btw if Britain makes you seethe then I suggest posting in one of the other british seethe threads

>>18460136
Instead of legalizing abortion and getting rid of the death penalty make getting an abortion punishable by the death penalty

>>18460136
>save Britain from its own poorly made decision making, what would you do?
Anon, you're living in the good timeline.

The idea that everything got fucked up for Britain due to WW2 and its aftermath is absolutely bonkers. Look at the other big imperial powers of the world:
>endless forever rebellions
>constant political crisis
>both of the above doubled in severity by economic issues

Meanwhile Britain:
>cut unprofitable colonies loose, somehow convinced the decent ones (aka, the white settler ones) to retain close political and economic ties to Britain
>British monarch remains monarch of a shitload of the globe
>Britain's image goes from one of several big evil colonisers to the plucky underdog good guys
>Within a few years of VE Day Britain has a revolutionary healthcare system which all citizens can use
>British participation in WW2 immortalises both the nation and those who fought for it as heroes
>Britain marches happily and relatively peacefully ahead

Every major "fuck up" was either a case of
>some retard overplaying their hand
or
>people not being telepathic

There are a thousand other scenarios where the United Kingdom gets torn apart from the inside, with thousands dead and millions spent fighting to cling to colonies or a huge radical leftist mob bringing everything down.
>so what do you do?
Whatever it takes to make sure Churchill doesn't get back into power, simple as that.

Have labour win a larger majority in the 1950 election

>>18460136
Britains fate was sealed in 1939 when they decalred an unprovoked war on Hitler.
Hitler forgive us.

>>18460188
Why did Hitler unjustly declare war on Poland knowing it would force France and Britian to declare war on them?

>>18460177
Yeah this is what I wonder sometimes, despite what people say about how much Britain has declined, in actuality it has managed the loss of an empire probably better than any other empire in history. Its actually remarkable that Britain never had a civil war or anything but people just got on with things.

What do you think would be different if Britain didnt elect Churchill in 1950?

>>18460267
>despite what people say about how much Britain has declined, in actuality it has managed the loss of an empire probably better than any other empire in history
This is basically it, yeah. I have always wondered if Britain's geography was the true defining factor of what many know as British exceptionalism; their extra layer of protection from foreign intervention allowed for leaps and bounds domestically-Britain had most of the religious and political strife that plagued Europe for centuries over and done with by the end of the 17th Century.
>What do you think would be different if Britain didnt elect Churchill in 1950?
The expanded answer would be to do whatever is necessary to ensure that Gaitskellism not only wins out over Bevanism but that it does so quickly and totally, *then* make sure they win in 1951.

Of course such a big divergence can only lead us to sheer speculation, but the key point is that in this case the UK enters the 1950s lead by a government which has not only the needs and ambitions of its people close to heart-but one that's pragmatic about it. Tankies hate this because it isn't their ebin red revolution, and others mald because they see Labour as unpatriotic, but the truth is that such an outcome could have avoided many of the serious pitfalls that ruined Britain.

So much of the UK's problems after WW2 can be found in;
>retarded LARPer (like Churchill) trying to play pretend as an Empire
>wannabe Churchills trying to needlessly harsh to impose a ham-fisted end (even at a loss) to any bad situation
No plan, no vision, no pragmatism, just "what do you mean you aren't doing what we say?"

God only knows if the endless nationalisation or extended rationing would have fucked Britain or allowed it to narrowly survive the next several decades in a much less dramatic way. Suez, the Troubles, decolonisation-all of it would almost certainly been handled far better by basically anyone than Churchill and his cabal of seething empire larpers.

>>18460257
>unjustly

>>18460137
Cope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsLAdKk4t7U

>>18460295
>no rebuttal
Yes unjust. Germany had no jurisdiction to demand anything in Danzig or within Polish borders.

>>18460267
Britains decline came around the millennium. We had an incredible economy and standard of living in the 90s. The Empire could not last forever, trying to make it so is fantasy.

>>18460444
And Britain had no right to sell the birthrightof her white children into the garbage. Cruel world.

>>18460136
Okay if I were to do anything besides the obvious of sending back all immigrants after a few years of working here (which would probably had great economic benifits for former colonies but oh well)
>Keep existing laws (or create new ones) that prevent buildings being taller than local churches
>Make laws making sure buildings are built to standards and aesthetic of traditional buildings
>Keep closer ties to dominions to allow sending/deporting people
>Keep oil rich colonies
>Not spunk north sea gas but instead do what Norway did

>>18460136
Realistically Britain was always going to get taken over by the mongrel US empire and get mongrelized as a result. If they wanted to save themselves they should have nuked Washington DC

>>18460257
Poland shouldn't have unjustly invaded Danzig, knowing it would force Germany to declare war on them

By starting WW2, Poland saved all of mankind from germshit savages

>>18460507
Germany had no jurisdiction over Danzig. Even if they did Poland never invaded Danzig. They were allowed to have troops stationed in the city.

>>18460470
Strange whataboutism. Why can't yoy address the points?

>>18460136
>If you could go back to any time after VE Day in order to save Britain
Define save? Do you mean no brown people? That is easy never have guest workers. Dispite the fact that they shitup the place you could not have a proper economic recovery without that cheap labour. Im not saying if the trade off was worth it or not, but you would have a much poorer Britian.
But they real answer is that to save Britian they needed to Stay neutral in ww1 somehow. People grossly underestimate how devastating ww1 was for the British economy and the stability of its Empire.
Ww2 was just the nail in the Empire coffin but ww1 was when the terminal ilness was contracted

>>18460573
Because you're Jewish.

>>18460295
>no you don't understand, germany has the right to help expand the borders of the USSR

What does every thread have to involve a schizo argument over who started ww2?? nobody cares

May 8: VE day
July 5: elections

We have to work fast to prevent a Labour victory. Churchill promises social spending like labour except without the socialist planned economic nonsense and social degeneracy, he exposes Attlee's sympathy for homosexuals and Stalin. If successful Churchill begins massive borrowing and imports of American technology and machinery, the government kickstarts it with some infrastructure projects but this has to shift to cutting interest rates for businesses and encouraging them to expand and diversify.

Develop the atom bomb as quickly as possible then the H bomb, a large expense but hardly crippling, also nerve gas and other chemical weapons.

Refuse to leave the colonies. Organize with other colonial powers to navally blockade the colonies from communist insurrection and set up a system of forts along the Chinese border to prevent arms smuggling overland to India and Indochina. Gift chemical weapons like nazi nerve gas Tabun to France so they can win in Vietnam and Algeria. If there is civil disobedience, shut down the ports, navigable rivers and railroads and pin the chaos on the protestors. If there is violence, send African troops to India and VV to restore order, colonial troops will be highly trained and disciplined so they simply kill enemy combatants not get rapey rapey, if this isn't enough, use gas like the French. Set up meme civilian governments while maintaining that the British Empire is the national army of these countries.

The main focus is on innovating and taking advantage of the postwar economic boom while ensuring that the benefits go to our supporters, supporters of the empire, supporters of the conservatives and politicians among the left that veer to the right. When the American 1950s dream starts to crumble and turn into 1960s degeneracy, have the media monitor it closely and report on the negative effects, the crime in the inner city. Allow free and open debate on race and intelligence.

>>18460615
I'm not Jewish. Now you are projecting and deflecting. Pathetic

>>18460572
Restricting food imports into the city was a unilateral act of aggression. Increasing the garrison against international law (through smuggling in soldiers dressed as civilians) added further pressure for the city to capitulate. No one denies the Poles did either of these things. It is not Nazi propaganda. You can learn about it from a simple google search.
If France and England had no choice but to come to Poland's defense (thus honoring their treaty) Germany had no choice but to come to Danzig's defense (thus honoring its close alliance with the NSDAP authorities in Danzig). Either we grant free will to the actors involved or we deny its existence.
The Poles knew that strangling and illegally occupying Danzig meant war with Germany, and they knew war with Germany meant triggering France and England's involvement. They chose to trigger that conflict anyway.

>>18460875
If they had a casus belli then why did they commit several false flags

>>18460901
You're changing the subject. You want to change the debate to Operation Himmler because you can't defend Poland's actions regarding Danzig. I interpret this to be a concession on that issue.
Perhaps we can debate the specifics of Operation Himmler some other time but I will need to read up further on the evidence regarding it. It is possible the truth is more nuanced than you want to construe it as (ie: there were some well-placed false flags amidst a wide array of legitimate border incidents). Considering there were many violent border incidents that occurred in the 1920s, well before Hitler came to power, I don't consider this to be an unbelievable or conspiratorial narrative. Polish newspapers such as Illustrowany Kuryer Codzienny openly bragged about such incidents.
Regardless, the border incidents were not the impetus for the war. Hitler mentions Danzig eight times in his declaration of war speech. He doesn't mention Gleiwitz a single time.

>>18460875
>>18461001
What if we give Danzig to the League of Nations

>>18460136
>So what would you do?
switch to communism

>>18460257
>declare war
he didn't
he just invaded

>>18460875
>. Increasing the garrison against international law (through smuggling in soldiers dressed as civilians) added further pressure for the city to capitulate.
funny, germans didn't knew that

>>18460875
>Restricting food imports into the city
elaborate and source