>>17980826
Fucking take your meds and fuck off back to /pol/.
We discuss actual history here. Something you're incapable of.
4chan Search
4 results for "f017d13803d410c7f085d0eec7d8b3cb"
>>17860296
You're a retard.
After ww1 UK lost Ireland, and had to give nominal independence to Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, all 4 whom where by ww2 drifting away from the British sphere and Sterling zone. India had created its own national assembly and were practically demanding independence.
The British once tried to suppress a protest, which led to the Amritsar massacre, which caused outrage in Britain (because Britain wasn't a fascist state that enjoyed watching civilians being gunned down).
The evidence is overwhelming that de-colonialism was already set in motion.
It's YOU who need to logically argue how the British empire could have lasted a thousand years if they just had kissed Hitlers ring.
Stormfag /pol/chuds are unironically the most uneducated on history. They don't know anything outside of ww2 nor anything that doesn't touch Germany/Hitler, and all you've done is scraping anecdotal history facts from random propaganda videos.
Your knowledge is so short sighted, you believe that Hitler was the central gravitation of history that you're completely unable to comprehend any of the real causes for de-colonialism.
The truth is that not even the British people themselves wanted to preserve the empire. The empire was the child of thr British upper class bourgeoisie elite because of map painting prestige and power projection (unironically the only thing that matters to stormfags because they view history like a video game).
But to the average Britton, the empire was extremely expensive and morally bankrupt. They wanted public education and public Healthcare, and the whole argument of "savages being unable to govern themselves" could no longer be justified. The killing blow came when the Conservative party lost its political monopoly over the British government. Labour had no interest in preserving the empire, and it would have requires Britain to go full fascist mode to do so, which they wouldn't do, with or without Hitler.
You're a retard.
After ww1 UK lost Ireland, and had to give nominal independence to Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, all 4 whom where by ww2 drifting away from the British sphere and Sterling zone. India had created its own national assembly and were practically demanding independence.
The British once tried to suppress a protest, which led to the Amritsar massacre, which caused outrage in Britain (because Britain wasn't a fascist state that enjoyed watching civilians being gunned down).
The evidence is overwhelming that de-colonialism was already set in motion.
It's YOU who need to logically argue how the British empire could have lasted a thousand years if they just had kissed Hitlers ring.
Stormfag /pol/chuds are unironically the most uneducated on history. They don't know anything outside of ww2 nor anything that doesn't touch Germany/Hitler, and all you've done is scraping anecdotal history facts from random propaganda videos.
Your knowledge is so short sighted, you believe that Hitler was the central gravitation of history that you're completely unable to comprehend any of the real causes for de-colonialism.
The truth is that not even the British people themselves wanted to preserve the empire. The empire was the child of thr British upper class bourgeoisie elite because of map painting prestige and power projection (unironically the only thing that matters to stormfags because they view history like a video game).
But to the average Britton, the empire was extremely expensive and morally bankrupt. They wanted public education and public Healthcare, and the whole argument of "savages being unable to govern themselves" could no longer be justified. The killing blow came when the Conservative party lost its political monopoly over the British government. Labour had no interest in preserving the empire, and it would have requires Britain to go full fascist mode to do so, which they wouldn't do, with or without Hitler.
>>17855795
Ok so you base your entire understanding on a single video, which again means that a single video makes or breaks the entire debate for you, which goes along with your pathological lying about occupied Poland because your sources are this volatile that you pretty much make shit up with the most vague backing.
You couldn't prove any german women were raped in mass even if your life depended on it. You literally had no answer to my >>17855624 post. All you had was one video, which means all I need is one video of a German admitting that occupied Poland was harshly treated in accordance to the points I've made, and thst it was connected to German mass killings in death camps.
Anyway, I know you're just going to continue to dance around this fact, which can go in forever because you have autism, and I don't, hence why i conclude this debate because it's a waste if time. You've proven yourself to be a complete untrustworthy moron.
Ok so you base your entire understanding on a single video, which again means that a single video makes or breaks the entire debate for you, which goes along with your pathological lying about occupied Poland because your sources are this volatile that you pretty much make shit up with the most vague backing.
You couldn't prove any german women were raped in mass even if your life depended on it. You literally had no answer to my >>17855624 post. All you had was one video, which means all I need is one video of a German admitting that occupied Poland was harshly treated in accordance to the points I've made, and thst it was connected to German mass killings in death camps.
Anyway, I know you're just going to continue to dance around this fact, which can go in forever because you have autism, and I don't, hence why i conclude this debate because it's a waste if time. You've proven yourself to be a complete untrustworthy moron.
>>17853644
You know that it's perfectly reasonable to copy-paste this argument and apply it on Germany.
The Germans should never have invaded Poland because the USSR took everything anyway so why bother?
Whenever you apply this argument on Germany, it's always met with a bunch of 'if's and 'but's, because Germany should never have the burden of agency and responsibility for their actions, they dont need hindsight and its always everyone elses fault for not enabling their ambitions. But in the case of Britain, it's always made with complete disregard for the benefit of hindsight, and that it's always Britain's fault for not accurately predict and course-correct with surgical precision every single situation that Germany kept creating otherwise Britain is to blame for the outcome, because God forbid any state has any interests of themselves but Germany.
Any logical individual with the slightest bit of rational thinking, who isn't ideologically compromised, can see the fallacy in this argument. This is something you will never understand.
You know that it's perfectly reasonable to copy-paste this argument and apply it on Germany.
The Germans should never have invaded Poland because the USSR took everything anyway so why bother?
Whenever you apply this argument on Germany, it's always met with a bunch of 'if's and 'but's, because Germany should never have the burden of agency and responsibility for their actions, they dont need hindsight and its always everyone elses fault for not enabling their ambitions. But in the case of Britain, it's always made with complete disregard for the benefit of hindsight, and that it's always Britain's fault for not accurately predict and course-correct with surgical precision every single situation that Germany kept creating otherwise Britain is to blame for the outcome, because God forbid any state has any interests of themselves but Germany.
Any logical individual with the slightest bit of rational thinking, who isn't ideologically compromised, can see the fallacy in this argument. This is something you will never understand.