@Goblin_Slayer_Floki no that's a platypus. kiwi is a ball of fur the size of your nutsack.

consider me slayed

Kiwis are cute

Kinda wish you could domesticate them.

damn, it can lift a Chinook like it's a paper bag...
https://twitter.com/EatKnuckleFritz/status/1126519929392513025

a chinook can lift itself up too

<:turbonice:569204993794768966>

https://twitter.com/FXMC1957/status/1126748726767173634

...and then proceeded to completely bankrupt and destroy the British Empire over Poland, which it would later also condemn to decades of Soviet oppression even though it had supposedly started a world war for the sake of that very same nation.

to much info for my brain

seems like a bunch of something that happened years ago

The British Empire was doomed either way. Either Trade Priority would be given up to secure US aid, or the UK would have fallen to the Germans.

It was already beginning to crack before WW2.

are we meant to believe churchhill was a good man or bad <:think_woke:378717098681171988>

he was the right man for the job

i don't believe in qualitative history

Yea he had good and bad about him. But at that time, in that moment, he was the best person to do what was needed.

well then why must the progressives tell us he was a bad man

...

The Germans had no realistic plans or intentions to actually invade Britain, Hitler didn't even want a war with the west to begin with; Operation Sea Lion (1940) for example was nothing more than a decoy to confuse Soviet forces for the upcoming invasion of the USSR in 1941

One can argue that the Empire would've indeed found its end by the end of the century if not the beginning of the new one, however that is a totally different conversation which has little to do with what I said about Churchill

they also confused the soviets with the molotov-ribbentropp non-aggression pact

That was actually primarily not a ruse against the soviets but a show of force against the British

well, they signed it, they shouldn't have broken it

well, i'd argue they shouldn't have signed it in the first place

Should and shouldn't have, irrelevant concepts when the initial meaning of the treaty was the make Britain not declare war over Poland

for one, the nazis were ok with soviet union invading finland

and treaty or no treaty, the USSR and the Third Reich would've invaded each other anyway

oh i do believe international diplomacy is a very relevant concept

It really isn't when the warlords behind them have plans for the future

it's a stupid move to throw that to the bin so soon after the great war

Yeah? Tell that to Britain

those future plans involve other countries believing what the german diplomats say?

They're the ones who declared war and refused all peace offers

German diplomats just followed whatever Hitler told them to follow

so it's britain's fault? what exactly is, i'd like you to clarify too

At the end of the day it was his rashness and grand schemes that forced the war with the USSR

There is no "it"

It's many "it"s

i wouldn't say forced, he was mentally unstable and he had soft shits like himmler talking in his ear

For one, Britain could've very well avoided a war with Germany as could Poland had either of them accepted the German proposals for a referendum, a shared corridor etc. Even the BBC reported on this in August of 1939