painting on my end.
Yes there is. Your continously try to make it look like it was irrational and unique for Britain and France to involve themselves in Germany taking over other states around Europe, and going to war with another European state, when in fact it was,business as usual, and even Hitler and his generals knew that he was treading on dangerous grounds to provoke a larger war.

>EVERY historian points out WWII was the least geo-strategically sound war and they ALL uniformly rely on the madman/villain case for war
Lol no they don't.
Ever since AJP Taylor the consensus has been that the outbreak of ww2 was geopolitical in nature and not morally dictated.

>ok well we see what world-police looks like and its been an utter failure and political realists were correct about everything.
Now you're just seething that hegemony exists, which has been the case since Rome.

>Yes, to avoid direct intervention in each other's spheres of influence.
To coordinate each others ambitions and consult with each others for approval on their actions, specifically to avoid a war, or that a war might blow up into a major war. Prussia was a founding member of this.

>and?
And it shows that states involved themselves in each others business already then, because a war in Europe was everyone's business.

>>17943116
What was done to Germany was beyond Geopolitics. That was racial hatred against Whites carried out by misguided hateful slavchuds, unironically.
>>17943230
>Hacha should have been able to do
He was. He chose not to because of the time horizon. The Germans had Versailles shoved on them with the blockade still active despite the armistice. They weren’t waiting they were trying to find a legitimate authority to make peace because the Entente had demanded they dissolve their government and the socialist jews had actually dissolved their government.
>it’s bullshit
It’s not bullshit just because you don’t like it.
>forced
But Hacha wasn’t forced.
>Hacha at gunpoint
Hungarian and Slovak guns both of whom were in active hostilities with Hacha’s government.
>what is the problem with the Ruhr occupation
I don’t care and it was a violation of Versailles. No one brings it up to say “wow France is such an aggressor that needs to be chained”. The Ruhr occupation is brought up because it’s illustrative of Germany being held to unfair standards extralegal standards, this is then used to explain why Germany acted the way they did to construct a theory of mind for the German government.
You unironically think this is a black and White good and bad dichotomy. It’s not. This doesn’t there’s no morality at all, but rather we need a nuanced, objective, and well informed view.
>the Czechs had as much autonomy as Canada
Yes.
>the list goes on
Then go on.
>Czech industry
No such thing. These were all Austrian and German in origin. Bohemia and Moravia were taken out of Austria not to give Czechoslovaks autonomy but to take German industry out of German states to limit their capacity to defend themselves.

You don’t even know why the country existed in the first place.
>when he was able to return to Prague
At any time.
He chose not to. the idea Hacha can’t act with the confidence of his government on their behalf is a case AGAINST Czech legitimacy.

>>17943262
Slavs are white tho, they just killed the criminal genocidal maniacs that managed to illegay seize power in germany, given how bitter and insane you yourself sounds, they were entirely in the right to wage they just war aganist nazis

>>17942386
>From Hungarians and Slovaks, and to a lesser extent Poles
Czechoslovakia defeated Poland and Hungary in 1918-1919.

>>17943262
>No such thing. These were all Austrian and German in origin.
Are you retarded or merely pretending to be?

>>17943262
>He chose not to because of the time horizon.
What time horizon? Why are you so vague in every formulation you make on this, you can never ever specify why Hacha couldn't return home that night with the documents to make a proper consultation.
This is your weakest argument regardless of how you feel about it. No one is going to buy this shit.
According to Irving, Hitler said that at 6 am the Wehrmacht would invade, but that Hácha need not worry—if he signed, it would happen “in a tolerable manner”.
You
Are
Alone

>The Germans had Versailles shoved on them
And yet the Germans were allowed to consult, debate, and vote on the documents, so your only reference to this happening before turns out not to be a reference.

It’s not bullshit just because you don’t like it.
It's bullshit because it's a lie by Hitler and only you believe in it.
It's bullshit because it makes no sense while it makes perfect sense for the Germans to do it because the backbone of German firepower in both Poland and France were Czech armament and that Hitler wanted to resume the 4-year plan after absorbing the Czech gold standard, Hitler had previously been forced to pause it because even Göring said the Reich was facing hyperinflation due to the budget deficit in 1938. The evidence is stacked against you and all you have is the word of a dictator. Weak.

>Hungarian and Slovak guns
None of them were turned at Czechia. You could only rationalize urgency of a few hours if Prague was literally under siege, which it wasn't.

Also, Hungary was subservient to Berlin at this point and Hitler urged them on to move on Slovakia, when he could have done the opposite.

>I don’t care and it was a violation of Versailles.
Really? Name the exact point which France violated then. Where in Versailles does it say that they can't occupy the Ruhr?
Because in your world a treaty must include every 5000 different points of what a state can and cannot do.

>>17943262
>Yes
Nope. Canada was a dominion with its own parlament and government and administratin.
Czechia had neither of those. Cope.

>These were all Austrian and German in origin
Germany never owned Czechia so I dont even know why you write Germany, it was Austria.
And also, this is a bullshit argument because it suggests that half of the world has claim on the other half which would lead to endless wars. Does Sweden have claim on Finland because Sweden largely built her? No. Only fascists like you would make this argument.

>Bohemia and Moravia were taken out of Austria
Bohemia and Moravia wasnt "taken out of Austria", they seceded before Austria even surrendered to the Entete. The victorious powers merely affirmed the situation.
Learn history moron. Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918 due to internal uprising from their minorities BEFORE they sued for peace.

>He chose not to.
According to Hitler. And only Hitler.
Even Schmidt said that Hacha was forced. He wrote it in his diary.

>the idea Hacha can’t act with the confidence of his government on their behalf is a case AGAINST Czech legitimacy.
The idea that you willingly sign your country away in a few hours is absurd and there is no record of it ever happening in history, which further undermines your rationale.

You lose. No one believes you. You can keep saying this to the day you die. It will all be for nothing.

>>17943351
Just fanatical justification of one side, popular among less inteligent people

>>17943240
Britain and Germany do not share a land border, neither do Poland and Britain, neither do France and Poland, Czechoslovakia also does not share a border with either Britain or France.
They have no cultural affinity, they have no economic ties, they have no land or even maritime borders.
This completely different to the very intertwined history of Germany and Austria which had familial, literally familial ties among their rulers, economic ties, and Germany shared a land border with both Russia and Austria.
it was one of Kaiser Wilhem's faults he was too sentimental about Austria. This is in stark juxtaposition to the British and French cynically using Poland and Czechoslovakia as vectors of attack against Germany geographically, economically, and militarily.
>Sweden
Irrelevant and not worth me explaining it here.
>Germany and France share a border
This is not a cassus belli for France to invade Germany or interfere into Germany's sphere of influence.
Germany wasnt expanding either. Germany bringing Germans back into Germany isnt an expansion, furthermore this was within the German sphere of influence. It is only in this jewish us vs the world mentality that it would make sense for France to go to war against Germany, the European view time and again has been the Concert of Europe where they respect each other's sphere's of influence and recognize that wars are a last resort and escalation is even more contemptable than declaring war itself.

>>17941463
>b-but he wouldn't been less aggressive and expansionist if people just gave him what he wanted!
Hitler apologists either argue in bad faith or are unbelievably stupid and naive. Why on earth would anybody trust the word of somebody who violated treaties without hesitation? What possible guarantee could Hitler make that anyone would trust?

>>17943462
>germany wasn't expanding
>why france didn't expect our SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
lol

>>17943240
>parallels to the napoleonic wars
There are no parallels. Prussia wasnt inserting itself, it was apart of the war against Napoleon. There was no war against Hitler prior to 1939.
The final coalition war wasnt a purely British-French affair.
This is also unrelated to WWII.
What do you even want me to say here? Prussia did le bad thing? I am just being objective about WWII. I dont really care for your historical grievances with Germany as a state and Germans as a people, that reeks of second worldism arguably worse than third worldism because at least thirdies know theyre lesser than us. You are obstinant in your absurd belief you are the equal of Americans or Germans.
>Germany didnt even exist back then
Germany is a federation of German states, lets be adults and not split hairs over Germany vs German vs Germanic vs German speaker vs HRE vs Germanic tribe.
Prussia didnt "involve" themselves they saw themselves, with reservation, as apart of the broader German people, they joined the war against Napoleon, lost and then joined again, won, then Napoleon appeared again, they joined again, won again.
They were deeply intertwined with Napoleon the figure more so than anyone was with Hitler.
Napoleon was kicking the shit out of the great Empires when Prussia joined for their strategic interests as a German state watching other German states get their pants beaten off.
Hitler was literally just restoring Germany (and Austria) to a pre-1917 state.
It would be different if Britain and France joined the war when Barbarossa went off and they saw a German conquest reaching Vladivostok.
But that isnt what happened, they dogpiled Hitler, at the behest of the jewish lobby, before Hitler took a single town outside of historical German/Austrian land.

>>17943462
>Britain and Germany do not share a land border, neither do Poland and Britain, neither do France and Poland, Czechoslovakia also does not share a border with either Britain or France.
Britain and France do share border with Germany so it is their business.
This is a non-argument tho, because it wouldnt have mattered. A war in Europe is everyones business as seen in the Napoleonic wars and even in the 2022 invasion.
This whole "they must border" is some arbitrary rule you've conjured out of thin air even tho it lacks any kind of historical or even modern reference or relevance to geopolitics.

>They have no cultural affinity
Not an argument.

> they have no economic ties
They did. Who are you to say Britain did not have trade agreements or bonds or other investmentss with Poland?

>they have no land or even maritime borders
Britain and France do share border with Germany so it is their business.
This is a non-argument tho, because it wouldnt have mattered. A war in Europe is everyones business as seen in the Napoleonic wars and even in the 2022 invasion.
This whole "they must border" is some arbitrary rule you've conjured out of thin air even tho it lacks any kind of historical or even modern reference or relevance to geopolitics.

>This completely different to the very intertwined history of Germany and Austria which had familial, literally familial ties among their rulers, economic ties, and Germany shared a land border with both Russia and Austria.
Germany had no right to intervene in an Austrian-Russian dispute and turning it into a world war. I can conjure all kinds of arbitrary rules to justify this. For example, Germany never invested in the Balkans and thus had no logical reason to involve themselves in a Balkan dispute. It's quite clear that Germany was driven by Jewish interests to turn a regional conflict between Habsburg and the Tsar into a world war.
Furthermore, Germany threatend war with France over French attempts to annex Morocco.

what if you want to claim that nazis are superior but then
>

>>17943255
>explain how they didnt
Germany and Austria were already intertwined economically and militarily, their economies had been integrated for a long time.
Their militaries were integrated within a year of the war beginning.
They had a longstanding alliance, they had deep economic and cultural ties.
These are all factors that are completely absent in the case of Poland and Czechoslovakia's relations with Britain and France.
>wasnt something extraordinary
but it was, if you look at what actually happened, it runs contrary to their interests. And we can see this born out in real time, we can see how both countries declined and became satellites to non-European power specifically because of their involvement in WWII and their bizarre fixation on fighting Germany.
What ties did Britain or France have with Poland or Czechoslovakia?
None.
The Kaiser wasnt anti-Russian in the way Britian and France were anti-German, Britain especially.
The Kaiser was driven largely by sentimentality, Britain and France were cynical using Poland as a fall-guy and immediately betrayed Poland when it became convenient even stating they were deliberately dragging their feet because some of them saw Poland as reaping what they sowed, I am paraphrasing but that was the sentiment common among the British Staff.
>Prussia (again)
I dont care (again).
The landscape of Europe was different at the time and the coalition wars had a different character than WWII.
>you must accept my pilpul and red herrings
no.
>make it look irrational
IT WAS IRRATIONAL
It was completely antithetical to how Britain had behaved in previous conflicts and completely antithetical to British ideas of "managing" Europe.
>taking over states
except this didnt happen.
>going to war
Britain and France arent the governors of Europe.
They were fine with Lithuania using soldiers to take Memelland. They were fine with Poland taking Ciesyn. They were fine with eastern Europe becoming a thunderdome after WWI.

>>17943462
>Irrelevant and not worth me explaining it here.
LMAO.
Talk about getting owned.You're so tunnelvisioned on 1939 that you ignore all other circumstances and situations that mirrors the exact argument, yet you call me anti-German because I have continuity in my position that this is irrational, while you yourself jump back and forth, saying it was legitimate for Germany to take Czechia based on the principles of them "owe Germany their infrastreucture, gold reserve and industry" yet you cannot apply this logic to any other state or historical context.

By your logic, Sweden absolutely has claim to invade and annex Finland and Estonia etc because Sweden practicually built these states before they became independent. And this is just one example, there are 1000 more exampelss worldwide that we can start bringing up.

>This is not a cassus belli for France to invade Germany or interfere into Germany's sphere of influence
The fact that Germany proclaims it has a sphere of influence is good enough reason.
It's like France suddenly proclaiming it has a sphere of influence over Germany, Italy, Spain and Netherlands.
Which would automatically trigger a world war, just as it did with Napoleon.

>Germany wasnt expanding either.
Weak.

>Germany bringing Germans back into Germany isnt an expansion
Until Germany expanded into non-Germans like the Czechs and the Poles.
Again. Weak.

>furthermore this was within the German sphere of influence.
What if others disagree?

>It is only in this jewish us vs the world mentality that it would make sense for France to go to war against Germany,
Was to Jewish for France to oppose the Austrian Habsburg in the 1700?

Funny how you managed to shoehorn jews into all this, which further convince me and anyone else who reads this that you're clinically insane because you already failed to logically rationalize anything so far.

>>17943462
> the European view time and again has been the Concert of Europe where they respect each other's sphere's of influence
Yeah, by communicating with each others and coordinate their ambitions so it wouldnt result in war, because a war in Europe is everyones business and could easily become a world war.

>and recognize that wars are a last resort and escalation is even more contemptable than declaring war itself.
Said no one but you.
The idea was to avoid war and thus avoid anything that might provoke a war because once war happened it could and would spiral out of control.

>>17943255
France gave up after losing 5,000 men to Turkey during the Franco Turkish war.
Britain and France did basically nothing as Turkey threw out the Sykes-Picot borders around their sphere of influence.
There is clearly a precedent here of calculated intervention, the investment was not worth the cost, for a country like Turkey, for a country like Poland, for a country like Lithuania, for a country like the USSR even.
It was only Germany that Britian and France entered a deathmatch and committed national suicide.
coincidentally the only country where the jewish lobbies across the world said "this one needs to go at all costs".
Why are Britain and France aligning with jewish interests when they have clearly demonstrated their own national interests are calculated towards limited or non-interventionism?
Wouldnt the phony war be the perfect time to bow out? To accept Germany's offer? to de-escalate? Like they did with Turkey, Lithuania, the USSR, all countries they had soldiers in, and in the first and the third literally fought a war against?
They took the opportunity to de-escalate EVERY SINGLE TIME - except for one. the Country fighting against world jewry.
>geopolitical in nature
1. Winston Churchill said Britain was run by jews in both the Peel Commission and Moyne investigation.
2. Professor Neema Parvini agrees with the position that Britain was acting irrationally due to foreign lobbying from the Americans and the jewish lobby.
3. I dont care what academics say, I prefer to look at the facts.
Britain was acting irrationally by all metrics we have.
They broke the trend of de-escalation and limited/non-interventionism with WWII.
Even WWI saw numerous attempts at de-escalation by the national leadership and it was the MILITARY STAFF that had to keep the war going at the front.
WWII is totally different, it was bought and paid for politicians like Churchill who literally would not even make their terms of peace known to the other side.

>>17943519
>Britain was acting irrationally
by winning the war?

>>17943255
>hegemony exists
which means what? We have to put up with being governed by retards who kowtow to foreigners?
The realists were right about everything.

Britain and France didnt coordinate with Germany or attempt to avoid war with Germany, nor did they attempt to de-escalate the German Polish war.
They did the exact opposite, demanding that Britain oversee German-Czech relations against the will of the Germans and the Czechs.
Imagine if Germany said to England "We are going to oversee your diplomacy with Ireland and we are going to threaten you if you do something with ireland we dont like"
England would go ballistic.
If someone tried that on America they would become a crater the following day.
America doesnt even let NATO members conduct their own diplomacy without Americans present, imagine if the UK said they are going to oversee American-Canadian or American-Mexican relations, we would sink their Island before noon.
>involved themselves in each other's business
This is different from demanding to oversee another's foreign policy and completely different from escalating regional wars into world wars.

>>17943310
>elections are illegal
>slavs are White
>itinerate seething because nazis or something
the smell of pierogi and used tractor oil is assaulting my senses.
>>17943343
>Czechoslovakia defeated a militia rebellion and a demilitarized country 20 years ago
wow, too bad they couldnt do that in 1938 and 1939 lol.

>>17943485
>Prussia wasnt inserting itself, it was apart of the war against Napoleon
You understand the failure of this logic? They wouldnt have beeen a part of the war against Napoleon if they had not inserted themselves.
It's hillarious to watch how your syntax-error grows btw because at some point you gonna have to concede that state do insert themselves in others disputes and its actually within their interests to do so.

>The final coalition war wasnt a purely British-French affair.
Then whos affair was it?
Napoleon had not declared war on Prussia yet Prussia declared war on France. Napoleon literally stated he wanted nothing but peace with Prussia when he returned.

>This is also unrelated to WWII.
Nope it's related, because it goes to show that Britain and France involving themselves wasnt extraordinary to how wars begin.

>What do you even want me to say here? Prussia did le bad thing?
I want you to see perspective on how wars can begin by using references on how they started.
Prussia didnt do the bad thing btw. Their actions perfectly aligned with their foreign interests. That's unironically what I am arguing.

>I am just being objective about WWII.
Nope youre being biased, because you only rationalize 1939 with a logic that you cannot and will not apply on any other situation despite obvious geopolitical parallels.

> I dont really care for your historical grievances with Germany as a state and Germans as a people
Im literally arguing that Prussia was in the right in 1800. How am I hostile to Germany? Just because I can see the British and French rationale in 1939 based on the same logic?

>You are obstinant in your absurd belief you are the equal of Americans or Germans.
lol?

>Germany is a federation of German states,
Ok
Germany still did not exist prior to 1870 so to say "Germany" when discussing Napoleonic wars or Seven Years war or Spanish/Austrian succssion war or Thirty Year War is retarded.

>>17943359
>what time horizon
the war taking place in his country.
>why Hacha couldnt
damn, I wish we could ask Hacha, but the communists beat his ass to death because they didnt like that he gave "fascist" answers to their questions about Hitler.
We can only speculate as to why Hacha was in a hurry because he himself never said.
But judging by how quickly he left Prague, how quickly he went from Newton to Hitler, it is evident he was searching for a quick solution to the rapidly collapsing Czech state, that is the best explanation.
Why would Hacha even go to Hitler at all if not to seek their protection?
>no one is going to buy
who cares? These are the facts. I am not selling anything.
Are you trying to sell someone something?
Do you think I am here to swindle you into becoming a National Socialist?
>Irving
I dont care.
>You are alone
I am not actually, but if I was, so what?

There is also zero evidence Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to enter Czechoslovakia prior to the signing.
If there is then show us the movement orders.
>but someone said arch nazi man said
I dont care what someone said. Show me the orders.
The only movement orders we have is the mirroring of Poles in Ciesyn.
>the Germans were allowed
and so were the Czechs.
>its a lie
where's the lie?
>makes no sense
in what way? We have a motivation, the dissolution of the Czech state, the hungarian invasion, these also provide the time horizon, you dont mince words with a cabinet when your country is cut in half, theres an active occupation to the north, and an army invading from the south.
>Germans did it because
Germans capitalized on an opportunity, to portray this as a grand plan is absurd.
They even said this was the opportunity of a lifetime and they said it would be foolish not to take advantage of the circumstances
Its not friendly, but this isnt a hostile takeover and it certainly is not a reason for Britian to say "thats too far we are committing suicide over this and taking you with us".

>>17943485
>lets be adults and not split hairs over Germany vs German vs Germanic vs German speaker vs HRE vs Germanic tribe.
Lol you gonna discuss history without seperating Austria from Brandenburg, fucking good luck.
Most HRE states were also completely at odds with each others and politically aligned with outside states. Saxony was in a personal union with Poland and Hannover was in a personal union with England and it absolutely affected European politics.
Romanticism for German nationalism and the German people did not begin until the 19th century, and even then it was far from embraced by all Germans.

>Prussia didnt "involve" themselves
That's literally what they did.

> they saw themselves, with reservation, as apart of the broader German people
And where was Prussia during the thirty year war then?
Also you're just making shit up at this point.
Also Prussias main rival were Austria, Germans. Ever heard of the Seven Years war and Austrian succession war? Yeah that was Prussians going to war againt Austrians (and Bavarians etc).

>They were deeply intertwined with Napoleon the figure more so than anyone was with Hitler.
Why? Napoleon was just minding his own business and wanted no war with Prussia.

>Napoleon was kicking the shit out of the great Empires when Prussia joined for their strategic interests
Napoleon never wanted a war with Prussia. He valued their friendship.
Was it jewish interests that dictated Prussia to declare war on France? Hmmm...

>Hitler was literally just restoring Germany (and Austria) to a pre-1917 state.
Austria and Sudetenland and Czechia never was a part of Germany.
Also Germany took more of Poland than their pre-1914 borders.
So arguably, Hitler wasnt restoring shit.
And on the matter of restoring; Turkey doesnt have claim on Greece just because you say so (assuming your consistent with your reasoning that it can be applied to other states).

>>17943359
There was no hyperinflation during the four year plan and no danger of falling into it.
Goering was a shitty economist and was in charge of procurement for that reason, Schacht never lost his influence over the Reichsbank and the German economy had so much in liquidity (which they didnt have in 1920) they couldnt have gone into hyperinflation.
>the evidence is stacked against you
except its not.
qui bono can not be used circumstantially, which is what youre doing.
You must prove the Germans planned for this, there is no evidence they did and in fact from their statements we see it was opportunism that drove them. not some grand plan to take over the Czech state.
This means they couldnt have done what they did without the consent of the Czechs.
Why would Hacha even go to the Germans at all if he was not desperate?
>none of them were turned at Czechia
uh both were turned at "Czechia"
"Czechia" wasnt a country, do you understand that Hacha was the president of Czechoslovakia not Czechia?
The Slovaks declared independence, Hacha didnt recognize them, this was an armed secession and a civil war.
The Hungarians invaded a country in a civil war, Hacha's government saw the Hungarians invading land they recognized as their own.
Slovakia can say theyre independent, but Czechoslovakia did not recognize them as such.
When the Hungarians invaded Slovakia, they were invading Czechoslovakia according to Hacha.
The Czech government in exile were recognized as Czechoslovak government in exile.
>you could only rationalize urgency if the capital was under siege
No, Hacha can rationalize urgency for the simple reason his country was actively disintegrating.
>"let me spend days or even weeks talking to my cabinet while my tiny rump state undergoes a civil war and two invasions one of them actively taking land"
Do you really think that is 'rational'?

>Where does Versailles say France can not occupy the Ruhr
In the opening statement with the Covenant of the League of Nations.

>>17943535
nazis didn't win the elections, they carried TWO illegal purges (first aganist communists, then aganist their own) and blackmailed the real government with civil war
basicaly, the truth may hurts but nazis were a bunch of drunk thugs hooligans who used gulible people (like you) to gain power and drown in luxury, Gaytler was Al capone but with bigger ambitions

also, your contempt for things like tractor (despite you being a fan of national WORKERS party) is kinda suspicious

>>17943502
>Germany and Austria were already intertwined economically and militarily, their economies had been integrated for a long time.
Actually Austria and Germany had been mortal enemies for most of their history and only bonded during the last 30 years prior to ww1.
But again, you're just making up arbitrary rules out of thin air.
WW1 would never have happened if the war had stayed local between Asutria and Russia.

>They had a longstanding alliance, they had deep economic and cultural ties.
It wasnt longstanding at all.
600 years of mortal rivalry vs 30 years of friendship. Tell me which one is normality.

>These are all factors that are completely absent in the case of Poland and Czechoslovakia's relations with Britain and France.
Nope, the argument made is that the war should have been local between Poland and Germany only with no outside interference, yet you cannot rationalize how this doesnt apply on ww1 or the crimean war or the napoleonic war or the Korean war or the Thirty year war or the Ukraine war etc.

>but it was, if you look at what actually happened, it runs contrary to their interests.
Then explain it, logically.

>And we can see this born out in real time, we can see how both countries declined and became satellites to non-European power specifically because of their involvement in WWII and their bizarre fixation on fighting Germany.
Shouldnt have invaded Poland then.

>What ties did Britain or France have with Poland or Czechoslovakia?
What ties did Germany have with Moroccoo, whom they were prepared to start a major European war over in 1912.
Except for the exact same reason as France had in 1939, which was to prevent expansionism

>The Kaiser wasnt anti-Russian in the way Britian and France were anti-German, Britain especially.
Ah yes the anti-German British who virtually did everything to reduce Versailles restrictions prior to Hitler starting to annex shit.
You lose

>The Kaiser was driven largely by sentimentality
Making shit up again

>>17943387
>Canada was a dominion
would Canada be safe from hard in the event they declared support for the Axis while taking a firm non-intervention stance?
No, Canada isnt even safe today.
>Germany never owned Bohemia
Austria was apart of Germany and Germany became responsible for Austria.
Hitler was an Austrian National.
>half the world has a claim on the other half
no one said this.
You are strawmanning me because my position in incontrovertibly reasonable and correct and your only case against it is well-poisoning and strawmanning.
>lead to endless wars
Human history is in fact filled with endless wars.
There has never been a single day of peace that we know of nor has war ever ended.
>does Sweden have a claim on Finland
Yes! Does this mean Sweden necessarily will act on it? No!.
Does Russia have a claim on Eastern Ukraine? Yes! Does this mean necessarily Russia will act on it? No! Did they? Yes!
>fascists
I am not a fascist, I live under fascism. My country is under the heel of jewish fascism as we speak. I am totally against Fascism unless I am in charge or someone I trust is in charge.
>the victorious powers merely affirmed the situation
by ensuring Austria had no means of recourse. The Czechoslovak state exist if Austria was allowed to control their own land?
no.
Would Poland exist if Germany was allowed to control their own land? No.
both of these countries had to be restrained with martial force while these retarded ethnic subgroups stole land, property, and wealth from their former host nations.
Sounds familiar.
>according to Hitler and only Hitler
We dont have a reason to believe Hitler is unreliable.
>someone said something
so its hearsay against hearsay? This is your argument?
Nice, but lets look at the facts, we see multiple factors influencing Hacha and the most pressing being the dissolution of his state.
>sign your country away
What does this even mean? very little changed for the average Czech.

>>17943502
>Britain and France were cynical using Poland as a fall-guy and immediately betrayed Poland when it became convenient even stating they were deliberately dragging their feet because some of them saw Poland as reaping what they sowed, I am paraphrasing but that was the sentiment common among the British Staff.
This is actually somewhat correct and I wont argue against it. The primary objective was to prevent further German expansion because Germany was becoming a mortal threat if unchecked, not to save Poland.
Germany had already vastly expanded its military capability with Czechia.
Tho I would add that the primary interest was through the guarantee to deter Hitler from attacking Poland and thus prevent a war altogheter.

>I dont care (again)
This isnt about you tho. It's about applying logic and reasoning by using references and perspective.
You refering to yourself is nothing but emotional.

>The landscape of Europe was different at the time and the coalition wars had a different character than WWII.
No it was largely the same principle that dictated how wars began both then and now.

>It was completely antithetical to how Britain had behaved in previous conflicts and completely antithetical to British ideas of "managing" Europe.
Britain became a world power because of its successful policies regarding Europe. They had no reason to back down from their foreign policy.

>Britain and France arent the governors of Europe.
Maintaining the statu quo benefits them tho. They did not want a rising power.

>>17943351
>>17943460
>Czechoslovakia, a landlocked country hundreds of miles from the sea, built a naval gun industry just because
just staggering level of intellect from the second world horde.
totally unsurprised to this day you morons walk into the enemy lines like cattle.

>>17943463
Which treaties were violated? Name them and the specific point that was violated.
>>17943469
>literally incoherent seethepost
its writes itself.

>>17943622
this much seething about the superior Slavic cultrue and technology is not healthy
we destroyed you 80 years ago, just let it go already

>>17943500
Britain and France do not share borders with both belligerents.
France shares a border with Germany.
Britain shares no land border with Germany.
Is your argument Britain's 90-mile maritime border with Germany gives them the right to oversee Germany's foreign policy and a cassus belli to escalate regional wars in World Wars?
Laughable.
What was Germany's great threat along this 90-mile border again?

>its their business
Its not and they even said as much at the Vienna Congress.
>a war in Europe is everyone's business
Evidently not because Turkey got away with it.
Poland got away with it.
Lithuania got away with it.
Britian got away with it.
>2022 invasion
Year four around the corner, so when are Britain and France prepared to take between 500-4m casualties on behalf of "their business"??
Oh right, they arent because its not actually in their national interest to do so.
>they must border
no one said this.
However borders are a significant factor in geopolitics.
>arbitrary
borders are not arbitrary.
I am explaining to you why Germany acted the way they did in the lead up to WWI, which you asininely believe is a parallel to WWII.
Furthermore you are ignoring the most prominent reasons I already gave, the sentimentality of the German monarch for the Austro-Hungarian State, and the integrated nature of Germany and Austria culturally and economically.
>not an argument
But culture is a relevant factor in geopolitical decision making.
The shared culture of Austria and Germany allow more political overlap which influences their strategic decision making.
How is this not relevant?
It has a direct influence on their behavior as states.
Do you just not understand what States are?
>they did
like what?
>who are you to say
Someone who hasnt seen any evidence of extensive British investment into Poland LOL.

>>17943611
>would Canada be safe from hard in the event they declared support for the Axis while taking a firm non-intervention stance?
The fact that you're asking shows your desperation. Your losing steam. Go to bed.
Canada was perfectly fine to remain neutral. They voted on declaring war with their own seperate parlament.
And no there was no British war-plan to attack Canada if they didnt vote to join.
In fact, such war would have been near imposssible for Britain to win given Canadas industrial capacity which dwarfed most European states combined (it still does).

>Hitler was an Austrian National.
Literally not an argument.

>no one said this.
Didnt you just not say that Bohemia belongs to Germany because Germans built their industry and infrastructure and their gold reserve?
So why cant this logic be applied anywhere else?

>You are strawmanning me because my position in incontrovertibly reasonable
Your position is inconsistent and that's the problem.

>Human history is in fact filled with endless wars.
And a majortiy of wars were started or expanded due to outside intervention. It's not a unique concept which is why it wasnt unique in 1939.

>There has never been a single day of peace that we know of nor has war ever ended.
Actually wrong. There has been years of peace.
And we as humans should strive for a peaceful world

>Yes! Does this mean Sweden necessarily will act on it? No!.
No it doesnt give Sweden claim. You're insane. No sane person will ever agree with you on this.

>by ensuring Austria had no means of recourse.
You said Bohemia was ripped from Austria when it wasnt. It seceded from Austria before Austria even sued for peace.

>The Czechoslovak state exist if Austria was allowed to control their own land?
Would Finland exist if Russia was allowed to recourse?
Would Greece exist if Turkey was allowed to recourse?
This is why you're a fascist. You openly argue for constant wars to make it possible.

>>17943500
>its their business because they share a border
again, its not the border itself, its that Germany shared a border with BOTH belligerents ON TOP OF SHARING deep cultural and economic ties with Austria-Hungary, and AGAIN Germany had a monarch who ran their State directly with a sentimental attachment to Austria.
This explains German behavior in WWI.
Furthermore, the best explanation for British behavior in WWII, which aligns perfectly with their foreign lobby, is that foreign lobby was successful at lobbying Britain.
Which is something we still see TODAY
you must explain why what we see then isnt just an older version of what we are seeing today, because it is nearly identical.
Media, Political, and Financial sectors had then as they do today a robust jewish character which used their jewishness to lobby State actors to align with their interests.
We can see this today! what we see from 1930s England is identical to what we see TODAY.
Churchill himself describes this during the Moyne investigation and the Peel Commission.
Mark Sykes said this.
Loyd George said this.
These men were apart of it and they said it.

>Austrian Russian dispute
Again, I dont really care. I explained WHY Germany did what they did.
>they have no right
so what? They acted in their interests.
When I say Britian had no right I am illustrating how the moral case for Munich is bullshit.
This is a subtext to the much broader case I am making which is Britain's actions were on behalf of jewish interests, not British interests.
I am dismantling the orthodoxy lie by lie and by its very nature it has to be handled in this way because these lies all rely on each other and to attack one you need to attack all of them as they are self reinforcing.
unlike reality which you can grasp inductively.
>Germany and jewish interests
name the jews.
we have jews who said 'its in our interest for Britain to go to war with Germany' - this was apart of the mission statement of the world jewish congress.

>>17943501
then what? nazis rack up a 15:1 kill ratio against the Red Army?
I dont see how this is counter to the claim nazis are superior.

>>17943611
>We dont have a reason to believe Hitler is unreliable.
Ok. Roll with that. See how far it gets you.
Again, this is your weakest argument.

>so its hearsay against hearsay? This is your argument?
Why would Schmidt lie to himself?
The evidence is stacked against you.
Ribbentrop and the French ambassador account are also aligned with Schmidt.
Not that it matters because its still irrational for someone to sign their country away in mere hours. Has never happened. Ever. Unless under threat.
We also know that Hitler had given the order for the Wehrmacht to enter Prague hence why Hacha was pressured to sign there and then instead of being able to take it to his country, because Germany would retaliate if German soldiers were shot.

Your only support is Hitler. Not even Irving believes this shit.

>What does this even mean? very little changed for the average Czech.
Lmao tell that to the Czechs. I watched some of Zoomer Historian comment section on this very topic and it was fun to see how the Czech users there called him a cunt.

>>17943514
>you are getting owned because you dont want to add the 30 years war to the growing list of WWII, WWI, Napoleonic Wars, and Ukraine '22
totally owned.
>continuity in my position
I havent seen it.
Your position seems to be anything Germany does is bad and anything England does is good.
What evidence would you need to see to admit Britain was acting on behalf of jewish interests.
What if its not necessarily against British interests (I think it obviously was given the state of Britain) but what would you need to see to say "Yeah, the jews were a major force behind this one"?
Would something similar to America in the year 2000 be admissible?

>ignore all other circumstances
I have completely dismantled your case about Napoleon, about WWI, and used the examples from those instances to prove my point that those actions were within the respective countries' national interests.
You have failed to draw accurate parallels or to go beyond the "well they acted rationally and went to war in the past, that means they are necessarily rational actors going to war in 1939" pseudo-argument.
>it was legitimate for Germany to take
Germany didnt "take".
They were given Czechoslovakia.
>owe Germany
no one said this.
I said Germany (and Austria) built everything that Czechoslovakia was. I say this because it needs to be remembered that Czechoslovakia was a yoke put around the neck of Germany and Austria, it wasnt bloodlust, a desire for conquest or plunder, or Germanic dominion of Slavendom that drove this.
It was opportunism and it wasnt conquest or overtly hostile.
Even calling it an occupation is a stretch.
Was Austria occupying Bohemia for the past 500 years?
no.
All of this to say the political calculations of Germany in the 1930s were rational and self interested.
The same can not be said of Britain.

>>17943653
>Is your argument Britain's 90-mile maritime border with Germany is a border?
Yes.
And its actually only 60 kilometers from England to Germany (40 miles for you amerimutts).

>gives them the right to oversee Germany's foreign policy and a cassus belli to escalate regional wars in World Wars?
Its not about "giving right".
Its about foreign interests.
They werent going to sit and watch Germany expanding. It's not something unique in history

>What was Germany's great threat along this 90-mile border again?
The fact that Germany is the only country that has bombed British cities and blockaded Britain proves that their fear of threat was legitimate

>Its not and they even said as much at the Vienna Congress.
Germany wouldnt even have been allowed to invade Poland.
In fact, Poland was stripped from Prussia and given to Russia in the Vienna congress.
Prussia joined the Napoleonic wars, won, and was reduced in size as a result.
Irony

>not actually in their national interest to do so.
Russia has nuclear weapon. Thats the thing that prevents outside intervention. Russia knows this, so they constantly remind NATO of their nuclear arsenal whenever NATO starts to saber-rattling

>However borders are a significant factor in geopolitics.
It's a factor, but its not a rule.
Power projection is about extending your military influence and thus your national interests beyond your immediate border

>borders are not arbitrary.
Your argument that borders decide if war is justified is arbitrary.
Why did Prussia join the Spanish succession war? They dont border Spain.
Why did France join the thirty year war? They dont border Austria.
They also shared the same religion as Austria yet sided with the protestant Swedes. Why?
Hmmm, could it be because of their foreign interests?

>I am explaining to you why Germany acted the way they did in the lead up to WWI, which you asininely believe is a parallel to WWII
You mean a local war which Germany decided to turn into a world war?

>>17943514
>Sweden has a claim on Finland and Estonia
yeah and? This is an objective fact.
Sweden does exercise soft power over the Baltic Sea States like Germany does.
If Sweden wanted to invade them. Ok, so what? I dont like war. But that last thing I would want is an escalation of that regional war into a global one.
>there are more examples
of what? historical grievances? Yes there is no shortage of these.
Sometimes they lead to war, sometimes they dont.
For the Kingdom of Sweden in 2025 to invade Finland tomorrow, this wouldnt be worth it for Sweden, even if the war didnt escalate (maybe it would maybe it wouldnt), it wouldnt be worth it for Sweden.
Likewise with Russia, even as the war is escalating, Russia has deemed it a necessary action.
>Germany proclaims
its not a proclamation, its a geopolitical reality.
You are essentially saying the existence of Germany is a reason to declare war on Germany.
You are not a serious person.
>France claiming it has a sphere of influence over Germany
Sphere of Influence is an actual term.
You obviously dont know this.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence
its not something declared or proclaimed it is a description of power projection.
Germany obviously has a greater ability to project power onto Czechoslovakia and Poland than Britian or France.

Germany wasnt expanding.
None of Germany's land claims were "new" to the German State(s).
>Germany expanded into non-Germans
Germany didnt expand.
Sudete was German, Bohemia and Moravia were built by Germans and ruled by Germans historically and Germany didnt even annex them, they were not even returned to a pre-1914 state.
>Poles
See above. Germany didnt expand into Poland like at all, they secured Danzig then called for a peace conference.
Furthermore, Germans had overseen much of what became Poland and literally owned that land for generations.
>what if others disagree
Thats like disagreeing on where national borders are. It happens but it wasnt happening here.

>>17943514
>was it jewish for France to oppose Austria in 1700
no?? was there a jewish lobby in France pushing for opposition to the Habsburgs?
>shoehorn
shoehorn?
Theyre in the center of it.
Theyre literally engaging in genocidal nation building throughout the 30s, the jewish lobby orchestrated the murder of the 10% of the arabs in Palestine using the British army as an instrument.
The British soldiers said they were disgusted, there were resignations by high level officers and officials, Lawrence of Arabia the war-hero said it was disgusting how Britain completely abandoned the Arabs who loyally risked everything for Britain on behalf of the jews just because of the jewish lobby that had London's ear and wallet.

By your reasoning the following are clinically insane
>Churchill
>T.E. Lawrence
>Mark Sykes
>Loyd George
>Walter Guiness

>>17943517
>a war in Europe could easily become a world war
not really, it kind of takes direct escalatory action on behalf of major countries for this to happen.
If Britain accepted the peace offer September 2 1939, Poland loses nothing, Danzig rejoins Germany, war is averted.
For some reason they couldnt?
>said no one but you
no actually many people have said direct intervention in a war is escalatory and a bad idea, it is why my country, which sees Ukraine as its personal war still does not escalate to direct confrontation with Russia.
As retarded as the Cold War boomers are, theyre not irrational.

>>17943725
>yeah and? This is an objective fact.
No it isnt your fucking retard xD

>If Sweden wanted to invade them. Ok, so what?
Ok fascist.

> I dont like war. But that last thing I would want is an escalation of that regional war into a global one.
I.e you think that its perfectly fine for states to eat each others as long as no one intervenes. Basically turning the world into a jungles-law, where the most vague argument can be used as legitimate justification

>of what? historical grievances? Yes there is no shortage of these.
Yet states today refrain themselves from starting wars because "this once belonged to me". Something fascists like you dont understand is actually a good thing. It shows a level of evolution and sophistication. We are more reasonable now and it has led to a peaceful Europe

>Sometimes they lead to war, sometimes they dont.
You are certainly no advocate for peace since you search for the slightest reason to justify war

>For the Kingdom of Sweden in 2025 to invade Finland tomorrow, this wouldnt be worth it for Sweden, even if the war didnt escalate (maybe it would maybe it wouldnt), it wouldnt be worth it for Sweden.
You really think this is why Sweden doesnt do it? Because it "wouldnt be worth it"? That's how you view the world? You're clinically insane.
Arguing with you make it even more clear why ww2 broke out. You are the problem

>its not a proclamation, its a geopolitical reality
It immediately led to war

>You are essentially saying the existence of Germany is a reason to declare war on Germany.
Britain was perfectly fine with Germany before they started expanding. This is something you cannot get through your thick skull. They lowered German debt, ended Rhineland occupation, signed expansive arms deals, refused anti-German coalitions like Stresa.
Even when Germany took Austria, Britain was fine with it. It was when Germany began expanding to non-German non-Versailles territory and couldnt be detered, that the alarm when off

>>17943525
By winning it for someone else while taking all blows of a loss.
>>17943536
>if they had not inserted themselves
They saw themselves as apart of the German States, when Napoleon fought Austria it inevitably drew in other German states, and eventually Prussia.
Do you see WHY Prussia got involved?
It wasnt irrational or against Prussian national interest nor was it some bizarre desire for war.
There's no syntax error.
You are refusing to see the causes for why Prussia got involved.
again, I dont care about the Napoleonic wars.
The landscape is nothing like WWII.
>it shows Britain and France involving themselves wasnt extra-ordinary
That isnt what was extra-ordinary.
What is extra-ordinary is that Britain and France, more so Britain, werent acting within their national interests by involving themselves.

Prussia WAS acting within their national interests.
Britain was not.
We can see this unfold in real time because Britain's fruits of "victory" looks like strategic defeat.
It is extra-ordinary to go out of your way, against the national interests, on behalf of people totally unrelated to you, and commit to a deathmatch, and then come out on the other side weaker than had you actually capitulated from battlefield loss.
>what I am arguing is Britain was in line with their foreign interests
Yes, and I am disputing that.
What does this have to do with Prussia?
>you can only rationalize with 1939 logic
What does this even mean?
>obvious geopolitical parallels
you havent established any, the only parallels youve drawn are that countries go to war.
>British rationale
What's the rationale behind escalation?
There is nothing in escalation that benefits Britian or France.
France was just retarded, Britain was corrupt.
Countries can in fact be retarded and corrupt.
This is an instance where that is the case.
>Germany did not exist
Lets not be autistic
an organization of German speaking regions where most held closer ties to eachother than to foreign powers is "Germany"

>>17943560
>without separating Austria from Brandenburg
no one is doing this.
>HRE states had divisions
and?
>Germans werent all in the same state
a fact no one contests, they were however German and their shared identity is a relevant political bloc.
For example, jewish identity is a relevant political bloc.

Prussia didnt out of nowhere get involved, they saw what was happening to their German fellows and threw in with the Germans against someone attacking the Germans.
This is very common, its called ingroup preference, happens all the time, I know, crazy.
>where was Prussia during the 30 years war
treading sand and water fighting for Protestant Germans.
>Germans have fought Germans
family members fight other family members, that means the family unit is not a relevant identity/bloc.
As I said, unserious.
>Napoleon was just minding his own business
he was at war with the ethnic, cultural, and somewhat literal kin of Prussia.
>was it jewish interests
no, do you see jewish influence? do you see a jewish lobby making overt statements like " we need to marshal this country for war against that country"? because that is what we see with England and America from 1916 to present.
>Austria was never apart of Germany
Austria voted to join Germany, they became apart of Germany.
This isnt conquest or expansion.
>Bohemia was never apart of Germany
it was a historical holding of a German State which was now apart of The State of Germany.
This also wasnt conquest or expansion.
>took more of Poland
because Poland wouldnt make peace. What is Hitler supposed to do? Take Danzig then let the Poles throw shells over the German border indefinitely?
Poland lost their entire country and still wouldnt make peace.
>Turkey and Greece
They kind of do, they are acting on that claim right now as they occupy Istanbul.
do democratic states even have claims? Maybe? understand Germany and Austria werent really democratic until post WWII.
Their land claims were based on literal estate ownership.

>>17940808 (OP)
The idea that everything would have been peaceful and nice if we had just let Hitler take over Europe and do a bunch of insane murder and exiles while being an authoritarian freak has got to be the stupidest cope from softboi modern nazis I've ever heard, you want fear and terror but you aren't willing to put up with the pain and hard work needed to maintain that, you want to feel like le epic death squad solider from the comfort of your own home, it's pathetic, you want goverment applicated spite, that's all, you're mad at the world because you made your life suck by accident and now you have to blame and spurn other people to save your ego from yourself
just die

>>17941254
What did the Poles and Belarussians do to deserve taking the brunt of German temper tantrums?

>>17941448
The common denominator to Hitler's enemies is that they were not Fascist Germans, and being either not Fascist or not German was reason enough for him to think he was entitled to kill them.
No other nation state in history has ever had this kind of fanbase around it that justifies every retarded aggressive act with the implication that said country was just entitled to act this way and do whatever it wanted and everyone else was a villain for getting in the way.

>>17943679
meanwhile in real world

>>17943622
Ethnic Czechs were literally the best gun designers in the world between 1919 and annexation. And even before that had huge influence and a leadership role within Austria Hungary.
They were absolute experts at industry and industrial production.

>>17943582
Literally reads like a Q-tard post.
>>17943591
>Germany and Austria had been mortal enemies for most of their history
This does not detract from the fact Germany and Austria had deep cultural and economic ties.
>WWI would have never happened if Austria and Russia
WWI would have never happened if Russia didnt insert itself into the domestic affairs of Austria.
These arent arbitrary rules, I am explaining Germany's 'theory of mind'.
What are you even trying to say?
>it wasnt longstanding at all
They have had a cultural overlap for centuries if not millennia.
>600 years of mortal rivalry
Firstly it wasnt mortal rivalry.
Secondly in an age of imperialism local conflicts are flattened and former enemies become fast friends when rubbing up against more alien people such as Russians or French or Italians.
>which one is normality
neither. the political landscape of Europe is dynamic, it has no true normality.
>Ukraine war, WWI, the 30 years war, the Napoleonic wars, the Korean and the Crimean war werent localized that means British intervention in WWII is justified and rational
You are an unserious retard.
The Ukraine was IS localized btw, that is why it is Russia and Ukraine and not BRICS vs NATO.
Localized does not mean zero intervention or externality.
it means the open hostilities are localized to the primary belligerents in a regional area.
The existence of non-localized wars is not a case for non-localized wars.
thats like saying the existence of crime is a good argument that crime should exist.
thats stupid.
>explain it logically
There were no discernible benefits at the outset and no discernible benefits since compared to a neutral or aligned path.
>shouldnt have invaded Poland
or what? Britain will commit suicide over it?
That sounds like a British problem.
>what ties did Germany have with Morrocco
none really The Kaiser was acting against France and I dont think it was a wise decision.

>>17943857
Which election did the Nazis win a majority in? When was their a vote for them to instate their fascist government and overthrow the democracy before it?
Link these specifically.

>>17943591
>prevent expansionism
what does this mean? Against expansionism in general? When did the Kaiser organize a force to Invade the United States over its expansionism in central America?
It was specifically France and it was a poor decision by the Kaiser that would have been a waste of resources for Germany, not in their national interests.
>virtually everything to reduce Versailles
what about not having a Versailles in the first place?
They werent trying to help Germany, they were trying to manage Germany because Germany was in the Red Peril.
Hitler starting to annex shit?
Did anyone with power in England say "annexation is a crime we are willing to die in the hundreds of thousands over"?
no.
>making shit up again
uh no, you fucking moron, the Kaiser's poor diplomacy IS attributed in part to sentimentality by your vaunted academia.

>>17943857
nazis were thugs and got treated like thugs in 1946, why do you think we hang Goering but didn't do anything to Hirohito? Because nazis were just gangsters

>>17943617
>prevent further German expansion
1, no one ever said this.
2, Germany was never going to be a mortal threat to the British Empire because A, they were run by an Anglophile and B, Britian had an Empire, Germany didnt.
3, They had no issue with "expansion" whatever that even means in this context, they had a problem with Germany. Why? Their jewish lobby had a problem with Germany.
>vastly expanded its military
It was half the size of the French army in men, tanks, and artillery and smaller than Imperial Germany's army.
>prevent a war altogether
and the failure of this cynical ploy is escalate an unfortunate border war that you didnt want into a catastrophic globe-spanning world war?

That is monumentally retarded and explains nothing about British behavior.
>perspective
You are trying to make a 1:1 overlay despite completely different geopolitical realities.
>it was the same principle
which is?
>Britain became a world power
because they industrialized before anyone else, thats why.
They quickly lost world power status when the advantage of industry wore off.
this is what we fascist nazi racialists call 'regression to the mean' or 'rubber-banding'.
its why Spain was the wealthiest empire in the world when they ran into primitives with golden cities then within two centuries became impoverished and returned to their pre-colonial "natural" level of wealth.
its also why Germany heads the EU as the European hegemon despite being defeated (twice) in wars ostensibly to prevent a German hegemon from ruling a confederation of European states.
>their foreign policy
nothing in British foreign policy demanded an escalation with Germany.
that work out for Britain again? oh wait, completely against their national interests, which people knew at the time considering England's economic state and the corrupt Tory party.
>rising power
the USSR a rising power set to overtake the rest of Europe, which they did, and England played a critical if not necessary role in this.

>>17943637
I am reminded of the absolute subhumanity coming out of the most advanced Slavic "country", fine contributions such as ass-rape, 4k assassinations of surrendering conscripts, and the worst of female nature displayed by both sides.

>>17943909
they don't even devour feces like german women do, such barbarians

>>17943666
Canada's industrial capacity in 1939 was non-existent compared to the UK and their manpower pool was incredibly small.
In any case, you didnt answer the question.
>not an argument
whats the argument even about? I am explaining why Hitler took the position he did concerning Austrian land claims.
This is an Austrian national with Austria apart of his State.
Austria's problems became Hitler's problems.
>Bohemia belongs to Germany because Germany built their industry
no one said this.
>why cant this logic be applied anywhere else
It can be applied elsewhere, but that isnt even what I am saying. I am arguing against the charge Germany took over Czech industry.
The industrial base and gold did not belong to the Czechs it belonged to the Germans and was stolen by the Czechs.
Bohemia wasnt even a claim pushed by Germany. Germany pushed for Sudete and they only annexed Sudete, they didnt annex Bohemia or Moravia.
Did Bohemia belong to Germany via Austria? Yea sure it was a subject region of the Austrian State and Monarchy as determined by their previous arrangement with Hungary.
Germany would have been justified in Annexing Bohemia and Moravia.
Yet they didnt, because they didnt actually expand nor did they want any expansionism, they wanted something resembling a pre-war Central Europe, a restoration.
>your position is inconsistent
where specifically?
>a majority of wars were started or expanded due to intervention
The causes of intervention in 1939 is what made WWII novel, not that intervention and expansion occurred.
If Germany had invaded Ireland and England joined it, the cause for intervention is self evident.
But British intervention in Poland is retarded and antithetical to British interests as evidenced by the outcome of the war which people saw before the war even began, no matter what the outcome tactically, Britain would be strategically weaker for it.

>>17943944
>Canada's industrial capacity in 1939 was non-existent compared to the UK and their manpower pool was incredibly small.
This is retarded and just incorrect. Inglis alone was one of the largest firearms and heavy military equipment companies in the world.

>>17943666
>there has been years of peace
No, there has never been a single year in human history where there was peace across the world.
>humans strive for a peaceful world
not really.
friction and conflict is apart of human nature and a more enlightened view of human nature will recognize conflict is something we can only hope to better manage not abolish.
>it doesnt give Sweden claim
Sweden has the claim regardless of whether they press it.
>no sane person will ever agree
This isnt a popularity contest.
>It seceded
Was Austria allowed to reclaim Bohemia?
No.
It was effectively taken from them by the Entente.
Youre engaging in semantics.
Their declaration of secession wasnt even done in their own country it was done in the United States.
>it was before Austria surrendered
it was in 1918 in the United States.
Its national creation isnt even compelling.

>answer my counterfactuals even though I wont answer yours
no.
>youre a fascist because you openly argue for constant wars
Again, I am not a fascist as I live under fascism and I do not like the ruling party.
Furthermore I am not arguing for constant wars.
I am arguing that to be against wars you do not necessarily need to discredit the reasons for wars, which is what youre doing and its childish and silly.
>two people are fighting (war) over a toy (land claims), I am going to take that toy away (land claims are not valid cassus belli) instead of teaching them conflict resolution (de-escalation)
That is (You).
Youre the analytical equivalent of an overworked single mother.

>>17943845
Meanwhile the reality outside of Russian battleboxes
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Soviet_Union
Slavs cant fight.
It took the USSR 4 fucking years to defeat a country 1/10th its size engaged in a two front war against 95% of the world's industry and 85% of its population.

>>17943847
Where did they get the investment capital from?
Germans and Austrians.
Who created the industrial base in Bohemia?
Germans and Austrians.
no one is saying the Czechs were non-entities, however it is always overlooked that "Czech" industry would not exist without Germany and Austria literally planning out their industrial sector in Bohemia due to its geographic security.

>>17943981
>6vs1
>lose
embrassing

>>17943986
The Czechs were historically a haven for firearms/military equipment and industry in general.
The word pistol is literally from the Czech language.
In the Austrian Empire they were consistently disproportionately successful as an ethnic group and were highly literate and educated from an early stage.
They paid more into Austria than they were getting from it.
That is why post-break up Czechoslovakia became an industrial power and important part of the international arms trade and Austria was irrelevant.

>>17943862
You dont need to win a majority to be elected.
Germany doesnt have a two party system you fucking moron.

>>17944014
You need majority to pass laws dimwit
And painter wasn't elected

>>17944014
Being merely elected with a plurality and overthrowing the previous government and instating your own while using violence to enforce that are different things.
I'm well aware of how German elections work, what do you think the point of that question was, you illiterate retard?
The point was to show how the Nazis, with nothing like a majority of support, instated a violent dictatorship and totally bypassed the democratic process to do that. They never had majority support even within their own nation. Let alone having any legitimacy outside of it.

>>17944014
I just told you that nazis were basically gangsters, why are you trying to justify their abuse of system when nazis themselvs shat on their country's law?

>>17943628
>Name them and the specific point that was violated.

Munich Agreement, he agreed to leave the rest of Czechoslovakia if Sudentenland was given over to Germany. A few months later, he invades and occupies the rest of Czechoslovakia

>>17944032
Not him or anyone else in this thread, but Hitler believed that Laws should serve the race, not the other way around.

>>17944088
Well, it ended up serving a few people from SS who amased a private fortune from stealing stuff from exterminated Jews and other nations and a few rich German corporate owners who made billions on slave labour. But other than that most germans only got death and misery from those "laws"

>>17944134
None of that is even true.

>>17944194
Later, many of those amassed fortunes were spent on bribes to fuck off for South America, while the Germans had to deal with their war-torn country.
Now you have a clear idea of why Nazism, and especially the SS, is so despised in Germany.

>>17941801
>The Austrian fascists opposed unification against the will of the Austrian people
Source?
>they wanted to join Germany.
No they didn’t
>Its not an ethnicity, a nation, or a country.
Yes, Czechoslovakia was a country created after WW1.
>Hacha invited Hitler in.
Hacha was threatened by Hitler
>Slovakia was an independent state
>Bohemia was an independent state.
No they were under German occupation
>They were not annexed.
Yes they were
>totally not biased right?
Everyone is biased, especially you since you’re obviously a neo-Nazi
>Danzig was a German Free City
Danzig was Polish
>which point of Munich was violated?
Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia after promising to stop after taking the Sudetenland
> They didnt
Yes they did. Britain and France declared war on Germany, honouring their alliance with Poland
>You are a second worlder who idolizes liberalism and leftism.
I’m right-wing and part of the reason I hate Hitler is because he destroyed Europe and primarily killed white Europeans
>you shouldnt even have a computer, your people couldnt build them, you dont deserve them.
I’m British, we literally invented the computer lmao. Consider suicide, /pol/tranny

>>17943535
>wow, too bad they couldnt do that in 1938 and 1939 lol.
Maybe Because Germany, a country with huge population, was the attacking country?

>a militia rebellion and a demilitarized country
I dont know if your parents made you under full light, but all three countries had militia-tier armies after WW1.

>>17943622
International commerce is a thing for armaments as well, shocker I know.

>>17943857
>This does not detract from the fact Germany and Austria had deep cultural and economic ties.
>Cultural
The overwhelming majority of the Habsburg empire even in 1914 was non-German moron.
>Economic
How "deep" was there economic ties exactly to warrant world war?

>WWI would have never happened if Russia didnt insert itself into the domestic affairs of Austria.
Balkans was a life-long Austria-Russian dispute before Germany even was a state.
It was the Germans who turned a regional conflict into a world war when they should have just let Austria and Russia fight it out, especially since it was Austria who desired it.

>These arent arbitrary rules, I am explaining Germany's 'theory of mind'.
You're not explaining anything. It's all just gibberish because you cannot rationalize geopolitics.

>They have had a cultural overlap for centuries if not millennia.
Which meant absolutely nothing because Austria was the traditional enemy of Brandenburg.

>Firstly it wasnt mortal rivalry.
Kek. Learn history.

>Secondly in an age of imperialism local conflicts are flattened and former enemies become fast friends
Hmm Sounds like British and French alliance with Poland wasnt so strange after all.
Again, you fail to rationalize this. You really suck at it. You keep doing this whole "here its not okay but here its okay" bullshit when pointing to historical referneces. Britain wasnt allowed to go to war in 1939 and it was all jews behind it, but when other states did the same thing in similar circumstances we need to consider X Y Z factors.

>neither. the political landscape of Europe is dynamic, it has no true normality.
Do you want me to link every single war they were against each others?
I am going to win here, you're going to lose. All you have are words. I have actual objective facts that I can reference. No one is going to believe your bullshit becaue its just words. Prussia and Austria almost always fought each others

>>17943857
>The Ukraine was IS localized btw
Solely because of nuclear weapons.
Hitler did not have that luxury.
Had nuclear weapons not existed, we have good reason to assume NATO would intervene, just as western powers intevened in 1939.
I can link endless articles of primarily France, England, USA and Poland doing saber-rattling against Russia, and Putin constantly reminding them of his nuclear arsenal.

This is normality btw. A war in Europe is everyones business, its is now, it was then.

>or what?
Or world war.

>That sounds like a British problem.
In the end Germany pulled the trigger.

>none really The Kaiser was acting against France and I dont think it was a wise decision.
No one cares what you think. Germanys decision aligned with their foreing interests, which was to insert themselves in a Morocco-French dispute and threatened war over it. And it perfectly align with Britain and France making a German-Polish war their business. Again I am emphasizing that this is normality and we have endless references to it. You lost.

>>17943865
>what does this mean?
Prevent a nation from expanding. Are you stupid?

>not in their national interests.
So Germany preventing France from swelling in size is not in their interets? Are you stupid?
Also I love how you recognize this as a "poor decision" but dont apply jews to the equation like you do with Britain and France.
Again, everytime Germany does something it needs to be explained with X Y Z factors and considerations, but when Britain and France does something its "THE JEWS".
Not very convincing. Do better.

>what about not having a Versailles in the first place?
What about not having a best-litovsk or Treaty of Frankfurt in the first place?
Britain showed more leniency to Germany than Germany had ever done to her defeated enemies. Name a single time Germany ever reduced the conditions of a treaty on her enemies like Britain did to Germany. You cant. You suck.
Imagine if Germany recieved the same treatment Germany had given Poland every time she was defeated in a war or collapsed to internal strife? Germany wouldnt even exist post-1918 if they had given Germany a taste of their own medicine.
Yet here you are trying to change the narrative. Not going so well.

>>17943893
>1, no one ever said this.
Im ever more convinced you have autism every time you respond with a "no one ever said this". How severe is your autism? Have they told you?

>2, Germany was never going to be a mortal threat to the British Empire
Is that why Germany was the first country to ever route the British army from the continent and bomb British cities and blockade British waters. Not very convincing argument.

>they were run by an Anglophile
And what if Hitler lied or the next leader of Germany would be different. Why should England just surrender her position to the words of one man. A positon she fought for the attain

>Britian had an Empire, Germany didnt.
Literally not an argument.
Come on, is this the best you got to prove that Britains decision was solely based on jews?

>They had no issue with "expansion" whatever that even means in this context
Remind me again why Britain refused peace with Napoleon, far longer than with Hitler.

>they had a problem with Germany.
Only when Germany started expanding.

> Why?
Because they were expanding.

>Their jewish lobby had a problem with Germany.
Weak and unconvincing. Everything Britain and France did can be logically rationalized and perfectly aligns with how other wars started and even how Germany conducted themselves. The Morocco crisis being one of them and Prussias decision to join Napoleonic and Spanish succession wars. You fail every time.

>and the failure of this cynical ploy is escalate an unfortunate border war that you didnt want into a catastrophic globe-spanning world war?
Shouldnt have invaded Poland.

>That is monumentally retarded and explains nothing about British behavior.
I'd say invading Poland was far more retarded because it was going to trigger a world war. Just as it triggered a world war when Napoleon annexed the Lowlands.

>>17944088
That isn't for an individual to decide when his beliefs were unpopular.

>>17943893
>You are trying to make a 1:1 overlay despite completely different geopolitical realities.
Are you seething becaue you have absolutely zero references to your position?
You actually come across as a bit of a cuck because you're always on the defensive in this debate because you have nothing to strengthen your own positon, all you can do is attempting to defend the overwhelming amount of historical referencs and perspectives that I have. You're desperately trying to paint the reason for ww2 as some sort of isolated unique situation that never existed in world history. A majority of wars either started or escalated due to intervention (including wars Prussia was a part of) and you're kwetching over this fact. It makes you look weak.

>because they industrialized before anyone else, thats why.
LMAO
Showing your lack of historical knowledge. Maybe becoming a nazi means you only learn about ww2 and absolutely know nothing about history.
But let me educate you; Britain became the next hegemony because 1701-1815 was nothing but a massive deathmatch with France. War of Spanish succession, Seven Year War, War of Austrian Succession, Revolutionary war, Napoleonic war etc. They were all a string of British victories.
France had previously succeeded Spain as the hegemony of Europe after Spain suffered a series of defeats and expensive wars in the late 1500-mid 1600, especially in the 80-year war and the 30-year war and the war with England.

>nothing in British foreign policy demanded an escalation with Germany.
Why are you so butthurt that it was just business as usual?

>that work out for Britain again?
Confronting Germany worked out pretty well for Britain in ww1 since the British empire grew in size and further established Britain as the dominant power.
This was their only frame of reference at the time, while your argument is entirely based on hindsight to make sense

>the USSR a rising power set to overtake the rest of Europe, which they did,
For 45 years only

>>17943944
>Canada's industrial capacity in 1939 was non-existent compared to the UK
LMAO
Are you even aware how big the Canadian navy became throughout ww2? Do you even have the slightest idea?

>In any case, you didnt answer the question.
I did. You didnt answer whether Britain had some sort of war-plan on Canada if they stayed neutral.
It's quite pathetic how you tried to turn this into an argument and then quickly abandoned it when you saw the logical flaw.

>whats the argument even about?
Because it's irrelevant where the PM is from. It doesnt automatically give him claim to that state. Are you retarded?

>This is an Austrian national with Austria apart of his State.
Ok so?
Eisenhower had a German family background. Should he have annexed Germany? Sarkozy had Hungarian family, its not some sort of factor.
It's literally not an argument and you're being pathetic.

>no one said this.
xD
Ok let me do that line next time.

>It can be applied elsewhere, but that isnt even what I am saying.
Except its neither moral nor reasonable and literally only you think this.

>I am arguing against the charge Germany took over Czech industry.
Not an argument. Those were Czech industry. It's like saying Estonian university belongs to Sweden because Sweden originally built them.
No one thinks this except for you.
Idiot.

>Bohemia wasnt even a claim pushed by Germany.
Explain swastiska flag flying over the Prague parlament then.

>Did Bohemia belong to Germany via Austria?
No.
Bohemia was never a part of Germany so it did not belong to Germany.

>Germany would have been justified in Annexing Bohemia and Moravia.
Is Britain jutified to annex ireland?
Is Turkey justified to annex Bulgaria?
According to your logic: Yes
Which is why you're clinically insane.
Also a fascist.
No one agrees with you.
Least of all the Czechs.
But you are an american so you have no clue what Europeans think of each others.

>>17943944
>Yet they didnt,
No they just nationalized Czech industry, absorbed Czech armament, confiscated Czech gold reserve. Closed the parlament. Closed universities. Created a German office of which all Czech officises were subservient to. Effectively creating a dictatorship over the democratic Czechs. Also having Gestapo operate freely within Czechia.
You really suck at debating this btw.

>where specifically?
Because you say Germany were justifed to control Czechia becaause they built Czechia, yet you cant apply this logic to other states without sounding like a complete maniac, so you try to avoid it.

>But British intervention in Poland is retarded and antithetical to British interests
Germany borders Britain and France so its absolutely within their interests to care if Germany suddenly starts to invade shit to expand.
Just because Germany chosee to go after smaller states instead of Britain and France directly as something unjustified for intervention is nothing but an arbitrary rule you've created out of thin air which doesnt even reflect history nor today.

>>17944134
He also believed that all human progress was made by extraordinary individuals against the masses, and that the state must let all responsibility and control go these individuals. This is all in Mein Kampf if you actually read it.

>>17944473
See >>17944548

>>17943964
>not really.
Yes they do.
The EU is and the UN is built on that principle.

>Sweden has the claim regardless of whether they press it.
No they dont.
Literally only you think this.
Which is why you are insane.
And here you are trying to tell me jews are the bad guys when all I see atm is your own insanity.

>This isnt a popularity contest.
You are alone. It says a lot.

>It was effectively taken from them by the Entente.
Nope. Austria seceded from Austria, similar to how Finland seceded from Russia or Greece seceded from Turkey.

>Youre engaging in semantics.
Your arguments are weak as fuck. How does it feel? Are you winning yet?

>Again, I am not a fascist
Yes you are. You continously argue for war. You just did right now that Austria should have been able to wage war on Czechia to reclaim it, and with that logic that all other states should do the same to states that once were a part of their empire.
You are a fascist and you are insane.

>Furthermore I am not arguing for constant wars.
Yes you are

>I am arguing that to be against wars you do not necessarily need to discredit the reasons for wars
Calling them reasons for war is to legitimize wars because your said reasons shouldnt be reasons in the first place moron.
This is why you're a fascist and youre also insane.

>>17943771
>They saw themselves as apart of the German States
Nope they didnt. Youre just making shit up. German nationalism wasnt a thing during the Napoleonic wars and previously Prussia had been fighting other Germans.

>when Napoleon fought Austria it inevitably drew in other German states, and eventually Prussia.
LMAO
And what about every other war when Bavaria fought Hannover or Saxony fought Wutternberg or Holstein fought Pommeria?

Why do you lie btw? Does it feel good? Is it becuase youre not a sane person?

>Do you see WHY Prussia got involved?
Yes I do.

>It wasnt irrational or against Prussian national interest nor was it some bizarre desire for war.
Correct.

>You are refusing to see the causes for why Prussia got involved.
Nope I am actually perfectly aware why Prussia got involved.
My point is to make you understand why Prussia involved themselves in for example Spanish succesion war and Napoleonic wars.

>again, I dont care about the Napoleonic wars.
Weak.

>What is extra-ordinary is that Britain and France, more so Britain, werent acting within their national interests by involving themselves.
Except it was in their interests. Just as it was in Prussias interest to involve themselves.

>Prussia WAS acting within their national interests.
Really? What's the difference?
And not just Prussia. You can also explain why it was in France interest to go against their catholic brothers and fight Vienna in the 30-year war.
Oh right, because it was in their geopolitical interests, just as 1939 was.
Ofc fascists like you dont understand this because you dont understand history nor what geopolitical interests are based on.

>It is extra-ordinary to go out of your way, against the national interests, on behalf of people totally unrelated to you, and commit to a deathmatch, and then come out on the other side weaker
Did you know that Prussia actually lost territory despite winning the Napoleonic wars? 1/3 of Prussia was given to Russia. Explain this plz

>>17943771
>Yes, and I am disputing that.
No one cares about your personal opinon.
Britain and France decision in 1939 perfectly aligns with how they've conducted themselves in history and even in modern days.

>What does this have to do with Prussia?
Why are you seething over references? Because you have none yourself and must always be defensive?

>What does this even mean?
Do you have low IQ? You dont understand reason and logic?

>you havent established any, the only parallels youve drawn are that countries go to war.
For the same reason in similar circumstances as 1939.
It's quite pathetic how you got nothing to offer as counter-argument. You have nothing of substance to provide in the debate.
I wonder if you have autism. Have you been diagnosed?

>What's the rationale behind escalation?
Same rationale to invade a state which would likely trigger a major war.

>There is nothing in escalation that benefits Britian or France.
Did the war benefit Germany?
Did Napoleonic war benefit France?
Did the Spanish successsion war benefit France?

>France was just retarded, Britain was corrupt.
And Germany was both corrupt and retarded.
Cope and seethe
"NOOO You cant say that bout muh ubermenschen"

>Countries can in fact be retarded and corrupt.
Maybe dont go to war.

>Lets not be autistic
You are autistic. Have you been diagnosed? Be honest.

>an organization of German speaking regions where most held closer ties to eachother than to foreign powers is "Germany"
Germany didnt exist and the various German states were perfectly happy to fight each others.

>>17944552
Mein Kampf is more about Central European politics than anything else. With some fanboying over the Catholic clergy.
Regardless, you don't have to follow his delusions or see them as justification for his actions. Where despite being obviously unpopular, he used force and violence to instate a dictatorial government. Even when he never had majority support and never made it higher organically than chancellor (itself driven by backroom dealing).

>>17943933
just ass and bullets right?

>>17944013
What do you mean historically? Going back to when? Bohemia was invested in as early as 1870 and were receiving immense amounts of capitol up until 1917.
What companies in particular are you talking about?
Skoda was the largest in Bohemia and was built by Germany and Austria. Austria made Skoda from a family company into a national arsenal. Czechs didnt do that, it was a single building gunsmith when Austria began investing.
There is no private market for Naval and Artillery guns, Skoda's biggest contracts.
>they were more literate and educated in AustriaHungary
their competition is Yugo peasants.
>>they paid more into Austria than they were getting
no? What Czech citizens were purchasing Naval Guns and heavy howitzers from Skoda?
What Czech citizens determined the industrial planning of Austria Hungary?
>Czechslovakia became an industrial power
because the Austrians had made them an industrial power.
>Austria was irrelevant
because Austria had something called industrial planning, the Monarchy of Austria-Hungary had decided Bohemia due to its strategic location would be their primary industrial region.
Austria built Bohemia.
>>17943997
The Axis was outnumbered 31 by the USSR.
The USSR still required Western help to BARELY defeat the Axis and they still took 15:1 casualties L O L
Slavs cant fight.
>>17944018
You dont and Hitler was elected.
Do you understand how a multiparty system works?
To win elections you dont need a majority, you need the largest share of votes.
The Nazis had the largest share of votes.
>>17944024
They werent using violence, they secured their political position after the election LEGALLY!
>nazis didnt have majority support
They didnt need it and they had a massive approval rating among the general population which only increased as time went on.
>legitimacy
legitimacy?
What does that word mean in this context? What, China or Argentina gets to decide if the German elections are legitimate based on how they feel about them?

>>17944073
>Munich agreement
which point of Munich?
>he agreed to leave the rest of Czechoslovakia
Which of the 8 points of Munich says that "leave the rest of Czechoslovakia"?
>he invades
he didnt invade, Hacha invited him in.
>occupies
it wasnt an occupation, Hacha invited them in.
Also technically, none of that was mentioned in any of Munich's 8 points.
>>17944215
>fortunes
can we see these nazi fortunes?
>SS and National Socialism is despised in Germany
is it really because it seems like the Germans have to invest large amounts of capital into preventing the rise of National Socialism and indoctrinate their people against national socialism and veneration of the SS.
It seems like those are suppressed from the top down because they would otherwise in fact be popular.

>>17944302
>Source
You are mentally disturbed.
I am a fascist because I admit human nature must manage conflict as 'baked in' but these guys arent fascists?
>The Fatherland Front (Austrian German: Vaterländische Front, VF) was the right-wing conservative, authoritarian, nationalist, corporatist, and Catholic ruling political organisation of the Federal State of Austria.
Your fascism detector is broken.
>they didnt
They did, thats why they voted for it.
They even tried to hold the same referendum in 1919 and Versailles banned them from joining Germany.
>Czechoslovakia was a country
not in the way Germany or France is a country.
It was a post war construction, its declaration wasnt even in Europe, it was in the United States, it had to be imposed on the Austrians, Hungarians, and Germans.
>Hacha was threatened
hearsay.
>they were under German occupation
and today theyre under American occupation, is the sky falling yet?
Smaller countries will ALWAYS be subjects to the gravity of their larger neighbors.
>they were annexed
please, show us the annexation.
Annexation is a formal transfer of land, where was the land of Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia FORMALLY TRANSFERRED to Germany?
What treaty? post it.
>youre a neo nazi because you're objective
says a lot about neo nazis.
>Daznig was Polish
thats strange because Versailles and the League of Nations charter stated it was a Free German City.
>he invaded Czechoslovakia
he was invited in.
>promising to stop
There is "promising to stop" in any of Munich's 8 points.
go read them.

Did France and Britain declare war on the USSR, which is required of them in order to honor their alliance with Poland?
>im right wing
no, youre a conservative
>Hitler destroyed Europe
no, that would be the Americans and Soviets and currently organized jewry.
>Im British
You are a pole living in Britain or a tory goy on too much cope to admit Britain was in the wrong.
>at least were not speaking German
soon you wont be speaking English either.

>>17944337
>Germany was the attacking country
It wasnt Germany who invaded Slovakia in 1939 and it wasnt Germany who invaded Ciesyn months earlier.
>all three countries had militia tier armies
except Czechoslovakia inherited the Austro-Hungarian arsenal.
your parents made you drunk, in an alley, it took three men and a dog to get your mother pregnant.
>>17944343
>they were selling naval guns internationally
HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHHAHA
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegetthoff-class_battleship
They were making Naval Guns for their home Empire.

You are just opposing me to oppose me, you dont actually know what you're talking about, you are taking whatever I say and trying to find a way I could possibly be wrong.
here's the problem, I'm not wrong.

>>17944386
>the majority of the Habsburg empire was non-German
This does not mean the German elements of the Habsburg Empire (who were its rulers, the Habsburgs themselves) did not have deep cultural ties with Germany.
>warrant world war
Germany and Austria Hungary vs Russia is not world war in the way France and Britain vs Germany and Austria is world war.
France and Britain had global Empires.
Russia was localized primarily to Europe but had the empty wasteland of Siberia under their control, otherwise it was a European affair with Germany and Austria Hungary lacking the colonial Empires of Britain and France, Germany's African and Pacific colonies being dwarfed by French Africa and British Africa, to say nothing of the extensive British realm in Asia, North America, and the South Pacific.
Furthermore, Russia was the one imposing upon a German ally.
I like how you begin the story with Russia vs Austria and not what actually began the entire affair, the assassination of the Archduke and the domestic investigation which took place that Russia had a problem with because they were ruled by a sentimentalist who saw himself as the shield of the slavs.

>Germans turned a regional conflict into a world war
actually Germany held less land outside of Europe proper than Russia did.
It was Russia who took the Austrian-Serbian dispute and made into an actual outside of Europe affair strictly speaking.
Furthermore Germany was in a formal alliance with Austria-Hungary and it was in their interest to defend Austria-Hungary.
>they should have let them fight it out
You say "should" why?
No one is really saying that for WWII.
When someone say's Britain should have stayed out, they mean in practical terms.
It was practical for Germany to defend the Central European power bloc.
It was not practical for Britain to erase itself over Poland.
>you're not explaining anything
You are in denial.
This thread has been me teaching you the political landscape and you going "but what about this?"

>>17941283
If Israel used this same logic you'd be spewing a host of anti semitic stereotypes, but funnily enough, when your favorite loser German does it, it's suddenly the other sides fault for not imagining dishonesty this supreme.

>>17944386
>which meant absolutely nothing because Austria was the traditional enemy of Brandenburg
France was the traditional enemy of England.
how silly it was of France and England to fight Germany together instead of separately. England should have turned on France in 1940 because they were traditional enemies.
Do you not grasp there is a level of dynamism present in geopolitics?
Brandenburg itself fought multiple wars where it began one side and ended on the other, sometimes because they switched, sometimes because everyone else switched.
This is the nature of the game.
>learn history
I dont see the German-Austrian mortal rivalry in 1914 can you please point it out?
>British and French alliance wasnt so strange
no one said it was.
If theyre going to target Germany they would have to align together.
>you fail to rationalize this
except I dont, you think I believe EVERYTHING Britain and France did was irrational, I am calling it irrational based on the stated goals YOU, not they, give.
Britain and France acted rationally if we use the presumption they were beholden in large part of a foreign lobby hostile to Germany, England especially.
>all other states did the same thing
No, they didnt.
Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, The USSR.
The outstanding factor in the second war against Germany was the jewish lobby in England.
No one is saying this is the sole cause, but this is the primary factor which actually did cause the war.
otherwise its Germany vs Poland and England restrains France because they dont want an escalating war, Germany and the USSR continue their arms race and something like the Cold War emerges, maybe, but Europe itself is a player instead of the USSR vs America.
>wars in the past means no relevant cultural ties exist
Example, The Caucasus is one of the most stratified places on the planet genetically, politically, and historically, yet they are nearly lockstep when it comes to keeping outsiders on the outside.
The same is true for The British isles.

>>17944399
>solely because of nuclear weapons
they said that about gas.
It wasnt true about gas.
its not true about nukes.
>Hitler did not have that luxury
Sarin was a WMD which Hitler had, he didnt use it.
So was Anthrax which England didnt use.
>NATO would intervene if there were no nukes
NATO is intervening in a limited fashion and trying to DE ESCALATE.
This means if there were no nukes its likely NATO would remain in the same posture of de-escalation.
I dont think they actually want a war with Russia, They dont want to lose the war that began, but they also dont want it to continue especially due to Russia winning.
But it is unfounded speculation to say NATO would escalate just because they dont like Russia.
>just as Western powers intervened in 1939
but they didnt intervene in the way you think they did.
They declared war on Germany.
Not on the Soviet Union.
They never even came to the table for peace talks with Germany.
The US and NATO allies have met with the Russian delegation numerous times and have consistently pushed the Ukrainians to make concessions to Russia.
When did Britain ask Poland to make concessions to Germany?
>war in Europe is everyone's business
you say this but there is no evidence for it.
This is also inconsistent with your "Germany escalated WWI".
is it Germany's business because it would have expanded eventually or is Germany actually culpable? Is anyone actually culpable because everyone would just intervene anyway according to you?
>or world war
Why would Britain do that, oh right because they had a hostile foreign lobby working against their own interests.
>Germany pulled the trigger
no, Poland did and Germany caught them in the act.
>no one cares what you think
You do, a lot it seems.
>Germany's decision aligned with their foreign interests
not really, it was very foolish to not normalize their relations with France. more shrewd Statesmen were always quick to smooth over past rivalries like Hitler.

>>17944399
>it did perfectly align with British and French interests
what interest exactly? Give specific examples they gave.
>not wanting Germany to expand
no, not a legitimate stated interest.
That was something they only ever spoke of morally, never as a political interest, they also declared no war against the USSR a much more aggressive expansionist state seeking to restore a much more threatening frontier.
Obviously their issue isnt with "expansion" their issue is with Germany itself.
What in British interests demands the anti-German stance?
Nothing but the jewish lobby.
Everything Britan accused Germany of, some else did before the Germans and did it to a worse degree than the Germans.
yet their problem was with Germany.
The unfair standard Germany was held to is a product the anti-Germanness from JEWISH interest, not of British interest.
>this is normality
Then you should have no problem explaining the conundrum above.

>>17945025
>Why is Britain against the vicious, duplicitous state that helped ferment a former world war, seeks to have colonial holdings when all are already taken, broke every treaty about it's rearmament, and built its entire current government on revenge against the result of said world war!?!??
Gee monkey, I wonder why water falls down.

>>17944429
>prevent a nation from expanding
nations expand, so what?
In the case of the Kaiser, it was a mistake, he should have normalized with France.
In the case of Britain and France, again a mistake. If they were so concerned about expansion, they would have declared war on each other, they would have declared war on the USSR, on Poland, on the United States.
They didnt care about expansion.
They that it was Germany. Why? They had a jewish lobby imposing anti-German foreign policy on their governments.
LIKE WE SEE TODAY
Do you not realize we see the exact same phenomena TODAY in America? Front row seat over here to exactly what has been going on for the past century.

Germany was foolish in the Moroccan Crises.
>The crisis seems comic—its obscure origin, the questions at stake, the conduct of the actors—indeed was comic. But the results were tragic. Tensions between France and Germany and between Germany and England have been increased; the armaments race received new impetus; the conviction that an early war was inevitable spread through the governing class of Europe.[25]
It was stupid and not actually in their national interest, it was the Kaiser's pride.
Also it didnt actually cause a war, it was a contributing factor, not a primary factor.
>when Britain does something its the jews
no, when its the jews its the jews.

What evidence would you need to see to admit the jewish lobby played a role in facilitating diplomatic and military hostilities with Germany?
>Brest Litovsk
what about it? Was it unfair? yes, should Germany have done something differently? Yes.
It wasnt as bad as Versailles also it doesnt justify Versailles in the slightest.
>b-but they did it too
is the lowest form of argument.
>Britain showed more leniency
keeping up a blockade isnt leniency.
The Germans were dealing with the "no peace, no war" spergniks and Brest Litovsk was thrown together out of desperation.
What was the desperation of Britain and France?

>>17944429
Also stop with the whataboutism.
deal with whats in front of you.
>Germany had given Poland
Poland fought a triple war against every neighbor it had three times over and lost.
>Germany wouldnt exist
Germany can actually fight, and the German Empire didnt exist when Britain and France had signed off on Versailles.
>change the narrative
Its already changed.
The orthodoxy is being re-examined and found inadequate.
Furthermore, given England's lenient nature, why the sudden shift in WWII then?
Oh right the jewish lobby.

>>17944462
>you are autistic
you are arguing cases no one made.
You have failed in profiling me and it feels like your arguing against what you imagine the average stormweenie kkk nazi chud would say, not what is actually being said.
>Germany was a threat to the British Empire because they defeated them in France
and Britain knew this because samuel untermeyer saw it in his crystal ball in 1939.
>what if Hitler lied
>what if counterfactual
yeah, what if?
>what if the next leader of Germany was different
I know, what if America actually acted on War Plan Red.
>why should England just surrender her position
She shouldnt and no one asked her to.
>prove Britain's decision was based on jews
The evidence for this is the jewish lobby, the Focus Group, samuel untermeyer having meetings with prominent figures in British politics, jewish media organizations propagandizing the public and the political sector, jewish financial influence pouring money into British politics specifically to shuffle pro-war figures into positions of power and influence.
>why Britain refused peace with Napoleon
They tried to make peace with Napoleon and he turned them down.
When did Britian try to make peace with Hitler?
When did Hitler turn down Britain's peace offer?
>Germany started expanding
a problem Britain did not have with other expansionist states for some (((mysterious))) reason.
Repossessing your own property isnt expansion btw.
>everything Britian and France did can be logically rationalized
not if the assumption is they are working for their own national interests.
We judge a tree by its fruits.
The fruits of British victory was a strategic defeat that Germany in its wildest most anti-British dreams could not have imagined.
>other wars happened without jews this means ALL wars happened without jews
Why are you like this?
>Poland
shouldnt have invaded Danzig.
Britain getting raped to death is a British problem, not a German one.

>>17944462
I am pro-British trying to examine why a tactical victory lead to a strategic defeat.
It was because Britain's interests were determined by jews, not Britons.
We have a running precedent of this behavior from the Balfour declaration to present day.
You have to explain why this outstanding factor DIDNT influence Britian and it was actually in Britain's interest to lose their industrial base, their empire, their naval power, their political and economic relevance, and sovereignty.
>invading Poland was going to trigger a world war
Why? Britian couldnt say no?
Who forced Britain to war?
Oh right, the jewish lobby.
Otherwise, why would Britian fight a war that leads to them coming out on the other end strategically defeated despite tactical victory?
>>17944486
>seething
projection
>on the defensive
I am explaining to you. Youre in the position of a child being lectured by an adult.
You are deviating from the primary topic because of this because you are being humiliated, thats why your mind is shifting to examining the power dynamic betwixt us, because you are on the receiving end, like a woman.
You arent making historical references, you are making pilpul cases to divert attention away from the outstanding factors that made WWII unique compared to other wars.
>lack of historical knowledge
You havent taken a history class beyond highschool.
It is orthodoxy in College (thats what we relevant countries call "university") courses the expansion of European and specifically British power projection to a global scale was the result of industrialization.
>Britain became the hegemony
Britian was in a position to become a major power in Europe because of its industrialized base.
>Britain fought wars to get to the top
and what did they fight them with? Rocks?
Why didnt Britain suffer the fate of Ireland?
Ireland also participated in those wars (indirectly).
Ireland didnt have the industry to build a power base.
This is an irrelevant dispute.

>>17944486
>its just business as usual goy
Are you jewish?
If it was business as usual Britain would have declared on Britian or Poland or fought Turkey to the finish.
They didnt do any of that.
Its weird that they didnt do any of that actually considering they almost fought France in 1945 over Syria.
Its almost like they had an artificial focus on Germany, I wonder why? The jewish lobby.
Identical to the United States hyper-fixating on Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria when China is a much more relevant threat.
what's the commonality? organized jewry.
>confronting Germany worked out well for Britian
no. They spent ALL of their treasure and went into debt over the war.
>this was their only reference at the time
are they unable to imagine possible outcomes? because some possible outcomes are Britain goes into FURTHER debt, debt they now lack the liquidity to pay off. Britain becomes even weaker in Europe having fought a defensive war on behalf of a country that even if they took over Germany entirely couldnt pay England back in any meaningful way, Britain, from the outset, had to rely on foreign money which meant foreign influence over Britian would only increase.
>for 45 years only
no the USSR was a rising star in the east from 1917 onward and even today the central driver of the USSR, Russia, is still a threat to Europe.
Russia actively expands into Europe three times within the span of 100 years and England does nothing.
Germany reclaims German property and England goes ballistic.
Germany exists and England goes ballistic.

>>17944518
The Canadian navy expanded during WWII not prior. Are they going to hit the "deploy navy" button if Britain declares a security emergency in the commonwealth and invades Canada with tommies?
How is Canada going to defeat the Royal Navy in 1939 in this hypothetical?
No one abandoned the argument, are you affirming Britain would have invaded Canada had they declared neutrality or for the Axis?
If Canada took the same route as Iceland, would they be invaded like Iceland was?
>it doesnt give him a claim
I am not talking about claims here, I am explaining why Hitler took the Austrian claims seriously. Not why the Austrian claims existed, that is another point which has already been covered.
Take this for me.
>https://test.mensa.no/Home/Test/en-EN
>those were Czech industry
Why is a British national making syntax errors like "those were Czech industry"
it would be "industries".
or "that was Czech industry"
Are you ethnically British, like your ancestors 1000 years ago were from the British isles?
No it wasnt Czech it was built and funded by Austrians (and Germans).
>explain the Hakenkreuz in Prague
They were under the protection the Nazi party.
just like American flags today fly over countries that are under our protection.
>is Britain justified
Justified?
Is Britian justified in annexing Ireland?
maybe. According to the British, yes, Northern Ireland is a piece of Ireland which Britain annexed.
>Bulgaria
I dont know and dont care.
>according to your logic
According to my logic land claims dont vanish and countries can have legitimate historical grievances over land.
>youre a clinically insane fascist
Am I? wouldnt that make the British government, israeli government, American government, also clinically insane fascists because they have all pressed land claims.
I am aligned with my own country? good.
>Bohemia was never part of Germany
no one said it was, I said it was apart of a country that was at the time apart of Germany.
Germany also never annexed Bohemia.

>>17944518
>you are an American
which is why I know more than you because I can actually afford an education and we have much more access to information when doing research.
>>17944536
>they nationalized Czech industry
which was built by Germans and Austrians.
>absorbed Czech armament
again, built by Germans and Austrians
>Czech gold reserve
again, that was Austro-Hungarian gold which literally put Austria into a permanent recession when the Czechs stole it.
>closed the institutions operating antithetical to their interests
nice, I see this too in America, I just wish the government wasnt captured by israelis.
>effectively creating a dictatorship
America is not a dictatorship and neither was Germany or Bohemia and Moravia.
Furthermore, Dictators are more likely to listen to the concerns of their people because Dictators rely on hard power, hard power comes from public approval, if the people turn against you, its only a matter of time before you fall.
This is why dictators are memed as loved by the people, they actually are loved by the people.
But you dont know this because to you "authoritarian I dont like = dictator = bad".
Dictators do not have the soft power of parliaments which can, as we see today, literally genocide their own people and still contain them as a powerbase.
Dictators cant do that.

This isnt a debate, this is a lecture.
Id demand you pay me if I didnt think you'd venmo me three rocks and a pierogi.
>you say Germany were justified
WAS justified. WAS!
you are ESL.
youre not British.
>you cant apply this logic to other states
Does it actually apply to other states?
Bohemia was not gone from Austria for 20 years when Austrians and Germans returned.
If for example, say a large portion of the United States broke away, seceded one might say, and took with them all of the capital, infrastructure, rail, forts even, would the United States be justified in invading that breakaway state to re-integrate them?

>>17944536
>Germany borders Britain and France
so what? That doesnt mean Britain and France need to be inherently hostile to Germany.
>suddenly
Suddenly?
Britain abolished the ten year rule in 1932 before Hitler even won the election.
Britain was acting antithetical to Germany for nearly a decade before Germany "expanded" into former German/Austrian land.

Qui Bono, the jews, not the British.

>>17940808 (OP)
TL;DR Chamberlain is over hated.

The "Peace for our time" line was a press line that Chamberlain stupidly threw out. He knew war was coming and had been cutting social and domestic programs in order to fund military rearmament. At this point, Germany still had a significant lead in militarization, particularly in the number of modern combat aircraft. Also, the public wasn't yet ready to accept going to war with Germany over a region filled with Germans. Most of the western European public thought Hitler was just a blowhard and public opinion didn't form a concrete movement willing to accept war until after Kristallnacht.

Chamberlain's rearmament plan would overtake the Germans, but had to be done carefully since the economy was still shaky from the Great War. Britain and France coordinated their spending so that they would overtake the Germans, but at a sustainable pace. German military spending was hilariously unsustainable and trying to match the Anglo-French alliance was totally unachievable. As is, the military spending Hitler demanded would have led to an economic implosion in a few years. It was that monetary sword of Damocles hanging over his head and the coming eclipsing of German military force that led to Hitler declaring war on basically everyone. The German economy was being run as a ponzi scheme and they were on the edge of running out of rubes to look domestically.

Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was not pacifistic or avoidant. It was a calculated move to buy time for the military to rearm underwritten by the belief that Hitler wouldn't go full retard. It failed because Hitler was actually a retard and an overestimation of German financial solvency.

>>17944559
The EU and UN is not the world.
>they dont
They do.
>literally only you
Sweden and Finland had a dispute over Aland last century.
What do you mean its only me?
>Austria seceded from Austria
clerical error, you're losing it.
You should accept everything I say at face value, youd be correct more than you are now.
Bohemia seceded yes, but they also destroyed Austria by doing so, taking their industrial base and gold reserve with them.
Does Austria have no recourse? An ethnic minority can just up and secede and take everything with them? Should multicultural empires not practice integration? They should be all against all ethnic fights over who gets a larger slice of the nation's resources?
>you continuously argue for war
me saying reasons for war exist independent of whether we like those reasons is not me arguing for war.
>you argue Austria should have been able to wage war on Bohemia
Did Austria actually wage war on Bohemia to repossess their industry and economy? No.
Did Sweden wage war of the Aland dispute?
no.
>you are a fascist
ok, so what? Fascism has no meaning.
Your obsession with fascism is a mental illness.
The majority of fascist governments that ever existed had as much peace as they had war.
Unlike some democratic governments which have many more years at war as they have at peace, ex. the United States.

>>17944571
>German nationalism wasnt a thing
German States existed, they saw themselves as distinct from non-German states because of their Germanness.
Americans have fought other Americans, it does not mean there is no American Nation, America is itself a federation of states.
>what about every other war
What about them? There are plenty of reasons for wars.
Such reasons werent present for WWII, there were other outstanding factors.
Napoleon isnt relevant to WWII.
>it was in their interests
how was Britian's strategic defeat in their interests?
The British as early as 1932 knew that another war would be catastrophic for them.
It was apart of the debate over the Ten year rule.
>it was in their geopolitical interests
Do they actually say this?
no.
>fascists like you
what does that even mean?
>explain Prussia
no.
>>17944588
>Britain and France WANTED to become satellites to foreign power
did they say this?
>references
You are making pilpul cases, a notorious jewish tactic.
I am thinking you are a polish jew living in the UK, maybe not entirely one ethnicity or the other but you are definitely not 100% indigenous to the British isles.
Germany stood to gain strategically from victory, Britian did not.
France would have if the war was short but France (their government) surrendered anyway recognizing it was pointless to prolong the war.
Rest of your post is you having a mental breakdown.

>>17944696
Actually he won the elections and his force and violence was security against hostile elements within Germany.
>he never had majority support
You dont need majority support and he did have majority support in public opinion thereafter.

>>17944989
>whataboutism
Germans and Austrians literally lived in Poland and Bohemia and were forced.
This isnt comparable to eastern european jews, who dont actually have a connection to the levant and to the historical kingdom of Judea moving there and setting up a state.
nonetheless israel does "get away with it" because of their international mafia.
>favorite German loser
youre totally not mad lol

>>17945028
>why is nonsense hmm? stronger out.
nice. please deal in real things next post.

>>17945175
Thats a retroactive projection.
Why would Chamberlain demand to oversee Munich?
What good could possibly come from British imposition onto Germany?

>>17944963
>They were making Naval Guns for their home Empire.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoda_14_cm/56_naval_gun
The Skoda 14 cm/56 naval gun was built by the Škoda Works for export during the 1930s.

Your knowledge (or rather ignorance) of European history makes you sound like an amerimutt. So go pay taxes to pedophiles and slurp on corn syrup or whatever you "people" do.

>>17945175
>It was a calculated move to buy time for the military to rearm underwritten by the belief that Hitler wouldn't go full retard. It failed because Hitler was actually a retard and an overestimation of German financial solvency.

So it was a miscalculated move. Because he was trading land for time, when time was playing into German hands. Neville would be the one going full retard, while Hitler was wisely abusing pacifistic tendencies in France and the UK to seize central Europe without a fight and by doing so intimidated Soviets into abandoning the collective security project.

But this whole bullshit about "calculated appeasement" is just revisionism without solid evidence for it. Neville was a sincere retard, Daladier was the one who knew whats happening.

>>17945245
And the Austrian (landlocked country btw) battleships were those built in 1930 as well?

>>17944931
You don't know a thing about Germany bozo
If a bunch of drunk thugs would take over your country by force, force it into a suicidal war, and then left with all of the stolen goods once they lost then you would hate them too unless you are a cuckold

>>17945194
He eked out a 33% support and failed to form an effective coalition government, while other parties like the communists were surging in popularity directly at the Nazis' expense. His position was unstable and probably wouldn't last very long and he knew it. That is what triggered his coup and violent attacks on innocent Germans.
He was the hostile element in Germany at the time. Calling it 'majority support' when you kill people that disagree with you, is ridiculous. Pol Pot must have been the most popular leader in human history.

>>17944922
>historically
Hell, literally going back to the Middle Ages, the Bohemians were the continental leaders in firearms development and use. The Hussite Wars were the first war in history to be decided by use of firearms and cannons.
And after that point, the Czechs were overrepresented in firearms and metalworking manufacture throughout the Renaissance and early Modern period.
The reason that an artillery factory was built in Bohemia is that was where all the experts were. Look at Austrian firearms. Ferdinand Mannlicher came from a Czech family, Karel Krinka was the brains behind Austrian pistol design. And almost all the high-end engineering talent was in the Czechoslovakian region.
Skoda as a company was owned and operated by a Czech man who'd already turned it into a very successful heavy industry company before he then took on the role of basically owning the Austrian artillery manufacturing world. Skoda had the talent to reach out into artillery and firearms manufacture already, while the Austrians didn't have the capabilities to make their own guns. They were still using bronze alloys in their cannon barrels into the 1880s. Absolutely backwater type stuff.

It's not a surprise that immediately after the war, world leader firearms and heavy ordnance companies like Brno and CZ were set up entirely for the first time in Czechoslovakia while Austria barely clung onto their Steyr factory.
Because the talent was always centralized there, while the Austrians just parasitized it.

>>17944922
>They werent using violence, they secured their political position after the election LEGALLY!
By burning down the Reichstag and then using that to say, "only we're allowed to be in charge now and we'll kill anyone that disagrees"?
Even if they only had 33% voting support and were dropping before that point?

>>17945040
>It wasnt as bad as Versailles also it doesnt justify Versailles in the slightest.
If Versailles was as bad as Brest Litovsk, then neither Bavaria nor Prussia would have been a part of the same nation.
Versailles was actually too gentle.

>>17946151
Brest Litovsk didnt take Russians out of Russia.
It was also made with people who didnt actually surrender.
Brest Litovsk was waaaay friendlier than Versailles.
Versailles even had underhanded shit like never specifying reparations cost so France could farm Germany for money perpetually.
Nothing like that in BrestLitovsk.
Russians were not taken out of Russia.
But Germans were taken out of Germany.
Russia's territorial integrity was not compromised like East Prussia had been.

The comparison between the two is laughable.

>>17945198
Someone of your culture living somewhere and getting shat on isn't the responsibility of any nation. If a bunch of Americans fucked off to Mexico and started getting treated like dogs(also this didn't happen, the Germans were just making shit up), it still wouldn't be the United States responsibility to invade Mexico for their sake, they are no longer part of the country. Also it isn't whataboutism, it's pointing out the sheer balls you have to be defending the most "Jewish" behavior that if it was presented to you in another light, would leave you seething in hatred.

>>17946226
If you define the Ukrainians as separate from the Russians in 1918, then one could easily claim the same between Bavarians and Prussians. At this point there were still substantial political and dialectal differences between North and Southern Germany.

>>17946226
>But Germans were taken out of Germany.
nope, territories given to Poland were Polish majority and Alsace germans didn't want to stay in Germany

>>17945739
Why do you come into these threads?
>>17946014
Actually Hitler was gaining votes and seats up until 1933. They were way ahead of the other parties in unprecedented elections.
>it wouldnt last
it would have, which is why its worse it was murdered.
>he was hostile
not at all, they were the only stabilizing force in Germany.
>kill people who disagree with you
This didnt happen and they even let concentration camp inmates votes, and they voted against the party.
if it was the US or the UK prisons would be vote farms.
let alone something like the USSR.

The Nazis were objectively good.

>>17946063
Nothing you said contradicts what I said.
I am not saying Austrians and Germans were the gunsmiths, I am saying Austrians and Germans secured the contracts, secured the funding, ensured the development was in Bohemia and not say in Austria itself or in the Ruhr, which they could have done with the Bohemians unable to do anything about it.
Austrians DID have the capability, they chose to invest in Bohemia because of its secure location.
Austria could have expanded Steyr to do everything, but they didnt want their industry based out of Austria, they wanted it in Bohemia because Bohemia was a very safe location geographically for Austria Hungary (and Germany).
There was no shortage of German arms companies which could have been expanded, however the Germans saw alternatives in investing in Austro-Hungarian industry for various reasons.
The Bohemians repaid the Austrians by taking advantage of their situation, stealing their investments and their gold.
If anything the """"""occupation"""" of Czechoslovakia is the closest thing to justice Austria ever had.
>>17946145
>nazis burned the Reichstag
speculation.
>we are in charge and will kill anyone who disagrees
never happened.
>they were dropping
They were consistently gaining support.

>>17946273
I'm a hero who protects people against neo-Nazis spreading disinformation
And now you said that nazis didn't kill anyone which is another lie as Hitler literally ordered assasination of his long time friend along with thousand of others. He was a gangster and he treated Germany as his buisness
>>17946258
Germans were seething that they could no longer opress people

>>17946227
>isnt the responsibility of your nation
says who?
>if a bunch of Americans fucked off to Mexico and were abused
The Mexican American war was literally fought over this.
Texas was created as a bunch of Americans invited in by Mexico to settle wild Comancheria, when the Mexicans began treating the Americans as Mexicans, the US army rolled up and captured Mexico City.
I dont even think Mexico was in the wrong here perse however what you say is just outright incorrect.
>tribalism is jewish
no, jews are good at tribalism, but tribalism is not a jewish creation.
>>17946243
Nope.
Prussians and Bavarians cluster closer together than the Ukraine dwellers and Russians.
Ukrainian isnt even an ethnic group like Prussian or Bavarian.
Cossacks the ethnic core of Ukraine are extremely distinct from Russians culturally and ethnically.
in any case this is retarded, no Russians were taken out of Russia and certainly not against their will, the Russians had to INVADE Ukraine to get them into the USSR.
Bavaria would have joined Prussia by choice.
in fact all German people taken out of Germany had to be military kept from rejoining Germany.
while these other slavs had to be militarily fought to bring them back under Russian rule.
Youre really dishonest or really ignorant.

>>17946291
Cossacks are not an ethnic group, they were an economic group that never made up the majority, or even a plurality of Ukrainian society.
Most Ukrainians were Slavic farmers that were descendants of the Kievan Rus, like the Muscovites.
The gap between Bavaria and Prussia was just as wide as between Ukraine and Russia. Ukrainians were very well represented in governance of the USSR, and were integral to the rise of the Bolsheviks. So separating the Bavarians out is entirely justifiable.

>>17946258
>Polish majority
so what?
Danzig was majority German, it wasnt allowed to be apart of Germany.
Having an ethnic majority doesnt mean you get to steal people's property.
Germans lived in Pomerania, owned property there, had long standing ties to the land.
Germans were forced out of Alsace Lorraine, that is a genocide.

also literally yes, Germans were taken out of Germany. Danzig was Germans taken out of Germany.

>>17946286
>the nazis are killing political opposition
>*looks inside*
>its pedophiles in the nazi party
I approve of this.
So should you, but youre a tranny.

>>17946281
Austria didn't have the capability, is the point.
They didn't have the expertise, or the competency to make these weapons or do this heavy industrial work. The factory at Steyr could never had made the artillery guns they needed because the Austrians did not have the knowledge about steel manufacturing. That is why they were using bronze alloyed cannons until the 1880s.
They relied on taking from the Czechs.

The Austrians were generally very incompetent across the board, and in industry especially so.
The issue is that you don't know anything about the history of Eastern European firearms or artillery, so you're talking out your ass on this.

>>17946306
>Hitler was close friend with pedophile and defended him for years
>Nazi party has 1000 pedophiles inside it
I don't know, thit doesn't paint the gay painter in a very good light

>>17946303
Danzig was a Polish city, bulid by Poles and made rich by selling Polish grain, it become a shithole once Prussians stole it

>>17946299
No, theyre an ethnic group, they can vary but they generally do form their own cluster across national lines.
You dont need a majority or plurality to form an ethnic core.
A core is more like a somewhat numerous defining feature and yes they were actually a plurality of people in the Ukrainian region early on, being the only people with continuous inhabitance in that broad plains region from the middle ages onward.

Furthermore, please refer back to my post.
Ukrainians had to be FOUGHT and CONQUERED to be brought back under the yoke of Russia.
Prussia and Bavaria would have voted to enter into a shared German Nation, Germans had to be FOUGHT and CONQUERED to be taken OUT of Germany.
This is the critical difference.

>>17946299
>The gap between Bavaria and Prussia was just as wide as between Ukraine and Russia.
This is just false btw, not born out by the PCAs.

>>17940833
Which is why he is based. Wh*teys gotta go.

>>17946273
>>17946281
The Nazis were slightly ahead of the Socialists, but were losing ground to the communists and the monarchists.
They capped out at 33% of the vote and were falling in popularity to other parties. They couldn't find an ally to form a coalition with so they were wracked with inability to effect change democratically.
Instead they chose to bypass actually getting popular or operating within a democratic government by staging a violent coup.
They destabilized Germany massively. Being unable to actually push out the socialists and communists, they decided to just violently attack them in order to repress their influence.

>>17946281
>I am saying Austrians and Germans secured the contracts, secured the funding, ensured the development was in Bohemia and not say in Austria itself or in the Ruhr, which they could have done
What kind of argument is that? By that logic you can say that industry in modern Czech Republic is Russian, because of previous Soviet occupation. Industrial development of Bohemia was not reliant on Germans nor Austrians. Domestic capital was solid enough and foreign investors were perfectly OK investing big money there. All you are saying is that Vienna could have fucked it up as they owned the place, but where are you going with such a retarded thread of reasoning?

Also Ruhr was German, not Austrian. Hohenzollern couldn't have decided jackshit about Bohemia because it was owned by Hapsburg.

Hapsburg industry was concentrated in Bohemia because that's where the resources and skill was. Sure, they could have burned Bohemia to the ground and replant the industry on the fucking Ukraine, but it would be horribly inefficient.

>Czechs didnt do that, it was a single building gunsmith when Austria began investing.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Skoda industrial concern was founded by house of Wallenstein (yes, those Wallensteins) and it became Skoda after Emil Skoda (Chief engineer) bought it and turned it into the giant powerhouse that armed Hapsburg empire. When Hapsburg empire collapsed, French Shneider stepped in and provided capital to the company which allowed it to thrive even after losing unified imperial market.

Seriously, are you an American?

>>17946310
>Austria didnt have the capability
what does this mean? Austrians couldnt build arms companies? They could.
They didnt have the ability to expand arms companies? They literally expanded arms companies in Bohemia, that was Austrian investment.
>they didnt have the expertise or competency
They did, Mannlicher lived and worked in Germany and Austria.
>his distant Czech ancestors gave him the racial ability of creating repeating rifles
This is a form of racial essentialism that even the most severe agarthian race scientists wouldnt push.
>Austria couldnt do it but Germans magically could
or maybe, Austria could but chose to invest in a strategically secure region of their empire, because that is what Empires do, they practice industrial planning.
>taking from Czechs
taking from Czechs?
They werent taking from Czechs, they had invested in Bohemia for the reasons given. If Bohemia didnt exist, say it was a big lake in that basin where Bohemia is, Austria would have the same arms industry Germany did.
There is no reason to believe otherwise.
>you dont know anything
no, you dont know anything which is why you're googling and missing basic facts such as Industrial planning (this is only found in books, you cant find it on google which is why youre floundering to explain why Austrians were magically incapable of creating firearms despite being no different from the Germans and ignoring Austrian based production facilities and co.)
If Austrians were incompetent then it would be Bohemia-Hungary.

>>17946312
>removing pedophiles is bad because they acked my tranny friend
sorry for you.
>>17946316
Poland still lacks indoor plumbing outside of former German ruled land lol.
>>17946329
no, they were consistently gaining, 33% was the final election and was up from the previous election.

They were popular because they were good, get over it.
Yes, people you personally do not like, can be popular and good independent of your feelings about them.

Why even lie about objective data?
>unable to actually push out
how do you non-violently physically remove hostile elements from your society?

>>17946328
And the funniest thing was that Fagtler, by keeping UK busy, has caused them to lose the war in Pacific to Japan, which was propably one of the biggest reasons for decolonisaiton later as the colonial subjects saw a non-European country completetly humiliate an European country (and not Italy or Russia but a fucking BRITISH EMPIRE)

so much for the resident schizo /pol/faggot larping as white nationalist
>>17946356
I mean that Hitler was a close friend with Rohm and often defended his homsexuality, saying that what he does inside his room is his business and nobody should pester him
Why did Hitler not only defended a "pedophile" but also made him into a second most important person in his party?

>>17946343
Russia didnt build the Czech base nor did they heavily invest in Czech industry in the way Austrians and Germans did.
>not reliant on Germans or Austrians
then why didnt it expand until Germans and Austrians invested in it to build heavy guns and naval guns?
It had marginal growth until it became traded by German investors and was given contracts by the Austo-Hungarian state to build very expensive heavy guns.
>domestic capital was solid enough
Source source source
You dont have any, and I know you dont because this is an extremely obscure topic that no one ever talked about until I brought it up because I am the only one actually researching obscure topics.
go ahead and lie to me how you're an expert on Austro-Hungarian arms development and you dont need to post a source kek.
>Ruhr was German not Austrian
Yes, which is why German investors could have invested in the Ruhr instead of Bohemia.
They could have invested in anything they wanted, they chose Bohemia.
You arent even capable of reading my posts correctly.
>turned it into a giant powerhouse
he did this specifically because of Austro-Hungarian investment.
He produced literally nothing except for Austro-Hungarian arms after expanding the works, it continued to grow into an industrial giant after these contracts were secured and renewed in perpetuity.
>they could have burned Bohemia
If the Austrians didnt invest in Bohemia, Skoda remains a small arms company smaller than the companies in Germany and similar in size to the native Austrian Steyr at best.

I am American, which is why you have never even had this conversation before, because Europeans are ignorant because their state schools are filled with retards. Americans have money and we can afford good education.
You get state education and have no thirst for knowledge, which is why you are trying to explain away Skoda while ignoring the simple fact Skoda in 1939 was a product of Skoda in 1918 and ultimately 1899 when it went public for investment.

>>17946364
>killing pedophiles is actually defending them
Thank you polish tranny.

>>17946346
>If Bohemia didnt exist, say it was a big lake in that basin where Bohemia is, Austria would have the same arms industry Germany did.

Austria had no chance to match German industry for geographic reasons. They relied on Silesia (which was stolen by Germans) and Bohemia. If Bohemia was a big lake, presumption that it would not affect Austrian industry is an utter and complete retardation, as loss of resources and labour could not be made up by different "industrial planning".

>>17946391
Hitler was defending since they become VERY CLOSE FRIENDS in 1919, and when Rohm was in Bolivia, Hitler ASKED him to go back to Germany to help him, and then he make him a leader of SA and the second most important position in the nazi party
Why?

>>17941284
it was just a figure of speech, nothing of importance

>>17945265
>when time was playing into German hands
No, that's literally the opposite of reality. Time was explicitly playing into British and French hands. They could sustain their rearmament programs for an effectively infinite amount of time and would surpass Germany in a few years. Germany was in desperate straights and would have imploded before that time.

>is just revisionism without solid evidence for it
The consistent expansion of military budgets targeted at overcoming German advantages in armor and aircraft are direct evidence. That these programs were paid for at the expense of social and economic programs only highlights this.

I am not saying appeasement wasn't a failed policy, but that the popular conception of it as a blind pacifism is wrong and stupid.

>>17946387
>Soviets didnt build the Czech base nor did they heavily invest in Czech industry in the way Austrians and Germans did.
They did though. It was heavily focused on weapons production.

>then why didnt it expand until Germans and Austrians invested in it to build heavy guns and naval guns?
Because it did expand? Industrial revolution spreading and shit?

>Source source source
Development of the country was faster after achieving independence.

> extremely obscure topic
If you are an amerimutt, sure.

>he did this specifically because of Austro-Hungarian investment.
>He produced literally nothing except for Austro-Hungarian arms after expanding the works,
Good thing you used the expression "literally nothing except for Austro-Hungarian arms", as such strong negative can be disproved with a single example of not-weapon.
>https://www.skodagroup.com/ceskareseniprosvet.cz/time.php?uid=1904

>it continued to grow into an industrial giant after these contracts were secured and renewed in perpetuity.
And it grew even bigger after those contracts were annulled.

>I am American
HAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I FUCKING KNEW
EVERY FUCKING TIME AN IGNORANT OBSESSED RETARD SPAWNS HERE, ITS AN AMERIMUTT
TOPLEL

>>17946422
>They could sustain their rearmament programs for an effectively infinite amount of time and would surpass Germany in a few years.
Germans were aiming for achieving critical mass, then going on a rampage. They had enough "fuel" stored to keep the engine going until they would achieve that critical mass. Had they been forced to fight before they were prepared, they wouldn't have the mechanization required to act as swiftly and decisively as they did IRL.

>The consistent expansion of military budgets
French military budget expanded too slow and too little. British was slightly better, but still nowhere near German rates.

>>17946356
33% was down from the previous election by a significant amount. 4% points, which was the biggest contribution to the continued rise of the KPD.
This is objective.

The Nazis were the hostile element. As demonstrated by them ruining Germany.

>>17946346
>Austrians couldnt build arms companies?
Yes. They couldn't do that. They did not have the history of firearms innovation, and were slow on catching up to other powers.
The Czechs on the other hand were cutting edge, constantly. They led the Austrian arms industry.

Why are you talking about Germany in a discussion about Austrian military capabilities or innovation?
Germany and Austria were different nations that were often opposed to one another throughout the 19th century. The alliance between them didn't crystallize until shortly before WW1, when the Kaiser ruined Bismark's Russian alliance plans.
The Austrians were not The Other Germany. They were a very different group with a long and different history. Including one that lacked a strong arms development tradition, comparatively.
This is the issue, you don't know anything about the history of weapons in Eastern Europe but insist on digging in despite constantly having your limitations pointed out.

Apparently the Austrians decided to hand over all their arms manufacturing to the Czechs, despite that being harder to defend from their often rival, despite that putting their national security in the hands of an ethnic group that was often reaching for autonomy, and despite that depriving their own ethnic group of important industrial power.
You are pushing for an incoherent and insane strategy for the Austrians to have pursued. Instead of recognizing that the Czechs were just extremely good at this field and that is why they were extremely successful at it both before and after independence, and are again extremely successful at it today.

>>17944952
>You are mentally disturbed.
No source, got it
>but these guys arent fascists
Of course the Fatherland Front were fascists. I never said otherwise
>thats why they voted for it
They only “voted” for it when they had already been annexed. Gun point vote isn’t a legitimate vote
>Versailles banned them from joining Germany.
Germany agreed to the terms of the Versailles treaty
>It was a post war construction
All nations are a construction
>hearsay
No, it’s common knowledge that Hitler threatened Hacha with military action
>and today theyre under American occupation
Objectively false
>please, show us the annexation
Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany. If you don’t know this you shouldn’t be posting on /his/
>>youre a neo nazi because you're objective
You’re not objective at all, in fact you’re actively pushing lies (almost certainly for political reasons)
>thats strange because Versailles and the League of Nations charter stated it was a Free German City
It was under Polish control and Germany had no right to it
>he was invited in.
False
>There is "promising to stop" in any of Munich's 8 points.
Hitler said during the Munich Agreement that Germany would stop invading after taking the Sudetenland. When Hitler broke this agreement and toon the rest of Czechoslovakia it proved he couldn’t be trusted
>Did France and Britain declare war on the USSR, which is required of them in order to honor their alliance with Poland?
The alliance Britain/France made with Poland was to protect them specifically from German aggression. Fighting both the Nazis and communists was seen as too much for the British and French, this is why they only declared war on Germany
>no, youre a conservative
Conservatism is a right-wing position desu
>no, that would be the Americans and Soviets and currently organized jewry.
Nah I’m pretty sure it was shitler for starting a completely unnecessary war

>>17944952
>You are a pole living in Britain or a tory goy on too much cope to admit Britain was in the wrong.
I’m neither a Pole or a tory. I’m British and I’m glad we fought to protect Europe from National Socialism
>>at least were not speaking German
>soon you wont be speaking English either.
/pol/ meme, not an argument

>>17946394
>Austria had no chance to match German industry
They did, they had an advantage over German industry and economy in the 1800s which was a large reason why Germany developed the Zolleverein.
>Silesia was stolen
From who? Silesia had slavhuts before Germans returned to it.
>would not effect Austrian industry
no one said this.
I said Austrian industry would more resemble German industry, not be totally absent like what you're claiming.
>Labor and resources
Austria-Hungary is MUCH larger than Bohemia lol.
>"industrial planning"
You dont know what that term means do you?
Figures, you never even went to school.

>>17946444
>they did
No, the Czech industrial base predates Soviet rule.
>it did expand
did it expand to 35,000 people before 1914 or after 1914?
>industrial revolution and shit
This isnt EU4, industry doesnt just magically appear spontaneously when you click up in the tech tree.
It has to be built, it require economy, investment, planning, individual action and excellence, these are real things we can look at.
You havent look at them, in fact you never heard of them until now which is why youre constantly pivoting to a new argument because you dont actually know what you're talking about here because its a very obscure and niche piece of history that no one thought would ever be used to substantiate a heterodox view of WWII.
>development was faster after achieving independence
what does this even mean? Also where's your source?
>a single example of a not weapon
>1904
If you knew the history of Skoda you would know the expansion occurred specifically to cater to Austro-Hungarian arms, when WWI began that was when Skoda exploded because of an acute demand for heavy guns.
You are aware WWI did not begin in 1904 yes?
>ignorant
yet I am the only one who knows anything about this topic while you are googling random pictures making ad-hoc arguments and failing to understand my argument.

I will dumb it down.
Skoda in 1939 was more similar to Skoda 1917 than Skoda 1917 was to Skoda 1899.
Austrian investment allowed Skoda to fill orders for WWI, WWI contracts grew Skoda into the giant it became where it was basically the only industry in Bohemia having subsumed everything else.
>it grew even bigger
It grew more than 2000% from the lead up and duration of WWI
it grew less than 20% every post WWI year combined.
>second world Europoor criticizing America
superiority breeds contempt.
>>17946462
i am a nazi and now i am mad

>>17946512
Their popular vote increased by more than 4 million people and the KPD didnt gain 4% lol.
>Germany was ruined by becoming wealthier
based uncle Ted.

>>17947032
>Germany was ruined by becoming wealthier
Where did the Pedotler pull out all this wealth from?

>>17946528
>they didnt have a history of firearms innovation
what about this is necessary to produce small arms and artillery?
>slow on catching up
Were they? They did produce their own guns natively and they werent using flintlocks in the first world war.
>Czechs were cutting edge
compared to what?
Give some examples.
>why are you talking about Germany
German banks owned a huge share of Skoda (second only to Skoda himself) by 1919.
>the history of weapons in Eastern Europe
Make a case, with sources, as to why Austrians are physically unable to produce small arms and canons in the year 1900.
>hand over
hand over? They invested in Bohemia because it was strategically secure, it was the hardest part of their empire to penetrate.
>native industry is incoherent and insane
>Czechs were just extremely good
What does this mean "Czechs"?
Are ALL Czechs working at Skoda? Was Bohemia an independent State funding itself?
>extremely successful at it today
Steyr still exists.
Austrians are not unable to make firearms.
Furthermore none of this is relevant to the simple fact it was Austrian and German money that made Skoda what it was.

>>17946742
>no source
>Schuschnigg acknowledged that Austrians were Germans and that Austria was a "German state" but he strongly opposed an Anschluss and passionately wished for Austria to remain independent from Germany.[34]
Are you going to admit you were wrong about Austria's government not wanting to join Germany or are you going to admit you were ignorant of this fact?
So what is it? Did you not know or did you think I was wrong?
>they had already been annexed
nope.
>gunpoint vote
The Austrian State was being restrained, the people were not, the people had wanted to join Germany for years.
>Germany agreed to the terms of Versailles
ok? So what? The point here isnt about Germany, its that written into Versailles is the acknowledgement Austria wanted to join Germany.
>all nations are a construction
Czechoslovakia was a synthetic construct not an emergent construct. Do you understand the difference in artificial vs emergent?
>Hitler threatened Hacha
again, this is hearsay, if you have an official document recording this, please post it.
>objectively false
Czech"o"Slovakia hosts US troops and are NATO members.
Nothing in NATO happens without our approval.
>Czechoslovakia was annexed
Nope.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areas_annexed_by_Nazi_Germany
>youre not objective
I actually am, youre the one deviating from the argument and hurling insults because you have nothing left.
>it was under Polish control
nope. It was defined as a "Free City" with Poland responsible for its Security, it was otherwise a sovereign country as defined by Section 11 Article 100-108 of Versailles.
>https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125327/1416_Treaty_Versailles.pdf

Rest of your post is repeating unsourced claims which I have already refuted.

>>17946749
Well good riddance then, I doubt you're British but your current life is (You) paying for the war on Hitler.
Everytime you look anxiously at browns, every girl raped, every ounce of corruption and foreign influence, thats because you fought on the wrong side.
Remember that LOL.

>>17947044
MEFO!

>In 1918, with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the birth of Czechoslovakia, Škoda was nearly dismantled, lacking both the financial resources needed for reconversion and a market for its products. In addition, since Škoda was owned by an Austrian citizen (Emil von Škoda's son Karl) and by German banks, the Czechoslovak government applied the 1919 act of domestication of joint-stock companies, transferred the company's headquarters from Vienna to Prague and, after delicate negotiations, backed the acquisition of controlling interest in the company by the French company Schneider-Creusot.
erm I thought Skoda was le growing after independence?
They were almost shut down? Germans owned half the shares? Bohemia Nationalized Skoda.... wait a minute that sounds familiar.
They moved the HQ of Skoda from Vienna (this is a city in Austria!) to Prague???
Wtf???

>they all vanished
must have been the call to prayer

>>17947124
My bad
>>17947099
You really think you can radicalize anyone by screaming
>muh rape
we are not living in XIX centaury, but again, nazis are not the smartest people

>>17947176
Who’s trying to radicalize? The radicals are already radicalized. The boomers are even getting radicalized.
If you wanted to stop radicalization you wouldn’t engage in bad faith which only makes people think “reasoning is pointless only fighting can solve this”.
You have a strained relationship with your parents and this is why you don’t understand social norms and how to engage in outreach.
The “Nazis” will continue to grow in number.

>>17948541
nazis don't grow in numbers, they don't organize, they don't do anything and nobody takes them seriously
Likewise you, you don't hold a job, you don't hold any influence, you have no friends and no connections, no ideas and no conherent ideology, you don't belong in any organisation. You will die alone, not being remebered by anyone, screaming in rage about "browns and black and jews" (only online, obviously) despite you never ever interacting with one, in order to fill the void in your life

>>17941463
Your pic is fake news, USSR offered only parts of Repola and Porajärvi.

>>17948578
Unhinged projection post.
I really hurt you with that comment about your parent’s and social norms. Sorry.

>Nazis aren’t a problem
Then why do you dedicate hours of your life to posting about them?

>>17948588
Part of my bad nature of feeling superior to sad people like you and making you angry, part procrastination from work
I know that you are one of the less inteligent nazis since you try to paint Pedotler as marvel hero without flaws (smarter nazis use more sneaky methods) so nobody will ever take you seriously but yeah, those are my main motivaions

>>17948617
Have you taken an IQ test?