Why did the Brits go to war with nazi germany

while commies might be despised by the bongs their main objective is to keep europe at balance

meaning no single continental power emerging, which then could threaten the bong empire

the reich was such power once it achieved victory in france and sure as hell capable of overcoming britain having access to soviet resources

>>2515880
Britains take on mainland europe back then was to not let one country take over everything since theyd be next afterwards. Basically same strategy some countries do to this day, keep your neighbors weak and divided so they dont get strong and fuck you up. Soviets while a danger, were a distant danger unlike germany who was right next to britain. Soviets might fuck up a few colonies at best or some allies, but at least they wouldnt be able to attack britain directly.

>>2515895
Except ww2 lead to Britain losing it's position as a superpower, pretty much making them a bitch to USA

>>2515899
Same would have happened if germany won though.

>>2515880
Let's see, Germany invaded Poland who's security was guaranteed by Britain and France (after doing the same to Czechoslovakia and getting a free pass). This only 20~ years after the end of ww1 and after repeated violations of the treaty of Versailles.
At the same time, the USSR have kept a balanced international policy towards the west and Stalin's party line of more nationalist communism has won over Trotsky's more expansionist and anti western party line.
The west didn't want to go to war just 20 years after ww1 and Stalin, unlike Hitler, simply didn't do anything to warrant such war.

>>2515915
Soviets were taking over its neighbors just like germany was right before ww2. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>2515917
Bolsheviks Revolution offer end the russian participation in WW1 after putting down the Tsar.
They did it.

Stalin get off the Trocky which support international communist revolution and have strong anti-western ideals. Stalin was just opportunist.

Actually have no other ambitions which could danger the west world at the time.

>>2515932
God i just realised youre probably a tankie.

>>2515917
Those neighbors weren't allied to the west. They took on Japan by kicking them out of Mongolia (not something the allies minded happening) and their attempt to regain control of Finland failed spectacularly.

>>2515899
Britain sacrificed its power just to be free. Fine for me

>>2515942
Doesent mean it didnt piss off France and Britain who didnt really like a bunch of communists going around land grabbing everyone they could get their greedy hands on.

>>2515945

Right but the UK was never realistically under threat from Nazi Germany, who didn't even want to be at war with the UK, and couldn't realistically beat the Royal Navy to allow for an invasion.

The UK went to war to maintain it's position - and in the process lost it's position.

>>2515880
Britain and France were indeed planning to attack the USSR first, through Finland. Read up on the Finnish expeditionary force. General Weygand also received orders to be ready to attack the oil fields of the Caucasus from Syria.

But then Hitler invaded France and it changed everything.

>>2515890
>meaning no single continental power emerging, which then could threaten the bong empire
Wrong, British policy during the 30s was to make Nazi Germany stronger so that it could form a front against the USSR. The Anschluss and the annexation of Czechoslovakia were deliberate actions by the part of the British government.

>>2515975
>Wrong, British policy during the 30s was to make Nazi Germany stronger so that it could form a front against the USSR. The Anschluss and the annexation of Czechoslovakia were deliberate actions by the part of the British government.

You have to be baiting.

>>2515950
Not true either, Britain want to war to prevent a the rise of a european hegemon - the same reason it fought Napoleon(and the earlier republic) and the same reason it fought Russia over Crimea.

File: 1470525107739.jpg (104KB, 599x800px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 599x800px

>>2515880
>Why did the Brits go to war with nazi germany

Hore Belisha, Britain was quite literally jewed into ww2

>>2515949
There is a difference between getting pissed of and going to war that will cost millions of lives. Stalin didn't cross that line while Hitler tried to take whole parts in the center of Europe and took a shit all over the appeasement pass he got after Czechoslovakia. Taken the fact that Germany was still suspect after ww1 and the pretty violent nature of his regime he got himself the first place on the list. Stalin was much more balanced and knew how to walk the line without crossing it. Btw, did it after ww2 as well without causing a nuclear war.

>>2515975
where's the evidence?

>>2516028
His ass

>>2516002
>>2516028
Read a book faggots. Oh wait, you get all your info from the history channel..

>>2516041
Please quote those "books".

>>2516023
Im not really sure what your point is besides Stalin worship honestly. Youre talking like Stalin was some skilled politician while we already have enough archives to see most of the stuff he planned didnt go as planned at all. His original plan was to just to grab whatever land he could get away with, and winter war was already too much for britain and france since they were considering full out attack at that point. Stalin was shitting his pants at how terrible winter war went and ended it before britain and france actually started sending troops, emboldened by how shit the soviets were doing. Next part of his plan was for Germany to go and attack france and waste their troops fighting it out like in ww1, turns out france just instantly lost, oops. Well at least britain was able to resist. Of course then Germany goes full attack mode and attacks soviets instead fucking the final piece of his plan of not being part of a major world war again.
Well at least they won in the end, starting a paranoid regime that ended up killing the soviet union in the long run. Ooops.

>>2516045
Any one at this point.

>>2516041

In my third year of history undergrad bud, and my masters application just got accepted at st andrews so hop on this dick ;) x

>>2516060
What are your preferred gender pronouns?

>>2516064

You can call me anything you want - just source me that info on Britain and Germany in the 1930s.

>>2516069
I read it in tragedy and hope by quigley. Tbh that book does have a reputation for its conspiratiorial leanings.

>>2516046
>Stalin worship
Stalin was a genocidal murderer that killed millions and brought nothing but misery to the world. Me pointing out that he was smart is not a value judgment on him being worthy of worship.
That being said, he was an extremely skilled Machiavellian politician, both internally and internationally.
I agree with your post about him (like the whole world) miscalculating the way France would collapse but again how does this miss-proves him being cautious about involving himself in a world war and not making himself an obvious target for a world coalition forming against him? On the opposite, he ended the war in Finland as not to cause the intervention, his whole plan in Europe was to wait as long as possible and not enter the war first.
Unlike Hitler who was a rambling idiot that believed his own bullshit about "superior races magically winning wars" and jumped head into the fire. The only thing that kept him from being a Mussolini tier laughing stock is the German's army abilities to punch above their countries weight and despite the idiocy of its political class.

>>2516085
>killed millions
Your facts are inaccurate.
He didn't even kill 1 million.
Though he still killed a lot.

>>2516133
>Your facts are inaccurate
Would love for you to point out your breakthrough research that proves that Stalin was a good boy and all those millions were killed by evil aliens

>>2516085
Im mostly just denying he got picked because he was smart or charismatic and more because germany was a bigger threat to britain and framce than the soviets. After ww2 soviets got back to the shitlist like usual since they took over half of europe afterwards. The funny part is Stalin blamed france and britain for being attacked by germany.

((()))

>>2516156
The number of sentenced to death till 1954 was around 700k people.

>>2515917
>Soviets were taking over its neighbors just like Germany was right before ww2.
The Soviets didn't stars annexing their neighbors until the invasion of Poland in 1939. Unlike Germany, which had been steadily increasing its sabre-rattling for six years, the USSR had done little of note besides purging itself, and so the UK, and especially the more left-leaning France, didn't have the political capital needed to declare on the Soviets.

>>2516244
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
>It has been estimated between 600,000 and 3 million people died at the hands of the Soviet government during the Purge.[3][4][5][6]

And that´s only until 1938. Take your alternative facts somewhere else, commie.

>>2516312
>3
Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles) by Richard Pipes, pg 67
>4
Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia: 1934–1941. – book reviews[dead link] by Robert Conquest, 1996, National Review
>5
Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Michael Ellman, 2002
>6
"Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment: 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.
>proven sources of some western "objective" historians.

>>2516054
You do realize that citing "Any book" as your source after making such an outrageous claim makes you look like a total moron, right?

>>2515880

Churchill's plan was for Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to destroy each other. It didn't really work out that way.

>>2515880
They did though. They told France to fuck off and stop enforcing Versailles terms.

>>2515880
>Fritz-close, aggressive, competent
>Ivan-far, playing it safe, weak

Also they considered Hitler a wall against Bolshevism, so he was given a free pass at first, but he blew it due to his severe autism.

>>2516397
If you had scrolled down two posts you would have seen the book I cited you brainlet.

>>2515975
Bait

File: IMG_5849.png (113KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 644x598px

>>2516023
Stalin dicksuckers are the cringiest faggots on this board.

>>2516085
Dumbest thing I've ever read.

>>2515880
because they invaded Poland, Denmark and Norway, two of those countries have royal families related to the British monarchy. And lets not forget that WW1 was very much related,

British strategy was always to keep a balance of power in Europe to prevent a continental power from consolidating which would be able to eventually challenge their naval power.
The USSR after the Polish Soviet War showed that it could be contained while the Germans didn't. Since USSR wasn't expansionist until the Germans started chimping out and creating a power vacuum, they were the lesser threat compared to Germany which was trying to conquer continental Europe.

When Britain declared war on Germany the USSR was on Nazi Germany's side.

>>2515880
There were a bunch of trade embargoes on the soviet union before the war started,

>>2518687
No it wasn't, they had a non aggression pact.

>>2518705

Slightly rhetorical on my part but the point still stands, OP's question...

>and not the soviets?
>I know that communism triggered Curchill and the other bourgeois politicians a hell of alot more then Fascism did.
>so why didn't they let Hitler maybe even help him invade the Soviets?

...only even makes sense if you are aware of the events of the next couple of years afterwards. At the time the UK declared war on Germany the USSR had a non-aggression pact with Germany and had helped them invade Poland and Churchill wasn't even prime minister.

Obviously Britain at the time they declared war on the Nazis weren't fortune tellers that knew what was going to happen in the future.

>>2515941

strawwwwmannnnn

It's arguable with what we know now that Stalinists were primarily interested in establishing defense for Russia. Worldwide proletarian revolution was just a meme by the late 1920s. Then by 1950s the game changed to bipolar world stuff.

not a tankie, most of the shit Stalin did was bad

>>2516371

thank you. i dream of a world where people look at sources critically

>>2518675
>because they invaded Poland
So did the SU

File: assburger apu.png (24KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 657x527px

>>2515880
I think it had something to do with a treaty with Poland.

England: "Hey hitler, if you invade Poland, we're going to war"
France: "Ditto"
Hitler: "DURRRRRRRRR"

>>2515880
The goal of British and French foreign policy was to let Germany get closer to the USSR and hope the scary commies and the spooky fascists just destroyed each other. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was what sparked war, not the invasion of Poland.

File: porky intensifies.png (297KB, 576x566px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 576x566px

>>2518653
>hating bankers makes you a nazi

>>2520072
but the soviets also invaded Poland, besides who give a shit about fucking Poland

>>2518653
Gulags were far more humane than Nazi concentration camps though.

I'm not saying that thousands didn't starve or were worked to death, but often the reason was honestly that they didn't have food, as evidenced that even the population outside the gulag had none.

Meanwhile in Nazi Germany a fat Nazi officer would cap your ration at 3 spoons of soup, while eating a steak. And later you were gassed.

Can't really compare the two.

>>2517746
It didn't? It sure as hell did.

Maybe Russia wasn't as weak after the war as some people would have preferred it. The idea was that Germany would so totally wreck Russia that any leader after that war would run crying to the West and beg to be accepted and to do anything they asked, just in exchange for not giving them the death blow and maybe help them rebuild. (Basically what happened in 1990).

But the Soviet Union came out stronger than some expected and even had the guts to defy the West. Ironically, maybe precisely because land-lease was so fucking generous.