https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-us-and-uk-are-split-on-the-ukraine-war-weapons-russia-oligarchs-churchill-8540ef60?mod=e2two
https://archive.is/PfVKW
THE ENTERNAL:ANGLO
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-us-and-uk-are-split-on-the-ukraine-war-weapons-russia-oligarchs-churchill-8540ef60?mod=e2two
https://archive.is/PfVKW
>Armies use foreign advisors
yes
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE
>foreign “advisors”
PERFIDIOUS ALBION STRIKES AGAIN
Blew my mind to learn that the whole perfidious anglo meme started from butthurt frogs seething the bongs destroyed their fleet instead of letting them hand it over to the Germans.
That + the first US combat deaths in the Mediterranean theater coming at the hands of French soldiers made me realize the whole thing is French coping and deflecting.
>perfidious anglo
This goes back to the Napoleonic wars, anon
>Noooooo, why won't you let us conquer Europe it's not faaaaaair!
Prior to Napoleon getting his ass kicked I don't think there was a 30 year span in 800 years in which the French weren't planning to invade England, but somehow the Anglo is the perfidious one.
I think the French were a bit pre-occupied with other matters to consider sailing to England and conquering it during the HYW.
Now that's a beautiful map.
dow do you even fuck up in this position? This has C'EST FINI written all over it
You get JOAN'd.
>Have a really good king
>Things in a tense situation go very well
>Have a really bad child king
>Things in a tense situation go very well
Henry VI is a bigger fuckup than John Lackland by a large, large margin
Burgundy was carrying england through the war, when they dropped out it was insta gg no re
It was basically a dynastic civil war (or at least started as such), and the French kings had to deal with ambitious nobles trying to profit from the confusion by shifting their loyalties/alliances (Burgundy, Brittany...), the Black Death, peasant revolts, etc. The Kings of England already had large territories in France before the war (their richest lands in fact) thanks to Eleanor of Aquitaine. 1429 was also just after the death of a crazy French king, like "attacking his own knights because he thinks they're demons" and "holy shit I'm made of glass and I'm gonna break" levels of crazy. The man signed a treaty calling himself a cuckhold, disinheriting his son and making the future English king his heir. Pretty much the nadir of France in this era. That was when Jeanne d'Arc showed up.
To be more accurate, the HYW was a succession of 3 wars in a span of 116 years, England won the first one and France the last two.
England's political situation was weak and the Burgundians switched sides
Hundred Years War is actually like three wars over 116 years. But to answer your question; France had a shit King, England had a decent one. Allies were on one side, then shifted. Then France and England swapped competent kings, mixture of natural events (Black Death) and changes in technology (the French brought cannons, nullifying advantages the English had) and other political shit/threats (Scotland for example).
The French won and hilariously wrote a lot of bullshit. For example, French cuisine is actually not really French at all. It's partly Italian and English (if you can call the mainlanders on France 'English') but they said 'Oh no it's mine' and combined with other memes such as Americans eating rationed meals in UK during WW2 created 'bad food meme' when historically a lot of famous dishes are either English (hamburgers) or English adjacent (lasagna, cheesecake etc).
End of the day, wars are never really cut and dry. It's a bit like playing a grand strategy game and then having your high stat leader die at an important time and shit starting to spiral.
By having a incompetent king that was raised by a regents and by not upgrading your army
Waifus, as it would turn out.
>Bordeaux
VGH
Damn, what a wonderful looking map.
France had a much bigger population than the UK for most of the last millennium. During Napoleonic war there was about 40m French compared to 15m bongs.
Being the underdog in these conflicts the bongs heavily used alliances, politicking, money and sea power to achieve victory. Completely avoiding taking on Frances much greater land power head on. Hence the 'perfidous' label.
French Napoleonic propaganda liked to paint themselves as a new Rome (an unstoppable noble land power destined to shape the fate of Europe) and Britain as Carthage (a mercantile seapower obsessed with gold and heavily reliant mercenaries).
It's how around 1000 years of Anglo-French history goes. The frog cries out in pain as he strikes you.
That's just complete nonsense. The frogs have been calling the anglos perfidious for centuries.
The Anglo-French rivalry is something much deeper and long-term than other geopolitical rivalries. Other rivalries marvel at it. Even the Danes and Swedes shake their heads in amazement; admiration for it is the only common ground between the Scots and their sworn enemies, the Scots.
If England or France is threatened by a third party, the other will IMMEDIATELY ally with them to destroy the interloper. "Nobody but *I* may be allowed to defeat you". It defines them, hones them, provides them with sustenance.
"Perfidious Albion" is a term of endearment much more than an epithet. England and France are like that married couple that bicker and fight in public constantly, yet they'll never divorce because the hate-fucking is just too damned good.
No. It really boils down to us having learned our lesson at Munich and the Rhineland: No more appeasement.
At long last, we’re following through with Operation Unthinkable and our early efforts to contain the Russians after the communist revolution. Yes, the Baltics will remain free. Yes, Finland’s independence is guaranteed. Yes, Poland will have a fair deal. Yes, the Bosphorus will remain closed. Yes, we will dismantle the Russian Federation once and for all.
There’s no stopping us. We’re the main mary sue protagonists of history.
>destroyed their fleet instead of letting them hand it over to the Germans.
The French were never going to hand over their fleet to the Germans. They scuttled their fleet at Toulon and that was in rapidly-getting-occupied Vichy. It was a pointless act of aggression against an ally.
Yes, but anon is referring to the Mers-El-Kebir raid, which in the context of Petain’s coup to overthrow the government, and beginning collaboration with the Germans and Italians fully justifies the Royal Navy sinking those ships after the French Admirality refused to have the ships escorted to a neutral 3rd country and, most crucially refused to recognize De Gaulle as the legitimate president of the republic (by virtue of being the only minister who escaped Petain’s arrests).
I would have done the exact same thing as the British.
They made a separate peace and these were the elements of the French navy that pledged loyalty to a collaborationist Nazi rump state. It was a tragedy but a necessary one.
The French at Mers-el-Kebir refused to allow their fleet to be interned by a neutral party. They got what they deserved.
Imagine having to be fought and defeated AGAIN before agreeing to free your homeland from the Germs.
Imagine having more French join the Milice to kill their own freedom fighters, than there were French joining the Maquis.
Imagine even giving up the Battle of France so comprehensively in the first place that resistance just basically collapsed five days after the attack.
And they still got off lightly compared to what we did to the Danes in the Napoleonic wars. Although that was precipitated by the Russians selling the Danish fleet to the french, and it was neither the Russians to sell or the French's to buy.
Just give us your fucking fleets, jees.
It was the navy of a rump state tacitly in support of the German state. They were given a chance to peaceably remove the ships from the med but refused.
It was a necessary tragedy.
the perfidious frog lies again
>Blew my mind to learn that the whole perfidious anglo meme started from butthurt frogs seething the bongs destroyed their fleet instead of letting them hand it over to the Germans.
It's many centuries older and they shot at ships with frogs in them.
The "perfidious" part comes from the fact that Britain has a (justified) reputation for frequently switching sides. The reason for this is that Britain, as an island nation, has always been paranoid about some other European nation uniting the continent by force and eventually turning their eyes on the British Isles. Britain has therefore worked to maintain the balance of power between European nations, which inevitably leads to MANY "friendship ended with x" moments.
Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see.
Thankyou Humphrey, that will be all.
Americans aren't an*lo.
russians are orcs
murricans are uruk-hai
>lotr
Grow up and read literature made for adults. Try Thoreau
No one tell him about the last ring bearer
>mandchild living in ma's garden shed
>literature made for adults
Wasn't it Emerson's shed?
>Grow up
>growing up means read what I read and do what I do!
K fag. Who are you again?
It means stop reading books meant for children, simpleton.
Tolkien was anti-hitler, he wasn’t a nazi chud like based Henry Ford.
Shut the fuck up retard
most burgers are Hispanics or germans in heritage
shut the fuck up, retard
The largest haplogroup among non-hispanic white americans is Celtic British followed by German and Norse I. They are ethnically and culturally descended from Brits and Krauts.
only a retard would willingly call himself a perfidious albion
Americans fought to be free from these subhumans
It's not a real disagreement. The chief reason for American hesitation to send more weaponry is to not look like a warmongering nation to the 'global south' so we can continue advertise this war as a fight between good and evil and prevent the third world from buying into Russian propaganda insisting that this is a war for American imperialism to expand its NATO empire eastward. If the US looks like the arbiter in the coalition supporting Ukraine then it doesn't look like a coalition supporting Ukraine. The UK understands the intricacies of international politics and is taking up these leadership roles to help carry the diplomatic burden from the US to improve the overall global opinion in favor of Ukraine.
The other reason for American hesitation which is more often quoted is "escalation" but it is quite clear that this is not a legitimate concern.
There's also a chance American politics may change and will no longer support the Ukraine in the future, in which case it's important the UK is stepping up to fill that leadership void should it come to pass.
>the Ukraine
*Ukraine
>not look like a warmongering nation to the 'global south'
I think that ship sailed a while ago. I think it more about not wanting to weaken Russia's presence in central Asia too much as China is filling every vacuum there.
>The chief reason for American hesitation to send more weaponry is to not look like a warmongering nation...
In contrast, the UK is nostalgic for the days of when it was still a warmongering nation...
I think for the UK it's more about that ship having sailed already. So many countries are going to be against the UK no matter what, if only because their failing governments need a scapegoat and lasting colonial asshurt is a good way to drive up national pride. If they've already formed their opinions it doesn't matter what you do, so do what you must.
High IQ post. Whilst they are in broad agreement in approach, they are fulfilling different roles diplomatically.
Underneath that the Russian menace is a bigger security priority for the bongs that it is for the burgers. So it is in the bongs interest to shape allied policy as much as possible. The publicly visible element of that is being constantly at the front of the line in providing gear to Ukraine.
Largely it isn't. Brits see empire the same way the French, Spanish, Portuguese and so on see theirs: history.
The UK remains a upper middle weight power with a long reach and lots of friends however. Unlike other comparitive countries it does try and shape the trajectory of world events with all its tools, including military power. That is not the same as hankering after lost glory.
>High IQ post.
Oh no, the mongoloids from 4chan are here with their high double digits IQs.
lmao you're not going to sway any shitholer's opinion with that smart considerate shit. they will be butthurt at the west no matter what.
Magnanimous messaging to the turd world is actually intended for developed countries in Europe, East Asia, and Oceania. The message is "we are a reasonable actor, we will not thuggishly punish you for disagreeing with us, or criticizing us in a video game." Which is meant to contrast China.
It's already paying dividends with Australia further tightening ties with the US after China's impotent wolf warrior diplomacy got them nothing but embarrassment and rolling blackouts.
>not look like a warmongering nation to the 'global south'
If you genuinely believe this is a concern or that they don't already think so you must be an absolute retard.
Good post BUT, I think more effective would be support Ukraine to the hilt and cite inability to compromise on allowing forceful redrawing of borders - no one wants that to become a norm. At the same time follow Japanese diplomatic doctrine with the global south: stop emphasising nebulous "democracy vs autocracy" moral shit and focus on competence, continued privileged access to wealthy western markets etc.
South Africa does about 9% of it's trade with the US (fucking TARIFF FREE) and 0.2% with Russia. Maybe they should figure out exactly what is going on at their "secure" military ports and pick a fucking side. What's BRICS worth compared to privileged access to EU and US. Carrot and stick instead of just carrot.
Yeah, but they also STEAL and BRIBE a lot more with the Russians than with the US. You have to remember what keeps Russia and its allies going is not the money that is available to the public but literal criminal schemes.
Except for our fren Portugal 🙂
Meant for
Where the fuck did this 'global south' term come from out of nowhere? 'Third world' was a better euphemism for 'shithole countries' even if it didn't start out that way.
Leftists so they can talk about their love of corruption and oppression without using a term with a negative connection
If I remember right, Maoism. Or was that the "global village"? Anyway, its all marxist. The university and state department kooks read and take that shit seriously, the idiots.
Third world is defunct because the first, second, third world thing just meant US-aligned/Liberal capitalist (or good at faking it, like South Korea until the 1990s and various South American countries), USSR-aligned socialist, and neither, respectively. This means that you've got goofy shit like the Philippines being first-world and Finland being third-world. When you use it to mean decent, poor, and bad, then it's kind of retarded. Non-aligned Yugoslavia (third world) was a nicer place to live than lower republics of the USSR for the most part (second-world).
I don't like shitlib neologisms but I consider Global South to be fairly benign. It's poorer countries concentrating towards the south of the globe.
The numbering of worlds is completely wrong these days. It's about time of discovery. It's not first world, it's old world , meaning Europe and the nations of the silk road + india and he African Mediterranean, the places known to antiquity. no one refers to anywhere as second world because no one has ever called it that, it's the new world , meaning north and south America, as a new world was discovered. So yes, america will never be "first world" get over it. Third world is everywhere else discovered later or with 0 significance until later. Africa south of the Sudan , Asia south of China and Polynesia, Australia, the Asiatic steppe of of Mongols (practically all of Russia east of the crimea) and the bulk of central asia ending in stan, i.e Uzbekistan.
>it is quite clear that this is not a legitimate concern.
The US has at least 70 years of demonstrating that they consider fear of escalating with the Russians serious enough to ignore outrageous provocation and restrain themselves in tit-for-tat dirty tricks. I don't think it's an entirely hollow explanation.
Always gonna be weird to me how China and Russia seethe over American aggression when if the US had wanted to, they could've systematically genocided all asiatic bugmen back in the 40s and 50s. Maybe it's just projection.
Bros, I hate the global south so much it's fucking unreal.
10/10 bait
5000 HATO generals have been liquidated.
>their guiding influence on Ukrainian special-forces activities is evident
Why is Boris Johnson so evil?
You know what?
I unironically hate the brits. But good on them, fuck vatniks.
How does he find the time to father moe children while wadding around in Russian gore?
A war where you're not taking a side and getting experience for your SF is a war wasted. Anglos know.
Nothing new. Just England being the first, last, and best line of defence for white people 500 years and counting.
The UK has a variety of reasons for getting so invested in Ukraine. They need to prove to Europe (and to a lesser extent the world) that just because they left the EU doesn't mean they're not a very useful military ally (so plz be nice on trade agreements).
The retard Conservatives need a jingoistic drum to beat to distract from their increasingly shitty management of the country, while no one in Labor wants to allow Corbyn and his band of moronic 5th columnists a chance to get back into the party and become an influential political voice.
Finally I suspect the entirety of the UK intel/security apparatus got really pissed off by the whole "Using weapons-grade chemical weapons on our soil" thing.
It's weird seeing the Burgers being the overtly cautious ones. Guess the cowboy days are over.
It's more that people somehow fail to understand just how much the UK government fucking hates the Kremlin for conducting sloppy assassinations with random civilian casualties on its soil. The US is reticent to further alienate the global south and as its the visible heavyweight on the Western bloc it needs to move slowly and hide behind the smaller states on the alliance being seen as acting first (sometimes coordinated and sometimes from genuine fervor like with the Poles and Baltics).
The UK has hated Muscovy far longer than that
The great game never ended
Didn't the Limey invade Russia after WW1. I feel like even some US troops were involved
several nations intervened in the Russian civil war. Britain sent a task force to the baltic to destroy communist ships (they literally sailed a couple torpedo boats into Krontstat and torpedoed 2 battleships and crippled soviet submarine operations), evacuated a bunch of nobles on a battleship (including the guy who domed rasputin) and sent a few hundred troops to support the whites in Murmansk
Churchill ofc wanted to fumigate the communists with phosgene and mustard gas and I think history has proven him right.
>Spread radioactive material around country
>Kill and harm bong civilians in assassination crossfire
>Constantly try to enforce a new Russian World Order that no-one except the most retarded vatnik wants
>Attempt to manipulate elections
>Threaten bong leaders over the phone
>"NOOOOO WHAT IS THE ETERNAL ANGLO HATING US SO MUCH?? RUSSIA DINDDU NUFFIN!"
Turn Moscow into the next Dresden.
bong leaders over the phone
Go on...
Imagine having to have the Bongs show you up diplomatically so you actually do something.
The US' foreign policy has always been garbage.
So this thread started about the war in Ukraine, and as usual, obsessed anglos couldn't help but bring their seething towards France at the table
More about the geopolitics behind why the UK's approach has differed from the US, which naturally lead to perfidious albion posting, an angry frog spreading lies and now we're here. It's all in good humour anon.
The difference between the US & UK position is mostly by degrees of fervour, rather than disagreement on desired outcome or part to that. UK being a little bit more on the 'arm Ukraine now!' end of the spectrum than the US.
The eternal Anglo v French frenemy thing just has more depths to discuss.
A French president a decade or two ago put it best: 'of all our enemies, the Brits are our favourite'. The idea of returning to times when everyone wore funny hats, brightly coloured uniforms and fought with anger and honour (and excellent mustaches) seems very comfy.
Make way
Anglos are better than retarded Muscovestites
>three Western government sources tell me
Oh boy, more anonymous sources from (checks calender) almost a year ago that have never been confirmed by anyone else. Sure does seem super credible to me.