Churchill was quite based actually

Why do I see so much aversion to this man here? Churchill was a hero. If only he had been permitted by Roosevelt and Truman to do things his own way, we would live in a far safer and more stable world today.
>was a nationalist who tried his best to preserve the empire
>eliminated the evils of nazism and led the fight against the madman hitler
>wanted to go to war with the soviets
>wanted to partition china

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xtasXQu70H4
youtu.be/jgGP_evkvOk
foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
youtube.com/watch?v=hbp61fOVFaE&list=PL0GfvwQ6PY1olHR_IgFW1m8mClrMV__En&index=17
archive.is/fzVxx
youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Yp28WN18
veteranstoday.com/2015/08/02/churchill-lied-about-hitler/
veteranstoday.com/2015/09/24/churchill-was-a-mass-murderer-and-worshipped-mammon
twitter.com/AnonBabble

He was not based.

We just talked about this at my synagogue. He did seem very based.

Not an argument. You can't supply a single reason why churchill was not a great man.

He was a zionist who goaded the US into the war in Europe, a war the ultimately ruined western civilization.

>He was a zionist
So? Why do I give a damn if a bunch of jews have their own state in the middle east?
>goaded the US into the war in Europe
That's what makes him a hero. He wanted to preserve real nationalism. He praised the fascists for staving off bolshevism until they went off the rails

>preserve real nationalism

Yeah, way to go. Paris, London, and DC are all minority majority cities now. Real nationalism died in 1945. Globalist kikery has replaced it.

Churchill was a fucking numpty. His campaign in the Dardanelles was a flop. Eat a dick you revisionist faggot

>Yeah, way to go. Paris, London, and DC are all minority majority cities now
And how can you blame churchill for that? He actually fought to prevent that. He even invented the slogan "keep britain white"

and Churchill would have thought trump was an idiot cunt

He was a fat faggot piece of shit. Should've been shot

>>was a nationalist who tried his best to preserve the empire
Top kek, epic b8 m8.

I blame Churchill because he was a Zionist who fought off the last real advocate for ethnic nationalism.

>Zionist freemason
>"based"
>Was fine with allying with the USSR

Fpbp

youtube.com/watch?v=xtasXQu70H4

Salty stormcucks who think that Germany's thirty year chimpout should have gone unanswered.
>b-but you see they had to firebomb Rotterdam to save them from the Russians!

Thanks for saving us from those evil Nazis. It'd be a shame I'd such xenophobic meanies were in charge.

Confirmed for knowing nothing about WWII. He purposely entreated Roosevelt to focus the campaign against Hitler in north Africa partly because he wishes to preserve the lifeline of the empire.
>last real advocate for ethnic nationalism.
But Churchill advocated for this long after the death of Hitler. Ethnonationalism was becoming the standard in the West, it was Hitler himself who tarnished its reputation.
Yes we all know about galipoli. He wasn't a great military thinker, but he was a visionary and a great leader

>kike shill
>based
Oven yourself.

>Hitler tarnished it's reputation

Hitler was only made out to be this super villian because of the very Zionists Churchill empowered. Blaming the death of nationalism or ethnonationalism on Hitler is absurd. It was the propaganda campaigns afterwards that changed public opinion. Guess who was behind that.

The fact that he supported, for one reason or another, the creation of israel doesn't make him responsible for everything done by a person of jewish descent.
And how can you be outraged at the zionists, but not at Hitler's evil?

>great leader
>complete retard who got thousands killed
>pick one

Why do you think Zionists only cared about the creation of an Israeli state? Globalism and the breakdown of national culture was also a driving motivation behind the movement.

>Hitler's evil
He did nothing exceptionally "evil". Genocide wasn't his motivation and he wasn't particularly cruel in his warfare techniques. His reputation as a caricature of evil is pure propaganda, created by the Jews he exposed.

He was indebted to the Jews from his father. He was a degenerate drunk and gambler, thus requiring another Jew to bail him out.

And his leadership saved Europe

Thank you, based Churchill. It'd be a shame if those evil Nazis had ruined Europe.

Hitler was a savage. You can't blame churchill for what happened after his desth. This was the responsibility of the men who followed him

>savage

War is savage. Firebombing and nuking civilian populations is savage. WW1, with its widespread use of chemical weapons, was more "savage" than WW2.

I can blame Churchill for the foundation he deliberately laid for Zionists to ruin the West.

Saved Europe. Really. Could've fooled me.
Churchill and his fuckbuddy monty
were cockups and you know it.

How is nuking savage? Why is the life of a civilian worth more than the lives of many soldiers?

Churchill saved Europe from an evil neurotic who worshiped war and murdered millions without cause. He then proceeded to petition on behalf of white nationalism.

>how are nukes savage

Radiation poisoning, damaged genetic material, 3rd degree burns.

>why is deliberately targeting civilians bad
Idk, you tell me.

>evil neurotic who worshipped war
Meme after meme. Do you have any legitimate criticism of Hitler that doesn't also implicate the Allies?

churchill was a retard

Nukes saved lives and causes less pain than actual grounf battles
And the allies never deliberately murdered milliond of innocent people

>incompetent military leader
>destroyed the empire, sold off technology and bases to us
>amazing foresight of essentially giving the U.S. nukes and russia functioning jet engines
The only thing he had going for him was a decent speech writer.

He sold out to the Jews in the 30's.
He wasn't based he was a traitor.
Took a bribe from the CEO Shell oil, and the (((Focus))) group.

Firebombing Tokyo and Dresden killed a million civilians alone. The Japanese were offering to surrender weeks before we dropped the nukes. Hell, the military lied to Truman and told him that the targets were military targets.

It's ridiculous to assert that we have any moral high ground in World War 2. The only reason it wasn't Roosevelt and Churchill on trial at Nuremberg is because we won.

Proof of any of this?

He could have just sat back, not march against Germany and that would have saved the empire without one single dead Brit, while Hitler and Stalin would have slugged it out in the east

Also, he forced 200.000 White Boers into the war and replaced them with niggers by Mandate, basicaly destroying the "Tribal Homelands policy" in South africa, selling out the Boer.

If he had done nothing, or just get into a truce like Germans wanted, the empire would still be there today
and you call the guy based ?

This is recommended viewing. David Irving is a historian and this is one of his speeches.
youtu.be/jgGP_evkvOk

...

Add to that the fact he wanted to destroy Germany itself, not Hitler, and you realize yeah, he wasn't based at all.

Your statement about Japan is nonsense. Nearly all of the allied generals agreed that Japan was still a threat
And none of it would have been necessary if not for the military aggression of hitler

Japan was offering to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The only reason the nukes were dropped is because we wanted to scare off the Soviets.

foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

>Hitler is responsible for the war crimes committed by the Allies because he started the war

u wot?

>apan was offering to surrender before the bombs were dropped
Wrong
>The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.

And it's absurd to hold Churchill responsible for events that occurred half a century after his death while believing that Hitler is not responsible for every death in the war he started.

Churchill wasted the resources of his entire empire to fight a war for this right here. This is the end plan for the Zionists. They want a world filled with degeneracy, where nuclear families don't exist, and loyalty to your people is shameful.

Hitler isn't responsible for the Allies decision to commit war crimes. This logic is incredibly dangerous as it implies that anything goes, so long as you "didn't start it." And, of course moral culpability for "starting" a war is open to question. It was, after all, the British who declared war on Germany. Surely the British are partially responsible for escalating a regional dispute into a world war.

>Japan wasn't ready to surrender because military middle managers said they would fight til the death

The Supreme Council didn't meet until three days after Hiroshima to discuss surrendering, and the meeting had already started when Nagasaki hit. If the bombs were the reason for Japan's surrender, the time is very odd. They were already on the cusp of surrendering and Hiroshima nudged them over the edge, it certainly wasn't the catastrophic epoch that it's made out to be.

>This is the end plan for the Zionists.
Pure nonsense. They did nothing to influence his decision making
>Hitler isn't responsible for the Allies decision to commit war crimes.
Why is the most stringent adherence to law always in the mouths of nazis? Civilian casualties are regrettable, but not more so than the military casualties, which were also necessary to win the war.
>nd, of course moral culpability for "starting" a war is open to question. It was, after all, the British who declared war on Germany. Surely the British are partially responsible for escalating a regional dispute into a world war.
They should have left him to run riot in Europe? They gave Hitler every chance to avert war.
>They were already on the cusp of surrendering and Hiroshima nudged them over the edge
Wrong, we know from intercepted japanese communications that they hoped to effect massive casualties on the ground in order to gain leverage for better negotiations.

>pure nonsense, the Zionists give statues to everyone, Churchill dindu nuffin

Deliberately targeting civilian populations is a war crime. Correct? This is the very crime you attack Hitler for. The Allies deliberately firebombed Tokyo and Dresden, killing half a million civilians in order to "break their spirit."

I'm not saying what they did was bad or good. I'm simply saying it's clearly on part with the worst of what you attack Hitler for doing. He wasn't the cartoonish evil man that propaganda makes him out to be.

>wrong

The "intercepted" messages were from field commanders. The decision to surrender or not was made by the Supreme Council in Tokyo.

Their were two strategies. They knew they were losing and wanted to negotiate for favorable terms. They had a peace agreement with the Soviets that expired in 1946. They planned to use the Soviets to help negotiate a better deal with America. The second plan was to inflict enough casualties on the invading American army to get favorable terms.

When the Soviets declared war on August 9th, it ruined both plans. The Soviets couldn't be used to negotiate a better deal, and they wouldn't be able to hold off a Soviet and American invasion. Thus, they surrendered.

Hell, the Supreme Council didn't even talk to discuss Hiroshima until two days after the bomb. In the perspective of the larger bombing raids, the nukes were trivial. In the perspective of the larger strategy, the nukes were trivial. It was Soviet entry into the war that caused the surrender.

>Churchill was a hero.
He was a kike loving faggot

>war he started.
Hitler didn't start the war you fucking moron
"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." (Winston Churchill 1936 radio broadcast)
"Germany becomes to powerful. We have to crush it." Winston Churchill (November 1936 to US-General Robert E. Wood)

Hitler wasn't following the rules set by the treaty of versailles, given they were harsh. That's why Churchill wanted to go to war. Churchill knew what was coming, and wanted to squash it before it got out of hand. He was ignored.. and the look what happened.

...

Ah here comes the Jew again to defend others Jews and their horrendous crimes. We remember, Jew.

youtube.com/watch?v=hbp61fOVFaE&list=PL0GfvwQ6PY1olHR_IgFW1m8mClrMV__En&index=17

>Deliberately targeting civilian populations is a war crime. Correct?
Yes. What is your point? That says nothing about its morality whatever
>This is the very crime you attack Hitler for
I attacked Hitler for moral atrocities, not legal ones. If the entire allied effort had been illegal and Hitler's every move completely legal, I should still consider Hitler to be the evil one.
>I'm not saying what they did was bad or good. I'm simply saying it's clearly on part with the worst of what you attack Hitler for doing.
Except it wasn't. They were attacking them to win the war. HItler was murdering simply to murder.
>When the Soviets declared war on August 9th, it ruined both plans. The Soviets couldn't be used to negotiate a better deal, and they wouldn't be able to hold off a Soviet and American invasion. Thus, they surrendered.
Nope
>Maddox also wrote, "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions."[68] "That they would have conceded defeat months earlier, before such calamities struck, is far-fetched to say the least."[69]

>"We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." (Winston Churchill 1936 radio broadcast)
>"Germany becomes to powerful. We have to crush it." Winston Churchill (November 1936 to US-General Robert E. Wood)
Yes-force it to stop his aggression. He could easily have averted war. He had a million chances to do so with Chamberlain.

I heard he fucked up on of my countrys President (Peron, in Argentina) for wanting to make Argentina independant financially because then "all the other latin american nations would follow suit. So he Churchshill succeeded in making latina america dependant financially (idk on who jews I guess) by fuckin up Argintinas goal. FUCK HIM

Zions existance keeps the Zion leech and chains on all the worlds nations mah boi it must be toppled and incinerated.

actually churchill was a crypto kike who helped plan ww2 so kikes could get their own state. nice try tho faggot

>attack Hitler for his moral atrocities

It's not morally atrocious to deliberately burn down entire cities, killing half a million people?

I'm interested to hear what Hitler did that was significantly worse than anything the Allies did.

>Hitler was murdering simply to murder

Surely you don't believe such blatant propaganda? Why would he create massive internment camps and house these people if he just wanted to kill them?

>nope

What does that even mean? It's clear that the bombs played no factor in the Japanese decision to surrender. We have the records of the Supreme Council meetings where they barely even discuss the bombs. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo did more damage than both bombs.

When the Soviets entered the war, both of Japan's options were ruined, and they had no choice but to surrender unconditionally.

Everything is laid out here.

archive.is/fzVxx

What a faggot (churchkill)

Churchill was an alcoholic who inherited large debts. The good little goy did was he was told.

youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Yp28WN18

veteranstoday.com/2015/08/02/churchill-lied-about-hitler/

veteranstoday.com/2015/09/24/churchill-was-a-mass-murderer-and-worshipped-mammon

>It's not morally atrocious to deliberately burn down entire cities, killing half a million people?
>I'm interested to hear what Hitler did that was significantly worse than anything the Allies did.
Atrocities for the sake of atrocities. What the allies did was warfare
>Surely you don't believe such blatant propaganda? Why would he create massive internment camps and house these people if he just wanted to kill them?
Because they made good slaves before he disposed of them
>It's clear that the bombs played no factor in the Japanese decision to surrender.
And many of the japanese, including several generals, disagree
>When the Soviets entered the war, both of Japan's options were ruined, and they had no choice but to surrender unconditionally.
The soviets barely factored in. They were weary and worthless from fighting Hitler, and their navy was inadequate. Moreover, the Japanese did not expect to win even before they'd entered the war. They only expected to inflict massive casualties on us.

>was a nationalist who tried his best to preserve the empire
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

He literally did the only thing possible to destroy that empire just to fuel his hate on Germans and to do the bidding of his money lenders.

>eliminated the evils of nazism
What was so evil about them. Killing few people like the british empire did all around the world?

>wanted to go to war with the soviets
Great idea, when your country relies on US supplies, doesn't get shit done on their own and Roosevelt is laughing his ass off seeing the empire is in so much debt that nobody gives a rats ass about what churchill thinks.

>wanted to partition china
Well might be a good idea but this is relevant why? Who cares what a person wants. If you judge someone by his wants, then probably nearly any person in the western hemisphere would be a better pick than churchill.

>when we commit atrocities, it's OK because of reasons

At least admit that we had no moral high ground. We'd were doing the same things the Nazis were doing.

The Holocaust is largely exaggerated. The Nazis had internment labor camps, just as we did. Towards the end of the war, when supply lines were collapsing, outbreaks of typhus and starvation killed alot of people, but this is common among POWs. Had Germany invaded the US, we'd be reading about the American Holocaust of Japanese Americans.

>and many of the Japanese disagree
You've quoted one General who vaguely says that the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war caused the surrender.

Given the time line, the lack of urgency around discussions of the bomb, and the strategic importance of keeping the Soviets out of the war, I'm not sure how you can say the bombs were the driving force for surrender.

If you look at the death and destruction from the bombs, neither bomb breaks the top 5 of bombing campaigns against the Japanese. If such relatively insignificant bombs caused the surrender, then it shows how fragile their resolve was.

The evidence clearly shows that the Society invasion of Manchuria was the deciding factor in their surrender.

>filename

War hungry soy boy who hated Germany's rightful ownership of Central Europe.

>At least admit that we had no moral high ground. We'd were doing the same things the Nazis were doing.
We were not. Bombing as an act of war is no the same as pointlessly killing civilians
>Given the time line, the lack of urgency around discussions of the bomb, and the strategic importance of keeping the Soviets out of the war, I'm not sure how you can say the bombs were the driving force for surrender.
Hirohito himself referred to the new bombs in his addresses.
Either way, it's irrelevant. The fact is that the nuclear bombs, taking your views, were merely two more in a series of attacks during a long war. Hardly the same thing as murdering millions for no reason

Containing populations in internment camps is also an act of war. I don't see the issue.

>deliberately firebombing civilian population centers is alright when we do it

How do you justify this?

>Hirohito himself referred to the new bombs on his address

He did this for political reasons. It allowed him to maintain his legitimacy among the Japanese and position Japan as a victim in the international community. This is thoroughly explained in the link I gave you an hour ago.

It's abundantly clear that the bombs weren't the reason Japan surrendered. We knew the Soviets were about to declare war on Japan and we wanted to keep them out if Japan, just as we invaded Europe to keep the Soviets out of Europe.

You can't tell the difference between bombing to end the war and murdering your own civilians? How dumb are you?

>murder

He didn't commit murder anymore than Americans did when they attacked civilians. The vast majority of concentration camp deaths came at the end of the war as the entire Wehrmacht was falling apart. Prisoners have always been low on the list of priorities in such a situation.

The Japanese deliberately experimented on prisoners as well. Their programs were much larger. We gave their scientists immunity for their crimes if they agreed to share the results of their studies.

You need to shake off this idea that any war is Good Guys VS. Bad Guys.