The White Rabbit ☦️

You're wrong about WW2 and the "Nazi" myths, but that involves a lot of layered propaganda that's difficult to disentangle. You need to understand things like memory conformity, the development of the story, et cetera. But there is ZERO, and I mean ZERO, even prima facie case you could possibly make that rejecting a white peace from Imperial Germany in April of 1915, was a good thing. archive.nytimes.com/iht-retr… - You can claim the talk about the Belgian Congo are absurd, or that you disagree with the refusal to indemnify Belgium. There are two problems with these "objections" 1. This is an opening pitch from Germany. If the British wanted peace, they could at least agree to talks and try to talk Germany down. The British refused any talks whatsoever. It is standard practice to enter negotiations demanding more than you really want. To refuse ANY peace talks whatsoever on the basis of Germany's opening gambit is a bloodthirsty form of dishonesty. 2. These demands, even if unreasonable and the Germans unwilling to budge on them - hardly constitute an existential threat to anyone. This reality needs to be stated openly and plainly. There was no existential threat to France, or Russia, or the British Empire, or even Belgium. If you're super-concerned about Serbia (moreso than Britain was in the 1940s, first couping them and using them as a speedbump against Hitler in 1941, then handing them over to Stalin in 1945), well - maybe FUCKING TALK about it like a HUMAN BEING, not some war-death-golem. There's one explanation for why Britain refused talks of any sort: they were worried that the Germans would agree to something sensible. And when you go back to World War 2 - there are all of these "reasons" for that war. You say Hitler violated the Munich agreement, therefore he cannot be trusted. I invite you to pull your head from your ass and actually read it (it's not long). encyc.org/wiki/Text_of_the_M… Hitler didn't exercise his right to plebiscites on additional territories by the way. Hitler also never promised no more territorial expansion, that was a deliberate mistranslation of a speech which - in case you didn't know - wouldn't constitute a treaty violation anyway! I'm sorry if Chamberlain impressed his hallucinations of what Hitler agreed to onto the British public. Think of it like this: how do we know the US Civil War wasn't about slavery? Because if it were, Lincoln would sent an ultimatum to the CSA saying "free the slaves and we'll recognize the CSA". Now, what "freedom" means, and the logistics of it all are something tremendous to work out, but broad strokes - if slavery was the problem, then work to solve the problem. Okay, if the occupation of Czechia was a problem, then Henderson and Halifax ought to have approached Hitler and said to leave Czechia. What would have been the downside to doing so? If Hitler says "no", then you're back where you started. If Hitler says "yes", but doesn't follow through, well now you have real evidence of Hitler's untrustworthiness AND you've likely reduced the integration of Czechia into the German war economy at least slightly. And if Hitler says "yes" and follows through, well - then the problem that Chamberlain, Churchill, Henderson and Halifax were screaming bloody murder that they just cared so fucking much about - would be solved! Or, and this is often brought up, "The Nazis secured 35 divisions worth of military equipment from the Czechs". Well first of all, that's strong evidence of Hitler's claim that Czechia lay as a dagger deep inside Germany, ready to strike at any moment of Germany's preoccupation. But second off - if that equipment is TRULY a concern, then ask for that military equipment to be redistributed between Britain, France and Germany. The worst that could happen is Hitler says no. There is an enormous volume of negative space, what the British DIDN'T DO, that evidences what they truly wanted: another death war against Germany. There were no overtures to actually solve the issues that the British supposedly cared about. Emil Hacha requires a guarantee of independence from Britain. Not only is he told "no", he's told by Halifax to travel to Berlin and make a deal with Germany. Halifax knew precisely what he was doing. Then, instead of trying to set up some sort of arrangement wrt Czechia, Britain immediately fires off war guarantees to Poland, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia. Incidentally, the guarantee bound Britain to war with Poland even if Poland was deemed the aggressor, though Beck didn't directly invade Germany proper - as that would put Britain in an awkward position. Instead he occupies Danzig. Technically, as a member of the League of Nations, Britain was bound to go to war WITH POLAND to uphold the sovereignty of Danzig. The opening shots of the German invasion was an obsolete German dreadnought firing on Polish positions in Danzig. On September 2, Hitler agreed to a ceasefire and mediation with Mussolini. This is not what someone determined to conquer Poland would do - you don't halt an offensive right off the jump if you had some long-range goal of conquering Poland. But as we know, Beck rejected peace, and the next day Britain and France declared war, starting the war that would kill millions of Europeans, hand over half of Europe to Stalin, with the British refusing to even entertain the possibility of peace.