Message from @Kazimir Malevich
Discord ID: 545667247331606528
At the very worst, it is disingenuous.
how lol
i'm talking generally, throughout history
I would rather not steer this discussion into ethics territory, since that is a whole another topic.
Do you agree that Hilter made it extremely hard for UK and USSR to be pro-Nazi or even neutral? If not, explain your reasons.
(We'll omit US because Pearl Harbour is stupid Japanese Emperor fault)
Japan
was unlicky
for the USSR, they were going to attack germany anyways, since they saw fascism as an enemy to communism and wanted to crush it
for the UK, i think they were given plenty of chances to offer the olive branch, but denied to. its very hard to make friends when the press from the US to the UK lies about you.
he could've crushed the UK forces when they were attempting to cross the bay to the UK, but i don't think hitler truly wanted war with the UK,
even Churchill himself said that "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."
so churchill had ulterior motives to go to war with germany
Germany couldn’t have crushed the British at Dunkirk lol
yeah, thats what i mean
The Wehrmacht was halted for a reason, the troops were extremely tired from constant pushing and the Germans feared that if they kept pushing they would face a British counterattack which was possible
There were also German attacks on the salient but because of the sacrifice of valiant French soldiers he BEF has enough time to escape
mabe, but even then hitler really didn't want to go to war with the UK
>USSR would have attacked them anyway
The majority of historians disagree, since at the time the Soviet army was throughoutly unprepared for said attack. The majority of war preparations (excepting the Winter War and the Poland partition with germany) were of a defencive nature.
sooner or later attacked i mean
Weird how USSR didn't attack the US, if sooner or later the Cold War would happen.
And even so, Hilter attacked first. So if he got himself utterly destroyed, it's his fault, not USSR's
well of course, the USSR didn't attack, the US had nukes and so did they
sure hitler fucked up
but i still think at some point that the USSR would've attacked the germans since they had to crush fascism so they could spread communism
As for the "olive branch" that UK could have taken,
1. see the meme above
2. see the political term "appeasement"
3. "Not wanting to get conquered sooner or later" is an ulteriour motive
4. Following your logic, UK was completely right in atracking Germany.
>well of course the USSR didn't attack
Before the nuclear weapons, that is.
>Sure Hilter screwed up
I am glad you agree.
*listens to the sound of the cicadas*
**LOOK AT ALL THESE NYOOZ BOII**
No seriously, check this one out
France: Anti-Semitic Incidents Up 73 Percent in 2018
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/jWsVt_nhHFA/
isnt that just because there are more muslims?
antisemite term being hijacked by jews once again
>antisemite term being hijacked by Jews
Fokn wut
Who else is gonna use it nig
well jews obviously
muslims are the ones being attacked here but jews are going to act like the victims
Not according to the shit you linked
he could be a globalist or maybe not who knows
@Bee you realise world capital as of 1939 was British capital you Mong? @Kazimir Malevich otherwise as you said mate. Hole in one
Also I have no idea what is meant by globalist anymore because it seems to be extricated from any context or meaning and just used as a dumpster for “things I don’t like”
ahh i get it
the muslims are the ones attacking the jews
so really the attacks are directed to both groups
No?
uhh yes?