Germans are cockroaches

WW2 is just as much your fault as it was Germanys fault.

>>53323169
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.

A shitty French-Russian treaty caused WW1 and WW1 caused WW2.
Can't blame Germany if it gets declared on for moving troops away from the attackers.

>>53323169
why the bongs? I can understand blaming Clemenceau for WWII but why Britain?

>>53323276
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.

File: 1410604940001.jpg (22KB, 300x407px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x407px

>"Germans are cockroaches"
>British flag

The only cockroaches are Turks. I want Russia to invade turkey already to begin kebab removal.

>>53323020
>and usually the world
No

also you anglo and saxos are germanics too, they attacked the roman empire and occupied britannia and took their knowledges

>>53323276
>but WW2 was only our fault insomuch as we didn't attack earlier but went for appeasement
Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

File: Flossenbuergkonfrontationchild1.jpg (149KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 854x480px

>>53323020
>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.

>>53328695
>don't invade czechoslovakia, lads
*invasion intensifies*
>lads, don't invade poland, for real this time, we'll war you
*invasion intensifies*

>>53328695
>germeny dint du nuffin wrong
>dey be gud boys oppressed by da versaille treaty

Dunno who is worse Germans or Jews.

Its usually hard to beat the Jews, but damn German engineering might just make that happen.

File: versailles.png (447KB, 621x1309px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 621x1309px

>muh Versailles!
Daily reminder

>>53328753
>Britain not mentioned at all
I am not saying what Germany did is justifiable but in this case Britain wasn't directly threatened at that point in time.

>>53329012
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?

>>53329380
Yes, Anglo cockroach. Why can't you just accept that it's Germany's destiny to rule the continent?

ETERNAL ANGLO

>>53329380
>We promised Poland we would go to war against Germany if they invaded.
Why?

>>53329626
>Why?
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.

File: british_empire_map_by_duke_nidhoggr-d77phii.jpg (307KB, 1600x922px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1600x922px

>>53328753

>>53328830
>my tumblr clickbait image is good evidence
kill yourself my friend, all those points are fucking shite

>>53329718
>implying you did anything militarily against Germany while they invaded Poland

>>53329831
They didn't made peace though until Germany was beaten.

>>53329831
>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.

>>53329771
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.

>>53323020
>Responsible for two world wars
That's very debatable

>>53329926
>Irrelevant
British arguments, ladies and gentlemen

>>53329919
>letting your ally be invaded

>>53329967
What does Britain's Empire have to do with Germany's inability to heed warnings about invading their neighbors?

>>53330049
look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary

>>53329926
Except Britain and France said "ok" to the annexation

>>53330039
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

File: ryssä.jpg (149KB, 900x1145px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x1145px

>>53330271
>being scared of soviets
ayyyyy

>>53330180
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.

>>53330203
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.

>>53330430
>said the country that had to give a shitload of their land and 33% of their industry to the soviets

>>53330454
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)

>>53330430
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.

>>53330631
>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.

>>53330430
>Says the country which did nothing to capture Leningrad and thus unleash German besieging forces so desperately needed elsewhere.

>>53330693
>Who is doing that?
Are you retarded? This whole thread is about that trope. Did you even read OP?

File: polish civilians.jpg (84KB, 638x427px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 638x427px

>>53328734

>>53330733
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.

File: 1448743749544.png (201KB, 670x566px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 670x566px

Jesus fucking christ
GERMANS DID START THE TWO WORLD WARS AHHH

File: 1386831637217.jpg (128KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x333px

>>53330653
>if not for the Royal Navy, eventual victory against Hitler would not have been possible.

>>53330923
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.

>>53330923
Britain merely sought an excuse to get itself involved in the (future) war. Poland or its destiny meant nothing to them. It was about keeping Germany down by any means.

>>53330994
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.

>>53331097
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.

>>53331152
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.

>>53331165
My problem is all the polcucks and germans in denial

>>53331259
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.

>>53331341
We're the REAL germanics unlike you, cucks.

>>53331402
>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.

>>53331581
Read the treaty. It's in the secret protocol:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Mutual_Assistance_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_Poland-London_%281939%29
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

>>53331741
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.

>>53332113
None of what you say makes Britain's war against Germany a war of necessity.

>>53332245
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?")

File: SCRAP%201%20[1600x1200]%20(2)[1].jpg (89KB, 445x681px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 445x681px

>>53332245
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.

>>53323020
brits and krauts are equally cockroachy tb h

>>53332422
>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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland

As I said: look up "hypocrisy" in a dictionary.

>>53332540
That's just an excuse, anglo german relations were at their lowest by that time

>>53332607
>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.

>>53323020
>Was the most brutal part of communist Europe (Stasi)
lolno. Romania's Securitate would like to have a barb wire with you.

>>53332776
>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?

>>53332708
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.

>ITT: people having hard time understanding the concept of "treaty" and "obligation"

>>53333008
>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.

>>53332607
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.

>2015
>be Poland
>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"

>>53333263
You left out...

>USA signs treaty to protect Lithuania
>USA warns Poland not to invade Lithuania

>>53329792
This, couldn't have said it better

File: 1434821317056.jpg (45KB, 630x409px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 630x409px

>>53333014
>WWI
>nazis

If you had good relations, it is debatable wether you'd care enough to go total war mode for a non-country.

>>53323020
>Invaded and destroyed the Roman Empire

Most of that wasn't tribes living in the area of Germany.
It was mostly displaced Nordic tribes.

>>53333334
Lithuania is in NATO, so it's under protection.

>>53333125
>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.

>>53323020
>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?

File: 1451253745785.png (42KB, 240x232px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 240x232px

>>53329771
>British America

>>53333464
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

>>53333527
>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

Alright, lad.

>>53333160
>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?

>>53333527
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?

>>53333779
>>economic, industrial and military powerhouse keeps invading
And now let's take a look at the map of the British Empire again, shall we?

>>53333817
>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.

>>53333925
>These are lies. We were preparing to war against Soviets, not against Germany;
I never claimed Poland was preparing a war against Germany. What are you on about?

>>53333714
>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?

>Responsible for two world wars
Are we forgetting Austria again young man?

>>53334012
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.

>2016
>Germans are still upset over losing both World Wars
Lel

ITT: Butthurt krauts stating "not germany fault 4 ww2!!!111!!" and those debating otherwise.

>>53334396
>2016
>Germans are still getting cucked
wew lad

>>53334555
To be fair what did you expect from this thread?

>>53333817
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.

>>53334396
frogs still buttblasted over napoleon
european butthurt never ends

fucking white people s m h

>>53328679
This 2bh

>>53334274
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.

>>53334396
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.

>>53334202
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.

>>53334627
Shhesh. King George, not James.

>>53323020
>Was the most brutal part of communist Europe (Stasi)
wew

>>53334627
>a threat of inciting the internal disorder.
wat?

>>53334734
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.

File: Think different.jpg (599KB, 1650x1050px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1650x1050px

I am monnitorring zhis thread.

>>53334829
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.

>>53335284
Yet they did take action and the Germans paid for it eventually.

>>53335436
Yup, but it really was what Britain wanted. Her choice.

>>53335380
I'm not attributing the sole guilt of WW1 to Germany. Most guilt goes to Germany and Austria-Hungary, but Russia and France definitely share some.

>>53336580
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.

>>53336526
ob·li·ga·tion
ˌäbləˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
Pls understand this. Thanka.

>>53337449
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

>>53328512
now he's a real cockroach though

>>53338095
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.