I know you lads like to joke about the eternal anglo but aren't Germans the bane of humanity?
>Invaded and destroyed the Roman Empire
>Led Europe into the wars of religion
>Responsible for two world wars
>Was the most brutal part of communist Europe (Stasi)
>Cucking up Europe via domination of the EU
The Germans get destroyed time and time again but still find ways to get the reigns back and fuck up Europe, and usually the world, too. Is there any other race comparable in creating such misery?
I could probably agree to an extent if you said WW1 but WW2 was only our fault insomuch as we didn't attack earlier but went for appeasement. The germans were still the aggressors the whole time.
For britain both world wars were wars of choice. lrn2history, faggot.
And great job sacrificing your empire for the great goal of delaying German's dominance over Europe a couple of decades.
>Cucking up Europe via domination of the EU
This is an achievement of the allied forces. You guys shouldn't have enforced collective guilt and brainwash campaigns on the German people. Now it's too late.
So you are saying we should have completely ignored a treaty with ally because we weren't directly threatened? We promised Poland we would go to war against Germany if they invaded.
We're the bad guys for following our treaty?
Germany was acting aggressively and Poland was worried they were next. The idea was that if Hitler knew Britain would declare war on Germany if they invaded Poland, he might decide not to do it. Unfortunately he invaded anyway, so we kept our word and entered the war.
>implying you did anything militarily against Germany while they invaded Poland
But we did. Not in Poland itself, but the Royal Navy started attacking the German fleet right from the start. After all, any ally of Britain should know that its main strength is naval power.
Irrelevant. Britain said they would war you if you invaded Poland. You did, and they warred you. This was after complete and utter disregard for the agreement to not invade Czechoslovakia.
What could we do against the combination of Nazi Germany AND the Soviet Union? The British Army is and has always been small, except when temporary conscription happens. It can't fight that kind of war alone. The French - a more natural land power than Britain - were not in the mood to do a proper invasion of Germany.
Against the Nazis and Soviets on land there was no way we could have won. A proper combined attack by France and Britain may have knocked out the Nazis, but there was still the Soviets to deal with, and that attack couldn't happen unless the French committed - but they were in defensive posture.
So we helped the only way we could, playing to our strengths, like any country would do
What's hypocritical about it?
We're not talking about the morality of it.
Britain said "Don't invade Czechoslovakia"
Germany did anyway.
Britain said "Don't invade Poland, or there will be war"
Germany did anyway, and we know what happened next.
Of the Sudetenland, with the explicit order that the rest of Czechoslovakia was to remain "independent" (implicitly a German puppet).
The funniest thing is, had Hitler not reneged on the Munich agreement, Britain would have likely sided with Germany, had they raised a similar diplomatic fuss over Danzig and the Polish Corridor a few years later.
The thing that "GERMANY DINDU NUFFIN" types like to overlook is that the right-wing in Britain (and many other Euro countries) wanted a strong (sane) Germany to lead an anti-Soviet crusade down the line.
France was always butthurt, but many in Britain fell for the meme that Versailles was unfair.
It's hypocritical to portrait WWII as Germany's comeuppance for bad deeds when you are the greatest slave trader and usurper of half the world. I repeat: for Britain both world wars were wars of choice. (and for the US, too, btw)
You lot lost territory to them, as I recall
There is nothing smart about throwing your small professional land army away against a combined force so much larger. Furthermore, no one looks at Britain and thinks "they are known for their huge land armies". What you get with Britain as your ally is a strong likelihood of naval victory, and perseverance to see the war to the bitter end.
Don't forget, if not for the Royal Navy, eventual victory against Hitler would not have been possible.
>It's hypocritical to portrait WWII as Germany's comeuppance for bad deeds
Who is doing that?
I'll ask that you please stick to the discussion that we are having here.
>for Britain both world wars were wars of choice
And Germany could have easily avoided bringing Britain into the war, had Hitler been able to resist chimping out the way he did.
And my discussion has been limited to the notion that Germany shouldn't have invaded Poland if they didn't want war with Britain, especially since they were warned it would happen.
Jesus fucking christ
GERMANS DID START THE TWO WORLD WARS AHHH
>if not for the Royal Navy, eventual victory against Hitler would not have been possible.
Which just means that WWII didn't start sept 1st '39. Up until sept 3rd it was just a German-Polish war. There was ZERO threat from Germany towards Britain. As I said: war of choice.
Nobody would give a fuck if you had not lost your mind and tried to enforce colonial order in the middle of Europe. What could be done in Namibia with Herero people could be hardly repeated on Polish soil with no consequences.
As far as I know, the British alliance with Poland was formed shortly after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939, so there was no chance of a "German-Polish war" after that point, let alone by September.
That's nice and all, but the fact of the matter is that there was an alliance between Poland and the UK, and explicit warnings that there would be war if Germany invaded Poland.
You mean a secret document that served to enable Britain's war of choice against Germany while ignoring the other invader of Poland: the Soviet Union. Britain didn't care about Poland's security. It cared about having a war with Germany.
>a secret document
Not really secret when they say "Don't invade Poland, or we'll go to war with you"
>Britain didn't care about Poland's security
No, they didn't. As I said earlier, had Germany not betrayed British trust in March 1939, Britain would've likely agreed to similar Munich-style concessions in regards to territorial disputes with Poland.
>It cared about having a war with Germany.
Because Germany had proved that it couldn't be trusted.
Again, AFAIK, Britain was more-or-less on your side until you violated the Munich Agreement.
Read the treaty. It's in the secret protocol:
That's called war of choice.
>had Germany not betrayed British trust
>Germany had proved that it couldn't be trusted.
There war ZERO threat from Germany towards Britain
Britain wanted a sane, stable Germany to eventually lead an anti-Soviet crusade.
They looked over numerous violations of Versailles, supported the annexation of Austria, and even betrayed one of their allies (CZ) in the hopes of appeasing Germany, and keeping them as an anti-Soviet ally.
The moment that Hitler violated the Munich Agreement, he demonstrated that Germany couldn't be trusted. He knew exactly what he was getting himself into.
Had Germany been under more diplomatically competent leadership, it is quite likely that Germany could've favorably solved their territorial disputes without any war.
It became a war of necessity in March 1939. This nonsense about a "German-Polish war" in September is delusional ("Abloobloo why can't other countries totally disregard their alliances and give us everything we want?")
It's a necessity to at least TRY to honour our agreements with other countries. If you keep breaking your word, eventually no one will trust you. Despite what people say, Britain usually does honour its agreements and treaties.
For example, Germany dismissed the Treaty of London (Belgian Neutrality) as a "scrap of paper", whereas Britain honoured it.
>It became a war of necessity
nope it didn't
>("Abloobloo why can't other countries totally disregard their alliances and give us everything we want?")
Yes, invading other countries is only ok if it's done by the right people, eh?
As I said: look up "hypocrisy" in a dictionary.
>nope it didn't
Yes it did. Are you purposely being obtuse?
Britain was obliged, by treaty, to come to the aid of Poland in the event of German aggression.
Germany invaded Poland and, surprise, Britain responded.
>Yes, invading other countries is only ok if it's done by the right people, eh?
No, but you're the only one crying about how "GERMANY DINDU NUFFIN" when they were explicitly warned it would happen.
>Yes it did. Are you purposely being obtuse?
>Britain was obliged, by treaty
Are you purposely being dumb? Every country chooses it's treaties. You make it sound like signing the treaty was as inescapable as the law of gravity. That's obviously bullshit.
>you're the only one crying about how "GERMANY DINDU NUFFIN
Ah, now I see where your misunderstanding comes from. You're completely overinterpreting my statements, reading things into them that simply aren't there.
You have a long way to go, Padawan, to understand that criticizing A doesn't equate to endorsing B. They don't teach logic in American schools, do they?
How is it an excuse? Why are the Nazi apologists always so keen to pretend diplomacy doesn't matter? If no governments in the world can trust each other, then we descend into a state of barbarism and constant warfare.
>Every country chooses it's treaties.
And Britain chose that one after Germany violated the last one.
>You make it sound like signing the treaty was as inescapable as the law of gravity.
No, it was only invading Poland which was evidently unavoidable.
This is ridiculous. You invaded us and we didn't manage to stop you; fine. Then you got invaded in return five years later and you didn't manage to stop invaders, because we managed to make a proper deal on the verge of annihilation. Why is this any problem for you?
If international agreements can be violated at a whim, because we are teh powuh, because "yes, we can", then Britain simply had a whim to wage war against you, like you had a whim to conquer everything eastwards from your borders. You were given equal chances to win this struggle, but you failed. Take your idol's lose like a man then and stop whining.
>invide Lithuania because muh Wilno
>USA intervenes, war ensues
>"WOOOOOOOOOW what the fuck, why did USA protect Lithuania and caused war, they didn't have to, it surely is their fault"
If you had good relations, it is debatable wether you'd care enough to go total war mode for a non-country.
>And Britain chose that one after Germany violated the last one.
Which makes it a war of choice as there was ZERO threat from Germany towards Britain.
>No, it was only invading Poland which was evidently unavoidable.
Not in the sense of a physical law, but in Hitlers weird idiology it was unavoidable after all attempts of an alliance with Poland against the Soviet Union failed. Of all the wars he fought the only one he wanted to fight was the one against the Soviet Union. When it became clear that the Poles wouldn't go to war with Germany against the Soviets his policy towards Poland shifted 180. He fought Poland to be able to fight the Soviet Union. Poland was simply in between.
>Is there any other race comparable in creating such misery?
You people are the same race you dip, do you really think there is this much genetic difference between Germans and Brits? That Brits somehow collectively made sure only nice people got kids or something?
The discussion is about WW2. I was using the Treaty of London as an example when talking about fulfilling obligations. You are using the same logic as the Germans used in WW1, i.e. "it's just a scrap of paper"
>If you had good relations, it is debatable whether you'd care enough to go total war mode for a non-country.
You don't get it. We went to war because we made that promise. It was BRITAIN'S reputation on the line. If you keep breaking promises to everyone, then your word is worthless, and for a country like Britain which places importance on diplomacy that is a disaster
>Which makes it a war of choice as there was ZERO threat from Germany towards Britain.
>economic, industrial and military powerhouse keeps invading its neighbors and has demonstrated that it has absolutely no respect for treaties with you
>not a threat
>Why is this any problem for you?
Why do you believe it is? I never discussed the circumstances of Germany's defeat. Are you under the same delusion like the American, believing me criticizing A equates to me endorsing B?
I made the point that for Britain both world wars were wars of choice. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's undisputable. What makes you think this would mean I have a problem with Germany's defeat and the manner in which it came about?
These are lies. We were preparing to war against Soviets, not against Germany; even our defence plan for September Campaign was one great improvisation. We just did not want to become your lapdog, trimmed piece after piece and eventually annexed, like you did with Czechs. Is this so hard to grasp that other nations are willing to cooperate after fair negotiations and not necessarily under dictate? Haaalooo?
>I made the point that for Britain both world wars were wars of choice.
That can only be true if you mean the choice between completely betraying our allies, or fulfilling our obligations
What the hell do you expect *any* country to do? You know what happens when you treat treaties as "scraps of paper", don't you? No countries trust you. You are seen as a THREAT.
>The discussion is about WW2
And I'm talking about WWI
>You are using the same logic as the Germans used in WW1, i.e. "it's just a scrap of paper"
I'm not saying that, Britain had other motives besides the Treaty of London to go o war against Germany. Don't you think Willy being a diplomatic retard, the wholenaval race you two had, not to mention Germany rising as the dominant power in Europe, challenging your "hegemony" didn't contribute to your decision to go to war?
You choose what you recognize and what not according to your goals.
In Britain's colonial conquest not recognizing this or that foreign ruler was standard practice for invasion and occupation.
Because if that was war of choice for Britain, it means Britain could choose passive peace like, say, Spain, and no Leand Lease convoys would stop Wehrmacht from meeting Kwantung Army on Ural Mountains. Which was clear for Churchill's faction, but not necessarily for king James and much of upper class which favored Germany and actively supported you when you remilitarised Rheinland. So yes, you posed some threat to Britain: a threat of inciting the internal disorder.
Fortunately you were to short to play this card.
Colonial conquests were usually done by picking sides between natives and backing/recognising one of them against others. Treaties were often unfair because of Britain's relative advantage, but regardless treaties were adhered to.
I'm not going to pretend Britain never did anything wrong, we did LOADS which was unfair and wrong to other peoples. But IF there are consequences from that, then we would deserve them.
In this case, you have GERMANY making the choice to involve Britain in the war. It made that choice by invading Poland.
I think it oftentimes starts when somebody wants to show some arrogant person (arrogant smug Brit oftentimes) that he's wrong or not entirely correct.
As they do this they slowly get emotionally invested in it and feel that the historical event is tied to them as a people.
Sure, Willy was acting like a supreme retard. But by itself that's not a good enough reason to go to war. We didn't declare war as soon as the Germans started trying to compete with the Royal Navy, for example
But when Belgian Neutrality was violated, that gave Britain no choice. It had to be war.
Hitler believed the Western powers would do nothing as they showed before on numerous occasions. He had no reason to believe their resolve had changed. Which suited him fine as he didn't plan anything against them. His interest was solely in the East.
In WWI Britain was perhaps the least guilty of all the great powers. But everbody did their part to escalate. It'd be stupid to attribute the sole guilt to Germany as Versailles did.
They share quite considerably as Christopher Clark has pointed out. When e.g. people ask about Germany's blank cheque for A-H, he acknowledges that but also asks what about the blank cheque of France for Russia? Truth is, WWI was a war of choice for pretty much every great power participant and they all worked for escalation. It is a great irony and tragedy that the one guy who sought to deescalate got shot in Sarajevo along with his wife.
I repeat: you choose your treaties according to your goals.
British goal: have a war with Germany
measure taken: come up with treaty to enable that goal in a secret protocol
German goal: have a war with the Soviet Union
measure taken: invade Poland to create the access for your troops
Then was it not Germany's choice? If they were warned that war would ensue upon the invasion of Poland and hadn't invaded then perhaps there would be no war.
Yet they did and we were obligated to honor our promise.