WWII

File: BEADYBOT.png (905KB, 949x385px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 949x385px

Bump.

>>135890188
>France pushes for extremely harsh treaties after WWI, Lloyd George wanted more lenient treaties, as did Wilson
>Clemenceau wanted Germany to never be able to inflict damage on France again
>France and Belgium invade the Ruhr after Germany could not pay reparations, Britain opposes this. This contributes to German hyperinflation
>Hitler comes into power and remilitarizes the Rhineland
>France wants to stand up, but they could not because Britain refused
>Britain refuses to take action after the Anschluss, which opposes the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Saint Germain
>Britain Betrays Czechoslovakia to allow Germany to annex the Sudetenland
>Britain refuses to act after Germany occupies all of Czechoslovakia
Overall, the British people cannot be blamed for anything that occured after Chamberlain resigned, you can blame Churchill, who was evidently controlled by (((them))) You can't blame Britain for what initially happened, they evidently tried their hardest to prevent it, but when Churchill came into power, they became the bad side.

File: Edward VIII salute.jpg (191KB, 962x584px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 962x584px

>>135891724
Do you think (((they))) forced Chamberlain to resign?
I think Britain was sympathetic to Germany in the years leading up to the war, the former Prime Minister David Lloyd George visiting and basically sucking Hitler's cock and King Edward VIII seeming quite friendly towards the NatSoc cause.
>pic related
>Edward VIII giving the Roman salute with Nazis

File: lloyd george.jpg (45KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 850x400px

>>135892337
I'm not sure, really. If he was PM at the time of the Dunkirk evacuations, I think he would have surrendered. But ((((they)))) wanted the war to happen, so it makes sense if they were behind his resignation