What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Nothing, he's still the funniest guy on television, drumpfkike.

He's a limey faggot.

He went mad…

autism

Is John Oliver the next David Lynch?

...

Ha ha great post! Well meme'd my friend!

Now this is what I call triggered.

So why exactly wouldn't a man called "Drumpf" be qualified to serve as President?

Lately you've been getting uppity, Tyrone. Are we going to need to start posting images of niggers getting their dicks chopped off again?

...

...

in all honesty, fuck Trump

How does it feel that a joke candidate become president and beat out the darling of the media and political elite who had decades of experience and hundred of millions of dollars at her disposal?

I voted for him so it feels good, but fuck Trump he can go die for all i care

shitskin trumpeter detected

Face it, Nigel: we own the English language now. Whatever misspellings we want to introduce - they become standard. Should of? Standard English in 10 years. Your an idiot. Done and done. No more past tense? Correctness is dictated by usage, bud.

You people used to own the language, but not anymore. Now youre little island is sinking into obscurity amid bomb blasts and Pakistani rape gangs, while youre betters continue to innovate and update the language we took from you. Cheerio! ;)

my head literally explodeded

Chesscucks who makes jokes about the rape and destruction of europe at the hands of amoral politicians deserve whatever retarded shit Trump pulls next

uppity poluppities ITT

POLUMPF
POLUMPF
POLUMPF
POLUMPF
POLUMPF
POLUMPF
POLUMPF
POLUMPF

DELET DIS PLUMPFPFPPFPVFFPPVFPFGLPDGKSDJKFLHGSLD

two

Nice amnesia you got there.

sigdee bursint

...

oh yea kid sure it was britain that started ww2 not hitler literally gassing jews to death (reminds you of any modern american politician???) and conquering places like poland and austria, no sir.

This.
Hitler personally washed his balls with the soap made out of my grandpa and turned my grandmother into a leather thong for his gassing parties

>The British firebomb German cities, killing tens of thousands in retribution for small-scale bombings years ago which killed

...

Everyone know Hitler only had one testicle, which was the main cause of his inferioty complex. During Holocaust he personally searched extermination camps for potential testicle crafts from virile slav, jew and negro donors.

Hitler was a proud woman of color you fucking goytard

See first pic, this was justified.
See 2nd pic
Again this is in the pics. Poland was always looking for protection and Germany always sought to drive east and were rearming.
See third pic. There's less evidence for this shit than the fucking holocaust.
But then how do you explain the invasion of 1940? You also ignore Norway and Denmark.
The only thing I'll give you is the hypocrisy of not declaring war on the USSR for the same reasons as Germany. But Hitler was showing himself to be the bigger threat.
Why should Britain have trusted him? Hitler broke his promises all the time.
lol no. Why Churchill did try desperately to bring the US into the war (solely because he wanted a strong ally, he didn't consider the implications), he achieved nothing. Only Pearl Harbour saw American entry into the war, and even then it was Hitler who declared on America, not the other way around. Lend-lease was also given to the Soviets so Churchill didn't have too much to do with it.
Hitler's fault for invading, as always.
>>The British firebomb German cities, killing tens of thousands in retribution for small-scale bombings years ago which killed

good goy.

...

I'm literally shaking from your macro-aggressions against womynkind.

Saved.

samefag or Holla Forums?

Good lad, nice trips also

yup, definitively samefag

kek you're pathetic

ditto.

...

It's gonna be 8 years of these parasites making a career of whining about "drumpf".

LMAO

Face it, we're superior

t. the nation that decided an open cycle air cooled plutonium breeder in the middle of diary pastures was a good idea.

The word "Danzig" does not appear in that autistic greentext, which one cannot take seriously anyway. Also, the invasion of Belgium was nothing but a flimsy pretext for Britain to enter WW2, and it does not explain why Britain allowed the entry of millions of foreigners onto its own soil after WW2.


The only invasion that happened was the German invasion of France. The French and British did fuck-all… well, yes: they did attempt to invade the neutral country of Norway.

That post, even if one were to believe its claims at face value (which includes affirming the Holocaust, which you deny), does not deny that the Poles killed Germans in Danzig. How is an event not real if it happens after an invasion? If anything, it would've been more likely that panicked/angry Poles would lash out against the German minority after the news broke that the Wehrmacht had invaded.

It doesn't matter what you "give me". The French and British abandoned the Poles to their fate. British newspapers even called the war "The Bore War" up until the German invasion of France. The French could've conceivably mounted a serious attack on Germany when the Wehrmacht was occupied in Poland, yet both of them chose to do nothing.

Nice historical revisionism you've got there. It was Churchill who convinced the Americans to fund the Soviets in the first place. Material supports isn't outright war, but it's a very significant step towards.

Hitler spoke highly of the British many times. And what would he have done, had the British accepted the peace agreement? Declared war again and attempted to invade Britain?

>Yeah, thanks yanks. Thanks, (((UN))).
Last time I checked, Britain was a founding member of the UN and a member of the Security Council. Before that, it founded the League of Nations, and during the peace settlement, it was the French and British who foolishly formulated the doctrine of national self-determination that eventually blossomed into decolonization and the reverse colonization of Britain and France by non-Whites.

And who emboldened the forces of Leftism? Who made the US a global superpower? Churchill, inadvertently. He might not have been a liberal hippie himself, but it was his actions that caused the downfall of the British empire and the non-White invasion of Europe.

Note that I'm not defending Hitler, who seriously went off the rails in his later years, but attacking Churchill, who was too busy playing intra-European politics to see the bigger picture and called up allies he was unable to control. For whatever faults Hitler had, he at least correctly saw Whites as engaged in a global struggle. Churchill just saw muh England and thought that a German was on the same level as some Zulu. He allied with the Soviets, and he called in the US. He emboldened the Socialists. He waged total war against the German nation because he did not understand the concept of keeping intra-group hostilities limited. I'm not saying that he consciously planned all that later happend, but that he was an idiot without foresight, stuck in the past.


You've lost all your colonies and London is majority non-British. There is no coherent right-wing resistance in the country. Like Churchill, you're living in a past that's never coming back.

Fucking Al Gore causing global warming by burning all those jews

Holy shit who the fuck drew this?
Only major problem is the Kraut plays too much into the "eternal anglo" meme and I know for sure that fag will continue to use stuff like this as leverage in his D&C campaign.

It talks about Versailles which includes Danzig you retard.
1, and why does your jerrycuckery extend to WW1 anyway? Why do you always think Germans are the 'good guys'? Germany deserved what it got for escalating the war into a world war, Britain would've had no casus belli if Belgium's neutrality wasn't violated. Even France may have stayed out if Germany hadn't joined the war.
I told you, Jews in our Labour government.
You have no knowledge of history at all, kys. Denmark and Norway happened nigger, as did the invasion of the Low Countries.
To stop Germany getting to it, which they did anyway.
Why not? You clearly believe Hitler at face value. You believe the jerrycuck narrative at face value. You believe in unsourced infographics at face value.
Where does it say that? It only says Hitler puts Jews in camps (which he did). No mention of extermination.
You UTTER UTTER MONG. I'm talking about the supposed pre-war massacres of Germans that justified the invasion. Yes there were post-invasion massacres, but you can't justify an invasion based on events that occurred AFTER the invasion.
For good reason. Neither country was ready for war, and France in particular were essentially resigned to their fate.
Not really, there's varying degrees. But Lend-lease was only in 1941, and aid to the USSR was given only after Hitler had already invaded the USSR.
He also spoke highly of the Poles, pic related. Means nothing.
Britain would've been faced with a much stronger Germany at a later date. Not in Britain's interest, or the world's, quite frankly. Hitler had no need for aggressive expansion yet he did it anyway.
Britain did not want to the Empire to be dissolved. Jews in Britain wormed their way into our government and our position at the UN.

cont

His impact was minor. All he did was try to get the US into the war which happened anyway. The US was a superpower post-WW1 anyway (it simply chose isolationism after 1920 that's all). He didn't cause the downfall of the Empire or the mass immigration either, on the contrary, he strongly opposed both of these. The culprits are the Labour government and the Jews.
Churchill was a bit too Jew friendly, you're right, but he was solid otherwise and his actions are exaggerated, remember he didn't even declare war, a fact many jerrycucks forget.
Hitler didn't see this at all. He was concerned with ethnic nationalism for all peoples, no some muh white race nonsense.
Literally nothing wrong with this
Out of convenience only because Hitler (his fault AGAIN) invaded the USSR. Anyway why don't you criticise the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
Pearl Harbour did, not him.
lol how? He was as anti-Socialist as you can get. You can blame him for a shit electoral campaign in 1945 but that's it, and even then there were other factors at play like the changing zeitgeist.
This is where the international Jewry element comes in, tbf. Although even then you could argue Germany had to be stopped or it would start a third world war.
But you exaggerate his actions and make wild leaps that somehow lead to everything bad in the word.

We're still 87% white. Actual white. Not the 56% """"huwhite"""" the US is these days. Don't throw bricks in a glass house.


The eternal anglo meme has been appropriated tbh

but america is going to speak spanish in the next few decades

It does justify giving Danzig to the Poles. Saying that "it includes Danzig", without specifically justifying or discussing that part of the treaty says nothing.

Historical revisionism as usual. The British did not join the war for moral reasons… and why did the French join, again? The real reason for WWI is an intra-European power struggle: The French had been opposing German power on the continent for over a thousand years, and the British regarded the unified Germany as a threat. That is why the Entente and the Axis were set up, and everyone knew it, except for the plebs on the ground in the individual countries who were fed propaganda bullshit (i.e. you). The war didn't escalate because Germany joined Austria-Hungary against Serbia, but because each side was determined to fuck the other, and because they were unable to lay aside their petty squabbles.

I remind you of your words:
The context is assaults by France/Britain, you buck-toothed mongoloid. No such assaults happened. Yes, Germany invaded Denmark, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Britain did fuck-all, despite promising to invade Germany.

Once again, history is inverted. The Germans invaded because the Royal Navy was preparing to invade Norway, and the Germans had intelligence to that effect.

The pre-war massacres are neither here nor there; the main point is that Hitler wanted Danzig back. None of this negates the fact that Rydz-Smigly reversed Pilsudsky's course and started agitating against Germany and the Germans because he thought that the French had his back.

So they lied to Poland about the invasion of Germany they'd execute. And woah there!
What the fuck are you talking about? Before the defeat in 1940, the French army was considered the strongest in the world. Last time I checked, the German breakthrough came as a surprise because nobody thought that the Germans could get tanks through the Adrennes forest. And now you're telling me that the French knew that it would happen, and that they had already resigned?

Yes really. If the US were to declare war on Assad's regime tomorrow and Russia started supplying him with surface-to-air missiles, do you think anyone would consider that business as usual? Roosevelt and especially Churchill were determined to gradually bring the US into the war. I will grant that Hitler went full retard in declaring war after Pearl Harbor, but that again does not negate Roosevelt's and Churchill's intentions.

Of course it was given after Hitler invaded. Why would it have been given before?

It clearly means something. He invaded their country, but he at least recognized them as humans. He wasn't intent on annihilating the Polish population, just as he wasn't intent on exterminating the British. The point is that the British weren't locking in some life-or-death struggle with the Germans like the Soviets were.

The point here is one of foolishness and lack of foresight, not intent. I grant that Churchill wasn't a liberal cuck, but it's to those people he handed over the West by discrediting the NSDAP's ideology. It's the same manner in which the US sealed its fate by positioning itself as the anti-racist nation in response to Hitler, only to experience the nigger revolt in the 60s.

He was responsible for the success of those people. Had he decided to at least make peace with Germany, the BUF and similar organizations would've kept the Labor Jews in check. Instead, Fascism become the boogieman after the war.

Hitler didn't see this at all. He was concerned with ethnic nationalism for all peoples, no some muh white race nonsense.
Literally nothing wrong with this

A-hah! And now he exposes himself! This is why we used to control half the world and then lost it, you idiot: squabbling among ourselves over bullshit while the other ethnicities make common cause against it.

Well, let's look at it this way:
Hitler, for all his many faults, presented a race-conscious, politically salient, White reaction to egalitarianism and Jewish influence

Yes, I would say that he very much lacked foresight, and that he fucked us. We're living in the ruins of his ambition.

I'm not from the US and not from Germany either.

...

*sigh* you know all politicians with a brain are working around the clock to remove that literal nazi from office before he starts sending mexicans to gas chambers, right? we, the PEOPLE, do not want another hitler ruling us.

i agree

Then who voted for him?

The nigger-tier behaviour of the Germans is the justification.
Regardless of whether they wanted to join or not, public opinion was against it. Britain could not have joined the war without the invasion of Belgium which provided a casus belli.
Because they knew Germany would attack them.
You're not wrong but without an acceptable casus belli it's not possible to act on this.
Yes it did you nigger, if Germany hadn't got involved it would have remained a local Balkans affair, which was par for the course in the late 19th and early 20th century.
But if you're to be believed, neither side had any intention of escalating the war further. Which is obviously bullshit. You're making no sense.
I proved you wrong but it's 'not an issue'. Fucking jerrycucks, you just change the facts whenever it suits you.
They invaded Norway and were building up forces. Never mind that they did eventually invade Germany which is what you're so butthurt about the first place.
Yes, but the original reasoning was that Germany might gain control of Norway, so it was a preemptive strike. But you're dodging the issue again, Britain DID act and that's the point.
YOU FUCKING WHAT? The ENTIRE basis of your argument was that Hitler was justified because of the massacres before the invasion. And now you're saying whatever, it doesn't matter? Jesus
So what? That's not a valid reason. And by saying this you're basically admitting that he was an aggressive expansionist, which is what he was in the end.
It does negate it to a significant degree because Hitler, as you have admitted, was an aggressive expansionist. Germany always sought to drive east - this is why Pilsudski only agreed to a non aggression pact rather than an alliance, and why he was less enthusiastic about it than the Germans. Rydz-Smigley was just happy to have found a different ally who wasn't going to inevitably invade Poland.
It was only a guarantee to secure Poland's safety. You don't actually start arming unless you are at war or are planning to go to war. Britain and France still hoped to avoid war.
Low morale, overconfidence in Maginot Line, and in general France did have the guts to fight to the bitter end. They surrendered so quickly because their heart wasn't in it.
Yes
True but they didn't succeed, it took external factors for thi to happen. You can't attribute the US joining the war to them.
If you agree then why did you attack Churchill for it?
Oh OK, great. Hitler did want to invade us but he didn't want to exterminate us, and that's all that matters. No point in fighting a war if you only get invaded is there?
Hitler discredited himself by starting this dumb war. Churchill did nothing except push for unconditional surrender, which was probably justified tbh.

No. Making peace would've been humiliating and would have discredited the Conservative dominated National Government. It is likely that the Opposition (Labour) would have gained power in 1940 as a result. The BUF had no power, they couldn't do shit. So well one, you got the Jews in power 5 years earlier. And Fascism would still be the boogyeman because Big Bad Hitler who's invading all of Europe is still just over the channel.
I wasn't being 100% serious. In any case, there is no single white race, and I am concerned with Britons only, not some random 'white'.
Hitler simply promoted ethnic nationalism (counter to British imperialism and he knew it) and anti-Jewry. Stop using buzzwords, you argue like a leftist.
Ah, a traitor then!

You're literally black, aren't you?

All burgers are

really makes you think

You are using the meme version of cuck that is popular among the kekistan/alt lite faggots.

...

I can say two positive things about Trump:

1. he's destroying conservatism faster than Sanders ever could've
2. he turned Holla Forumscucks into the new SJWs

Nice old talking points, but it's 2017 and I think you've lost the plot. You don't have the working class on your side, the left is comprised of Jews, shitskins, the mentally ill, and wealthy White cucks.

quints of truth confirm.

Fuck you.

Oh please. I can understand believing WWII propaganda, but WWI propaganda? Do you also believe that the Germans butchered every village they came across and cut off nurses' arms? The whole war was a power-play, and the alliances had been set up decades in advance.

They clearly could have, because they French did, as your yourself admit. Some 80-year-old agreement to protect Belgium was the "Iraq had WMDs" of its day. Britain joined because the leadership wanted to, and they manufactured the supposed outrages of the German army to whip up support at home. Had Britain not had any treaty with Belgium, they still would've gone to war with Germany for "humanitarian reasons", you can be sure of that.
The reason for joining the war against Germany was to keep continental power in check, and they would've done it regardless. You can always find some excuse.
I can't believe I'm arguing with someone who literally thinks that the politics of an empire are dictated by morality and treaties with rinky-dink countries instead of realpolitik.

Ok, so let me get this story of yours straight:
1. When Austria attacks Serbia, that's a strictly local affair.
2. Germany joins Austria
3. The French interpret this as a sign that Germany will attack France for some reason.
Why, that makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, in reality - you know, the thing to which you have no connection - the story was this:
1. The Germanic powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) form one power bloc.
2. The countries around them (France, Britain, Russia, and Russia's ally Serbia) form another as a counterweight.
3. The spark ignites the flame and the power blocs go to war.

Invading a third country in no way fulfills the British/French treaty obligation to defend Poland. The point is that they didn't do shit to defend Poland. Occupying Norway would've simply served to deprive Germany of imports and does not negate the fact that the British had no will to invest serious blood and iron into defending the Poles.

In 1944, when Germany was already beaten, when they had the US army with them, and when the French coast was only guarded by skeleton forced. Not in 1940.

You can't even summarize my argument (that intra-European, fratricidal wars are bad, especially when you call in external actors, by the way), let alone determine its supposed basis. I also never said that Hitler was "justified" in doing anything, are morality is not an issue. There were anti-German pogroms, but I only mentioned that as an aside. What Hitler wanted was Danzig back.
Valid according to whom? You? Thanks for clearing that up, God. Countries go to war because they want shit. That's how it's always been and that's how it'll always be. Was it more "valid" to give Danzig to Poland in the first place? How "valid" was it compared to wanting it back?

If you are making guarantees about some endangered country's safety, you are clearly planning to go to war. Why make the guarantee otherwise? France and Britain wanted to contain Germany, but they didn't give a fuck about the Poles and let the Wehrmacht fuck them. Deal with it.

It really is a thankless task explaining things to you. Not only did Churchill ally with the Soviets, he also dragged the US into the war by getting them to finance the Soviet war-effort. That's why I', attacking him. He made a deal with the devil that ultimately destroyed his own country. This ties into my next point:

The war didn't discredit Hitler at all. Fascism and National Socialism had many sympathizers across the world and even the British didn't treat him as some sort of demonic boogeyman. What discredited Fascism/NS was the atrocity propaganda and the established liberal orthodoxy after WW2, the entirety of which can be summed up as "the Nazis are bad". The UN, the UDHR, the UNESCO Statement on Race, etc. pp. Churchill didn't just go to war against Hitler, he empowered the most destructive, subversive, anti-White elements in the world in his short-sightedness - and it ended up destroying his Empire.


It is higly unlikely that Labor could've enacted anything like what was enacted since 1950. Even in post-WW2 England, there have been numerous race riots over immigration. Had Labor seriously undertaken the import of millions of people from the Carribean, Pakistan, and Africa, the Fascists in Britain would have been mightily empowered, helped by Germany and a non-discredited ideology of National Socialism, possibly to the point of staging a coup.

This is how the odd intelligent Black person must feel: he sees the problems around him, but he's powerless to do anything about it because he's surrounded by 60-IQ monkey people. Whites are the only people too stupid and pig-headed to close ranks against common enemies.

Your perceptions do not matter; the perceptions of the rest of the world do. Some Muslim rapist will not ask or care whether you're British or Italian or Norwegian; he'll just see you as a White devil and fuck your ass raw. I'm not saying that you're not ALSO a Briton, but insisting that you have NOTHING IN COMMON with a German or a Frenchman only isolates and weakens you, and dooms your efforts at national self-preservation to fail. I'm saying this after fratricidal wars among Europeans have cost us our Empires and have put Jews in charge of countries, yet you still refuse to learn. The same holds true for the Germans in deutsch/pol/, by the way.

You're a traitor from my perspective. It does not matter. What we can both agree on is that our survival matters, and the stubbornness of of people like you is endangering that. Making common cause against the liberals in all White countries is the only even remotely viable strategy. Insisting that one make enemies of other White nations in addition to the non-White nations that are already enemies is not a viable strategy.

fucking kek

I don't see the problem…

...

Why can't Liberals into comedy?

...

Because no one can take your mockery of others seriously when you're doing your routine while taking it in the ass from Tyrone to show how progressive you are.

tl;dr We lost the empire where sun never sets becouse of a small tract of land in eastern Europe and Germans are at fault while our leaders did literary nothing wrong.

WW1 was a war to get Europe communist. Plain and simple. It's irrelevant who and over what was started, the important thing was that it was artificially extended beyond any reasonable time frame by careful outside manipulation. The Rothschilds wanted it so it happened. It's a reason why it was called the war to end all wars. Just listen to Bush senior to get an explanation.

The main problem was that one guy.

WW2 was a war of the system that went it's own way and showed that it CAN be done differently. So it had to be brought down AT ANY COST. So they arranged a massacre of a bunch of Germans and the gravy train went rolling. Just look how the war was concluded by the forces of "good" over the forces of "evil" even though it was beyond obvious that they were defeated. Dresden and the atomic bombs were evil acts of psychopaths that went beyond any reasonable measures.

It's irrelevant to argue who was right or wrong when the external forces profited off both.

you had me until literal hitler

we joined the reich out of our own free will, faggot

...

Don't be fatuous, Pajeet.

Im American and white fuckface

(checked)
Absolutely confirmed

Those are KC colors so it's probably from there.

...

Stop forcing this DOA meme.

u r n es jey dubyew u dum drubby grubby

Without the invasion of Belgium Britain would not have joined the war. Doesn't matter what "they" wanted, they needed a casus belli and Belgium gave it to them.
'Iraq had WMDs' was completely fabricated, while Britain (and Germany actually) was still bound by international treaty to defend Belgian neutrality. It was literally the treaty that established Belgium as a country.
I can't believe I'm arguing with a pedantic autistic retard who doesn't understand that realpolitik means nothing if there is no well to sell it to the public.
Do you actually know anything about WW1?
The French were very close to Russia. Russia was defending Serbia. Now Austria vs Russia and Serbia wasn't that big, it was fairly par for the course for the late 19th and early 20th century. Germany then barges in because muh triple alliance (not needed because Italy didn't join) and the German Schlieffen Plan demanded a preemptive attack on France through Belgium, since Germany was afraid of France potentially joining in (France wouldn't have joined if Germany hadn't). And there you have it, Germany invaded France and Belgium and the rest is history.
You just oversimplify it and place too much importance on realpolitik. They didn't all declare war on each other at once. It was a steady escalation that could've been avoided. Austria could've not been unreasonable and declared war first, and Germany didn't have to join Austria and bring France and Britain into the war.
They didn't really after witnessing the Blitzkreig, no. But my point is that they did do something, you were saying they did nothing.
You are aware of the North Africa campaign right? Wasn't a direct invasion but it was an attack on German forces (once Rommel was sent down anyway). Also a direct invasion wasn't the treaty, it was just a vague guarantee of safety.
I'd argue the opposite, fighting wars made us strong. Sweden hasn't had a war for 200 years and look at them. Also it's not fratricidal, different countries. >inb4 muh huwhite race
If you don't think he was justified in starting the war then why do you continue to defend his actions?
Ok, then acknowledge that he was an aggressive expansionist rather than someone who dindu nuffin
Fair enough, not a good word to use. But then the above applies - Hitler was an aggressive expansionist, not a saint who dindu nuffin
Poland didn't own Danzig lad
There is a difference between an internally recognised treaty and wanting something, though.
So it's Britain's fault for provoking war because Hitler was planning on starting a war? You've admitted that Hitler started this shit by invading Poland, you can't continue to blame Britain when Britain was only reacting to Hitler's actions.
Yes, because a superpowered Germany would've fucked things up for everyone who isn't Germany.
They did to the extent that they didn't want Hitler to drive east.

Only once Hitler invaded the USSR. Hitler caused the alliance through his actions. And why not criticise the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on the same grounds?
Lend-lease =/ war. Also the US didn't start supplying the USSR until after Barbarossa. You have no argument here.
I agree with you here, but the rest of shit was practically inevitable after the war, I don't see how you can realistically separate the two. The fault lies with Hitler for starting the war.
But hold on:
You're right when you say this. It wasn't Churchill, it was the Jews and Americans, and Soviets. Churchill didn't empower any of this lot though - the US joined only with Pearl Harbour, and the USSR didn't even get involved until Hitler invaded them. You can't pin either of those on Churchill - whatever his intentions, his actions came to nothing.

There's two things I need to say here
1. The 1948 BNA was not controversial at the time because no one thought anyone would come here. The Opposition underestimated the impact of the Act. Labour could've easily got this through even earlier had they been in power. So mass immigration would've simply started even earlier.
2. the Fascists in Britain would not be empowered. They would be treated as the Communists and Trade Unionists were in the 1920s - that is, as a potential firth column or Trojan Horse for the enemy. Because Britain would not friends with a new superpowered Germany. Germany's interests would not align with ours, and their support of ethnic nationalism would've caused trouble in the Empire (hence why we may have lost it anyway even if Germany won the war). In response to a rival Fascist Germany, Britain would turn more in the opposite direction, not closer to Fascism.
There is no white race and shills like you who try and promote white globalism are to be resisted. For now I'm happy to ally but nationalism is about looking after your own people. I have little in common with other whites aside from skin colour. I wish them all the best but they are not my people.
Actually, Muslims see the world solely as Muslim vs kuffar, no racial element involved.
Deutsch/pol/ are one of few groups on Holla Forums left who have any common sense.
True, I am loyal to my country while your are loyal to Hitler and some nonexistent white race

He still thinks its 2015.

I cannot think of a more perfect and symbolic ending to the British Empire.

It's like poetry.

I didn't know he was in Community, glad I never watched that show.

I agree, Dudi. Thos- we evil whites sure got it coming. They gave away their freedoms and so the glorious brown people should take every country of that evil continent as recompense for our white guilt. We should let them take Japan too, they deserve it with such a low birthrate. Then we can just nuke every country in the world because we aren't going to get dragged into a third world war against our will (silly yuropoors :P) except for the Middle East, we should totally go there on foot, for er, for the varied interests of I- America.

STFU Jew!

...

Chuchill did want to declare war on the USSR, but others in the English government ousted him from power because they knew it would mess with their plans.

The Soviets were already planning to invade Germany; they attacked to try and take them out of the war so they wouldn't be able to attack, but they hadn't planned out the invasion as much as they thought they had.

They violated the Hague conventions about attacking civilians, pretty hollow to whinge about Germany hurting cilivians when you are hurting German civilians as well.

Liberals, Conservatives, everyone can do comedy.

The problem is bringing your political bias into your act. If you do so, it alienates the opposition and panders to those who agree with you.

Only Colbert-Report Colbert and Jon Stewart could pull off having a bent and still be funny because their schtick had more dimensions than simply "ED GOOD, ROCKO BAD!". To use an example.

Current Year Man and his fellow Daily Show Alumni pale in comparison because the transition television comedy (indeed, all television) had from entertainment to propaganda was so gradual, many people still don't notice. The way they all repeated easy Trump jokes while completely ignoring Clinton's shady activities (or in the case of CYM, likening it to an oatmeal-raisin cookie) exposed a monolithic synchronized narrative that all 6 media companies want us to believe. Even if Trump was the lesser of two evils, there is no way to tell because all media has a spin and you can't trust anyone.

And when there's nobody to trust, at least one can enjoy a comedy act that makes fun of all sides.

t. roastie

Go ahead, refute anything said in those images.

Three hundred and six people to be exact. :'^)

We all know who is behind those

Damn youre mad kid

He wasn't exactly ousted so much as discredited. He fucked up too much in the 20s so he was left out in the cold in the 30s. He was also one of the few to see that Britain should deter German aggression by arming. Ironically, Churchill, had he been in power pre-1939, perhaps would've stopped the war. After all, if you want peace, prepare for war.
Where they now?
Don't quote Suvorov at me, that's bullshit and you know it
Where have I ever whinged about German atrocities? In any case, the main point is Germany started this shit, yet you jerrycucks give Germany a pass when they bomb civilians, yet when the Brits do it you whine about muh eternal anglo

Don't you have a brit/pol/ thread to fag up?

What would they do if the corporate state stopped defending them from the left? Funny how they only use their precious 'muh Second Amendment' to shoot other poor people, rather than fight tyranny. Hell, they vote for tyrants, they love authority's cock. An NRA membership is basically a t-shirt that says "Ask Me About Cuckoldry".

Based Alfred kill the nords
Scour the plains and cleanse the fjords
From Saxon fury they run squealing
Don't leave a single snownigger breathing

Norwegians truly make me sick
Swedes all choke on Muslim dick
Finns are Mongols at their core
But still I'd fuck a Danish whore

'Scandinavia strong' so they say
Nordic cunts I long to slay
I truly hate you like no other
I'll murder all the northern 'brothers'

878 was a glorious year
Strong Saxons do Nordcunts fear
Don't come back to England's shore
Or Alfred will fuck you some more

yeah, how did that work out in the long term?

Is this another stolen image or is this the first OC ever made by leftypol?

...

well, you nigger